TBC
About TGfU Special Interest Group
The mission of the AIESEP TGfU Special Interest Group is to establish a globally representative group of institutions and individuals committed to the promotion and dissemination of scholarly inquiry around ways of knowing, learning and teaching through games centered approaches.
One of our major goals is to broaden international cooperation and understanding among teachers, coaches, researchers, students and institutions of the world through best practice, critical educational and research collaborations and exchanges.
This group will allows us to address global challenges such as language, terminology, practical interpretations, philosophical and theoretical differences, and the dissemination of information through national and international organizations.
The intent of SIG is to develop:
One of our major goals is to broaden international cooperation and understanding among teachers, coaches, researchers, students and institutions of the world through best practice, critical educational and research collaborations and exchanges.
This group will allows us to address global challenges such as language, terminology, practical interpretations, philosophical and theoretical differences, and the dissemination of information through national and international organizations.
The intent of SIG is to develop:
- Strong and evolving international networks generated by regular international seminar conferences (every 4 years) and 1 day symposium and workshops prior to the AIESEP Congress. These also occur every 4 years, but are spaced evenly between the TGfU seminar conferences, thereby producing international venues every 2 years
- An organizational structure that supports conference planning and promotion in the form of a TGfU Task force, extant from 2002-2008, which has since evolved into a Special Interest Group of AIESEP
- A number of publications (e.g., 5 books -- one in press), on-line proceedings, and three special journal editions (PE & Sport Pedagogy & 2 editions of HPE, Canada) related to conference proceedings
The TGfU Task Force (2002-2008) and later the TGfU SIG (2009-) have generated and supported four TGfU seminar conferences to date.
These included:
These included:
- 2001 (1-4th August) – Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, USA. Sponsored by Plymouth State University, directed by Joy Butler. (150 attendees, 17 countries) Theme: Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport Keynote speakers – Len Almond, David Kirk, Judy Oslin, Scott Kretchmar
- 2003 (11-14th December) – Melbourne, AU. Sponsored by Melbourne University, directed by Richard Light. (250 attendees, 21 countries) Theme: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for understanding Keynote speakers - Joy Butler, Linda Griffin, Rod Thorpe, Jean-Francis Grehaigne and invited speakers Alan Launder and Les Bee. http://www.conferences.unimelb.edu.au/sport/
- 2005 ((14-17th December) – Hong Kong, Sponsored by the Hong Kong Institute of Education and directed by Raymond Liu (90 attendees, 15 countries) Theme: A Global Perspective of Physical Education and Sports Keynote speakers - Stephen Mitchell, Richard Light, Nathalie Wallian and invited speakers include Rod Thorpe, Joy Butler, Frank Fu and David Johns. T. http://www.ied.edu.hk/tgfu2005.
- 2008 (14-17th May) – Vancouver, Canada. Sponsored by University of British Columbia, directed by Joy Butler (355 attendees, 26 countries, 5 continents). Theme: Understanding Games: Enhancing Learning in Teaching and Coaching Keynote speakers - David Bunker and Rod Thorpe, Raymond Liu, Lynn Kidman, Judy Rink and invited speakers Inez Rovegno, J.F. Richard, James Mandigo. http://educ.ubc.ca/tgfu/
- 2012 (14-16th July) - Loughborough, UK. Sponsored by Loughborough University. Conference Themes: Technology and Learning to Play Games, Student/Athlete Designed Games, TGfU across the age and ability range, Game Centered Approaches, Models of Teaching Games, DEveloping Thinking Athletes, Game Principles, Inclusion, Diversity and Socail Change, Motivation and TGfU, Practitioners' Reflective Practice, Celebrating 30 years of TGfU. https://www.equity-events.co.uk/equity/frontend/reg/thome.csp?pageID=9919&eventID=36&eventID=36
- 2006 (5th July), Jyvaskyla, Finland. Sponsored by AIESEP and organized by Joy Butler and Richard Light (SIG Executive members). Theme: The Role of Physical Education and Sport in Promoting Physical Activity and Health
- 2010 (26th October), La Coruna, Spain. Sponsored by AIESEP and organized by James Mandigo and Stephen Harvey (SIG Executive members) Theme: Exploring Personal and Social Responsibility in TGfU: From the Gymnasium to the Stadium
TGfU Conferences
The TGfU conferences have resulted in:
- Sharing ideas and expertise between coaches and teachers within regions, nationally, and internationally,
- Enabling structures to integrate research, theory, and practice in the same venue, as well as exploring commonalities and differences within each major discipline of study – research, theory, and practice,
- Communicating philosophical and sociological interpretations of TGfU world wide
- Peer-reviewed proceedings or peer-reviewed book publications resulting from papers presented.
