|
CHARACTER BUILDING (OR REVEALING)?
by
Jon Poole
 Goals
of Sport
A long standing
joke among physical educators and coaches
goes something like, "sports
don't build character…they reveal
it." The basic notion is that
sport competition against our fellow
man (or woman) promotes an opportunity
for participants to display positive
virtues such as patience, perseverance,
sportsmanship, respect, teamwork, and
group problem-solving, among others.
Of course, it can also reveal character
flaws such as taunting, bullying, poor
sportsmanship, cheating, and the use
of performance enhancing drugs.
Any daily
newspaper or ESPN update provides ample
evidence of the poor character displayed
by many athletes and coaches. Unfortunately,
for those of us working with school-aged
children looking for appropriate role
models for students and athletes at
the lower level of competition, often
the worst examples (other than parents
on occasion) are those athletes and
coaches performing at the highest level
of competition among colleges and professional
leagues.
(On
a side note, this era of YouTube
and Twitter
should convince every athlete and
coach that nothing said or done during
a game, on the sidelines, or in the
locker room is free from public display.
I am amazed at what can be seen and
heard coming out of the mouths of
coaches and players who seemingly
know a camera is present, yet do not
alter their tone, vitriol, or use
of four-letter words.)
Yet, sports also form a foundation
of many of our K-12 programs. As participants
and coaches ourselves, we believe in
the value of having children play sports
during and after school. Thus, we are
left with the dilemma of trying to best
promote the positive values of sport
while counteracting the flaws splashed
across TV and computer screens. We can't
hide our children from those flaws;
we can, however, try to insure they
are not found during our PE classes.
One ray of hope is found in the Sport
Education Model developed by Dr.
Daryl Siedentop over 20 years ago
at Ohio State. Professor Siedentop and
collaborators, Dr.
Peter Hastie of Auburn University
and Dr.
Hans Van Der Mars of Arizona State
University, have a new Complete
Guide to Sport Education (2nd Edition)
available from Human Kinetics Publishers.
Sport Education
The essence of Sport Education is taking
the positive aspects of sport participation
such as team affiliation, the preparation
and practice of working as a team throughout
a season, and the enthusiasm and excitement
about an upcoming culminating event
(Super Bowl, World Series, Final Four,
and Olympic Track Meet). The idea is
to make the PE class experience as an
authentic sporting experience as possible.
Yet, not just the learning to play a
particular sport, but rather celebrating
those things about sport that athletes
(and spectators) find so enjoyable.
Further, the extensive responsibility
that students must accept when participating
in a Sport Education unit (i.e., serving
as a manager, coach, captain, trainer,
scorekeeper, referee, etc.) promotes
greater involvement of all students,
not just the highly-skilled athletic
students who typically dominate traditional
team sport units. (A really interesting
perspective on Sport Education in practice
is available on a YouTube video shared
by www.thephysicaleducator.com.
Please wait for video to load.).
In an exceptional article, authors
Dyson, Griffin, and Hastie (2004) share
compelling evidence that the current
over-reliance on multi-activity based
physical education does not provide
the student-centered learning community
needed to truly help K-12 students become
physically educated persons who persist
with physically active lifestyles. Rather,
too many students today are passive
participants in teacher-centered curriculum
where the teacher makes all the decisions
about how a sport is practiced, and
what skills are needed for successful
performance.
Along with other student-centered instructional
models, such as tactical games and cooperative
learning (see Metzler, 2000, for an
outstanding explanation of instructional
models in physical education), Sport
Education casts the teacher as a facilitator;
one who sets the stage with appropriate
goals and objectives, but challenges
the students to be active - learning
who must identify possible solutions.
Further, students work in small groups
(teams) and play modified games practicing
skills needed in larger full-sided games
as part of the sport education season.
Small-sided games:
The use of small-sided,
modified games promote greater practice,
but also allow for greater involvement
for more students to enjoy an authentic
sport experience. Kern and Calleja (2008)
reported that "regardless of the
number of players on the field or court,
whether it was an actual game of three
versus three, or 12 versus 12, the game
essentially evolved into a game of three
on three." (p. 31). Thus despite
being on the field or court, a majority
of students "playing the game"
were actually not involved at all (the
authors defined "involved"
as meaning the player touched the ball,
puck, etc., at least once every two
minutes).
Clearly, if a student is not involved
then he/she is also not getting the
needed practice. The authors listed
several reasons they believed teachers
were hesitant to adopt a small-sided
approach including (a) tradition (i.e.,
the belief that students can only learn
to plan correctly if they play the "real
game"), (b) limited space (i.e.,
the fear of dividing larger spaces into
smaller ones that reduce overall movement
possibilities, and (c) organization
(i.e., the concern that multiple small-sided
games will not allow sufficient supervision).
In all cases, a myriad of solutions
were presented including the compelling
notion that the greater involvement
of all students when engaged in small-sided
practice also provided greater opportunity
for personal and social responsibility,
because students needed to learn to
self-officiate and resolve conflicts
within their small groups. Many national
organizations, including USA Volleyball,
USA Football, and most notably, US Youth
Soccer, have advocated a small-sided
approach to play.
USA Soccer and their Efforts
The national U.S. Youth
Soccer organization advocates their
youngest competitors in the U6 leagues
play 3 vs. 3 without goal keepers; U8
leagues play 4 vs. 4 without goal keepers;
U10 leagues play 6 vs. 6 with goal keepers;
U12 leagues plan 8 vs. 8 with goal keepers;
and finally not until U13+ do they advocate
a full-sided 11 vs. 11 with goal keepers
competition
The smaller teams and smaller fields
promote more opportunities for players
to (a) touch the ball (thus, greater
individual skill development), (b) make
more, less-complicated decisions (because
they get more touches and must do something
with the ball), (c) become more involved
in "game decisions" (more
touches, greater decision-making, and
more opportunities to play both offense
and defense as the games move quickly),
and (d) score more goals (most notably
at the younger levels when no goal keepers
are used).
The US Youth Soccer organization is
convinced this approach will help players
develop greater skill, but also promote
a positive experience for younger players
who rarely had the chance to touch the
ball when participating in full-sided
larger field games.
Concluding Thoughts
A small-sided game approach to sport
makes sense for many physical educators,
because it mimics many of the ways we've
learned sports ourselves. Most of us
did not start off playing full-sided
games in organized leagues, but rather
learned with our family and friends
in games that used the number of players
available at that time. (My two sisters
and I would play 3 vs. 2 against our
parents because my father was so much
bigger than us!).
As physical educators look toward teaching
the positive character building aspects
of sport involvement, applying the Sport
Education Model with a small-sided games
approach appears to deserve some attention.
Metzler (2000) noted, "At times
the teacher will find himself being
mentor, arbitrator, coach, parent, sport
psychologist, and cheerleader - all
for the purpose of creating a positive
climate in the Sport Education season"
(p. 269). Those are roles many of us
relish as we encourage young people
to become physically educated for a
lifetime.
Works
Cited
Dyson, B., Griffin, L., & Hastie,
P. (2004). Sport education, tactical
games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical
and pedagogical considerations. QUEST,
56, 226-240. Available from http://www.sirc.ca/newsletters/january08/documents/S-939247.pdf
Kern, J. & Calleja, P. (2008). Let's
play three on three. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance, 79(6), 31-34.
Metzler, M. (2000). Instructional
models for physical education.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & Van
der mars, H. (2011). Complete guide
to sport education (2nd edition),
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
US Youth Soccer.
(2011). Why small-sided games? Retrieved
February 2, 2011, from http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/coaches/SmallSidedGames.asp.
|
