See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320260102

Teaching Badminton through Play Practice in Physical Education

Article · October 2017

DOI: 10.1080/07303084.2017.1356768

CITATIONS READS

3 3,586

1 author:

Insook Kim
Kent State University
22 PUBLICATIONS   225 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teacher Education Content Knowledge Study (TECKS ) View project

Social Justice and Diversity in PE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Insook Kim on 27 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance

ISSN: 0730-3084 (Print) 2168-3816 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrd20

Teaching Badminton through Play Practice in

Physical Education

Insook Kim

To cite this article: Insook Kim (2017) Teaching Badminton through Play Practice in
Physical Education, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 88:8, 7-14, DOI:
10.1080/07303084.2017.1356768

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2017.1356768

Published online: 06 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 98

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrd20

Download by: [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] Date: 27 November 2017, At: 11:55
 Teaching
Badminton
through
Play Practice
Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] at 11:55 27 November 2017

in Physical Education

Insook Kim

B adminton is not considered the most common

sport or physical activity taught in schools in com-
parison with other sports (e.g., basketball, fitness,
volleyball, jump rope, soccer, baseball, football)
in physical education (Roslow Research Group,
2009). Thus, it may not be considered as strong content by school
physical education teachers. Recent studies have indicated that
both beginning and experienced teachers who possessed a lack
of content knowledge (CK) demonstrated low levels of instruc-
tional quality in teaching badminton (Sinelnikov, Kim, Ward, Li,
& Curtner-Smith, 2015; Ward, Kim, Ko, & Li, 2015). In addition,
the studies show that teachers’ quality of instruction can be trans-

Insook Kim ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the School of

Teaching, Learning, and Curriculums at Kent State University in Kent, OH.

JOPERD  7
 formed by developing their CK through a well-designed content teaching effectiveness (American Council on Education, 1999;
intervention with a CK packet that includes useful teaching re- National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE],
sources (e.g., a list of key elements of the skills, task progressions, 2008; Siedentop, 2002; Ward, 2009; Ward, Kim, et al., 2015). Ac-
errors/error corrections, content modifications, teaching cues, cording to Ward, Li, Kim and Lee (2012), PCK is defined as a
and task diagrams) developed with the play practice approach teacher’s ability to select, sequence, represent and adapt content
proposed by Launder and Piltz (2013). The primary purpose of through an understanding of other knowledge bases (e.g., knowl-
this article is to guide physical education teachers in the design of edge of curriculum, pedagogy, students and context) in a specific
meaningful instructional tasks for teaching badminton techniques teaching moment. The following examples serve to bring clarity to
and tactics by understanding three principles of the play practice the concepts of CCK, SCK and PCK.
approach applied in recent studies. While CCK involves a teacher’s ability to present the correct
For physical education teachers, teaching court-divided games techniques of a teaching skill, SCK involves a teacher’s ability
such as badminton that involve a small number of players, no to appropriately sequence learning activities from simple/easy to
physical contact with opponents, and confined playing areas is less complex/difficult for teaching the skill. On the other hand, PCK
challenging than teaching invasion games that have a wide range involves a teacher’s ability to select or adapt appropriate task
of decision options available to players (Mitchell & Collier, 2009). progressions for teaching the skill — for example, when teaching
On the other hand, teaching badminton is challenging due to the eighth graders who had at least two previous units of badminton or
Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] at 11:55 27 November 2017

