Long-term Implementation of Sport Education and Step-Game Approach: The Development of Students' Volleyball Competence and Student-Coaches' Instructional Skills.

Texto

(1)Long-term Implementation of Sport Education and Step-Game Approach: The Development of Students’ Volleyball Competence and StudentCoaches’ Instructional Skills. Rui Manuel Flores Araújo. Orientadora Isabel Mesquita, PhD. Coorientador Peter A. Hastie, PhD. Dissertação apresentada com vista à obtenção do grau de Doutor no âmbito do curso de Doutoramento em Ciência do Desporto, organizado pelo Centro de Investigação e Inovação em Desporto (CIFI2D), da Faculdade de Desporto da Universidade do Porto, nos termos do Decreto-Lei nº 74/2006 de 24 de Março.. Porto, 2015.

(2) Ficha de Catalogação. Araújo, R. (2015). Long-term Implementation of Sport Education and StepGame Approach: The Development of Students’ Volleyball Competence and Student-Coaches’ Instructional Skills. Dissertação de Doutoramento em Ciência do Desporto apresentada à Faculdade de Desporto da Universidade do Porto.. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: APRENDIZAGEM, ESTUDO LONGITUDINAL, MODELO DE ABORDAGEM PROGRESSIVA AO JOGO, MODELO DE EDUCAÇÃO DESPORTIVA, VOLEIBOL.. II.

(3) Funding A presente Dissertação foi financiada pela Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) através de uma Bolsa de Doutoramento Individual (SFRH/BD/72361/2010)..

(4)

(5) Dedicado aos meus pais "Se queres a bolota filho, trepa a ela... Só depende de ti.". V.

(6)

(7) Acknowledgements Muito obrigado Professora Isabel Mesquita por toda a orientação, não só neste doutoramento, mas também em toda a minha vida académica. Muito obrigado por ter visto algo em mim. Muito obrigado pelos desafios propostos e por me ter ensinado a viver fora da minha zona de conforto. Muito obrigado, acima de tudo, por lutar sempre por nós.. Thank you senhor. Thank you Professor Peter Hastie for all the support during these 5 years. Thank you for the hospitality, for being always available, and of course for the 50-cent ice creams... Thank you very much for showing how a human being should be.. Paulo, sempre disponível para tudo. Muito obrigado pela disponibilidade demonstrada ao longo dos três anos. Sei que muitas vezes não foi fácil. Obrigado também por todas as nossas conversas.. Obrigado Professora Paula Batista, Professor Amândio e Professor Maia. Muito obrigado pelas conversas, ajuda, sugestões e desafios.. Muito obrigado aos meus colegas de gabinete Afonso, Cristiana, Mário e Patrícia. Sem vocês, isto não era o mesmo. Muito obrigado por todo o companheirismo, preocupação e boa disposição demonstrada desde o primeiro momento. Muito obrigado pela vossa ajuda neste trabalho.. Muito obrigado a todos os amigos da faculdade. Alexandre, Cláudio, Diana, Lorenzo, Mariana, Rúben e Tiago. Obrigado pelas conversas, trocas de ideias, companheirismo e, acima de tudo, por toda a boa disposição que tornou tudo isto bastante mais fácil.. Obrigado a todos treinadores e diretores do Castêlo da Maia Ginásio Clube. Muito obrigado pela força e pela confiança depositada mas, acima de tudo, por. VII.

(8) toda a paciência e compreensão durante a realização deste trabalho. Um agradecimento especial à Beatriz Santos, Carlos Duarte, José Martins, Lorenzo Laporta, Ricardo Araújo e Sandra Maia. Muito obrigado, pela ajuda, pelo respeito, pelo desafio e, acima de tudo, obrigado por serem os “pense-bêtes” que tanto precisei. É um privilégio poder trabalhar com vocês.. Muito obrigado a toda a minha família e amigos. Obrigado pela ajuda mas, mais do que isso, obrigado por terem paciência comigo naqueles momentos que não estive com vocês. Em especial, muito obrigado Andreia Castro e Rita Marques por terem sido as irmãs que nunca tive.. Se este percurso trouxe muita coisa boa, sem dúvida que foste a mais importante. Obrigado Ana por seres quem és. Por seres o porto seguro que fez de mim uma pessoa melhor. Obrigado por toda a ajuda, dedicação e por tudo o que todos os dias fazes por mim e por nós. Obrigado principalmente pela paciência que tens comigo. Eu sei que muitas vezes não sou fácil. Espero que esta tenha sido apenas uma das nossas aventuras. Independentemente do que venha, uma coisa é certa. Vamos enfrentá-la juntos.. "Se queres a bolota filho, trepa a ela... Só depende de ti". Uma das primeiras coisas que me disseram e tem me acompanhado sempre nos últimos anos. Vejam onde chegámos. Obrigado por me terem ajudado a cá chegar. Obrigado pelo apoio, força, carinho e pela admiração em silêncio, mesmo sem nunca "perceberem muito bem o que andava eu a fazer". Espero que vos tenha deixado orgulhosos. Decididamente, este trabalho é dedicado a vocês..... Bem... Que caminho este. 5 anos, orientadores fantásticos, amigos espetaculares e ainda uma tese. Não poderia pedir mais. Mais uma vez, muito obrigado a todos por isto.. VIII.

(9) General Index Index of Figures……………………………………………………………... XI. Index of Tables………………………………………………………………. XIII. Resumo……………………………………………………………………….. XV. Abstract……………………………………………………………………….. XVII. Abbreviations………………………………………………………………... XIX. I. Introduction………………………………………………………………... 1. 1.1. Importance of the dissertation………………………………….... 3. 1.2. Research problems and aims…………………………………….. 16. 1.3. Structure of the dissertation………………………………........... 17. 1.4. References………………………………………………………....... 21. II. Review Article Review of the Status of Learning in Research on Sport Education: Future Research and Practice………………………………………….... 29. III. Empirical Studies………………………………………………………... 67. Empirical Study 1 Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport education–step-game-approach volleyball unit………………………... 69 Empirical Study 2 The instructional evolution of the student-coach in a combined used of Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach.................................... 95 Empirical Study 3 The long-term development of volleyball competence using Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach models………………………..... 127. IV. Final Considerations…………………………………………………… 153. IX.

(10)

(11) Index of Figures Review Article Figure 1 - Decision flowchart for identified studies…………………….. 34. Empirical Study 1 Figure 1 - Students' game performance improvements throughout the season………………………........................................................... 84. Empirical Study 3 Figure 1 - Individual and mean change curves……………………….... 141. Figure 2 - Predictions from the nonlinear model effect of time……….. 143. XI.

