• Home
  • About
    • Game-Based Consensus Statement
  • IAB
  • Learning
    • Research
    • Resources
  • Events
    • 40th Anniversary >
      • 40th Anniversary Webinars
      • Special Blogs
      • 40th Anniversary Conference
    • Next Major Event >
      • 8th International Conference
    • Past Events >
      • PHYSEDagogy PE Summit 4.0
      • International TGfU Conferences >
        • 1st International Conference
        • 2nd International Conference
        • 3rd International Conference
        • 4th International Conference
        • 5th International Conference
        • 6th International Conference
        • 7th International Conference
      • AIESEP Conferences >
        • 2023 AIESEP Chile
        • 2021 AIESEP Banff
        • 2018 AIESEP Edinburgh
        • 2014 AIESEP Auckland
        • 2010 AIESEP A Coruna
        • 2006 AIESEP Jyvaskyla
      • Other GBA Conferences
      • Workshops >
        • TGfU & Physical Literacy
        • World Symposium
    • Projects >
      • Applying TGfU
      • 2016 Projects >
        • Name Change
        • New Constitution
        • Projects
      • Current Projects >
        • Leadership Fellow Program
        • Video Project Proposal
      • IAB Projects >
        • Games in times of restricted mobility
        • Professional Development Project
    • Event Awards
  • Social Media
    • Blog
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
  • News
    • Commemoration of Len Almond
    • Commemoration of Alan Launder
    • Commemoration of Joy Butler
    • Newsletter
  • Contact Us
    • Recommend a Resource
TGfU.Info
Contact Us

40th Anniversary- Reflections on a milestone year

12/4/2022

0 Comments

 
By Ellen Gambles [1]
With contributions from members of the TGfU SIG Executive, IAB and community; David Gutierrez [2], Stefan König [3], Steffen Greve [4], Sanmuga Nathan [5], Jose L. Arias-Estero [6] and Teng Tse Sheng [7]

[1] Academic Tutor in Exercise, Sport and Rehabilitative Therapies
University of Sunderland, UK
TGfU SIG Treasurer and Communications Coordinator 

[2] Professor at the Faculty of Education in Ciudad Real
Universidad of Castilla-la Mancha

[3] Professor in the Department of Sport Science
University of Education Weingarten, Germany
​
[4] Research assistant
Leuphana University of Lüneburg

[5] Senior Lecturer
Sultan Idris Education University of Malaysia

[6] Lecturer in Physical Education
Faculty of Education, Universidad de Murcia

[7] Master Teacher in Physical Education 
Physical Education and Sports Teacher Academy (PESTA), Ministry of Education, Singapore
2022 has been a milestone in the development of game-based approaches (GBAs) as we have celebrated the 40th anniversary of the publication of David Bunker and Rod Thorpe’s TGfU model in 1982. Over the course of the year, the TGfU SIG has hosted a wide variety of events and we would like to share with you what has happened and provide reflections from members of our community.
 
We had our regular monthly guest blogs featuring;
  • January- Eva Guijarro about “How can Teaching Games for Understanding and Sport Education be combined? Practical tips for Primary School”.
  • February- Jennie Petersen about “Action research with youth in recreational programs: Making the case for TGfU”.
  • March- Ross Ensor about “Implementing a Game Sense Approach with young academy football players in England”.
  • April- Alexander Gil Arias about “TGfU and student motivation in Physical Education”.
  • May- Can Ünal and Stefan König about “Implementing TGfU Strategies and Principles in Adolescent Top Level Soccer–An Exploratory Approach”.
  • June- Francesco Sgrò and Michele Barca about “Understanding tactical knowledge within game-based approaches”.
  • July- Matt Dingwall and Rebecca Lloyd about “What Does ‘Ready to Play’ Look Like?: Integrating the Interactive4Life Project with TGfU”.
  • August- David Cooper and Barrie Gordon about “Tactical Decision-Making in Sport: How Can Coaches Help Athletes Make Better In-Game Decisions?”.
  • August Special Edition- Dr. Kanae Haneishi and Professor. Tsuyoshi Matsumoto about “Applying Game-Based Approach in Early Childhood Education in Japan”
  • September- Aspasia Dania about “The messiness of Game-Based teaching”.
Note: There were no blogs in October and November.
 

We also provided our Special Blogs featuring a range of game-based approaches/models. We hope to add to this collection with other approaches/models in the coming year.  
 
​
The TGfU SIG hosted 25 webinars on a variety of game-based approaches topics including;
  • February/March- "Assessing in GBAs" webinar series
  • ​April- "Using Technologies to Promote Game-Based Approaches: Specific Case Studies" Webinar
  • May- "TGfU and The Spectrum of Teaching Styles" Webinar
  • ​​June- "Equity in GBAs" webinar series
  • July- Global Lesson Study with Naoki Suzuki and Mr Yasutaka Abe
  • August- Commonalities and Differences among the Various GBAs Symposium
  • September- "Games Based Pedagogies: Theory and Practice" Webinar
  • ​September/October- IAB Professional Development webinar series
  • October- "The Joy in Inventing Games"
  • ​November- "Teacher Reflection" with Aspasia Dania
  • November/December- "Learner-oriented teaching and assessment in GBAs" series
  • December- Global Lesson Study with Naoki Suzuki and Mr Kentaro Kubo
The webinars are recorded and available for the TGfU community to watch and download the certificate of attendance for their professional development.
 

On the 25th of February, members of the Executive Board, Dr Shane Pill, Professor Linda Griffin, Dr David Gutierrez and Ellen Gambles, joined the AIESEP Connect to discuss TGfU, its history, development and the 40th Anniversary. The event was recorded and is available on the Playing With Research in Health and Physical Education podcast as well as on the AIESEP Website.
 

In March, the TGfU Executive Board (Ellen Gambles, Linda Griffin, Shane Pill, David Gutierrez, Alan Ovens and Jeroen Koekoek) wrote an article for the Association for PE (AfPE), PE Matters journal. They discussed the TGfU model, history, developments and the 40th anniversary celebrations. This was published in the 2022 Spring Edition.