- Butler, J., Griffin, L., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (Eds.). (2003). Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport. Reston: NASPE an Association of AAHPERD.
- Light, R., Swabey, K., & Brooker, R. (Eds.). (2003). Proceedings of the 2nd international conference: Teaching sport and physical education for understanding. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Australia.
- Griffin, L. & Butler, J. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory, Research and Practice, (pp. 1-238). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
- Liu, R. , Li C., & Cruz, A. (2006). Teaching Games for Understanding in the Asia-Pacific Region. Taipo, N.T., Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Institute of Education
- Hopper, T., Butler, J., & Storey, B. (2009). TGfU...Simply Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge. Ottawa: PHE Canada.
- Butler, J. & Griffin, L. (Eds.). (2010). More teaching games for understanding: Theory, Research and Practice, (pp. 1-238). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
The original TGfU task force was formed after the first TGfU conference (2001), where at a crowded town meeting, the conference organizers asked the international delegates where they thought they wanted to go from that point forward. The response was a resounding endorsement of Butler’s proposal that an international committee be established to harness the groundswell of energy apparent at the conference. A proposal for the task force was welcomed by AIESEP, and a meeting was held at the 2002 AIESEP Convention (La Caruna, Spain). A group of ten members were elected to this task force, and ultimately, the group created spaces for five more seats to obtain broader international coverage, encompassing 5 continents and 12 countries.
These members in alphabetical order included:
|
|
The International TGfU Task Force evolved into the first Special Interest Group (SIG) of the Association Internationale des Ecoles Superieures d’Education Physique (AIESEP) is a vital first step in developing a global awareness of TGfU.
The TGfU SIG and its alliance to AIESEP will help to sustain interest and ensure the maintenance of high level research into the teaching and learning of sport related games as they relate to TGfU.
The TGfU Task force mission statement was written in 2002 (identified in bold) and developed by the TGfU Special Interest Group Executive in 2009.
The mission of the AIESEP TGfU Special Interest Group is to establish a globally representative group of institutions and individuals committed to the promotion and dissemination of scholarly inquiry around ways of knowing, learning and teaching through games centered approaches. One of our major goals is to broaden international cooperation and understanding among teachers, coaches, researchers, students and institutions of the world through best practice, critical educational and research collaborations and exchanges. This group will allows us to address global challenges such as language, terminology, practical interpretations, philosophical and theoretical differences, and the dissemination of information through national and international organizations.
The summary below outlines the task force’s objectives, action plan and their results. At the 2006 AIESEP congress in Finland, the TGfU Task force decided that the movement had become large enough to handle a general membership with an executive group to help conduct affairs of the membership. AIESEP agreed to take on its first Special Interest Group (SIG) and the policies and election process was developed. The transition of Task Force to SIG was formalized at the TGfU conference in Vancouver.
The TGfU SIG and its alliance to AIESEP will help to sustain interest and ensure the maintenance of high level research into the teaching and learning of sport related games as they relate to TGfU.
The TGfU Task force mission statement was written in 2002 (identified in bold) and developed by the TGfU Special Interest Group Executive in 2009.
The mission of the AIESEP TGfU Special Interest Group is to establish a globally representative group of institutions and individuals committed to the promotion and dissemination of scholarly inquiry around ways of knowing, learning and teaching through games centered approaches. One of our major goals is to broaden international cooperation and understanding among teachers, coaches, researchers, students and institutions of the world through best practice, critical educational and research collaborations and exchanges. This group will allows us to address global challenges such as language, terminology, practical interpretations, philosophical and theoretical differences, and the dissemination of information through national and international organizations.
The summary below outlines the task force’s objectives, action plan and their results. At the 2006 AIESEP congress in Finland, the TGfU Task force decided that the movement had become large enough to handle a general membership with an executive group to help conduct affairs of the membership. AIESEP agreed to take on its first Special Interest Group (SIG) and the policies and election process was developed. The transition of Task Force to SIG was formalized at the TGfU conference in Vancouver.
The purpose of the website is to facilitate the understanding necessary to promote coaches’ and teachers’ insights into how to plan and instruct meaningful and worthwhile games, maximising player learning and enjoyment. Since the early 1980’s an array of innovative approaches to teaching/coaching games have gained credibility in the scholarly literature. These approaches are unified around the premise that the best way to learn the game is to reduce the demands of the complex game or to exaggerate tactical elements of a game by using modified game forms.
