The major point in which the content of both of the analyses differ is that one participant was brought up in Hong Kong, where as the other had all of his education in the UK. Obviously the curricula of these two countries differ, and this is shown in the personal learning experiences of sport and physical education of both subjects. The learner who was educated in Hong Kong was taught using a command style of teaching in almost all learning experiences which used a qualified teacher.
Armour (2004) stated that the command style ‘provides information and direction’ from teacher to learner and ‘learning outcomes focus on information, techniques and control’. Advantages of this are that a large class can be taught simple skills, and the class is easier to keep under control. Disadvantages are that individual learning can be ignored, only simple tasks can be taught and during team games social loafing can occur, Williams & Karau (1991). This is where an individual does not perform to the peak of their ability and allows other team members to do his or her work for them, Williams & Karau (1991). The learner who was taught in the UK did experience the command style of teaching, though on much fewer occasions. The command style of teaching was only experienced during lessons where there were large groups of learners, who needed directing as they had little or no experience in the exercises being undertaken, for example aerobics lessons.
Another of the differences between the two learning experiences was that one learner was taught using the ’empty bucket’ analogy, where a person is treated as if he or she has no information and is ‘filled up with knowledge’ about a certain skill or tactic and then is meant to be able to perform it, Kirk (2004). This can be a good style of teaching if the learner has limited knowledge of an exercise, however can be limiting when teaching a large group with varying abilities, Kirk (2004). The other learner was taught in some instances by the use of the mirror analogy, where a learner is meant to ‘learn by copying’ Kirk (2004). This again has its advantages in that any number of learners can be taught at any one time, and both verbal and visual feedback can be given. Disadvantages include that there is no accounting for varied abilities in a group as everyone would be doing the same movements Kirk (2004).
The final major difference between the two learners was during their secondary education, whilst participating in invasion games. The UK learner was being taught rugby with the use of the ‘Teaching Games for Understanding’ model, where tactical awareness and skill execution are seen as the two dimensions of competent game performance, Kirk (2004). Tactical awareness is concerned with ‘the ability to identify tactical problems that arise during a game and to select the appropriate responses to solve them’ Griffin et al (1997), sighted in Kirk (2004). The learner states that the tactics and skills learned due to this style of teaching were easily transferable to the full game.
In contrast the learner brought up in Hong Kong stated that drills were used during basketball training and although they were related to the basic skills of the game, for example passing, shooting and dribbling, they could not easily be transferred to the full game. This learner does however continue to say that external rewards and punishments were used for winners and losers of sub-games respectively. Deci, Koestner & Ryan (1999), state that external rewards can be used to great effect in terms of motivating athletes. This style of teaching was not experienced by the UK based learner.
Both of the subjects experienced peer teaching whilst being involved in sport. The UK based learner was initially taught rugby by peers in recreational situations both at home and in school. He recalls learning through playing the game with friends and stopping at appropriate intervals to be shown how to perform the skills needed to become an adequate player. The learner based in Hong Kong was also taught the very basic skills of basketball by peers who were more experienced than him. Although both of these examples are taken outside the classroom situation, the basic principles of peer teaching still exist.
Armour (2004) states that the ‘individuals learn by interaction with… people’ and that peer teaching should be used for ‘relatively straightforward tasks’. Both of these statements apply to both of the learners, as only the basic skills of the game were learned and not the more complex tactical elements. Peer teaching is good because it allows a learner to be taught in a no pressure environment where emphasis seems to be based on enjoyment, rather than actual learning, Boud (1997). Although peer teaching has its good points, there are also some problems with it, such as the fact that a task or skill is more likely to be taught incorrectly than if it was learned directly from a teacher or coach, as the tutor may have little experience or bad habits, Armour (2004). Safety can also be an issue during peer teaching, as this is rarely taken into account.
This interaction with peers also helped both of the learners develop socially and morally. Although again the situation is out of the classroom, the basic elements of the teaching model, Taking Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) are apparent. Armour (2004) states that ‘learning in the activity is secondary to learning personal and social responsibility’. Both learners agreed that during peer teaching, the emphasis was on fun, with little or no pressure to perform, thus social and moral elements of learning seemed to be focussed on. Neither of the learners had experienced peer teaching or the use of the TPSR model in planned physical education or sporting exercises.
Both of the learners had vastly different experiences of personal learning in sport/physical education. This was probably due mainly to the fact that they were brought up in different countries, where the learning environments seem to differ vastly. In Hong Kong the emphasis of learning is based on more traditional, military style methods, whereas in the UK, more modern teaching styles appear to be in use.