what is tgfu - ipppp

Teaching Games for Understanding [TGfU]Teaching physical & sport activities using the sole method : technique-led method concept.
Purpose : help students aware of various techniques needed for playing different sport activities.
Failed because inefficiency in helping students to develop all-round abilities & doesn’t promote the development of decision-making, creativity, application of knowledge of sport skills to other areas of learning.
Ahmad Rodzli Hashim, PJK.
Stage 6: Retirement/ Retainment
MODEL LTAD – Istvan Balyi
Chronological age
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27+
FUNdamental Stage
FUN, participation & child centred “playful environment”
Focus on general overall movement skills development
ABCs of Athleticism – Agility, Balance, Co-ordination & Speed
Medicine ball, Swiss ball, own body strength games/exercises
No periodisation but semi-structured programme
Physical activity 5-6 times per week (note: definitions!)
Simple rules and ethics of sport.
*
Mengajar Permainan untuk Kefahaman
TGfU
Games for Understanding : Rod Thorpe & David Bunker di University Loughboroungh UK – 1970an & 1980an
Tactical Games Model : Griffin et al. – 1997
Game Sense : Australian Sport Commission – 1997
Play Practice : Launder – 2001
PlaySport : Canada
Philosophy of Teaching Games for Understanding
TGfU approach was developed by researchers at Loughborough University in the UK to tap into children’s inherent desire to play.
Using ideas embedded/ fixed/ set within movement education, Bunker and Thorpe (1982) developed the idea of TGfU - students leaving PE programs in Britain demonstrated:
little success in games due to the emphasis on performance;
very little knowledge about games;
some supposed game skills, but in fact possessing inflexible techniques and poor decision making capacity;
a dependence upon the coach / teacher to make decisions during games;
little development as thinking spectators and knowing administrators within game contexts.
Although numerous versions of TGfU have emerged since Bunker and Thorpe’s original work – Game Sense, Play Practice, Concept Based Games, PlaySports : the basic premise has remained the same kids games by playing games.
By adopting an “I can” approach, students take part in representative games that are developmentally appropriate for their current skill level.
Once they have developed a better understanding of the basic elements of the game, students are better prepared and motivated to invest the necessary time and energy in enhancing their technical skills.
Students also develop a better understanding of how their skills can then be transferred back into games.
With the use of tactical problems and solutions that transcend/ greater variety of games as the backbone of this approach, students not only understand what they need to know to be successful in games, but perhaps more importantly, when and why to make certain decisions in dynamic game contexts.
The TGfU model is meant to not only create better and more knowledgeable game players, but also to motivate participants while taking part in a variety of games.
Recent approaches to TGfU have advocated/ supported for a thematic approach to teaching games. Rather than teach specific sport units (eg. volleyball unit, soccer unit), students gain the skills & knowledge of a variety of games associated with four game categories:
target (curling, bowling),
Exposing students to the primary rules, fundamental skills, & tactical problems associated with each games category, students become literate in a variety of games, not just ones chosen by the teacher.
For example, if a student understands the basic premise behind maintaining possession of an object in an invasion game (use short passes, shield the ball, support the player with the ball), this will help he/ she play a variety of invasion games where these tactical solutions transfer between similar games.
Not exploiting intrinsic motivation
Focus on developing technique rather than perception & decision making
People did not understand the games
Coach/ teacher dependent
The motor program… TECHNIQUE
“too much drills will kill the young players” (Wein, 2001)
empowerment
Some core thought
How do people really learn – play, observation learning, ‘lots of practice’,
Too much focus on how to rather than how ‘they’ learn?
Coach/ teacher education!!!
Rugby (Wayne Smith – All Blacks)
“we have a generations of rugby players who cannot think for themselves…”
Coaches do not trust the players to make decisions for themselves… and in the end the coach’s job is on the line
TGfU – Why?
Until they have a technique how can they play a game?
Unfortunately…
Techniques seem to break down under pressure
Many of the drills used do not transfer to the real game
Players seem to choose the wrong technique at key moments
They are different ways…
So how we learn…
A person cannot learn a new skill without being told and/ or shown by an expert?
If you try to learn something without expert help – you will ended up develop bad habits.
Errors and bad habits can only be recognized and corrected by an expert.
There is a right technique for most activities, one that has to be taught.
Intellectual understanding is a pre-requisite of learning good technique.
What should the players be practicing?
Game Sense Coaching
“games sense is a logical way to create tactical understanding and awareness, getting the players to make the right decisions in various situations”
Smith on training sessions
“I don’t have a book of drills because every time I go out there, I do something new. Drills develop from the last training session and reflect what we are trying to achieve next week.”
“You don’t have to do what other people do. You think of a new way, e.g. if you want to work on your forwards picking the ball up and going through the middle of the defence, you create ways to spread the defence at training.
They are not even drills; they are mini-games.
Primary 3 – teach net/ wall & territorial games concepts
Primary 4 – teach net/ wall & striking/ fielding concepts
Primary 5 – one game from net/ wall & striking/ fielding, two games from territorial games
Primary 6 – one game from net/ wall & striking/ fielding, two new games from territorial games
Sec 2 – review striking/ fielding & territorial game concepts
Sec 3 – review & introduce one new game from striking/ fielding, two new games from net/ wall & territorial game
Sec 4 – review game concepts previous introduced or new games from other two categories
Skills
Task
Enviroment
Individual
Modification of learning environment
Rules, equipment, pitch size, task…
Use of challenges… to let players solve problems in their own ways…
Use of questions to help guide players to effective solutions… discovery learning
Developing new techniques… allowing for individual solutions
Manipulate information during Learner’s search for solutions
Simplification vs Decomposition
Segment of performance
Scenario based learning
Game centre learning
Move away from the ‘recipe book’ approach to coaching/ teaching.
Develop a problem-solving approach to develop the players game sense
TGfU is not just playing games
Manipulate the constraints…
Allow the players to find solutions (discovery learning)
Ask questions that help the players to solve the problems (guided discovery)
Create a culture where mistakes are expected, if you aren’t making mistakes then you aren’t doing anything (John Wooden)
TGfU – How?
A constraints-led perspective leads to an HOLISTIC approach to skill development
All practices should be transferable to real game
Practice so that it reflects realistic situations… organized chaos
Design practice environments that allow decision-making to emerge naturally.
TGfU - Summary
Skilled performance EMERGES as a result of an athlete focused approach to coaching that provides an integrated approach to perceptual, decision making and technical skill development.
Players love to play games…
We can use this enjoyment to develop better players
References
Griffin L & Butler JI (2005). Teaching Games for Understanding : Theory, Research and Practice. Human Kinetics.
Hopper. T. & Kruisselbrink D. (2003). Teaching Games for Understanding : What does it look like and how does it influence student skill learning and game performance?.
Renshaw. I (2001). Game Sense Coaching. Auckland University of Technology
Slade,D.G. (2005). Theory to Practice : ‘Stick2 Hockey’. Massey University
Quality Daily Physical Education, Vol. 6 Num. 1 : Teaching Games for Understanding : CAHPERD
Walter Kin Yan Ho, Teaching Games for Understanding – Model Rethink from the Integrated Perspective. University of Macao

what is tgfu - ipppp

Documents