Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
http://epe.sagepub.com/European Physical Education Review
http://epe.sagepub.com/content/20/1/36The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1356336X13496001
2014 20: 36 originally published online 6 August 2013European Physical Education ReviewSteven Stolz and Shane Pill
relevance in physical educationTeaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
North West Counties Physical Education Association
can be found at:European Physical Education ReviewAdditional services and information for
http://epe.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://epe.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://epe.sagepub.com/content/20/1/36.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Aug 6, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Jan 15, 2014Version of Record >>
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Article
Teaching games and sportfor understanding:Exploring andreconsidering its relevancein physical education
Steven StolzLa Trobe University, Australia
Shane PillFlinders University, Australia
AbstractOver 30 years ago the original teaching games for understanding (TGfU) proposition was publishedin a special edition of the Bulletin of Physical Education (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). In that timeTGfU has attracted significant attention from a theoretical and pedagogical perspective as animproved approach to games and sport teaching in physical education (PE). It has been particularlychampioned as a superior alternative to what Kirk (2010) and Metzler (2011) described as atraditional method. Recently, however, one of the TGfU authors suggested that the TGfU premiseneeds to be revisited in order to explore and rethink its relevance so that pedagogy in PE againbecomes a central and practical issue for PE (Almond, 2010), as it has not been as well accepted byPE teachers as it has by academics. In order to review and revisit TGfU and consider its relevanceto games and sport teaching in PE this paper outlines two areas of the TGfU proposition: (1) thebasis for the conceptualisation of TGfU; (2) advocacy of TGfU as nuanced versions. The empirical-scientific research surrounding TGfU and student learning in PE contexts is reviewed and analysed.This comprehensive review has not been undertaken before. The data-driven research will facil-itate a consideration as to how TGfU practically assists the physical educator improve games andsport teaching. The review of the research literature highlighted the inconclusive nature of theTGfU proposition and brought to attention the disparity between researcher as theory generatorand teacher practitioner as theory applier. If TGfU is to have improved relevance for teachers of PEmore of an emphasis needs to be placed on the normative characteristics of pedagogy that drivethis practice within curricula.
Corresponding author:
Steven Stolz, Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, PO Box 199 Bendigo 3552, Victoria, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
European Physical Education Review2014, Vol. 20(1) 36–71ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1356336X13496001epe.sagepub.com
36
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
KeywordsTeaching games for understanding (TGfU), teaching, physical education (PE), research
Introduction
This paper aims to revisit Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) teaching of games for understanding (TGfU)
approach in physical education (PE). Since its inception as a model, the TGfU approach has been the
subject of significant attention from theoretical, research, advocacy and practical perspectives. The
review of the literature highlights how the TGfU model has been the catalyst for a global movement
involving games teaching that has spawned a diverse array of derivations around the world. Although
Bunker and Thorpe intended to challenge the status quo of what has now become known as a
‘traditional’ (Hoffman, 1971; Kirk, 2010; Metzler, 2011) approach to teaching games and sport in
PE, a closer look at the literature will show competing discourses vying for dominance in the PE
games literature (see for example, Metzler, 2011). For instance, recent research would suggest that
curriculum and pedagogical elements associated with Game Sense (den Duyn, 1996, 1997), which is
an Australian version of TGfU, are not considered by teachers as unique to a TGfU framework, or of
themselves defining of a TGfU approach because they are simply good pedagogical practice for sport
related game teaching (Pill, 2011a). This is a theme picked up by Hopper et al. (2009), who noted that
TGfU was not initially presented as a new innovation, rather an organisation and application of peda-
gogy that had not previously been made coherent.
For the purposes of this paper we will be concerned with the critical discussion of two issues: first,
we provide a brief historical overview of the conceptual approach commonly known as TGfU in
order to highlight how this model has spawned major iterations that may appear to be different, but
on closer inspection are defined by subtle rather than distinctive differences, some of which clarify
aspects of the original TGfU proposition; and second, in order to verify these claims we adopt a
similar methodology to Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005) in which a total of 76 publications per-
taining to the TGfU model were collected and segregated into two categories: theoretical (n ¼ 40)
and data-based empirical-scientific studies (n ¼ 36). The review of the non-empirical-scientific lit-
erature demonstrated the global dissemination and nuanced interpretations of TGfU since its original
description in the themed edition of the Bulletin of Physical Education in 1982. The contradictory
nature of the empirical-scientific literature, especially the attempt to capture TGfU as ‘good’ peda-
gogical practice, is revealed in the empirical-scientific literature summarised later in Table 2. The
empirical-scientific data is inconclusive as to whether TGfU enhances games teaching and learning.
This is unlike the theoretical literature, which advocates and explains TGfU as an improvement upon
traditional (Kirk, 2010; Metzler, 2011) and in many cases still normative ‘technical’ (Kirk, 2010) and
‘linear’ (Chow, et al., 2007) pedagogical practice. The assumptions of the theoretical literature about
TGfU pedagogy and comparisons with a traditional PE method (Metzler, 2011) will be explained in
the literature review following this introduction. It is anticipated that this paper will generate further
discussion and research surrounding games and sport pedagogy and learning in PE, which the results
of this research reveal are far from resolved.
Literature review
TGfU: a brief historical overview
A paradigm shift from the drill as the dominant approach to sport-related games teaching began
in the 1960s that influenced the later pedagogical elements of TGfU. Wade (1967) proposed a
Stolz and Pill 37
37
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
small-sided games framework for the combined purpose of teaching technical and tactical attack
and defence skills of football (soccer). The small-sided games framework Wade proposed involved
the minimum possible number of players for a competitive small-sided game. Small-sided modi-
fied games became a central feature of the TGfU model. Also in the late 1960s, Mosston (1968)
described the Spectrum of Teaching Styles. The Spectrum of Teaching Styles instructional strate-
gies guided PE teachers towards the purposeful choice of pedagogical action to meet specific
teaching objectives (Mosston, 1981). The guided discovery style explained by Mosston is not
unlike the TGfU emphasis on teacher questioning to both prompt examination of a target game
concept and focus game understanding.
Mauldon and Redfern (1969) suggested that physical educators should not call a person educated
who has simply mastered a skill and presented a new approach for games teaching. Mauldon and
Redfern’s new approach (1969) contained three elements: (1) game categories to group games of
similar nature so that teaching for conceptual and skill transfer between similar games could occur; (2)
game analysis by players so that players were prompted to develop game appreciation and under-
standing; and (3) structured situations for player experimentation and problem solving. They proposed
that all games contained one or more of three elements: (1) sending an object away; (2) gaining
possession of an object; and (3) travelling with an object. These elements were used to group games
into three categories: (a) net games; b) batting games; and (c) running games. The purpose of the game
classification was to assist the process of game analysis for player development of game appreciation,
and to assist teaching for skill and knowledge transfer between games. These features are also present
as emphasised pedagogical themes in the description of TGfU (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982).
Game classification was later refined to four categories and eight sub-categories by Ellis (1983)
(Table 1).
Despite these developments in games and sport teaching, games teaching in secondary PE
continued to be structured as sport-as-techniques in highly structured lessons (Kirk, 2010). The
decontextualised nature of learning skills as motor patterns isolated from the movement–informa-
tion coupling of the game meant that students’ experiences of sport were not authentic (Savels-
bergh et al., 2003). Some suggested that a large percentage of students completed the
compulsory years of schooling and participation in PE achieving very little success, and knowing
very little about games and sport (Bunker and Thorpe 1982, Siedentop 1994).
TGfU: an approach for improved games teaching?
In 1982, TGfU proposed that the games teaching emphasis be placed on understanding the logic of
play imposed by the rules of the game, and that appreciation of the tactical structure of play be
Table 1. Ellis (1983) game categories.
Territory Games - Goal (Football)Line (Rugby)
Target Games - Opposed (Lawn Bowls)Unopposed (Golf)
Court Games - Net (Volleyball)Shared (Squash)
Field - Fan (Softball)Oval (Cricket)
38 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
38
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
learnt before highly structured technique teaching was proposed (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). It
emerged as a counter to the perceived shortcomings for student learning inherent in the highly
structured sport-as-techniques (Kirk, 2010) traditional PE method (Metzler, 2011) in secondary
PE. The model now known as TGfU continued the evolution of the small-sided games approach
(Werner et al., 1996) while outlining a sequential cycle of teaching based on the premise that game
understanding and decision making was not dependent on the prior development of sport specific
movement techniques.
Just as Mauldon and Redfern’s (1969) approach challenged the curriculum and pedagogical
practice of PE, TGfU challenged traditional PE method ‘of progression as an additive process by
proposing that children could learn to play modified versions of games ahead of mastering the
mature skills’ (Kirk, 2010: 85). The six-step TGfU cycle of teaching assumed that students learn
best if they understand what to do before they understand how to do it (Griffin et al., 2005: 215). As
already indicated, the TGfU model combined features of earlier departures from the PE method.
However, it was the clear articulation of guiding pedagogical principles (Bunker and Thorpe,
1982) and theoretical support from the perspective of cognitive educational psychology (Pigott,
1982) that was perhaps significant to the models subsequent academic acceptance.
The distinctiveness of the TGfU model is sometimes suggested as belonging with its guiding
pedagogical principles (Thorpe et al., 1984). These are as follows (Thorpe et al., 1986: 164–167):
1. Sampling: The use of modified games and sport as a way to experience adult versions of
games;
2. Exaggeration: Changing game structures, such as rules, equipment and play space, to promote,
exaggerate, control or eliminate certain game behaviours to enable teaching through the game;
3. Representation: Small-sided modified games structured to suit the age and/or experience of
the players; and
4. Questioning: Prompting student thinking and problem solving by questions so that knowl-
edge of what to do, when to do it and why to do it develops and leads to the question of how
to perform movement in the context of play.
However, these pedagogical elements were already advocated as advances in games teaching.
What TGfU approach accomplished was the organisation of the pedagogy into a coherent pro-
position (Thorpe et al., 1986).
Since Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) original description and explanation of the TGfU approach
and further elaboration (Bunker and Thorpe, 1983; Thorpe et al., 1986), it has been advocated as
nuanced interpretations. This growth reflected similar concerns to overcome problems of: (1)
isolated (from the game) direct teaching of skill drills and defining of skills as techniques; (2)
perceptions that student motivation in games teaching is low; and (3) the absence of relevance of
PE to the achievement of educational outcomes (Lopez et al., 2009). The next section of the paper
briefly summarises the advocacy of TGfU occurring through the major interpretations of TGfU
occurring in the PE literature.
Developing TGfU globally: the major iterations
Tactical Games. The Tactical Games approach (Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2003, 2006)
simplified the six-step teaching and learning cycle of TGfU into a three-step cycle to make it easier
for teachers to understand the learning process (Figure 1). The Tactical Games model also
Stolz and Pill 39
39
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
introduced a structured progression through levels of sport skill learning to provide a ‘complete
package for teaching’ (Mitchell et al., 2006: 5) for middle and secondary school PE that was miss-
ing from the TGfU literature. The benefit of such an approach for teachers was that they did not
have to be as reliant on developing sport-specific domain knowledge across a broad range of dif-
ferent sports. Questions to guide the development of game understanding and skill practices during
lessons were focussed through an overarching tactical problem.
As Figure 1 illustrates, the Tactical Games approach did not change the tactical-before-technical
linear teaching cycle of the original TGfU proposition. However, a substantial addition to the peda-
gogy of TGfU was the description of an assessment tool that accounted for on-the-ball and off-the-
ball game play, known as the Games Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI). The GPAI
enabled codification of tactical decision making, off-the-ball movement to read and respond, and
on-the-ball reaction and then recovery to a position for further game involvement (Hopper, 2003).
Seven components of game performance were defined in the GPAI to provide flexibility and adapt-
ability of the instrument across TGfU game categories (Mitchell et al., 2006).
Game Sense. The term ‘Game Sense’ was used by Thorpe and West in 1969 as a description of
game intelligence and as a games teaching performance measure. However, Game Sense is more
commonly recognised as emerging from the field of sport coaching in Australia. In 1993,
Charlesworth described Game Sense as the objective of player development at the elite sport
level. He described Designer Games (Charlesworth, 1993, 1994) as the structure to achieve the
combining of specific technical, tactical and fitness training in a game practice that simulates
game conditions to develop player game sense. The idea of Game Sense developed into a sport
teaching approach during a series of visits by Rod Thorpe to Australia in the mid 1990s to work
with the Australian Sports Commission (Thorpe, 2012). A player-centred model (Schembri,
2005) to develop the tactical and technical foundations of sport through a game-centred training
structure was described (den Duyn, 1996, 1997; Thorpe, 1997). Thorpe (2006) has described the
Game Sense model as incorporating more than the original TGfU model (Kidman, 2005: 233),
and so the Game Sense model may be justifiably seen as a further refinement of TGfU for sport
skill teaching.
The central focus of the Game Sense approach is the development of thinking players (den
Duyn, 1997). This objective for sport teaching is pursued via the coupling of movement tech-
nique to game context as skilled performance; or, as den Duyn (1997) described, Technique þ
Game Form
(Representation, Exaggeration)
Tactical Awareness Skill Execution
What to do? How to do it?
Figure 1. Tactical Games approach.
40 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
40
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Game Context ¼ Skill (Figure 2). The original Game Sense description did not elaborate the
teaching of game appreciation and understanding before a focus on the refinement of skill
execution, but discussed the development of technical and tactical game components as being
taught together. This was a fine distinction but a departure from the six-step TGfU tactical-
before-technical cycle of learning where game appreciation occurs before technique develop-
ment (Figure 3).
Similar to the TGfU (and Tactical Games) model, small-sided games and the use of questioning
to develop tactical game understanding were central to the pedagogy of a Game Sense approach.
Also similar to the Tactical Games model, a thematic curriculum for the teaching of sport skill
foundations based on the TGfU game categories emerged, elaborated via the Game Sense Cards
(Australian Sports Commission, 1999a) and then the Active After Schools Playing for Life kit
Technique + Game Context = Skill
Figure 2. Game Sense (den Duyn, 1997).
Game Categories
Invasion Court Field Territory
1. Game
2. Game Appreciation 1. Learner 6. Performance
3. Tactical Awareness 4. Making Appropriate Decisions
5. Skill Execution
What to do? How to do it?