 
On the 8th of April, in partnership with our colleagues in the Netherlands, the Network Teaching Games (NTG) organised a symposium ‘Game-Based Approaches Globally’. The event hosted live speakers and pre-recorded presentations from members around the world providing attendees with inspiring insights into the different GBA models/philosophies across the Globe.
 
​
There has been a culmination of amazing events throughout the year and we are thankful to all the speakers, attendees and contributors to helping to make them a success. We would also like to share with you some reflections of game-based approaches and the past 40 years with you from members of Executive Board, IAB and community….
By David Gutierrez

The 40th anniversary of the TGfU has meant for me the confirmation and the culmination of expectations regarding the TGfU SIG. Since I am part of the TGfU SIG (2012) the idea transmitted by those who started it, especially Joy Butler and Tim Hopper, was to create a global, democratic and participatory movement. In recent years, including the pandemic period, these attributes have grown. We have increased the number of the TGfU SIG and the GBA community. The consensual creation of the Game-Based Approach statement by academics from the five continents is proof that the SIG has, above all, the mission of disseminating quality pedagogy in an inclusive manner in the teaching and training of sport, well above maintaining brands. Also, the high number of academics willing to create free open content for the 40th anniversary makes me think of the generosity of the GBA community. As stated in the GBA statement when referring to the GBA's intention to develop thoughtful players, the GBA community is also consistently thoughtful. Personally it has been a pleasure to collaborate with professors from different countries, speaking the same language, that of the GBA. Of special relevance to me has been the creation of the series of seminars on professional development. These seminars have been the result of numerous meetings in which we have reached an agreement on the best way to train new teachers and trainers. I was surprised that we had such close starting positions, which makes me think that when it comes to GBA the cultural differences are very few and that therefore, like the sport itself, it is a universal language with great social potential.
By Stefan König &, Steffen Greve- German Perspective

“40 years of hesitant approximation”

Although Bunker and Thorpe published their outstanding paper 40 years ago, there has been a rather reluctant reception in Germany during this period. This may be explained by the fact that the German scientific community has developed and discussed similar concepts of game teaching in parallel to the TGfU debate (Greve et al., under review). In particular there was and still is a rather big discrepancy between analysing the concept from a scientific point of you, and from a perspective of physical education. Nevertheless, we meanwhile witness more and more publications addressing the implementation of TGfU as a reasonable and teaching conception in different fields of sport. Examples of this assertion are teacher education (Heemsoth et al., 2020; König et al., 2021), youth competitive sport in soccer (Ünal & König, 2022), and physical education (Allgäuer et al., 2016; Greve et al., 2022). Yet, there is still neither a nationwide awareness of TGfU as an adequate teaching conception, nor is there a deep and commonplace appreciation of the pedagogical principles in sport practice. What might be interpreted as hopeful signals for future developments are some research efforts in different fields of sport: there are studies on the implementation of digital devices into game appreciation (Diekhoff et al., i. Vb.), or into the process of teaching tactics to youth players (König & Ünal, i. Vb.) . 
By Sanmuga Nathan (PhD) - Malaysian perspective

Drawing back from the global scenario and supported by local research findings prompted the Education Ministry of Malaysia to introduce TGfU as the main Game-Based Approach (GBA) enacted in the primary and secondary schools Standard based Physical Education (PE) curriculum, (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2016a, 2016b). Based on research findings, the Malaysian Education Ministry inducted the original TGfU model conceptualized by the British educators David Bunker and Rod Thorpe (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982), as one of the enquiry-based approach to promote high order thinking skill among Malaysian students. In the Malaysian coaching context too, training process moving towards GBA lately. However, the direct skilled-based approach or the teacher/coach centred approach being used in Malaysia interchangeably based on teaching and coaching situations, furthermore the eastern tradition valued highly on teacher or coach as the centre of authority. 
By Jose L. Arias-Estero- Spanish perspective

​Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) is a teaching approach originated to address the dissatisfactions and problems with the traditional technical teaching of games in Physical Education (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). The aim of this approach was that students learn to think and reflect in the context of the game, based on modified games that allow them to solve different tactical problems (Kirk, 2017). Thus, the students would move from being cognitively passive to cognitively active. 

Practically from the beginning, the TGfU has been theoretically based on cognitive and constructive perspectives of learning (Piaget, 1964; Vygotsky, 1978). That is, students learn through the TGfU, because they are aware of new information in learning situations in relation to their previous experiences and knowledge, which enables a process of adaptation to the context. Particularly, active learning takes place through thinking, reflecting, imagining and linking concepts.

The positive results of TGfU on the teaching-learning process are evident in terms of learning, psychological well-being, social relationships and level of physical activity, among others (according to existing reviews: Abad et al., 2020; Barba-Martín et al., 2020; Harvey & Jarrett, 2014; Kinnerk et al., 2018; Miller, 2015; Morales-Belando et al., 2022; Stolz & Pill, 2014). It is, therefore, necessary to transfer this approach to the context of the PE classroom. To this end and considering teachers issues when using TGfU, it is advocated to offer a pedagogical model of the TGfU approach. The model would allow for a scaffolding structure, in order for teachers to have operational elements on which to practically apply the TGfU. 
​
In this regard, Kirk (2017) suggests that learner-centred pedagogy, the use of modified games and problem solving are critical, non-negotiable elements of the model. From this proposal, there are many curricular elements that could be defined to help teachers in using TGfU within the classroom ecology.

By Teng Tse Sheng- Singaporean perspective

1999 was the year Singapore was introduced to Game Based Approach (GBA) with the aim to develop students’ critical thinking skills and to nurture problem solvers. Dr. Steve Mitchell and Dr. Judith Oslin were invited to conduct a series of workshops for all the PE heads of department. I was a beginning teacher then, and never in my wildest dreams did I think that I would one day be part of the TGfU family, promoting the understanding of the game-based approach and connecting practitioners from all over the world through GBA. 

It is well-researched and documented that GBA helps to develop the whole child through their involvement in games. But the journey has not always been smooth in the past 40 years. The many interpretations of the approach, for example, led the founders of TGfU to remark that what they saw being taught and discussed at PE conferences, particularly during practical sessions, was not necessarily the TGfU approach they had originally intended. Studies have also underscored the misconceptions that student teachers and practicing teachers have about TGfU and its adapted versions. Scholars highlighted the gap between research and practice, arguing that more needs to be done to minimize confusion and make the approach more relevant to teachers. The hard work of the TGfU Special Interest Group and the many GBA scholars and practitioners have paid off, as we are now in a much better position.

