Content uploaded by Stuart Evans
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stuart Evans on Aug 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
TEACHING NEWTON’S LAWS OF MOTION IN BIOMECHANICS USING GAME-
BASED PEDAGOGY FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Dr Stuart Evans¹, Dr Charlie Willis², Dr Daniel James3
1 La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
2 Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia
3 SABEL Labs, Nathan, QLD, Australia.
It is important to consider teachers’ professional development (PD) when they are tasked
with teaching Newton’s Law of motion in biomechanics to high school students for the first
time. Physical education (PE) teachers regularly use the Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGfU) pedagogy to teach physical activity to students. TGfU is a
pedagogical model which originated in the 1980s with the main objective of promoting
game-based learning in physical activity and sport. However, research involving if the TGfU
pedagogy can be used to impart practical and theoretical knowledge to teachers when
teaching Newton’s Laws of Motion in biomechanics is limited. The present study provides
the outcomes of a PD biomechanics workshop for high school teachers (n = 39) with no
prior knowledge of teaching biomechanics. Results from an online questionnaire using
Likert scale items depicted the TGfU activities and intensity of agreement/disagreement.
Results suggest that teachers intend to use the TGfU pedagogy (mean 4.78, median, 4.26,
rank 1), and agreed in the model’s potential (mean 4.62, median 4.09, rank 3).
KEYWORDS: Teaching Games for Understanding, Biomechanics pedagogy, Teaching,
Education, Professional development.
INTRODUCTION: Researchers have long recognised that teachers’ professional development
(PD) is essential to changing classroom practice, improving schools, and ameliorating pupils’
learning outcomes (Borko, 2004). Here, research into pedagogy of learning and curriculum
development has found that teacher education is important (Willis et al., 2022; Evans et al.,
2023). Professional development and learning often occurs in formal settings, such as PD
programmes and formal mentoring programmes (Timperley, 2011). A professional skill of a
physical educator includes the qualitative and quantitative diagnosis of movement technique
to facilitate learning of fundamental motor skills through to skill development and preparing
adolescents for sporting competition; however, there are many other levels of teaching. For
instance, teachers also must learn to teach in a particular context and may need to acquire
new areas of curricula. Biomechanics is the primary subdiscipline focusing on movement
technique, so it is logical that teachers use the principles of biomechanics to help students
understand human movement and the dynamics involved. Enhancing a physical education
(PE) teacher’s knowledge and understanding of how biomechanics can be applied using a
blended pedagogical approach, that is – combing the practical teaching of biomechanics that
is underpinned by the theoretical constructs, is crucial to the progression of student
comprehension in biomechanics. The Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) pedagogical
approach was developed by Bunker and Thorpe (1982) and is based on the notion of teaching
physical activity by game playing. Here, rather than teaching sport-specific units (e.g., soccer),
children and adolescent gain skills and knowledge by playing a variety of games associated
with four game categories (Table 1).
Table 1. Game categories for Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) pedagogical framework.
Game category
Definition
Target Games
Participant propels object with high degree of accuracy at a target.
Net/Wall Games
Participant propels object, trying to make it difficult for opponent to return it
Strike/Field Games
Participant strikes object, so it is placed away from defenders in the field.
Invasion Games
Participants invade an opponent’s territory to score.
Yet like students, teachers can learn through informal interactions that occur during peer
teaching, collaborative planning, and mentoring between colleagues (Little, 2012). Thus,
251
42nd International Society of Biomechanics in Sports Conference, Salzburg, Austria: July 15-19, 2024
Published by NMU Commons, 2024
teachers can also benefit from being involved in practical, task-based PD when faced with
teaching a new subject. Therefore, if schools are to support high school students to face the
challenges of the 21st century, then PD should positively impact on student achievement. To
ensure that the link between PD and student outcomes materialises, it is imperative that
teachers comprehend and have confidence in whatever subjects they are expected to teach.
In this instance, a game-based, collaborative approach can also be used as an opportunity for
PD when teachers are asked to teach a new subject. Consequently, this paper focuses on a
teacher PD workshop that used a blended TGfU and theoretical approach to introduce
biomechanics to PE teachers. The main teaching components of the PD workshop focused on
introducing Newton’s Laws of Motion.
METHODS: Thirty-nine (21 male, 18 female) high school teachers participated in this PD
workshop. All teachers had self-selected attendance (i.e., previously registered via an online
form). The PD workshop was held in November 2023 during a two-day national conference on
health, physical education, and research. Prior to registering for the PD workshop all of the
teachers had stated that they had no prior experience in teaching biomechanics to high school
students despite being qualified physical education educators who were registered with the
appropriate statutory body. The PD workshop was approximately 90 minutes in duration and
featured a blended program of teacher-led demonstrations combined with theoretical
explanations.