nature of the game because it involves: (1) rallying the shuttle in fourth graders who had no experience in badminton. Recent stud-
the air, (2) unpredictable shuttle speed and direction (unlike a ball), ies have found that there are interrelationships among teachers’
and (3) various play patterns (Launder & Piltz, 2013). To help CK and PCK and student learning in physical education (Ayvazo
students develop technical and tactical competencies in badmin- & Ward, 2011; Sinelnikov et al., 2015; Ward, Kim, et al., 2015).
ton, it is necessary for teachers to provide best practices that are The studies demonstrate that teachers’ CK positively influences
pertinent, purposeful, progressive, paced and participatory (Sie- PCK development in the instructional process, and that changes
dentop & Tannehill, 2000). For example, pertinent practices may in teachers’ PCK positively influence students’ success in learning.
include some developmentally appropriate instructional tasks that Given that a teacher’s PCK can be shifted from weak/immature/
consider students’ physical, cognitive and affective development ineffective to strong/mature/effective as a function of CK, which
(e.g., age, sport skills, cognitive skills, health, experience, motiva- results in student learning gains, it is necessary to recognize the im-
tion), whereas purposeful practices may include teachers’ instruc- portance of teachers’ in-depth CK in teacher education programs.
tional tasks intentionally designed to meet instructional objectives Beyond teachers’ CK, there is an argument that the conceptual
(e.g., developing specific skill or tactical competencies or enhanc- rules governing instructional models such as direct instruction
ing vigorous levels of physical activity). In addition, progressive (Rosenshine, 1983), cooperative learning (Slavin, 1980), tactical
and paced practices may include teachers’ content decisions that games (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997), sport education (Sieden-
appropriately sequence and pace learning activities by understand- top, 1998), and adventure education (Miles & Priest, 1990) in-
ing students’ learning progress as well as learning context. Par- fluence the nature of instructional task development (Ward, Kim,
ticipatory practices may include learning activities that maximize et al., 2015). In addition, Metzler (2011) contended that instruc-
students’ practice trials and game involvement by appropriately tional models and content should be matched to maximize the
designing instructional tasks. intended learning outcomes. For example, if a teacher’s primary
To provide students with plenty of practice in bad-
minton, teachers must possess in-depth CK be-
yond merely knowing the basic game rules,
techniques and tactics. Ward (2009) recog-
nized the importance of teachers’ special-
ized content knowledge (SCK) to appro-
priately select, sequence and represent
the tasks that help students learn
techniques and/or tactics. This SCK
is different from common content
knowledge (CCK) in that the person
needs to perform the tasks by know-
ing the basic game rules, techniques
and/or tactics in physical education
(Ward, 2009). According to Ward,
Lehwald and Lee (2015), it is possible
for teachers to possess some CCK, but
it is also possible for them to lack SCK
that informs their limited knowledge
of instructional tasks. In physical edu-
cation many teacher educators argue
that teachers’ possession of in-depth
CK or SCK is the most influential Ready for
factor in developing teachers’ peda- playing double
gogical content knowledge (PCK) for

8  Volume 88  Number 8   October 2017

 learning outcome is to develop students’ movement patterns
and concepts in the psychomotor domain, he or she may
decide to use a direct instructional model characterized
by teacher-centered decisions. If a teacher’s primary Focusing Play
intended learning outcome is to develop students’
small-group interactions and social skills through
physical activities in the affective domain, the
teacher may decide to use a cooperative learning
model that is more process-oriented. If a teacher Shaping Play Enhancing Play
wants to promote learning outcomes across three
learning domains with balance, the teacher may
decide to use a sport education model character-
ized by three themes: competency, literacy and en-
thusiasm. Under the tactical games model, a teach-
er’s primary learning outcome would be to develop Play
students’ cognitive learning by requesting them to Practice
Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] at 11:55 27 November 2017

