ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY v SCHOOL OF KINESIOLOGY & RECREATION

1. Assessing NASPE Standard 2.3 – Tactical Decision-Making for Large PETE Programs Margo Coleman, Ph.D, Kristin B. Carlson, Ph.D., Skip M. Williams, Ph.D, & Mary L. Henninger, Ed.D. Illinois State University • Procedures cont… • Basketball, Soccer and Volleyball: When play is stopped by the instructor the evaluator should ask the following questions: “What were you thinking about during game play?” and “Is there anything else?” Player responses should be written in the appropriate space provided. • Badminton: Watch your assigned doubles player. There will be 3 instances during the game when you will ask the player questions about their play and jot down their responses. These instances are as follows: anytime there is a 4 contact rally (excluding the serve), stop play and ask the questions. To ensure that each player has 3 responses, if the combined score of the game reaches 15 points (i.e., 9-6, 8-7) and you haven’t gotten 3 responses, then stop play every 4 serves and ask the questions until you get the 3 responses. Questions: What were you thinking? Is there anything else? • Tennis: Watch your assigned doubles player. During the first game of the match, do not ask any questions. Begin the tactical assessment during the second game. There will be 3 instances when you will ask the player questions about their play and jot down their responses. These instances are as follows: Every 4 serves, stop play and ask the questions until you get 3 responses. Questions: What were you thinking? Is there anything else? • Data were collected by peers and recorded verbatim on score sheets. • Data Analysis • Faculty members teaching the courses coded the responses into levels of the Tactical-Decision-making Competency framework (TDC). Through discussion and a form of constant comparison among faculty members, descriptors of each level of TDC were established for each sport. Inter-rater reliability was established by discussing variations in scores until agreement was reached. • Each teacher candidate responded to at least 3 talk aloud episodes where they were asked to comment on their tactical decisions during play. Their coded scores, ranging from 1-4 on the TDC scale for each comment, were summarized and averaged to arrive at a final TDC score for each participant. • Finally, the four levels of the TDC were aligned with the NASPE descriptors of Target, Acceptable, and Unacceptable. Level 1 of TDC was considered Unacceptable, Levels 2 and 3 of TDC were deemed Acceptable and Level 4 of TDC was noted as Target since it represented higher tactical awareness and decision making abilities. Results Example of Student Responses Target (Level 4) “Playing better defense by being in the help side position” – Basketball “Trying to match teammates up to opposing team” – Soccer “ I saw a teammate cut down field so I made the throw-in a little in front of him so he could dribble” – Soccer “I tried to find the open man after I juked the defender” – Soccer “Just trying to get the ball high to give my teammates time to get under for the spike” – Volleyball “We need to create more room to penetrate, set more screens, and help out on defense. – Basketball “Saw they were both left so I smashed to right” – Badminton “I was trying to hit it low so the other team had to loft it” – Badminton “When I saw a drop shot, I thought to hit it to the back on the same side so he couldn’t get it” – Badminton “Saw a poach, so went towards the sideline” – Tennis Acceptable (Level 3 & 2) “Hitting on the outer edges of the court while serving” – Volleyball “I need to cover the open spots when people leave their positions” – Volleyball “Screening for my teammates so they can get open” – Basketball “Switching on defense after a screen” – Basketball “Trying to keep my eyes up to find an open teammate and controlling the ball so it didn’t get stolen” – Soccer “Saw other team by the net so I went for the lob” – Tennis “She was trying to hit the ball to the baseline so she could attack the net with her next shot” – Tennis “Trying to get the serve in and hard for them to get” – Tennis “Trying to cut off angles when playing front/back” – Badminton “Mad at my partner for whiffing at the birdie” – Badminton Unacceptable (level 1 & 0) “Trying to keep my head in the game” – Volleyball “I was thinking about spiking and winning” – Volleyball “Score” – Basketball “Need to play better defense” – Basketball “Pushing the ball up the field” – Soccer “For the love of God, just get it over!” – Tennis “Sun in my eyes” – Tennis “I was hoping to clear but I whiffed” – Badminton “That darn net hit!” – Badminton “I wanted to hit good forehand clears . . . I was disappointed” – Badminton  ”I’m mad at the birdie” – Badminton • Introduction • Competence in sport-related games refers not only to the performance of a particular set of skills, but also to knowing what to do and when to do it in the complex context of game play (Grehaigne, Richard, & Griffin, 2005; Grehaigne & Godbout, 2001; Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986). • Competence in sport-related games can be understood through the theoretical framework of constructivist learning theory (Davis & Sumara, 2003; Light & Fawns, 2001; Rink, French, & Tjeerdsma, 1996; Rovegno, 1998; Rovegno & Dolly,2006). • From a constructivist perspective, learning includes both an implicit understanding of pertinent information and an explicit application of that understanding during game play (Light, 2008). • Implicit understanding, or the understanding that is not consciously apparent during game play, is the focus of the framework for developing and assessing TDC. • The TDC framework currently breaks down complex invasion and net/wall games into levels of tactical decision-making based upon what students are thinking about while engaging in game play. Level 1: students who are only thinking about themselves and/or skill performance; Level 2: students are thinking about themselves and their teammates; Level 3: student begin to think about their opponents; Level 4: Students think about the game situation (e.g., game score, court conditions, or environmental conditions) and/or specific plans for scoring or winning. • Purpose • The purposes of this study were: • Determine the Tactical Decision-making Competency (TDC) of physical education teacher education (PETE) teacher candidates in a large PETE program • Determine PETE teacher candidates’ ability to collect accreditation data within regularly scheduled class time. • Methods • Participants & Setting • Participants included physical education majors enrolled in two required courses, Teaching Team Sports (N = 45) and Teaching Individual/Dual Sports and Activities (N = 66). Data were collected over two consecutive semesters. • Procedures • A protocol was established to collect data during class time. The protocol varied slightly to accommodate the differences in game play between the team sports and dual sports to ensure that time was allowed for tactical complexity to occur before asking the talk aloud questions: “What were you thinking about on that last play?” and “Is there anything else?” *Due to injury, some students were unable to participate in the assessment Conclusions Three main conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, it is possible to collect TDM data within a large PETE program and within the confines of a class. Second, teacher candidates can be taught to collect data and additionally will benefit from a better understanding of tactics. Third, as a form of program review, the process identified teacher candidates’ tactical strengths and weaknesses during game play; which in turn will help inform teacher preparation program practices. Key References Light, R. (2008). Complex learning theory- Its epistemology and its assumptions about learning: Implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 21- 37. Pagnano-Richarson, K. & Henninger, M. (2008). A model for developing and assessing tactical decision-making competency during game play. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 79(3), 24-29. Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (1986). Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough, U.K.: University Technology, Department of Physical Education and Sport Science. Contact Information Margo Coleman at mmcolem@ilstu.edu; Kristin Carlson at kbcarls@ilstu.edu Skip Williams at swillia@ilstu.edu; Mary Henninger at mlhenni@ilstu.edu ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITYvSCHOOL OF KINESIOLOGY & RECREATION