TGfU, to me, is more than an approach or a model in teaching games. It is a web that binds like-minded practitioners together through the many conferences, sharing platforms and collaborations. Friendships are forged and we helped sharpen each other’s saws. Without TGfU, I would never have had the opportunity to learn from, and befriend so many scholars and practitioners from around the world. As I am also currently conducting GBA workshops and collaborating with teachers on the use of GBA to teach games, TGfU has opened the doors for me to connect with so many teachers in Singapore who have helped further my understanding of the approach.

I am excited about the new learning that we, as a TGfU community, will continue to uncover. As we celebrate the learning of the past 40 years, I am already looking forward to celebrating the 50th anniversary together 10 years later, as a family, with a bang!
Finally…
As we are approaching the end of 2022, it is an opportunity to look back on the past 40 years but also a time to consider where the field of game-based approaches is going. To facilitate this, we have our upcoming conference which will act as a celebration of the past 40 years, conclude the anniversary year, and look forward to the future. We hope that you will be able to join us and continue to support the advancement of game-based approaches.  
References
Abad, M. T., Collado-Mateo, D., Fernández-Espínola, C., Castillo, E., & Giménez, F. J. (2020). Effects of teaching games on decision making and skill execution: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 505. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020505

​Allgäuer, D., Brielmayer, D., Lutz, M., & König, S. (2016). Spielvermittlung in der Sekundarstufe I – eine Frage der Methode? [Teaching Games in Secondary Schools- a Question of the method?] sportunterricht, 65(10), 295 – 300.

Barba-Martín, R. A., Bores-García, D., Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., & González- Calvo, G. (2020). The application of the teaching games for understanding in physical education. Systematic review of the last six years. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093330

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.

Greve, S., Diekhoff, H., & Süßenbach, J. (2022). Learning Soccer in Elementary School: Using Teaching Games for Understanding and Digital Media. Frontiers in Education, 7, 862798. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.862798

Greve, S., König, S., & Diekhoff, H. (under review). Teaching Games for Understanding–Ein vernachlässigter Ansatz in der deutschen Sportpädagogik? [Teaching Games for Understanding–A Disregarded Approach in German Sports Pedagogy?] Zeitschrift für Sportpädagogische Forschung.

Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989. 2012.754005

Heemsoth, T., Boe, L., Bükers, F., & Krieger, C. (2020). Fostering pre-service teachers‘ knowledge of ‘teaching games for understanding’ via video-based vs. text-based teaching examples. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.

Kinnerk, P., Harvey, S., MacDonncha, C., & Lyons, M. (2018). A review of the game-based approaches to coaching literature in competitive team sport settings. Quest, 70(4), 401-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2018.1439390

Kirk, D. (2017). Teaching games in physical education: Towards a pedagogical model. Revista Portuguesa de Ciencias del Deporte, 17, 17-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5628/rpcd.17.S1A.17

König, S., Baumberger, J., & Bislin, S. (2021). Getting Familiar with Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)—A Qualitative Experiment with German and Swiss Teachers. International Journal for Physical Education LVIII(2), 15–28.

Miller, A. (2015). Games centered approaches in teaching children & adolescents: systematic review of associated student outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(1), 36-58. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0155

Morales-Belando, M. T., Kirk, D., & Arias-Estero, J. L. (2022). A systematic review of Teaching Games for Understanding intervention studies from a practice-referenced perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 93(4), 670-681. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2021.1897066

Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306

Stolz, S., & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 36–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X13496001

Ünal, C. & König, S. (2022). Taktikvermittlung durch TGfU Strategien und Prinzipien im Nachwuchs-Leistungsfußball – eine explorative Studie (Teaching tactics via TGfU strategies and principles in youth soccer – an explorative study]. 

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23, 34–41. http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.11
0 Comments

The messiness of Game-Based teaching

9/2/2022

0 Comments

 
By Aspasia Dania
School of Physical Education and Sport Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

Email: adania@phed.uoa.gr
Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aspasia_Dania/research
Google Scholar
Currently, educational policies worldwide focus on pedagogy under a methodological consideration, advocating for its use primarily for achieving standardized performance outcomes. Under such frameworks, normalized teaching practices are equated to effective curriculum delivery, making it difficult for Physical Education (PE) teachers to understand the scope of different pedagogies and their relevance to student learning. According to Giroux (2007), pedagogy is the cornerstone of democracy and thus must be fulfilled as a form of labor that the teacher embraces to facilitate student autonomy, freedom and self-direction in learning. Thus, PE teachers should be given opportunities to experiment with various pedagogies that will trigger students’ motivation to learn and act for a cause.

Game-Based Approaches (GBAs) utilize pedagogies that bring back democratic and critical thinking principles within PE contexts. Within GBAs, teachers depart from rigidly scripted, individualized technique/skill practices to lessons that use modified games as relational spaces to promote students’ understanding. GBA teachers have to stay attentive during gameplay to gather insights about students’ needs and afterwards raise (tactical) problems to trigger personal reflection and group interaction. Afterwards, students use their game experience to collaboratively problem solve and develop individual and/or group strategies in consideration of game constraints and options. In terms of pedagogy, GBAs build on human dynamics and group effort to create learning environments that promote game efficacy and understanding in a manner that is equitable for all. As such, concepts such as tactical creativity, respectful interaction and shared thinking become the focus of the game experience promoting in this way students’ holistic learning.

However, elements like wonder, exploration and challenge cannot be experienced within games if the teacher does not have pedagogical content knowledge to tailor each game’s circumstances with contextual specificities (Gudmundsdottir & Shulman, 1987). The GBA teacher should be sensitive and knowledgeable enough to grapple with the ‘tensions’ of the game and use them as opportunities to (re)create conditions that will allow students to be, do, act and think different. From a socially constructivist lens, there can be no best-practice in GBA teaching since both game flow and student learning are the result of a complex network of interactions that cannot be easily predicted. It is important therefore that every teacher is familiar with the idea that GBA teaching is and should be a messy experience. An experience which is founded on the teacher’s ability to stay cognitively and affectively responsive to the game’s micro culture (e.g., structure, category, players’ abilities, etc.). For some teachers, this messiness might be felt as vulnerability and destabilization of authority.

