Practice Matters

Using the

to Facilitate Student-Designed Games

Peter Hastie and Ashley Casey
ccording to the Qualifications and
Curriculum Development Authority
(QCDA). the new secondary curriculum
in physical education focuses on developing
the skills and qualities that learners need to
succeed in school and the broader
community. Underpinning this curriculum are
personal. learning and thinking skills (PLTS)
that are considered essential to successful
engagement in the subject matter.

Achievement of these PLTS should see

students as independent enquirers. creative
thinkers. team workers. self-managers.
effective participators. and reflective learners.
In order to achieve these goals. students are
expected to be presented with learning
experiences that allow them to "work with
increasing independence. applying their
competence and creativity to different types
of activity". "experiment confidently with their
own creative approaches to produce effective
outcomes". collaborate with others in working
towards a common goal". "take personal
responsibility for organising their time and
resources". "engage with activities that they
enjoy and have selected for themselves", and
"identify for themselves new and improved
techniques. tactics and strategies:'

A case for student-designed

games
It is the intent of this paper to present the
idea of "student- designed games" as a highly
appropriate. but also stimulating and
beneficial method for teachers in Key Stages
3 and 4 to engage students in these PLTS. In
Physical Education

Matters

Spring

2010

addition. we present a technique that

teachers can use to help structure students'
first experiences with games making that
allow them to be successful.
In games making. students design their
own games within certain parameters
presented by the teacher. From a
constructivist perspective. Rovegno
and Bandhauer (1994) suggest that
asking students to design their own
games allows them to engage actively
with and explore components of game
play (skills and strategy) and. in turn. to
construct a deeper understanding of
these components. as well as helping
them to think critically about their
experiences playing games and sports at
break and after school.
Games making is not a case where all the
teacher has to do is explain the skill. hand
out equipment. and say. "Make up a game:'
Cox (1988) lists three slants to presenting
games making tasks. and describes them as
the "structured choice." "limited choice." and
"open choice" approaches. At the most basic
level (structured approach) the teacher limits
the number of choices available to the
students. For example. the teacher may limit
the number of players on a game. and limit
the choice of equipment to no more than five
items. Alternately. students can work with
games they already play and make
manipulations to the number of players on a
side. the size of the court/field. the
implements and/or balls used. or some
simple rules. Cox (1988. p. 15) suggests that
the structured approach" prevents the

15

Practice Matters

~
2
development of overcomplicated games
which can (and often do) take an inordinate
time to devise:' In the limited choice and
open choice approaches, students can design
games that are completely unique and
present tactical problems not seen in any of
the sports they historically play.

The jigsaw classroom

As was mentioned earlier, this paper presents

a technique teachers can use when first
introducing games making to students. The
technique is known as the "jigsaw
classroom", and the underlying theory is that
just as in a jigsaw puzzle, each piece - each
student's part - is essential for the
completion and full understanding of the final
product. It is based upon the wider
pedagogical model of cooperative learning
and seeks to achieve five elements for pupil
learning: positive interdependence, individual
accountability, shared group goals, group
processing, and face-to-face interaction. If
each student's part is essential, then each
student is essential; and that is precisely what
makes this strategy so effective. The following
capsule gives an example of how the jigsaw
classroom works.

The students are divided into the

small 'home' groups common to
cooperative learning:
Group A:
Student
Group B:
Student
Group C:
Student
Group 0:
Student

<

<

Student
3A
Student
3B
Student
3C
Student
3D

1A, Student 2A,

1 B, Student 2B,
1C, Student 2C,
10, Student 20,

The students numbered one then form

an 'expert' group and are given a concept
to master. The students with numbers
two and three respectively also form
separate expert groups and undertake to
learn or develop different concepts.
Eventuallythe home groups are reformed
and students try to teach each other the
information they have learnt. The model
is structured so that the only access any
student has to the other concepts is by
learning from the related expert.
I used information of gymnastic ability
and existing friendship groups to choose
the home groups. In the first week of six
the pupils were introduced to the jigsaw
classroom and divided into their home
groups. Once the home groups were
together the students were asked to
choose an expertise (mats, box, bench)
and then the expert groups for the

