The Utility of Game-Based Approaches within the PE Curriculum Design and Implementation Process to Develop “More Knowledgeable Others”

Abstract

This article presents information relating to the use of a specific family of pedagogical approaches, namely gamebased approaches (GBAs), as a means to design physical education curricula that develops and recognizes learners as MKOs. Also discussed is Wiggins and McTighe's (2005) Understanding by Design framework and its use in designing a PE curriculum that aligns to the key features of GBA implementation. Finally, strategies are presented to help teachers overcome common challenges of GBA implementation so that more MKOs are recognized and developed in our PE classes.

A fundamental premise of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of cognitive development was the role that social interaction played in the development of cognition. This social interaction (the sharing of language) was often initiated by recognition of a more knowledgeable other (MKO), which can be defined as any agent who leads to “greater learning in the less knowledgeable” (Huong, 2007, p. 332). If then, as Vygotsky (1978) proposed, the elements of language and community are considered as being pivotal to meaning making, then how we develop more MKOs in our physical education (PE) classes should become a central consideration of PE curriculum design and development. With the development of learners as MKOs being a product of a teacher’s pedagogical choice, the role of pedagogy in the curriculum design and development process becomes ­pivotal. This article presents information relating to the use of a specific family of pedagogical approaches, namely game-based approaches (GBAs), as a means to design PE curricula that develop and recognize learners as MKOs. Also discussed is Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) Understanding by Design framework and its use in designing a PE curriculum that aligns to the key features of GBA implementation. Finally, strategies are presented to help teachers overcome the common GBA implementation challenge of effective teacher questioning.

This article presents information relating to the use of a specific family of pedagogical approaches, namely game-based approaches (GBAs), as a means to design PE curricula that develop and recognize learners as MKOs.

Curriculum Development in Physical Education

When considering the history of curriculum development in PE, scholars have viewed mid-1980s research into models-based practices and an increased interest in media sport and new recreational activities as key drivers of an increase in research into PE curricula (Bailey & Kirk, 2009; Kirk & Macdonald, 1998). Since this time, the continued questioning of the role of PE in the school curriculum has been revisited again and again through the wave of policy considerations informing regional and national curriculum development around the world. This includes the development of a new Australian Curriculum, new iterations of the National Curriculum in England, the ongoing national curriculum debate in the United States, and the political factors in curriculum renewal seen across provinces in Canada (Kilborn et al., 2016).

As with any application of policy, there is often a tendency for slippage (Bowe et al., 1992) with the application of educational policy traditionally drawing on teachers’ professional capacities to translate, mold and recreate that policy to fit their own, students’ and their school’s best interests (MacLean et al., 2015). To this end any reliance on teachers to be sole bastions of curriculum delivery should be considered as contrived, as it is short-sighted, especially when courting Bernstein’s (1990) view that the school curriculum is acquired at both school and at home. Thus, the consideration of how and when learners in PE recognize and access learning opportunities should be of central importance in PE policy and curriculum development. Development and recognition of MKOs (as espoused by Vygotsky, 1978) to help facilitate learning is an appropriate starting point.

Who (or What) is the More Knowledgeable Other?

Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development stresses the importance of communication and interaction in the development of language, which in turn stimulates the development of thought (Close, 2002). Thus, if thought requires interaction and interaction requires language, then the presence of a catalyst for the sharing of language plays a fundamental role in the practice of knowing. Jaramillo (1996) emphasized this point when discussing Vygotsky’s contributions to the development of constructivist curricula, stating that such a catalyst becomes present when a peer collaborates with an MKO. An MKO is typically considered to be any agent who leads the less knowledgeable to a greater degree of learning with respect to a task, process or general understanding (Huong, 2007).

