Factors influencing pre-service teachers' perception of teaching games for understanding: A constructivist perspective

Sport, Education and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 261-280

  Wang, Lijuan ^a   Ha, Amy S ^b  

^a SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY OF SPORT   (China)

^b CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Constructivism; PE; Pre service teachers; TGfU

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859404770     PISSN: 13573322     EISSN: 14701243     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2011.607954     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Bechtel, P. A. and O'Sullivan, M. 2007. Enhancers and inhibitors of teacher change among secondary physical educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26(3): 221-235.
2. Boghossian, P. 2006. Behaviorism, constructivism, and socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6): 713-722.
3. Bunker, D. and Thorpe, R. 1982. A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school. Bulletin of Physical Education, 10: 9-16.
4. Burbank, M. D. and Kauchak, D. 2003. An alternative model for professional development: investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5): 499-514.
5. Butler, J. 2005. TGfU pet-agogy: old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10(3): 225-240.
6. Butler, J. I. and McCahan, B. J. 2005. "Teaching games for understanding as a curriculum model". In Teaching games for understanding. Theory, research and practice, Edited by: Griffin, L. L. and Butler, J. I. 33-55. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
7. Cobb, P. 2005. Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8. Corcoran, T. B., Shields, P. M. and Zucker, A. A. 1998. Evaluation of NSF's statewide systemic initiatives (SSI) program: The SSIs and professional development for teachers, Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
9. Cothran, D. J. 2001. Curricular change in physical education: success stories from the front line. Sport, Education & Society, 6(1): 67-79.
10. Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research method: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd. edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Cruz, A. 2004. Teachers' and students' perceptions of teaching games for understanding approach in physical education lessons. Journal of Physical Education & Recreation (Hong Kong), 10(2): 57-66.
12. Curriculum Development Council (CDC) 2002 Physical education: key learning area curriculum guide (Primary 1-Secondary 3) (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,The Education Department).
13. Curriculum Development Council (CDC) & Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) 2007 Physical education key learning area- physical education curriculum and assessment guide (Hong Kong, Education and Manpower Bureau).
14. Darling-Hammond, L. and Bransford, J. 2005. Preparing teachers for a changing world: what teachers should learn and be able to do, New York: Jossey-Bass.
15. Day, C. 2002. School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37: 677-692.
16. Education Commission 2002 Education reform progress report on the education reform Hong Kong Government,Education Commission, Hong Kong.
17. Ennis, C. D. 1994. Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise. Quest, 46(2): 164-175.
18. Ennis, C. D. 2006. Curriculum: forming and reshaping the vision of physical education in a high need, low demand world of schools. Quest, 58: 41-59.
19. Fosnot, C. T. 1993. Rethinking science education: a defense of Piagetian constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9): 1189-1201.
20. Fosnot, C. 2005. Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
21. Fosnot, C. T. and Perry, R. S. 2005. "Constructivism: a psychological theory of learning". In Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice, Edited by: Fosnot, C. T. 8-38. New York: Teacher's College Press.
22. Freiberg, J. 1999. Beyond behaviorism: changing the classroom management paradigm, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23. Fullan, M. 1999. Change forces: the sequel, London: Falmer.
24. Fullan, M. 2003. Change agent. Journal of Staff Development, 24(1): 55-58.
25. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. and Yoon, K. S. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4): 915-945.
26. Griffin, L., Mitchell, S. and Oslin, J. 1997. Teaching sport concepts and skills a tactical games approach, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
27. Guskey, T. R. 2002. Professional development and teacher change. Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3): 381-391.
28. Ha, A. S., Butler, J. I., Pratt, D. D. & Collins, J. B. 2008 Vancouver Canada May Teaching games for understanding: a study of Hong Kong prospective physical education teachers' beliefs, intentions and actions in teaching. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference 2008-Understanding Games: Enhancing Learning in Teaching and Coaching.
29. Ha, A. S., Lee, J. C., Chan, D. W. and Sum, R. K. 2004. Teachers' perceptions of in-service teacher training to support curriculum change in physical education: the Hong Kong experience, Sport. Education & Society, 9(3): 421-438.
30. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A. and Wearne, D. 1996. Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: the case of mathematics. Educational researcher, 25(12): 12-21.
31. Holt, N. L., Strean, L. and Bengoechea, W. B. 2002. Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: new avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21: 177-192.
32. Huba, M. E and Freed, J. E. 2000. Learner-centred assessment on college campuses, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
33. Jeffrey, B. 2003. Countering learner instrumentalism through creative mediation. British Education Research Journal, 29(4): 489-503.
34. Jenkins, J. M., Garn, A. and Jenkins, P. 2005. Preservice teacher observations in peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24: 2-23.
