View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

TGfU Pet-Agogy: Old Dogs, New Tricks and Puppy School

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: TGfU Pet-Agogy: Old Dogs, New Tricks and Puppy School
Language: English
Authors: Butler, Joy I.
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Nov 2005 10(3):225-240.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2005
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Constructivism (Learning), Majors (Students), Physical Education, Action Research, Educational Philosophy, Teaching Methods, Physical Education Teachers, Athletics, Classroom Techniques, Conventional Instruction, Mentors, Career Development, Teaching Experience, Developmental Stages, Educational Research, Teacher Competencies, Behaviorism, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1080/17408980500340752
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: How do we encourage teachers to adopt Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) so that it becomes part of mainstream practice in physical education and community-based sports programmes worldwide? Why do some teachers adopt a TGfU instructional model and others stick to a technique-based approach? What happens to PETE students when they attempt to take innovative ideas out into the field? Can "old dogs" learn new tricks? Can "puppies" do things differently from their mentors out in the school system? Ryan and Cooper delineated five stages typical of the teaching career: (1) fantasy; (2) euphoria; (3) survival; (4) apprenticeship; and (5) rediscovering the dream. This article explores the journeys of both beginning and experienced teachers using these stages and suggests some ways in which TGfU can become part of their exploration. Moving from the comfort zone into unfamiliar areas can be a challenge, but paradoxically, the very discomfort caused by disconnect between avowed principle and actual practice, educational philosophy and teaching methodology, can be a wonderful incentive. The essential ingredient for change is a core belief in innovation rather than previous practice or experience. This taps into the passion and idealism that drove us to join the profession in the first place, to want to become the best that we can be as educators, and dare to hope for the same for our students. Teacher responses to TGfU have great implications for curriculum design and suggest the need for an integrated approach, which provides structured, careful support for teachers through the process of change. This article will suggest ways to promote and integrate TGfU into the repertoire of experienced teachers, and to give students the opportunity to explore the approach. These include the establishment of a worldwide TGfU task force, an emphasis on action research and student exposure to constructivist learning theory through majors' clubs. (Contains 2 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 33
Entry Date: 2008
Accession Number: EJ819850
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGzNHpwj42Hrvsj8rs-3FAwAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKGCVVMdLSzCihmRwgIBEICBmX0V-DmDS_6w00zHnBXE27jB6vlcwjM2Zap_sOB8sHxpCGkdp9e7ZfOJ3smMP1VNSONo17FyJQRC5yzSYn6CImjlrzVj50V1bZBLPLL-kVwIxb0XSmG1y6XjEeQH94tZbMuD_tsx62fu0qomp-Smo9apz8zw_RPy4TALHzb9DMTUyoCarj4vFh040ywhCtVNy2XhrnAR3ZPEwg==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0019216166;z3x01nov.05;2019Mar20.13:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0019216166-1">TGfU pet-agogy: old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. </title> <p>How do we encourage teachers to adopt Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) so that it becomes part of mainstream practice in physical education and community-based sports programmes worldwide? Why do some teachers adopt a TGfU instructional model and others stick to a technique-based approach? What happens to PETE students when they attempt to take innovative ideas out into the field? Can 'old dogs' learn new tricks? Can 'puppies' do things differently from their mentors out in the school system? Ryan and Cooper delineated five stages typical of the teaching career: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) fantasy; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) euphoria; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) survival; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) apprenticeship; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) rediscovering the dream. This article explores the journeys of both beginning and experienced teachers using these stages and suggests some ways in which TGfU can become part of their exploration. Moving from the comfort zone into unfamiliar areas can be a challenge, but paradoxically, the very discomfort caused by disconnect between avowed principle and actual practice, educational philosophy and teaching methodology, can be a wonderful incentive. The essential ingredient for change is a core belief in innovation rather than previous practice or experience. This taps into the passion and idealism that drove us to join the profession in the first place, to want to become the best that we can be as educators, and dare to hope for the same for our students. Teacher responses to TGfU have great implications for curriculum design and suggest the need for an integrated approach, which provides structured, careful support for teachers through the process of change. This article will suggest ways to promote and integrate TGfU into the repertoire of experienced teachers, and to give students the opportunity to explore the approach. These include the establishment of a worldwide TGfU task force, an emphasis on action research and student exposure to constructivist learning theory through majors' clubs.</p> <p>Keywords: Curriculum innovation; Physical education; Teacher Education; Teaching Games for Understanding</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Pet dogs and pet theories—everyone thinks theirs is best of show, and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) advocates are no exception. Tucked away in pockets around the world, they wait for TGfU to be recognized, to take its place in mainstream physical education and sport programmes. The merits of TGfU theory, however (merits which seem blindingly obvious to its proponents), have been slow to impress the key players in the arena of physical education—an arena in which the approach is still debated with far more passion that it is practised. This paper will consider these players—the various populations who serve as gatekeepers to innovations. As teachers, administrators, researchers, students and professors, they are caught up in a relational network that is both intricate and elusive. Some are adversely affected by the chasm that exists between theory and practice where TGfU is concerned—its failure to translate into reality. Paradoxically, some individuals and institutions find their interests are served by such a gap, since silence and denial have always helped society to default to the <emph>status quo</emph>. Depending upon their position, some help to widen the chasm and some work to bridge it. This paper concludes with some suggestions about how this latter work—the work of narrowing, filling or bridging the chasm between theory and practice—can go forward most rapidly and effectively.