Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)

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 practitioners started advocating for inclusion of all sports. As a result, Play Practice emerged in 2001, followed by Game Sense and Tactical Games Model in 2004 and 2006, respectively.

Overview During 1960s, Alan Wade, a physical-education teacher at Loughborough College of Education, became discontented with the conventional approaches of playing games and suggested that core skills of games should be focused on in The F. A. Guide to Training and Couching (1967). Wade’s work showed influence of other education practitioners, such as Charles Hughes, Eric Worthington, and Stan Wigmore. Hughes was a key figure in developing and publishing the principles of play notion, whereas Wigmore and Worthington suggested that the skills of games should be taught through play principles (1996). Wade analyzed the shared elements of games and developed a common

(Source: Bunker and Thorpe Model, 1982; © EBSCO)

David Bunker and Rod Thorpe, two education practitioners working at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom, 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 that learners were showing little progress and interest in games lessons. While working with differently abled children in 1968, Thorpe found that the concepts of defense, attack, and space were more useful than the core skills (techniques) of games. The rationale of this approach came from educational gymnastics. Thorpe observed that presenting a problem-solving situation to learners became more helpful. Further, he argued that learners’ autonomy in solving problems in their own way at their own level was well supported with the ideas posited by cognitive psychologists. Learner autonomy, however, put teachers in a difficult position as they discovered in 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 collaborated with Thorpe. The duo’s approach was a paradigm shift—earlier practitioners were focused on ‘how to do things?’ but Bunker and Thorpe argued for ‘what is to be done, and when?’ during the teaching of games. The problem with Wade’s approach was that it focused too much on motor skills rather than accounting for the contextual nature of games. Bunker and Thorpe argued that tactical considerations in a game were of paramount importance—self-awareness would teach students to make correct decisions contextually. They would start using specific techniques required in a particular game. While teaching badminton in New Zealand in 1976, for example, Thorpe started incorporating the principles of play into games teaching. At the same time, Len Almond and Williamson also started interrogating the common conventional practices employed in teaching games. And these four education practitioners began propagating their ideas in games courses, workshops, and summer schools with local education administration and teachers throughout England. Initially, many coaches did not recognize TGfU as a new concept and wanted to remain faithful to the skill-based approach. Skeptical educators and coaches asked how learners could be trained without teaching them proper techniques. Bunker and Thorpe argued that technique was important but not the central aim of the lesson, which was to teach game players to develop problem-solving as a game strategy. Another criticism of TGfU was that it adopted small-sided games. Bunker and Thorpe countered that though lessons of TGfU are for mini games, they can be employed in each game form (1983). In 1984, during the Olympic Congress in Oregon, the pedagogical principles focusing on the teaching of games were introduced into the games curriculum. The principles were: tactical complexity, sampling, modification-representation, and exaggeration. Bunker, Almond, and Thorpe also emphasized that adult games needed to be modified and simplified for children. To meet the demands faced by young learners, the modification principle suggests changes in playing areas, rules, and time frames. It also includes major changes in the technical demands, such as reducing the size of balls and rackets. Bruner’s theory of instruction and spiral curriculum were employed along with exaggerations in highlighting the tactical problems and the primary rules of the games. Since the aim of TGfU was to stimulate young participants and help them develop an interest in games, Bunker and Thorpe emphasized practice, which eventually would lead to improved game techniques and help learners increase their involvement, activity, and enjoyment. TGfU also addressed the various requirements of children in different environments. “Shaping games” were a basic modification. Launder in Play Practice (2001)used this term in the sense of enhancing, shaping, and focusing play. In Launder’s

usage, shaping was an extension of the basic principles of TGfU. He put more emphasis on meeting the needs of different students, learning opportunities, and changing games. Another theoretical development alongside TGfU and Play Practice came from Australia where the focus was to develop a “game sense” for learners and instructors. Game sense puts the game in a central position and helps develop strategic and tactical thinking. In this, the tutor becomes a facilitator and creator of situations. TGfU, however, did not address certain important considerations, such as understanding how the opposition plays; the positions of opponent players and teammates; the choices available during play; the flow and shape of the games; positional sense; the roles of the players during defense, offense, and neutrality; and changeovers and team links.

