University students’ subject matter knowledge and misconception of teaching games for understanding and its implication to teaching practice

Julismah Jani

University students’ subject matter knowledge and misconception of teaching games for understanding and its implication to teaching practice

AVAILABLE Article 232 Views

Back to search

Scan QR Code to share or view item link:

Digital Assets & Download Files

General Information Cached

Title

University students’ subject matter knowledge and misconception of teaching games for understanding and its implication to teaching practice

Type

Article

Main Author

Julismah Jani

Additional Authors

Pearson, Phil
Forrest, Greg
Webb, Paul

Subject

LB Theory and practice of education

ISSN

2232-0458 /eISSN 2550-1771

Language Code

eng

Bibliographic Details

Place of Production

Tanjong Malim

Publisher

Fakulti Pembangunan Manusia

Year of publication

2012

Notes

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2012): Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education (JRPPTTE)

Degree Type

Others

Corporate Name

Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun

Abstract

This study is to track the subject matter knowledge of and misconception about Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) of fourth year undergraduate preservice teachers_ physical education majors at an Australian university. The test of reliability on misconception scale are subjected to a Rasch analysis (KR-20 = .52) which consists of 20 dichotomous questions with true/false answers. Analyses of the data reveal that students achieve a credit on subject matter knowledge and attain four misconceptions about TGfU. There is a significant (p < 0.05) difference in the scores for subject matter knowledge and concepts of TGfU through paired samples t test. These results imply that subject matter knowledge does have an effect on students_ concepts of TGfU but with very low relationship (r(53 = .19, p < 0.05). The implication of content knowledge to teaching is to resist the pre-concept or misconception of the subject matter. If pre-service teachers are to improve the quality of teaching and learning in content areas, he or she needs to possess a deep understanding of games both within and across categories in TGfU. Misconceptions tend to be very resistant to instruction because learning entails replacing or radically reorganizing student knowledge. This puts teachers in the very challenging position of needing to bring about significant conceptual change in student knowledge. Therefore preservice teachers must know the subject matter they teach and their performance will be determined by the depth of their content knowledge in relation to teaching, making this an essential component to their teaching practice. Teachers must know the subject they teach and this is important to teacher competency. Key words: Teaching games; content knowledge; subject matter knowledge; misconception; teaching practice.

References

Adams, D. (20ll). Scholarly summary. Retrieved September 19, 2011, from http://

education2.uvic.ca/Faculty/thopper/tactic/Annotations/Theoretical/Hopper

%2003.

Almond, L. (1986). Asking teacher to research (35-44). In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L.

Almond, (Eds.). Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: University of

Technology, Loughborough.

Ayvazo, S., Ward, P., & Stuhr, P. T. (2010). Teaching and assessing content knowledge

in Pre service Physical Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &

Dance, 81(4), 40-44.

Bell, R., & Hopper, T. (2003). Space the first frontier: Tactical awareness in teaching

games for understanding. Physical and Health Education Journal, 69(1), 4-7.

Bond, C. & Fox, M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in

the human sciences, (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers:

Mahwah, New Jersey London.

Bunker, D. J. & Thorpe, R. D. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary

schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 1-10.

Bunker, D. J. & Thorpe, R. D. (1986). From theory to practice (11-16). In R. Thorpe, D.

Bunker, & L. Almond, (Eds.). Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough:

University of Technology, Loughborough.

Butler, J. I., & McCahan, B. J. (2005). Teaching Games for Understanding as a

curriculum model (32-54). In L. L. Griffin, & J. I. Butler (Eds.). Teaching

games for understanding: Theory, research, and practice. Windsor, ON: Human

Kinetics.

Chow, J, I., Davids, Button, C., K., Shutleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo., D. (2007).

The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational

Research, 77(3), 251-278.

Edwards, K., & Brooker, R. (2000). Teaching with a 'dimensions of learning' framework

to promote intelligent performance in high school physical education. Paper

presented at: 2000 Pre-Olympic Congress: Sports Medicine and Physical

Education International Congress on Sport Science. Brisbane, Queensland 7-13

September 2000.

Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (1995). Subject-matter knowledge and knowledge about students

as sources of teacher presentations of the subject matter. Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 29(1), 1-20.

Faculty of Education (2011). Final grades of performance for undergraduate. Faculty of

Education Handbook 2011, p. 41.

Forrest, G., Webb, P., & Pearson, P. (2006). Teaching games for understanding (TGfU):

A model for pre service teachers. Asia Pacific Conference on Teaching Sport

and Physical Education for Understanding. University of Sydney 14-15

December 2006.

Goulding, M., Rowland, T., & Barber, P. (2002). Does it matter? Primary teacher

trainees‟ subject knowledge in mathematics. British Educational Research

Journal, 28(5), 689-704.

Griffin, L., & Butler, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory,

research, and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A reexamination

of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 4(1),53–62.

Hopper, T. (2001). What is a TGfU approach to games teaching and what's wrong with

teaching skills? Tactic-to-skill games teaching. JOPERD, July 2001. Revised

November, 2001.

Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student

emphasis over content emphasis. JOPERD, 73(7), 44-48.

Hopper, T. (2009). Game-as-teacher in TGfU and Video-games: Enabling constraints in

learning through game-play. Extended paper based on Keynote address,

ACHPER 2009 Brisbane, Australia.

Hopper, T., & Kruisselbrink, D. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: What does it

look like and how does it influence student skill learning and game

performance? AVANTE, July 2002.

Kandel, I. L. (2002). Knowledge bases of teaching. Gale Encyclopaedia of Education.

http://www.answers.com/library/Education%20Encyclopedia-cid-13576171

Light, R. (2006). Game sense: Innovation or just good coaching? Journal of Physical

Education New Zealand, 39(1), 8- 19.

Lucariello, J. (2011). How do I get my students over their alternative conceptions

(misconceptions) for learning? Teacher’s Modules. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Orphanos, S. A. (2008). Do good grades make a good teacher? An investigation of the

relationship between teachers’ academic performance and perceived teacher

effectiveness in Cyprus. Ph D Dissertation. UMI Microform 3332998 ProQuest

LCC: Ann Abor, MI.

Pearson, P. & Webb, P. (2008). Developing effective questioning in teaching games for

understanding (TGfU). A paper presented at the 1st Asia Pacific Sport in

Education Conference, Adelaide, 2008.

Reany, P. (1988). What is knowledge? Arizona Journal of Natural Philosophy, Vol. 2,

March 1988, pp. 7-14. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from http://www.worldmysteries.

com/sci_knowledge.htm.

Rice, J. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.

Washington DC: Economic Policy Institue.

Robinson, D. (2011). Possibilities for physical education teacher education: Service

learning and TGfU. PHENex Journal 3(1),1-16.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review.57(1), 1-22.

Subject outline: EDPM202: Teaching and learning net court, striking and target games.

Undergraduate Education, Faculty of Education. Springs Session 2009.

Subject outline: EDPM301: Teaching and learning invasion games. Undergraduate

Education, Faculty of Education. Autumn Session 2010.

Turner, A. (2005). Teaching and learning games at the secondary level (71-90). In L. L.

Griffin, & J. I. Butler (Eds.). Teaching games for understanding: Theory,

research, and practice. Windsor, ON: Human Kinetics.

Ward, P. (2009). Content matters: Knowledge that alters teaching (345-356). In L. D.

Housner, M. W. Metzler, P. G. Schempp, & T. J. Templin (Eds.), Historic

traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher education

in physical education. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Webb, P. I., & Pearson, P. J. (2008). An integrated approach to teaching games for

understanding (TGfU). Retrieved September 19, 2011, from

http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/52.

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.