(12)

(13) Index of Tables Introduction Table 1 – Structure of the dissertation………………………………….. 20 Review Article Table 1 – Study quality checklist with quality scores assigned……..... 36. Table 2 – Overview of the studies included in this review……………. 38 Empirical Study 1 Table 1 - Sport Education-SGA Volleyball unit outline.……………….. 78. Table 2 - Instructional checklist………………………………………….. 80. Table 3 - Student performance for all Indexes……………………….... 83 Table 4 - Performance for all indexes by students’ sex……………….. 85. Table 5 - Performance for All Indexes by students’ skill-level………... 86. Empirical Study 2 Table 1 – Unit plans for the three Sport Education-SGA seasons…... 102 Table 2 – Student-coaches’ preparation during the second season… 108 Table 3 - Student-coaches’ preparation during the third season…….. 115. Empirical Study 3 Table 1 – Unit plans for the three Sport Education-SGA seasons…... 134. Table 2 - Instructional checklist.…………………………………………. 138. Table 3 - Game play performance across three seasons…………….. 140. Table 4 - Model comparisons……………………………………………. 141 Table 5 - Model summary………………………………………………... 142. XIII.

(14)

(15) Resumo A presente dissertação teve como propósito central examinar a aprendizagem dos alunos e a evolução instrucional dos estudantes-treinadores durante a participação em três unidades híbridas do Modelo de Educação Desportiva e do Modelo de Abordagem Progressiva ao Jogo. Recorreu-se à observação sistemática com utilização do Game Performance Assessment Instrument para analisar a evolução do desempenho dos alunos na modalidade de Voleibol ao longo de três unidades. Para além disso, a evolução instrucional dos estudantes-treinadores foi analisada através da observação das aulas, notas de campo e entrevistas aos alunos. Os resultados sugerem que a aplicação híbrida dos dois modelos instrucionais se revelou profícua, não só para a evolução dos alunos na modalidade de Voleibol, independentemente do seu sexo e nível de habilidade, como também para a melhoria instrucional dos estudantes-treinadores. Em particular, a aplicação de mais do que uma unidade consecutiva no tempo permitiu que os estudantes se familiarizassem de forma progressiva com a organização da aula, reduzindo o tempo despendido em tarefas de gestão da aula, dedicando mais tempo às tarefas de ensino. O Modelo de Abordagem Progressiva ao Jogo mostrou-se ainda curial para estas melhorias, ao fornecer uma estrutura didática para o ensino do Voleibol. Os protocolos de preparação aplicados permitiram a evolução na capacidade instrucional dos estudantes-treinadores. Mais especificamente, na primeira. unidade. os. estudantes-treinadores. revelaram. dificuldades. na. apresentação e modificação das tarefas, bem como no diagnóstico do erro e emissão de feedback apropriado. Após a aplicação de dois protocolos de preparação destes alunos, estas dificuldades iniciais foram ultrapassadas, o que permitiu uma gradual transferência de responsabilidade do professor para os estudantes-treinadores.. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: APRENDIZAGEM, ESTUDO LONGITUDINAL, MODELO DE ABORDAGEM PROGRESSIVA AO JOGO, MODELO DE EDUCAÇÃO DESPORTIVA, VOLEIBOL.. XV.

(16)

(17) Abstract The present dissertation aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the combined used of Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach models beyond a single season experience on students’ learning and student-coaches’ instructional evolution. In particular, a systematic observation of students’ game play performance through the use of the Game Performance Assessment Instrument was applied, in order to analyse students’ game play improvements throughout the application of three hybrid Sport Education-Step-Game-Approach Volleyball units. Video observations, field notes and students’ interviews were used to scrutinized student-coaches’ instructional difficulties within peer-assisted tasks, and to evaluate the impact of specific protocols of student-coaches’ instructional preparation throughout the three seasons. Results revealed that all participants, regardless of their sex and skill-level, improved from their first experience with both models at the seventh-grade through the end of the ninth-grade season. Students became progressively familiarized with Sport Education organizational features throughout the three seasons, spent less time on those tasks and, consequently, spent more time on learning tasks. The application of the protocols for student-coaches’ preparation during the second and third seasons showed also to be effective for their instructional evolution. In particular, during the first season student-coaches showed the inability to organize the tasks with their teammates, to identify performance errors and provide feedback to them, as well as, to modify the tasks whenever that was necessary. By the use of a number of pedagogical strategies during the protocols, these instructional difficulties were solved, which allowed a gradual release of instruction from the teacher to the student-coaches.. KEYWORDS: LONGITUDINAL DESIGN; SPORT EDUCATION MODEL; STEP GAME APPROACH MODEL; STUDENTS’ LEARNING; VOLLEYBALL. XVII.

(18)

(19) Abbreviations PE – Physical Education DIM – Direct Instruction Model SE – Sport Education TGfU – Teaching Games for Understanding ICGM – Invasion Games Competence Model TG – Tactical Games SGA – Step-Game-Approach FADEUP – Faculty of Sports of the University of Porto STROBE – Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology CONSORT – Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials N – number ANOVA – Analysis of Variance PreT – pretest PosT – posttest Ret – retention test DM - Decision Making ADJ – Adjust SE – Skill Efficiency SEF – Skill Efficacy GP - Game Performance GI – Game Involvement FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology. XIX.

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23) I. Introduction _________________________________________________.

(24)

(25) Introduction. 1. Introduction. 1.1. Rationale. Model-based instruction in Physical Education The importance that sport plays in the human lives has been widely recognized, notably its contribution to the physical, emotional, personal and social development of human beings (Coulter & Choróinín, 2013; Ozoliņš & Stolz, 2013). As Ozoliņš and Stolz states (2013, p. 887), “much more than any other activity, it [sport] has the power to bring the divide between individuals to an end, at the very least, closing the gap”. This issue has justified the inclusion of sport in school curricula through Physical Education (PE) (Ozoliņš & Stolz, 2013) in many countries around the world for at least a century (Puhse & Gerber, 2005). In this vein, health- and fitness-related considerations regarding sport have been identified as the most influence ideologies within PE (Green, 1998; Penney, 1998; Kirk, 1999; Penney & Evans, 1999; Lake, 2001; Green, 2008; Kretchmar, 2008). As pointed out by Coulter and Choróunín (2013, p. 829), “while health discourses around the promotion of lifelong physical activity are central to the framing of PE through school curricula, sport and team games continue to play a central role in the daily practices of physical education.” Notwithstanding, PE encompasses much more than this dyad, and should aim to promote multiple learning outcomes, covering all domains of learning. Alexander and Luckman (2001, p. 255) state the “5 big aims of PE”, namely: motor skill development, tactical knowledge and performance, fitness, personal and social development (e.g., cooperation, empathy, self-discipline), and student attitudes and values (e.g., enthusiasm, enjoyment). In the words of Ozoliņš and Stolz (2013, p. 888) PE “is important because: (i) it is learning about one’s body and hence oneself through some sort of physical activity or human movement; (ii) learning about an important way in which people share their lives; and, (iii) it has the potential to develop the whole person. Not everyone will be a sportsman or sportswoman, just as not everyone will be a writer or a mathematician. This, however, does not mean that we do not need to. 3.