Further Insights TGfU brought a paradigm shift in teaching games, moving the focus from “how to do it” to ”what to do & when.” PostTGfU models and practices also contributed to the approaches in teaching games, such as the Tactical-Decision Learning model, by Gréhaigne, Wallian, & Godbout (2005); Light’s Game Sense (2004); Launder’s Play Practice (2001); and Griffin, Mitchell and Oslin’s Tactical Games Model (2006). These approaches adopted certain principles of TGfU and modified some to offer learners ways of learning both technical and tactical skills in different games. All of them focus on teaching and developing an understanding of the tactical dimensions before moving to the technical skills of the game. Further, these approaches advocated tactical problemsolving, game-simulated practice, and contextual and real world environment for technical and tactical skills. Modifications. For many years it has been game structures and equipment have been modified for elementary physical education. This approach has also been adopted and accepted by coaches and trainers at the undergraduate and secondary levels. ”Matching” is of key importance in modifications—matching to meet the requirements of learners are central in each game. For improving the quality of physical education this approach has been making a significant contribution for many decades. Teaching for Understanding. For developing teaching for understanding, the TGfU model laid emphasis on tactical skills rather than on technical ones. Thorpe and Bunker questioned the practice of adding on games to the end of lessons while leaving out the tactical elements. They argued that if we neglect the meaning of game structure and the skills that players need for games then children cannot become skillful players. Physical education practitioners should allow learners to learn and practice tactics along with modifications in games and equipment because deep and well-connected knowledge yields better results. Progression. This theme shows the progressive aspect of TGfU. 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 elementary movement patterns necessary for game play, for example how to hold the badminton racquet during service. Next, students learn tactical game skills, such as how to play backhand and forehand or make an ace. At an advanced level, students learn to use the basic skills with tactical ones. Meaning and Relevance. Oslin and Mitchell believe that the progressive steps in TGfU, from learning basic skills to game play coordination, is relevant for students as it makes the content knowledge meaningful and enhances their performance (2006). The progression also motivates a large number of students who are less confident about game skills, techniques of games, and tactical decisions. The progression also helps in developing their cognitive and social abilities, and the students also start understanding the perspectives of their opponents. It is essential to understand multiple perspectives. Game Appreciation. Game appreciation includes knowledge about game rules, boundaries, results for breaking rules, scoring points, and number of players. Thorpe points out the significance of game appreciation and shows his concern over this neglected theme.

Issues Pedagogy of TGfU. TGfU is the best example of learnercentered, humanistic teaching which has been used among athletic communities at all levels. The context of game play is central to enhance performance through learning tactics and skills. This approach not only focuses on physical and social domains but also helps learners obtain cognitive and emotional skills, using games as a tool for development and growth. However, considering the present-day requirements of physical games, the TGfU model must include life skills, team culture, and tactical awareness along with aspects, such as affective concepts and personalized learning in order to heighten the sense of self. Twenty-first century research on the TGfU model highlights that skill-acquisition specialists (Turner, 2005) and the constructive approach as a learning theory (Griffin & Butler, 2005) provide insight to the cognitive learning effects of TGfU. Though the early theoretical framework of TGfU advocated teaching for meaningful experiences and delight in participation, yet the justification for learning within a context of games falls into constructivist learning. Athletic-centered coaching motivates the learners to get hold of the intrinsic desire and enables them to construct sport experiences so that they may improve their movement capabilities. Coaches adhering to the principles of TGfU allow learners to interpret, analyze, conjecture, and solve the motor or tactical problem on their own through trial and error. Working as 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 problemsolving activity. Through this, the athletes become independent and self-reliant.