Teaching Games for Understanding: Pedagogical Considerations: The TGfU pedagogical
framework was used in this study. TGfU is a pedagogical game-based approach (Oslin &
Mitchell, 2006) that advocates the learner playing the game as the central organisational
feature of a lesson (Gutierrez, 2016). This approach is commonly used by PE teachers as it
can provide interactive and engaging learning activities for high school students and integrates
tactics and skills into games. Thus, TGfU was applied to teach Newton’s Laws of Motion in
biomechanics to high school PE teachers. Specifically, TGfU was used to assess teacher’s
preparedness towards TGfU in biomechanics and acceptance of using TGfU in future
biomechanics lessons (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Definition of blended PD workshop for teachers tasked with teaching high school
biomechanics.
The PD workshop was conducted in a basketball court located at a university sports complex.
This allowed adequate room for the PE teachers to comfortably participate in the activities. To
facilitate learning, an interactive widescreen that displayed a PowerPoint presentation which
outlined the theoretical components of Newton’s Laws was used. Additionally, all participants
were provided with a handout (approximately 12 pages) that described the relevant
biomechanical considerations of the TGfU activities as well as practical examples of how to
complete them. The handout contained visual diagrams that could assist learning whilst
suggestions for regression and/or progression activities, links to the relevant curriculum
strands, sub-strands and achievement standards were also supplied in the handout.
Data collection comprised of an online questionnaire composed of six Likert scale items, which
measured both agreement/disagreement with statements that depicted the TGfU activities and
intensity of agreement/disagreement. The online questionnaire was available for participants
to complete for 48 hours from the conclusion of the PD workshop. The PE teachers’
252
42nd International Society of Biomechanics in Sports Conference, Salzburg, Austria: July 15-19, 2024
https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol42/iss1/10
preparedness towards biomechanics and their potential biomechanical integration practices
were quantified using descriptive statistics such as weighted mean procedures. Affirmative
statements were used for each item, asking the PE teachers to agree or disagree on a scale
with the following response options:(1) Strongly Agree (range 4.50-5.00), (2) Agree (range
3.50-4.49), (3) Moderately Agree (range 2.50-3.49), (4) Disagree (range 1.50-2.49), and (5)
Strongly Disagree (range 1.00-1.49). For instance, a higher agreement for the item indicates
a well-determined level of reflection. To determine the correlation between teachers’
preparedness and acceptance towards biomechanics using TGfS integration, a Pearson
Product Moment Correlation (Pearson r) was utilised. Data were tabulated and analysed from
the survey questionnaire using both descriptive and inferential statistics using the Statistical
Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23. The PE teachers were briefly
introduced to the theoretical component of the task which was then followed by a practical
TGfU-based session (Table 2). Teachers were required to collaborate, either in partners or in
groups of three or four depending on the task and the specified game.
Table 2. Newtown Physics (The Three Laws of Motion) and TGfU activities and outcomes used.
Newtown’s Law
TGfU Activity and Learning outcome
Law 1: Law of inertia
Target Game: Teacher ‘bowls’ frisbee to partner, varying force.
Learning outcome:
1. Frisbee remains at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an
external force (a net force).
2. Principles of linear motion, coefficient of static and kinetic friction
Law 2: Law of acceleration
Net/Wall Game: The ‘interceptor’. Teachers form groups of four with
one selected as the “interceptor”. Inceptor must ‘intercept’ (i.e., catch)
frisbee as remaining group members apply different levels of force to
throw frisbee to each other, evading the interceptor.
Learning outcomes:
1. Angular momentum when frisbee spins to gain momentum.
2. Momentum is mass of the frisbee times the speed it is moving. As
a frisbee spins, it builds angular momentum.
Law 3: Law of
Action/Reaction
Target Game: 10 passes – aim of game is for one team to pass the
frisbee 10 times without losing possession to gain a point. Each pass
of the frisbee demonstrates Newton’s Third Law.
Learning outcome:
1. Teacher throws frisbee so muscle force is applied with a force of
equal and opposite magnitude applied back.
Combined Laws of Motion
Territory/Invasion Game: Disc Lacrosse. Teams score by landing
the disc into the disc golf target vs. catching it in the end zone.
Learning outcome:
1. Frisbee thrown with large spin so it has a large amount of angular
momentum, overcoming gyroscopic inertia.
2. Application of linear motion, applied force velocity.
RESULTS: The quantitative results of the self-assessments are summarised in Table 3. In
general, teachers describe their biomechanics preparedness in teaching as ‘strongly agree’ as
evidenced by the general weighted mean value of 4.45. As to the sub-constructs of
biomechanics preparedness, teachers agree on the ability to use TGfU for biomechanics, the
pedagogical potential of TGfU and its usefulness. As can be gleaned from Table 4, a strong
and significant correlation was attained.
