The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 77, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 251-278

  Chow, Jia Yi ^a   Davids, Keith ^b   Button, Chris ^c   Shuttleworth, Rick ^d   Renshaw, Ian ^b   Araújo, Duarte ^e  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^d AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LISBON   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Manipulation of constraints; Nonlinear pedagogy; Physical education; Teaching games for understanding (TGfU)

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548625968     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/003465430305615     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Abernethy, B. (1994). The nature of expertise in sport. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, & V. Pataco (Eds.), International perspectives on sport and exercise psychology (pp. 57-68). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
2. Alison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus a games for understanding approach. British Journal of Physical Education, 28(3), 9-13.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Araújo, D., Davids, K., Bennett, S., Button, C., & Chapman, G. (2004). Emergence of sport skills under constraint. In A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 409-433). London: Taylor & Francis.
5. Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The control and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon.
6. Brisson, T. A., & Alain, C. (1996). Should common optimal movement patterns be identified as the criterion to be achieved? Journal of Motor Behavior, 28, 211-223.
7. Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.
8. Carson, R. G., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2004). Governing coordination: Behavioral principles and neural correlates. Experimental Brain Research, 154, 267-274.
9. Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2006). Nonlinear pedagogy: A constraints-led framework to understand emergence of game play and skills. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 10(1), 74-104.
10. Davids, K., & Araújo, D. (2005). A constraints-based framework for the organization of sport coaching. In D. Araújo (Eds.), O contexto da decisão: A acção táctica em desportos dinâmicos (pp. 35-60). Lisbon, Portugal: Edições Visão e Contextos.
11. Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. J. (2007). Acquiring movement skill: A constraintsled perspective. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
12. Davids, K., Shuttleworth, R., Araújo, D., & Renshaw, I. (2003). Understanding constraints on physical activity: Implications for motor learning theory. In R. Arellano & A. Oria (Ed.), Proceedings of Second World Congress on Science of Physical Activity and Sports (pp. 56-77). Granada, Spain: University of Granada Press.
13. Davids, K., Williams, M., Button, C., & Court, M. (2001). An integrative modeling approach to the study of intentional and movement behavior. In R. Singer, H. Housenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 144-173). New York: John Wiley.
14. den Duyn, N. (1996, Spring). Why it makes sense to play games! Sports Coach, pp. 7-9.
15. French, K. E., & McPherson, S. L. (2004). The development of expertise. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 403-424). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
16. French, K. E., Spurgeon, J. H., & Nevett, M. E. (1995). Expert-novice differences in cognitive and skill execution components of youth baseball performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(3), 194-201.
17. French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Rink, J. E., Taylor, K., & Hussey, K. (1996). The effects of a 3-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 418-438.
18. French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones, J. (1996). The effects of a 6-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 439-463.
19. Gabriele, T. E., & Maxwell, T. (1995). Direct versus indirect methods of squash instruction [abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(Suppl.), A-63.
20. Gibson, J. J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
21. Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest, 47, 490-505.
22. Gréhaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1997). Performance assessment in team sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 500-516.
23. Griffin, L. L., Brooker, R., & Patton, K. (2005). Working towards legitimacy: Two decades of Teaching Games for Understanding. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 213-223.
24. Griffin, L. L., Butler, J., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (2003). An introduction to teaching games for understanding. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport (pp. 1-9). Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education Publications.
25. Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
26. Griffin, L. L., Oslin, J. L., & Mitchell, S. A. (1995). An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching net games [abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(Suppl.), A-64.
27. Griffin, L. L., & Sheehy, D. A. (2004). Using the tactical games model to develop problem-solvers in physical education. In J. Wright, D. Macdonald, & L. Burrows (Eds.), Critical inquiry and problem-solving in physical education (pp. 33-48). London: Routledge.
28. Handford, C., Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Button, C. (1997). Skill acquisition in sport: Some applications of an evolving practice ecology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15, 621-640.
29. Holt, J. E., Ward, P., & Wallhead, T. L. (2006). The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young adult soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 101-118.
30. Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B., & Bengoechea, E. G. (2002). Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 162-176.
31. Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 73(1), 44-48.
32. Jacobs, D. M., & Michaels, C. F. (2002). On the apparent paradox of learning and realism. Ecological Psychology, 14, 127-139.
33. Jewett, A. E., Bain, L. L., & Ennis, C. D. (1995). The curriculum process in physical education. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
34. Jirsa, V. K., & Kelso, J.A.S. (2004). Coordination dynamics: Issues and trends. New York: Springer-Verlag.
35. Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Kidman, L. (2001). Developing decision makers. An empowerment approach to coaching. Wellington, New Zealand: Innovative Print Communication.
37. Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177-192.
38. Kugler, P., Kelso, J. S., & Turvey, M. (1982). On the control and coordination of naturally developing systems. In J. S. Kelso & J. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and coordination (pp. 5-78). New York: John Wiley.