(26) Introduction. learn to read and write and be numerate. Similarly, we need to learn something about how our bodies work and to develop an understanding of ourselves as physical beings who mediate the world through our physical senses.” However, some relevant shortcomings should be properly addressed. For example, the multi-activity curriculum with short units has been dominant in PE (Gerdin & Pringle, in press; Kirk, 2010). This curriculum embraces a smorgasbord of activities all within one year, leading to brief lessons with time being further eroded by management rituals and low learning time, short units with reduced instruction, and an excessive focus on keeping students ‘busy, happy and good’ (Placek, 1983). Frequently, the program contents result from particular interests and conveniences of the teacher, often comprehending the teaching of sport skills in a decontextualized and seemingly socially irrelevant manner (Kirk, 2010). The multi-activity curriculum embraces a wide range and diverse educational goals, which are rarely if ever achieved (Kirk, 2010, 2013; Lock, 1992). Most often than not this leads to a somewhat ambiguous place of PE with the curriculum (Ozoliņš & Stolz, 2013). It is therefore not surprising that the multi-activity curriculum is not deprived of criticism (Taylor & Chiogioji, 1987). Locke (1992) calls this model a ‘programmatic lemon’ (p. 363) since it is related with student disaffection, the failure to provide students with the opportunity to master any one activity, and also the marginalisation of PE. In fact, Locke highlighted student alienation, demoralization, negative attitudes and pessimistic data from a growing number of literature, which reported teachers’ and students’ perceptions within PE. In addition, this type of curriculum is also linked with learning inequities within PE. Given the fact that this approach keeps changing the sport being taught, it does not provide students the time and opportunity to master any one activity. Therefore, the individual rhythm of learning is not preserved and, consequently, this curriculum promotes the perpetuation of gender and skilllevel iniquities (Flintoff & Scraton, 2001). This criticism provides a reasonable enough basis for concluding that what has conventionally been offered in the name of PE has been a failure. Kirk (2010) even warns of the precarious. 4.

(27) Introduction. situation of PE given the continued dominance of the multi-activity curriculum and its resistance to change. Accepting the notion that “skilful game play takes time” (Rink et al., 1996, p. 494) the length of the unit plays a key role with PE. Several authors (e.g. Mesquita, 2012; Mesquita el al., 2005; Siedentop et al. 2011) have been enhancing therefore the vale of longer units (no less than 20 lessons) in order to promote students’ learning. Nevertheless, the application of the same activity over an extended period over time requires a well-defined plan that can guide teachers and students throughout each content of the unit (Metzler, 2011). Model-based instruction has been advocated as a mean to fill this need (Casey, 2014; Dyson et al., 2004). Indeed, “instructional models are based on an alignment of learning theory, long-term goals, context, content, classroom management, related teaching strategies, verification of process and the assessment of student learning” (Metzler, 2011, p. 8). This author summarizes the importance of model-based instruction as (i) providing an overall plan and coherent approach; (ii) clarifying learning domain priorities and interactions; (iii) providing an instructional theme; (iv) allowing teacher and students alike to understand the on-going teaching and learning process; (v) furnishing a unified theoretical framework; (vi) being grounded on research; (vii) promoting a technical language for teachers; (viii) allowing the relationship between instruction and learning to be verified; (ix) allowing for more valid assessment of learning; (x) encouraging teachers decision making within an unified framework; and (xi) directly promoting specific standards and learning outcomes.. From teacher-centred to student-centred instructional models The Direct Instruction Model (DIM; Rosenshine, 1979) has been the most traditionally and widely adopted over the last years (Kirk, 2010). In this teachercentred approach the teacher is undoubtedly the instructional leader, who explicitly and formally dictates and circumscribes all aspects of the learning process, such as the involvement of students in the learning tasks. Students perform a largely passive role, with reduced or no autonomy, performing a set of tasks which are rarely understood with respect to their rationale, advantages. 5.

(28) Introduction. and disadvantages. Students progress continuously, with constant monitoring and evaluation by the teacher (Frosnot, 1998). This instructional model is clearly affiliated on the behaviourist learning theory, which frames learning as a process of stimulus and response where the individual is largely considered an automaton, a passive element that remains inactive until subject to external stimulation (Vanderstraeten, 2002). Learning results are thus an accurate representation of external stimuli, believing that observing and listening to the explanations provided by teachers as well as participation in activities, experiments or practical sessions are factors explaining learning (Frosnot, 1998). This teacher-centred approach (i.e., the teacher controls almost all aspects of the teaching and learning process) has achieved minimal levels of student autonomy, perceptions of competency and relatedness (Hastie, 2012). As such, the role of the student in learning process cannot be underestimated any further (Rink, 2001). Society has been demanding schools to educate individuals that are capable of acting autonomously in a responsible and committed way, adept in the face of challenges, risks and opportunities they encounter. This urged the need to implement learning environments seen from the educational reform of the 1990s that allocate the student at the centre of the learning process (Penney & Chandler, 2000). These learning environments should take into account the person who lives inside the student (Mesquita, 2012), with its singular experiences, motivations and particular difficulties (Rink, 2001). The student should be renewed to become more of a “thinker” rather than merely a “doer” (Mesquita, 2012). On the other hand, the teacher is expected to move away from the central stage and serve as a facilitator of learning, purposely shifting “responsibility to the student engaged in authentic, meaningful, and learning tasks” (Dyson et al., 2004, p. 226). This need justified to a large extent the evolution of behavioural learning paradigms into constructivists learning paradigms, which grant proper space to the discovery and initiative of the students (Mesquita, 2013). Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s learning proposals, although contrasting, have contribute to this evolution. Piaget’s (1896-1980) constructivism approach asserts that learning is an. 6.

(29) Introduction. active, contextualized process of constructing of knowledge rather passively receiving it. Learners should have the opportunity to react from the stimuli that surrounds them, building, modifying and interpreting the information they encounter in this relation with the environment (Morgan, 2007; Von Glasersfeld, 1995). Learning should not therefore be a exact representation of external experiences, but rather an adaptation of the subject to these stimuli, through a mapping of actions and conceptual operations considered as viable on the experience of the “knowing subject” (Von Glasersfeld, 1998). Learning takes place in the mind of the person, experiencing and hypothesising about the world as they encounter it, whilst moving through pre-set stages of life (Weiner et al., 2003). Vygotsky (1986) saw as inadequate learning tasks that only contemplated solving individual problems for the learner, claiming that the student learning process in cooperation with the teacher or with their peers, constituted a more viable form of assess the capabilities of apprentices. Vygotsky’s view of learning underpins a “modern constructivism”, i.e., socio-constructivism, which asserts that social interaction is fundamental to learning. Vygotsky believed that social learning precedes development and proposed that children learn through social interaction with adults and more capable peers (Morgan, 2007). This view encourages learners to work together to achieve common goals and provides the opportunity for the learners to help each others (Dyson et al., 2004). Within this context, the “More Knowledgeable Other” (Vygotsky, 1978) is key to a sound cognitive development and is normally thought of as being a teacher, a coach, or another adult, but it might also be a peer or a sibling (Corden, 2000). This would afford learners to work on their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978), i.e., the distance between a student’s ability to perform a task under adult guidance or peer collaboration, and the student’s ability for solving the problem independently. The way students learn influences the way teachers teach (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991). This change in the learning paradigm has therefore promoted an evolution from teacher-centred approaches to student-centred approaches (i.e., students build their own learning, with enhanced role of their cognitive. 7.