Vulnerability is a misunderstood concept in education since it honors subjectivity and interrogation (Kelchtermans, 1996). According to Dewey (1929), if we expect teacher certainty as the absence of vulnerability, then we live in delusion. Vulnerability fosters empathy and divergent thinking and, if it not experienced as weakness, it may open teachers’ resistance towards instances of inequity within the lesson (e.g., in terms of game rules, scoring system, etc.). Within GBAs, teachers may experience messiness in their attempt to create learning environments in appreciation to students’ needs. This messiness is an indispensable part of good GBA pedagogy since it reshapes the teaching experience as production itself and not as a process for producing predetermined learning outcomes. GBA teachers learn from their trials to formulate game contexts that will help students to develop holistically as game players. When they fail to do so, two modes of action are open: (a) they may run away from ‘trouble’ and return to traditional teaching practices, or (b) they can set up efforts to modify the game with unsatisfactoriness being their experienced quality. In the second case, messiness becomes a condition of game-based teaching that is fundamental to teachers’ and students’ growth. All this experience familiarizes teachers with the idea that it is acceptable to feel vulnerable since it is impossible to know everything in terms of sensing and acting relationally to the complexity of the game. As such, teaching becomes professional learning since it helps teachers to confront their uncertainties or limitations and keep searching for different ways of caring for their students.

Based on the above, it is my convention that PE teachers should be supported to experience and implement GBA teaching as a messy process that nurtures students as whole human beings. Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programs should invest in GBAs and support future teachers to teach primarily for growth and secondarily for achieving learning outcomes. This means that future PE teachers should be encouraged to interrogate their established skills and habits with an emphasis placed on their critical capabilities. This may happen through their engagement with a variety of GBA courses, or within action research and lesson study projects. Overall, it is important that teachers understand that they are not trained to be technicians of game-based knowledge, but instead facilitators of student learning.

For this purpose, I suggest below the VIBES model (Figure 1), as a five-stage model for working with future PE teachers within game-based courses and PETE programs. The VIBES model is based on the premise that game-based teaching is a messy process of custom challenging for sustaining teachability and maximizing student growth. The five phases of the model are explained below:

(1) Value of games. Game-based teaching necessitates pedagogical content knowledge that is more than the application of game content or instructional skills. Thus, game-based courses should support teachers to reflect on their conceptions of what they understand as game-based teaching and what are its broader social implications and underlying values. Journal writing or narratives from their years as students or athletes in various sports could be used within the courses as a means of generating and supporting reflection.

(2) Immersion. As mentioned above, a deep exploration on the scope and philosophy of game-based pedagogies is needed to stimulate the teacher’s ability to teach in a human-centered way. Game based teaching is primarily a creative process since it promotes evaluation and reinterpretation of what is happening as action and interaction within the game. Thus, future teachers should be given multiple opportunities to share knowledge and understandings during the observation and design of game-based lessons. Learning communities (both face-to-face and digital), teacher blogs and forums could be especially set-up for this purpose, as part of PETE programs.

(3) Beginning to practice. After a period of theoretical sensitization, future teachers should attend practicum courses, in the form of short-terms placements in educational settings, to observe teaching and learning with GBAs in their authentic context. Field placements are also an excellent opportunity for future teachers to experience the messiness of game-based teaching ‘safely’ next to experienced PE teachers or coaches. Thus, mentoring programs (face-to-face and digital) could be a good start for supporting future teachers’ work in practicum

(4) Explication. During this stage, future teachers could experiment with making modifications to already scripted lesson plans. For example, teachers could be given a lesson plan designed under a sport-as-technique perspective and be asked to modify it by using GBA pedagogical principles (e.g., sampling, exaggeration, etc.). Afterwards, they could participate in course discussions with expert teachers or lesson study projects to analyze the outcomes of their work and get or give feedback.  

(5) Synthesis. During this final stage, PE teachers may work in pairs and apply in practice their own game-based lessons. Peer feedback and reciprocal teaching may be used as means to this end. This process may be rather transformative for some teachers, since they will experience what it means to bounce off their reactions to problem solving to the reaction of their students. However, it is an exciting moment in enacting human-centered pedagogy as a process of both being and becoming a game-based teacher.
Picture
Figure 1. The VIBES model
The VIBES model is an indicative example of the many constructivist-oriented practices that can be/are used in teacher education today. We live in a socially accelerated society and what we are doing as educators does not easily reach school practice. Game-based pedagogies promote active education that is better aligned to students’ needs, since they consider the nature of human consciousness and human skillfulness. Thus, future PE teachers should be supported to engage in game-based teaching not mechanistically but with a passionate disposition that values the shared good. By returning to my initial argument, I believe that we need to experience GBAs (both as teacher educators and as PE teachers) as teaching with a pedagogy of reciprocal respect. This would mean that the teacher cares for students and their needs during gameplay so that this caring will then come back to the teacher as an unpredictable yet powerful motivating force for inspiring teaching. 
References
Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York: Minton, Balch & Company

Giroux, H. A. (2007). Violence, Katrina, and the biopolitics of disposability. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(7-8), 305-309.

Gudmundsdottir, S. & Shulman, L. 1987. Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 31, 59‐70.
​
Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Teacher vulnerability: Understanding its moral and political roots. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 307-323.
0 Comments

Special Edition: Applying Game-Based Approach in Early Childhood Education in Japan

8/15/2022

0 Comments

 
By Dr. Kanae Haneishi [1] and Professor. Tsuyoshi Matsumoto [2]

​
[1] Associate Professor, Western Colorado University (USA)
Dr. Haneishi is an Associate Professor at Western Colorado University and represents the U.S. for the TGfU International Advisory Board. Her recent research focus is on pedagogical strategies to promote Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport Coaching. She completed Ed.D. from University of Massachusetts Amherst while coaching soccer and teaching Physical Education at a university. She was an accomplished soccer player winning the NCAA D2 National Championship with her university and the Silver Medal at the World University Games with the Japanese National team as well as serving as the team captain for New York Magic.
Twitter: @Kanaehaneishi


[2] Associate Professor, Tsukuba University (Japan)
He is currently an associate professor of Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences at University of Tsukuba. His specialty is coaching studies. He used to be a Head Coach of the American football club at University of Tsukuba. As a director of the Japan Flag Football Association, he has been conducting research on teaching materials for "flag football" published in the curriculum guidelines using tactical learning theory. Based on the results, he is also playing an active role as a lecturer in the flag football practical training class for teachers sponsored by the Board of Education.

