Prior research examined students' attitudes and responses to games centered approaches (Light, 2003; Sweeney, Everitt, & Carifio, 2003). Comparisons between pre-service teachers' practices using traditional and games centered approaches (Sullivan & Swabey, 2003) have been conducted. Limited research exists on what students come to know about teaching using the Tactical Games Model (TGM; Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin, 2005). The study's purpose was to explore pre-service teachers' understanding of teaching and learning TGM through participation in a constructivist classroom.
Method
IRB approval was obtained. Participants were 26 Physical Education candidates in a (28 days; 75 minutes/class) theory and practice of games course (14 = M, 12 = F). Written pre-assessments of each sport (e.g., badminton, lacrosse, and softball), previous experiences, and perception of ability were used to determine the starting point for units. Class experiences were designed in a constructivist approach to allow students to create their own meaning. Students read about TGM from diverse perspectives, participated in interactive discussions, created visual representations of their learning, peer taught TGM lessons, and participated in lessons taught by their peers and by their expert instructor. Data collection tools included a) written responses to seven open ended questions about readings and class experiences, b) instructor teaching evaluations, c) teaching reflections, d) TGM concept maps, e) instructor journal/memos, and f) one 90 minute focus group interview. Data were open, axial, and selective coded to develop categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Analysis/Results
Data were open, axial, and selective coded to develop categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Results include a) conceptualizing the model, b) struggling to teach TGM, and c) transforming games teaching and learning. Initially, students reported significant playing experience and understanding of isolated skills, but were not able to tactically reason. Students reported an increased understanding of what to do and how to do it – making games more meaningful. Students experienced difficulty asking questions to make connections between the initial game and practice tasks as well as setting the initial tactical problem. At a basic level, they could demonstrate the TGM sequence (i.e., game. Q & A, situated practice, game). In general students lacked the pre-requisite components of fitness which underlie skill execution (eg., muscular strength, power, agility) and their tactical knowledge was minimal. Students reacted positively to modified game experiences and questioning to facilitate learning .
Conclusions
Students learned the importance of teaching for understanding and were committed to using TGM in future teaching.