(30) Introduction. processes, decision-making and autonomy) (Ennis, 2014). Nowadays, a wide number of student-centred instructional models are available to PE teachers, each of them proposing specific teaching goals. Among such models, we highlight Sport Education (SE; Siedentop, 1994), Cooperative Learning (Slavin, 1995) and Personal and Social Responsibility (Hellison, 2011). In addition, variants of the original British conceptualization of games teaching termed Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU; Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) can also be identified as student-centred approaches. These include Tactical Games (TG; Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2003, 2006), Game Sense (Light, 2013; Thorpe, 1996), Play Practice (Launder, 2001), Invasion Games Competence Model (IGCM; Mesquita et al., 2012), Tactical Decision Learning Model (Gréhaigne et al. 2005), and Games Concept Approach (Rossi et al., 2006).. The Sport Education model: conceptualization, structure and research Within Physical Education, constructivist and socio-constructivists ideas find voice on the Sport Education model (Siedentop et al., 2011), which allocates the student to the centre of the teaching and learning process and adopts more implicit and less formal strategies when compared to other models traditionally used in the school context (Metzler, 2011). In SE, the control of the teaching and learning environment progressively moves from the teacher to the students, who are allocated within teams and assigned with greater responsibility and autonomy in organizing and managing the activity. First introduced in the 1980s, the model was derived from Daryl Siedentop’s doctoral dissertation (Siedentop, 1968), where he advocated the placement of play education curriculum theory in a preeminent place in the curriculum guidelines of PE. Siedentop (2002, p. 411) argued that “cultures of physically active play are fundamentally important to collective social life, and bringing children and youth into contact with those cultures through educationally sound practices was sufficient to justify physical education as a school subject” (Siedentop, 2002). This vision of PE was promulgated from 1970-1980 and Jewett and Bain (1985) accepted it as an autonomous curricular model. It was in 1982 that Siedentop first proposed the creation of the model,. 8.

(31) Introduction. during a presentation under the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. The consolidation of the model's conceptual bases was achieved in 1994, with the presentation of a book entitled "Sport Education: Quality PE through positive sport experience" (Siedentop, 1994), which established the validation of the mode as a pedagogical tool and object of scientific inquiry. Siedentop’s development of the model spurred from his perception that PE, even when taught effectively, was not interesting or challenging enough to inspire students (Siedentop, 2002). The author (1994, p. 7) criticized the presentation of a “decontextualized physical education” in short units, in which games and sports are taught in ways that rarely resemble the authentic sport experience, and do not promote a solid understanding of game play. Therefore, SE was designed to provide students authentic and rich sport experiences in the context of PE, helping them to develop as competent, literate and enthusiastic sports players (Siedentop et al., 2011). In Siedentop’s (2002, p. 411) own words: “I mean competent in the sense that they are knowledgeable game players. I mean literate in the sense that they understand and value sport, and can distinguish between good and bad sport practices. I mean enthusiastic in the sense that they participate and behave in ways that preserve, protect, and enhance sport cultures. These purpose have a strong cultural emphasis; Sport Education has always been defined as a process through which sport cultures might grow and prosper as humanizing influences in the lives of nations and their citizens”. Siedentop (1994) crafted six key-features that mimic the authentic form of institutionalized sport within the larger culture. These include (i) seasons, (ii) affiliation, (iii) formal competition, (iv) record keeping, (v) festive climate and (vi) culminating events. Therefore, SE offers students an authentic learning environment in which the traditional multi-activity units are replaced by longer sport seasons. These include training sessions, formal competitive matches, performance records, and equitable participation during an extensive period of time. A festive climate takes place within the season and students develop autonomy and curriculum ownership through cooperative learning activities. Furthermore, aligned wit contemporary institutionalized sport, students are. 9.

(32) Introduction. affiliated to the same teams throughout the unit. Within these teams students take upon performance of within-team and within-matches sports-based roles other than that of player (e.g., coach, referee, scorekeeper, statistician and member of the sports organizing board). The culminating event marks the end of the season and a variety of awards are presented (such as final standings, referee, fair play, and participation awards). Research on SE has provided a compelling argument for its effectiveness in PE programs, with more than 160 data based empirical papers identified to date. Sport Education research has highlighted evidences concerning the achievement of those goals, with reviews being conducted by Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005), Kinchin (2006), Hastie et al. (2011), and Hastie (2012). Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005) organized their review according to the “5 big aims of PE” (Alexander & Luckman, 2001, p. 254), notably motor skill development, knowledge and understanding, fitness, social development, and values and attitudes. They suggested there is empirical evidence on the efficacy of the model in eliciting its goals. In particular, the affiliation feature of SE promotes personal and social development, specifically in the form of student responsibility, cooperation and trust skills. Nevertheless, the same authors also highlighted the student leadership skills as potentially problematic for effective content development and the promotion of an equitable participation. Kinchin (2006) focused his review on the perceptions of student and teachers. On one hand, students referred their preference of SE when compared to traditional approaches. In particular, they enjoyed being given the opportunity to be affiliated with a group of teammates over an extended period of time and to have increased responsibility and ownership within the lessons. Students also highlighted high levels of seriousness regarding their participation in the various roles of the model. On the other hand, teachers appreciated stepping out of centre-stage and consequently having the opportunity to take on more supporting roles, as well as the increased students’ interest in PE. In 2011, Hastie et al. conducted a review of research on Sport Education in order to identify any new trends in research since the review of Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005), and to describe the extent to which the limitations and future. 10.

(33) Introduction. research directions of the original review were addressed. This update summarized that “since the 2005 review, there has been not only an expansion in the number of studies relating to Sport Education, but also the initiation of research in a number of new contexts, as well as those focused on new research questions. An analytic induction of these papers has placed them into three categories: (1) expanded sites of implementation; (2) students’ motivational responses; and (3) learning to teach Sport Education (Hastie et al., 2011, p. 103)”. More recently, Hastie (2012) organized his review regarding the central goals of the model. This author reported that support for competency was “burgeoning and developing”, evidences for literacy was “emerging”, and students’ enthusiasm have been “significantly substantiated”. SE research has therefore been showing an unequivocal and positive impact of the model on students’ personal and social development, motivation, as well as in their sense of belonging (Hastie et al., 2011). Notwithstanding, with respect to competence, and although research has already recognized the potential of SE in developing students’ skill and tactical awareness (e.g., Hastie, 1998b; Hastie et al., 2013; Hastie et al., 2009; Pritchard et al., 2008), some authors have been enhancing key factors that warrant further investigation within this area, such as (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2005): (i) the lack of longitudinal studies that analyse SE beyond a single season; (ii) the lack of attention paid to the actual content being taught and learned, and to the nature of learning tasks within the instructional task system of the season; and (iii) the need to examine the dynamic of peer interaction and subsequent content learning and performance that occurs during student-led tasks of the curriculum.. Longitudinal data collection designs Longitudinal data collection extending beyond a single SE season has been highlighted as one of the factors that warrant further examination. To date, research is limited to a single season experience (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2005). In fact, time is a key factor to help students learn and feel comfortable with the change from a teacher-directed to a student-driven model. 11.