While the Game-Based Approach (GBA) concept has been mainly applied to the Physical Education as well as Sport Coaching fields, have you ever thought of applying the GBA concept to Early Childhood (i.e., age 0-5) Education and their motor development, motor learning, and beyond? Professor Matsumoto at Tsukuba University and other Japanese scholars have been working with Early Childhood educators to improve their game and play teaching strategies. This blog introduces the early part of this initiative and how GBA could be helpful in Early Childhood Education.

In Japan, there is an old saying “children develop the foundation of human development by age of 3”, and more people are increasingly interested in the Early Childhood Education. The revised Course of Study for Kindergarten has been implemented in the Early Childhood Education in 2018. It is a core for educational philosophy and the curriculum for Early Childhood Education which outlines important developmental components prior to children entering the Elementary School Education. The following content integrates aspects of each child's development: health (physical and mental health); human relationships (the relationship between the child and other people); environment (children's surroundings, and relationship to them); language (the process of language acquisition); and expression (feelings and expression). Considering the characteristics of GBA (i.e., utilizing modified games, asking question for problem solving, being a student-centered approach…etc.), the teaching strategy can promote human relationship and expression in addition to the obvious aspect, physical and mental health in the course of study. The Course of Study for Kindergarten also emphasizes the importance of creating a learning environment where children can freely and independently play and move. In other words, it is important for teachers to create an environment where children can develop their creativity and challenge without fear. GBA is a teaching strategy that a teacher modifies game environment so learners can maximize their potential and their learning. Thus, we believe that children in Early Childhood Education (i.e., age 0-5) can benefit from the GBA teaching strategy when learning games, movements, and play.
​
When a group of researchers asked young children to drew pictures of a firefighter, a surgeon and a flight pilot, 61 pictures were drawn as men and 5 were drawn as women. When a female firefighter, a female surgeon, and a female pilot walked into the classroom, the children were in silence. “Gender stereotypes are defined between 5 and 7 years of age” (Upworthy, 2016).  
Upworthy (2016)
This video is one of the examples of how important it is to educate children in their early ages about stereotypes in our society. Implementing the GBA concept into Early Childhood Education also can help teachers to promote Equity, Diversity as well as Inclusion and develop “physically literate” individuals while teaching games, play, and movements. Physical literacy is defined as “the ability to move with competence and confidence in a wide variety of physical activities in multiple environments that benefit the healthy development of the whole person”. (Mandigo, Francis, Lodewyk & Lopez, 2012). Physical literacy is directly connected with the developmental components that the Course of Study for Kindergarten indicated as critical aspects. Applying GBA into teaching helps to develop children’ self-confidence and ability to express and communicate with others. Education and care for preschool children in Japan is divided into kindergartens and nursery schools. Kindergartens are regulated by the Course of study for Kindergarten  stipulated by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), while nursery schools are regulated by Childcare guidelines stipulated by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Elementary/Middle/High School Education is overseen by MEXT.  Therefore, applying GBA in Early Childhood Education also helps to bridge the gap between Early Childhood Education and Elementary/Middle and High School Education in Japan.  

During the TGfU 40th anniversary webinar series on “Equity in GBAs”, TGfU scholars introduced and emphasized on including Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) perspectives into teaching during GBA lessons. They introduced some practical examples of how to implement JEDI concepts into GBA lessons.
40th Anniversary "Equity in GBAs" webinar Series- Promoting Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (JEDI) through GBA in PE- Practical Implication (TGfU SIG, 2022)
This initiative in Japan is still in an early stage; however teachers are excited about this new initiative. Ms. Akemi Miyazato, the first director of the Bunkyo Ward Ochanomizu University Early Childhood Education and Childcare Center and a professor at Ochanomizu University said “I think that children's play is spontaneously generated in their play, not that there were rules ahead of time. Since there are many different kinds of children, I think it is important to teach without preconceived ideas.”            
0 Comments

TACTICAL DECISION-MAKING IN SPORT: HOW CAN COACHES HELP ATHLETES MAKE BETTER IN-GAME DECISIONS?

8/2/2022

0 Comments

 
By David Cooper [1] and Barrie Gordon [2]

[1] Associate Professor Emeritus, Teaching Stream, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education (KPE) at the University of Toronto, Canada

[2] Associate Professor in Health and Physical Education at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
This new sport coaching book was published in June 2020 by Routledge UK. It addresses the challenge of how coaches and teachers can educate their athletes and students in the important skill of in-game tactical decision-making.
 
How many times have you thought as a coach or spectator if only player Y or athlete X had made a different in-game decision, then the outcome may have been positive?
 
This blog will give you a brief insight to the contents of the book.
 
Every coach at some point must have wished that their athlete or athletes had made a better in-game decision. Listening to interviews of coaches after a loss, many have wished that if only their players had made better choices in various important situations, the result might have been different. In every competitive event, match or game, once the event begins, the coach’s ability to influence the outcome of in-game play may be limited.
 
In some sports, the coach can try to change the game by calling a timeout or making a substitution. In sports that have significant breaks between action, such as basketball, volleyball and hockey, the coach has a chance to communicate tactical changes to the players, if the game has not been going according to plan. In soccer and rugby, there is a considerable period of game play before and after halftime happens, so players must be able to make their own in-game tactical decisions without being influenced by the coach.
 
In other sports, such as squash, the coach may only get a few seconds to talk to their athlete. In sports that consist of races, such as athletics and swimming, once the race begins, the coach cannot speak to their athletes until the end of the event. Regardless of how many opportunities a coach may have to talk to their athletes during breaks in the event, the reality is that once the referee, umpire or official starts the contest, the athlete is left to their own decision-making ability to navigate the event.
 
