(Reinforcing) factors influencing a physical education teacher’s use of the direct instruction model teaching games

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore how a physical education (PE) teacher employed the direct instruction model (DIM) teaching games in a United Kingdom secondary school. The research sought to identify how the teacher utilised the DIM and those factors that influenced his use of the model. Occupational socialization was used to identify the factors that encouraged his use of the DIM. Data were collected from interviews and lesson observations. Inductive data analysis showed that while the teacher presented a ‘full version’ of the DIM, his limited content knowledge impacted on the use of the model in teaching cricket. Factors influencing his use of the model were a sporting perspective, a Post Graduate Certificate in Education mentor and the ability and behaviour of the students. These factors reinforced his undergraduate learning and subsequent use of the DIM. It is suggested that the comparable backgrounds of many PE student teachers may make the DIM an apt model to learn in undergraduate and postgraduate PE courses. However, effective use of the model requires students to be taught and to possess in-depth content knowledge of the game(s)/activities being taught and learned.

The factors influencing two primary teachers’ interpretation of games

“…Both teachers had an emphasis on technical learning. Tony, like many teachers (Capel 2007;Curtner-Smith et al 2001;Jayantilal and O'Leary 2017), spent large amounts of time teaching pupils how to perform techniques, through decontextualised drills and the use of technical teaching points and feedback. In accordance with Metzler (2011), therefore, he appears to have followed the technical model.…”

“…On the contrary, Tonywho taught techniques before playing a full-sized game (where strategic learning was usually coincidental)rejected the idea of game-centred pedagogy. Indeed, Tonylike many PE teachers (Jayantilal and O'Leary 2017;Kirk 2009; Metzler 2011)did not mention the importance strategic or tactical understanding during both interviews whatsoever. Both teachers' different learning priorities influenced their use of teaching styles.…”

“…However, given the ever-changing nature of games, where children are required to make rapid decisions, productive teaching styleswhich encourage learners to think in order to solve problemsare of tantamount importance to facilitate children's understanding of games (Mosston and Ashworth 2002). Despite such recommendations, academic research (Capel 2007;Curtner-Smith et al 2001;Jayantilal and O'Leary 2017;Kirk 2009;Metzler 2011) and Ofsted reports (Ofsted 2004(Ofsted , 2009(Ofsted , 2013 suggest that the technical model has dominated games teaching and learning. This modelusually through a warm-up, decontextualised technical drills and a full-sized gameconsists of pupils repetitively practising sports techniques abstracted from the game situation (Metzler 2011).…”

“…Four factors regularly appear to influence teachers' games perspectives. Examining the factors affecting a PE teacher's use of the Direct Instructional Model (DIM) (Metzler 2011), Jayantilal and O'Leary (2017) discovered that the participant's prior experiences of PE and sport influenced their delivery of cricket. Participating in PE and traditional team games during childhood and interacting with practitioners and coaches, the participating teacher acquired a 'sporting perspective'.…”

“…Such acculturative experiences can cause teachers to perpetuate largely ineffective pedagogical practices (Light and Georgakis 2005;Randall and Maeda 2010). Here the teacher's 'sporting perspective' facilitated his delivery of technique-orientated instruction, use of reproductive teaching styles and behaviourist learning theory (Jayantilal and O'Leary 2017).…”