3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding

  1. 3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding Students
  2. 3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding People
  3. 3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding Free
  4. 3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding Money

TGfU is a holistic teaching model which “provides a learner-centred approach that puts the needs and abilities of the participants first over the importance of the game

  1. Activity 3: Tax Your MemoryPlay a game of memory and concentration. Lesson 7: Tax Reform in the 1990s and 2000s Activity 1: Refundable and Nonrefundable Tax Credits Match the clue to the type of credit.
  2. “Wayne Smith and Teaching Games for Understanding: Game Sense encourages players to understand and appreciate the gameit enables them to make informed decisions, take ownership of their learning and exercise choice and control over how they play the game. (p.195)” “The games in TGfU are a key to designing training sessions.

Teaching Games for Understanding Model: Based on the information gathered from teachers and students I devised the following strengths associated with participation in the Teaching Games for Understanding Model: 1. Inclusive: All students were actively involved in the activities regardless of ability and skill level 2.

(Mandigo & Butler, 2007, pg 14).

The primary objective of Teaching Games for Understanding is to produce players who are games literate. Players are classified to be games literate if they:

“A) have knowledge and understanding that enables them to anticipate patterns of play;

B) possess technical and tactical skills to deploy appropriate imaginative responses;


C) are able to experience positive motivational states while helping to facilitate motivation among others involved in the game”

(Mandigo & Holt, 2004, pg 6).

Games literacy thrives on the concept that different games can be grouped together because they share similar structures (Ellis, 1983). Games can therefore be categorised by structure into four different types. These are: Target games, Striking/fielding games, Net/Wall games, and Invasion/Territorial games (Ellis, 1983). Understanding these structures allows principles of play, tactical cognition and skill execution to be learned, mastered and transferred with efficacy to a variety of game situations and this ultimately leads to increased game play competence (Hopper & Bell, 2000).

The TGfU model follows a simplistic six stage procedure.

  1. Game: The model begins immediately with a game based upon a learning objective. The game is typically a smaller modification of a pre-existing formal game and demands a variety of skills relevant to a vast majority of situations within a game type.
  2. Game appreciation: a realisation of how the rules, skills required and strategy interact.
  3. Tactical awareness: Learners begin to formulate tactics of how to succeed within the game.
  4. Decision making: after developing tactics, learners discover how to make appropriate decisions regarding what they know. This usually involves timing or location – when to use certain skills or tactics based upon these parameters.
  5. Skill execution: Learners should have realised why certain skills are important and what are the benefits of executing them correctly.
  6. Performance: after progressing through the previous stages, has improvement been demonstrated? Are Learners achieving the objective of the game? Feedback is essential at this stage to reinforce understanding of the concepts learned so far. The game can then be progressed, or regressed depending upon the degree of learning that has taken place.

(Bunker & Thorpe, 1986).

Football falls into the category of invasion games (Eliis, 1983; Hughes & Bartlett, 2002). To effectively implement the TGfU model within invasion games, four criteria must be met. These criteria are: the use of progressive small-sided games and analysis, inventive game creation, developing effective attacking and defensive strategies, and an effective questioning strategy (Hubball et al., 2007).

The use of small-sided games (attack vs. defence) in a smaller area is an excellent way of replicating full-sized game conditions in an invasion game context. They promote more touches with the ball, which represent more passes, the need for intelligent movement and produce more shooting opportunities, developing efficacy in these technical components and the physical skills required to perform them.

Smaller sided games although less complex in design still encourage psychological engagement. Decision making is prevalent within the game but can also be encouraged during progressions of the game structure.

Adopting a democratic teaching style and allowing learners to make decisions about how they would like the game to be played and develop sustains intrinsic motivation levels. This is in accordance with Deci & Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory whereby individuals have an intrinsic yearning to feel autonomous, competent and related to others. Self determination needs are met when learners are given opportunities to make decisions (Chatzisarantis et al., 1997).

Inventive games are an excellent means of inspiring creativity within performers and encouraging emergent leaders to develop. Introducing new challenges and posing unusual problems inevitably encourage capable individuals to provide new and unorthodox solutions to them (Rink, 2002). Such ideology links with Riemer & Chelladurai’s (1995) Multi-dimensional model of sport leadership where effective leadership emerges from member and leader characteristics, situational requirement and the interaction between participants perceived behaviour during the task, the actual required behaviour for the task and the coach’s preferred behaviour of participants.

Inventive games also create an appreciation of how rules enforce equality and positive interaction between learners. Learners are enabled to share ideas and points of view in order to create new variations of the game (Hubball et al., 2007).

Leadership is also encouraged through developing attacking and defensive strategies. By implementing strategy which relies upon formation or position, players assume responsibilities and leaders naturally emerge or are appointed (Earles & Chase, 2001).

Such strategies which require positional responsibilities also promote team cohesion towards the tasks (objectives) of the game (Grehaine et al., 1999).