The purpose of Tactical Decision Making in Sport: How can Coaches Help Athletes Make Better In-Game Decisions? is to address the complex challenge of how to encourage athletes to become better in-game tactical decision-makers. When using an Athlete Centred-Coaching approach, the coach views their athlete more holistically and tries to empower them to become an active participant in the development of their athletic career. Traditionally coaches have been responsible for enhancing the physical abilities, technical skills, and tactical knowledge of their athletes. Athlete-centred coaches are committed to involving their athletes into a holistic development process. The pursuit of performance excellence is enhanced when coaches and athletes work together to learn how to make better in-game decisions. This book encourages coaches to create a practice environment where the athlete can learn how to make better in-game tactical decisions. 
 
The book is divided into five parts. Part A chapter 1 is written by David Cooper and serves as an Introduction to the book. In it he examines and explains the close links between Athlete-Centered Coaching and Game-Centered Approaches to teaching and coaching that encourage the practice of empowering athletes to make in-game decisions.
 
In Part B, Tactical Decision-Making – Ideas, Theories and Thoughts consists of chapters 2 to 6. Chapter 2 is written by Barrie Gordon and explains his theory behind the concept of Developing Thinking Players which has its roots in Teaching Games for Understanding, Play Practice and Game Sense.
 
Chapter 3 by Kaleigh Ferdinand Pinnock examines the theoretical considerations of athlete decision-making. Research in this area stems from a complex, interdisciplinary perspective with roots in neuroscience, economics and psychology. Sport is an ideal setting in which to examine decision-making behaviours and processes.
 
Chapter 4, written by the late Guido Geisler, explores the common considerations within the four pillars of coaching with reference to territory games. These four pillars of coaching are the technical, tactical, physical and psychological foundations upon which coaching is founded. Guido introduces the concept of the “tactical triangle” that players try to develop. These are reading the play, acquisition of the required knowledge to make appropriate tactical decisions and the application of the player’s decision-making ability to solve the problem.
 
In chapter 5, Karlene Headley-Cooper draws on her own playing, coaching, research and teaching experiences to present some of the challenges that coaches’ face in empowering athletes to “think for themselves”.
 
Rounding out Part B is chapter 6, written by Tom Williams and examines the question “Can game data measure the effectiveness of the athlete decision-making process?”. Tom’s position as Head of Strength of Fitness at Toronto Football Club and currently at LA Galaxy FC brings him into daily contact with all types of data collected from the players. It is up to him to evaluate this data and plan the training accordingly.
 
In Part C, 13 coaches from a variety of different sports share their insight as to how they encourage their athletes to think for themselves.
 
Chapters 7 to 13 focus on Territory games as described in Teaching Games for Understanding. Chapter 14 focusses on Over the Net games. Chapters 15 and 16 looks at Striking and Fielding games. Chapter 17 is a generic chapter about Strategies for Target games. Chapter 18 examines Individual Sports that are Wall and Racquet games, and Chapter 19 is about decision-making in Combat sport.
 
Chapter 7 focusses on soccer (North America) or football (rest of the world) and is written by Guido Geisler and James Wallis.
 
Chapter 8 is written by Barrie Gordon and introduces touch rugby.
 
Chapter 9, written by Darren Lowe. is about the fast-moving sport of ice hockey,
 
Chapter 10 is written by John Campbell and is about basketball.
 
Nathalie Williams, in chapter 11, shares her insight into how netball players can be encouraged to make their own in-game tactical decisions.
 
In chapter 12, John McCarthy and Dave Brunner explain how the seemingly coach-controlled sport of football (in North America) can become a game where players have an input into the decision-making process.
 
In chapter 13, David Cooper shares some of the ways “End Zone Games” can be played as small-sided games within the Game Centred Approach model of teaching and coaching Territory games. 
 
Chapter 14, written by John Barrett, looks at the way an outside hitter in volleyball can be coached to be able to recognise different plays and decide where is the best court location is to attack.
 
Barrie Gordon, in chapter 15, looks at decision-making scenarios faced by baseball and softball players as to where to hit the ball and when to run the bases.
 
Chapter 16, written by David Cooper, focusses on the sport of cricket and how making poor in-game decisions can change the game and how coaches can work with their players to avoid them.
 
Barrie Gordon, in chapter 17 describes generic decision-making strategies that feature in Target games such as golf, archery and bowls.
 
In chapter 18, Mike Way explains how he coaches his varsity squash players to become better in-game tactical decision-makers.
 
Gerard Lauziere closes out Part C of the book with chapter 19, which focuses on the combat sport of karate.
 
Part D of the book is entitled Through the Lens of a Coach.
 
In chapter 20, David Cooper reflects on a lifetime of coaching from club, high school, county and university teams. He shares experiences that have shaped his philosophy as a coach and seen him change from being a coach who focussed on developing the technical ability of his athletes’ using skills and drills to an athlete-centered coach who has seen the benefit of a Game Centred Approach to teaching and coaching.
 
Greg Gary writes about his journey in chapter 21, from being a professional football player with the Los Angeles Rams in the National Football League (in America), to the Hamilton Tiger Cats in the Canadian Football League, to the head coach of the University of Toronto Varsity Blues.
 
Part E of the book provides insight into how coaches can translate decision-making theory into practice thereby empowering athletes to become better in-game tactical decision-makers?
 
In Chapter 22 Barrie Gordon provides a summary of the previous chapters and draws some conclusions that should help coaches develop new ideas that will help them encourage their players to become more independent and think for themselves.
 
