teaching games for understanding -1

8/2/2019 Teaching Games for Understanding -1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/teaching-games-for-understanding-1 1/9

PA231 Curriculum Games – Gary Stidder; Joan Williams; Sid Hayes; Andy Theodoulides

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU)

Studies by Allison (1996); Bunker and Thorpe (1986) haveshown the existence of a dominant, traditional skills-based

approach to teaching games. This approach ischaracterised by:

A focus on specific skills and techniquesWithin a highly structured lessonUsually following the format of:

• WARM UP

• SKILLS PRACTICE

• FINAL GAME

An alternative “Games for Understanding” approach wasproposed by Bunker and Thorpe (1982). This approach ischaracterised by:

• A focus on the development of tactical awareness anddecision-making within the framework of an appropriategame.

• The use of modified games.

• The teaching of skills when appropriate.

ALLISON & THORPE (1997)

1




In all skills tests (Basketball & Hockey) the level of skilldevelopment was as good if not better in the games forunderstanding classes as it was in the skills based.

Technical skills are developed within the context of thegame and are not developed in isolation.

There is an increased understanding of WHEN , WHERE & WHY these skills should be used.

Their findings showed that the pupils were involvedconsiderably more in planning and evaluation during

GFU lessons than in the skills-based lessons.

The skills-based approach serves only to highlight,confirm and reinforce - often publicly - the pupil’s lack of physical ability. The GFU approach would seem to havemore to offer the less physically able pupil.

The ‘child’ rather than the ‘content’ is returned to thecentre of the learning process.

Within the ‘Games for Understanding’ approach theonus is on the learner making informed choices andcorrect decisions relating to tactics or skills to be used incertain situations.

Most of the teaching therefore, is accomplished bycreating, conditioning, or adapting games rather than

perfecting skills and techniques in isolation.

GFU identifies the common principles and themesinvolved in invasion games.

This becomes the focus rather than the specific activityand can be transferred each time a new activity is taught.

2




Games for Understanding Motor Learning Skills Based

• Always begin with a game

• Decision making component of skillful performance ismore important

• Decision-making can belearned by ALL children,while the technical aspects

may be out of the reach of many children

• Use of modified games

• Decision-making totechnique approach

• Technique can be used in the

context of the game

• More appealing to children • Educates children to

understand & perform

• Starts with part-practice

• Emphasis is on performanceand technique

• Part-progressive practiceused to develop technique toan almost automatic level

and then developed in a game

• Technique to decision-making approach

• Very basic techniques arenecessary before learning tactics

• Good decision-making is

knowing which technique touse in a given situation

• Educates children to perform

GAMES FOR UNDERSTANDING

3




A MORE CHILD CENTRED APPROACH

ADVANTAGES:

GFU CONCEPTS CAN BE USED & TRANSFERREDTO OTHER ACTIVITIES AND GAMES IN THESAME CATEGORY.

THE LEARNER MAKES DECISIONS IN THE GAMEFROM THE OUTSET.

WHERE DOES THE TEACHING OF THE SKILL FITIN?

LEARNER LOOKS AT THE PROBLEMS IN THEGAME.

MAKES A DECISION ABOUT HOW TO SOLVETHEM.

ATTEMPTS SKILLS THAT MAY ALLOW THEM TOSOLVE THE PROBLEMS.

SKILL BREAKS DOWN.

PUPILS UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SKILLS FIT INTHE GAME AND RECOGNISE A NEED TO

PRACTICE THE NECESSARY SKILLS.

WHAT IS THE TEACHERS RESPONSIBILITY?

TO PRESENT THE PUPILS WITH CHANGING

GAME SITUATIONS TO EXPERIENCE AN

4




UNDERSTANDING OF CONCEPTS ANDCHALLENGES.

GUIDE PUPILS TO THE MOST EFFECTIVE

SOLUTIONS.

THE PROCESS IS IMPORTANT !!!

RECOGNISE A PROBLEM CONSIDER POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TEST SOLUTIONS SELECT A SOLUTION

TEST THE SOLUTION AGAIN REMEMBER THE SOLUTION RECOGNISE WHEN TO USE THE SAME SOLUTION

IN A SIMILAR SITUATION IN THE SAME GAME OR IN ANOTHER GAME

THIS METHOD OF TEACHING CATERS FOR THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL CURRICULUMFOR PE (2000) AS IT ALLOWS FOR SELECTING &APPLYING; ACQUIRING & DEVELOPING;EVALUATING & IMPROVING

THE TEACHER MUST:

1. UNDERSTAND A HIERARCHY OF DIFFICULTY INTHE GAME.

2. SET TASKS WHICH ENABLE THE LEARNER TOGRADUALLY DEVELOP TACTICAL ANDSKILLFUL ANSWERS.

QUESTIONS ARE IMPORTANT

HOW? WHEN? WHERE? WHY?

5




GUIDED DISCOVERY WORK

GUIDE THE PUPILS TO A TARGETANSWER

1

6




GAME FORM(Representation/

Exaggeration)

2

TACTICALAWAREN

ESS

(WHAT TO DO?)