Figure 3. The teaching games for understanding (TGfU) approach.
Stolz and Pill 41
41
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(Australian Sports Commission, 2005). The Game Sense cards were similar to the Playsport mini-
games instructional cards designed by Rod Thorpe (Thorpe, 2006).
Similar to TGfU’s initial articulation, Game Sense did not initially distinguish between small-
sided games for fundamental sport skill learning and small-sided game play for more complex tac-
tical and technical skill learning. It was later refined into a three-stage curriculum model aligned to
the continuum of achievement evident in Australian Health and PE curriculum frameworks, and
the general direction of Cote et al.’s (2003) developmental model of sport participation as Play
with Purpose (Pill, 2007).
Play Practice. Game Sense also forms part of the Play Practice approach (Launder, 2001). The Play
Practice approach, however, explains Game Sense as one of several elements required for suc-
cessful game involvement. Similar to Charlesworth’s (1993, 1994) description of Designer Games,
Play Practice positions Game Sense as a sport-teaching/coaching objective. Like Designer Games,
Play Practices could be seen as activities that sit within a Game Sense approach, alongside skill
drills and other instructional strategies, used to teach individual and group situational skills and
decision making in ‘time-outs’ between small-sided game play and match simulation via Designer
Games.
The Play Practice pedagogy of shaping the play to suit the experience of players, focussing the play
on learning sport skills, and enhancing play by directing attention to any elements of play requiring
improvement (Launder, 2001) are conceptually similar to the TGfU pedagogy of teaching through the
game and directing learning by sampling, exaggerating and representation of game structures. Like
TGfU, Tactical Games and Game Sense models, Play Practice pedagogy encouraged teachers to adopt
a broad range of instructional strategies to achieve task objectives; however, there is no obvious
emphasis on the development of ‘thinking players’ by guided discovery using questioning as a central
pedagogical tool as there is in the TGfU, Game Sense and Tactical Games models.
Invasion games competency model. In the invasion games competency model (IGCM) players
progress through a sequential series of basic game forms (modified games) growing in complexity
as they master the objectives of each game form. A game situation is the starting point for lessons,
and the introductory game is designed to relate the tactical and technical elements of the situation
to the players. Similar to other versions of TGfU, when using the IGCM teachers are encouraged to
monitor the play for tactical problems and intervene to stop the game where appropriate to question
players, thereby encouraging players to think about the aim of the game. Once players recognise
the need for new skills or skill refinement, practice occurs (Tallir et al., 2004, 2005).
Tactical decision learning model. The tactical decision learning model (T-DLM) focusses on student
exploration of the various possibilities of game play and on the construction of adequate movement
responses in small-sided invasion games (Grehaigne et al., 2005a). After experiencing the game,
teams propose action plans (game plans) which are then tried out in play and progressively refined
as players develop more sophisticated understanding of the relationship between the action plan
and the game rules (Grehaigne and Godbout, 1995). Once stabilisation of game understanding
appears to have taken place, the teacher increases the complexity of the game, and eventually intro-
duces another team sport to initiate generalisation of game understanding across sports (Grehaigne
et al., 2005b). Similar to the Tactical Games approach emphasis on data collection, observational
assessment and the collection of qualitative and quantitative feedback are central to the T-DLM.
This data collection may occur through the tracking of player movement using descriptive drawing
42 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
42
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
and statistical measures such as the Team Sport Assessment Instrument. This instrument contains
assessment criteria to account for players’ specific behaviours during game play (Grehaigne and
Godbout 1997, 1998; Grehaigne et al.2005a).
TGfU is also familiar in Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Macau, Japan and Korea (Liu, 2010), and
in Singapore it is known as the Games Concept Approach (Light and Tan, 2006).
Theoretical framework used to organise the literature review
Adopting a similar methodology to Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005), initial articles and papers
were sourced by a key word search in Google Scholar utilising TGfU, teaching games for
understanding, tactical games and game sense and physical education. From the initial searches
additional articles, papers and books were sourced through citations and references.
The review of literature revealed four sub-categories of TGfU publication. The first type of pub-
lication consisted of theories of sport teaching and learning. The publications discussed the tenets of a
model of sport or games teaching and the pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Issues
addressed within this type of literature include the cycle of learning (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982; Grif-
fin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2006), pedagogical strategies (Bell, 2003; den Duyn, 1997; Grehaigne
et al., 2005a; Griffin et al., 1997; Launder, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2006, Pill, 2007, 2011b; Piltz, 2003),
and the application of TGfU to sport skill-teaching pedagogy (Breed and Spittle, 2011; Charlesworth,
1993; den Duyn, 1997; Grehaigne et al., 2005b; Griffin et al., 1997; Hopper, 1998; Launder, 2001;
Mitchell et al., 2006; Schembri 2005). This literature also included examples of how to implement
teaching games and sport for understanding in school and coaching contexts.
The second category of publication included advocacy for teaching games and sport for
understanding for a better practice of sport teaching and coaching. The publications elaborated on
the assumptions and assertions of efficacy of the descriptions of the TGfU models being imple-
mented around the world (Chow et al., 2007; Kirk et al., 2000; Launder and Piltz, 2006; Pigott,
1982; Pill, 2010; Piltz, 2002; Renshaw et al., 2010; Thorpe, 1997) and the personal experience of
the authors with the model (Butler and McCahan, 2005; Kirk et al., 2000; Light et al., 2005). This
type of publication asserted enhanced student learning and games teaching resulting from the
adoption of the pedagogical and content tenets of a TGfU-style curriculum based on theories of
skill learning or the authors’ experience of games teaching.
The third category of publication included the perspective of the practitioner. It included the
data driven studies evaluating the limits, constraints and possibilities of teaching games and sport
for understanding on various dimensions of sport learning, the achievement of curriculum out-
comes and design and implementation of curriculum. It would not be appropriate to make state-
ments regarding the advantages of models without reviewing the empirical-scientific literature
(Chandler and Mitchell, 1990; Lopez et al., 2009). The results of the literature review are contained
in Table 2 and discussed in detail later in the paper.
The fourth category of publication dealt with the implementation of teaching games and sport
for understanding into the coursework and tertiary education experiences directed at pre-service
teacher pedagogical content knowledge (Forrest et al., 2006; Howarth and Walkuski, 2003;
Howarth, 2005; Light, 2003; Light and Georgakis, 2005; Pill, 2009; Sweeney et al., 2003). The
narrative of this research is that pre-service teachers are attracted to the model but find the peda-
gogical content knowledge required to implement the theoretical model into practice troublesome,
which as a result limits feelings of efficacy with the model. The intention in this paper is not to
Stolz and Pill 43
43
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2.G
ener
alove
rvie
woflit
erat
ure
revi
ew.
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
TG
fUButler
,1996
Tea
cher
sar
e
inte
rvie
wed
about
attr
actions
and
dra
wbac
ksofth
e
tact
ical
appro
ach
Ten
teac
her
sw
ork
ing
acro
ssY
ears
3–11,
rangi
ng
inte
achin
g
exper
ience
from
7–
30
year
s,te
achin
g
activi
ties
ofch
oic
e
Quan
tita
tive
dat
apro
vided
by
Chef
fers
’ad
aption
ofFl
ander
s’
Inte
ract
ion
Anal
ysis
Syst
em,
Indiv
idual
Rat
ion
Ges
talt,T
each
ers
Per
form
ance
Cri
teri
a
Ques
tionnai
re,an
dan
anal
ysis
of
teac
her
ques
tionin
g(c
odin
gof
video
ofte
achin
g).
Qual
itat
ive
dat
apro
vided
by
indiv
idual
par
tici
pan
tin
terv
iew
s
Posi
tive
outc
om
es
-M
ore
teac
her
ques
tions
ata
hig
her
cogn
itiv
ele
vel
-T
he
focu
softh
ele
sson
chan
ged
from
exec
uting
skill
sto
under
stan
din
gta
ctic
s
-T
he
teac
her
’sfo
cus
chan
ged
from
aco
nce
rnw
ith
contr
olto
studen
tle
arnin
g
Conce
rns
-St
uden
tsnee
dto
lear
nsk
ills
bef
ore
they
can
pla
ya
gam
e
-St
rate
gies
nee
dto
be
lear
nt
under
the
guid
ance
of
the
teac
her
-T
he
exec
ution
ofsk
ills
ism
ore
easi
lyev
aluat
edth
an
the
conce
pts
ofT
GfU
-T
he
tech
nic
alm
odel
offer
sgr
eate
rco
ntr
olove
r
studen
ts
-T
he
teac
her
’sro
leis
totr
ansm
itkn
ow
ledge
-T
GfU
isonly
suitab
lefo
rold
erst
uden
ts,or
the
emotional
lym
ature
and
hig
hly
motiva
ted
-C
ogn
itiv
efo
cus
com
esat
the
expen
seofth
e
phys
ical
TG
fUT
urn
er,1
996
Exam
inin
gth
eva
lidity
of
the
TG
fUap
pro
ach
by
com
par
ing
itw
ith
the
tech
niq
ue
appro
ach
24
Yea
r6
and
24
Yea
r7
studen
tsas
sign
edto
four
teac
hin
ggr
oups
of12
studen
ts
under
took
afie
ld
hock
eyunit
Hen
ry–Fr
iedel
Fiel
dH
ock
etT
est
pre
test
and
post
test
,30-ite
mm
ultip
le
choic
ekn
ow
ledge
test
,an
da
codin
gofga
me
dec
isio
ns
(contr
ol,
dec
isio
nm
akin
g,ex
ecution)duri
ng
gam
epla
yan
dpar
tici
pan
t
inte
rvie
ws
�N
osi
gnifi
cant
diff
eren
ces
insk
illdev
elopm
ent
bet
wee
nT
GfU
and
tech
niq
ue
groups
on
the
skill
test
�T
GfU
impro
ved
sign
ifica
ntly
more
than
tech
niq
ue
group
for
dec
lara
tive
know
ledge
�T
GfU
group
impro
ved
sign
ifica
ntly
more
than
tech
niq
ue
group
inco
ntr
olan
ddec
isio
nm
akin
gin
gam
epla
y
�T
he
inte
rvie
wdat
ain
dic
ated
gam
e-re
late
dac
tivi
ties
pro
vided
the
most
enjo
ymen
t
(con
tinue
d)
44
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
TG
fUFr
ench
etal
.,
1996
The
effe
cts
ofa
3-w
eek
skill
,ta
ctic
alor
com
-
bin
edta
ctic
alan
dsk
ill
inst
ruct
ion
on
per
form
ance
48
Yea
r9
studen
ts
random
lyse
lect
ed
from
aco
hort
of
appro
x90
studen
ts,
with
12
studen
ts
assi
gned
toth
ree
trea
tmen
tgr
oups
and
aco
ntr
olgr
oup
Bad
min
ton
know
ledge
,ski
llan
dga
me
pla
y(v
ideo
tapin
g),an
duse
of
know
ledge
duri
ng
per
form
ance
wer
equan
tita
tive
lyan
alys
ed
�T
he
tact
ical
group
acce
ssed
more
action
conce
pts
duri
ng
the
gam
eth
anth
esk
illor
com
bin
atio
ngr
oups
TG
fUFr
ench
etal
.,
1996
The
effe
cts
ofa
6-w
eek
skill
,ta
ctic
alor
com
-
bin
edta
ctic
alan
dsk
ill
inst
ruct
ion
on
per
form
ance
52
studen
tsfr
om
thre
e
Yea
r9
bad
min
ton
clas
ses
assi
gned
to
thre
etr
eatm
ent
groups
and
aco
ntr
ol
group
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofsk
illan
d
know
ledge
test
s,obse
rvat
ion
of
gam
epla
yan
dpla
nnin
gin
terv
iew
s
duri
ng
gam
epla
y
�T
he
skill
and
tact
ical
group
exhib
ited
bet
ter
per
form
ance
than
oth
ergr
oups
on
import
ant
mea
sure
sofga
me
pla
y
�T
he
skill
group
per
form
eddec
isio
nco
mponen
tsof
per
form
ance
asw
ellas
the
tact
ical
group
�T
he
com
bin
atio
ngr
oup
exhib
ited
poore
r
per
form
ance
on
cogn
itiv
e(g
ame
dec
isio
ns)
and
skill
com
ponen
tsofper
form
ance
than
the
skill
or
tact
ical
groups
�C
ogn
itiv
ere
pre
senta
tions
ofbad
min
ton
skill
dev
eloped
diff
eren
tly
inea
chgr
oup;t
he
tact
ical
group
resp
onded
with
gener
alta
ctic
alst
atem
ents
wher
eas
the
skill
and
com
bin
atio
ngr
oups
use
dm
ore
spec
ific
stat
emen
tsab
out
shot
sele
ctio
nan
dex
ecution
(con
tinue
d)
45
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
TG
fUA
lison
and
Thorp
e,
1997
Com
par
eef
fect
iven
ess
ofsk
illan
dT
GfU
appro
aches
40
year
9boys
and
56
year
8gi
rls
from
one
seco
ndar
ysc
hool
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofst
uden
ts’pre
and
post
-inte
rven
tion
test
susi
ng
AA
PH
ER
Dbas
ketb
allsk
illte
sts
and
the
Hen
ry–Fr
iedel
Fiel
d
Hock
eyte
st,kn
ow
ledge
and
under
stan
din
gte
st.A
studen
t
affe
ctiv
edom
ain
ques
tionnai
rean
d
teac
her
’spost
-les
son
ques
tion-
nai
res
wer
ean
alys
edqual
itat
ivel
y
�T
GfU
groups
impro
ved
skill
dev
elopm
ent
more
than
skill
-bas
edgr
oups
�Both
studen
tsan
dte
acher
sfe
ltst
uden
tsw
ere
more
invo
lved
inpla
nnin
gan
dev
aluat
ion
duri
ng
TG
fUle
s-
sons
�T
each
ers
felt
they
had
more
opport
unity
to
obse
rve
and
asse
ssduri
ng
TG
fUle
ssons
TG
fUT
urn
eran
d
Mar
tinek
,
1999
Com
par
ison
ofT
GfU
with
ate
chniq
ue
appro
ach
and
a
contr
olgr
oup
71
mid
dle
year
s
studen
tsbei
ng
taugh
t
field
hock
eyby
aPE
spec
ialis
t
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofpre
and
post
test
sofhock
eykn
ow
ledge
,sk
ill
and
gam
eper
form
ance
�W
hile
ther
ew
ere
no
sign
ifica
nt
diff
eren
ces
for
dri
bblin
gor
shooting
dec
isio
nm
akin
g,st
uden
ts
rece
ivin
gT
GfU
inst
ruct
ion
mad
ebet
ter
pas
sing
dec
isio
ns
�A
lthough
the
TG
fUgr
oup
score
dhig
her
than
the
tech
niq
ue
group
for
pro
cedura
lkn
ow
ledge
,th
e
diff
eren
ces
wer
enot
sign
ifica
ntly
diff
eren
t
�St
uden
tsin
the
TG
fUgr
oup
exhib
ited
sign
ifica
ntly
bet
ter
contr
ola
nd
pas
sing
exec
ution
duri
ng
post
-tes
t
gam
epla
y
�O
nm
ost
mea
sure
sofga
me
pla
yth
esk
illgr
oup
did
not
per
form
bet
ter
than
the
contr
olgr
oup
�T
her
ew
ere
no
sign
ifica
nt
diff
eren
ces
bet
wee
nth
e
groups
on
the
accu
racy
com
ponen
tofth
efie
ldsk
ill
test
s
(con
tinue
d)
46
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
TG
fUK
irk
etal
.,
2000
Des
crib
ew
hat
hap
pen
s
when
aT
GfU
appro
ach
was
imple
men
ted
inY
ear
8PE
Yea
r8
PE
clas
sdoin
ga
bas
ketb
allunit
Qual
itat
ive
anal
ysis
ofth
ree
critic
al
inci
den
tvi
gnet
tes
�T
he
exte
nt
tow
hic
hpla
yers
wer
eab
leto
per
ceiv
e
cues
for
action
inth
ephys
ical
envi
ronm
ent
was
ake
y
fact
or
limitin
gta
skper
form
ance
�R
ecogn
isin
gap
pro
pri
ate
cues
atle
ast
inpar
t
trig
gers
‘‘rem
ember
ing
those
stra
tegi
es’’
�It
isim
port
ant
pla
yers
dev
elop
dec
lara
tive
and
pro
cedura
lkn
ow
ledge
and
tech
nic
alco
mpet
ence
�T
asks
nee
dto
connec
tw
ith
studen
ts’em
ergi
ng
under
stan
din
gofth
est
rate
gies
and
tact
ics
�Stu
den
tsta
ugh
tfr
om
the
TG
fUper
spec
tive
dev
elop
dec
lara
tive
know
ledge
ofst
rate
gies
earl
yin
the
lear
nin
gpro
cess
,but
that
this
know
ledge
isnot
nec
essa
rily
tran
sform
edin
topro
cedura
lkn
ow
ledge
,
even
when
the
tech
nic
aldem
ands
ofth
eta
skar
e
sim
plif
ied
TG
fUT
urn
eret
al.,
2001
The
mea
nin
gm
iddle
schoolst
uden
ts
const
ruct
edfo
rth
e
conce
pt
ofsk
ilfuln
ess
inth
ega
me
offie
ld
hock
eyta
ugh
tw
ithin
the
gam
esfo
r
under
stan
din
g
inst
ruct
ional
conte
xt
Nin
est
uden
tsfr
om
two
Yea
r6
and
one
Yea
r
7cl
ass
div
ided
into
thre
ete
achin
g
groups
wer
e
purp
ose
fully
sam
ple
d
Qual
itat
ive
anal
ysis
ofopen
ended
inte
rvie
ws
�T
he
const
ruct
edm
eanin
gofsk
ilfuln
ess
centr
ed
around
tact
ical
under
stan
din
gan
ddec
isio
n
mak
ing
...