These game-based learning experiences are designed to elicit the players’ tactical awareness and skill development from situated learning experiences enabled by the teacher/coach (1) setting the environment, and (2) using appropriate pedagogical skills/tools such as prompts, feedback and/or questioning. Scholarly/professional papers and research studies have recognized the following approaches:
These game-based learning experiences are designed to elicit the players’ tactical awareness and skill development from situated learning experiences enabled by the teacher/coach (1) setting the environment, and (2) using appropriate pedagogical skills/tools such as prompts, feedback and/or questioning. Scholarly/professional papers and research studies have recognized the following approaches:
|
|
Each of the approaches list has an overview page in Google-docs that is continuously and collaboratively developed by the members of the TGfU SIG. This is not a finite list.
We invite readers to (1) join the SIG and help develop these pages, or (2) submit to the TGfU SIG executive other approaches to teaching and coaching games they wish to be considered with the ones listed here.
To edit you will need to be paid up member of the TGfU SIG and have access to a free google account.
We invite readers to (1) join the SIG and help develop these pages, or (2) submit to the TGfU SIG executive other approaches to teaching and coaching games they wish to be considered with the ones listed here.
To edit you will need to be paid up member of the TGfU SIG and have access to a free google account.
Strong and evolving international networks generated by regular international seminar conferences (every 4 years) and 1 day symposium and workshops prior to the AIESEP Congress. These also occur every 4 years, but are spaced evenly between the TGfU seminar conferences, thereby producing international venues every 2 years. An organizational structure that supports conference planning and promotion in the form of a TGfU Task force, extant from 2002-2008, which has since evolved into a Special Interest Group of AIESEP. A number of publications (e.g., 5 books -- one in press), on-line proceedings, and three special journal editions (PE & Sport Pedagogy & 2 editions of HPE, Canada) related to conference proceedings.
TGfU has become a significant movement in physical education and gained global momentum as a viable approach. Almost three decades after the Bunker and Thorpe article (1982) outlined a model for the teaching of games in secondary schools, teachers and coaches are embracing the notion that the TGfU philosophical underpinnings align more closely with humanistic, child-centered, and constructivist ideals. Motor development research tells us that there is a ‘sensitive time’ or ‘window of opportunity’ for learning new skills and concepts quickly and efficiently. Perhaps there is a similar time period in which a profession can effectively respond to new curricular approach? It takes time - for the reflection necessary to examine the merits and demerits of a ‘new’ approach and, by necessity, for a comparison of the new and old assumptions. As teachers begin to understand that the approach offers cross curricular connection, sound pedagogical logic, and efficient integration with the mission and goals of schools that focus upon democracy, perhaps that time has come.
Please see TGfU...Simply Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge for more in-depth historical and cultural accounts of ‘Game-centered approaches’ as the TGfU approach has been adapted in various pockets of the globe.
The Teaching Games for Understanding Movement is experiencing what we hope is the period before its peak or crescendo. Once the approach becomes a common part of teachers’ repertoires, it will have served its purpose- to improve games teaching and learning. TGfU has provided many of us with a catalyst for discussing the nature of good teaching/coaching and learning, allowing us to consider the values and beliefs that underpin such approaches, and their place in both physical and general education. In the process of considering a new approach such as TGfU, teachers and coaches have been led to consider their existing frameworks for conceptualizing games and to reflect deeply on how their values and beliefs structure the way they teach and think about students’ ability.
If TGfU is to become a movement that will broaden the scope of the physical education and coaching ethos, it must be anchored in sound research through a community of inquiry focus upon the exploration of ideas. The Curriculum and Pedagogy Department Chair at UBC, Dennis Sumara, gave a rousing speech in support of the conference’s goals and the need for education in general to go in this direction. Likening the TGfU Movement to that of the Whole Language Movement of the 80’s, he cautioned TGfU advocates to avoid the mistakes of the WLM, and to anchor TGfU in sound research. We believe that TGfU has built a strong community of practice, which has led to an international organization. We hope that this organizational structure can help support research collaborations through global networks, connect research with practice, and maintain and promote TGfU international conferences.
TGfU has become a significant movement in physical education and gained global momentum as a viable approach. Almost three decades after the Bunker and Thorpe article (1982) outlined a model for the teaching of games in secondary schools, teachers and coaches are embracing the notion that the TGfU philosophical underpinnings align more closely with humanistic, child-centered, and constructivist ideals. Motor development research tells us that there is a ‘sensitive time’ or ‘window of opportunity’ for learning new skills and concepts quickly and efficiently. Perhaps there is a similar time period in which a profession can effectively respond to new curricular approach? It takes time - for the reflection necessary to examine the merits and demerits of a ‘new’ approach and, by necessity, for a comparison of the new and old assumptions. As teachers begin to understand that the approach offers cross curricular connection, sound pedagogical logic, and efficient integration with the mission and goals of schools that focus upon democracy, perhaps that time has come.