know what to do and how to perform motor skills

in game settings. By understanding the conception
of instructional models, teachers’ knowledge of in-
structional tasks can be improved, which will ulti-
mately influence student learning. Figure 1.
Three fundamental processes of play practice
Play Practice
In physical education a traditional teaching approach
— characterized by a progression from skill instruction during
the initial sessions of a unit to full games at the end of the unit — is the quality of their instruction by incorporating innovative ap-
often used in teaching sports (Kim, 2016). There are several detri- proaches into their teaching. This is best accomplished by increas-
mental consequences of this traditional approach, including: (1) a ing their own CK.
lack of student success in both skill execution and game play, (2) As opposed to the traditional teaching approach, the play
a lack of connection between skill instruction and game context, practice approach was developed as an innovative instructional
(3) a lack of student game involvement in full-sided games, and approach in physical education. Similar to other innovative ap-
(4) a lack of learning interest and motivation among low-skilled proaches such as teaching games for understanding (TGFU; Bun-
players (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Himberg, Hutchinson, & Rous- ker & Thorpe, 1982) and the tactical games model (Griffin et al.,
sell, 2003; Kim, 2016; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). In teaching 1997), the play practice approach emphasizes an understanding of
badminton one of the lesson objectives would be to keep a shuttle game rules, tactics and strategies in skilled performance. However,
in play at the beginning level, but this is not an the play practice approach slightly differs from others in that it fo-
easy task for beginners. Because of unpre- cuses on how to design, adapt or represent content to help players
dictable shuttlecock placements, be- who have different learning needs. There are several advantages of
ginners may have difficulty keeping using play practice, including experiencing the joy of sport, provid-
the shuttle in play. Teachers may ing a positive early play experience for beginners, and providing a
begin with a task that allows be- working model for teachers (Launder & Piltz, 2013). In the play
ginners to hit the shuttle from a practice approach there are three fundamental processes: (1) shap-
stationary position or to play in ing play, (2) focusing play, and (3) enhancing play, which can be
a rally. However, in develop- employed in the teaching of most sports (Figure  1). This article
ing students’ skill competence, concentrates on how teachers can use the play practice approach
a concern is that students do to improve their quality of instruction by applying the three funda-
not enjoy repetitive practice mental processes in teaching badminton.
in isolated skill-practice con-
ditions. Repetitive practice is
key to success in developing
skill competence, but students Teaching Badminton through Shaping Play
are hardly motivated (Kim, The first principle of play practice is shaping play, which con-
2016). In reality, teachers have sists of teaching through the game. To make the game less complex
difficulty keeping students mo- for beginners or more exciting for advanced players, the notion of
tivated by providing enjoyable shaping play by manipulating specific environmental factors can
and meaningful learning tasks be applied to teaching badminton.
because of their lack of SCK in •  Play areas: no court boundaries, narrow/short court, narrow/
teaching badminton. To help long court, wide/short court, wide/long court, back-court zone,
students become competent middle-court zone, front-court zone, right-side service boxes on
players, teachers must improve each side, and left-side service boxes on each side

JOPERD  9
 •  Equipment (racquet, shuttlecock, net): shorten/lighten rac- head shot by manipulating environmental factors in badminton.
quet, bigger racquet head, shorten grip, feathered/synthetic shut- For example, to emphasize the crossover forehand overhead shot
tlecock, modified larger/lower speed shuttlecock, and higher/lower by controlling other strokes, a teacher may ask students to use the
net right side of the back court on each side of the net. In this task con-
•  Game rules: allowing a second serve, allowing two touches on figuration students are forced to use the forehand overhead shots
each side, not allowing down-hit shots, earning a point only with for a specific direction and distance.
smash, earning an extra point with alternative straight/crosscourt Instead of employing modified tasks or games with a whole
shots, and earning an extra point with alternative clear/drop shots class, teachers can modify individually for specific learners who
•  The nature of the goal: keeping the shuttle in the air, finishing have different learning needs, a process of within-task progression
the rally with a smash, moving the opponent side-to-side, moving (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000) or intra-task development (Rink,
the opponent front-to-back, recovering body to the middle, and 2009). In other words, teachers can provide students with different
changing play positions during doubles forms of tasks or games depending on their learning processes. For
•  The number of players: 1 vs. 1, 2 vs. 1, or 2 vs. 2 example, teachers can allow beginners to play cooperative singles
Many have argued that students can learn better with meaning- intended to win a point by keeping a rally with a partner using a
ful practice that has an appropriate level of task difficulty (Rink, narrow/short court, higher net, and simplified rules (e.g., allowing
2009; Silverman, 1985; Silverman, Subramaniam, & Woods, multiple serves, serving straight over the net, earning a point with
Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] at 11:55 27 November 2017

