Physical education (PE) teachers may have insecurities about teaching martial arts to their students. There are places where martial arts, combative activities, or self-defense are part of required PE standards and other places where they come up as electives, and still others where they don’t exist in standards of PE. Either way, combative sports, and martial arts are lifelong physical activities and can bring varied emotional, psychological, and physical benefits. In this blog, I will discuss different ideas that have been developed by Marcelo Antunes and me (Alba) in our research, professional development courses, workshops, and engagement with academic peers. At the end of this blog I will add a few resources such as research citations, conference material, and a podcast on the subject.
Even though martial arts are seen to bring many positive outcomes, teachers may not be comfortable to teach this content for many reasons such as, lack of experience and content knowledge or even fear of injuries or an (mis) understanding that martial arts are always aggressive and violent. Researchers have studied these fears and shown that, contrary to what many might think, the practice of martial arts does not have more injuries than any other sport. On the contrary, learning how to fall, for example, is one way of preventing injuries in other activities in life. Additionally, martial arts have close contact and thus there is a need to have respect and take care of partners to make the practice possible. Through combative activities coaches and teachers can teach students the differences between fighting and combating. When practicing martial arts people learn to respect and take care of each other by learning the limits of their peers and their own limits.
On the other hand, we acknowledge that teaching combative activities, or any other activity that is new, can be a challenging task since, as with many other sports, combative sports and martial arts were not originally considered to be included in the school curricula, in gyms, for health promotion or for children. As a result of the challenges to address the changing needs of society that focuses on a variety of objectives when searching for physical activities (e.g., health, pleasure, develop relationships, etc.), researchers have been developing a variety of pedagogical approaches. Among such approaches are model-based practices and game-based approaches. In our research we focus on the relationship between games and combat.
The first aspect of teaching combative activities is understanding what characteristics make an activity combative. The work of Mariana Gomes (2010) has been highly used in Brazil to consider the similarities between the many combative modalities. These similarities are the conditional principals and they are the common actions that are indispensable to consider an activity as combative. These characteristics are
As in other sports, unpredictability and rules are fundamental principles to consider an activity as combative. Talking about the needs to have rules can be a starting point to explain to students the differences between fighting and combating.
Intentional contact. Even though other sports have contact between athletes, most activities do not have the contact as an intention or an objective as is in combative activities. This leads us to the next principal that is,
Opponent(s) as target(s). If we think about other sports you may have a target such as a hole in golf, or have an end zone across from the other team’s field like in football, or a basket or goal like in basketball and soccer. In combative activities the target is the opponent. This means that to score there is intentional contact to the opponent’s body.
Fusion of attack and defense. In other sports, as the ones used as examples in the last principle, you will usually have a moment where one team or player is attacking and the other defending or choosing to have a offensive or defensive shot while the opponent waits their turn. In combat, that does not happen, players are attacking and defending at the same time.
These five elements are fundamental parts of combative activities that should always be present in combat games. This does not mean that you can’t have an activity where a player is focused on attacking while their opponent is mainly defending. These ‘exaggerations’ in game play are also part of learning tactics by facilitation or challenging more the opponents. However, to be considered a combative activity, there is a need to have all of the principles present. Additionally, when we consider forms, that are sequence of movements that one performs alone, the ideas is that there is one or multiple invisible imaginary opponents and thus, the principles are still present.
Many studies classifying and organizing combative activities in many ways have been published and you can find references in the article linked at the end of this blog. Examples of content classification for combative activities are categories by objectives, kind of contact, types of techniques or by the distance between the opponents. We will continue presenting the ideas of Gomes here since it is the most referenced research to categorize martial arts and it is done by distance. The three categories are:
Close or continuous contact, that are grappling sports (e.g., Jiu-Jistu, Wrestling, Judo, Shuai Jiao, etc.),
Medium distance or intermittent contact, that are striking sports (e.g., Boxing, Muay Thai, Taekwondo, Karate, etc.),
And long distance or contact mediated by an implement that are activities that use implements (e.g., Kendo, different styles of Kung Fu, fencing, etc.).
The reason why we decided to develop a new organization for combative activities was to move away from the focus on specific modalities. The categories developed by Gomes have been a great starting point to rethink the teaching of martial arts pedagogically. However, it classifies the different modalities into categories leading a teacher to teach a specific modality or parts of modalities. Our proposal has been to expand and consider the different types of tactical experiences possible in the wide range of combative actions. Coaches from specific modalities can also use this approach by finding the combat actions proposed in this study that align with the content they are teaching in their lessons. Thus, we aimed to develop a new proposal to organize the contents of martial arts for teaching purposes. Our focus is on the initiation into sports through combat games, which recognizes possible tactical actions of martial arts, rather than specific techniques.