(34) Introduction. (Brunton, 2003; Hastie, 1998a, 1998b; Hastie et al., 2013; Mesquita et al., 2012; Pritchard et al., 2008). The complexity of the organization of activities within SE (distributing roles, establishing formal competition, allocating students to teams, among others), while important and necessary, may also have an impact on the time available for learning. Further, the extension of SE beyond a single unit experience could allow the analysis of critical elements for the teaching and learning process. As Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005) refer, an extended implementation of the model throughout a reasonable period of time might benefit the dynamics of social and instructional system within the season, and consequently improve student’s learning.. Emergence of hybrid models The lack of attention paid to the actual content being taught and learned, coupled with the nature of learning tasks within the instructional task system of the season has also been identified as another gap of research on SE (Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2007). Despite the fact SE affords extensive game practice, its primary concern relies on the organizational structuring and on the authenticity of the learning process (Pill et al., 2012). Specifically, the emphasis of SE is the promotion of a more democratic and inclusive pedagogy, by focusing on the pedagogical environment within the lesson, such as the roles assumed by teachers and students (Siedentop et al., 2011). Given the “outward-focus” (Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006, p. 23) of the model, it is therefore not surprising that several authors called for “hybrid models”, that is, alliances between the organizational characteristics of SE (persisting teams, formal competitions, roles etc.) and other forms of game based instruction with specific framework to the content and learning tasks to be taught during the season. The TGfU was the first instructional model to fill this gap of SE (Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006), since research has enhanced the effectiveness of this model in the improvement of both students’ decision-making and skill execution. Although SE and TGfU stand for distinctive educational foci, this two models share several conceptual and pedagogical principles. The combination of both. 12.

(35) Introduction. can be used to design meaningful, purposeful, and authentic learning activities for students (Dyson et al., 2004). When combining SE and TGfU, Hastie and Curtner-Smith (2006) found the act of teaching to be particularly labourintensive, and given the need for the teacher to drive and give momentum to the proceedings, the authors demanded that the teacher possess superior content and pedagogical content knowledge. Notwithstanding, the specificity of tactics within team sports (in particular the differentiation between invasion and non-invasion games) made it necessary to build models that attended to this specificity, which was not taken into account by TGfU (Mesquita et al., 2012). Based on the acknowledged synergies within and between SE and TGfU, a number of other hybrid models have also been developed (e.g. IGCM, Mesquita et al., 2012; TG, Pritchard et al., 2014). In the IGCM the specific nature of invasion games and the importance of specialized teaching are considered (Belka, 2004). In addition, tasks are aligned with the situational demands related to the play of basic forms of invasion games and are structured on chained basic forms and supported by partial game forms and game like tasks (Graça & Mesquita, 2003). In a study explicitly designed to analyse the impact of a hybrid SE-IGCM on students’ improvements, Mesquita et al. (2012) found that a SE environment sustained by the learning tasks structure provided by the ICGM offered students the possibility to improve their skill execution and decision-making, especially girls and students of lower skill-level. Pritchard et al. (2014) aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a combined used of SE and TG models on male and female students in coeducational and single sex classes in middle school physical education. These authors found improvements on basketball game play performance for males and females of both classes.. The Step-Game-Approach model To date and to our knowledge, no study has answered these calls in regard to non-invasion games, such as volleyball, badminton and tennis (Harvey & Jarret, 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2005). The Step-Game-Approach model (SGA; Mesquita et al., 2005) might have the. 13.

(36) Introduction. potential to provide an appropriate framework to the development of game play ability in a step-by-step game play environment, namely by facing students with problems sought to challenge their capacity for understanding and performing game play (Mesquita et al., 2005). Three types of instructional approach sustain this approach, namely adaptation tasks, structuring tasks and acquisition tasks (Pereira et al., 2011). SGA research has shown the effectiveness of this model in the development of the volleyball game play performance (Mesquita et al., 2005). In particular, Mesquita et al. (2005) where aiming to the renewal of the teaching of volleyball in school context, and have found that the school class as a whole made significant improvements in several measures of game performance either in technical or tactical domains. Notwithstanding, girls and students of lower skill-level seemed to benefit more from such approaches than boys and students of higher skill-level. Given all of these, a hybrid Sport Education–Step-Game-Approach unit (SE-SGA) might have the potential to reach the affective and social teaching goals of Sport Education, simultaneously taking into account the didactical framework of teaching a non-invasion sport (Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006; Mesquita et al., 2012).. Differentiating the effect of sex and skill-level on students’ learning SE research related with students’ competence has also been enhancing a differentiating effect of students’ sex and skill-level. In particular, studies focused on teachers’ and students’ perceptions combined with empirical measurement have reported superior learning opportunities for boys and higher skill-level students, due to the apparent dominance of these students in the social and instructional agenda (Alexander & Luckman, 2001; Brock et al., 2009; Hastie, 1998a, 1998b; Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006; Hastie et al., 2009). Notwithstanding, other studies revealed superior learning opportunities for girls and lower skill-level students (Carlson & Hastie, 1997; Mesquita et al., 2012). It is therefore not surprising that several authors call for quantitative research concerning opportunities for practice in model-based units, namely through the analysis of students’ improvements according to skill-level and sex (Pereira et al., 2015). In this way, by analysing students’ improvements beyond a single. 14.

(37) Introduction. season experience with a combined use of SE and SGA models, and taking into account students’ sex and skill level, this study also might have the ability to provide a more complete account of the impact of this hybrid approach.. The qualitative examination of the teaching and learning process SE research has been conducted to analyse the effectiveness of the model in achieving its goals, through the use of quasi-experimental (pre-test and post-test), descriptive, and exploratory (teachers’ and students’ responses to the model) designs. However necessary, this trend of research only allows a superficial assessment of the model. In this way, research need to move forward, namely venturing into the study of the complexity of the teaching and learning processes and the dynamics of students’ and teachers’ interactions within the model. These studies would add to those seeking answers to questions such as ‘does it work’, with those asking about ‘why and how each model works’ and even more important, ‘how it can be improved’. Undoubtedly, one of the areas of the teaching and learning process that call for more research is the analysis of student-coach leadership skills and instructional competence within the peer-assisted tasks of SE (Hastie, 2000; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2005). While the potential lack of effective student leadership within peer-assisted tasks has been recognized as a possible reason for some teachers’ and researchers’ scepticism (Alexander & Luckman, 2001; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005) and probably for the scarce evidence on the student’s learning outcomes, analysis of the dynamics of student interaction in the peer-assisted tasks are still scant. Indeed, only Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2007) have examined the content development during these tasks in a SE unit, while no other authors have included student’s learning outcomes using the same design. Siedentop (1995, p. 22) had already claimed “a void exists in how to identify, teach, and provide practice for the leadership skills necessary for successful coaching within the tasks of the SE curriculum”. Here, research on SE should embody the need to examine the dynamics of the peer-assisted tasks (and its evolution) related with content development and the use of power by student coaches in relation to their teammates. It should also. 15.

