Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)

6 Pages·2017·0.729 MB·English

by  Amitabh Vikram Dwivedi

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)
framework for games curriculum. Through this, the progress
of small-side games and the transmission of core game skills
became popular.
Abstract
Overview
Further Insights
Issues
Terms & Concepts
Bibliography
Suggested Reading
Abstract
Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) is an approach
that became popular during late 1970s and early 1980s when
educators began teaching students how to experience the
excitement of play through games and sports. Since late
1980s many books and papers publications, conferences and
presentations have been developed to discuss and analyze TGfU.
This approach gradually modified when guides, coaches, and (Source: Bunker and Thorpe Model, 1982; © EBSCO)
practitioners started advocating for inclusion of all sports. As a David Bunker and Rod Thorpe, two education practitioners
result, Play Practice emerged in 2001, followed by Game Sense working at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom,
and Tactical Games Model in 2004 and 2006, respectively. took initiative for developing TGfU in 1982. They were
dissatisfied with skill-based approaches, practiced and advocated
by Wade and others. Their critique of skill-based approaches was
Overview
that learners were showing little progress and interest in games
During 1960s, Alan Wade, a physical-education teacher at lessons. While working with differently abled children in 1968,
Loughborough College of Education, became discontented with Thorpe found that the concepts of defense, attack, and space
the conventional approaches of playing games and suggested that were more useful than the core skills (techniques) of games. The
core skills of games should be focused on in The F. A. Guide to rationale of this approach came from educational gymnastics.
Training and Couching (1967). Wade’s work showed influence Thorpe observed that presenting a problem-solving situation to
of other education practitioners, such as Charles Hughes, Eric learners became more helpful.
Worthington, and Stan Wigmore. Hughes was a key figure
Further, he argued that learners’ autonomy in solving problems
in developing and publishing the principles of play notion,
in their own way at their own level was well supported with
whereas Wigmore and Worthington suggested that the skills of
the ideas posited by cognitive psychologists. Learner autonomy,
games should be taught through play principles (1996). Wade
however, put teachers in a difficult position as they discovered in
analyzed the shared elements of games and developed a common
setting up appropriate and challenging problems, and sometimes
it resulted in poor presentation of lessons. Bunker, a colleague
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc • All Rights Reserved Page 1
of Thorpe, also got dissatisfied with the skill-based approach and usage, shaping was an extension of the basic principles of TGfU.
collaborated with Thorpe. The duo’s approach was a paradigm He put more emphasis on meeting the needs of different students,
shift—earlier practitioners were focused on ‘how to do things?’ learning opportunities, and changing games.
but Bunker and Thorpe argued for ‘what is to be done, and when?’
Another theoretical development alongside TGfU and Play
during the teaching of games.
Practice came from Australia where the focus was to develop a
The problem with Wade’s approach was that it focused too much “game sense” for learners and instructors. Game sense puts the
on motor skills rather than accounting for the contextual nature game in a central position and helps develop strategic and tactical
of games. Bunker and Thorpe argued that tactical considerations thinking. In this, the tutor becomes a facilitator and creator of
in a game were of paramount importance—self-awareness would situations.
teach students to make correct decisions contextually. They
TGfU, however, did not address certain important considerations,
would start using specific techniques required in a particular
such as understanding how the opposition plays; the positions
game. While teaching badminton in New Zealand in 1976, for
of opponent players and teammates; the choices available during
example, Thorpe started incorporating the principles of play into
play; the flow and shape of the games; positional sense; the
games teaching.
roles of the players during defense, offense, and neutrality; and
At the same time, Len Almond and Williamson also started changeovers and team links.
interrogating the common conventional practices employed in
teaching games. And these four education practitioners began
Further Insights
propagating their ideas in games courses, workshops, and
summer schools with local education administration and teachers TGfU brought a paradigm shift in teaching games, moving the
throughout England. focus from “how to do it” to ”what to do & when.” Post-
TGfU models and practices also contributed to the approaches in
Initially, many coaches did not recognize TGfU as a new
teaching games, such as the Tactical-Decision Learning model,
concept and wanted to remain faithful to the skill-based approach.
by Gréhaigne, Wallian, & Godbout (2005); Light’s Game Sense
Skeptical educators and coaches asked how learners could be
(2004); Launder’s Play Practice (2001); and Griffin, Mitchell and
trained without teaching them proper techniques. Bunker and
Oslin’s Tactical Games Model (2006).