1998; Ward, 2013). When teachers desire to develop students’ spe- a certain amount of hits). However, teachers can allow advanced
cific skills or tactical movements during game play, students need players to play competitive singles intended to win a point by pre-
to practice within task conditions that reinforce the use of those venting an opposing player from returning the shot using a regular
skills or movements. However, in many cases students are exposed court/net and game rules.
to practice conditions that are not designed to allow them to fre- In this modification process, teachers need to be cautious not
quently use the desired skills and/or movements. Knowing how to to change the primary rules of badminton, which may alter the
create a practice environment that would allow students to use the nature of the game (Launder & Piltz, 2013). For example, if a
desired techniques or tactics by manipulating specific variables is teacher were to change a primary rule (i.e., earning a point when
critical knowledge for a physical education teacher. In badminton the shuttlecock lands within the opponent court boundaries where
the overhead clear and smash along with the drop shot are the tac- it cannot be returned) by allowing players to hit a shuttlecock that
tical keys to success. But, unfortunately, most novice players have bounces off the ground, this would change the nature of volleying,
difficulty performing the overhead shot. To provide novice players thus disrupting the use of fundamental techniques and tactics. On
with pertinent practice opportunities, teachers may modify spe- the other hand, the secondary rules of badminton can be altered,
cific environmental variables in ways that simplify the game rules, since they do not affect the primary game features. For example,
tactics and strategies. Table 1 presents examples that demonstrate if a teacher changes a secondary rule (i.e., serving diagonally to
how to shape the tasks or games designed to develop the over- the opposite court or reaching the service box on a serve), it does

Table 1.
Examples of Instructional Task Modifications Using a “Shaping Play” Principle in Badminton
Goal: Develop the overhead clear moving the opponent side-to-side and to the back of the court
Original Task Description: Rally with a partner using a forehand overhead clear in a whole badminton court
Modifying Variables Shaping Play
Play Areas Ex. 1: Rally with a partner using the forehand/backhand overhead clear diagonally to the opposite
court side (emphasis on cross-court shots)
Ex. 2: Rally with a partner using the forehand/backhand overhead clear to the straight opposite side
in the half court (emphasis on straight-court shots)
Ex. 3: Rally with a partner using a target zone (back of the court; emphasis on high-clear long shots)
Equipment Ex. 1: Hitting balloons instead of shuttles
Ex. 2: Setting up higher nets (from 9 feet to 12 feet)
Ex. 3: Using modified shuttles that are larger and easier to track
Ex. 4: Using shorter/lighter racquets
Game Rules Ex. 1: Award double points only when finishing the rally with the alternative use of straight and cross-
court shots during rally
Ex. 2: Award double points when the shuttle lands in the target zone (back of the court) during rally
Number of Players Ex. 1: 2 vs. 2 rally performing alterative straight/cross-court shots using the whole court
Ex. 2: Rally with a partner passing over the stationary front players on each side

10  Volume 88  Number 8   October 2017

 not change the nature of the game, but it may enhance a server’s using hula hoops or poly spots in the back of the court that force
successful trials when starting a rally or challenge a receiver’s court students to make long overhead clear shots. In this task configura-
movements when returning a serve. In teaching badminton teach- tion students can strive to score a point by hitting the target using
ers need to fully understand that the nature of the game should not the high and long overhead shot without considering other perfor-
be altered, whereas the rules governing court size, net height, shot mance demands.
placement, scoring and number of players can be manipulated to In focused play teachers may present teaching cues or feedback
facilitate student success during play. intended to refine students’ skills and tactical movements or to
correct their performance errors by using analogies or metaphors.
Through the use of analogies (e.g., like a volleyball serve, like a
Teaching Badminton through Focusing Play tennis smash, like an overhand throw), students can understand
The second principle of play practice is focusing play, which similarities and differences between the examples. Through the use
refers to teaching in the game. In physical education teachers who of metaphors (e.g., “scrape the ceiling with the racquet at con-
possess a lack of CK fail to make con- tact,” “back scratch position in prep-
nections between skill practices and aration,” or “rainbow shape for the
games or to provide instructional foci shuttle flight pathway”), students can
learn the content in imaginative ways,
Teachers may emphasize
Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] at 11:55 27 November 2017

