Redalyc.Using the TGFU Tactical Hierarchy to Enhance Student
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte ISSN: 1696-5043 [email protected] Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia España Méndez-Giménez, Antonio; Fernández-Río, Javier; Casey, Ashley Using the TGFU tactical hierarchy to enhance student understanding of game play. Expanding the Target Games category Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, vol. 7, núm. 20, mayo-agosto, 2012, pp. 135-141 Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia Murcia, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=163024671008 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative calle libre CCD 135 Using the TGFU tactical hierarchy to enhance student understanding of game play. Expanding the Target Games category El uso de la jerarquía táctica de TGFU para mejorar la comprensión del juego de los estudiantes. Ampliando la categoría de juegos de diana Antonio Méndez-Giménez1, Javier Fernández-Río1, Ashley Casey2 1 Universidad de Oviedo (Spain) 2 Universidad de Bedfordshire (UK) CORRESPONDENCIA: Antonio Méndez-Giménez Universidad de Oviedo Facultad de Formación del Profesorado y Educación C/ Aniceto Sela, s/n. Despacho 239 33005 Oviedo (Asturias) 2ECEPCIØNSEPTIEMBREs!CEPTACIØNMAYO [email protected] Abstract Resumen This article reviews the structural and functional Este artículo analiza las características estructurales elements of a group of activities denominated y funcionales de un grupo de actividades denomina- moving target games, and promotes its inclusion in das juegos de diana móvil. También trata de mostrar the Teaching Games for Understanding framework cómo se puede implementar y promover su inclusión en as a new game category. It represents an attempt los centros educativos en el marco de TGfU (Teaching to enlarge Almond’s taxonomy (1986) to make the Games for Understanding) como una nueva categoría transition from one group to another smoother. The táctica de juegos. Representa un intento de ampliar la basic idea is to modify the structural elements of taxonomía de Almond (1986) para hacer más suave la games to make them developmentally appropriate. transición hacia los grupos de juegos más complejos. Self-made equipment is also introduced as a tool to Además, proponemos modificar los elementos estructu- enhance the educational possibilities of these games. It rales de estos juegos deportivos como estrategia para is easy to make, it reduces the risk of causing damage ayudar a los profesores a dar forma a actividades lúdicas to an opponent, and it gives students the opportunity que se ajusten mejor al nivel de desarrollo de todo el to invent games. Finally, the article also tries to show alumnado. Centrándonos en la modificación del equi- how this approach can be implemented in schools. pamiento, defendemos el uso de material autoconstrui- do como una herramienta para mejorar las posibilida- Key words: games, developmentally appropriate, des educativas de este tipo de juegos. Los motivos son homemade equipment, tactical model, shaping and múltiples: es fácil de crear, reduce el riesgo de causar inventing games. daño a un oponente, y ofrece a los estudiantes la opor- tunidad de inventar juegos. Palabras clave: juegos deportivos, desarrollo, material autoconstruido, modelo táctico, invención de juegos CCD 20 I AÑO 8 I VOLUMEN 7 I MURCIA 2012 I PÁG. 135 A 141 I ISSN: 1696-5043 CCD USING THE TGFU TACTICAL HIERARCHY TO ENHANCE STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF GAME PLAY. EXPANDING THE TARGET GAMES CATEGORY A. MÉNDEZ-GIMÉNEZ, J. FERNÁNDEZ-RÍO, A. CASEY 136 Introduction gression from its simpler cousins. Werner et al. (1996) indicated that after target games students should be Games dominate the world-wide context in which, exposed to fielding/run scoring games. These games and through which, physical education is taught. De- require different attacking and defensive tactics with spite this, a large number of leading academics and a varying degree of interaction among players. Con- experienced classroom teachers have argued that the sequently, the level of game complexity rises rapidly way they are taught in schools is not always educative as students are required to deal with moving targets or inclusive. According to Werner, Thorpe, and Bun- (in terms of the delivery of the ball) and obstacles to ker (1996:29-30) “the games experience in schools their success (in terms of bowlers and fielders). As a should not be simply a summation of playing several direct result, the progression and balance of the game games, but rather a continuous experience through experience of learners is, for less able players, quickly the school years in which experiences are selected to compromised. Indeed, as we argue in this paper, there provide progression and balance”. Others, such as Kirk seems to be a gap between the target games and the (2010), Lawson (2009), Locke (1992), Metzler (2005) fielding/run-scoring categories that needs to be filled and Siedentop (2002), have gone further and suggest- with a category