(38) Introduction. attempt to control how the devolution of both is transmitted from teacher to students. This is particularly relevant given Wallhead and O’Sullivan’s (2007) finding of student-coaches’ inability to elaborate content through appropriate demonstration, error diagnosis and task modification.. 1.2. Research problems and aims. Based on the information present above, this dissertation aims to examine the effectiveness of a hybrid SE-SGA model beyond a single season experience on student-coaches’ instructional evolution and students’ learning outcomes. This dissertation soughs to response to the calls for more qualitative and deeply examination of the teaching and learning process. In particular, given the central place of the student-coach within SE, and given the scarcity of research regarding student-coaches, these student intents to examine the effectiveness of specific training protocols on student-coaches’ instructional effectiveness. That is, we aimed to identify the instructional difficulties encountered by studentcoaches during peer-assisted tasks and then analyse the interventions that were put in place across three SE seasons designed to address those difficulties. This analysis might provide a realistic portrait of the teaching and learning process and, consequently, guide future model-based research and practical implementation. In addition to this qualitative examination, the present study also purposes to analyse students’ game play volleyball improvements. In fact, literature have been enhanced some gaps of SE research regarding students’ learning that warrants further investigation, such is the case of longitudinal data collection (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). A subsequent goal of the present dissertation was to analyse this improvements according to students’ sex and skill-level.. Given all of this, the present study specifically intents to:. 16.

(39) Introduction. 1) To examine the effectiveness of specific student-coach instructional preparation. protocols. and. subsequent. student-coaches. instructional. effectiveness across three hybrid SE-SGA seasons. More specifically, the goal was to identify the difficulties that student-coaches encountered during peer-assisted tasks and then evaluate protocols designed to solve those difficulties. 2) To examine the assertion that a hybrid combination of SE and SGA can promote students’ learning in non-invasion games, such is the case of volleyball. Specifically, students’ overall game play performance, decisionmaking, adjust, skill efficiency and skill efficacy; 3) To analyse students’ game play performance improvements throughout the application of three hybrid volleyball SE-SGA units throughout three years; 4) To determine the extent to which gains in students’ performance levels might vary according to sex and skill-level.. 1.3. Structure of the dissertation. The present dissertation was elaborated in conformity with the requirements and guidelines of the Faculty of Sports of the University of Porto (FADEUP, 2009). This dissertations is structured according to the Scandinavian model, notably by scientific papers to be submitted to international peerreviewed journals. The rational for this option relies on the grounds that enhances the acquisition and progressive development of specific skills, not only related to the area under investigation, but also to scientific production. Therefore, four distinctive chapters compose this thesis.. Chapter I assigns the introduction of the dissertation, in which both the theoretical framework and the relevance of the theme considering the research already done in the field. In addition, the general purpose of the thesis and its structure are also exposed within this chapter.. 17.

(40) Introduction. The following chapter is dedicated to the theoretical component of the dissertation. Specifically, the chapter II presents the review article entitled Review of the Status of Learning in Research on Sport Education: Future Research and Practice. This review article sough to gather what is know to date with respect to students’ learning when participating in SE seasons and provide possible directions that future research and practical implementations of the model might follow. This article was crucial to provide a sustained theoretical framework to the subsequent empirical articles wrote to this thesis.. Chapter III comprehends the empirical component of the present dissertation and is composed by three empirical articles published or submitted to international peer-review journals with impact factor. The first empirical study is entitled “Students’ Game Performance Improvements during a Hybrid Sport Education–Step-Game-Approach Volleyball Unit” and intended to analyse a hybrid combination of SE and the SGA model on students’ game performance according their sex and skill-level. In particular, decision-making, adjustment, skill execution, skill efficacy, game involvement and overall game performance. Seventeen seventh-grade students participated in a 25-lesson volleyball season. This study was crucial not only to analyse students’ volleyball improvements on all the dimensions of the game play but also to the diagnosis of possible issues to be improved for the two following seasons and, consequently, the two following empirical articles. The second empirical article is entitled “The instructional evolution of the student-coach in a combined use of Sport Education and Step-GameApproach” deeply examines the dynamics of teaching learning process that operates within the Sport Education season, in particular the student-coaches instructional skills during peer-assisted tasks. In addition, not only this study sough to identify possible student-coaches’ instructional difficulties, but also to evaluate the impact of specific formats to the preparation of this students. In this way, the instructional performance of three coaches was observed throughout the three years.. 18.

(41) Introduction. The third empirical article entitled “The long-term development of volleyball competence using Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach model” which analysed students’ overall game play improvements throughout three hybrid Sport Education- SGA seasons, also taking into account students’ sex and skill level. This study followed a longitudinal design and 18 students were analysed when they were in the seventh-grade until their ninth-grade. This study has shown to be a major contribution to the Sport Education research since it was the first to respond to the calls for more longitudinal data collection protocols.. The chapter IV is dedicated to the final thoughts, supported by the conclusions of each of the empirical article that incorporate the present dissertation. In this chapter the findings from the different studies were interpreted, related and summarized in order to fill the gaps from previous research and provide a richer understanding of students’ improvements and the dynamics of the teaching and learning process operating within the peerassisted tasks of the model. In addition, in this chapter suggestions that future research might follow and insights for future SE and SGA implementations are also presented.. The references of each chapter are presented in the end of it. Additionally, the references of each article are presented in the end of that same article according to the journals’ guidelines. Table 1 provides a complete outline of the structure of the thesis.. 19.

(42) Introduction. Table 1. Structure of the dissertation Chapter I Introduction Introduction of the dissertation, which comprehends the theoretical framework and the relevance of the theme under study, the general purpose of the thesis, and its structure Chapter II Review Article Review of the Status of Learning in Research on Sport Education: Future Research and Practice Review Article. Rui Araújo, Isabel Mesquita and Peter A. Hastie. Published: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2014) 13(4), 846-858 (Impact Factor: 1.025). Chapter III Empirical Studies Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport education–step-game-approach volleyball unit Empirical Article 1. Rui Araújo, Isabel Mesquita, Peter A. Hastie and Cristiana Pereira In press: European Physical Education Review (2015) doi: 10.1177/1356336x15597927 (Impact Factor: 0.673). The instructional evolution of the student-coach in a combined use of Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach. Empirical Article 2. Rui Araújo, Isabel Mesquita, Peter A. Hastie and Cristiana Bessa Submitted to: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (Impact Factor: 0.740) The long-term development of volleyball competence using Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach model. Empirical Article 3. Rui Araújo, Isabel Mesquita, Peter A. Hastie, Keith Lohse, Cristiana Bessa Submitted: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy (Impact Factor: 0.811).. Chapter IV. Final Thoughts. 20.