how
skill
sar
euse
dta
ctic
ally
inth
ega
me
toac
hie
veth
epurp
ose
ofth
ega
me
�Stu
den
tsco
nsi
sten
tly
refe
rred
tovi
sion
asa
key
skill
elem
ent
�St
uden
tsdef
ined
per
sonal
succ
ess
inte
rms
ofg
ame
pla
yper
form
ance
(con
tinue
d)
47
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
TG
fUH
arve
y,2003
Exam
ine
whet
her
TG
fU
could
be
utilis
edto
impro
vesp
ecifi
c
aspec
tsofga
me
invo
lvem
ent
and
per
form
ance
in
socc
er
16
par
tici
pan
tsag
ed16–
18
invo
lved
ina
socc
erdev
elopm
ent
squad
Pla
yers
per
form
ance
ina
modifi
ed
gam
esi
tuat
ion
was
quan
tita
tive
ly
anal
ysed
from
video
bef
ore
,duri
ng
and
afte
rth
ein
terv
ention
�St
uden
tga
me
per
form
ance
and
gam
ein
volv
emen
t
wer
ere
port
edas
impro
ved.I
tw
assu
gges
ted
that
the
TG
fUap
pro
ach
has
the
pote
ntial
toim
pro
ve
invo
lvem
ent
and
per
form
ance
inte
amsp
ort
by
incr
easi
ng
dec
isio
nm
akin
gca
pac
itie
sin
ord
erto
exec
ute
more
effe
ctiv
esk
ills
and
less
inef
fect
ive
TG
fUC
ruz,
2004
Inve
stig
ate
teac
her
s’an
d
studen
ts’p
erce
ptions
tow
ards
the
imple
men
tation
of
TG
fU
5se
condar
yPE
teac
her
s
and
thei
rst
uden
ts
Post
-tea
mhan
dbal
lunit
teac
hin
g
inte
rvie
ws
and
end-o
f-unit
studen
t
ques
tionnai
re
�T
each
ers
hel
dposi
tive
view
son
the
TG
fUap
pro
ach
�St
uden
tsin
dic
ated
they
had
lear
nt
more
about
tact
ics
and
rule
softh
ega
me
TG
fUH
ennin
ger
etal
.,
2006
Exam
ine
novi
ce
volle
ybal
lpla
yers
’
dom
ain-s
pec
ific
know
ledge
and
how
itis
use
dto
mak
e
tact
ical
dec
isio
ns
Four
colle
gest
uden
ts
enro
lled
inan
elec
tive
volle
ybal
l
clas
s
Qual
itat
ive
anal
ysis
oftr
ansc
ribed
talk
-alo
ud
and
wri
tten
pro
toco
l
resp
onse
s
�N
ovi
ces
bri
ng
dom
ain-s
pec
ific
know
ledge
into
PE
clas
ses
and
sport
sett
ings
buthav
ediff
iculty
usi
ng
that
know
ledge
toge
ner
ate
tact
ical
pla
ns
touse
inga
me
pla
y
�T
each
ers
and
coac
hes
must
crea
tele
arnin
gen
vir-
onm
ents
that
allo
wst
uden
ts/a
thle
tes
todev
elop
thei
r
tact
ical
dec
isio
nm
akin
gw
ithin
gam
epla
yco
nte
xts
TG
fUH
arve
yet
al.,
2009
Ass
ess
chan
ges
in
studen
tper
ceptions
ofin
volv
emen
tin
a
unit
ofso
ccer
usi
ng
the
TG
fUap
pro
ach
144
Yea
r6
PE
studen
ts
(four
clas
ses)
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofse
lf-re
port
ed
ques
tionnai
res
asse
ssin
gth
eaf
fec-
tive
dom
ain
�T
her
ear
eposi
tive
asso
ciat
ions
bet
wee
nst
uden
ts’
self-
report
edper
ception
ofth
eir
invo
lvem
ent
inPE
clas
ses
utilis
ing
TG
fU
�Si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
sin
lear
nin
gan
def
fort
�T
GfU
can
effe
ctiv
ely
enga
gest
uden
tsre
gard
less
of
skill
leve
l
(con
tinue
d)
48
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
TG
fUH
arve
yet
al.,
2010
Ass
ess
apra
ctic
e-
refe
rence
dap
pro
ach
for
TG
fUev
aluat
ion,
test
gam
eper
for-
man
ceusi
ng
the
GPA
I,as
sess
how
alig
nofpra
ctic
eco
n-
trib
ute
dto
gam
e
per
form
ance
34
socc
erpla
yers
from
a
hig
hsc
hoolso
ccer
pro
gram
me
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofa
pre
-
obse
rvat
ion
and
bas
elin
eas
sess
-
men
tfo
llow
edby
an8-w
eek
inte
rven
tion
phas
ew
ith
thre
e
asse
ssm
ents
usi
ng
video
captu
reof
gam
eper
form
ance
�Su
pport
for
the
notion
that
apra
ctic
e-re
fere
nce
d
appro
ach
asa
viab
lefr
amew
ork
for
asse
ssin
gle
arnin
g
with
TG
fUin
the
conte
xt
tow
hic
hit
applie
d
�G
ame-
situ
ated
teac
hin
gan
dle
arnin
g(a
ligned
pra
c-
tice
d)
led
tofa
ster
resp
onse
san
dquic
ker
reac
tions
within
the
gam
een
viro
nm
ent
off
the
bal
lan
dth
us
an
impro
vem
ent
inth
enum
ber
sofap
pro
pri
ate
gam
e
resp
onse
s
TG
fUJo
nes
etal
.,
2010
Exam
ine
the
impac
tof
TG
fUvs
.a
Tra
ditio
nal
skill
s-
bas
edap
pro
ach
on
intr
insi
cm
otiva
tion
194
Yea
r9
studen
ts
from
thre
esc
hools
wer
eas
sign
edto
one
ofth
etr
eatm
ent
conditio
ns
Intr
insi
cm
otiva
tion
inve
nto
ryw
as
adm
inis
tere
dpre
and
post
inte
rven
tion
�A
ffec
tive
exper
ience
sca
nbe
sign
ifica
ntly
enhan
ced
thro
ugh
TG
fU
�T
GfU
am
eanin
gfulan
dva
lued
gam
esped
agogy
,
espec
ially
for
girl
s
TG
fUG
ray
and
Spro
ule
,
2011
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
a
tact
ical
teac
hin
g
appro
ach
had
on
gam
ekn
ow
ledge
,
gam
epla
ying
per
form
ance
and
pupil
per
ception
of
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g
abili
ty
52
seco
ndar
yst
uden
ts
and
the
two
teac
her
s
Studen
tfo
cus
group
inte
rvie
ws,
pre
and
post
-inte
rven
tion
gam
evi
deo
anal
ysis
,st
uden
tques
tionnai
re
�N
osi
gnifi
cant
diff
eren
cebet
wee
ngr
oups
post
inte
rven
tion
inte
rms
ofon-t
he-
bal
lsk
ills
�Sk
ill-b
ased
group
bel
ieve
ddec
isio
n-m
akin
gab
ility
had
det
erio
rate
d,g
ame-
bas
edgr
oup
bel
ieve
don-t
he-
bal
lan
doff-t
he-
bal
ldec
isio
nm
akin
ghad
impro
ved
�T
he
gam
eper
form
ance
dat
adem
onst
rate
dth
atth
e
gam
e-bas
edgr
oup
mad
esi
gnifi
cantly
more
good
dec
isio
ns
on
and
off
the
bal
l
(con
tinue
d)
49
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
TG
fUBro
eket
al.,
2011
Inve
stig
ate
the
dec
isio
n-
mak
ing
pro
cess
of
thre
ein
stru
ctio
nal
groups
(tea
cher
-
centr
ed,st
uden
t-
centr
edw
ith
tact
ical
ques
tionin
gan
dst
u-
den
tce
ntr
edw
ithout
tact
ical
ques
tionin
g)
invo
lleyb
all
122
univ
ersi
tyst
uden
ts
doin
ga
volle
ybal
l
pra
ctic
alco
urs
e
div
ided
into
six
trai
nin
ggr
oups
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofth
eta
ctic
al
awar
enes
ssc
ore
sw
ith
test
ing
phas
es(p
re-t
est,
post
test
,re
ten-
tion
test
)w
ithin
inst
ruct
ional
group
(tea
cher
-cen
tred
,st
uden
t-
centr
edw
ith
tact
ical
ques
tionin
g
and
studen
t-ce
ntr
edw
ithout
tac-
tica
lques
tionin
g)an
dge
nder
(mal
e
and
fem
ale)
asfa
ctors
.St
uden
ts
wer
eas
sess
edusi
ng
avo
lleyb
all-
spec
ific
Tac
tica
lA
war
enes
sT
est
�T
he
tact
ical
know
ledge
ofth
est
uden
t-ce
ntr
ed
inst
ruct
ional
group
with
tact
ical
ques
tionin
g
impro
ved
sign
ifica
ntly
more
than
the
two
oth
er
inst
ruct
ional
groups
TG
fUBal
akri
shnan
etal
.,
2011
Inve
stig
ate
whet
her
tact
ical
lear
nin
g
outc
om
esca
nbe
impro
ved
with
the
TG
fUap
pro
ach
Four
Yea
r5
PE
clas
ses
in
one
school:
two
clas
ses
random
ly
assi
gned
asco
ntr
ol
groups
and
two
clas
ses
asth
e
exper
imen
talgr
oups
All
groups
test
edfo
rin
itia
lga
me
per
form
ance
usi
ng
aG
PA
Ias
apre
test
score
.A
fter
the
inst
ruct
ion
per
iod
the
GPA
Iw
asre
adm
inis
-
tere
das
apost
test
�Sig
nifi
cantm
ean
diff
eren
cebet
wee
nT
GfU
appro
ach
and
trad
itio
nal
skill
appro
ach
groups
�T
GfU
appro
ach
impro
ved
pri
mar
yPE
studen
ts
lear
nin
goutc
om
e
Gam
eSe
nse
Jones
and
Farr
ow
,
1999
Tra
nsf
erofkn
ow
ledge
bet
wee
nga
mes
inth
e
sam
eca
tego
ry
Tw
ocl
asse
sofye
ar8,
one
group
the
contr
ola
nd
the
oth
er
the
exper
imen
tal
group
Quan
tita
tive
study.