Understanding the Role of Games. Games are social activities, and wherever physical games are played the participants try to give local expression to the play, for example, by modifying rules, including and excluding the number of participants, and developing local vocabulary for games. These local and community adaptations occur during the process of play, and the overall effects of adaptation are cumulative for society, the group, and individual players. For example, those principles of learning, competition, and cooperation learned in childhood remain with the participants throughout their lives, and the principles learned for games later on become behaviors and beliefs for the participants. Sports and games function as an institution of socialization into the dominant cultural ideology. What make games and sports important, however, are not their historical and cultural meanings but their unpredictability—the players, officials, teachers, and coaches involved in games are not sure about the outcomes and results of the games. This uncertainty associated with games also makes them non-linear and continual. Their potential for socialization also remains open to many interpretations depending upon the nature and contexts of the participants. In a learner-centered approach, how people play a game determines what values are replicated through it. How game play is interpreted corresponds to ideologies and beliefs prevalent in the society and culture. Each game also associates an inherent value with it, which is also known as the objective property of the game. For example, one such inherent value is the uncertain nature of the outcome, and for that reason, players (teammates and opponents) get collective enjoyment while playing the game. Another value is competition and cooperation; Siedentop argues for an ecological perspective that is to be associated with TGfU and states that without cooperation between opponents, no competition can exist. He criticizes the popular notion—“your win is our defeat”—associated with games as the mechanistic display of an industrial mindset. In fact, winning the game should be secondary to the act of agreeing to and setting up the challenges of the game. Thus, associating ecological perspective with TGfU becomes important in that games are sites of adaptation and communal learning for the players. Some researchers attempt to associate the principles of complexity learning with the TGfU model. Since complexity learning occurs in a system that is adaptive, self-maintaining, and self-organizing, the TGfU practitioners do not need to deviate from its core principles but instead can modify some of them according to the requirements. In complexity thinking, learning is understood as a living, social system, which happens as a result of experiences—personal and well as collective. Looking at games as an emergent process—a continuous interaction between collective knowledge and personal knowing

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © EBSCO Information Services, Inc • All Rights Reserved

Page 3

—helps develop critical understanding beyond game play. The constraints associated with each game can be dealt with effectively through personal actions and collective perceptions.

Gréhaigne, J.-F., Richard, J.-F.., & Griffin, L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Terms & Concepts

Griffin, L., & Patton, K. (2005). Two decades of TGfU: Looking at the past, present, and future. In L. Griffin and J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research, and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Complex Learning: Concept dealing with variables involved in acquisition skills and knowledge, such as motivation, self-knowledge, and cognitive ability, use of techniques and strategies, and learning environment. Constructive Approach: An approach dealing with the active involvement of learners during the learning process. Learners are supposed to be the creators of knowledge and meaning. In constructivist teaching, learners are active and interactive participants, and they learn in a democratic environment. Game Sense: The Game Sense approach, a derivative of TGfU, developed in the 1990s against the conventional game-astechniques approach. In 1993, Charlesworth first introduced this term describing designer games. Learner-centered Teaching: Also known as ”humanistic teaching,” pedagogy based on the works of Rogers and Maslow in which the focus is on learners’ choice and control over learning. Personalized Learning: Works on three core principles, the bond between learner-instructor is deeper; students take more ownership in learning and teachers are facilitators; learning takes place anywhere, anytime. Play Practice: Alan Launder’s approach for all sports, which guides education practitioners through teaching games in ways that go beyond the core principles of TGfU. Launder uses terms, such as shaping play, focusing play, and enhancing play, which provides another dimension to TGfU. Problem-solving: A cognitive process of learning in psychology, which deals with the orderly path to solve a task or goal. Skill-acquisition Specialists: Sport scientists who deal with perception and motor learning.

Bibliography Brumitt, J. (2015). Physical Therapy Case Files, Sports. McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division. Bruner, J. S. (2006). In search of pedagogy: The selected works of Jerome Bruner, 1957–1978. New York, NY: Routledge. Byl, J., & Kloet, B. V. G. (2014). Physical education for homeschool, classroom, and recreation settings: 102 games with variations. Ennis, C. D. (2016). Routledge Handbook of Physical Education Pedagogies. Georgetown: Taylor and Francis.

Light, R. (2005). Making sense of games sense: Australian coaches talk about game sense. In L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research and practice. Champain, IL: Human Kinetics. Stolz, S. A., & Pill, S. (2016). A narrative approach to exploring TGfU-GS. Sport, Education & Society, 21(2), 239-261. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=sxi&AN=112190751&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading Butler, J. I. (2006). Curriculum constructions of ability: enhancing learning through Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education & Society, 11(3), 243–258. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=sxi&AN=21806673&site=ehost-live Butler, J. I., Storey, B., & Robson, C. (2014). Emergent learning focused teachers and their ecological complexity worldview. Sport, Education & Society, 19(4), 451–471. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=sxi&AN=95786739&site=ehost-live Sardone, N. B., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2014). Game-based teaching and learning to promote understanding of current issues and tolerance. Social Education / Socialinis Ugdymas, 38(2), 93–102. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=sxi&AN=100017381&site=ehost-live Wang, L., & Ha, A. S. (2012). Factors influencing pre-service teachers’ perception of teaching games for understanding: a constructivist perspective. Sport, Education & Society, 17(2), 261–280. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from

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.