during game play, which ultimately

results in students’ lack of understand- which helps them easily memorize
ing of games (Kim, 2016; Sinelnikov both low and short key concepts and critical elements of
et al., 2015; Ward, Kim, et al., 2015). the skills. There is research evidence
To support learners’ understanding of
serves, refining the showing that teachers who have more
key concepts, techniques, tactics and critical elements of the in-depth CK often use more analogies
or metaphors when representing the
strategies, teachers need to carefully
plan focused instruction with both serving skill. In another instructional tasks in teaching bad-
short-term and long-term objectives minton (Sinelnikov et al., 2015; Ward,
(Launder & Piltz, 2013). The focusing
example, teachers may Kim, et al., 2015).
process is vital because it determines place the target using Focusing play can also be used
both the quality and the direction of to correct commonly identified per-
the practice, and it ensures positive hula hoops or poly spots formance mistakes. One of the most
common problems in playing bad-
transfer from practice to a real game
(Launder & Piltz, 2013). Moreover,
in the back of the court minton is the inability to return to
teachers can use this focusing pro- that force students to the middle of the court with a ready
cess to point out the similarities and position after each shot. Without
differences between the specific play make long overhead presenting specifically designed play
practice and the real game. Table  2 clear shots. In this task practices, students would have diffi-
culty solving this problem. To fix it,
presents how teachers can appropri-
ately sequence task progressions with configuration students a possible practice would consist of
specifically focused badminton skills. giving students enough time to return
In focusing play, the most impor-
can strive to score a to the middle of the court (i.e., put-
tant points and simple concepts can point by hitting the ting the poly spot at the middle of
be presented to learners using targets the court) after each shot. Another
and simplified key cues. One of the target using the high common issue in teaching badmin-
most common strategies in focusing ton is that students rarely experience
play is the use of a target to provide a
and long overhead shot various play patterns before the real
challenging game. By hitting the target without considering other game. Unlike volleyball (e.g., pass-
using a designated technique, students set-hit), badminton play patterns
score a point. Points cannot be lost performance demands. vary, but students often fail to learn
even if the shuttle is hit off the court or some combination-skill plays within
into the net. This modification allows the focused game-play practices.
players to work cooperatively with- Table 3 presents examples of combi-
out challenging their partner by changing the shuttle placement. nation plays specifically aiming to solve tactical problems (e.g.,
In addition, this target game reduces the perceptual and move- winning the point, moving opponents, defending space on one’s
ment demands of the task and gives players more time to position side of the net, and defending against an attack) in badminton.
themselves and then prepare for the specific stroke. For example, a Teachers are able to create many other possible combination
teacher may have students hit the shuttle to a target (e.g., the front plays with specific teaching foci. It is important for teachers to
corners of the opposite service box or white band areas on the top clearly instruct what specific shots each player should perform in
of the net) when teaching a short serve. In this game, points can sequence within the combination plays.
be earned only by hitting the target. This activity naturally forces For example, in a combination play consisting of a long (high)
players to avoid landing the shuttle in the middle of the court with serve – crossover overhead drop – straight underhand clear –
a high shuttle trajectory. During the game, teachers may empha- smash, player A begins the activity with a long/high serve, and then
size both low and short serves, refining the critical elements of the his or her next shot would be a straight underhand clear aiming
serving skill. In another example, teachers may place the target to the straight opposite back court. On the other hand, player B is

JOPERD  11
 Table 2.
Example of the Task Progressions for Teaching Specific Badminton Skills
Focused Skill Focusing Play
Serve Task 1: Hitting the target (front areas of the service box) for low and short serves
Task 2: Hitting the target (back areas of the service box) for high and long serves
Task 3: Alternative short and long serves and return game (award a point when an opponent fails to
return the serve)
Underhand clear Task 1: Toss/short serve and forehand/backhand underhand clear to the target (straight back court)
Task 2: Toss/short serve and forehand/backhand underhand clear to the target (cross back court)
Task 3: Short serve and forehand/backhand underhand clear to the target moving from the middle court
Overhead clear Task 1: High serve and forehand/backhand overhead clear to the target (straight back court)
Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] at 11:55 27 November 2017