The figure above represents a simple division of possible combat actions present in combative activities. If you are a martial art coach, you can find your modality in this image and move to the table presented below. If you are a PE teacher, to begin thinking of the sequence of a martial art unit you should look at the image above and sequence the order of combative action you desire to teach. One possibility is starting with actions that require more distance between players such as actions with weapons and then move towards the actions without weapons, then moving to actions without weapon that are medium distance that are the striking actions, next can be throws, and then groundwork. This order can help students become more comfortable with the contact needed for grappling actions as well as understanding combat before being in close contact with their peers. Safety wise, when you move to closer contact students may need more control of their bodies and have a stronger base of support to be able to take care of their peers with control.
As soon the content to be taught is sequenced, the teacher/coach should move to the table presented below to define the objectives of each lesson. In the table we present the possibilities of actions that can be chosen as lesson objectives. Each cell is one type of action of combat that can be an objective of the lesson. Teachers/coaches can select one or a few actions to work on for each lesson. In the beginning of the curriculum, we suggest teachers/coaches begin teaching actions from one category (e.g., implement handling, throw, groundwork, or striking) and consider the practitioner’s development to start merging different categories enhancing the complexity of the combat games.
Games as a form of enjoyment, experience, and learning of cultural combat practices is a strategy that is consistent with its history in human civilization as they have both been present in the culture of movement (Antunes et al., 2021). Martial arts, as well as other sports, were not originally thought for schools, gyms, health promotion, or children enjoyment. Thus, to teach this content pedagogically to the new needs of society (e.g., health, enjoyment, lifelong physical activity, etc.), we should think of pedagogical approaches that replace the one-size-fits-all traditional pedagogy (Kirk, 2009; Kirk, 2013). The traditional sport technique-based approach focuses on developing skills and techniques that are repeatedly practiced out of context until the practitioner can perform them well enough to play the actual game (Light, 2004). When using this traditional approach, learning experiences and enjoyment are hindered especially in sport initiation. Thus, we proposed a contents organization to teach youth combat through a game-based approach (combat games) to support PE teachers to develop the confidence to teach their students without needing to become an expert. Additionally, through combat games, martial art coaches also can find new ways of teaching children and youth to foster prolonged participation in physical activity, positive physical, social, emotional, and psychological outcomes).
Here are a few examples of games for each category presented above:
Actions with Implements.
There are many possibilities for teachers/coaches to teach actions with implements by adapting and developing materials. Examples can be cones, balloons, noodles (a type of cylinder foam that can be used as a sword), students can make swords with paper or cardboard, etc.
Objective: touch the partners body and footwork to the front and back.
Description: Each student has one noodle to represent a sword. The objective of the game is to touch the partners fist or belly with the foam while protecting their own body with the implement. Students may only walk to the front and back and must keep inside a specific space determined by lines on the floor. Explain that this is a poking game and not a hitting with the implement game.
Actions Without Weapons
Striking Actions
Objective: Upper limbs striking (torso) and dynamic footwork
Description: players should touch the elbow of their partner while protecting their own. Other body parts can be used at the command of the teacher or by the students. For safety issues teachers can make sure that students do not focus on attacks to the face. The noodle foams can or balloons attached to a ribbon also be used as the target in games like these in the beginning to keep strikes away from the body. Kicks and punches can also be practice hitting such equipment. This safety suggestion can help students learn how to control the force of their strike to be able to safely respect and take care of their partner once they move to striking the body.
Throwing Actions
Objective: Unbalance the opponent dynamically
Description: one player should push their partner moving backwards. The partner being pushed tries to unbalance the other player using the force of their grip and other body parts. The objective is to make the player who is pushing to sit or lay down on the floor. It is important to have a mat and to have taught the students falling techniques before having activities that throw. If this activity is one of the first ones of the throwing lessons do not have students using their legs or other body parts to throw. This means that students can only unbalance their peers using their grip (this will also help to hold the partner when falling helping them learn how to fall). When students start improving their skills you can start adding complexity by having students pull, or move in circles, change force direction (push, pull, and circle), and use body parts to throw.