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-3">Key players</hd> <p>1) It is teachers, or to use the title analogy, 'old dogs', who deliver the curriculum, interface directly with students, and have the most immediate control over their learning environment. While there are undoubtedly plenty of innovative, inspirational teachers in the profession, Lortie [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>] found teachers to be conservative and thus tend to treat new ideas and innovations with some skepticism. As other professional socialization researchers have indicated, this is still largely true in the 21st century (Bain, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). Lortie [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>] ascribes this to the 'apprenticeships-of-observation' in which individuals have observed and interacted with teachers for at least 13 years before they enter a teacher education programme. Many teachers ultimately teach the way they were taught, and remain unaffected by the four years of teacher education they received. These are some of the teachers who influence, in their turn, the next set of pre-service teachers.</p> <ulist> <item>2) Head teachers and administrators have a large degree of control over decisions about the content of the curriculum and the way in which it is delivered. Since they appoint, reward and influence teachers on the basis of these decisions, they are in an influential position. When head teachers/administrators support young teachers who want to implement curricular change, they best do so by helping them to 'overcome the weight of responsibility experienced by beginning teachers when combined with resistance to change (by colleagues)' (Light & Butler, this issue). This help can come in many forms, including mentoring, in-service training and financial support to attend workshops and conferences. However, administrators are not always knowledgeable about current developments in Physical Education. Some PETE students believe that they are, in fact, blasé about the content being taught in PE and are more concerned that students are orderly, well-behaved, busy and active during class (student interview in Light & Butler study, this issue). When they do care about curriculum content, administrators are often ineffective when it comes to implementing the innovations they have espoused (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref9">5</reflink>], p.179).</item> <item>3) Pre-service teachers in PETE programmes seem, on the whole, to be likely prospects as curricular innovators and agents of change. Extensive professional socialization literature in the field (Bain, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]; Curtner-Smith, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]; Wright <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref12">33</reflink>]) shows that some do have preconceived ideas about teaching (based on their coaching experiences and also on the way in which they themselves were taught), but many are willing, and indeed eager, to experiment. Those of us who teach in these programmes would surely agree that our PETE students are mainly both energetic and idealistic.</item> <item>4) It is the philosophy of researchers/professors within PETE programs that strongly influences the ability of these student physical educators to adopt new ideas. PETE programmes can (and should) provide an ideal environment for inexperienced teachers—a 'puppy school' where they are able to sniff out, explore, develop and refine their skills and beliefs. Some professors, however, are unable or unwilling to discern the philosophies underpinning their programmes and the influence of the research paradigms used to support them. All too often, these programmes reward students who are 'obedient', who do things 'the right way'.</item> <item>5) Demands are being made upon PETE programmes by several outside agencies—demands that often conflict almost absurdly. Government officials in agencies that monitor the health of the nation are concerned about the increased obesity and declining health of young people. Media journalists have rightly given the issue close attention. This concerted pressure has translated into the widespread introduction of health and wellness components both in Basic Instructional Programs (BIP) and majors' programmes, components sometimes introduced at the expense of other areas, such as outdoor activities, gymnastics, games and dance. The anti-competition lobby has jumped neatly onto the health and fitness bandwagon, (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]) and used it to rationalize the case for excluding all competitive sports, thus throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. At the same time, PETE programmes continue to be influenced heavily by the demands and paradigms of Professional Sports, again filtered through the news and entertainment media, and through parental expectation. It is difficult for PETE students to sift through everyone else's agendas, and find their own answers to the age-old question, 'What should students learn through games education?'</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0019216166-4">The PETE students' journey through the learning context</hd> <p>Having defined the key players, it is time to look more closely at their relational network and the impact upon PETE students of the chasm between theory and pratice as it relates to TGfU. Firstly, we will look at (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>) the synergy created by pre-service students, teachers and administrators, a synergy that comprises the school context in which TGfU will survive or founder. (Examining how K-12 students respond to TGfU, or affect its implementation, is beyond the scope of this particular paper, but an important focus to consider in later research). We will then turn to (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>) the institutions of higher education, and consider the different philosophical directions implied by the dominant research paradigms (social, critical and behaviorist). Finally, we shall examine (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>) the journey of PETE students and beginning teachers as they pass through these two contexts, and through the five stages of teacher development, from 'puppyhood' to maturity, or in this case, from Fantasy to Rediscovery.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-5">Schools</hd> <p>It will come as no surprise that a traditionally based view of learning prevails in our nation's schools, particularly when we consider that they have an aging work force. The largest sector of the K-12 teaching profession, are teachers (35.3%) who have over 20 years of experience (US Department of Education NCES, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]). The well-known cliché used in the title of this paper suggests that we cannot teach old dogs new tricks. We do tend to assume that older (or more established) teachers have become set in their ways and also that they have adopted more conservative outlooks. Evans summarizes the stereotyping of the older teacher:</p> <p>At midcareer all professionals, including teachers, are prone to demotivation (boredom, loss of enthusiasm, diminished job interest) and a leveling off of performance. The growth curve flattens out, particularly those who do not move into new roles or change jobs; and energy flags. (Evans, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>], p. 11)</p> <p>According to Prawat [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref19">28</reflink>], many teachers prefer to adhere to outmoded forms of instruction that emphasize factual and procedural knowledge at the expense of deeper levels of understanding. These teachers teach the way they were taught (Lortie, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]). Simply put, the change required for teachers to adopt a TGfU approach successfully is to switch their role from that of 'coach' to that of 'facilitator'. This change is difficult