Typically in formal learning scenarios, the teacher is considered the MKO, with the teacher playing a pivotal role through their use of a variety of tools to support learning (Mariage et al., 2000). A fellow learner or peer might also be considered an MKO given their knowledge, performance accomplishments, and/or experience. Furthermore, some scholars have used Vygotsky’s MKO to reference not only the who but the what as well. For example, Abtahi (2014) has utilized Roth and Radford’s (2010) conceptualization of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) to argue that recognition of the MKO emerges through an individual’s participation in an interaction. That interaction, when involving an individual and their perception of an artifact or cultural practice, is argued to be collaborative in nature, as it enables the individual to “think, reflect and act” (Abtahi, 2014, p. 14). Thus, it is not just “who is the MKO?” that should be considered, but also “what is the MKO?” Such a view is supported by Galloway (2001) who contended that the MKO does not have to be a person at all, and that the most important element to have is more knowledge (or programmed with more knowledge) about a specific topic than the learner. An example of this in PE could be a series of activity resource cards designed around a core learning theme. Each card would include key instruction relating to an activity with a number of activity progressions requiring learners to develop and test certain strategies, adapt their skills to new scenarios, and to evaluate their (and peers’) performance.

Recognition of the MKO as either a who or a what enables PE curriculum developers to consider a range of possibilities when tasked with PE curriculum design and development. For example, by developing and signposting pupils and inanimate resources as MKOs, learners can be exposed to a curriculum of sports, fitness and recreation opportunities beyond any incumbent curriculum design limitations; namely teachers’ skills. When this is considered alongside Vygotsky’s (1987) view that curriculum design should be focused on meaning formation through learner–adult collaborations, arguably the role of the teacher extends beyond being recognized as the MKO themselves but also into recognizing, developing and utilizing more MKOs in the learning environment. Thus, the role of the teacher becomes even more important as outwardly encouraging MKO-type behavior and supporting the development of a new MKO “would go a long way in creating the right environment for increasing participation, interaction, engagement and … learning” (Sundararajan, 2010, p. 205).

Developing More MKOs

Drawing on Vygotsky’s (1978) ideas linking social interaction and learning, Barker et al. (2015) contended that the development of interpersonal relationships and the development of knowledge are entwined and that the development of psychomotor skill and performance in PE settings “may depend as much on a person’s ability to communicate with those around them as on their motoric capacity” (p. 421). It is from these statements of contention, along with Vygotsky’s previously stated views on curriculum design, that use of more student-orientated game-based instructional pedagogies can be rationalized to help expand opportunities within PE curricula for more learners to be considered the MKO. Furthermore, when considering Vygotsky’s (1978) view that cultural development first appears at a social level and then at the individual level, the use of student-orientated GBAs that “locate learning within modified games … and emphasize teacher questioning to stimulate thinking and interaction” (Light & Mooney, 2014, p. 2) is positioned well to support this view and engage learners on both levels. Table 1 provides a list of practical suggestions for PE teachers to develop more MKOs in their class.

Table 1. A List of Practical Suggestions for PE Teachers to Develop More MKOs in Their Class

What teachers should plan:	Modified games and game-like activities to engage learners Problem-solving opportunities (for individuals and groups) Opportunities within lessons to try, evaluate, share and refine activity performance
What teachers should do:	Engage learners in dialog that explores psychomotor, cognitive and affective elements of the curriculum Develop a principled and socially supportive learning environment (Abtahi, 2014) Let learners be teachers when and where feasible Develop guiding tools and resources (e.g., activity research cards) and use artefacts (Abtahi et al., 2017) Learners should be given the opportunity to share performance strategies and encouraged to ask questions about the performance strategies of others
What teachers should ask:	Initial questions (e.g., that seek a learner’s interpretation) Probing questions (e.g., that require a learner to elaborate on their initial interpretation) Summarizing questions (e.g., that enable the teacher to evaluate the learner’s understanding and competence) (Harvey, 2014)