Developing tactics and strategies dependent on positions and responsibilities reflect a task-orientated environment – attacking and defensive players must work together to achieve specific goals as a team, regardless of prior skill levels of individuals within their team, particularly when competence is low such as during innovative games (Murcia, 2005; Papaioannou, 1995).

The importance of an effective questioning strategy is paramount, “…without it the approach will not succeed” (Webb & Pearson, 2008, pg 5). Effective questioning techniques can offer invaluable intervention to aid and reinforce student learning (Hopper, 2002; Hubball & Robertson, 2004). Opportunities to utilise can arise during game-play, between progressions but should always occur as a debrief to small-sided games (Hubball et al.,2007). Students should be inspired to think like coaches whilst still enjoying the intrinsic benefits of learning through game play (Light & Fawns, 2003).

Effective questioning utilises open-ended, probing questions to evoke higher levels of Bloom & Krathwohl’s (1956) cognitive taxonomy of learning and to achieve this a set of hierarchical questions must be planned based upon learning objectives (Richard & Godbout, 2000).


  1. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman, Green.
  2. Bunker, D, & Thorpe, R. (1986). The curriculum model. In Thorpe, R, Bunker, D & Almond, L (Eds.) Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough University: University of Technology, Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, pp. 7-10.
  3. Chatzisarantis, N, L, D., Biddle, S, J, H., & Meek, G, A. (1997). A self-determination theory approach to the study of intentions and the intention-behaviour relationship in children’s physical activity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2, pp. 343-360.
  4. Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 21(4), pp. 328-354.
  5. Deci, E, D., & Ryan, R, M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
  6. Earles, M., & Chase, M. (2001). Enhancing team confidence for success. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Education, 14(3), pp. 12-14.
  7. Ellis, M. (1983). The classification and analysis of games: A system for the classification of games. Unpublished manuscript. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  8. Grehaigne, J, F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1999). The foundation of tactics: Strategy in team sports. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 18, pp. 159-174.
  9. Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7), pp. 44-48.
  10. Hopper, T, & Bell, F. (2000). A tactical framework for teaching games: Teaching strategic understanding. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Journal, 66(4), pp 14-19.
  11. Hubball, H, Lambert, J & Hayes, S. (2007). Theory to Practice: Using the Games for Understanding Approach in the Teaching of Invasion Games. In. Physical and Health Education, autumn 2007, pp. 14-20.
  12. Hubball, H, T., & Robertson, S. (2004). Problem-based learning in youth soccer academy program. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(4), pp. 38-43.
  13. Light, R, & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGFU. Quest. 55, pp. 161-176.
  14. Mandigo, J.L, & Holt, N.L. (2004). Reading the Game: Introducing the Notion of Games Literacy. In. Physical and Health Education, autumn 2004, pp. 4-10.
  15. Murcia, J,A,M. (2005). Goal Orientations, Motivational Climate, Discipline and Physical Self-Perception Related to the Teacher’s Gender, Satisfaction and Sport Activity of a Sample of Spanish Adolescent Physical Education Students. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 17 (2), pp. 44-58.
  16. Papaioannou, A. (1995). Differential Perceptual and Motivational Patterns when Different Goals are Adopted. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, pp. 18-34.
  17. Richard, J, E., & Godbout, P., (2000). Formative assessment as an integral part of the teaching-learning process. Physical and Health Education Journal, 66(3), pp. 4-10.
  18. Riemer, H, A., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and satisfaction in athletics. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, pp. 276-293.
  19. Webb, P, & Pearson, P. (2008). An Integrated Approach to Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). University of Wollongong: Faculty of Education. http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/52

If you’re interested in learning more about the Teaching Games for Understanding model, check out this video that I created with the help of Kelly Ann Parry and Mike Cicchillitti.

Stages of Teaching Games for Understanding:

3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding Students

1. Game Form

The game is introduced. The game form has been modified to represent the advanced form of the game and to meet the developmental level of the learner.

2. Game Appreciation

3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding People

Students develop an understanding of the primary and secondary rules of the game as well as any modifications/variations applied to the game being played.

3. Tactical Awareness

With the help of questions, comments and game modifications from the teacher, students begin to work through the principles of play and identify key tactics and strategies that can lead to success in the game.

3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding

4. Decision Making

The teacher engages students in tactical talk to help them reflect on their decision making in the game.

5. Skill Execution

3) personal viewsteaching games for understanding money3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding

The teacher modifies the game to put an emphasis on skills that students identified as being essential to success.

6. Performance

The teacher observes the outcome of the students’ learning through the game by paying attention not only to the efficiency of the technique, but also the appropriateness of the response.

To learn more about the TGfU model, be sure to check out “Teaching Games for Understanding” by Linda Griffin and Joy Butler. Also, make sure you connect with the awesome Kelly Ann Parry!

3) personal viewsteaching games for understanding free

3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding Free

Thanks for reading/watching and happy teaching!

3) Personal Viewsteaching Games For Understanding Money

The Striking & Fielding Games Teacher Pack

November 23, 2020