16

creation of the expert sequences were

created. Thisprocess took two weeks,
at the end of which each expert group
was required to hand in a sequence
prompt sheet. Experts then spent weeks
three, four and five back in their home
groups learning the three sections of the
final routine. Week six was used for
group performances, although some
time was also found for whole sequence
practice.
Casey (2004, p.12)

Using the jigsaw in games

making
All games are comprised of primary rules and
secondary rules. Primary rules are those that
identify how the game is played and how to
win. They provide a game's essential
character and what distinguishes it from
another. A primary rule of volleyball is that
you must volley the ball with your hands (i.e.,
you cannot catch or throw it), while in
football, players can only use their feet and
head to transfer the ball while inside the field
of play (they can throw it in from the
sideline). These rules make volleyball
different from badminton, and football
different from handball where you can throw
the ball into the goal. Primary rules also
designate players' rights from both an
offensive and defensive standpoint. While in
handball, you can take three steps with the
ball, in games like netball and Ultimate Frisbee
you cannot move at all. In basketball you can
only move with the ball while dribbling. In
rugby you can pick up the ball and run with it,
but you are limited to only passing
backwards.
Secondary rules are those that arise out of
the experience of playing a game, and are
those rules that can be changed without
affecting the essential character of the game.
For example, the tiebreak in tennis varies
according to the competition league in which
it is adopted, while the shot clock in
basketball is a secondary rule that limits the
time a team has before it must make a shot
attempt, and differs in every level of
competition. In junior rugby the hand-off and
kick through are removed to allow players to
master the basics of the game before these
elements are employed. while in cricket lost
runs often replace the loss of wickets to
ensure that a batsman gets an equal share of
the bowling.
In a jigsaw lesson students form different
expert teams which meet to design the
primary rules of a particular game. After these
"rules experts" have made their decision.
they then return to their original teams to put
the game together. In this way. all final games

should be the same across groups. If a game

is not developed consistently with the mod
it will be as a result of that particular expert's
lack of understanding or inattention during
the design phase. That student is thereby
accountable to the entire group.
After teams have played the combination
game. they are then able to make teamspecific adjustments to the secondary rules
make it a "good game". By good game we
mean something that is both "playable" and
"enjoyable" for all participants. For example.
game limited to two-footed hopping where
the ball is carried between the knees to se
in a basket will quickly become untenable.
unenjoyable and exhausting to all those
involved. Modifications by a team could
change the methods of progression and
scoring to make the game more competitive
and enjoyable. A team should not feel that
they could win easily but nor should they f
that they have no chance of making an equa
contribution to any of their peers' teams.

Physical Education Matters Spring 201

Practice Matters

Jigsaw examples - Tag games

Figure

Students are charged with designing a tag/rig

game. The expert designers in this situation
will determine the rules about:
boundaries and playing area
how to tag (where, equipment, safety)
how to get "unfrozen" after being tagged
safe zones (places where you may not be
tagged)
chasing limitations (how to move, can you
dive after someone to tag them).
Once these rules have been decided upon,
the players return and experiment with the
game. During trials, the rule experts may need
to clarify specific issues again. However, these
meetings should not concern secondary rules.
Once the parent game has been played and
the rules clarified, teams are now able to modify
the game in order to make it a good game.
At Heathcote School (a pseudonym), a group
of ten Year 11 students used this jigsaw
method and created a tag game within 15
minutes. This allowed them to experiment with
each of the more intricate dimensions of the
game to make it more fun and challenging.
Each pupil (see Figure 1) was randomly
allocated to a jigsaw group (1 or 2) and an
expert group (A-B).
The pupils, having noted who would make up
their five-piece jigsaw, joined up with the
expert from the other group and they both
spent five minutes defining their section of the
rules i.e. the A's defined the boundaries and
the playing area, the B's how to tag etc. At the
end of the five minutes the experts returned
to their jigsaw groups and put together the five
pieces of the jigsaw to form the completed tag
game. With the game assembled groups 1 and
2 independently attempted to play the game;
refining the separate elements into a workable
whole. The emphasis was on tinkering rather
than wholesale changes as this would have
been firmly against the student voice the
teacher was trying to encourage.
Once the game had been played and refined
each group had a chance to further modify the
game in line with their aspirations for a better
game. In this way pupils could change or adapt
one or more of the five pieces of the jigsaw tag
game with the aim of creating a better experience
for all involved. The other group then played
this hybrid of the original game and the two
were compared by the ten pupils involved.
Jigsaw Learning is one of a number of
cooperative learning pedagogies that has been
used in physical education to effectively
enhance both academic and social learning
(Casey, Dyson, and Campbell, 2009). Five
distinct and coherent elements personify
cooperative learning:

18

1. Expert

Groups

and Jigsaw

Groups
Expertise

Boundaries and
playing area

How to tag

How to get
"unfrozen" after
being tagged

Safe zones

ca

1A

1B

1C

10

1E

=.bD

2A

2B

2C

2D

2E

Chasing
limitations

en

Positive interdependence
Individual accountability
Promotive (face-to-face) interaction
Group processing
Group goal.
These elements are also interconnected and
they mirror quite closely the skills inherent in
the framework for personal, learning and
thinking skills (PLTS) (Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA), 2009). In a
Cooperative Learning pedagogy (in this case
Jigsaw) and through game-making the pupils
involved encountered skills from several PLTS
groups. They were challenged to be
independent enquirers (Individual
accountability), creative thinkers (group goal),
reflective learners (group processing), team
workers (promotive interaction) and self
managers (positive interdependence).
Furthermore, we would argue that as part of
the wider context in which this lesson was
taught (a seven week invasion game-making
unit in which the same students created their
own 'open choice" (Cox, 1988) games),
students showed commitment, understanding,
confidence, skills, decision making, a desire to
improve and enjoyment in physical education.
All these areas are outcomes of high quality
physical education and sport (Department for
Education and Skills (DFES)/QCA, 2004) and
were further enhanced by the competitive,
creative and challenge involved in the unit.
This idea is used extensively in Primary
Schools, but a case has yet to be made for its
inclusion in secondary education. Perhaps the
words of classroom teacher best summarise
the outcomes of this unit:

The boys are engaged. All of them.

Even those I would normally struggle to
involve are raring to go. None more so
than the boys who hide away in football
and talk rather than play. I have seen those
boys run away from the ball to ensure they
escape any form of match play yet in this
unit they have been game designers and
trialed games that didn't exist before we
started this unit. The sporting ones loved
it on the whole and while some did moan
a little at the start that they weren't doing
a real game, this soon disappeared as
they got involved in their new games.

The pupils involved in this "teaching experiment'

had previous experience of both gamesmaking and cooperative learning but as the
teacher noted "with such defined limits on
what they could decide upon I believe that any
of my classes, regardless of prior experience,
could have come up with a playable game."
The pupils, as one commented, felt that the
whole process "allowed for the quick
development of a game without a lot of time
being spent in design - which means you can
then work on playing it and modifying it,
which is the most fun part:' To support this
claim, the whole process, including interviews.
changing, set-up and debrief took less than an
hour, making it fit comfortably within a double
lesson in the school's timetable.

References
Casey, A (2004). Piece-by-piece cooperation:
pedagogical change and jigsaw learning, The
British journal of Teaching Physical Education,
34(4), 11-12.
Casey, A, Dyson, B., and Campbell, A (2009).
Action research in physical education:
Focusing beyond myself through cooperative
learning, Educational Action Research, 17(3),
407-423.
Cox, R.L. (1988). Games-making: Principles
and procedures. Scottish journal of Physical
Education, 16, (2), 14-16.
Department for Education and Skills/
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(2004). High Quality PE and Sport for Young
People. Annesley, Nottinghamshire:
DfES
Publications.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(2009). A framework of personal, learning
and thinking skills. Accessed from:
http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages
3-and-4/skills/plts/index.aspx
[19/11/09J
Rovegno, I., and Bandhauer, D. (1994). Child
designed games: Experience changes teachers'
conceptions. journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 65 (6), 60-63.

Peter Hastie is a Professor

Department
of Kinesiology
Auburn University,
Auburn,
Alabama.

in the
at

Ashley Casey is a Senior Lecturer in

the Faculy of Education and Sport at
University
of Bedfordshire,
Bedford.

Physical

Education

Matters

Spring

2010