of games that shares some character- ed that current practice in physical education is not istics with both groups. always or often ‘fit for purpose’. Indeed, the state of Certainly, there are some games that share basic fea- physical education - as personified by the prevalence tures with the target games, but represent a step fur- of games in our curriculums - has seen students suffer ther, because they require the students to hit a moving significantly negative experiences (including aliena- object. These games are played in interacting groups tion and embarrassment) to the extent that authors or teams, which means that students must develop such as Ennis (1996) have suggested that more than and use attacking and defensive tactics. Therefore, apologies are necessary. they should be considered as an additional, and more This failure to teach games in their natural context developmentally appropriate, progress in terms of and to instead rely on teaching techniques in isolation game complexity, and could be presented to students lead to both Bunker and Thorpe (1982) and Sieden- before fielding/run-scoring games. top (1982) to write their seminal texts on Teaching However, some of these games are not without their Games for Understanding (TGfU) and Sport Education, critics and some have engendered, and still do engen- respectively. It also prompted Almond (1986) to pre- der, debate about their suitability for physical educa- sent a games classification system that identifies four tion. Tag ball games like dodgeball have been included game forms: target, fielding/run scoring, net/wall, by authors such as Williams (1992:57) in the physical and invasion. The aim of this categorisation was to aid education hall of shame, because they “have limited teachers in offering their students a balanced games physical activity, require little training or pedagogical experience across their physical education classes. skill to teach, barely promote any of our major goals, Within Almond’s classification, the category of target or single students out for potential embarrassment games includes very different activities such as golf, in front of their classmates”. Furthermore, Maurer croquet, bowls, billiards, curling, and pool. The com- (2006:7) believes that in this game: “skilled students mon characteristic of all of these is that the “target” learn to dominate, hurt, humiliate, embarrass, upset, is stationary and the player or players must hit it with degrade, and overpower lesser skilled students”. or without the help of another object. Hastie (2010) However, while these denouncements might stand recently categorised these as the easiest games, since as irrefutable reasons to ban this type of game in the they are less complex in nature and require a lesser de- school system, we argue that maybe they should be gree of spatial understanding. given another chance. Many authors, not least of who Nevertheless, based on Ellis’ work (1983), within are Almond, Bunker, and Thorpe (1986), Kirk (2010) this category of games, two sub-groups could be dif- and Siedentop (2002) have criticised the teaching of ferentiated: unopposed games (e.g. bowling and golf), adult versions of games to children as young as five. If and opposed games (e.g. bocce, croquet, and curling, we are arguing that children should experience games etc.). According to the tactical model of teaching games free from the need to conform to adult expectations in school (Werner et al., 1996) this genre of games of ready-made games, as Casey and Hastie (2011) re- involve basic tactics and skills and should be taught cently argued, then modification is key here. Instead, first. However, Bell (1983) felt that the latter sub-set as Deutsch (2007:48) has pointed out, “activities can could be considered to have a higher level of complex- be modified such that their variations have 100% ity and could, therefore, be viewed as a natural pro- participation, never set a student up for embarrass- calle libre CCD 20 I AÑO 8 I VOLUMEN 7 I MURCIA 2012 I PÁG. 135 A 141 I ISSN: 1696-5043 USING THE TGFU TACTICAL HIERARCHY TO ENHANCE STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF GAME PLAY. EXPANDING THE TARGET GAMES CATEGORY CCD A. MÉNDEZ-GIMÉNEZ, J. FERNÁNDEZ-RÍO, A. CASEY 137 ment…”. Perhaps, it is a matter of the way teachers From these researchers’ point of view, tag ball games use and teach this activity, and not the activity itself. are very valuable for physical education, because they A very popular sport in schools such as basketball can develop a wide array of movement skills. can also be frustrating, embarrassing, or degrading The issue is that teachers must make their goals for low-skilled students when they have to face their clear and unambiguous when they use this type of high-level classmates in unbalanced matches. games. As Belka has stated (2006:35): “if a tag game is used for warm-up and fitness purposes, the teacher should avoid any claim that the game is developing Do tag ball games teach anything to students? tactics that will transfer to other team games”.