Good decision-making is a key skill that impacts many aspects of day to day life and is particularly important for athletes and coaches in the ever changing world of competitive sport. Whether you coach high school, club sport or a professional team, developing the ability of your athletes to make good in-game decisions is vital. For athletes to become better in-game tactical decision makers, the coach must create an environment where athletes are empowered to be active participants in their coaching and learning experience. Focussing on how Athlete-Centred Coaching and Game Centred Approaches to teaching and coaching sport contribute to athletes taking responsibility for their own in-game tactical decision-making, this book explains the theory and practice of developing thinking players. This book is based on the belief that the implementation of these student and athlete-centred approaches create more opportunities for athletes to understand their sport, improves their ability to think for themselves and to learn to make better in-game decisions.
List of Contributors
 
John Barrett is the Head Coach of the Varsity Blues Men's volleyball team program since 2011. In the spring of 2018, he was voted President of the Canadian U SPORTS men's volleyball coaches association. John competed at the 1984 Olympic Games, the 1983 Pan Am Games and at the 1990 world championships for Canada. He played professional basketball in Europe for 14 seasons where he made history as the first volleyball player in the world to exclusively employ the spike serve in matches. He was head coach for both the men's and women's beach volleyball teams at the 2003 Pan Am Games and is currently the 2019 Canadian senior B men’s team head coach. 
 
Dave Brunner has served the United States Army for the past 10 years as a Human Performance Team manager in the field of sport and performance psychology. His team has developed and delivered holistic human performance training to Special Operators, Intelligence Analysts and Aviators. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Idaho in the Philosophy, Pedagogy, and Psychology of Sport. Before affiliating with the Army he spent 25 years as a football coach and teacher at the university and secondary school level. His career in coaching includes positions as a head football coach at three different high schools in North and South Carolina, and as an assistant coach and coordinator at two different NCAA Division I university football program
 
John Campbell is the Head Coach Men’s Varsity Blues basketball team at the University of Toronto.  He has been a head coach in post-secondary basketball in Canada for over 25 years. John has been an assistant coach at the international level for both Canada and Great Britain. He attended the National Coaching Institute at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and is a Learning Facilitator for the NCCP course of “Train to Compete – Tactics and Strategies”.
 
David Cooper is an Associate Professor Emeritus, Teaching Stream, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education (KPE) at the University of Toronto, Canada. Currently his teaching includes two Theory of Coaching courses and a course focused on the Pedagogy of Playing Games. He is a Learning Facilitator for the Canadian National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP). He was Head Coach (1998-2015) of the University of Toronto Varsity Blues women’s squash team and coach of the 2005 women’s squash team that was inducted into the Varsity Blues Hall of Fame in 2018. He was named Ontario University Association’s Coach of the Year on five occasions. Prior to coming to Canada, David was qualified by the National Coaching Association (NCA) as the youngest Advanced Cricket Coach in the UK. He played three seasons for the Middlesex County 2nd XI cricket team. He coached both London and Middlesex U19 county school teams. Upon arriving in Canada, he was appointed Technical Director of both the Ontario and Canadian Cricket Associations.
 
Greg Gary is the former Head Coach of the University of Toronto Varsity Blues football team (2010-2017) and a faculty member in Kinesiology and Physical Education at the University of Toronto, Canada. Greg attended California State University Fullerton (CSUF), Greg signed as a free agent with the Los Angeles Rams in the National Football League. After a short stay with the Rams, he came to the Canadian Football League and played four seasons with the Hamilton Tiger Cats and was a member of the 1986 Grey Cup winning team.
 
Guido Geisler was an Associate Professor at the Tsukuba International Academy for Sport Studies (TIAS) at the University of Tsukuba, Japan. Guido obtained his UEFA-B football-coaching license from the German Football Federation (DFB) in 2016. He coached varsity soccer at the University of Toronto and at club level in Japan. He designed and conducted soccer coaching courses for the Sports Authority of India (SAI). Sadly, Guido passed away on October 26th, 2018 after contributing two chapters to this book.
 
Barrie Gordon is an Associate Professor in Health and Physical Education at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. His current areas of interest and research are in Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) in physical education and teaching games for Understanding (TGfU). Barrie has written two books, Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) in physical education (2010); and Developing Thinking players: Baseball/Softball Edition (2015). Barrie has been involved in playing fastpitch softball in the New Zealand national league and currently represents New Zealand in the over 55 years TAG football team.
 
Karlene Headley-Cooper is a teacher at Crofton House School in Vancouver B.C, Canada. Prior to moving to Crofton House School, Karlene was a Senior Instructor in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education at the University of Toronto where she taught fundamentals in fitness, exercise, physical activity and communication. Karlene is a recipient of a 2017 University of Toronto KPE Award of Excellence in Teaching. She was an Ontario University Association women’s squash all star on six occasions and a member of the 2005 women’s team that was inducted into the Varsity Blues Hall of Fame in 2018. Karlene was also a member of Great Britain women’s softball team for ten years (2005-2014) playing in four World Cups and has coached various GB national teams from U13 to women’s (2007-2016).
 
Gerard Lauziere is a Senior High Performance Coaching Consultant with the Coaching Association of Canada. He has also been the High Performance Director of both the Canadian Fencing Association (2010-11) and Taekwondo Canada (2009-10). Between 1985 and 1996, Gerard represented Canada in various international karate competitions around the world, including two Pan Am Championships (Brazil, 1985, and Curacao, 2000) and 2 world championships (Peru 1990 and Spain 1992).
 
Darren Lowe is the former Head Coach of the University of Toronto Varsity Blues men’s ice hockey team (1995-2016). He represented Canada at the 1984 Winter Olympics and played in the NHL for the Pittsburgh Penguins during the 1983-1984 season. Darren was the OUA Coach of the Year in 2000-2001, 2002-2003 and 2011-2012. A full time member of the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Darren is currently involved in the development of a Master’s of Coach Education course.
 
John McCarthy is the Director of the Boston University Athletic Coach Education Institute. He is a clinical associate professor in the Wheelock College of Education and Applied Human Development and oversees the Coaching Specialization in Counseling and Applied Human Development program. His area of engaged scholarly work includes coach development, positive youth development through physical activity and trauma-informed coaching. He is a strong advocate for designing socially just sport systems that are equitable, diverse and inclusive. As a former high school and college football coach for 15 years and a father who has coached children in youth basketball, he places a high value on the importance of the role of the coach in society.
 
Tabitha McKenzie is a lecturer in Te Kura Māori at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Tabitha has represented New Zealand in the Open Women’s touch team as well as the Open Mixed touch team where she was also captain. 
                 