Thorpe argued that technique was important but not the central
aim of the lesson, which was to teach game players to develop These approaches adopted certain principles of TGfU and
problem-solving as a game strategy. modified some to offer learners ways of learning both technical
and tactical skills in different games. All of them focus
Another criticism of TGfU was that it adopted small-sided
on teaching and developing an understanding of the tactical
games. Bunker and Thorpe countered that though lessons of
dimensions before moving to the technical skills of the
TGfU are for mini games, they can be employed in each game
game. Further, these approaches advocated tactical problem-
form (1983). In 1984, during the Olympic Congress in Oregon,
solving, game-simulated practice, and contextual and real world
the pedagogical principles focusing on the teaching of games
environment for technical and tactical skills.
were introduced into the games curriculum. The principles were:
tactical complexity, sampling, modification-representation, and Modifications. For many years it has been game structures
exaggeration. Bunker, Almond, and Thorpe also emphasized that and equipment have been modified for elementary physical
adult games needed to be modified and simplified for children. education. This approach has also been adopted and accepted by
coaches and trainers at the undergraduate and secondary levels.
To meet the demands faced by young learners, the modification
”Matching” is of key importance in modifications—matching to
principle suggests changes in playing areas, rules, and time
meet the requirements of learners are central in each game. For
frames. It also includes major changes in the technical demands,
improving the quality of physical education this approach has
such as reducing the size of balls and rackets. Bruner’s theory
been making a significant contribution for many decades.
of instruction and spiral curriculum were employed along with
exaggerations in highlighting the tactical problems and the Teaching for Understanding. For developing teaching for
primary rules of the games. understanding, the TGfU model laid emphasis on tactical skills
rather than on technical ones. Thorpe and Bunker questioned
Since the aim of TGfU was to stimulate young participants and
the practice of adding on games to the end of lessons while
help them develop an interest in games, Bunker and Thorpe
leaving out the tactical elements. They argued that if we neglect
emphasized practice, which eventually would lead to improved
the meaning of game structure and the skills that players need
game techniques and help learners increase their involvement,
for games then children cannot become skillful players. Physical
activity, and enjoyment.
education practitioners should allow learners to learn and practice
TGfU also addressed the various requirements of children tactics along with modifications in games and equipment because
in different environments. “Shaping games” were a basic deep and well-connected knowledge yields better results.
modification. Launder in Play Practice (2001)used this term in
Progression. This theme shows the progressive aspect of TGfU.
the sense of enhancing, shaping, and focusing play. In Launder’s
The learners master the skills in progression: first comes the
learning of basic skills, which is followed by acquiring tactical
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc • All Rights Reserved Page 2
game skills and game play. In basic skills, learners master the Understanding the Role of Games. Games are social activities,
elementary movement patterns necessary for game play, for and wherever physical games are played the participants try to
example how to hold the badminton racquet during service. Next, give local expression to the play, for example, by modifying
students learn tactical game skills, such as how to play backhand rules, including and excluding the number of participants,
and forehand or make an ace. At an advanced level, students learn and developing local vocabulary for games. These local and
to use the basic skills with tactical ones. community adaptations occur during the process of play, and
the overall effects of adaptation are cumulative for society, the
Meaning and Relevance. Oslin and Mitchell believe that the
group, and individual players. For example, those principles
progressive steps in TGfU, from learning basic skills to game
of learning, competition, and cooperation learned in childhood
play coordination, is relevant for students as it makes the content
remain with the participants throughout their lives, and the
knowledge meaningful and enhances their performance (2006).