Studen
tsw
ere
test
edon
dec
isio
nm
akin
gan
d
dec
isio
nm
akin
gsp
eed
inbad
min
-
ton
duri
ng
gam
epla
y.T
he
contr
ol
group
under
took
aru
gby
unit
while
the
exper
imen
talgr
oup
under
took
avo
lleyb
allunit.A
ll
studen
tsw
ere
reas
sess
edon
dec
isio
nm
akin
gan
ddec
isio
n
mak
ing
spee
din
bad
min
ton.
�St
uden
tsin
the
exper
imen
talgr
oup
had
bet
ter
dec
isio
n-m
akin
gsk
ills
and
dec
isio
n-m
akin
gsp
eed
than
the
contr
olgr
oup
�T
her
ew
asno
appre
ciab
lediff
eren
cein
skill
leve
l
bet
wee
nth
etw
ogr
oups
�T
actica
lunder
stan
din
gofth
eex
per
imen
talgr
oup
was
sign
ifica
ntly
bet
ter
than
the
contr
olgr
oup
(con
tinue
d)
50
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
Gam
eSe
nse
Bro
oke
r
etal
.,
2000
Imple
men
ting
Gam
e
Sense
asa
new
appro
ach
toga
mes
teac
hin
g
Tw
oPE
teac
her
san
da
co-e
duca
tional
Yea
r
8cl
ass
doin
ga
bas
-
ketb
allunit
Qual
itat
ive
study.
Vid
eoofea
chof
the
five
less
ons
and
anau
dio
tran
scri
pt,
info
rmal
inte
rvie
ws
with
sele
cted
studen
tsduri
ng
less
ons,
and
teac
her
refle
ctiv
e
journ
als
�Lim
ited
under
stan
din
goft
he
conce
ptu
alas
pec
tsofa
sport
isa
const
rain
tupon
teac
her
confid
ence
inth
e
enac
tmen
tofa
Gam
eSe
nse
appro
ach
�W
her
eG
ame
Sense
isan
unfa
mili
arap
pro
ach
teac
her
sm
ayin
itia
llyfe
elde-
skill
edan
dnee
dto
revi
sit
pla
nnin
gsk
ills
�St
uden
tper
ceptions
about
the
valu
eofpla
ying
a
modifi
edga
me
vs.p
layi
ng
the
‘rea
l’ga
me
influ
ence
the
succ
essf
ulin
troduct
ion
ofa
Gam
eSe
nse
appro
ach
Gam
eSe
nse
Ligh
t,2004
Exam
ines
pra
ctic
ing
coac
hes
exper
ience
with
Gam
eSe
nse
ina
range
ofsp
ort
s
pla
yed
from
intr
oduct
ory
toel
ite
leve
l
Six
par
tici
pan
tsQ
ual
itat
ive
anal
ysis
ofpar
tici
pan
t
inte
rvie
ws
Stre
ngt
hs
ofa
Gam
eSe
nse
appro
ach
-D
evel
opin
goff-t
he-
bal
lpla
y
-T
rain
ing
that
replic
ates
gam
eco
nditio
ns
that
resu
lts
intr
ansf
erfr
om
trai
nin
gto
the
gam
e
-C
reat
ing
indep
enden
tdec
isio
nm
aker
s
-Pla
yer
motiva
tion
Chal
lenge
sofa
Gam
eSe
nse
appro
ach
-C
han
gein
the
coac
h-p
laye
rre
lationsh
ip
-T
he
aest
het
ics
oftr
ainin
gch
ange
ssu
chth
attr
ainin
g
does
n’t
‘look’
righ
tas
itis
less
ord
ered
-T
ime
const
rain
tsas
itw
asper
ceiv
edth
ata
GS
appro
ach
take
slo
nge
rto
get
resu
lts
Gam
eSe
nse
Aust
inet
al.,
2004
Fundam
enta
lm
ove
men
t
skill
s
One
pre
-ser
vice
gener
-
alis
tpri
mar
ysc
hool
(K-6
)pre
-ser
vice
teac
her
and
aY
ear
3
co-e
duca
tional
clas
s
of28
studen
ts
Act
ion
rese
arch
imple
men
ted
ove
ra
6-w
eek
per
iod
with
pre
and
post
asse
ssm
ent
ofFM
Spro
ficie
ncy
usi
ng
chec
klis
tsfr
om
the
Get
Skill
ed:G
etA
ctiv
epac
kage
,st
u-
den
tse
lfan
dpee
rch
eckl
ists
and
info
rmat
ion
shee
ts,an
dte
acher
obse
rvat
ion
shee
ts
�St
uden
tsim
pro
ved
insk
illle
velfo
rth
eFM
Softh
e
kick
�T
he
Gam
eSe
nse
appro
ach
pro
vided
anef
fect
ive
met
hod
ofga
inin
gan
dm
ainta
inin
gst
uden
tin
tere
stin
the
par
tici
pat
ion
and
per
form
ance
ofth
eki
ckin
the
conte
xt
ofso
ccer
(con
tinue
d)
51
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
Gam
eSe
nse
Chen
and
Ligh
t,
2006
Gam
ese
nse
ped
agogy
capac
ity
topro
mote
more
posi
tive
attitu
des
tow
ard
sport
Yea
r6
studen
tsco
-
educa
tional
clas
sof
30
studen
ts
Qual
itat
ive
Cas
eSt
udy,
9w
eeks
one
less
on/w
eek.
Inte
rpre
tative
anal
ysis
ofal
l-cl
ass
ques
tionnai
res,
one-
on-o
ne
inte
rvie
ws
with
eigh
t
studen
ts,obse
rvat
ion
and
studen
t
dra
win
gs
�Si
gnifi
cant
chan
gefo
rth
ebet
ter
inth
eei
ght
‘less
sport
y’st
uden
tsat
titu
des
tow
ard
cric
ket
and
soft
bal
l
�Si
gnifi
cant
impro
vem
ent
inso
cial
rela
tions
within
the
clas
san
din
the
studen
ts’ga
me
pla
y
Gam
eSe
nse
Pill
,2011a
Tea
cher
enga
gem
ent
with
TG
fUG
ame
Sense
inA
ust
ralia
64
teac
her
sQ
ual
itat
ive
anal
ysis
ofw
ebsu
rvey
�Gam
ese
nse
though
tto
be
most
applic
able
tose
nio
r
year
s(Y
ear
11
and
12)
PE
�Sm
all-si
ded
gam
esan
d‘q
ues
tionin
gas
ped
agogy
’not
seen
asdis
tinct
ive
toa
Gam
eSe
nse
appro
ach
�G
ame
Sense
gam
eca
tego
ries
did
not
feat
ure
in
curr
iculu
mpla
nnin
g
�G
ame
Sense
yet
tobe
fully
under
stood
and
imple
men
ted
Tac
tica
lG
ames
appro
ach
Mitch
ell
etal
.,
1995
Rel
ativ
eef
fect
iven
ess
of
tact
ical
and
skill
-
bas
edap
pro
aches
One
clas
sofY
ear
6
taugh
tby
ata
ctic
al
appro
ach,an
oth
er
Yea
r6
clas
sT
augh
t
by
the
sam
ete
acher
but
usi
ng
ask
ill-b
ased
appro
ach
Pre
and
post
test
sofkn
ow
ledge
and
gam
eper
form
ance
,an
dan
asse
ssm
ent
ofm
otiva
tion
by
the
Intr
insi
cM
otiva
tion
Inve
nto
ry
�St
uden
tsin
the
tact
ical
group
had
hig
her
per
centa
ges
ofga
me
invo
lvem
ent
�N
osi
gnifi
cant
diff
eren
ces
bet
wee
nth
eta
ctic
alan
d
tech
nic
algr
oups
for
most
skill
exec
ution
mea
sure
s
and
dec
isio
nm
akin
g
Tac
tica
lG
ames
appro
ach
Ber
kow
itz,
1996
Pra
ctitio
ner
refle
ctio
n
on
the
chan
gefr
om
skill
-bas
edte
achin
g
tota
ctic
al-b
ased
teac
hin
g
Ate
acher
sper
sonal
refle
ctio
non
chan
ging
teac
hin
g
appro
ach
Ref
lect
ive
wri
ting
�T
he
teac
her
bel
ieve
da
TG
Aen
able
dher
toac
hie
ve
‘more
’an
dth
atst
uden
tga
me
pla
yim
pro
vem
ent
and
gam
eunder
stan
din
gduri
ng
pla
yw
asm
ore
appar
ent
than
when
the
teac
her
had
use
da
skill
-bas
ed
appro
ach
(con
tinue
d)
52
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
Tac
tica
lG
ames
appro
ach
Mitch
ellan
d
Osl
in,
1999
To
addre
ssth
eques
tion
ofw
het
her
tact
ical
under
stan
din
g
tran
sfer
sac
ross
gam
esin
the
net
gam
esca
tego
ry
21
studen
tsra
ndom
ly
sele
cted
from
Yea
r9
Pre
and
post
inte
rven
tion
video
tap-
pin
gofbad
min
ton
singl
espla
y.
Bad
min
ton
inst
ruct
ion
was
fol-
low
edby
pic
kle
bal
lin
stru
ctio
n.
Dec
isio
nm
akin
gduri
ng
gam
epla
y
was
asse
ssed
usi
ng
aG
PA
I
�T
actica
lunder
stan
din
gim
pro
ved
duri
ng
bad
min
ton
inst
ruct
ion
and
this
impro
vem
ent
was
sust
ained
duri
ng
pic
kleb
all
Tac
tica
lG
ames
Appro
ach
Har
riso
n
etal
.,
2004
Tac
tic
vs.sk
illte
achin
g
inst
ruct
ion
182
beg
innin
guniv
ersi
ty
volle
ybal
lst
uden
tsin
six
clas
ses
div
ided
into
hig
h,m
ediu
m
and
low
-ski
lled
abili
ty
groups
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
.A
AH
PER
D
(1969)
volle
ybal
lsk
illte
st,co
din
g
video
ofga
me
tria
ls,se
lf-ef
ficac
y
scal
es,kn
ow
ledge
test
.
�Both
skill
teac
hin
gan
dta
ctic
alin
stru
ctio
npro
duce
d
impro
vem
ent
on
skill
test
s,se
lf-ef
ficac
y,kn
ow
ledge
and
gam
epla
y
�St
uden
tsca
nim
pro
vesi
gnifi
cantly
with
eith
ersk
ill
teac
hin
gor
ata
ctic
alm
odel
aslo
ng
asth
ete
acher
crea
tes
aposi
tive
lear
nin
gen
viro
nm
ent
Tac
tica
lG
ames
appro
ach
Mar
tin,2004
To
det
erm
ine
whet
her
tact
ical
under
stan
din
g
tran
sfer
sac
ross
gam
esin
the
inva
sion
gam
esca
tego
ry
36
random
lyse
lect
ed
Yea
r6
studen
ts
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofpre
and
post
asse
ssm
ent
ofdec
isio
nm
akin
g
from
video
ofultim
ate
fris
bee
gam
epla
yusi
ng
GPA
I.T
wo
stru
cture
dques
tionnai
res
pro
vided
to10
random
lyse
lect
ed
studen
tsduri
ng
the
team
han
dbal
l
unit,an
dal
lst
uden
tsw
ere
video
taped
inte
amhan
dbal
lga
me
pla
y.
�T
actica
lunder
stan
din
gim
pro
ved
duri
ng
the
ultim
ate
Fris
bee
unit
and
was
sust
ained
into
the
team
han
dbal
lunit
Tac
tica
lG
ames
appro
ach
Wal
lhea
d
and
Deg
lan,
2004
Inve
stig
ate
the
effe
cts
of
aT
GA
on
studen
ts
motiva
tional
resp
onse
218
studen
tsag
ed10–
16
from
11
schools
(13
clas
ses)
Pre
and
post
inte
rven
tion
mea
sure
s
ofst
uden
ten
joym
ent
and
per
-
ceiv
edef
fort
,co
mpet
ence
and
lear
nin
gw
ere
obta
ined
�T
he
ped
agogy
ofth
eT
GA
seem
edto
fost
ernon-
thre
aten
ing
leve
lofch
alle
nge
tost
uden
tssu
chth
at
the
studen
tsen
joye
dth
eex
per
ience
ofm
aste
ring
the
tact
ical
dim
ensi
ons
ofth
ega
me
and
are
motiva
ted
to
enga
gew
ithin
gam
es-b
ased
activi
ties
(con
tinue
d)
53
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
Tac
tica
lG
ames
appro
ach
Lee
and
War
d,
2009
Exam
ine
the
effe
cts
of
tech
niq
ue-
focu
ssed
and
tact
ic-f
ocu
ssed
inst
ruct
ional
condi-
tions
on
the
lear
nin
g
ofa
tact
ic
Four
studen
tsfr
om
each
ofth
ree
mid
dle
schoolPE
clas
ses
wer
eobse
rved
.T
wo
clas
ses
with
a
tact
ical
-focu
ssed
inte
rven
tion
and
a
thir
dcl
ass
acting
as
the
contr
ol
The
dep
enden
tva
riab
le‘s
upport
ing
move
men
t’w
asco
ded
from
obse
rvat
ion
ofvi
deo
of
inst
ruct
ional
and
mat
chga
mes
�Su
bst
antive
impro
vem
ent
ofsu
pport
ing
beh
avio
urs
duri
ng
tact
ic-f
ocu
ssed
inst
ruct
ion
than
duri
ng
tech
niq
ue-
focu
ssed
inst
ruct
ion
ofsu
pport
ing
move
-
men
tfo
rlo
w-s
kille
dfe
mal
esan
dm
ales
,an
dfo
r
aver
age-
skill
edfe
mal
es
Tac
tica
lG
ames
appro
ach
Tow
nse
nd
etal
.,
2009
Det
erm
ine
the
leve
lsof
tact
ical
moto
ran
d
cogn
itiv
ele
arnin
g
Six
sele
cted
studen
ts
from
aY
ear
4cl
ass,
two
studen
tsw
ithin
each
skill
leve
l–hig
h,
mid
dle
,lo
w
Qual
itat
ive
anal
ysis
ofpre
and
post
test
softa
ctic
alsk
illan
dco
gnitiv
e
under
stan
din
g,en
d-o
f-le
sson
‘free
wri
tes’
,st
uden
tsin
terv
iew
san
d
rese
arch
erjo
urn
al
�St
uden
tsco
gnitiv
ely
under
stan
dta
ctic
sbef
ore
they
could
succ
essf
ully
exec
ute
them
�St
uden
tsen
joye
da
tact
ical
appro
ach
bec
ause
they
pla
yed
gam
esan
dpra
ctis
edw
ith
team
-mat
es,but
did
not
enjo
yth
etim
esp
ent
liste
nin
gduri
ng
ques
tionin
g
per
iods
�Stu
den
tsas
young
asY
ear
4ca
nsu
ccee
din
ata
ctic
al
appro
ach,but
teac
her
sm
ust
atte
nd
toper
tinen
t
ques
tionin
gte
chniq
ues
Tac
tica
lG
ames
appro
ach
Bohle
r,2009
Inve
stig
atin
gth
eT
actica
l
Gam
esm
odel
Tw
om
iddle
schoolY
ear
6PE
teac
her
san
d
thei
rco
mbin
ed
clas
ses
under
taki
ng
a
volle
ybal
lunit
Qual
itat
ive
anal
ysis
ofst
ruct
ure
d
studen
tpre
and
post
unit
inte
rvie
ws,
des
crip
tive
field
note
s,
video
and
audio
taped
per
form
ance
s,st
uden
tth
ink
aloud
report
sduri
ng
gam
es,an
da
situ
atio
nal
know
ledge
quiz
�A
tact
ical
gam
em
odel
may
contr
ibute
tost
uden
t
tact
ical
under
stan
din
gan
dm
ayen
han
cest
uden
t
dec
isio
nm
akin
gan
dga
me
per
form
ance
�U
nit
lengt
his
aco
nst
rain
ton
studen
tdev
elopm
ent
ofdee
per
and
more
sophis
tica
ted
know
ledge
stru
cture
s
(con
tinue
d)
54
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2
(continued
)
Study
Auth
or/
sFo
cus
Par
tici
pan
tsan
dse
ttin
gD
ata
sourc
eFi
ndin
gs
Pla
yPra
ctic
eH
olt
etal
.,
2006
Tra
nsf
erofle
arnin
g
from
pla
ypra
ctic
es
toga
me
pla
yin
socc
er
Six
univ
ersi
tyst
uden
ts
rate
dlo
wto
moder
ate
socc
er
pla
ying
abili
ty
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofvi
deo
reco
rded
per
form
ance
s
�W
hen
pla
yers
per
form
edab
ove
70%
appro
pri
ate
resp
onse
sin
pra
ctic
eper
form
ance
,ga
mes
impro
ved.