Groundwork Actions
Objective: body movement on the floor changing directions, in supine, lying back, or sideways
Description: students will sit on a mat with their backs to each other, the objective is to touch the partners toe while protecting your own toe. The teacher can say go, or the students can count to three together and start. As soon as the objective is achieved the student wins a point and they start over.
When the teacher moves further on in the unit and students gain more skills and tactical comprehension, teachers can combine categories. We suggest combining at most two categories. For example, you can start teaching throwing actions, move to groundwork actions and at the end of a unit combine both categories. Thus, as seen in pedagogical models, that is our future prospective, it would be important to have longer units with pedagogical progressions organized by actions that have sequence and with increasing complexity throughout the curriculum.
Also, it is important to consider the developmental aspects of the students and grade level the teachers are teaching when looking at this material. Safety is of major importance. For example, it is not adequate to teach joint locks and chokes for students at the elementary level. Striking actions should also be adapted for younger children and beginner students who can learn the tactics of offence and defense, opponent target, intentional contact, and so forth without hurting their partner. Strikes should be adapted by touch with open hands on the shoulders, the elbows or even with extensions such as a balloon held by the partner or a short foam noodle as I just mentioned above.
Through combat games we can achieve outcomes related to bodily needs, expressions, and languages. We can talk about and practice different aspects of culture and history. We can learn physical, educational, and social skills. When in combat you have to learn about your limits as well as your partners. The contact is close and intentional. Building respect is part of the game since winning at all costs can mean not having a partner to practice with. Through combat games children and youth can learn the differences between combating against and combating with each other. The differences between fighting and combating can be taught, bringing better understandings about violence and respectful interactions that are part of the game. Through combat games students do not have to repeat techniques that are not contextualized and do not make sense before being allowed to play the game. An approach with decontextualized repetition of skills limits the possibilities of experiences since applying the skills in combat situation is totally different. On the contrary, tactical intelligence and enjoyment is improved when learning through game play. This does not mean that students will not learn skills, it means that they have the opportunity to try, to make mistakes, and to desire to learn the skills that will make sense after simple combat games are played. In life we always ask a question when we want an answer, why do many times we, as teachers, provide the answer before the question when teaching sports and PA? With enough time to practice, teachers can use different games with progressive complexities creating a learning environment for students to learn combat actions. Furthermore, combative activities and martial arts have a set of skills related with self-space and the space of others. Students can experience different martial expressions that allow them to play around with movements standing, manipulating instruments and on the floor. Furthermore, game-based approach can provide more meaningful and enjoyable experiences that can lead children and youth to prolonged engagement in martial arts, as in other sports.
I would like to thank Marcelo for the trust and hard work in developing ideas to improve our pedagogical endeavor to develop martial arts teaching and learning strategies, Risto and Dr. Banville for the enthusiasm in advising me on my journey moving forward with my research.
Marcelo and I would like to thank Risto for the space to share our research and David Kirk for the support and perspectives on game-based approach and model-based practice as well as reviewing our research.
If you are interested in our work please reach out. Here are a few resources that we have developed.
VA AHPERD Presentation: https://gmuedu-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/rmarttin_gmu_edu/Eb9Z1A1TAn1ImDGpcwm4KZwB6PXHxKgwKJ7cUXYEjyvANg?e=gs8JkJ
Articles: Antunes, M. M., Rodrigues, A. I. C., & Kirk, D. (2020). Teaching martial arts in schools: A proposal for contents organization. Revista Valore, 5, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.22408/reva502020511e-5031
Antunes, M. M., Rodrigues, A. I. C., & Kirk, D. (2021) Pedagogia do jogo no processo de ensino e aprendizagem das artes marciais [Game pedagogy in the teaching and learning process of martial arts]. In M. M. Antunes & D. L. Moura (Eds.), Dialogando com as lutas, artes marciais e esportes de combate [Dialogue with combative activities, martial arts and combat sports] (Coleção Reflexões Sobre Educação Física e Esporte, v. 1, pp. 103-120). DOI: 10.24824/978652511065.3
References:
Gomes, M. S. P. (2008). Procedimentos pedagógicos para o ensino das lutas: Contextos e possibilidades [Pedagogical procedures for teaching combative activities: Contexts and possibilities] (139f) [Master's dissertation, College of Physical Education, State University of Campinas].
Gomes, M. S. P., Morato, M. P., Duarte, E., & de Almeida, J. J. G. (2010). Ensino das lutas: dos princípios condicionais aos grupos situacionais. Movimento, 16(2), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.9743