Table 3. Teachers’ preparedness towards biomechanics.
Teachers’ preparedness towards biomechanics
Average
Median
Interpretation
Rank
1. Intention to use
4.78
4.26
Strongly Agree
1st
2. Ability to use TGfU for biomechanics
4.64
4.23
Strongly Agree
2nd
3. Pedagogical potential
4.62
4.09
Strongly Agree
3rd
4. Usefulness and efficiency
4.26
4.11
Agree
4th
5. Relatability of target, invasion, games
4.20
4.08
Agree
5th
6. Social influence and support
4.18
4.08
Agree
6th
Weighted mean
4.45
4.14
Strongly Agree
253
42nd International Society of Biomechanics in Sports Conference, Salzburg, Austria: July 15-19, 2024
Published by NMU Commons, 2024
Table 4. Test of significant correlation between teachers’ preparedness towards TGfU in
biomechanics and acceptance of using TGfU. α = 0.05
r value
t-value
Interpretation
0.81
6.61
p<0.001
DISCUSSION: Findings from the current study reflect that teachers intend to use the TGfU
pedagogy to teach biomechanics. This is evidenced by the PE teachers’ intention to use TGfU
(mean 4.78, median 4.26, rank 1), the ability to use TGfU (mean 4.64, median 4.23, rank 2)
and the pedagogical potential of TGfU (mean 4.62, median 4.09, rank 3) as a framework to
teach biomechanics to high school students. While different authors have reported on the
influence of introductory biomechanics (e.g., Knudson & Wallace, 2023) and physical
education and psychosocial variables (e.g., Ortiz et al., 2023), to the best of our knowledge
this is the first study to use TGfU as a viable method to provide PD and learning for teachers
inclusive of key teaching points (critical features) for high school biomechanics teaching. Using
TGfU to teach biomechanics also allows PE teachers to identify exercises and physical
activities that contribute to the physical development of various muscle groups and fitness
components. This is an important part of teaching as PE teachers must establish the “teaching-
to-understanding” process to apply biomechanics in a practical and theoretical context for
future teaching practice. Although many researchers working in kindergarten to year 12 (K-12)
educational settings have supported the incorporation of TGfU pedagogy into PE and
classroom practice, little has been communicated about the effect of using TGfU into the
applied teaching of biomechanics. Based on the current results, therein lies opportunity as
many biomechanical-based activities can be aligned to regular and interactive teacher PD
workshops. This was apparent based on the strong correlation in teachers’ preparedness and
acceptance of using TGfU as a pedagogical approach (Table 4). It could be interpreted that
the PD workshop had a positive impact on teachers at the participating schools through
advancing TGfU to teach biomechanics in classrooms. Through the PD workshop, teachers’
awareness, and competence of teaching biomechanics using TGfU pedagogical strategies
may have been enhanced to a certain extent.
CONCLUSION: The paper provides a practical strategy of how Newton’s Laws of Motion can
be taught using a TGfU pedagogical approach as part of a structured PD workshop for teachers
with little to no knowledge of biomechanics.
REFERENCES
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational
Researcher, 33 (8), 3-15.
Willis, C., Thrupp, R., Parker, J., Lee, J., & James, D. (2022). STEMfit in schools Curriculum resources
for STEM engagement using physical activity. Territory Education Foundation.
Evans, S., Willis, C., James, D., & Lee, J. (2023). Fun, Fitness and STEM in Remote Indigenous
Communities: a STEMfit Approach. National Youth Sport Conference, Adelaide, 2023.
Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of
Physical Education, 18, 5-8.
Little, C.A. (2012), Curriculum as motivation for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools. 49, 695-705.
Oslin, J., & Mitchell, S. (2006). Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In D. Kirk, D
MacDonald & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The Handbook of Physical Education (pp 627-651). London: Sage.
Gutierrez Diaz del Campo, D., Villora, S.G., Lopez, G., & Mitchell, S. (2011). Differences in decision-
making development between expert and novice invasion game players. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
112 (3), 871-888.
Knudson, D., & Wallace, B. (2023). Biomechanics student’s learning and perceptions of learning due
to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation. ISBS Proceedings Archive, 41(1). Article 111.
Ortiz, M., Meroño, L., Morales-Belando, M.T., Vaquero-Cristóbal, R., & González-Gálvez, N. (2023).
Teaching games for understanding in game performance and psychosocial variables: systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomized control trial. Children, 10, 573.
254
42nd International Society of Biomechanics in Sports Conference, Salzburg, Austria: July 15-19, 2024
https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol42/iss1/10