principles learned for games later on become behaviors and
The progression also motivates a large number of students who
beliefs for the participants.
are less confident about game skills, techniques of games, and
tactical decisions. The progression also helps in developing Sports and games function as an institution of socialization into
their cognitive and social abilities, and the students also start the dominant cultural ideology. What make games and sports
understanding the perspectives of their opponents. It is essential important, however, are not their historical and cultural meanings
to understand multiple perspectives. but their unpredictability—the players, officials, teachers, and
coaches involved in games are not sure about the outcomes
Game Appreciation. Game appreciation includes knowledge
and results of the games. This uncertainty associated with
about game rules, boundaries, results for breaking rules, scoring
games also makes them non-linear and continual. Their potential
points, and number of players. Thorpe points out the significance
for socialization also remains open to many interpretations
of game appreciation and shows his concern over this neglected
depending upon the nature and contexts of the participants. In a
theme.
learner-centered approach, how people play a game determines
what values are replicated through it. How game play is
Issues interpreted corresponds to ideologies and beliefs prevalent in the
society and culture.
Pedagogy of TGfU. TGfU is the best example of learner-
centered, humanistic teaching which has been used among Each game also associates an inherent value with it, which is
athletic communities at all levels. The context of game play also known as the objective property of the game. For example,
is central to enhance performance through learning tactics and one such inherent value is the uncertain nature of the outcome,
skills. This approach not only focuses on physical and social and for that reason, players (teammates and opponents) get
domains but also helps learners obtain cognitive and emotional collective enjoyment while playing the game. Another value is
skills, using games as a tool for development and growth. competition and cooperation; Siedentop argues for an ecological
However, considering the present-day requirements of physical perspective that is to be associated with TGfU and states
games, the TGfU model must include life skills, team culture, and that without cooperation between opponents, no competition
tactical awareness along with aspects, such as affective concepts can exist. He criticizes the popular notion—“your win is our
and personalized learning in order to heighten the sense of self. defeat”—associated with games as the mechanistic display of an
industrial mindset. In fact, winning the game should be secondary
Twenty-first century research on the TGfU model highlights that
to the act of agreeing to and setting up the challenges of the game.
skill-acquisition specialists (Turner, 2005) and the constructive
Thus, associating ecological perspective with TGfU becomes
approach as a learning theory (Griffin & Butler, 2005) provide
important in that games are sites of adaptation and communal
insight to the cognitive learning effects of TGfU. Though the
learning for the players.
early theoretical framework of TGfU advocated teaching for
meaningful experiences and delight in participation, yet the Some researchers attempt to associate the principles of
justification for learning within a context of games falls into complexity learning with the TGfU model. Since complexity
constructivist learning. Athletic-centered coaching motivates the learning occurs in a system that is adaptive, self-maintaining,
learners to get hold of the intrinsic desire and enables them and self-organizing, the TGfU practitioners do not need to
to construct sport experiences so that they may improve their deviate from its core principles but instead can modify some
movement capabilities. of them according to the requirements. In complexity thinking,
learning is understood as a living, social system, which happens
Coaches adhering to the principles of TGfU allow learners to
as a result of experiences—personal and well as collective.
interpret, analyze, conjecture, and solve the motor or tactical
Looking at games as an emergent process—a continuous
problem on their own through trial and error. Working as
interaction between collective knowledge and personal knowing
facilitators, coaches provide minimum instructions but help
situate learning in context. In other words, they restate the
problem, reinforce, probe, prompt, and provide additional
knowledge, but they do not engage themselves in problem-
solving activity. Through this, the athletes become independent
and self-reliant.
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc • All Rights Reserved Page 3
—helps develop critical understanding beyond game play. Gréhaigne, J.-F., Richard, J.-F.., & Griffin, L. (2005).