Task 2: High serve and forehand/backhand overhead clear to the target (cross back court)
Task 3: High serve and forehand/backhand overhead clear to the target moving from the middle court
Task 4: Forehand/backhand overhead clear rally using a straight opposite court
Task 5: Forehand/backhand overhead clear rally using a diagonally opposite court
Task 6: Singles using a narrow/short or narrow/long court
Net drop Task 1: Toss/short serve and forehand/backhand net drop shots to the target (straight front court)
Task 2: Toss/short serve and forehand/backhand net drop shots to the target (cross front court)
Task 3: Short serve and alternative forehand/backhand net drop shots to the target moving from the
middle court
Task 4: Net drop rally game using the front court zone
Overhead drop Task 1: High serve and forehand overhead drop shots to the target (straight-court front area) over the net
Task 2: High serve and backhand overhead drop shots to the target (straight-court front area) over the net
Task 3: High serve and forehand overhead drop shots to the target (cross-court front area) over the net
Task 4: High serve and backhand overhead drop shots to the target (cross-court front area) over the net
Task 5: Overhead drop and underhand clear rally using a half court
Task 6: Overhead drop and underhand clear rally recovering to the middle court after each shot
Smash Task 1: High serve and forehand smash to the target (middle-back court) over the net
Task 2: Forehand smash to the target (middle-back court) moving from the middle court (home position)
Task 3: Finishing the rally with a smash (award a point only when the smash was successfully made)

expected to return the long serve with a crossover overhead drop that is both successful and challenging. Launder and Piltz (2013)
shot aiming to the diagonally opposite front court, barely passing proposed several strategies such as using the “freeze-replay” strat-
over the net, and then finish the rally with a smash. In well-de- egy and visual aids.
signed combination play practices that allow students to anticipate The “freeze-replay” strategy can be used to enhance players’
the next strokes, students can have a better chance of building up quality of performance and understanding of the game. To use this
their technical and tactical proficiency in play patterns. Without strategy, teachers may follow four steps: (1) capture teachable mo-
teachers’ well-designed interventions, students may be busy and ments while watching game play, (2) stop the players’ movements
happy in physical education class, but they may leave class with a immediately by giving a signal — “freeze,” (3) rewind play as one
lack of success. would in a television replay to draw out key elements of good play
and to consider alternatives, and (4) replay the game demonstrat-
ing correct performance or understanding of appropriate move-
Teaching Badminton through Enhancing Play ment choices. This strategy can reduce the high error rate of begin-
The third principle of play practice is enhancing play through a ners and raise the quality of performance at any level (Launder &
teacher’s smart use of an intervention. To maintain students’ inter- Piltz, 2013). Given that the use of this strategy requires a teacher’s
est and engagement, teachers must create a learning environment in-depth understanding of the game and would hinder play in a

12  Volume 88  Number 8   October 2017

 Table 3.
Examples of Combination Play Practices
Goals Combination Play Practices
Winning a point Ex. 1: Short serve – straight underhand clear – smash
Ex. 2: Short serve – straight underhand drop – straight underhand clear – smash
Ex. 3: Short serve – crossover underhand clear – crossover overhead clear – smash
Ex. 4: Long serve – straight overhead clear – crossover overhead drop – straight net drop – net kill
Ex. 5: Long serve – crossover overhead drop – straight underhand clear – smash
Ex. 6: Long serve – crossover overhead clear – straight overhead clear – crossover overhead drop –
straight net drop – net kill
Moving an Ex. 1: Short serve – straight underhand clear – crossover overhead clear – straight overhead clear –
opponent crossover overhead clear
Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] at 11:55 27 November 2017