Game-Based Approaches

Game-based approaches is an umbrella term often used in PE and sport coaching contexts to describe a pedagogical approach (e.g., Game Sense or Teaching Games for Understanding) that uses modified and progressive game-like activities ahead of decontextualized skill-based activities to promote learning (Light & Mooney, 2014). For example, when teaching the push in field hockey, a decontextualized skill-based approach would see two lines of leaners pushing the ball back and forth from a stationary position. Instruction from the teacher would typically focus on hand placement on the stick, feet positioning, and the arc through which the stick travels. If a GBA was to be used, a small-sided game might be devised whereby two teams of equal or varying numbers (e.g., 2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 2) would work against each other to gain then maintain possession of a ball within a given area. At a suitable teaching moment, the teacher might ask students, “What techniques have you tried when passing the ball to a teammate?” and then direct them to discuss their answers and to develop and trial different ways of passing the ball. The teacher may decide to change the parameters of the game (e.g., change the size of the playing area, alter the number of players on each team, or evoke a specific game limitation, such as all sticks must remain in contact with the ground at all times) to then help emphasize the when and why of using a specific skill; all the while maintaining fidelity to the true and full version of the game. With learning in GBAs situated within modified games, the elements of competition and performance improvement provide a fillip for the use of language and speech to respond to learning and/or performance challenges. With the use of targeted questioning by the teacher, small-sided games, and the adaptation of instructional materials to promote problem-solving initiatives (e.g., a change in equipment size, game play space, or the addition of an educational artefact), the ensuing debate of ideas among learners can arguably help define and redefine who in the learning episode might be considered an MKO (Gréhaigne et al., 2005). Recent GBA-focused literature reviews completed by Harvey and Jarrett (2014), Miller (2015), and Stolz and Pill (2014) highlight the breadth of empirical research describing the association between GBAs and the promotion of learning within the psychomotor, cognitive and affective domains. Thus, when considering who in the learning episode might be considered an MKO, opportunities for learners to showcase not only psychomotor proficiency but also mastery in the cognitive and affective domains of learning can arguably extend actual/perceived and individual/group understandings of who could be considered an MKO.

Using GBAs in PE Curriculum Design to Aid MKO Development and Recognition

Wiliam (2011) wrote that “[p]edagogy trumps curriculum. Or more precisely, pedagogy is curriculum, because what matters is how things are taught, rather than what is taught” (p. 14). The inference in Wiliam’s quote is that pedagogical approach should be a determining factor in any curriculum design process. As educators, if we place greater importance on teaching the student, rather than teaching the curriculum, then Wiliam’s words ring true—pedagogy does trump curriculum. Thus, when developing a PE curriculum, determination of the pedagogical approach to be adopted should be viewed as a foundational curriculum design element. A learner-centered curriculum design framework, such as Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) Understanding by Design (UbD), provides one such framework to achieve this. This framework includes a three-stage backward curriculum design process requiring consideration and development of key elements at each stage (outlined in Table 2).

Table 2. Key Curriculum Design Elements Aligned to Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) Three-Stage Backward Curriculum Design Process

Stage of Curriculum Design	Key Elements of the Curriculum Design Process Needing Consideration and Development at Each Stage
1. Desired results	1. Consideration of goals relating to transfer of learning 2. Determination of companion questions to be explored to promote learners’ meaning making
2. Evidence	1. Consideration of the six facets of understanding (e.g., how learners can be developed so they can explain, interpret, apply; demonstrate perspective; display empathy; and have self-knowledge) 2. Development of culminating performance tasks
3. Learning plan	1. Development of activity plans that identify occasions of transfer, meaning making, and acquisition 2. Determination of pedagogical approaches required to enhance transfer, meaning making, and acquisition

Of significance within Table 2 is that each stage of the backward curriculum design process emphasizes design considerations that relate directly to pedagogical functions synonymous with GBA use. For example, at Stage 1 the determination of companion questions reflects the central importance of effective question-asking within GBA use (Light & Harvey, 2017); at Stage 2 the consideration of how learners might evidence their progress is reflected in the importance given to game design when using GBAs (Harvey, 2009); and at Stage 3 a desire to expose learners to more effective meaning making is highlighted, which reflects a consistent justification by PE teachers for choosing GBAs (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). Furthermore, Cullen and Hill (2013) stated that emphasized within the backward design process is that learning occurs through numerous sources and places. As such, use of a learner-centered curriculum design framework, such as UbD, not only emphasizes the importance of pedagogy within the design process, but also supports the idea of utilizing MKOs (e.g., either the teacher, fellow learners, and/or inanimate resources) as means to engage and develop learners.

