Ben Dyson

Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations

The purpose of this article is to present Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning as valuable instructional models in physical education. Situated learning is used as a theoretical framework and connection between Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning. The structures of Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning allow for participation to occur in a student-centered learning curriculum as opposed to a teacher-centered teaching curriculum. The teacher facilitates learning activities that have the potential to provide students with a holistic education that promotes social, physical, and cognitive learning outcomes. The emphasis is on active learning that involves the processes of decision making, social interaction, and cognitive understanding for students.

Action research in physical education: focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning

This paper reports on the pedagogical changes that I experienced as a teacher engaged in an action research project in which I designed and implemented an indirect, developmentally appropriate and child‐centred approach to my teaching. There have been repeated calls to expunge – or at least rationalise – the use of traditional, teacher‐led practice in physical education. Yet despite the advocacy of many leading academics there is little evidence that such a change of approach is occurring. In my role as teacher‐as‐researcher I sought to implement a new pedagogical approach, in the form of cooperative learning, and bring about a positive change in the form of enhanced pupil learning. Data collection included a reflective journal, post‐teaching reflective analysis, pupil questionnaires, student interviews, document analysis, and non‐participant observations. The research team analysed the data using inductive analysis and constant comparison. Six themes emerged from the data: teaching and learning, reflections on cooperation, performance, time, teacher change, and social interaction. The paper argues that cooperative learning allowed me to place social and academic learning goals on an even footing, which in turn placed a focus on pupils’ understanding and improvement of skills in athletics alongside their interpersonal development.

Using Cooperative Learning Structures in Physical Education.

C ooperative learning is a way of thinking about and implementing physical education that leads to improvements in both teaching and learning. It is defined as small-group instruction and practice that uses positive student interactions as a means of achieving instructional goals. Students work as heterogeneous teams in an inclusive learning environment, with each student’s contribution needed for team goal achievement. Any physical education content can be taught using cooperative learning. Although many physical educators use some form of cooperative learning in their programs, they may not be aware of the elements of cooperative learning that should be considered when designing these activities or of the cooperative learning structures that can assist them in this design. This article presents five such elements and five such structures that physical educators can use to achieve the national standards (National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE] , 1995), particularly standards five, six, and seven, which emphasize social interaction, inclusion, acceptance of others, and the development of cognitive skills. Cooperative learning offers an excellent opportunity for positive outcomes across the psychomotor, cognitive, and affective domains (Dunn &Wilson, 1991). In addition to maximizing practice time, it can teach students responsibility by giving them the power to organize and operate their groups, to give each other feedback, and to collaborate on solutions to their problems (Dyson, in press). Teaching students responsibility is not a new concept in physical education; Hellison (1973) was promoting the incorporation of social responsisilitywithin our programs over 25 years igo. In a 1996 article, he argued that :hanging family structures, increased diversity in student backgrounds, and risk behaviors such as drug use, violence, and dropping out of school had made this concept even more important. He also provided evidence that students can learn to be more responsible when given the appropriate learning experiences. The effects of cooperative leaning have been thoroughly examined in K-12 general education (e.g., see Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Kagan, 1992; Slavin, 1996). Cooperative learning has resulted in benefits such as higher achievement scores, improved inter-group relations, increased ability to work with others, and enhanced self-esteem (Johnson et al., 1981; Kagan, 1992; Slavin, 1996). However, less research on this subject exists in physical education. A few studies have demonstrated that cooperative learning in physical education can enhance social interactions among kindergarten (Grineski, 1989b) and preschool children (Grineski, 1989a), and improve both the social interactions and physical fitness of elementary school children (Grineski, 1993). Dyson (in press) found that fifthand sixthgraders can develop both social and motor skills in cooperative learning volleyball and basketball units. Several other articles have promoted the use of cooperative learning and social skills in physical education. Dunn and Wilson (1991) encouraged teachers to shift responsibility to students in order to engage them in self-directed learning. DeLine (1991) supported the idea of teaching social skills in physical education. He believed that by participating in a woperative social-skills unit at the leginning of the school year, students vould be more able to practice and ipply social skills later in the year. ioder (1993) demonstrated thatwhen tance is taught using cooperative learnng, student achievement increases in 30th dance and social skills. With co>perative learning, the instructor is no onger the sole director of instruction 3ut rather is working to facilitate the ;tudents as thev learn and discover.

Implementing childhood obesity policy in a new educational environment: the cases of Mississippi and Tennessee.