The
rational
efo
rpre
cedin
g3v2
pra
ctic
ew
ith
a2v1
was
not
support
edby
the
findin
gs
�W
ith
rega
rdto
low
erab
ility
par
tici
pan
ts,if
the
under
lyin
gsk
ills
wer
enot
initia
llypre
sent
inth
e
per
form
ers’
reper
toir
e,th
enpla
ypra
ctic
ew
asnot
suffic
ient
toim
pro
veper
form
ance
inpra
ctic
e,or
to
mak
eth
esk
ills
effe
ctiv
ein
gam
es(p
.114).
Gam
es
Com
pet
ency
Appro
ach
Fry
etal
.,
2010
Eva
luat
ew
het
her
child
ren
per
ceiv
e
GC
Aas
addin
gva
lue
toth
eir
PE
exper
ience
304
upper
pri
mar
y
studen
ts
Qual
itat
ive
anal
ysis
ofa
6-ite
mopen
inve
nto
ry
�M
ajori
tyofst
uden
tsre
port
edhei
ghte
ned
inte
rest
and
enga
gem
ent
with
lear
nin
g
�So
me
child
ren
wer
enot
read
yto
incr
ease
thei
r
under
stan
din
gan
den
gage
men
tin
pro
ble
mso
lvin
g
and
dec
isio
n-m
akin
gta
sks
that
dev
elop
gam
ese
nse
Tac
tica
l
Dec
isio
n
Mak
ing
Ala
rcon
etal
.,
2009
Anal
yse
the
effe
cts
ofa
tact
ical
trai
nin
g
pro
gram
me
on
pas
sing
dec
isio
n
mak
ing
duri
ng
real
gam
es
10
mal
epar
tici
pan
ts
with
anav
erag
eag
e
of21
and
anav
erag
e
accu
mula
ted
exper
ience
of8
year
s
Quan
tita
tive
anal
ysis
ofpre
test
and
then
post
test
ofth
eex
per
imen
tal
group
afte
ra
7-m
onth
trai
nin
g
pro
gram
me
�Bet
wee
nth
epre
test
and
the
post
test
the
num
ber
oftim
esth
atth
ere
wer
etw
osi
multan
eous
team
actions
(move
men
tson
both
sides
ofth
epla
yer
with
the
bal
l)in
support
ofth
epla
yer
with
the
bal
lth
at
favo
ure
dth
epas
sin
crea
sed
(5%
to73.6
%of
occ
asio
ns)
Inva
sion
Gam
es
Com
pet
ency
Model
Tal
liret
al.,
2003
Exam
ine
the
impac
tof
the
IGC
Man
da
trad
itio
nal
appro
ach
tote
achin
gbas
ketb
all
97
pri
mar
ysc
hool
child
ren
from
four
clas
ses
oftw
o
pri
mar
ysc
hools
.
Cla
sses
wer
e
random
lyas
sign
edto
eith
erIG
CM
or
trad
itio
nal
teac
hin
g
conditio
ns
Dec
isio
nm
akin
gan
dm
emory
test
s
wer
ead
min
iste
red
five
tim
es,pre
and
post
inst
ruct
ion,an
dth
ree
tim
esduri
ng
the
inst
ruct
ion
wee
ks
�T
he
more
effic
ient
acquis
itio
nofdec
isio
n-m
akin
g
know
ledge
inth
eIC
GM
conditio
n
�Bet
ter
rete
ntion
score
softh
epupils
inth
etr
adi-
tional
conditio
n
55
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
focus on this area of research as it is a separate line of inquiry to the perspective of the practitioner
pursued in this paper.
The historical overview earlier in this paper engaged with the first categories of papers. The
discussion to follow will include an analysis of this history of TGfU and substantially engage with the
results of the third type of publication, the data driven research. It is always difficult to determine
when to stop searching and how many articles to include in a review (Wallhead and O’Sullivan,
2005). Two parameters defined the boundaries of the search and subsequently the analysis and sub-
stantive discussion later in this paper: Firstly, the issue of ‘how many’ publications to consider for the
review. The peer-reviewed data-based articles were limited to teacher and sport coaches enactment
of TGfU pedagogy and students’ experiences of this enactment. Non-empirical articles that did not
introduce new questions or directions for TGfU were not included in the review. Secondly, the
review did not consider research of pre-service teachers’ experiences of learning to teach using a
TGfU approach as it was felt that although related, this is a separate area of inquiry to the one pursued
in this paper.
Data driven research. Table 2 summarises the empirical-scientific research as it applies to TGfU and
its variations for the teaching of games and sport. It shows a variety of research practices are
engaged in the exploration of the assertions for TGfU pedagogy and student learning outcomes.
The information contained in Table 2 will be considered in the discussion.
Results and discussion
Proliferation of TGfU
The proliferation of the TGfU and its subsequent iterations suggests that practitioners and
researchers across various countries see potential in the approach for enhanced student learning
and engagement in games and sport teaching. This suggests its potential as a pedagogical model
through which to achieve the game skill development, both tactical and motor development,
content standards of curricula. In Australia, the potential of Game Sense as a sport pedagogy is
recognised in the Play for Life philosophy and pedagogy of the Australian Sports Commission
(Schembri, 2005) and within coach education (Australian Sports Commission, 1999).
While most of theoretical descriptions and pedagogical descriptions of the TGfU inter-
pretations reviewed remained grounded in the demonstration of game play behaviours, central to
the ‘reason for being’ of all TGfU versions is positioning game understanding as a valued part of
skill learning. Also central is the notion that game skill is best developed in circumstances that
most closely represent the situations in which the skills will be used (Thorpe and Bunker, 2010).
Game Sense provided something of a ‘hook for PE teachers to hang on to’ as the vision of the
outcome of teaching for understanding, but the nature of ‘understanding’ remains theoretically
blurred within TGfU and its subsequent iterations. This omission was initially addressed by the-
orising TGfU as a form of social constructivism, commonly referred to in the literature as ‘situated
learning’ (Dyson et al., 2004; Griffin et al., 2005; Kirk et al., 2000; Kirk and MacPhail, 2002;
Penney, 2003). However, constructivism is a collective term for two types of constructivist
learning theory – social constructivism and cognitive constructivism. The construction of under-
standing, as a product of cognition, is in many ways unique to the individual who experiences the
world. Cognitive constructivism, with its emphasis on mental models or schemas created and
refined by experience (Eggen and Kauchak, 2006), would also seem applicable to the whole notion
56 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
56
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
of ‘understanding’ as defined in TGfU literature. This aspect of ‘understanding’ is highlighted by
Wiggins (1998).
According to Wiggins (1998), teaching for understanding is substantially about a shift in the
paradigm of instruction from memorising and practising to one of thinking and acting flexibly with
deep conceptual and procedural knowledge in new and novel situations. The various TGfU
approaches certainly advocate for this type of shift. What none of the nuanced versions of TGfU
address substantially, and what is largely absent from the data driven research (Table 2) is what is
generally acknowledged as the goal of understanding; that is, deep engagement with knowledge,
and the individual intellectual models that are subsequently refined to enable more flexible and
adaptive behaviour (Perkins, 1993a, 1993b; Perkins and Blythe, 1994; Wiske, 1998). As Richard
and Wallian (2005) noted, ‘Constructivism asks for students to engage in activities that require
higher level of thinking and reflective processes. Ultimately, students must demonstrate their
understanding by applying the new knowledge in new situations’ (p. 21). While the data-driven
TGfU research initially focussed on a ‘tactical vs. technical’ theme, and later a practitioner-
referenced methodology (see for example Table 2), what is missing is research focussed on student
demonstration of higher level of thinking and the application of new knowledge in new situations.
Research consideration of the nature of TGfU game appreciation and understanding as expres-
sions of cognitive flexibility and creativity is required to substantiate claims made about TGfU for
games and sport learning. Further, research into the nature of levels of understanding, recognising
that understanding develops by degrees through the acquisition of a sequence of progressively more
complex and encompassing concepts (Newton, 2000), may assist a more concrete conceptualisation
of TGfU in practice. This is especially so for clarifying the nature of game ‘understanding’ and
‘appreciation’, central to the distinctiveness of TGfU and its nuanced variations.
From the historical account of TGfU’s global development it can be seen that differences
between each approach are frequently so subtle that demarcation of these distinctions may not
serve any practical pedagogical purpose. What can be suggested from a meta-analysis of the the-
oretical writing covered in the literature review is that each interpretation of TGfU has added to the
original proposition in areas that were conceptually or theoretical absent or under represented. For
example, the Tactical Games approach (Mitchell et al., 2006) explains how to differentiate teach-
ing for understanding at different levels of sport development, something missing from the original
TGfU proposition (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). The Tactical Games approach also introduced the
GPAI as a tool to assess game sense as both on-the-ball and off-the-ball behaviour, addressing the
area of holistic game play assessment.
The Game Sense approach has developed into a differentiated expression of games teaching,
from fundamental sport skill development through to situational game play and play practices
focussed on specific game outcomes. Game Sense has also provided an attempted explanation of
what game understanding means. From a sport pedagogy perspective, the Game Sense proposition
is not tactical before technical, but tactical and technical accentuated in a game-centred learning
context that should typify sport games pedagogy. The emergence of a dynamic motor skill theory,
where games are viewed as complex adaptive systems defined by constraints (Davids et al., 2005;
Renshaw et al., 2010) within which game behaviours arise, suggests that representative situations
that link information with movement are best for skill learning, which is synonymous with den
Duyn’s (1997) explanation of Game Sense as a sport pedagogy (refer to Figure 2). Perhaps, there-
fore, there is some substance to Almond’s (2010) suggestion that Game Sense is an important
dimension of a revised TGfU and Thorpe’s explanation that Game Sense goes further than the orig-
inal TGfU, and does not hide the philosophy of TGfU behind a simple description of lesson
Stolz and Pill 57
57
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
structure (Thorpe, 2006). However, as with other nuanced interpretations of TGfU, the challenge
remains to demonstrate the efficacy of Game Sense as sport games pedagogy (Table 2).
Dynamic systems theory constraints-led practice contains similar propositions to Game Sense.
It has been identified as non-linear pedagogy to distinguish it from an information-processing
model of skill learning and linear ‘progressive part’ pedagogy. The idea of a non-linear pedagogy
has been linked to TGfU, providing the theoretical skill acquisition ‘muscle’ missing in TGfU the-
oretical literature (Chow et al., 2007; Davids et al., 2005; Renshaw et al., 2010). However, as Fig-
ure 3 illustrates, TGfU is cyclical in nature; however, it remains linear in that it is represented as a
progressive 1-to-6 six-step cycle. Similarly, the Tactical Games approach is represented as a cycle,
simplifying the six-step TGfU cycle (Figure 3) to a 1-to-3 three-step cycle (Mitchell et al., 2006)
(Figure 1). Bunker and Thorpe (1986) even stressed that the sequential aspects of the TGfU model
‘are critical’ (1986: 10). This is unlike the definition of Game Sense (Figure 2), which links knowing
what to do with the ability to put that knowledge into action as skilled performance, and therefore
appears more synonymous with the iterative nature of the dynamics of non-linear pedagogy.
The data reviewed in Table 2 illustrate that the concepts of game literacy (Mandigo and Holt,
2004) and game intelligence (McCormick, 2009; Wein 2001) are useful to explain the aims of a
TGfU approach and to further define Game Sense. Some of these key characteristic descriptors in
Game Sense and game intelligence claim to develop student game performance are as follows:
� knowledge and understanding of how to read patterns of play
� possession of technical and tactical skills
� ability to set up appropriate, creative, flexible and adaptive responses when necessary
� understand game rules and its impacts on game play
� know how to create structural and tactical similarities and differences between games
� experience positive motivational states in games through developed confidence in coordina-
tion and control of movement responses
� opportunity to reflect on the application of specialised skills in games and suggest strategies
for improvement
Whether the TGfU nuances across the iterations described in the earlier historical overview are
substantial enough to make a significant difference to the way teachers approach games and sport
teaching is debatable, and it may simply be a case of ‘same mountain – different path’ (Mitchell,
2005). What is evidenced, however, is that there emerged competing game–sport for understanding
discourses in the literature, each vying for dominance and seeking research validation (Table 2),
but essentially promoting the same curriculum substance. This ‘pegging of the ground’ for aca-
demic work may be sensible from a research context; however, whether the nuanced boundaries
hinder or help the distribution of TGfU pedagogy to PE teachers for enhanced student games and
sport learning requires investigation. Almond (2010) alluded to this in his summation that TGfU
has not been as readily accepted by teachers as it has by academics.