3

SKILLEXECUTION

(HOW TO DOIT?)

1. Modified Game Form exaggerated to represent to presenttactical problems (2 v 2 in a 20 x 20 area)

2. Pupils forced to think what they must do to keeppossession (Teacher questioning)

3. Formal teaching of passing and receiving is nowappropriate before returning to the game

References

Allison S & Thorpe R (1997), ‘A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Approaches to Teaching Games within Physical Education. A Skills Approach

7




versus A Games for Understanding Approach’ , British Journal of Physical

Education, (28), 3

Bailey, L & Almond, L (1983), ‘Creating Change: By Creating Games?’, PhysicalEducation Review, 6, (1), pp 16 - 18

Berkowitz, R (1996), ‘A Preliminary Journey from Skill to Tactics’, JOPERD, 67,(4), PP 44 – 45

Bunker D & Thorpe R (1982), ‘The Curriculum Model’ in Thorpe R, Bunker D& Almond L (Eds) (1982), ‘Rethinking Games Teaching’, Loughborough,Loughborough University, pp 7 – 10

Bunker D & Thorpe R (1982), ‘A Model for Teaching Games in Secondary Schools’ , British Journal of PE, (13), pp 5 – 8

Butler, J (1996), ‘Teacher Responses to Teaching Games for Understanding’ ,Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, (67), pp 17 – 20

Carpenter, C (1998), ‘Helping Children to Become Effective Learners in Physical Education’ , British Journal of PE, (29), 3, Autumn 1998, pp 13 – 16

Casbon, C (1991), ‘The Place of Games in the Physical Education of Children’ ,

The British Journal of Physical Education, Spring 1991, pp 7 - 10

Chandler, T (1996), ‘Teaching Games for Understanding: Reflections and Further Questions’ , Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, (67),

pp 49 – 51

Curtner-Smith, M (1996), ‘Teaching Games for Understanding: Using Games Invention with Elementary Children’, JOPERD, 67, (3), PP 33 – 37

Jackson, S (1982) ‘Teaching for Understanding in Invasion Games’, Bulletin of Physical Education, 18, (1)

Lawton, J (1989) ‘Comparison of Two Teaching Methods in Games’, Bulletin of Physical Education, 25, (1), pp 35 – 38

Maynard, I (1991), ‘An Understanding Approach to the teaching of Rugby Union’ ,The British Journal of Physical Education, Spring 1991, pp 11 - 17

McMorris, T (1998), ‘Teaching Games for Understanding. Its Contribution to the Knowledge of Skill Acquisition from a Motor Learning Perspective’ , European

Journal of Physical Education, (3), 1, pp 65 - 75

Metzler, M (1990), ‘Teaching in Competitive Games – Not Just Playing Around’,JOPERD, 61, (8), pp 57 – 61

Mitchell, S (1996) ‘Tactical Approaches to Teaching Games: Improving Invasion

Games Performance’ , JOPERD, 67, (2), p 30 - 33

8




Oslin, J (1996), ‘Tactical Approaches to Teaching Games’, JOPERD, 67, (1), p 27

Pigott, R (1982), ‘A Psychological Basis for New Trends in Games Teaching’,

Bulletin of Physical Education, 18, (1)

Rauschenbach, J (1996), ‘Charge! And Catch Coop – Two Games for Teaching Games Play Strategy’, JOPERD, 67, (5), pp 22 - 24

Read, B (1995), 'National Curriculum: The Teaching of Games', The BritishJournal of PE, Autumn, (26), 3, pp 6 - 11

Sibson, A (1992), 'An Approach to Games Teaching for the National Curriculum',The British Journal of PE, Summer, (23), 2, pp 15 - 17

Spackman, L (1983), ‘Invasion Games. An Instructional Strategy’, Bulletin of Physical Education, 19 (1)

Thorpe, R (1990), ‘New Directions in Games Teaching’ , in Armstrong, N (Ed)(1990), ‘New Directions in Physical Education’ , Volume 1, Champaign IL,Human Kinetics

Thorpe, R (1992), ‘The Psychological Factors Underpinning the Teaching for

Understanding Games Movement’, London, Routledge

Thorpe R & Bunker D (1982), ‘From Theory to Practice: Two Examples of an‘understanding approach’ to the teaching of Games’ , British Journal of PE, (13),pp 9 - 15

Thorpe R & Bunker D (1989), ‘A Changing Focus in Games Teaching’ inAlmond, L (Ed), (1989), ‘The Place of Physical Education in Schools’, KoganPage pp 42 - 71

Turner A & Martinek T (1992), ‘A Comparative Analysis of Two Models for Teaching Games (Technical Approach and Games Centred, Tactical Focus

Approach’, International Journal of Physical Education, 24, (4), pp 15 – 31

Turner, A (1996), ‘Teaching for Understanding: Myth or Reality?’, JOPERD, 67,(4), PP 46 – 48

Werner, P Thorpe, R & Bunker, D (1996) ‘Teaching Games For Understanding:

Evolution of a model’, JOPERD, 67, (1), PP 28 - 36

9

teaching games for understanding -1

Documents