Using Questioning Protocols within GBAs to Aid MKO Development and Recognition

In support of Vygotsky’s (1978) view that higher-level mental functions first begin as relations between individuals, the importance of asking questions that generate dialog and provide groups with opportunities to formulate, test and evaluate solutions is paramount. As such, deliberate and considered question-asking places “language” and “communication” at the heart of effective GBA implementation, and in doing so offers a road map to engaging learners in higher-order thinking (Gréhaigne et al., 2005). So what happens then when GBA instruction is poor?

Wood (1991) noted that Vygotsky’s theory of intelligence “takes the capacity to learn through instruction as central” (p. 101), yet if learners are provided with poor instruction arguably their capacity to learn within that context is diminished. Harvey and Light (2015) identified that a particular concern for GBA implementation was teachers’ effective use of productive and generative questioning. Their concerns about teachers’ abilities to build learners’ intellectual self-sufficiency through appropriate question-asking were not new to GBA discourse (see Wright et al., 2009), so they developed a useful way of thinking about questioning with reference to Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD. Specifically, they developed a questioning protocol based on Cazden’s (2001) notion of group scaffolds to encourage learners to begin to share experiences and make what is private more public with the intention of driving the construction of knowledge. Key elements of this questioning protocol that practitioners can implement immediately to inform their practice include:

1. Preparing what Kracl (2012) termed “question starters” to help kickstart lesson dialog, reflection and purposeful social interaction (e.g., “How are you deciding when…” or “What might happen if…”)

2. Utilizing a “Planning; Implementing; Reviewing” framework for session design to help practitioners develop their understanding of when and why to ask questions

3. Maintaining a focus away from fixing mistakes (e.g., questions such as “Do you know why you went wrong in that situation?” can be replaced with “What are some of your ball movement/scoring options in this situation?”

The idea here is that a teacher’s assistance is ultimately led by the learner’s ability, so when effective questioning is used then required assistance should gradually fade dependent on the growth of learner competence (Clarà, 2017).

Arguably, teachers who utilize GBAs, but who do not provide learners with effective questioning scaffolds, are limiting opportunities for learners to develop further activity knowledge and competence. It is also conceivable that poor teacher questioning (e.g., closed, predominantly skill-related, and only at activity conclusion) can limit learners’ development as MKOs themselves and ultimately their utility as MKOs to peers. As Close (2002) explained:

A [teacher] whose goal is to provide an appropriate amount of scaffolding may engage in a conversation with a [learner] using various strategies. If the [learner] asks a question about a particular topic, the [teacher] may first ask, “Well, what do you think about that?” Once the [teacher] knows what the [learner] thinks, he can decide which ideas to confirm and which ones to extend and determine just how much information the [learner] can assimilate during one conversation. [Teachers] who do not typically provide scaffolding will not ask the [learner’s] thoughts on the matter, but will answer the question directly. (p. 20)

Building on the scholarship of Close (2002), Gréhaigne et al. (2005), Harvey (2014), Harvey and Light (2015), Table 3 provides three PE-related conversations to illustrate differences in question-asking protocols and their relationship to learners’ development as and recognition of an MKO.

Table 3. Contrasting Conversations in a Basketball-Focused PE Lesson to Highlight Differences in Question-Asking Protocols and their Relationship to Learners’ Development as and Recognition of an MKO