39. Kugler, P., Shaw, R., Vincente, K., & Kinsella-Shaw, J. (1990). Inquiry into intentional systems: issues in ecological physics. Psychological Research, 52, 98-121.
40. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in games. Bulletin of Physical Education, 25(1), 35-38.
42. Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55, 161-176.
43. McMorris, T. (1998). Teaching Games for Understanding: Its contribution to the knowledge of skill acquisition from a motor learning perspective. European Journal of Physical Education, 3, 65-74.
44. McNeill, M. C., Fry, J. M., Wright, S. C., Tan, W. K. C., Tan, K. S. S., & Schempp, P. G. (2004). "In the local context": Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport, Education and Society, 9(1), 3-32.
45. Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L., & Oslin, J. L. (1995). The effects of two instructional approaches on game performance. Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching in Physical Education and Sports, 7(1), 36-48.
46. Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1999). An investigation of tactical understanding in net games. European Journal of Physical Education, 4, 162-172.
47. Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2005). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
48. Newell, K. M. (1985). Coordination, control and skill. In D. Goodman, I. Franks, & R. B. Wilberg (Eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control (pp. 295-317). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
49. Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children. Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341-360). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
50. Newell, K. M. (1996). Change in movement and skill: Learning, retention and transfer. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 393-430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Newell, K. M., Broderick, M. P., Deutsch, K. M., & Slifkin, A. B. (2003). Task goals and change in dynamical degrees of freedom with motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 379-387.
52. Newell, K. M., & McDonald, P. V. (1991). Practice: A search for task solutions. In R. Christina & H. M. Eckert (Eds.), Enhancing human performance in sport: New concepts and developments (pp. 51-60). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
53. Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Griffin, L. L. (1995). The Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation [abstract]. Research Quarterly Exercise and Sport, 66(Suppl.), A-66.
54. Rink, J. (1993). Teaching physical education for learning. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
55. Rink, J. E. (1996). Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 397-516.
56. Rink, J. E. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 112-128.
57. Rink, J. E. (2005). Teaching physical education for learning (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
58. Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Graham, K. C. (1996). Implications for practice and research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 490-502.
59. Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996). Foundations for the learning and instruction of sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 399-417.
60. Rossi, T. (2003). Linking games for understanding with dynamic systems of skill acquisition: Old milk in new bottles or have we really got a new research agenda in physical education and sport? In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport (pp. 321-344). Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education Publications.
61. Rovegno, I., & Kirk, D. (1995). Articulations and silences in socially critical work on physical education: Toward a broader agenda. Quest, 47, 447-474.
62. Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Learning and teaching invasion-game tactics in 4th grade: Introduction and theoretical perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 341-351.
63. Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., Brock, S., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Teaching and learning basic invasion-game tactics in 4th grade: A descriptive study from situated and constraints theoretical perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 370-388.
64. Siedentop, D., Herkowitz, J., & Rink, J. (1984). Elementary physical education methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
65. Strean, W. B., & Bengoechea, E. G. (2003). Beyond technical vs tactical: Extending the games-teaching debate. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport (pp. 181-188). Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education Publications.
66. Thelen, E. (1995). Motor development. A new synthesis. American Psychologist, 50(2), 79-95.
67. Thorpe, R. (1990). New directions in games teaching. In N. Armstrong (Ed.), New directions in P.E. (Vol. 1, pp. 79-100). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
68. Thorpe, R. (2001). Rod Thorpe on teaching games for understanding. In L. Kidman (Eds.), Developing decision makers. An empowerment approach to coaching (pp. 22-36). Wellington, New Zealand: Innovative Print Communication.
69. Turner, A. (1996). Myth or reality? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46-49.
70. Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. (1992). A comparative analysis of two models for teaching games (technique approach and game-centered-tactical focus-approach). International Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15-31.
71. Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. (1995). Teaching for understanding: A model for improving decision making during game play. Quest, 47, 44-63.
72. Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge, and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3), 286-296.
73. Van Gelder, T., & Port, R. F. (1995). Explorations in the dynamics of cognition: Mind as motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74. Vereijken, B., & Whiting, H. T. (1990). In defence of discovery learning. Canadian Journal of Sport Psychology, 15, 99-109.
75. Werner, P., & Almond, L. (1990). Models of games education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 61, 23-27.
76. Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: Evolution of a model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28-33.
77. Williams, A. M., Davids, K., & Williams, J. G. (1999). Visual perception and action in sport. London: E & FN Spon.
78. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constuctivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
79. Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, J., & Wang, J. (2005). Teaching teachers to play and teach games. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 61-82.
80. Wulf, G., & Shea, C. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 185-211.
81. Xiang, P., McBride, R. E., & Solmon, M. A. (2003). Motivational climates in ten teachers' elementary physical education classes: An achievement theory approach. Elementary School Journal, 104, 71-92.