Ex. 2: Short serve – crossover underhand clear – straight overhead clear – crossover overhead clear –
straight overhead clear
Ex. 3: Long serve – straight overhead clear – crossover overhead drop – straight net drop – crossover
net drop
Ex. 4: Long serve – straight overhead drop – crossover underhand clear – straight overhead clear –
crossover overhead drop
Defending space Ex. 1: Alternative straight/crossover overhead clear by two players – straight overhead clear by one
player, recovering to the middle of the court after each shot (2 vs. 1)
Ex. 2: Straight overhead clear by two players – crossover overhead clear by one player, recovering to the
middle of the court after each shot (2 vs. 1)
Ex. 3: Alternative overhead/drop shot – hitting back to the opponent player, recovering to the middle of
the court after each shot (singles)
Ex. 4: Alternative straight/crossover net drop shot rally, recovering to the middle of the front court after
each shot
Ex. 5: Alternative straight/crossover overhead clear rally, recovering to the middle of the back court after
each shot
Defending against Ex. 1: Down shots or smash – defending shots (1 vs. 1)
an attack Ex. 2: Down shots or smash by one player – defending shots positioning side-to-side by two players
(2 vs. 1)
Ex. 3: Smash/net kill positioning up-and-back by two offensive players – defending shots positioning
side-to-side by two defensive players (2 vs. 2)

real game, it should be carefully employed and not be overused in strations/videos/pictures that illustrate possible common perfor-
teaching (Launder & Piltz, 2013). mance errors
Another way to enhance students’ game play is to use visual •  Cue cards: shortened technical, visual or metaphoric de-
aids (e.g., demonstrations, videos, pictures, cue cards, task cards, scriptions that relate to the key elements of skills and tactics (e.g.,
diagrams, targets) rather than depending only on verbal instruc- scratch your back, high and deep shot, rainbow shape, wrist snap
tion. Recent studies have indicated that teachers who developed for the overhead clear)
•  Task descriptions: information regarding what to perform,
CK through a badminton CK workshop used more visual repre-
where to perform, and how well to perform with job descriptors
sentations during instruction as a way to promote student learning
for each player (e.g., initiator — setting up the activity with the
(Sinelnikov et  al., 2015; Ward, Kim, et  al., 2015). Examples of high serve; hitter — returning the serve using the forehand over-
visual aids include: head clear over the net), and diagrams that illustrate play actions
•  Demonstrations, videos and pictures: partial correct dem- using a few basic symbols and colors
onstrations/videos/pictures that illustrate one aspect of the move- •  Targets: placing hula hoops, cones or poly spots on the gym
ment sequence, full correct demonstrations/videos/pictures that floor that represent the hitting targets, playing areas, and home
illustrate a whole movement sequence, and incorrect demon- positions

JOPERD  13
 Conclusion Miles, J. C., & Priest, S. (Eds.). (1990). Adventure education. State College,
PA: Venture.
According to Metzler’s (2011) argument that a distinct in- Mitchell, S., & Collier, C. (2009). Observing and diagnosing student per-
structional approach produces different learning outcomes, teach- formance problems in games teaching. Journal of Physical Education,
ers need to develop knowledge of instructional approaches that Recreation & Dance, 80(6), 46–50.
may influence the creation of unique learning environments. Al- National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2008). National
though teachers may be able to acquire knowledge of a new in- initial physical education teacher education standards. Retrieved from
structional approach in various ways, incorporating it into their http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9jpRd%2B5aH84%3D
existing teaching is a challenge. Therefore, using valuable teaching &tabid=676
resources, seeking mentorship by others, or participating in well- Rink, J. (2009). Teaching physical education for learning (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill.
designed professional development programs can help teachers to
Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. El-
gain knowledge and experience in a specific content area (Ward & ementary School Journal, 83, 335–350.
O’Sullivan, 1988). Recent research findings support that teaching Roslow Research Group. (2009). Physical education trends in our nation’s
effectiveness can be shifted from ineffective to effective through de- schools: A survey of practicing K–12 physical education teachers. Re-
veloping in-depth CK, which is then demonstrated by the quality of trieved from http://www.shapeamerica.org/publications/resources/teach
their instructional tasks during badminton ingtools/qualitype/upload/PE-Trends-Report.
Downloaded by [KSU Kent State University], [[email protected]] at 11:55 27 November 2017