The constraints associated with each game can be dealt with Teaching and learning team sports and games. New
effectively through personal actions and collective perceptions. York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Griffin, L., & Patton, K. (2005). Two decades of TGfU:
Terms & Concepts
Looking at the past, present, and future. In L.
Complex Learning: Concept dealing with variables involved Griffin and J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for
in acquisition skills and knowledge, such as motivation, understanding: Theory, research, and practice.
self-knowledge, and cognitive ability, use of techniques and Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
strategies, and learning environment.
Light, R. (2005). Making sense of games sense: Australian
Constructive Approach: An approach dealing with the active coaches talk about game sense. In L. Griffin & J.
involvement of learners during the learning process. Learners Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding:
are supposed to be the creators of knowledge and meaning. Theory, research and practice. Champain, IL: Human
In constructivist teaching, learners are active and interactive Kinetics.
participants, and they learn in a democratic environment.
Stolz, S. A., & Pill, S. (2016). A narrative approach
Game Sense: The Game Sense approach, a derivative of TGfU,
to exploring TGfU-GS. Sport, Education &
developed in the 1990s against the conventional game-as-
Society, 21(2), 239-261. Retrieved October 23,
techniques approach. In 1993, Charlesworth first introduced this
2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education
term describing designer games.
Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
Learner-centered Teaching: Also known as ”humanistic direct=true&db=sxi&AN=112190751&site=ehost-live
teaching,” pedagogy based on the works of Rogers and Maslow in
which the focus is on learners’ choice and control over learning.
Suggested Reading
Personalized Learning: Works on three core principles, the
Butler, J. I. (2006). Curriculum constructions of
bond between learner-instructor is deeper; students take more
ability: enhancing learning through Teaching
ownership in learning and teachers are facilitators; learning takes
Games for Understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum
place anywhere, anytime.
model. Sport, Education & Society, 11(3),
Play Practice: Alan Launder’s approach for all sports, which 243–258. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from
guides education practitioners through teaching games in ways EBSCO Online Database Education Source.
that go beyond the core principles of TGfU. Launder uses terms, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
such as shaping play, focusing play, and enhancing play, which direct=true&db=sxi&AN=21806673&site=ehost-live
provides another dimension to TGfU.
Butler, J. I., Storey, B., & Robson, C. (2014). Emergent
Problem-solving: A cognitive process of learning in psychology,
learning focused teachers and their ecological
which deals with the orderly path to solve a task or goal.
complexity worldview. Sport, Education &
Skill-acquisition Specialists: Sport scientists who deal with Society, 19(4), 451–471. Retrieved October 23,
perception and motor learning. 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education
Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=sxi&AN=95786739&site=ehost-live
Bibliography
Sardone, N. B., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2014). Game-based
Brumitt, J. (2015). Physical Therapy Case Files, Sports.
teaching and learning to promote understanding
McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division.
of current issues and tolerance. Social Education /
Bruner, J. S. (2006). In search of pedagogy: The selected Socialinis Ugdymas, 38(2), 93–102. Retrieved October
works of Jerome Bruner, 1957–1978. New York, NY: 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education
Routledge. Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=sxi&AN=100017381&site=ehost-live
Byl, J., & Kloet, B. V. G. (2014). Physical education for
homeschool, classroom, and recreation settings: 102 Wang, L., & Ha, A. S. (2012). Factors influencing
games with variations. pre-service teachers’ perception of teaching
games for understanding: a constructivist
Ennis, C. D. (2016). Routledge Handbook of Physical perspective. Sport, Education & Society, 17(2),
Education Pedagogies. Georgetown: Taylor and 261–280. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from
Francis.
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc • All Rights Reserved Page 4
EBSCO Online Database Education Source.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=sxi&AN=73324879&site=ehost-live
Essay by Amitabh Vikram
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc • All Rights Reserved Page 5
Copyright of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) -- Research Starters Education is
the property of Salem Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.