Teachers may not see TGfU pedagogy as distinctive, and the pedagogy is simply part of the
repertoire of necessary pedagogical practice (Pill, 2011a). The review of the theoretical literature
also revealed small-sided games, game modifications to shape and focus learning, the use of ques-
tions to develop game appreciation and understanding of a target concept, and game categories are
not of themselves unique to a TGfU approach. For example, described earlier in the paper was
Mosston’s 1960s explanation of the application of instructional strategies to achieve specific learn-
ing objectives in his spectrum of teaching approaches (Mosston and Ashworth, 2002). Also noted
58 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
58
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
earlier, games frameworks with similar pedagogical intentions to TGfU had been espoused but did
not capture attention and subsequent interest in the way that TGfU did (Findlay, 1982; Mauldon
and Redfern. 1969). If there is uniqueness to TGfU it may be one of emphasis and the associated
discourse, which reframes games and sport teaching from a behaviourist teacher-centred frame-
work defined by a focus on direct teaching to a constructivist learner-centre framework defined
by the foregrounding of cognition in the development of playing competency (Light and Fawns,
2003). However, as Rink (2010: 38) suggested, ‘TGfU doesn’t have a monopoly on constructi-
vism’. TGfU’s reframing of motor skill-to-game teaching (or ‘sport-as-techniques’) (Kirk,
2010) through closed-to-open progressive part pedagogy to game-appreciation-to-motor skill
teaching appears to be the pedagogical distinctiveness of the original TGfU proposition.
From a pedagogical perspective, the distinctiveness of TGfU and many of its nuanced inter-
pretations may only substantially lie in this ‘flipped’ classroom. The term ‘flipped’ is used to give
effect to the essential difference between a traditional PE method (Metzler, 2011) and TGfU
approach. Where the traditional PE method progressed by drill and emphasis on direct teaching to a
game, a TGfU approach starts with the game as its organisational and instructional centre (Metzler,
2011). A TGfU lesson progresses from the game to other instructional strategies to further develop
aspects of play, and then these enhancements are anticipated in the next engagement with game
play. TGfU iterations can then be understood as a shift in praxis from traditional linear motor
learning theories to an understanding that reflects complexity and systems theory (Davids et al.,
2005, Renshaw et al., 2010).
Proceed with ‘caution’: divergent approaches and contradictory conclusions
Kirk and MacPhail (2002), in discussing TGfU research, make the point that from around the 1980s
onwards TGfU ‘began to be scrutinized empirically by researchers’ in the form of comparing TGfU
either with a technique or tactical approach (See for example Table 2: Mitchell and Oslin, 1999;
Mitchell et al., 1995; Turner and Martinek, 1999). Rink et al. (1996a) noted from their review of six
studies (Gabriele and Maxwell, 1995; Griffin et al., 1995; McPherson, 1991, 1992; McPherson and
French, 1991; Mitchell et al., 1995; Turner and Martinek, 1992, 1995) done in the area of ‘peda-
gogical research’ appear to be ‘conflicting’ in parts due to the differences in research design. They
argued that part of the reason for the inconclusive support for TGfU over either technique or tactical
approaches to teaching was primarily due to the difficulties in comparing different sports chosen for
the research, the age of the participants, the length of time, the type of teaching paradigm or model
adopted in the research, the variables chosen to measure and how they were measured (Rink et al,
1996a). Studies from Table 2 that have a specific empirical-scientific focus (like Alarcon et al., 2009;
Broek et al., 2011; French, et al., 1996; Harrison et al., 2004; Harvey, 2003; Harvey et al., 2009,
2010; Holt et al., 2006; Jones and Farrow, 1999; Martin, 2004; Turner and Martinek, 1999) would
appear to reinforce Rink et al.’s (1996a) earlier claims surrounding ‘conflicting’ findings due to
research design. It appears little has changed in TGfU research since Rink et al. (1996a) made those
claims. For instance, Turner and Martinek (1999) compare TGfU with a technique approach and a
control group and found that there was no significant difference between these groups. More telling
was the claim by one study (Holt et al., 2006) that unless there was an underlying skill level profi-
ciency then the ‘Play Practice’ approach (Launder, 2001) was not sufficient to improve game perfor-
mance. The meta-analysis of the data driven research (Table 2) illustrates the contradictory nature of
the claims on behalf of a TGfU approach.
Stolz and Pill 59
59
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
One thing that seems to be consistent in each study is the differences surrounding what ‘learning’ is
being measured. The range of instruments used in each study, from pre and post skill tests, observations
of game play, decision-making capacity (and so on) emphasise that individual performance in game
situations is a central feature in their notions of learning that each research is trying to capture.
It is important to note that it is difficult to synthesis all of the studies summarised in Table 2
because of the variation in design. The change in research emphasis over time from ‘tactical vs.
technical’ teaching to practitioner referenced research is also telling. The difficulty of synthesis of
early TGfU research suggested was noted by Rink et al. (1996a). This research early in the life of
TGfU concluded that research investigating the merits of TGfU and other similar approaches to
teaching games and sport in PE was prone to ambiguity because the variables analysed were mul-
tiple and not standardised, leading to contradictory results that were unreliable. More telling was
Rink et al.,’s (1996b) controversial claim that it was possible for students to pick up tactics without
direct instruction or teaching within the traditional or skill-based approach, which contradicts the
TGfU idea that skills can be acquired through indirect (Hopper and Kruisselbrink, 2001; Mcfadyen
and Bailey, 2002; Rink, 2010) teaching methods. Since Rink’s claims, Game Sense (1997), Play
Practice (2001) and the Tactical Game Approach (1997) emerged as well articulated variations of
the pedagogical intention to teach games or sport for understanding. However, as the data sum-
marised in Table 2 indicate, the challenge of meta-analysis of TGfU research remains due to the
methodological variation in TGfU research.
Rink controversially claimed that ‘there does not seem to be any affective advantage to any of the
approaches’ when effective teachers are used (Rink et al., 1996b: 493). Also telling is the claim made
by Rink (2001) that most of the research surrounding teaching and learning in PE seems to be framed
around establishing ‘direct links’ between what a teacher ‘does’ and question begging assumptions
about ‘how’ students learn. Hence why Rink (2010: 40 ff) ‘cautions’ us that ‘simplistic and linear
models’ cannot capture and explain ‘complex, situational and sometimes chaotic’ nature of move-
ment settings due to the influence of ‘constraints’ on student performance that include all physical,
environmental and task characteristics. Certainly the second and third constraints are arguably the
most important to PE practitioners due to the direct control they can exercise over these. Much of the
initial data driven research (see for example Table 2) uses different study designs in order to deter-
mine which task constraints can empower learning, such as comparing tactical and/or technique
approaches against control groups. There was some evidence that students from a tactical teaching
focus group had enhanced game understanding compared with control and skill focussed groups, but
as the data in Table 2 showed the results are not consistent across all studies.
The alleged failure of the traditional and/or the need for the TGfU approach may arguably have
more to do with the poor quality of games and sport teaching employed in PE (Alexander and
Luckman, 2001; Locke, 1992; Siedentop, 1994) and school PE that is irrelevant or boring for
adolescents (Ennis, 1999; McKenzie et al., 1994; Rikard and Banville, 2006; Smith and Parr, 2007;
Tinning and Fitzclarence, 1992). Decisions about which approach to adopt are possibly more likely
to be philosophical (Green, 1998, 2000, 2002; McMorris, 1998) and not a choice based on empirical-
scientific evidence, especially where that is inconclusive and the method narrative confused by com-
peting nuanced interpretations of essentially the same curriculum and pedagogical emphasis.
The data driven TGfU research (Table 2) indicates that teachers struggle with TGfU pedagogi-
cal intentions and the pedagogical content knowledge required of a TGfU approach. The limits of
teachers conceptual understanding of sport constrains teachers enactment of TGfU and confidence
with the approach (Brooker et al., 2000), and for most of the teachers involved in the research, the
TGfU variation used was new or unfamiliar to them. A TGfU approach requires ‘considerable
60 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
60
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
pedagogical skill . . . and teaching with this method is more of a challenge’ (Turner, 2005:73). PE
teachers are generally more experienced with a ‘sport-as-techniques’ (Kirk, 2010) approach, and
after three decades of TGfU research the ‘TGfU movement’ (Butler and Griffin, 2010: 4) can only
claim that ‘teachers value certain aspects of the public theories defined in the textbooks and formal
teacher preparation curricula and develop unique interpretations of the models representative of
their students’ needs, their personal beliefs about sport and games, and their teaching contexts’
(Butler and Griffin, 2010: 9). The problem as we see it has more to do with the notion that ‘good
pedagogical’ practice in PE may seem like the kind of activities that may be the product of
empirical-scientific generalisations to which much of this research aspires; however, much of this
work is simply unable to capture the constantly changing nuances of ‘real-life’ teaching engage-
ment. We do not deny that practitioners may have something to learn from empirical-scientific or
pedagogical research, but the question as we see it is has more to do with determining whether this
type of research does, or ever could, present us with a picture of pedagogy in PE which is complete
such that there could no longer be any meaningful question outside this picture. The question posed
is not asked out of hostility towards empirical-scientific research. Far from it; in fact, it is the nature
of pedagogy itself which forces us to ask this question.
If teachers and researchers can take little of pedagogical value from the scientific-empirical
research (Table 2) the general advice would seem to suggest a ‘flexible’ approach to teaching in games
and sport in PE, which could vary from TGfU and other approaches as long as the approach adopted is
conducive to achieving the nominated learning objective, rather than a single overriding approach or
style (Capel, 2000). Indeed, Bunker and Thorpe (1982) did not rule in or out a style or instructional
strategy in achieving the objective of game competency. The overriding ideal of practice being game
centred directs teacher objectives to teach for understanding and student engagement, as the ‘game
first’ intention works with student motivation in PE: that is, to play (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). The
historical literature review demonstrated that TGfU instinctively ‘makes sense’ as ‘simply good peda-
gogy’ (Hopper et al., 2009) to many academics. However, if TGfU is to be ‘pedestaled’ as a preferred
pedagogy for ‘performance, participation and enjoyment’ (Light, 2013) then re-articulation of the
cycle of learning (Figure 1) to be non-linear, reflective of dynamic constraints-led practice, and a more
meaningful representation of what it means to ‘understand’ games and sport is necessary. To this end,
PE pedagogues and sport skill acquisition researchers should be working more closely together to find
the common ground in ideas and their expression.
From linear to non-linear theories of games teaching in PE
It has been argued elsewhere (Rink, 2010; Stolz and Pill, 2012) that a problem with the traditional
approach to teaching games and sport in PE is an overemphasis on the psychomotor domain to the
detriment of the cognitive and affective domains of learning. The TGfU approach is an attempt to
rebalance the disproportionate emphasis on the psychomotor domain because it focusses on
developing thinking players (den Duyn, 1997) who can apply their learning in a variety of
situations. For instance, the problem with teaching a volleyball forearm pass in isolation is that it
does not automatically equate with the contextual application of the pass to set up an attack or a
successful solution to a game problem that arises in complex environments in which movement
patterns are executed. In fact, the traditional approach teaches it out of context (Kirk, 2010;
O’Connor, 2006; Rovegno, 1995), and herein lies most of the nuanced differences that exist
between the traditional and TGfU approaches.
Stolz and Pill 61
61
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
There is much more to playing games and sports than learning a motor skill in isolation (Chow
et al., 2007; Davids et al., 2005; Renshaw et al., 2010). The idea that one must learn and master a
skill first in simple environments before playing a game in some type of linear fashion is pro-
blematic because it decontextualises the skill into something that, for the learner, may have no
connection with sporting or game environments, and in essence teaches these movements outside
of any real meaning. A TGfU approach is more purposefully directed toward educating the learner
within the context in which the technique is performed, whereas the traditional approach is more
interested in the performance or execution of technique.
The research findings summarised in Table 2 illustrate that it is problematic to make definitive
statements about the efficacy of a TGfU approach because the rhetorical generalisations of the type
found in the literature in the earlier historical overview of TGfU can be of little or no use to prac-
titioners. They simply have no relevance to the ‘natural setting’ of each practitioner (Brooker et al.,
2000). This point has been made quite strongly by Elliott (1989), who argued that pedagogical and
teacher expertise is context specific, and so the generalities of educational research which ignore
contextual features thereby have little or no use to practitioners. This was further reinforced by
Nuthall (2004), who argued that reducing the teaching–learning process to generalisations leaves
little to no relevance to the professional knowledge of the practitioner. For instance, what may work
in one class or with one particular student does not mean that it will necessarily equate to it working
in other contexts, different curriculum content, different kinds of students and so on.
In the context of games teaching in PE, it is not too hard to see how views of learning may be
misconstrued in terms of an acquisition of a skill or based on some behavioural analysis of a
movement event. The problem as we see it is that pedagogy is often linked to a basically scientific
conception of learning and thereby presumed available to empirical-scientific testing of the effective-
ness of models of pedagogical practice. One of the core issues with this is that such research strives to
be universal for all practitioners, and in doing so gives rise to abstraction or generalisation that can
have little or no application to the reality of what goes on within classroom practice. Hence why a
shift from a scientific-technical perception of research in action as ‘technical vs. tactical’ in the 1990s
begins to be repositioned to practitioner referenced research in the 2000s, in what Brooker et al.,
(2000) described as research occurring in the ‘naturalistic setting’ of the PE teaching context.