35. Kirk, D. and McPhail, A. 2002. Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: re-thinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21: 177-192.
36. Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.
37. Kwon, Y. I. 2002. Western influence in Korean preschool education. International Education Journal, 3(3): 153-164.
38. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Li, C. and Cruz, A. 2006. "Learning to teach games for understanding: experiences from four pre-service physical education teachers in the Hong Kong Institute of Education ". In Teaching games for understanding in the Asia-Pacific region, Edited by: Liu, R., Li, C. and Cruz, A. 25-36. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.
40. Light, R. 2002. The social nature of games: Australian pre-service primary teachers' first experiences of Teaching Games for Understanding. European Physical Education Review, 8(3): 286-304.
41. Light, R. 2003. "Pre-service primary teachers' responses to TGfU in an Australian university: no room for heroes". In Teaching game for understanding in physical education and sport, Edited by: Butler, J., Griffin, L., Lombardo, B. and Nastaasi, R. 67-75. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
42. Light, R. and Butler, J. 2005. A personal journey: TGfU teacher development in Australia and the USA. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10(3): 241-254.
43. Light, R. and Fawns, R. 2003. Knowing the game: integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest (00336297), 55(2): 161-176.
44. Light, R. and Tan, S. 2006. Culture, embodied experience and teachers' development of TGFU in Australia and Singapore. European Physical Education Review, 12(1): 99-117.
45. Liu, Y. K. 2002. Games teaching: teaching games for understanding, Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.
46. Liu, Y. K. 2004 Australia Teaching games for understanding: implementation in Hong Kong context. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding.
47. McNeill, M. C., Fry, J. M., Wright, S. C., Tan, W.K.C., Tan, K. S. S. and Schempp, P. G. 2004. In the local context': Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum, Sport. Education and Society, 9(1): 3-32.
48. Merriam, S. 1998. Case study research in education: a qualitative approach, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49. Meyer-Botnarescue, H. and Machado, J. M. 2004. Student teaching: early childhood practicum guide, 5rd edn, Albany: Delmar.
50. Ministry of Education 2006 Physical education syllabus (Primary, Secondary, Pre-University) Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Singapore.
51. National Curriculum 2007 Physical education programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment target Qualification and Curriculum Authority, London.
52. Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53. Penney, D. 2008. Playing a political game and playing for position: policy and curriculum development in health and physical education. European Physical Education Review, 14(1): 33-49.
54. Penney, D. and Jess, M. 2004. Physical education and physically active lives: a lifelong approach to curriculum development, Sport. Education and Society, 9(2): 269-287.
55. Piaget, J. 1970. Biology and knowledge: an essay on the relations between organic regulations and cognitive processes, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56. Pissanos, B. W. and Allison, P. C. 1996. Continued professional learning: a topical life history. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(1): 2-19.
57. Pope, C. C. and O'Sullivan, M. 1998. Culture, pedagogy and teacher change in an urban high school: how would you like your eggs done? Sport. Education & Society, 3(2): 201-226.
58. Randall, L. 2008. Implementing TGfU in the field. Physical and Health Education Journal, 74(2): 16-20.
59. Rikard, G. L. and Knight, S. M. 1997. Obstacles to professional development: interns' desire to fit in, get along, and be real teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(4): 440-453.
60. Rossi, T., Fry, J., McNeill, M. and Tan, C. 2007. The games concept approach (GCA) as a mandated practice: views of Singaporean teachers. Sport, Education & Society, 12(1): 93-111.
61. Rovegno, I. 1992. Learning a new curricular approach: mechanisms of knowledge acquisition in pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8: 253-264.
62. Rovegno, I. and Bandhauer, D. 1997a. Psychological dispositions that facilitated and sustained the development of knowledge of a constructivist approach to Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(2): 136-154.
63. Rovegno, I. and Bandhauer, D. 1997b. Norms of the school culture that facilitated teacher adoption and learning of a constructivist approach to physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(4): 401-425.
64. Schoenfeld, A. 2006. What doesn't work: the challenge and failure of the what works clearing house to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2): 13-21.
65. Taylor, E.W. 2007. An updated transformative learning theory: a critical review of the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26: 173-191.
66. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological process (trans. M. Cole), London: Harvard University Press.
67. Ward, P. and Doutis, P. 1999. Toward a consolidation of the knowledge base for reform in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18(4): 382-402.
68. Webber, R.P. 1990. Basic content analysis, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
69. Wong, A. and Louie, L. 2002. What professional educators can learn from practicing physical education teachers?. The Physical Educator, 59(2): 90-104.
70. Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, J., Tan, S., Tan, C. and Schempp, P. 2006. Implications of student teachers' implementation of a curricular innovation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25: 310-328.