Conversation 1: Using a GBA with limited questioning scaffold	Conversation 2: Using GBAs with effective question scaffolding to promote recognition of teacher as MKO	Conversation 3: Using GBAs with effective question scaffolding to promote recognition of peer learner as MKO
TQ: Where is a good position to support the player with the ball? LA: There. On the wing.	TQ: What is the significance of effective support play in basketball? LA: It gives the attacking team more scoring options. TQ: Can you tell me more about that? LA: Supporting the player with the ball means you are in a position off the ball and available to either receive the ball yourself to advance the possession, or that you are not in a position that immediately limits what your teammate with the ball can do. You are not clogging the lane. TQ: So what is important when considering how you go about supporting your teammate when in possession of the ball? LA: It is important to be mindful of court spacing and to be a scoring threat yourself. That makes the defense more accountable to all attacking players, not just the ball handler.	TQ: As a team, how could you improve your support play when in possession of the ball? LA1: We could develop more option plays to complement the set offensive plays we have. LA2: We could also develop some guidelines around our off-the-ball movements. TQ: Can you explore these ideas with your teammates and then come back and show the class? (Team discussion followed by class regroup) TQ: As a group, what attacking option plays and guidelines for off-the-ball movement did you discuss? LA3: We discussed a number of options and guidelines, like support positioning on the wings and channel cutters, but we also discussed how dependent any decision making was on recognizing defensive weaknesses in our opposition. TQ: Can you tell me more about this? LA3: When determining which option play to execute, players need to be mindful of when and how opposition players can be exploited. TQ: Can you demonstrate an example of what you mean with your team and another team? LA3: Sure.

Note. TQ: teacher question; LA: learner answer; LQ: learner question.

Thus, when utilizing a GBA, questions are not asked to correct answers, but instead to stimulate thinking and interaction (Chen & Light, 2006). As such, appropriate support and education of teachers is needed to help them develop an effective questioning approach, which is central to game-based teaching.

Challenges for Teachers Using GBAs and the Implications for MKO Development and Recognition

Given the fact that in-service PE teachers will have typically built up a well-rehearsed teaching routine over their careers, for many teachers the choosing of GBAs as a focus for PE curriculum development will be a challenging and complex undertaking. The main reason for this is often attributed to the absence of GBA teaching experience (within both PE teacher education programs and on-the-job professional development) prior to its use in PE class (Brooker et al., 2000; Pill, 2011). This absence of role mode access and a lack of opportunity to observe GBAs in action are at times exacerbated by what Pill (2011) found in his analysis of PE teachers’ engagement with GBAs in that thinking about games and sport teaching was not a common pastime for PE teachers. In addition, Aelterman et al. (2014) found that some teachers’ resistance to changing their pedagogical approach was based simply on their beliefs that pedagogical alternatives are usually ineffective or just too difficult to implement. Thus, it is important for GBA practitioners to consider investment in GBA-related professional development opportunities. Such opportunities can include:

1. Engaging in serial observations of effective GBA use

2. Gaining access to a GBA mentor

3. Involving oneself in GBA-focused micro-teaching sessions with peers

4. Working with a colleague to plan, team-teach and then review a GBA session

5. Learning through collaborative engagement with GBA-related online resources

Failure to engage in such opportunities can impact significantly learners’ exposure to the benefits of being and engaging with an MKO. Furthermore, if narrow thinking about what constitutes a modern PE curriculum continues to be an issue in PE departments, then investment in and promotion of a learning culture that recognizes and celebrates the development of more MKOs (e.g., use of GBAs) just makes good curriculum design sense.

Conclusion

The development of more MKOs in PE could be viewed by some as a confronting and complex initiative; as might recognition of the importance of pedagogy in the curriculum design process. Yet this article outlined justification for such a development and for the use of GBAs in PE curriculum design, giving each learner the opportunity to develop and be recognized as an MKO. The implementation of GBAs was offered as a vehicle within the PE curriculum to develop and celebrate MKOs, with the challenges of such a commitment also discussed. To conclude, Vygotsky recommended a social context for learning where a “more competent child would be paired with a less competent one, so that the former can elevate the latter’s competence” (Jaramillo, 1996, p. 139). This is the principle at the heart of discussion in this article justifying the development of more MKOs in PE curricula, with the heightening of learners’ meaning making in PE the ultimate goal.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kendall Jarrett

Kendall Jarrett ([email protected]) is a lecturer in Higher Education at University of Kent in Canterbury, UK.