Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

A comparison between the old and the new using student-designed games

2,481

Published on

1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Fantastic work, Ash. I'm really finding there are parallels across education in general on the strength of the idea of 'students and creators'. What I really see as the challenge for pre service institutions is the way they respond and prepare up and coming PE teachers for the 21st Century. I get the impression they aren't (i.e the institutions aren't doing their job, and the new teachers aren't ready)
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,481
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Games Making: !A Comparative Study Ashley Casey, Peter Hastie and Steve Jump
  • 2. !A Comparative Study?
  • 3. Traditional
  • 4. Built on curriculum programmes that are “ An inch deep and mile wide”
  • 5. [ ]Multi-activityprogramme
  • 6. “That aspires for children to be Busy, Happy and Good” Placek, 1983
  • 7. Games
  • 8. “ To those looking in from the outside, the playing of games and sport within physical education would seem the raison d’eˆtre of the subject.” Casey & Hastie, 2011
  • 9. “ the experience of a number of students in game contexts has seen significantly negative responses with feelings of alienation and embarrassment” Casey & Hastie, 2011
  • 10. “ to the extent that authors such as Ennis (1996) have suggested more than apologies are necessary.” Casey & Hastie, 2011
  • 11. “ Physical- Education- as-sport- techniques” Kirk, 2010
  • 12. “ Nothing short of a complete reconceptualisation of what Physical Education is and does is needed” Kirk, 2010; Lawson, 2009; Locke, 2000; Siedentop, 2002; Tinning, 2011
  • 13. !A Comparative Study
  • 14. Traditional
  • 15. Games
  • 16. Games Making !
  • 17. Games Making? !
  • 18. “ So long as a child supposes   that everyone necessarily thinks like himself, he will not spontaneously! seek to convince others, common nor to accept truths, nor, above all, to prove or test his opinions.” Piaget (1975, 33)
  • 19. “ Physical- Education- as-sport- techniques” Kirk, 2010
  • 20. “   Student-designed games ‘freed’ children at their own ! to define competition developmental level.” Casey & Hastie, 2011
  • 21. “ The student-designed   games provided a forum ! that allowed students to develop a more sophisticated understanding of game structures and game play” Casey, Hastie & Rovegno, In Press
  • 22. “   as teachers, we should encourage our their personal ! students to challenge constructions of meaning.” Casey, Hastie & Rovegno, In Press
  • 23. !Study
  • 24. !Methodology
  • 25. “used social constructionism   to be ever suspicious of our assumptions about how the world appears to be.” Burr (2003)  
  • 26. “ The idea of learning-by-making. Constructionism shares ‘constructivism’s connotation of learning as “building knowledge structures” irrespective of the circumstances of the learning’ (p. 1).” Harel and Papert (1991)  
  • 27. “ Such development of learning occurred ardently in situations where students are meaningfully engaged in building something in the public domain.” Harel and Papert (1991)  
  • 28. “used social constructionism   Shareable artefacts” Harel & Papert (1991)
  • 29. Sandcastle Traditional
  • 30. Theory of the Universe
  • 31. “ personal   to We should encourage our students ! challenge their constructions of meaning.” Casey, Hastie & Rovegno, In Press
  • 32. Games
  • 33. !Methods
  • 34. Study Site
  • 35. Comprehensive School in Southern England
  • 36. Two teachers
  • 37. Traditional Curriulum
  • 38. 50+ students
  • 39. streamed
  • 40. Two classes
  • 41. selected based upontheir results in maths,English and science in end of key stage 3
  • 42. One higher and one lower in terms ofacademic ability
  • 43. !A Comparative Study
  • 44. 3 lessons a week for 7 weeks
  • 45. No experience of pedagogical models
  • 46. Data Gathering
  • 47. Wiki
  • 48. Interviews
  • 49. Observations
  • 50. Teacherreflections
  • 51. Analysed into themes and subthemes
  • 52. Results
  • 53. re-organising learning understanding rules 1   3   re-­‐organising  learning  re-­‐organising  learning     2   4   Changing motivation ‘clever’ = better games?
  • 54. re-organising learning 1   re-­‐organising  learning  re-­‐organising  learning    
  • 55. “Previously when we taughtthem, it’s a case of we tellingthem everything they needto know about the game…but with this, they’ve had todissect again and build itback up and I think that’sbeen beneficial to a lot ofthem.” Male Teacher  
  • 56. “ They’re not particularly sporty, competitive, or particularly good …to spend the next two years … where we’re saying ‘you need to get better at netball… I think they’re intelligent enough to know ‘why would I want to do that? I don’t particularly enjoy it’ so I think it’s a good change” Female Teacher  
  • 57.  “ it’s like your own idea and you’re not doing something that you were told to do” Female Student  
  • 58.  “ there wasn’t really any boundaries with the game that we could design, so we could be creative and choose whatever we wanted”   Male Student  
  • 59.  “ The beginning bit, when we had to come up with something from scratch, that was quite hard” Female Student  
  • 60. “ I think there’s more of a challenge for the children than there was previously in their lessons, so more of a direction, more of an aim and I feel they’ve got more of a focus in their lessons rather than previously.” Male teacher