(43) Introduction. 1.4. References. Alexander, K., & Luckman, J. (2001). Australian teachers’ perceptions and uses of the sport education curriculum model. European Physical Education Review, 7(3), 243-267. Belka, D. E. (2004). Combining and Sequencing Games Skills. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(4), 23-27. Brock, S. J., Rovegno, I., & Oliver, K. L. (2009). The influence of student status on student interactions and experiences during a sport education unit. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(4), 355-375. Brunton, J. (2003). Changing hierarchies of power in physical education using sport education. European Physical Education Review, 9(3), 267-284. Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A Model for the Teaching of Games in Secondary Schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8. Carlson, T., & Hastie, P. A. (1997). The Student Social System Within Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(2), 176-195. Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(1), 18-34. Corden, R. (2000). Literacy and learning through talk. Buckingham: Open University Press. Coulter, M., & Chróinín, D. N. (2013). What is PE? Sport, Education and Society, 18(6), 825-841. Dyson, B. (2001). Cooperative Learning in an Elementary Physical Education Program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(3), 264-281. Dyson, B., Griffin, L., & Hastie, P. A. (2004). Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations. Quest, 56(2), 226-240. Ennis, C. (2014). What goes around comes around ... or does it? Disrupting the cycle of traditional, sport-based physical education. Kinesiology Review, 3(1), 63-70.. 21.

(44) Introduction. Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22(3), 205-227. FADEUP. (2009). Normas e orientações para a redação e apresentação de dissertações e relatórios. Porto: FADEUP. Flintoff, A., & Scraton, S. (2001). Stepping into active leisure? Young women’s perceptions of active lifestyles and their experiences of school physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 6(1), 5-21. Frosnot, C. T. (1998). Construtivismo: Teoria, Perspectivas e Prática Pedagógica. Porto Alegre: ARTMED. Gerdin, G., & Pringle, R. (in press). The politics of pleasure: an ethnographic examination exploring the dominance of the multi-activity sport-based physical. education. model.. Sport,. Education. and. Society.. doi:. 10.1080/13573322.2015.1019448. Graça, A., & Mesquita, I. (2003). Physical Education Teachers' Conceptions About Teaching TGfU in Portuguese Schools. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo & R. Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport (pp. 87-97). United States of America: National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Green, K. (1998). Philosophies, ideologies and the practice of physical education. Sport, Education & Society, 3(2), 125-143. Green, K. (2008). Understanding physical education. London: Sage. Gréhaigne, J.-F., Wallian, N., & Godbout, P. (2005). Tactical-decision learning model and students' practices. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 255-269. Griffin, L., Mitchell, S., & Oslin, J. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinectics. Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2011). Toward the Development of a Pedagogical Model for Health-Based Physical Education. Quest, 63(3), 321-338.. 22.

(45) Introduction. Harvey, S., & Jarret, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278-300. Hastie, P. A. (1998a). The Participation and Perceptions of Girls Within a Unit of Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(2), 157171. Hastie, P. A. (1998b). Skill and tactical development during a sport education season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(4), 368-379. Hastie, P. A. (2000). An Ecological Analysis of a Sport Education Season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(3), 355-373. Hastie, P. A. (2012). The nature and purpose of Sport Education as an educational experience. In P. Hastie (Ed.), Sport Education: international perspectives (Routledge Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport (pp. 1-12). USA: Routledge. Hastie, P. A., Calderón, A., Rolim, R., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). The Development of Skill and Knowledge During a Sport Education Season of Track and Field Athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(3), 336-344. Hastie, P. A., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid Sport Education - Teaching Games for Understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 1-27. Hastie, P. A., Martinez de Ojeda, D., & Calderón, A. (2011). A Review of Research on Sport Education: 2004 to the Present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(2), 103-132. Hastie, P. A., Sinelnikov, O., & Guarino, A. J. (2009). The development of skill and tactical competencies during a season of badminton. European Journal of Sport Science, 9(3), 133-140. Hellison, D. (2011). Teaching responsability through physical activity (3 ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinectics. Jewett, A., & Bain, L. (1985). The curriculum process in physical education. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.. 23.

(46) Introduction. Kinchin, G. (2006). Sport education: a view of the research. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald & M. O'Sullivan (Eds.), The Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 596-609). London: Sage. Kirk, D. (1999). Physical culture, physical education and relational analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 4(1), 63-73. Kirk, D. (2010). Physical Education Futures. Oxon: Routledge. Kirk, D. (2013). Educational Value and Models-Based Practice in Physical Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 973-986. Kretchmar, S. (2008). The increasing utility of elementary school physical education: a mixed blessing and unique challenge. The Elementary School Journal, 108(3), 161-170. Lake, J. (2001). oung people’s conceptions of sport, physical education and exercise: implications for physical education. and the promotion of. health-related exercise. European Physical Education Review, 7(1), 8091. Launder, A. (2001). Play Practice: The Games Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sports. Champaign: Human Kinectics. Light, R. (2013). Game Sense: Pedagogy for Performance Participation and Enjoyment. Oxen Abingdon: Routledge. Locke, L. F. (1992). Changing secondary school physical education. Quest, 44(3), 361-372. Mesquita, I. (2012). Fundar o lugar do Desporto na escola através do Modelo de Educação Desportiva. In I. Mesquita & J. Bento (Eds.), Professor de Educação Física: Fundar e dignificar a profissão. Belo Horizonte: Casa da Educação Física. Mesquita, I. (2013). Perspectiva construtivista da aprendizagem no ensino do jogo. In J. V. d. Nascimento, V. Ramos & F. Tavares (Eds.), Jogos Desportivos:. Formação. e. Investigação. (Vol.. 4,. pp.. 103-132).. Florianópolis: UDESC. Mesquita, I., Farias, C., & Hastie, P. A. (2012). The impact of a hybrid Sport Education-Invasion Games Competence Model soccer unit on students'. 24.