for many teachers, who have the coaching model in their bones. All learning is about change and all change is about learning. The rub is that change is not always comfortable. This is especially true for teachers, who often work with little support and in highly stressful circumstances. Teachers are also sharply aware that when they experiment with the latest 'new approach' (or 'fad') there is a risk that their students will lose out (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers who do make the shift from a traditional approach to constructivist learning theory often do so through understanding that their role needs to change to accommodate the changed focus of learning. My study about teacher change (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]) showed that the central predictor of change for teachers was their core beliefs about why they teach, what they teach and how they teach it. This was more important than age or length of service. Festinger [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>] suggested that when our actions are incongruent with our beliefs, cognitive dissonance is created. To restore equilibrium, we must either defend our existing actions or change them. This radical change can only happen when teachers have the tools, time and space to engage in reflection, discussion and consideration of their views and beliefs. Researchers (Etchberger & Shaw, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]; Brozo, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]) suggest that teachers who engage in constant reflection are more able to accept such change. Teachers need a place to process their discomfort, to discuss their core beliefs and align them with practice. In this sense, the key is affect. When teachers line up their beliefs, practice and passion, the results are dynamic! In other words real change, long-lasting change, happens when head, heart and physical activity are 'in synch'.</p> <p>How could we encourage more teachers to try TGfU? We could use top-down innovation models like the national curriculums modeled in Singapore and the UK, or the national standards established by NASPE [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]. These have their place—but often teachers have become adept at perverting or avoiding such dictums. My research on a school system in Boston suggests that teachers are adept at paying lip service to 'documents designed to please administrators' (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]). The real change, I believe, comes from a combination of grassroots advocacy and administrative support. This parallels the empowerment perspective of learners in the TGfU learning process, which is pioneered by enlightened classroom teachers. Rusch and Perry [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref28">29</reflink>], cited that 'older experienced teachers frequently engage in a learning experience with a new, younger teacher in order to understand new methods and current theories' (p. 10). Just as seasoned teachers have a fund of wisdom to offer our student teachers, so our passionate young idealists can rekindle the enthusiasm of their older mentors, with each benefiting from the interchange of ideas.</p> <p>That said, national organizations such as NASPE can be highly influential in creating change. This will be discussed at the end of this paper. It is perhaps sufficient to note here that successful school reform depends on changes in the classroom practices of individual teachers (Cuban, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]). As TGfU advocates, we need to find ways to support teachers as decision-makers and change agents (Pace, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]), and to offer them a forum for reflection and debate. The newly instituted TGfU Task Force, again discussed at the end of this paper, will hopefully go some way to providing this kind of support.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-6">PETE programmes</hd> <p>TGfU advocates believe that learners in TGfU classes are empowered as they understand the game by playing it. Taking this one step further, I would suggest that our PETE students are capable of understanding teaching through the process of teaching, and by considering all aspects of the child's context and experiences, rather than studying 'teaching skills' out of context and in isolation. Our traditional games classes focus on the teaching and acquisition of isolated skills that may have no connection to the game as it is played. In much the same way, our PETE programmes often focus on effective teaching skills which are isolated from each other in the broader educational context. This causes PETE students to lose sight of the primary goal, which is to improve student learning. In both situations, the skills are an important part of the experience, but they need to be set in their larger context. If PETE students were taught in a more holistic way (which we might term 'teaching teaching for understanding'), they would surely focus more, and more quickly, on the learners' needs and learning process and then relate their teaching skills to these.</p> <p>It is clearly important to examine the pedagogical research upon which a programme is based, since this usually determines the philosophical context within which the programme operates. This philosophical context influences instructors' decisions about what content to deliver their students and in what order to deliver its various components. Such decisions include whether or not to be receptive to student centred programmes. This, in turn, impacts on the way PETE students will themselves teach. Clear mission statements and conceptual frameworks go a long way to helping programs connect theory and practice. This is demonstrated by the positive impact the NCATE/NASPE accreditation process has had upon those programmes that have used it to update and clarify their mission statements and conceptual frameworks.</p> <p>The current document [initial PE program report manual] ... reflects consensus among experienced physical educators at all levels as to what a teacher needs to know, believe and be able to do. These 10 standards for beginning physical education teachers, and their associated performance-based outcomes, are based on knowledge of best practice from research in physical education and related fields. (NASPE, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref31">25</reflink>], p. 1)</p> <p>The research paradigm employed by the department is also crucial. There are three dominant paradigms within North American physical education pedagogy—behaviorist research, socialization research and research based on critical theory. Each paradigm differently defines research and its relationship to practice (Bain, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]). A behaviorist might ask, 'Does research affect practice?' and look at the effectiveness of various programmes in producing behavorial change. Another way to examine the PETE programme would be from the socialization perspective. Bain ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>], p. 38) would have us believe that the question we should be asking is, 'How well has pedagogical research served as a guide to thinking about practical problems in physical education?' For the critical theorist, the question becomes 'Has this research empowered participants to act more effectively on their own behalf?' (Bain, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>], p. 39). Table 1 gives a brief glance at what the critics and advocates of each paradigm have to say about its perspective.