instruction (Sinelnikov et al., 2015; Ward, pdf

Kim, et al., 2015). Specifically, the studies Siedentop, D. (1998). What is sport education
report the effects of the play practice ap- In this article the and how does it work? Journal of Physi-
cal Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(4),
proach on developing physical education
teachers’ in-depth badminton CK or SCK. three principles of 18–20.
Siedentop, D. (2002). Content knowledge for
In this article the three principles of
play practice have been made applicable
play practice have physical education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 21, 368–377.
to the teaching of badminton: (1) shaping been made applicable Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Develop-
specific environmental or task variables, ing teaching skills in physical education (4th
(2) focusing specific skills or tactics with to the teaching ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
instructional foci, and (3) enhancing game
play through well-designed interventions.
of badminton: Silverman, S. (1985). Relationship of engage-
ment and practice trials to student achieve-
Knowing specific ways to employ these (1) shaping specific ment. Journal of Teaching in Physical Educa-
tion, 5, 13–21.
concepts may guide preservice and inser-
vice physical education teachers’ sound environmental or Silverman, S., Subramaniam, P. R., & Woods,
A. M. (1998). Task structures, student prac-
content decisions in designing meaningful task variables, tice, and student skill level in physical edu-
practices for promoting student learning cation. Journal of Educational Research, 91,
in the game of badminton. (2) focusing specific 298–306.
skills or tactics with Sinelnikov, O., Kim, I., Ward P., Li, W., & Curt-
ner-Smith, M. (2015). Changing beginning

References instructional foci, teachers’ content knowledge and its effects

on student learning. Physical Education and
American Council on Education. (1999). To and (3) enhancing Sport Pedagogy, 21, 425–440.
touch the future: Transforming the way Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Re-
teachers are taught. An action agenda for col- game play through view of Educational Research, 50, 315–342.
lege and university presidents. Washington, Ward, P. (2009). Content matters: Knowledge
DC: American Council on Education. well-designed that alters teaching. In L. D. Housner, M. W.
Ayvazo, S., & Ward, P. (2011). Pedagogical
content knowledge of experienced teachers
interventions. Metzler, P. Schempp, & T. Templin (Eds.),
Historic traditions and future directions of
in physical education: Functional analysis of research on teaching and teacher education in
adaptations. Research Quarterly for Exercise physical education (pp. 345–356). Morgan-
and Sport, 82, 675–684. town, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in Ward, P. (2013). The role of content knowledge in conceptions of teaching
secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education 18, 5–8. effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Griffin, L., Mitchell, S., & Oslin, J. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and Sport, 84, 431–440.
skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ward, P., Kim, I., Ko, B., & Li, W. (2015). Effects of improving teachers’
Himberg, C., Hutchinson, G. E., & Roussell, J. (2003). Teaching secondary content knowledge on teaching and student learning in physical educa-
physical education: preparing adolescence to be active for life. Cham- tion. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, 130–139.
paign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ward, P., Lehwald, H., & Lee, Y. S. (2015). Content maps: teaching and
Kim, I. (2016). Exploring changes to a teacher’s teaching practices and assessment tool for content knowledge. Journal of Physical Education,
student learning through a volleyball content knowledge workshop. Eu- Recreation & Dance, 86, 38–46.
ropean Physical Education, 22, 225–242. Ward, P., Li, W., Kim, I., & Lee, Y. S. (2012). Content knowledge courses
Launder, A. G., & Piltz, W. (2013). Play practice: Enhancing and devel- in physical education programs in South Korea and Ohio. International
oping skilled players from beginners and elite. Champaign, IL: Human Journal of Human Movement Science, 6, 107–120.
Kinetics. Ward, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1988). Similarities and differences in pedagogy
Metzler, M. W. (2011). Instruction models for physical education (3rd ed.). and content: 5 years later. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17,
Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway. 195–213. J

14  Volume 88  Number 8   October 2017

View publication stats