  • 61. re-­‐organising  learning  re-­‐organising  learning     2  Changing motivation
  • 62. “ I think PE has been a time to mess about for the whole time I’ve been at school” Male Student  
  • 63. “Usually in PEit’s justlike...sport andyou just play” Male Student  
  • 64. “ I don’t think we were familiar with the situation. Before we were split in to ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ in normal PE but then we got used to it, we knew we needed to work together to achieve.” Male Student  
  • 65. “ It’s like much more fun because in normal PE you have to something and go by your teacher’s rules, this time you can play by your own rules” Female Student
  • 66. “ “I have seen some positive stuff, I’ve seen a few girls that I wouldnt have expected to come forward and not necessarily take them on and take the lead, but are coming up to me and saying, “Miss, I’ve got a really good idea, why dont we do this ...?” Female teacher
  • 67. “ This half-term’s been good because I can look forward to PE now” Female Student  
  • 68. understanding rules 3  re-­‐organising  learning  re-­‐organising  learning    
  • 69. “ They’ve gained knowledge, an understanding of games and how games are created and what makes up a game. Male Teacher  
  • 70. “ Creating a game, thinking of everything and then because it didn’t work, we had to create a new one and that was even harder.” Female Student  
  • 71. “ It’s not just you’re told a game and you do it. You actually have to think more about it ...” Male Student  
  • 72. “ There’s bits we had to make up – rules – and if it doesn’t really, like when you score a goal, you had to make it easier to score goals so the game didn’t slow down and get boring and it was quite hard…” Female Student  
  • 73. “ I think it was really difficult because before we just played a game, we got taught how to play the game and we played it whereas this time you’d got to think more about why other games are like, why other games are good so you’ve got to try and make your game good.” Female Student  
  • 74. “ Learned that it was more than just a game because you had to put more concepts and stuff, and there were more detailed rules as in what would you do if the ball went off the court or something that. You had to get over that and more detailed stuff…” Male Student  
  • 75. re-­‐organising  learning  re-­‐organising  learning     4   ‘clever’ = better games?
  • 76. “ most of the games we’ve made up have all been based on netball so it’s like every lesson we’re doing kinda netball with a twist, which isn’t great for some people” Female Student Lower Ability Class  
  • 77. “ Yeah, it’s really hard not to copy other games because the game that we had was a mix between some games, it was a really good game but it was too much like the other games.” Female student Higher Ability Class
  • 78. “ We had to completely think out of the box ‘cause we were thinking of some games and then we were like ‘oh no, that’s too much like football’ or ‘that’s too much like netball or something’ so we did have to think about that.” Female student Higher Ability Class
  • 79. !Conclusion
  • 80. The pupilsacknowledged thatthey were nowbeing challengedto consider gamesin a new way
  • 81. This was "muchbetter" thantheir priorexperiences ofphysicaleducation.
  • 82. The staff felt thatthe pupils wereable todemonstrate agreater range ofability rather thanjust as performers.
  • 83. “Students demonstrated strengths in either the games making or the changing the game, the playing the game or the explaining the game.” Male Teacher
  • 84. “As one of the students concluded We’ve also found that there is a new game that we can play and nobody else knows about it but us, so kind of makes use special.” Male Student
  • 85. “And in answer to the suggestion that… Nothing short of complete reconceptualisation is needed” Kirk, 2010; Lawson, 2009; Locke, 2000; Siedentop, 2002; Tinning, 2011
  • 86. “And in answer to the suggestion that… Nothing short of complete reconceptualisation is needed” Kirk, 2010; Lawson, 2009; Locke, 2000; Siedentop, 2002; Tinning, 2011
  • 87. Games Making !
  • 88. “ If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less” General Eric Shinsek US Army Chief of Staff (ret.)
  • 89. ReferencesBurr, V. 2003. Social constructionism. London: Routledge.Casey, A. & Hastie, P.A.2011. Students and teacher responses to aunit of student-designed games, Physical Education & SportPedagogy, 16: 3, 295 — 312Casey, A., Hastie, P.A. & Rovegno, I (In Press). Student learningduring a unit of student-designed games, Physical Education & SportPedagogy.Harel, I., and S. Papert. 1991. Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Kirk, D. 2010. Physical education futures. London: Routledge.Piaget, J. 1975. The child’s conception of the world. New York:Rowman & Littlefield.Placek, J. H. 1983. Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy,and good? In T. Templin and J. Olsen (Eds.). Teaching in physicaleducation. (pp. 45-56). Illinois: Human Kinetics.
  • 90. ImagesSlide 3, 14 – Back to school by STEFANOLUNARDI on iStockPhotoSlide 7, 15 – old fashioned basketball court by ryanmcginnisphoto onflickrSlide 30 – Beach toys by Trout55 on iStockPhotoSlide 31 – Free image on computerSlide 33 – Personal ImageSlide 35 - School by Jibby! on Flick

×