</p> <p>Table 1. Research paradigms</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Research paradigm</td><td>Advocates</td><td>Critics</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Social (teachers and perceptions)</td><td>Developmentally appropriate activities offer a more powerful reward for learners.</td><td>Separation exists between theory and practice.</td></tr><tr><td>Critical (issues of gender, race, class etc.)</td><td>Participants are empowered by process.</td><td>Findings are distorted by researchers' political agenda.</td></tr><tr><td>Behaviorist (effective teaching focus)</td><td>Teaching skills are targeted for change.</td><td>Overemphasizes basic skills, neglects higher order learning.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Contingencies in workplace used to control behavior of student teachers.</td><td>Beliefs and values are not studied.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0019216166-7">Social theory paradigm</hd> <p>The focus is on teachers (rather than research on teaching), their perceptions of the learning context and how these influence their actions. Advocates of this research paradigm suggest that it shows that learner enjoyment (which focuses on more than just having fun, and instead includes developmentally appropriate activities) is a more powerful reward than learner achievement, and that learning is often outside teacher control. Social researchers believe that their research provides insight and understanding that can serve to guide (but not prescribe) teaching and policy decisions. Research themes often involve teachers' perceptions of their work and the way in which these perceptions influence their actions. It is the view of social theorists that research can provide a guide to thinking but not a guide to action. Critics suggest that this has led to a separation between research and practice, in that there is little evidence to suggest that social theory research has changed the way in which physical education teachers view teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-8">Critical theory paradigm</hd> <p>The focus is on issues of gender, race or class—and the research is often grounded in feminist or neomarxist ideology. Advocates of this paradigm suggest that participants are empowered by the research process and will consequently act more effectively on their own behalf. Practitioners become part of the research process in that they help frame questions, interpret data and examine insights that might serve as a basis for action. Critics, however, suggest that the findings of critical theory researchers are distorted by the researchers' political agenda.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-9">Behaviorist theory paradigm</hd> <p>The focus is on effective teaching. Advocates suggest that teaching skills can be identified and selected behaviors can then be targeted for change. For example, advocates suggest that cues can help learners focus on the right way to perform the action and feedback statements can encourage them to continue to try to get it right. Interventions are often successful in producing changes in targeted behaviors. Critics suggest that behaviorists falsely assume that behavior changes under the control of contingencies (such as the selection of the programme, cooperating teacher and school context) will continue after the completion of the programme, when contingencies may change. Critics also suggest that behaviorists have had very little influence on teacher education or public schools. Examining decisions about teacher education programmes raises questions about the beliefs and values of the decision-makers and the politics of universities and school systems. Behaviorists do not study beliefs and politics.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-10">Aligning a programme research base suitable for TGfU</hd> <p>It seems clear that social theory or critical theory research, both of which embrace universal issues concerning beliefs and values, can provide a more congenial context for TGfU in PETE programmes than behaviorist rhetoric, which is more concerned with cause and effect. Yet behaviorist research dominates our PETE programmes. Within the confines of a behaviorist PETE programme, it is assumed, for instance, that pedagogical questions are too confusing for PETE students. Departments and institutions thus make decisions for them (much as traditional games programmes do for younger students). We assume that learners and students need a set of skills before they can play the game or go into teaching. Yet finding viable answers to certain questions is central to the formation of a young teacher's philosophy and choice of methodologies. For example, some philosophical decisions fall within the areas of:</p> <p>Planning</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • When should learners receive information about how to execute a motor skill—before playing the game or after?</item> <p></p> <item> • What, and how much, information do learners need at one time?</item> <p></p> <item> • What should learners practice and when?</item> </ulist> <p>Teaching</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • Which teaching approach should be used to achieve the desired learning outcome?</item> <p></p> <item> • What methodology will be most effective in achieving the desired learning outcome?</item> </ulist> <p>Knowledge</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • What should students know?</item> <p></p> <item> • Why should they know this?</item> </ulist> <p>Assessment</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • How do we measure our effectiveness as teachers?</item> <p></p> <item> • How do we measure student learning?</item> </ulist> <p>Learning</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • What environment is conducive to learning?</item> <p></p> <item> • How do we know that learning has taken place?</item> </ulist> <p>Critics of TGfU suggest that learners do not know enough about the game to play it before they learn the skills. In the same way, behaviorists suggest that PETE students are incapable of engaging in pedagogical debate. Yet, just as we can modify games in order to make them developmentally appropriate, so too can concepts be modified for our PETE students, in order that they may be introduced to the whole picture, pedagogically speaking. In my experience, PETE students are ready and able to debate these pedagogical questions. I believe that it is not only possible but imperative for our young teachers to make decisions about the kinds of learner outcomes they are seeking.</p> <p>When PETE students compare TGfU with the model with which they are more familiar (see Table 2), questions such as the following arise:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. How much emphasis should we place on skill acquisition and how much on conceptual understanding, which helps learners make sense of information and experiences?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Should students know 'how to' before they know 'what to'?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Should tactics and strategies be taught before skills?</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Is the role of the teacher to help students acquire knowledge or to help them construct meaning?</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Is the role of the learner to demonstrate what they have learned by rote or to apply what is known (and discover what is unknown)?</item> <p></p> <item> 6. Is the role of the learner to perform or to think and to make decisions?