OBJECTIVES Our purpose was to investigate the processes involved in, and outcomes of, implementing 3 new state-level, school-oriented childhood obesity policies enacted between 2004 and 2007. METHODS We followed policy implementation in 8 high schools in Mississippi and Tennessee. We collected data between 2006 and 2009 from interviews with policymakers, administrators, teachers, and students; observations of school-based activities; and documents. RESULTS Significant barriers to the effective implementation of obesity-related policies emerged. These most notably include a value system that prioritizes performances in standardized tests over physical education (PE) and a varsity sport system that negatively influences opportunities for PE. These and other factors, such as resource constraints and the overloading of school administrators with new policies, mitigate against the implementation of policies designed to promote improvements in student health through PE. CONCLUSIONS Policies designed to address health and social problems in high-school settings face significant barriers to effective implementation. To have a broad impact, obesity-related policies must be tied to mainstream educational initiatives that both incentivize, and hold accountable, the school-level actors responsible for their implementation.

The implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research

The purpose of this study was to explore the use of action research as a framework to investigate cooperative learning and tactical games as instructional models in physical education (PE). The teacher/researcher taught a tennis unit using a combination of Cooperative Learning and Teaching Games for Understanding to three classes of boys aged 11—12. Data collection included: teacher and pupil evaluations of skill, pupil reflections on the lessons, pupil interviews, teacher field journal and the documentation and course materials from the unit of work. Data analysis was conducted using inductive analysis and constant comparison (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). The results of this research reinforce the concept that the implementation of any new pedagogical approach is time-consuming and highly labour intensive (Fullan, 1999). The conceptual shift the teacher/researcher made to relinquish control to students was one of the most difficult, but important, outcomes of this action research process.

Health and well-being of secondary school students in New Zealand: Trends between 2001, 2007 and 2012

To describe indicators of health and well‐being for New Zealand secondary school students; explore changes between 2001, 2007 and 2012; and compare these findings to international estimates.

Implementing Cooperative Learning in Elementary Physical Education

C oopera tive learning is an instruc tio nal format in which students work together in small , structured, heterogeneous groups to master th e co n tent of the lesson. Students are responsible not only for learning th e material , but also for helping th ei r group-mat es learn. With cooperative learning, students can improve motor skills, develop sacial skills, wo rk together as a team, help others improve skills, take responsibility for thei r own learning, learn to give and receive feedback, and develop respo nsibility (Dyson, 200 1). For th e last four years, Allison Rubin , an eleme nta ry school teacher, has implemented coo pe ra tive learning in her physical educatio n program at Moh arimet Elementary chool in Madbury, ew Hampshire. Ben Dyson , a un iversity professor, has a ided thi s process with the assistance of studentteach er interns. The intention of thi s article is to present physical ed ucato rs with ideas on how to implement cooperative learning. The article offers a briefbackground of coope ra tive-lea rning eleme nts, discusses the implementation ofcooperative learning, provides an example of a coope rative-lea rn ing unit, and highlights str uggles and co ncerns associated with changes in the curriculum and instruction that result from using coope ra tive learning.

Quality Physical Education: A Commentary on Effective Physical Education Teaching

In my commentary in response to the 3 articles (McKenzie & Lounsbery, 2013; Rink, 2013; Ward, 2013), I focus on 3 areas: (a) content knowledge, (b) a holistic approach to physical education, and (c) policy impact. I use the term quality teaching rather than “teacher effectiveness.” Quality teaching is a term with the potential to move our attention beyond a focus merely on issues of effectiveness relating to the achievement of prespecified objectives. I agree with Ward that teacher content knowledge is limited in physical education, and I argue that if the student does not have a connection to or relationship with the content, this will diminish their learning gains. I also argue for a more holistic approach to physical education coming from a broader conception. Physical educators who teach the whole child advocate for a plethora of physical activity, skills, knowledge, and positive attitudes that foster healthy and active playful lifestyles. Play is a valuable educational experience. I also endorse viewing assessment from different perspectives and discuss assessment through a social-critical political lens. The 3 articles also have implications for policy. Physical education is much broader than just physical activity, and we harm the future potential of our field if we adopt a narrow agenda. Looking to the future, I propose that we broaden the kinds of research that we value, support, and appreciate in our field.

Cooperative Learning that Includes Students with Disabilities

Abstract An effective teaching strategy, cooperative learning promotes student interaction, benefiting students with and without disabilities.

PE Metrics: Background, Testing Theory, and Methods

New testing theories, concepts, and psychometric methods (e.g., item response theory, test equating, and item bank) developed during the past several decades have many advantages over previous theories and methods. In spite of their introduction to the field, they have not been fully accepted by physical educators. Further, the manner in which many assessments are developed and used in physical education has limitations, including isolated test development, weak or poor psychometric quality control, lack of evaluation frameworks, and failure to measure change or growth. To eliminate these shortcomings and meet the needs of standard-based assessment, a major national effort was undertaken to develop an item or assessment bank, called “PE Metrics,” for assessing the national content standards for physical education. After providing a brief introduction to the background of PE Metrics, this article will describe the nature of the testing theory, psychometric methods, and how they were used in the construction of PE Metrics. Constraints of developing such a system are acknowledged, and future directions in physical education assessments are outlined.