(47) Introduction. decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. European Physical Education Review, 18(2), 205-219. Mesquita, I., Graça, A., Gomes, A. R., & Cruz, C. (2005). Examining the Impact of a Step Game Approach to Teaching Volleyball on Student Tactical Decision Making and Skill Execution During Game Play. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 48(6), 469-492. Metzler, M. W. (2011). Instructional Models for Physical Education (3 ed.). Scottsdale, Arizona: Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers, Inc. Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., & Griffin, L. (2003). Sport foundations for elementary physical education: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., & Griffin, L. (2006). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Morgan, K. (2007). Pedagogy for coaches. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), An introduction to sports coaching: From science and theory to practice (pp. 3-14). London: Routledge. Ozoliņš, J. T., & Stolz, S. A. (2013). The Place of Physical Education and Sport in Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 887-891. Penney, D. (1998). Positioning and defining physical education, sport and health in the curriculum. European Physical Education Review, 4(2), 117126. Penney, D., & Evans, J. (1999). Politics, policy and practice in physical education. London: E&FN Spon, Routledge. Pereira, F., Graça, A., Blomqvist, M., & Mesquita, I. (2011). Instructional approaches in youth volleyball training settings according to player's age and gender. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 42(3), 227-244. Pereira, J., Hastie, P. A., Araújo, R., Farias, C., Rolim, R., & Mesquita, I. (2015). A Comparative Study of. Students’ Track and Field Technical. Performance in Sport Education and in a Direct Instruction Approach. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 14(1), 118-127. Pill, S., Penney, D., & Swabey, K. (2012). Rethinking Sport Teaching in Physical Education: A Case Study of Research Based Innovation In. 25.

(48) Introduction. Teacher Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(8), 118138. Placek, J. (1983). Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy and good? In T. J. Templin & K. K. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in Physical Education (pp. 46-56). Champaign: Human Kinetics. Pritchard, T., Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R., & Metzler, J. N. (2008). Effects of Two Instructional Approaches on Skill Development, Knowledge, and Game Performance. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12(4), 219-236. Pritchard, T., McCollum, S., Sundal, J., & Colquit, G. (2014). Effect of the Sport Education Tactical Model on Coeducational and Single Gender Game Performance. The Physical Educator, 71(1), 132-154. Puhse, E., & Gerber, M. (Eds.). (2005). International Comparison of Physical Education: concepts, problems, prospects. Oxford: Meyer. Rink, J. (2001). Investigating the Assumptions of Pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(2), 112-128. Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time and direct instruction. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: concepts, findings and implications. Berkeley, California: Mccutchan. Rossi, T., Fry, J. M., McNeil, M., & Tan, C. W. K. (2006). The games concept approach (GCA) as a mandated practice: Views of Singaporean teachers. Sport Education and Society, 12(1), 93-111. Siedentop, D. (1968). A curriculum theory for physical education in shcools. Indiana: Daryl Siedentop. Doctoral Dissertation presented to the Indiana University. Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport Education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaingn, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. (1995). Improving sport education. ACHPER Australia Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 42(4), 22-24. Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport Education: A Retrospective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(4), 409-418.. 26.

(49) Introduction. Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & Van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete Guide to Sport Education (2 ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, research and practice (2 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Taggart, A. (1988). The endangered species revisited. ACHPER National Journal, 121, 34-50. Taylor, J., & Chiogioji, E. (1987). Implications of physical education report on high school programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 54(8), 22-23. Thorpe, R. (1996). Physical Education: Beyond the curriculum. In A. N. (Ed.), New Directions in Physical Education: Change and Innovation (pp. 144156). London: Cassell. Vanderstraeten, R. (2002). Dewey’s Transactional Constructivism. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(2), 233-246. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A contructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Construtivismo: Aspectos Introdutórios. In C. T. Frosnot (Ed.), Construtivismo: Teoria, Perspetiva e Prática Pedagógica. Porto Alegre: ARTMED. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridgem MA: MIT Press. Wallhead, T., & O'Sullivan, M. (2005). Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2), 181-210. Wallhead, T., & O'Sullivan, M. (2007). A didactic analysis of content development during the peer teaching tasks of a Sport Education season. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12(3), 225-243. Weiner, I. B., Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). Industrial and organizational psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.. 27.

(50)

(51) II. Review Article _________________________________________________ Review of the Status of Learning in Research on Sport Education: Future Research and Practice Rui Araújo 1, Isabel Mesquita 1 and Peter A. Hastie 2 1. Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, CIFI2D,. Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 2 Kinesiology,. Auburn University, Auburn, USA.. Published: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2014), 13(4), 846-858..

(52)

(53) Review Article. Abstract. Research concerning Sport Education’s educational impact has shown unequivocal results according to students’ personal and social development. Nevertheless, research is still sparse with respect to the model’s impact on student learning outcomes. The goal of the present review is to therefore scrutinize what is currently known regarding students’ learning during their participation in Sport Education. This research spans a variety of studies, cross various countries, school grades, the sports studied, as well as the methods applied and dimensions of student learning analyzed. While research on the impact of Sport Education on students’ learning, as well as teachers’ and students’ perceptions about student learning has shown students’ improvements during the participation in Sport Education seasons, there is still considerable variance in these results. For example, some studies report superior learning opportunities to boys and higher skill-level students while other studies have identified superior learning opportunities for girls and lower skill-level students. These inconsistent results can be explained by factors not considered in the Sport Education research, such as the effect of time on students’ learning and the control of the teaching-learning process within Sport Education units. In this review directions for future research and practice are also described. Future research should define, implement, and evaluate protocols for student-coaches’ preparation in order to understand the influence of this issue on students’ learning as well as consider the implementation of hybrid approaches. Moreover, future studies should consider the interaction of gender and skill level and a retention test in the analysis of students’ learning improvements in order to obtain a more realist and complete portrait of the impact of Sport Education. Finally, in order to reach an entirely understanding of the teaching-learning process, it is necessary to use research designs that attend to the complexity of this process.. Key words: Assessment, gender, instructional models, physical education, skill level, students.. 31.

(54) Review Article. Introduction. As a response to the lack of authenticity and meaningfulness of a techniques-centred approach to sport within physical education, Siedentop (1994) developed "Sport Education". The overriding goals of this pedagogical model. are. the. development. of. competent,. literate. and. enthusiastic. sportspersons (Siedentop et al., 2011). Reviews of research on Sport Education (e.g., Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2005) have reported varying degrees of accomplishment of these goals, to the point now where Hastie (2012, p. 10) suggests the following executive summary: “evidence for competency is ‘burgeoning and developing’, support for literacy is ‘emerging’, and that enthusiastic responses by students have been ‘significantly substantiated”. According to Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005), research on Sport Education as a pedagogical model has been framed according to two broad categories: practical strategies required to implement Sport Education (pedagogical strategies, assessment, model application to different areas, etc.) and the educational impact of this model on various dimensions of student learning. With respect to the second of these (Sport Education’s educational impact), research findings have suggested consistent results according to students’ personal and social development, namely their attitudes (enthusiasm, motivation, etc.) and values (affinity, equity, etc.) (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2005). These findings are reflected by teachers’ (Alexander et al., 1996; Strickwerda-Brown and Taggart, 2001) and students’ (Bennett and Hastie, 1997) perceptions as well as empirical measurement (Hastie, 1998b). Nonetheless, research is still sparse with respect to the model’s impact on student learning outcomes (Hastie et al., 2011). This issue is particularly important given that learning is one of the central goals of education, which means that the substantive value of the motor task cannot be underestimated at the expense of group activities and social interaction. The personal and social domain cannot therefore become an end in itself, and it is through the motor task, the pursuit of competence and performance that physical education. 32.