</item> </ulist> <p>(Questions adapted from Butler, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>], p. 45, Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2. Polarization of behaviorist and constructivist approaches</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Why it is taught (philosophical and historical perspectives)</td><td>Behaviorist/transmission model</td><td>Constructivist (TGfU)/transaction model</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Culture</td><td>Factory/product model</td><td>Village green/progressive education</td></tr><tr><td>Belief system</td><td>Dualism</td><td>Integration of mind/body/spirit</td></tr><tr><td>Context</td><td>Isolation, links with coaching and professional sport</td><td>Integration of school and community</td></tr><tr><td>Training</td><td>Efficiency/military influence</td><td>Movement education</td></tr><tr><td>Experience</td><td>Specialism/sport</td><td>Integration and inclusiveness</td></tr><tr><td><italic>What is taught</italic> (<italic>curriculum</italic>)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Purpose</td><td>Acquisition of knowledge</td><td>Construction of meaning</td></tr><tr><td>Objective</td><td>To define what we know</td><td>To discover what is unknown and apply what is known</td></tr><tr><td>Outcome</td><td>Performance</td><td>Thinking and decision-making</td></tr><tr><td>Game frameworks</td><td>Seasonal activities</td><td>Classifications</td></tr><tr><td><italic>How it is taught</italic> (<italic>pedagogy</italic>)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Instruction</td><td>Teacher-centred</td><td>Student-centred, developmental, progressive</td></tr><tr><td>Strategy</td><td>Part – whole</td><td>Whole – part – whole</td></tr><tr><td>Content</td><td>Techniques based</td><td>Concept based</td></tr><tr><td>Context</td><td>Teacher - student interaction</td><td>Multi-dimensional interaction</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher role</td><td>Transmission of information</td><td>Facilitation of problem-solving</td></tr><tr><td>Learner role</td><td>Passive learning</td><td>Active learning</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluation</td><td>Mastery</td><td>Demonstration of understanding andcontributions to process</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>At the heart of the constructivist approach to games education is the belief that it is important for players to make correct decisions in the light of tactical awareness. The child, not the teacher, becomes central. The pedagogical mindset changes from one that focuses on what is wrong with the learner's performance to one that focuses on how the teacher can help learners define and solve the problem being presented.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-11">PETE students and beginning teachers</hd> <p>As I said earlier, it is tempting to hope that the energy of PETE students makes them ideal agents for change. Yet all too often, their willingness to innovate is overshadowed by their lack of experience and the socialization they receive at the hands of PE teachers who embrace behaviorist learning theory. In order to unpick this process more effectively, it will prove useful to follow it through the five teaching stages as defined by Ryan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]. This will highlight some of the commonalities shared by pre-service teachers, and thus define the similarities they encounter in their journey. The teaching stages are as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Fantasy</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Euphoria</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Survival</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Apprenticeship</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Rediscovery</item> </ulist> <p>These stages can be applied to three populations discussed in this paper:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. pre-service teachers as they grapple with practica and student teaching</item> <p></p> <item> 2. beginning teachers as they become initiated into the profession</item> <p></p> <item> 3. more experienced teachers as they make the paradigm shifts necessary to embrace innovations such as TGfU.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0019216166-12">First stage: fantasy</hd> <p>Researchers such as Lortie [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>] and Bain [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>] have found that people who become PE teachers are often idealists. They cite reasons such as the following for joining the profession: 'I love playing sports', 'I want to be active and not do a desk job', 'I love children', 'I want to pass on love of sports to all'. This may cause some initial confusion for new teachers—often an inability to make a clear distinction between caring and friendship where learners are concerned. Nevertheless, while the beginning teacher may struggle to draw a line in the sand, Tate [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref39">31</reflink>] points out (in his work on excellence in teaching) that love of children is not just a trite notion. He believes that it makes teachers go the extra mile—it helps them teach children, not just their subject. It is this passion, the affect mentioned earlier in this paper, which takes teachers beyond the behaviorist insistence on teaching skills and makes them consider the whole child and the whole curriculum. It is the same motivation that encourages seasoned teachers to change their teaching style when they understand that it is incongruent with their core beliefs.</p> <p>However, as McCaughtry and Rovegno [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>] suggest, there is little emphasis in most PETE programmes on emotional understanding. And yet interestingly, my experience with PETE students lends me to believe that it is a high priority for them. Over the past ten years I have set sophomore students the same task as they enter the PETE programme. First they are invited to identify what makes a good sporting experience for them, and then to define the kind of experiences they wish to provide for students in their PE classes. They unfailingly cite affective experiences much more frequently than cognitive and psychomotor ones. After allowing them ten minutes of free-writing, I spread their verbal responses across the three behavioral domain categories (without indicating what the columns represent). My original intent was to tease out the differences between their own experience and what they wish for their students, but what became clear was the length of the affective lists in each case—outweighing the others by as much as two to one. The following are representative entries: 'work with others', 'improve communications', 'understand limitations and strengths of others', 'enjoy the experience', 'challenge oneself', 'gain confidence', 'improve self-esteem' and 'develop character'.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-13">Second stage: euphoria</hd> <p>In the second stage of euphoria, young teachers feel like they have 'arrived'. It is the famous 'honeymoon period'. Charmed by the initial good behavior of their learners, young teachers can become overconfident. They see that learners will 'sit and stay on command' and do not realize that attentiveness must be earned on a daily basis. They often ignore the danger signs that a more experienced teacher would notice—such as lack of comprehension, small insurrections and over-familiarity. McCaughtry & Rovegno's [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>] findings in their recent study assume importance here. They found that as problems emerged, pre-service teachers often engaged in the following behaviors:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. They blame learners for difficulties, without questioning their own inability to match tasks with the learners' skill levels.