Some future considerations and concluding comments
According to Carr (1986, 2003), if a child can be encouraged in the right direction to explore their
natural innate curiosity and interest with respect to the world then the student will learn irrespective
what teaching strategy or method is adopted. This means that the pedagogical emphasis first needs
to be on bringing the learner to see the value and significance of what is being offered to them to
learn. Questions surrounding direct or indirect teaching strategies, whether to start with teaching
technique followed by tactical decision making (or vice versa) later and so on, must always remain
subservient to bringing the learner to see the value and significance of what is being offered to
them to learn. TGfU’s central emphasis on appreciating the game may be its most relevant pro-
position for learner engagement, which can be addressed through a ‘naturalistic setting’ (Brooker
et al., 2000) and ‘situated learning’ (Kirk and Macdonald, 1998; Kirk and MacPhail, 2002), and
peripheral participation within ‘communities of practice’ (Kirk and Kinchin, 2003), which are
more authentic and meaningful experiences for students, as well as building on students’ prior
knowledge (Dodds et al., 2001) that has the potential to ‘transform’ games and sport in PE.
62 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
62
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Competing descriptions of TGfU within the PE literature and its applications are problematic to the
physical educator within the school environment because teacher practitioners do not necessarily see
or want to see the same boundaries between pedagogical models’ as researchers do as theory gen-
erators. Subsequently, if TGfU is to have any relevance for teacher practitioners of PE, more emphasis
needs to be placed on the normative characteristics of pedagogy that drives this practice of teaching for
understanding within curricula. Future research should continue a practice-referenced approach (Kirk,
2005), but extend past the end of single units of work to include longitudinal data collection aimed at
the objective of achieving student ‘understanding’, or perhaps the objective as game sense.
The literature review and discussion leads to four conclusions. First, there is an implied division
between researcher as theory generator and teacher practitioner as theory applier. Second, competing
descriptions of TGfU in PE literature complicate understanding of the approach and its practical
implementation. Third, the application of TGfU and its nuanced versions, such as the Tactical Games
approach (Mitchell et al., 2006), are problematic to the teacher practitioner within school contexts
because theory guides the means in which to achieve the ends. Unless there is a clear explanation of the
nature of the ends themselves there is no theory applier, no organiser to regulate the pedagogical practice.
Fourth, perhaps this is where the original description of Game Sense as observable game intelligence
leads the TGfU discourse for an answer to the nature of the end purpose, or objective of teaching for
understanding – Game Sense (Charlesworth, 1993; den Duyn, 1997; Thorpe and West, 1969).
The argument that the scientific conception of learning that is available to empirical-scientific
testing of the effectiveness of various pedagogical methods is problematic and ill conceived, and
seems to originate in the notion that since PE activities are overt then they are also measurable (Met-
zler, 1986), has also been tested in this paper. The shift from empirical-scientific research to
practitioner-referenced research is in tune with what Bishop (1992) described as the pedagogue tra-
dition concerned with exploring classroom practicalities, the curriculum and teachers responses to
the curriculum as it ‘naturally’ occurs. This is because good educational practice evades conventional
empirical-scientific research and cannot capture the complex nature of teacher deliberations in a
codified way. For instance, there are some true educational generalisations in pedagogy, such as
‘never face the board when talking to the class’; however, these do not need statistical support to
confirm or disprove such a statement. The research paradigm difficulty has more to do with the nor-
mative characteristics of education and teaching practice and the incompatible nature of the
empirical-scientific approach which attempts to make causal connections and predictions. Conse-
quently, some educational questions are simply irresolvable by empirical-scientific means, may not
be normatively resolvable and are a matter for philosophical argument (Carr, 2001).
The empirical-scientific research as it applies to TGfU and its variations for the teaching of games and
sport reviewed for this paper indicated that the central tenet of TGfU – teaching for understanding –
remains unresolved. Investigating the development and demonstration of performance of understanding
as the active use of knowledge (Perkins, 1992) is suggested. The implications and student outcomes of a
PE, sport and games curriculum that is thought demanding, taking students beyond what they already
know by building up performances of understanding through generative knowledge (Perkins, 1992,
1993a, 1993b), should be a future pedagogical research agenda so that pedagogy in PE again becomes
a central practical issue of a sport and games teaching in PE for understanding. This is suggested to bridge
the disparity between researcher as theory generator and teacher practitioner as theory applier.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions to improve
this paper.
Stolz and Pill 63
63
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
References
Alarcon F, Cardenas D, Miranda MT, et al. (2009) Effect of a training program on the improvement of basket-
ball players’ decision making. Revista de Psicologia del Deporte 18: 403–407.
Alexander K and Luckman J (2001) Australian teachers’ perceptions and uses of the sport education curricu-
lum model. European Physical Education Review 7: 243–267.
Alison S and Thorpe R (1997) Comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within
PE. A skills approach verses a games for understanding approach. British Journal of Physical Education
28(3): 9–13.
Almond L (2010) Forward: Revisiting the TGfU brand. In: Butler J and Griffin L (eds) More Teaching Games
for Understanding: Moving Globally. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. vii-x.
Austin B, Haynes J and Miller J (2004) Using a game sense approach for improving fundamental motor skills.
Paper presented at: The Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference,
Melbourne, Victoria.
Australian Sports Commission (1999a) Game Sense cards. Canberra, ACT: Australian Sports Commission.
Australian Sports Commission (1999) National Coaching Accreditation Scheme: Level 2 Coaching Princi-
ples. Canberra, ACT: Australian Sports Commission.
Australian Sports Commission (2005) Active After Schools Community Playing for Life Coaches Kit.
Canberra, ACT: Australian Sports Commission.
Balakrishnan M, Rengasamy S and Aman MS (2011) Teaching game for understanding in physical education:
A theoretical framework and implication. ATIKAN 1(2): 201–214.
Bell T (2003) The PlaySmart programme: Thinking through physical education. Paper presented at: The
Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Berkowitz R (1996) A practitioner’s journey: From skill to tactics. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance 67(4): 44–45.
Bishop A (1992) International perspectives on research in mathematics education. In: Grouws D (ed) Hand-
book of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, pp. 710–723
Bohler H (2009) Sixth-grade students, tactical understanding and decision making in a TGM volleyball unit.
In: Hopper T, Butler J and Story B (eds) TGfU . . . Simple Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex
Challenge. Canada: Physical and Heath Education, pp. 87–99.
Breed R and Spittle M (2011) Developing Game Sense through Tactical Learning: A Resource for Teachers
and Coaches. Port Melbourne, Victoria: Cambridge University Press.
Broek G, Boen F, Claessens M, et al. (2011) Comparison of three instructional approaches to enhance tactical
knowledge in volleyball among university students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 30:
375–392.
Brooker R, Kirk D, Braiuka S, et al. (2000) Implementing a game sense approach to teaching junior high
school basketball in naturalistic setting. European Physical Education Review 6(1): 7–26.
Bunker D and Thorpe R (1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical
Education 18(1): 5–8.
Bunker D and Thorpe R (1983) Games teaching revisited. Bulletin of Physical Education, Themed Edition 19(1).
Bunker D and Thorpe R (1986) The curriculum model. In: Thorpe R, Bunker D and Almond L (eds) Rethink-
ing Games Teaching. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University of Technology, pp. 7–10.
Butler J (1996) Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance 67(9): 17–20.
Butler J and Griffin L (2010) Introduction. In: Griffin L and Butler J (eds) Teaching Games for Understand-
ing: Theory Research and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 3–14.
Butler J and McCahan B (2005) Teaching games for understanding as a curriculum model. In: Griffin L and
Butler J (eds) Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory Research and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, pp. 33–54.
64 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
64
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Capel S (2000) Approaches to teaching games. In: Capel S and Piotrowski S (eds) Issues in Physical Educa-
tion. London: Routledge Falmer, pp. 81–98.
Carr D (1986) Education, professionalism and theories of teaching. Journal of Philosophy of Education 20(1):
113–121.
Carr D (2001) Educational philosophy, theory and research: A psychiatric autobiography. Journal of Philo-
sophy of Education 35(3): 461–476.
Carr D (2003) Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and
Teaching. London: Routledge.
Chandler T and Mitchell S (1990) Reflections on models of games education. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance 61(6): 19–21.
Charlesworth R (1993) Discussion topic: Designer games. Paper presented at: The Hockey Level 3 National
Coaching Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) Conference, Canberra, ACT: Australia.
Charlesworth R (1994) Designer games. Sport Coach 17(4): 30–33.
Chen S and Light R (2006) I thought I’d hate cricket but I love it! Year 6 students’ responses to Game Sense
pedagogy. Change: Transformations in Education 9(1): 49–58.
Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, et al. (2007) The role of non linear pedagogy in physical education. Review of
Educational Research 77(3): 251–278.
Cote J, Baker J and Abernethy B (2003) From play to practice: A developmental framework for the acquisi-
tion of expertise in team sports. In: Starkes J and Ericsson KA (eds) Expert Performance in Sports:
Advances in Research on Sport Expertise. Champaign. IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 89–110.
Cruz A (2004) Teachers’ and students’ perception of teaching game for understanding approach in physical
education lessons. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation 10(2): 57–66.
Davids K, Araujo D and Shuttleworth R (2005) Applications of dynamical systems theory to football. Available
at: http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q¼cache:WOWBpGpV5coJ:scholar.google.com/&hl¼en&as_sdt¼2000
(accessed 19 November 2011).
den Duyn N (1996) Why it makes sense to play games. Sports Coach (Spring): 6–9.
den Duyn N (1997) Game Sense – Developing Thinking Players Workbook. Canberra, ACT: Australian Sports
Commission.
Dodds P, Griffin L and Placek J (2001) Chapter 2. A selected review of the literature on development of
learners’ domain-specific knowledge. Journal of teaching in Physical Education [Monograph] 20:
301–313.
Dyson B, Griffin L and Hastie P (2004) Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical
and pedagogical considerations. Quest 56: 226–240.
Eggen P and Kauchak D (2006) Strategies and Models for Teachers: Teaching Content and Thinking Skills.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Elliott J (1989) Educational theory and the professional learning of teachers: An overview. Cambridge
Journal of Education 19(1): 81–101.
Ellis M (1983) Similarities and differences in games: A system for classification. Paper presented at: The
Internal Association for Physical Education in Higher Education Conference, Rome, Italy.
Ennis C (1999) Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sport, Education and Society
4(1): 31–49.
Findlay S (1982) Games teaching – The movement Analysis Approach. Artarmon: Physical Education Pub-
lication Cooperative.
Forrest GJ, Pearson PJ and Webb PI (2006) Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU); a model for pre
service teachers. Fusion Down-under: 1st International Council for Health, Physical Education and
Recreation (ICHPER). Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/328/ (accessed 19 November
2011).
French KE, Werner PH and Rink JE (1996) The effects of a 3-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical
and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education 15: 418–438.
Stolz and Pill 65
65
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
French K, Werner P, Taylor K, et al. (1996) The effects of a 6 week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical
and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education 15: 439–463.
Fry J, Tan C, McNeil M, et al. (2010) Children’s perspectives on conceptual games teaching: A value adding
experience. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 15(2): 139–158.
Gabriele T and Maxwell T (1995) Direct versus indirect methods of squash instruction. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport 66: A–63.
Gray S and Sproule J (2011) Developing pupils’ performance in team invasion games. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy 16(1): 15–32
Green K (1998) Philosophies, ideologies and the practice of physical education. Sport, Education and Society
3(2): 125–143.
Green K (2000) Exploring the everyday ‘philosophies’ of physical education teachers from a sociological per-
spective. Sport, Education and Society 9(2): 109–129.
Green K (2002) Physical education teachers in their figurations: A sociological analysis of everyday ‘philo-
sophies’. Sport, Education and Society 7(1): 65–83.
Grehaigne J and Godbout P (1995) Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist
perspective. Quest 47; 490–505.
Grehaigne J and Godbout P (1997) Performance assessment in team sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education 16: 500–516.
Grehaigne J and Godbout P (1998) Formative assessment in team sports in a tactical approach context.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 69(1): 46–51.
Grehaigne JF, Richard JF and Griffin L (2005a) Teaching and Learning Team Sports and Games. New York,
NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Grehaigne JF, Wallian N and Godbout P (2005b) Tactical-decision learning model and students’ practices.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(3): 255–269.
Griffin L, Brooker R and Patton K (2005) Working toward legitimacy: Two decades of teaching games for
understanding. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(3): 213–223.
Griffin L, Mitchell S and Oslin J (1997) Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach.
Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
Griffin L, Oslin J and Mitchell S (1995) An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching net games.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 66: A–64.
Harrison J, Blakemore C, Richards R, et al. (2004) The effects of two instructional models – tactical and skill
teaching – on skill development and game play, knowledge, self-efficacy, and student perceptions in vol-
leyball. The Physical Educator 61(4): 186–199.
Harvey S (2003) Teaching games for understanding: A study of U19 college soccer players improvement in
game performance using the game performance assessment instrument. Paper presented at: The Sport and
Physical Education for Understanding Conference, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Harvey S, Cushion C, Wegis H, et al. (2010) Teaching games for understanding in American high-school soc-
cer: A quantitative data analysis using the game performance assessment instrument. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy 15(1): 29–54.
Harvey S, Wegis HM, Beets MW, et al. (2009) Changes in student perceptions of their involvement in a
multi-week TGfU unit of soccer: A pilot study. In: Hopper T, Butler J and Story B (eds)
TGfU . . . Simple good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge. Canada: Physical and Heath
Education, pp. 101–113.
Henninger M, Pagnano K, Patton K, et al. (2006) Novice volleyball players’ knowledge of games, strategies,
tactics and decision making in the context of game play. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand
39(1): 34–46.
Hoffman SJ (1971) Traditional methodology: Prospects for change. Quest 23(1): 51–57.
Holt J, Ward P and Wallhead T (2006) The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young
adult soccer players. Physical Educations and Sport Pedagogy 11(2): 101–118.
66 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
66
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Hopper T (2003) Four Rs for tactical awareness: Applying game performance assessment in net/wall games.
Journal of Teaching Elementary Physical Education 4(2): 16–21.
Hopper T (1998) Teaching games for understanding using progressive principles of play. CAPHERD/
ACSEPLD 64(3): 4–7.
Hopper T and Kruisselbrink D (2001) Teaching games for understanding: What does it look like and how does
it influence student skill acquisition and game performance? Available at http://web.uvic.ca/*thopper/
articles/JTPE/TGFU.htm (accessed 31 January 2013).
