THE IMPACT OF GIVING CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS A VOICE USING THE TEACHING GAMES FOR UNDERSTANDING MODEL IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejpe.v8i4.4293Keywords:
special needs, physical education, Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), student voiceAbstract
The impact of the teaching games for understanding model (TGfU) in education has mainly focussed on mainstream children who have not been diagnosed with having an additional or specific educational need (SEN). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the TGfU model by focussing on the feedback of the children about their learning journey. The activity of Table Tennis was used as the teaching medium in which to enact this student’s voice and then the children reviewed their learning by completing a questionnaire after each lesson. The questionnaire was adapted from the previous research of Cervelló et al., (2007) who originally devised a twenty-four-point questionnaire which was shortened to twelve questions for the purpose of this study. The research problem was whether the TGfU model and its principles could be adopted and adapted after giving the SEN students a greater sense of ownership of their own learning. In total, twelve children aged 11-16 from one special school institution were involved in this study and they all had additional learning needs. After a comprehensive literature review, there have been very few research papers which have looked at this specific topic with only one article on this subject coming from Malaysia (Ibrahim, 2021). The findings of this study show that there was a positive change in the levels of communication and control over the learning, social interaction and activity levels as a result of using a models-based approach to learning physical education with SEN children.
Article visualizations:
References
AfPE (2015). Health Position Paper, University of Worcester. Worcester.
Amado D., Del Villar F., Leo F. M., Sánchez-Oliva D., Sánchez-Miguel P. A., García-Calvo T. (2014). Effect of a multi-dimensional intervention programme on the motivation of physical education. PlosOne 9(1): e85275.
Arias-Estero J. L., Castejón F. J., Yuste J. L. (2013). Psychometric properties of the intention to be physically active scale in primary Education]. Revisit the Education 362: 485–505.
Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982). The curriculum model: rethinking games teaching. Loughborough UK: 7-10.
Carifio J., Perla R. J. (2007). Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response Formats and their Antidotes. J Social Sci. 3(3):106.
Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant. Journal of PE & Sport Pedagogy. Volume 19, P18-34.
Casey, A. & Quennerstedt, M. (2015). “I just remember rugby”: Re-membering Physical Education as More Than a Sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. (86) 40–50.
Cervelló E., Moreno J. A., Del Villar F., Queen R. (2007). Development and validation of a measuring instrument of the motivational strategies in physical education classes. Iberoamerican Journal of exercise psychology and sport (2) 53-72.
Cook-Sather, A. (2014). The trajectory of student voice in educational research. N. Z. J. Educ. Stud. 49, 131–148.
Dawes J. (2008). Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used? An experiment Using 5-point, 7 point and 10 Point Scales. Int J Market Res. 51 (1).
Emmer, E. & Evertson, C. (2013). Classroom management for middle and high school teachers. Boston: Pearson.
Forrest, G. J., Pearson, P. J. & Webb, P. I. (2006). Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU); a model for preservice teachers. Fusion Down-under: 1st ICHPER.SD Oceania Congress (pp. 1-10). PENZ Website: PENZ.
Gehlbach, H., & Artino Jr., A. R. (2018). The survey checklist (manifesto). Academic Medicine, 93(3), 360-366.
Goodyear, V. A., Casey, A., and Kirk, D. (2016). Practice architectures and sustainable curriculum renewal. Journal of Curriculum Studies.
Haerens, L. & Kirk, D. (2011). Toward the Development of a Pedagogical Model for Health-Based Physical Education. Quest -Illinois- National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education- 63(3):321-338.
Ibrahim, M. (2021). The Application of Teaching Games for Understanding Using the Traditional Games (TGfU) for Teaching Physical Education for Special Needs Children in Malaysia. Book of PE & Sport for children: best practices. (Pp1-12).
Jaworski, B. (1993). The professional development of teachers – the potential of critical reflection. Journal of in-service education, 19(3), p37-42.
Kirk, D. & Macdonald, D. (2001). Teacher Voice and Ownership of Curriculum Change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, 551-561.
Kirk, D. (2017). Teaching Games in Physical Education: Towards a pedagogical model. Keynote Paper for International Congress of Sports Games.
Lund, J. & Tannehill, D. (2010). Standards-based physical education curriculum development. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Lynch, S., and Curtner-Smith, M. (2019). ‘You have to find your slant, your groove:’ one physical education teacher’s efforts to employ transformative pedagogy. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 24, 359–372.
Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: theory and practice. Routledge.
Metzer, M. (2005). Chapter 8: Direct instruction. In M. Metzler (Ed.), Instructional models for physical education (2nd Ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Hawthorne Hathaway.
O’Leary N. (2014). Learning informally to use teacher games for understanding. The experiences of a recently qualified teacher. European Physical Education Review, 20, 367-384.
Oliver, L. & Nieves, A. (2017). Navigating the benefits and challenges of teaching games for understanding. Autumn Journal of PE Matters. AfPE 55-58.
Singleton, E. (2009). From command to constructivism: Canadian Secondary School Physical Education. Curriculum Enquiry. 39 (2) 321-342.
Wang, L. & Collins, J. (2014). Perceptions of Hong Kong physical education teachers on teaching games for understanding: Implications for continuing professional development. Educational Research Journal, 29, 91-110.
Wang, L. & Ha, A. S. (2009). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of teaching games for understanding. A Hong Kong perspective. European Physical Education Review, 15, 407-429.
Wang, L. & Ha, A. S. (2013). Three groups of teachers’ views, learning experiences and understanding of teaching games for understanding. Physical education and sport pedagogy, 18 (3), 336-350.
Wang, M. & Wang, L. (2018). Teaching games for understanding games intervention to promote physical activity among secondary school students. Biomedicine research international, 20 (8), 1-11.
Webb, P, I., Pearson P. J., & Forrest, G. (2006). Teaching games for understanding in Primary and Secondary PE. John Wiley & Sons.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