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. They fail to transfer motor development learning from the classroom setting to actual teaching experiences.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. They believe that their teaching is correct, even when confronted with disconfirming evidence.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. They ignore or discredit the emotions of learners.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0019216166-14">Third stage: survival</hd> <p>The more problems that beginning teachers experience, the more they tend to blame their learners, and the less comfortable they feel about discussing the situation. The focus of senior teachers is often discipline—which leads them to ignore pedagogical issues in favour of a controlled learning environment. Additionally, some believe that the rites of passage should be endured alone, that they should be 'thrown into the deep end', as they were. This adds a second level to the beginning and pre-service teachers' urge to cover up serious problems. Their idealism may also be shattered by cynical teachers who load students with work, difficult classes, and problematic learners. Given that the student teacher's ability to cope is compromised by fatigue and often a sense of failure, disappointment and depression, the conditions are ripe for a return to safe conservatism at this vulnerable stage in the beginning teacher's career.</p> <p>Student teachers may be enthusiastic about trying out TGfU, but find resistance from cooperating/master teachers. They find themselves in a serious dilemma. Rather than put their grade on the line, many student teachers will elect to teach units that are viewed more favourably by their cooperating teachers (Light & Butler, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>], this issue). Even when cooperating teachers were willing to allow student teachers to 'try out' a TGfU unit, student teachers described their fear of supervisors who had little or no familiarity with TGfU and viewed such units with considerable scepticism.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-15">Fourth stage: apprenticeship</hd> <p>The student teacher who survives does so by creating a comfort zone. Hard work and careful organization reduce the possibility of surprises and unpredicted events in the classroom. The successful student teacher is organized and probably has a filing cabinet stocked with fallback lessons, and other resources. The research (Tate, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>]) shows that a consistent trait is a strong commitment to hard daily work. This is the prime time when student teachers and beginning teachers, who have achieved a certain level of confidence, are ready to introduce or be introduced to a new model such as TGfU. But it is important to remember that this change may be uncomfortable and difficult, since it necessarily involves a broadening of the comfort zone, which has been so hardly won.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-16">Fifth stage: rediscovery</hd> <p>The fifth stage is the rediscovery of the feelings and passion that made teachers choose the profession. Teachers who enter this stage (and not all teachers do) have achieved a certain level of humility. Though they may use charm, they are not necessarily charismatic. They prefer learners to be the ones on stage. The focus changes from the teacher to the learner (from 'I to Thou'). It is when teachers make this essential shift that they are ready to understand learners and what they need. For example, good teachers understand child development and what is appropriate for different age levels. 'Teacher of the Year' awards are not based on teachers' grasp of subject matter—although all good teachers know their content—but on their passion for student learning. Again, this shift fits well with the introduction or reinforcement of the TGfU model, in which the focus is less on teacher direction than student learning.</p> <hd id="AN0019216166-17">Summary</hd> <p>The essential ingredient for teacher change is a core belief in empowering student learners (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>]). Beginning teachers enter their training with a strong emphasis upon the emotional understanding of their students. However, the behaviorist focus of our PETE programmes, and the stresses and self-perpetuating culture of our schools discourages them from focusing on student affect, and encourages them instead to teach for narrowly defined and definable skills. It is only later that some more experienced teachers rediscover the dream through a passion for adventure, creativity and exploration or, as Kretchmar [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref45">17</reflink>] would have it, the search for 'delight'. Through all these five stages and for all three populations (pre-service, beginning and experienced teachers as they consider TGfU) moving from the comfort zone into unfamiliar areas can be a challenge. Paradoxically, this very discomfort—the disconnect between avowed principle and actual practice, educational philosophy and teaching methodology—can be a wonderful incentive. Because TGfU is dependent upon the introduction of a clearly stated educational philosophy, whether individual or institutional, it can become a useful medium through which teachers at all stages of their careers can evaluate their current practice in order to place the learner at the centre of the learning experience. For the same reason, TGfU can also provide a lens though which PETE programmes and schools can examine and then balance the various demands made upon Physical Education.</p> <p>Practising teachers have indicated that they need careful, structured support through the process of change (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>]). The following conditions seem central to providing an appropriate context in which change and experimentation may thrive:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. healthy dialogue in the exchange of diverse ideas (Hobbs <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]);</item> <p></p> <item> 2. practices that are empathetic, communicative and participatory (Lueddeke, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]);</item> <p></p> <item> 3. teachers who tolerate uncertainty and are willing to try things out;</item> <p></p> <item> 4. links between faculty from education programmes and teachers and administrators (as with professional development schools (Hobbs <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]); and</item> <p></p> <item> 5. administrative support (Butler, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref50">6</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0019216166-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>It seems that teachers at all stages of their careers, pre-service, beginning and seasoned, can benefit from the opportunity to discuss core beliefs, to examine ways in which they translate into practice and to experiment with approaches that will bring the two into closer alignment. After the first TGfU conference in New Hampshire, USA, in 2001, a forum emerged that aims to provide a place for such exploration. The International TGfU Task Force was established in the hope that it would harness the groundswell of energy created at the conference, and funnel it into the promotion of research and good practice in TGfU through active communication and the recruitment of teachers and coaches. The AIESEP (Association des Ecoles Superieures d'Education Physique) board was eager to nurture the proposal, and the task force was launched in October 2002 at an AIESEP conference, La Coruna, in Spain. The mission of the task force was quickly defined as 'a global representative group of institutions and individuals committed to the promotion and dissemination of scholarly inquiry'. The task force will be able to centralize the many permutations of the initial approach practiced in England in the 1960s, including Games Sense (Kidman, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]; Light, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref52">19</reflink>]) and Play Practice (Launder, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref53">18</reflink>]) in Australia, Concept-Based Games (McNeil <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]) in Singapore and Tactical games in the USA (Griffin <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref55">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The objectives of the task force include the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • To review the philosophy behind the original TGfU conception and its subsequent development to provide for an accurate representation of its purpose.