Hopper T, Butler J and Storey B (2009) TGfU . . . Simply Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Chal-
lenge. PHE Canada.
Howarth K (2005) Introducing the teaching games for understanding model in teacher education programs.
In: Griffin L and Butler J (eds) Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 91–106.
Howarth K and Walkuski J (2003) Teaching tactical concepts with preservice teachers. In: Butler J, Griffin L,
Lombardo B and Nastasi R (eds) Teaching Games For Understanding in Physical Education and Sport.
Reston, VA: NASPE, pp. 127–138.
Jones C and Farrow D (1999) The transfer of strategic knowledge: A test of the games classification model.
Bulletin of Physical Education 9: 41–45.
Jones R, Marshall S and Peters D (2010) Can we play games now? The intrinsic benefits of TGfU. European
Journal of Physical and Health Education 42(2): 57–63.
Kidman L (2005) Athlete Centred Coaching. Christchurch, NZ: Innovative Communications.
Kirk D (2005) Future prospects or teaching games for understanding. In: Butler J and Griffin L (eds) Teaching
Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 213–227.
Kirk D (2010) Physical Education Futures. Routledge: England.
Kirk D and Kinchin G (2003) Situated learning as a theoretical framework for sport education. European
Physical Education Review 9(3): 221–235.
Kirk D and Macdonald D (1998) Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education 17: 376–387.
Kirk D and MacPhail A (2002) Teaching game for understanding and situated learning: rethinking the
Bunker-Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21: 177–192.
Kirk D, Brooker R and Braiuka S (2000) Teaching games for understanding: A situated perspective on student learn-
ing. Paper presented at: The Annual meeting of the American Educational Research, Association, New Orleans.
Launder A (2001) Play Practice: The Games Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sport. Adelaide: Human
Kinetics.
Launder A and Piltz W (2006) Beyond ‘Understanding’ to Skilful Play in Games, through Play Practice.
Journal of PE New Zealand 39(1): 47–57.
Lee M-A and Ward P (2009) Generalization of tactics in tag rugby from practice to games in middle school
physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(2): 189–207.
Light R (2003) Preservice primary teachers responses to TGfU in an Australian University: ‘No room for her-
oes’. In: Butler J, Griffin L, Lombardo B and Nastasi R (eds) Teaching Games for Understanding in phys-
ical education and sport. Oxon Hill: AAHPERD Publications, pp. 67–77.
Light R (2013) Game sense: Pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. London & New York:
Routledge.
Light R (2004) Coaches’ experiences of Game Sense: Opportunities and challenges. Physical Education and
Sport Pedagogy 9(2): 115–131.
Light R and Georgakis S (2005) Can ‘Game Sense’ make a difference? Australian pre-service primary school
teachers’ responses to ‘Game Sense’ pedagogy in two teacher education programs. Paper presented at: The
Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference. Available at: http://www.aare.edu.
au/05pap/geo05240.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012).
Light R and Fawns R (2003) Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action through TGfU. Quest 55(2):
161–176.
Stolz and Pill 67
67
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Light R and Tan S (2006) Culture, embodied understandings and primary school teachers’ development of
TGfU in Singapore and Australia. European Physical Education Review 12(1): 100–117.
Light R, Butler J and Patton KT (2005) A personal journey: TGfU teacher development in Australia and the
USA. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(3): 241–254.
Liu JK (2010) Asian-Pacific perspectives on analyzing TGfU. In: Butler J and Griffin L (eds) More Teaching
Games for Understanding: Moving Globally. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 15–30.
Locke L (1992) Changing secondary school physical education. Quest 44: 361–372.
Lopez LMG, Jordan ORC, Penney D, et al. (2009) The role of transfer in games teaching: Implications for the
development of the sports curriculum. European Physical Education Review 15(1): 47–63.
Mandigo J and Holt N (2004) Reading the game: Introducing the notion of games literacy. Physical and
Health Education 70: 4–10.
Martin R (2004) An investigation of tactical transfer in invasion/territorial games. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport 75(1: March Supplement): A73–A74.
Mauldon E and Redfern H (1969) Games Teaching: A New Approach for the Primary School. London: Mac-
Donald and Evans.
McCormick B (2009) Developing Basketball Intelligence. Lulu Marketplace.
Mcfadyen T and Bailey R (2002) Teaching Physical Education 11-18. New York, NY: Continuum.
Mckenzie T, Alcaraz J and Sallis J (1994) Assessing children’s liking for activity units in an elementary
school physical education curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 13: 206–215.
McMorris T (1998) Teaching Games for Understanding: Its contribution to the knowledge of skills acquisi-
tion from a motor learning perspective. European Journal of Physical Education 3: 65–74.
McPherson S (1991) Changes in knowledge content and structure in adult beginner tennis: a longitudinal
study. Paper presented at: The annual meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport
and Physical Activity, Asilomar, California.
McPherson S (1992) Instructional infleucnes on longtitudinal development of beginners’ knowledge respre-
sentation between points in tennis. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the North American Society
for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
McPherson S and French K (1991) Changes in cognitive strategy and motor skill in tennis. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology 13: 26–41.
Metzler M (1986) Using systematic analysis to promote teaching skills in physical education. Journal of
Teacher Education 37(4): 29–33.
Metzler M (2011) Instructional Models for Physical Education. Scottsdale, AZ: Holocomb Hathaway.
Mitchell S (2005) Different paths up the same mountain: Global perspectives on Teaching Games for Under-
standing. Keynote address presented at: The 3rd International Teaching Games for Understanding Con-
ference, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong.
Mitchell S and Oslin J (1999) An investigation of tactical transfer in net games. European Journal of Physical
Education 4: 162–172.
Mitchell S, Griffin L and Oslin J (2006) Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mitchell S, Oslin J and Griffin L (1995) An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching games.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 66(1: March Supplement): A65–A66.
Mitchell S, Oslin J and Griffin L (2003) Sport Foundations for Elementary Physical Education. A Tactical
Games Approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mosston M (1968) Problem solving – A problem for physical educators. Paper presented at: The Annual
Meeting of New York City Association of Physical Education Teachers. Available at: http://www.
spectrumofteachingstyles.org/pdfs/literature/Mosston_1968_Problem_Solving.pdf (accessed 10 May
2012).
Mosston M (1981) Teaching Physical Education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Mosston M and Ashworth S (2002) Teaching Physical Education. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education.
Newton D (2000) Teaching for Understanding: What it is and how to do it. London: Routledge Falmer.
68 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
68
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Nuthall G (2004) Relating classroom teaching to student learning: A critical analysis of why research has
failed to bridge the theory-practice gap. Harvard Educational Review 74(3): 273–306.
O’Connor J (2006) Making sense of teaching skills, games and sports. In: Tinning R, McCuaig L and Hunter
L (eds) Teaching Health and Physical Education in Australian Schools. Sydney: Pearson Education Aus-
tralia, pp. 192–199.
Penny D (2003) Sport education and situated learning: Problematizing the potential. European Physical Edu-
cation Review 9(3): 301–308.
Perkins DN (1992) Smart Schools: From Training Memories to Educating Minds. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Perkins DN (1993a) Teaching for understanding. American Educator 17(3): 28–35.
Perkins DN (1993b) Teaching and learning for understanding. NJEA Review 67(2): 10–18.
Perkins DN and Blythe T (1994) Putting understanding up front. Educational Leadership, 51(5): 4–7.
Pigott B (1982) A psychological basis for new trends in games teaching. Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1):
17–22.
Pill S (2007) Play with Purpose. Adelaide: ACHPER Australia.
Pill S (2009) Preparing middle and secondary school pre service teachers to teach physical education through
a focus on Tactical Games pedagogy. Curriculum Perspectives 29(3): 24–32.
Pill S (2010) Using tactical games. Sports Coach 31(1).
Pill S (2011a) Teacher engagement with teaching games for understanding-game sense in physical education.
Journal of Physical Education and Sport 11(2): 115–123.
Pill S (2011b) Seizing the moment: Can game sense further inform sport teaching in Australian physical edu-
cation? PHENex Journal 3(1): 1–15.
Piltz W (2002) Developing competent and confident players using a ‘Play Practice’ methodology. Available
at: http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2002/achper/Piltz.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012).
Piltz W (2003) Teaching and Coaching Using a ‘Play Practice’ Approach. In: Butler J, Griffin L, Lombardo B
and Nastasi R (eds) Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport. Oxon Hill:
AAHPERD Publications, 189–200.
Renshaw I, Chow J, Davids K, et al. (2010) A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition
and game play: A basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis? Physical
Education & Sport Pedagogy 15(2): 117–137.
Richard J-F and Wallian N (2005) Emphasizing student engagement in the construction of game performance.
In: Griffin L and Butler J (eds) Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 19–32.
Rikard RE and Banville D (2006) High school attitudes about physical education. Sport, Education and Soci-
ety 11(4): 385–400.
Rink J (2001) Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 20:
112–128.
Rink J (2010) TGfU celebrations and cautions. In: Butler J and Griffin L (eds) More Teaching Games for
Understanding: Moving Globally. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 33–48.
Rink J, French KE and Graham K (1996b) Implications for practice and research. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education 15: 490–502.
Rink J, French KE and Tjeerdsma B (1996a) Foundations for the learning and instruction of sport and games.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 15: 399–417.
Rovegno I (1995) Theoretical perspectives on knowledge and learning and a student teacher’s pedagogical
content knowledge of dividing and sequencing subject matter. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
14: 284–304.
Savelsbergh G, Davids K, van der Kamp J, et al. (2003) Development of Movement Co-ordination in Chil-
dren: Applications in the Fields of Ergonomics, Health Sciences and Sport. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schembri G (2005) Active After School Communities: Playing for Life Coach’s Guide. Canberra, ACT:
Australian Sports Commission.
Stolz and Pill 69
69
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Shulman L (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review 57:
1–22.
Siedentop D (1994) Sport Education: Quality PE through Positive Sport Experiences. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Smith A and Parr M (2007) Young people’s views on the nature and purposes of physical education: A socio-
logical analysis. Sport, Education and Society, 12(1): 37–58.
Stolz SA and Pill S (2012) Making sense of game sense. Active & Healthy Magazine 19(1): 5–8.
Sweeney M, Everitt A and Carifio J (2003) Teaching games for understanding: A paradigm shift for under-
graduate students. In: Butler J, Griffin L, Lombardo B and Nastasi R (eds) Teaching Games for Under-
standing in Physical Education and Sport. Oxon Hill: AAHPERD Publishers, pp. 113–122.
Tallir IB, Musch E, Valcke M, et al. (2005) Effects of two instructional approaches for basketball on decision-
making and recognition ability. International Journal of Sport Psychology 36: 107–126.
Tallir I, Musch E, Lenoir M, et al. (2003) Assessment of play in basketball. Paper presented at: The 2nd Inter-
national Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding, Melbourne, University
of Melbourne.
Tallir IB, Musch E, Lenoir M, et al. (2004) Assessment of game play in basketball. Paper presented at: The
2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education, Melbourne, University of
Melbourne.
Thorpe J and West C (1969) A test of game sense in badminton. Perceptual and Motor Skills 28: 159–169.
Thorpe R (1997) We love the games, but when do we teach technique? Sports Coach 20(2): 4–5.
Thorpe R (2006) Rod Thorpe on teaching games for understanding. In: Kidman L (ed), Athlete-Centred
Coaching: Developing and Inspiring People. Christchurch, NZ: Innovative Print Communications Ltd,
pp. 229–244.
Thorpe R (2012) Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. Available at: http://www.wcmt.org.uk/fellows-today/
rod-thorpe.html (accessed 30 July 2012).
Thorpe R and Bunker D (2010) Preface. In: Butler J and Griffin L (eds) More Teaching Games for Under-
standing: Moving Globally. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. vii-xv.
Thorpe R, Bunker D and Almond L (1986) Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough
University of Technology.
Thorpe R, Bunker D and Almond L (1984) Chapter 21: A change in focus for the teaching of games. In:
Pieron M and Graham G (eds) Sport Pedagogy. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 163–169.
Tinning R and Fitzclarence L (1992) Postmodern youth culture and the crisis in Australian secondary school
physical education. Quest 44: 287–303.
Townsend M, Jenkins J and Wallhead T (2009) Teacher progress and fourth-graders’ learning in the tactical
approach. Paper presented at: The AAHPERD National Convention and Exposition, Tampa, Florida.
Turner A (1996) Teachers’ perceptions of technical and tactical models of instruction. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport (March Supplement): A–90.
Turner A (2005) Teaching and learning games at the secondary level. In: Butler J and Griffin L (eds)
More Teaching Games for Understanding: Moving Globally. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp.
71–90.
Turner A and Martinek T (1992) A comparative analysis of two models for teaching games: Technique
approach and game-centred (tactical focus) approach. International Journal of Physical Education 29:
15–31.
Turner A and Martinek T (1995) An investigation into teaching games for understanding: effects on skill,
knowledge and game play. Paper presented at: The AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California.
Turner A and Martinek T (1999) An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill,
knowledge and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70(3): 286–296.
Turner A, Allison P and Pissanos B (2001) Constructing a concept of skillfulness in invasion games within a
games for understanding context. European Journal of Physical Education 6(1): 38–54.
Wade A (1967) The F.A. Guide to Training and Coaching. London: Heinemann.
70 European Physical Education Review 20(1)
70
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Wallhead T and Deglan D (2004) Effect of a tactical games approach on student motivation in physical edu-
cation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 75(1: March Supplement): A83–A84.
Wallhead T and O’Sullivan M (2005) Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(2): 181–210.
Wein H (2001) Developing Youth Soccer Players: Coach Better with the Soccer Development Model. Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Werner P, Thorpe R and Bunker D (1996) Teaching games for understanding: Evolution of a model. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 67(1): 28–33.
Wiggins G (1998) Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Perfor-
mance. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
Wiske MS (1998) Teaching for Understanding. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
Author biographies
Steven Stolz is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at La Trobe University, Australia.
Shane Pill is a Senior Lecturer in Physical Education Studies at Flinders University, Australia.
Stolz and Pill 71
71
at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on October 9, 2014epe.sagepub.comDownloaded from
