REFLECTION ON WORKSHOP

Reflective Analysis of Instructional Decisions

The spikeball workshop became a significant learning experience for me because it required me to teach in ways I never encountered in my own K-12 PE background. Growing up, nearly all of my PE lessons were delivered using Command style, where the teacher made every decision, demonstrations were copied exactly, and student autonomy was minimal. Because of this, I internalized the idea that command-style instruction was the safe and proper way to teach PE. I thrived in this because I grew up playing a wide array of sports and could naturally succeed in PE. However, through EPHE 352, I had to reflect on what it means to be a PE teacher and how to get everyone to enjoy PE and not just students who are naturally gifted. This history mirrors what Syrmpas and Digelidis (2020) describe where preservice teachers often default to the teaching styles they experienced as students, especially highly controlled reproduction styles, because they feel familiar and comfortable. Stepping into Inclusion, Reciprocal, Self-Check, and Student-Led styles forced me to move beyond these deeply rooted habits.

Using Mosston & Ashworths' (2008) Spectrum helped structure this shift. The Inclusion style allowed students to choose their own entry level, directly contrasting the one-level-for-everyone approach that shaped my childhood PE experiences. Mosston and Ashworth emphasize that Inclusion style broadens participation and allows students to take responsibility for selecting tasks that match their readiness, something I saw play out immediately in the workshop.

The Reciprocal style invited students to provide peer feedback using biomechanical checkpoints; according to Mosston & Ashworths (2008), this style shifts the teacher’s role from instructor to facilitator while empowering learners to analyze performance. The Self-Check style encouraged independent reflection and adjustment, aligning with the Spectrum’s view that self-assessment builds accuracy and ownership of learning.

The Student-Led station added another meaningful dimension to this progression. In this approach, one student remained at a station to teach incoming peers a tactical or biomechanical focus using cues, demonstrations, and short explanations. This differs from Reciprocal style because the “leader” student temporarily assumes instructional responsibility, similar to a mini-teacher role, rather than simply providing feedback. This structure aligns with Mosston and Ashworth’s production styles, which promote autonomy, communication, and leadership by shifting decision-making away from the teacher and into the learners’ hands. Implementing the Student-Led station helped me see how capable students are when trusted with teaching roles. It also reduced whole-class teacher talk and created a more active, student-driven learning environment. Students teaching students made the workshop feel collaborative and dynamic, reflecting the Spectrum’s goal of developing independent, responsible learners. This was especially impactful for me because my personal PE experiences never included peers taking leadership roles which is another example of how this workshop challenged the assumptions I carried into teaching.

These approaches showed me that students can succeed when given responsibility, even though this was something I rarely experienced as a student. This expansion of my teaching out of my comfort zone aligns closely with Syrmpas and Digelidis (2020), who argue that preservice teachers must practice production styles in real teaching contexts to challenge their assumptions and reduce overreliance on teacher-dominated approaches. The authors state how teachers need opportunities to test out less familiar instructional approaches, which is exactly what this workshop provided for me. Teaching through these styles helped me break the idea that control equals quality and supported my professional growth in ways that simply reading about the styles never could.

A major theoretical foundation for my workshop came from Hopper’s ecological perspective on game design. In net/wall games, learning emerges through continuous cycles of reading, responding, reacting, and recovering (the 4R model), which express a learner’s tactical awareness (Hopper, 2024b). When rallies are long enough, students can anticipate ball trajectories, adjust their spacing, and prepare appropriate skill responses. In short rallies, however, these processes never occur, and the tactical component of the game is lost.

To support these perception-action cycles, I embedded several adaptation rules in my workshop design. These rules, such as allowing the losing team to self-rally, widening their target zone, or requiring stronger teams to use a controlled set were grounded in Hopper’s (2011) concept of Modification-by-Adaptation (MbA). MbA involves adjusting constraints so that games remain close and action spaces become compatible for both players (Hopper, 2024; Hopper, 2024b). Hopper explains that when players have dramatically different abilities, rallies collapse quickly, preventing meaningful tactical learning. But adaptation rules “restore the competitive nature of an evenly matched game,” allowing all players to participate in a mutual, problem-solving interaction (Hopper, 2024, p. 10). These adaptations directly supported the four tactical concepts that structure net/wall gameplay of Time, Space, Force, and Risk. Creating a self-rally option gave novices more Time to prepare, adjusting hitting areas reshaped Space, requiring controlled touches modulated Force for stronger players, and point-based constraints encouraged intentional choices around Risk (Hopper & Rhoades, 2023; Hopper, 2024b). As rallies became more even, I observed students naturally repositioning between touches, covering angles, softening or amplifying force, and choosing lower- or higher-risk shots based on the game situation.

Integrating Peer Feedback Into My Reflection

I gave a feedback slip to all my peers at the end of the workshop (see below) which another layer to my learning. Several participants mentioned that there was too much catching and throwing in some stations and that incorporating more self-rallying and continuous touches would make the tasks feel more game-like. This feedback was valuable because it highlighted a tension between simplifying a skill for accessibility and maintaining the authentic tactical feel of Spikeball. It reminded me that modifications should still preserve the core dynamics of the game whenever possible, a key takeaway from Hopper’s constraints-led approach.

Peers also highlighted that they really enjoyed the station-teaching format, particularly the Student-Led element where one learner stayed at a station and taught the next group. This affirmed that production styles can create meaningful teaching roles for students and that responsibility supports both confidence and learning. Watching students become the experts reinforced the idea that ownership deepens engagement, something I would never have appreciated without trying this style firsthand.

Another important piece of feedback was the recommendation to include game options for uneven numbers such as tasks that work with three players, partner rotations, or even one-person skill challenges. This aligns with Mosston’s emphasis on flexibility in task design and also reinforced my responsibility as a teacher to anticipate logistical realities. The feedback helped me recognize that good PE design includes built-in alternatives so learning remains continuous, not dependent on perfect numbers.

Conclusion of Reflection

Overall, this workshop marked a turning point in how I view PE teachers teach. It pushed me to step out of the command-style mindset that once felt comfortable and begin shaping a teaching identity rooted in trust, responsiveness, and shared ownership of learning. Letting go of strict control was not easy and years of being taught that way made it feel risky but watching students succeed when given responsibility showed me how powerful student-centred learning can be.

I also realized how important it is to design lessons that breathe, adapt, and evolve with the learners in front of me. The peer feedback I received reinforced that meaningful teaching is never just about delivering a plan but it is about listening, noticing, and being willing to adjust when something is not serving the learners as well as it could. Seeing students take initiative, support one another, and grow more confident reminded me why I chose this profession in the first place.

This experience helped me understand that teaching is less about controlling outcomes and more about creating conditions where students feel capable, supported, and challenged. It taught me that my role is not simply to instruct but to design environments that honour every student’s ability to contribute. Stepping into this mindset felt both vulnerable and empowering, and it made me excited my perspective on teaching and I am now someone who values flexibility, connection, autonomy, and meaningful engagement over perfection or predictability.

In the end, the workshop did more than teach me how to design a Spikeball lesson, it helped me grow into a more reflective, intentional educator and one who believes that students can be trusted on their learning and when teachers stay open and adaptable, learning becomes a shared and transformative experience.

Below is the exit slip I had my peers fill out with general comments and feedback.