</item> <p></p> <item> • To disseminate scholarly information and teaching resources through a variety of media.</item> <p></p> <item> • To promote discussion and dialogue among membership by establishing a forum on issues relating to both the TGfU theoretical and curriculum framework and instructional practices.</item> <p></p> <item> • To establish teaching programmes to assist institutions, schools and individuals in the implementation of the TGfU approach.</item> <p></p> <item> • To coordinate collaborative research efforts and publication of information after each workshop, meeting or conference.</item> </ulist> <p>It is to be hoped that the task force will be a catalyst for change, in that it will encourage those engaged in education through the physical to engage in the debate, and particularly the debate with regard to the philosophical issues surrounding games education. The task force aims to provide both student teachers and practising teachers with the opportunity to access research and information, including collaborative research, regular TGfU conferences, conference proceedings, scholarly information, resource materials and a website (<ulink href="http://www.tgfu.org">http://www.tgfu.org</ulink>). Additionally, it is the aim of the task force to establish teaching programmes led by TGfU teaching squads within the countries represented. These will be organized by professional organizations within each country. In this way, the TGfU task force hopes to promote TGfU, to turn a promising theory into established practice. The establishment and growing popularity of a biennial international conference on TGfU is making a significant contribution toward achieving the aims of the TGfU Task Force. Following the first international conference in the USA, the second international TGfU conference was held in Melbourne, Australia in 2003, and the third is being held in Hong Kong in December 2005. Further conferences are being arranged, with the fourth international conference to be held in Vancouver, Canada in 2008.</p> <p>The word 'radical', derived from the Latin <emph>radix</emph>, pertains to the root, to original cause, or to fundamental principle. In this sense, TGfU is by its very nature, a radical approach, in that it demands that educators examine the very basis or roots of the curricula they employ. This process can be challenging as well as illuminating. The dialogue generated by such attention to fundamental principle can be transformative. Like Samson, it can shake our foundations. It is the hope of this author, and to those of us who are working to bring together advocates for a constructivist approach to games education, that the discussion will continue to help our teachers promote research and good practice in games education, so that students throughout the world will strive together to become both thoughtful citizens and skilled athletes.</p> <ref id="AN0019216166-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bain, L.1990. "Physical education teacher education". In Handbook of research on teacher education, Edited by: Houston, R.New York: Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bain, L.2000. "Research in sport pedagogy: past, present and future". In Ten years of Joese Maria Cagigal scholar lectures, Edited by: Pieron, M. and Valerio, M.A.G.AIESEP, Universidade da Coruna.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brozo, W.1994. Literacy assessment in standardized and zero-failure context. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10(3): 189–200.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, J.1993. Teacher change in sport education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 02A (UMI No. 9318198)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, J.1995. "Behind the smokescreen: do competitive activities have a place in humanistic teaching?". In The humanistic sport experience: visions and realities, Edited by: Lombardo, B.J., Mancini, V. and Wuest, D.Dubuque, IA: Times Mirror Higher Education Group Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, J.1996. Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(9): 17–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref35" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, J.2002. "TGfU: a holistic alternative in games education". In Sport in the twenty-first century: alternatives for the new millennium, Edited by: Lombardo, B., Caravella-Nadeau, T., Castagno, K. and Mancini, V.Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, J. and McCahan, B.2005. "Teaching Games for Understanding as a curriculum model". In Examining a Teaching Games for Understanding model, Edited by: Griffin, L. and Butler, J.33–54. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cuban, L.1986. Persistent instruction: another look at constancy in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappa, 68(1): 7–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtner-Smith, M.1997. Student teachers' conception of the teaching-learning process: case studies of recruits with coaching and teaching orientations. Physical Educator, 54(4): 196–207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etchberger, M. and Shaw, K.1992. Teacher change as a progression of transitional images: a chronology of a developing constructivist teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 92(8): 411–417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, R.1989. The faculty in midcareer: implications for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 46(8): 10–15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Festinger, L.1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance, Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, L.L., Mitchell, S.A. and Oslin, J.L.1997. Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games approach, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hobbs, S. and Bullough, R.V.1998. Professional development schools: catalysts for collaboration and change. The Clearing House, 72(1): 47–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kidman, L.2001. Developing decision makers: an empowerment approach to coaching, Christchurch: Innovative Print Communications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kretchmar, S.2004. "Understanding and the delights of human activity". In Teaching games for understanding: theory, research and practice, Edited by: Griffin, L. and Butler, J.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Launder, A.L.2001. Play practice: the games approach to teaching and coaching sports, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R.2004. Australian coaches' experiences of game sense: opportunities and challenges. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 9(2): 115–132.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, R. and Butler, J.2005. A personal journey: TGfU teacher development in Australia and the USA. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lortie, D.1975. The school teacher, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lueddeke, G.1999. Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and innovation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 70(3): 235–236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCaughtry, N. and Rovegno, I.2003. Development of pedagogical content knowledge: moving from blaming students to predicting skillfulness, recognizing motor development and understanding emotion. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 22(4): 355–369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeil, M.C., Fry, J.M., Wright, S.C., Tan, W.K.C., Tan, K.S.S. and Schempp, P.G.2004. In the local context: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport, Education & Society, 9(1): 3–33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NASPE. 2001. Initial physical education program report manual: NASPE/NCATE 2001 Initial physical education standards, 5th edn, Reston, VA: NASPE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NASPE. 2004. Moving into the future: national standards for physical education, 2nd edn, Reston, VA: NASPE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pace, G.1992. Stories of teacher-initiated change from traditional to whole language literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 92(4): 461–476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prawat, R.1992. Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective. American Journal, 100(3): 354–395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rusch, E. and Perry, E.A.Resistance to change: fact or stereotype. paper presented at American Educational Research Association Conference. 8 April, Atlanta, GA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, K.12 October1989. 12 October, Boston University. Reference in lecture</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tate, P.Excellence in teaching, keynote presentation at the AIESEP Conference. 3 September, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> US Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics. 2000. Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 'Public Teacher Questionnaire, Charter Teacher Questionnaire, and Private Teacher Questionnaire' and 'Public School Questionnaire, Charter School Questionnaire, and Private School Questionnaire'Available online at: <ulink href="http://nces.ed.gov/prgrams/coe/2003/images/tables/t29%5f1.gif">http://nces.ed.gov/prgrams/coe/2003/images/tables/t29%5f1.gif</ulink> (accessed 25 October 2004)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wright, S., McNeil, M. and Butler, J.2004. The role socialization can play in promoting Teaching Games for Understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance., 82(4): 35–42.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By JoyI. Butler</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref55"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ819850
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: TGfU Pet-Agogy: Old Dogs, New Tricks and Puppy School
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Joy+I%2E%22">Butler, Joy I.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. Nov 2005 10(3):225-240.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Constructivism+%28Learning%29%22">Constructivism (Learning)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Action+Research%22">Action Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Philosophy%22">Educational Philosophy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletics%22">Athletics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Techniques%22">Classroom Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conventional+Instruction%22">Conventional Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mentors%22">Mentors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Development%22">Career Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Stages%22">Developmental Stages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behaviorism%22">Behaviorism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408980500340752
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: How do we encourage teachers to adopt Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) so that it becomes part of mainstream practice in physical education and community-based sports programmes worldwide? Why do some teachers adopt a TGfU instructional model and others stick to a technique-based approach? What happens to PETE students when they attempt to take innovative ideas out into the field? Can "old dogs" learn new tricks? Can "puppies" do things differently from their mentors out in the school system? Ryan and Cooper delineated five stages typical of the teaching career: (1) fantasy; (2) euphoria; (3) survival; (4) apprenticeship; and (5) rediscovering the dream. This article explores the journeys of both beginning and experienced teachers using these stages and suggests some ways in which TGfU can become part of their exploration. Moving from the comfort zone into unfamiliar areas can be a challenge, but paradoxically, the very discomfort caused by disconnect between avowed principle and actual practice, educational philosophy and teaching methodology, can be a wonderful incentive. The essential ingredient for change is a core belief in innovation rather than previous practice or experience. This taps into the passion and idealism that drove us to join the profession in the first place, to want to become the best that we can be as educators, and dare to hope for the same for our students. Teacher responses to TGfU have great implications for curriculum design and suggest the need for an integrated approach, which provides structured, careful support for teachers through the process of change. This article will suggest ways to promote and integrate TGfU into the repertoire of experienced teachers, and to give students the opportunity to explore the approach. These include the establishment of a worldwide TGfU task force, an emphasis on action research and student exposure to constructivist learning theory through majors' clubs. (Contains 2 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 33
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ819850
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ819850
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408980500340752
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 225
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Constructivism (Learning)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Action Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Philosophy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Athletics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conventional Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mentors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Career Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Stages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behaviorism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: TGfU Pet-Agogy: Old Dogs, New Tricks and Puppy School
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, Joy I.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2005
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 10
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1