Please see TGfU...Simply Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge for more in-depth historical and cultural accounts of ‘Game-centered approaches’ as the TGfU approach has been adapted in various pockets of the globe.
The Teaching Games for Understanding Movement is experiencing what we hope is the period before its peak or crescendo. Once the approach becomes a common part of teachers’ repertoires, it will have served its purpose- to improve games teaching and learning. TGfU has provided many of us with a catalyst for discussing the nature of good teaching/coaching and learning, allowing us to consider the values and beliefs that underpin such approaches, and their place in both physical and general education. In the process of considering a new approach such as TGfU, teachers and coaches have been led to consider their existing frameworks for conceptualizing games and to reflect deeply on how their values and beliefs structure the way they teach and think about students’ ability.
If TGfU is to become a movement that will broaden the scope of the physical education and coaching ethos, it must be anchored in sound research through a community of inquiry focus upon the exploration of ideas. The Curriculum and Pedagogy Department Chair at UBC, Dennis Sumara, gave a rousing speech in support of the conference’s goals and the need for education in general to go in this direction. Likening the TGfU Movement to that of the Whole Language Movement of the 80’s, he cautioned TGfU advocates to avoid the mistakes of the WLM, and to anchor TGfU in sound research. We believe that TGfU has built a strong community of practice, which has led to an international organization. We hope that this organizational structure can help support research collaborations through global networks, connect research with practice, and maintain and promote TGfU international conferences.
(Much of the above is included in the introduction of the Edited More TGfU: Moving Globally book 2010, written by Joy Butler and Linda Griffin.)
The TGfU SIG and SIG Executive replaces the TGfU Task Force (2002-2008). The first TGfU SIG executive members were elected at the 2008 TGfU Conference Annual General Meeting. The executive is made up of five members, see below the current members.
The Past Chair, Chair and Chair Elect positions are designated two-year terms. Essentially the terms from Chair Elect to Past Chair requires a commitment of 6 years! A person elected to Chair Elect subsequently moves through the other two positions of Chair and then Past Chair requiring a long term commitment of six years. The Secretary and Treasurer positions are designated four-year positions and new positions for Chair-Elect, Treasurer and Secretary will be voted in at the 2012 TGfU conference. A Chair-Elect needs to be voted to the Executive by the members of the SIG every two years.
The Past Chair, Chair and Chair Elect positions are designated two-year terms. Essentially the terms from Chair Elect to Past Chair requires a commitment of 6 years! A person elected to Chair Elect subsequently moves through the other two positions of Chair and then Past Chair requiring a long term commitment of six years. The Secretary and Treasurer positions are designated four-year positions and new positions for Chair-Elect, Treasurer and Secretary will be voted in at the 2012 TGfU conference. A Chair-Elect needs to be voted to the Executive by the members of the SIG every two years.
Daniel Memmert Secretary Daniel is a professor and head of the Institute of Cognitive and Team/Racket Sport Research, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany, with a visiting assistant professorship 2014 at the University of Vienna (Austria). His special research areas of interests are cognitive science, human movement science, computer science, and sport psychology. http://scholar.google.de/citations?hl=de&user=ddAujn0AAAAJ |
Communications Team
Ellen Gambles Administration/ Communications Ellen is a part-time PhD student at the University of Sunderland and part-time PGCE student at the University of Huddersfield. Her research focuses on PE teacher's backgrounds and perceptions of Teaching Games for Understanding using Occupational Socialisation. Research interests include games-based teaching models in PE. |
Policy Archive
- Minutes of the Executive meetings (every 6 weeks by Google Hangout)
- Executive annual reports
- Bylaws and operation policies of the TGfU Special Interest Group
1. TGfU Executive Meetings
The TGfU Sig Executive Board has a duty to remain transparent with the community and members. We have written up our regular meeting minutes to show what was discussed and agreed upon.
2009
2010
2011
2012
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3U4Pimtg9WAYXBxd3YxTzRWcXc?usp=sharing
|
|
|
| ||||||||
2013
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3U4Pimtg9WAYXBxd3YxTzRWcXc?usp=sharing
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
| minutes_october_8_2020.docx |
2. Annual Executive Report
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
3. Bylaws of the TGfU Special Interest Group (SIG)
Bylaws & Operational Policies
|
| ||||