Kaleigh Ferdinand Pennock is a PHD candidate in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education at the University of Toronto. She completed a double Master’s degree from the European Masters in Sports and Exercise Psychology (EMSEP) program, earning a Master of Sports Science in Sport Psychology from Lund University, Sweden, and a Master of Science with a specialization in Diagnostics and Intervention from Leipzig University, Germany. Her dissertation addresses sport-related concussion under-reporting and how adolescent athletes make concussion-related decisions. Her research interests include sport and performance psychology, psychology of athletic injury and perfectionism in sport and dance. 
 
James Wallis is a Principal Lecturer in Sport, Coaching and Exercise Science at the University of Brighton, England. He started his career as a PE teacher before completing his MSc in Sport and Exercise Science and doctorate in education. He has worked for many years in youth performance and in international sport for development settings where he specializes in the design and delivery of age-appropriate and ecologically valid coaching practice. His University teaching commitments focus on pedagogy in sport coaching, youth sport programmes and reflective practice. He has numerous publications in the field, including the 2016 Routledge text, Becoming a Sport Coach.
 
Mike Way is the Head Squash Coach of the men and women’s Harvard University squash teams. His women’s team has won the USA national university squash championship for five successive years (2015-2019). In 2019 his men’s team won the national championships for the first time since 2014. Mike was the coach of squash world champion and Commonwealth gold medallist Jonathon Power from 1995-2005. More recently Mike coached Ali Farag at Harvard who is currently the world squash champion.
 
Nathalie Williams is a lecturer in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education at the University of Toronto, Canada.  She earned her qualified teacher status in Physical Education at Loughborough University, UK, and has been in the profession for 9 years.  She represented the U16 and U18 Welsh netball squads, Welsh colleges field hockey and Welsh schools track and field.  
 
Tom Williams is the Head of Strength and Conditioning at Toronto Football Club (TFC). In 2017, TFC won the Major League Soccer Championship. Tom was also with Leicester City Football Club during the 2015-16 season when they surprised everyone by winning the English Premier League. Tom also has his UEFA B license in coaching. He coached at Derby County FC and Nottingham Forest FC while studying Sport Science at Loughborough University, England. Tom holds a Masters in High Performance Sport from the Australian Catholic University (ACU).
Picture
0 Comments

What Does ‘Ready to Play’ Look Like?: Integrating the Interactive4Life Project with TGfU

7/2/2022

0 Comments

 
By Matt Dingwall, B.Ed. [1] and Rebecca Lloyd, PhD. [2]

​[1] Brock University
Email: md13tk@brocku.ca
Twitter: @MattDingwallHPE

[2] University of Ottawa
Website: https://education.uottawa.ca/en/people/lloyd-rebecca-j
Email: Rebecca.Lloyd@uottawa.ca
Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4277-930X


For more ideas on how to be Interactive4Life, please visit the various links throughout the post, our website or please send us a message on Twitter.
Website: https://function2flow.ca/ https://function2flow.ca/the-interactive-for-life-project/
Twitter: @IA4LPROJECT & @MattDingwallHPE
 Are your students ready to play? Are your students aware of how they may communicate a readiness to interact?
 
The primary focus of the InterActive for Life (IA4L) Project is to promote participation in games, fitness pursuits and dance by connecting to feelings of joy and happiness experienced through relational connectedness – not just for a day, or for one class, but for life. Conceptually framed by the four dimensions of the Interactive Function2Flow (IF2F) Model, specifically InterActive Function, Form, Feeling, and Flow, the IA4L project draws attention to the relational ways we connect through posture, position, gesture and movement expression (Lloyd & Smith, 2021, 2022). The first phase of the IA4L project was premised on learning from experts whose practice is based on communicating in and through movement (Lloyd, 2020; Lloyd & Smith, in press) which resulted in a series of documentary videos that showcase the ways we may physically act and react in meaningful interaction. The second phase of the IA4L project was based on mobilizing this relational knowledge to physical education through the co-creation of an online resource that features generalizable games and activities. The third phase of the IA4L project, in which I, Matt Dingwall, got involved as a volunteer and later as a research assistant, was to try out the principles and activities of the IA4L project in my emerging physical education praxis.
 
In this blog post, which was supported by the IA4L project leader, Rebecca Lloyd, I wish to provide an example of how I incorporated aspects of the IA4L project in the teaching of a Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) lesson to Grade 7 students. My goal in sharing this reflection is to provide an example of the simple ways we may facilitate student engagement and meaningful relational connections in both peer and pedagogical interaction. I would like to relate my reflection to the IF2F model and take a moment to describe its relevance.
​


(1) What is the premise of the Interactive Function2Flow model?  
Before I share an example of my teaching interaction, I feel that it is important to outline how the IA4L project compliments the TGfU approach to teaching games as it draws attention to the physical ways we communicate through space. Students may enhance their relational feelings of connection by taking into consideration the following IF2F dimensions:
Picture
Figure 1: Interactive Function2Flow Model (IF2F Model)
(2) Practical Example of IA4L in a TGfU Game – ‘Taking the hoods off’ 
To provide an example of the IF2F in action, there is one class that I taught that will always stand out to me when I consider the importance of teaching relational connection in my physical education classes. I was teaching at a school in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in Southern Ontario, Canada as part of my practicum placement in my teacher education program. The students at this elementary school had been playing the territorial-invasion game, Tchoukball in their class over the course of a few days before I arrived. What immediately sprang forth from my initial observations of the class was a distinguishable divide between the students who were involved and playing the game from those who did not.
 
I noted two students in particular who have ultimately helped me shape my own pedagogical approach to physical education more than they will ever know. These two students were in the class and going through the motions of walking up and down the court but were not playing the game. They had their sweatshirt hoods up, which seemed to act like a horse blinder, as they only conversed with each other and were oblivious to everyone else. I saw an opportunity to facilitate a relational connection between these two students and the other players in the game.
 
My assumption when I saw these hooded students were that they lacked motivation. But then, after considering the first InterActive Function dimension as I was observing the class through the IF2F frame, I wondered if these students knew how they could communicate a readiness to play and get more involved in the game.
 
Following a conversation with the students where I asked them about the physical signs of communicating that they are ready to receive a pass, it became apparent that they did not understand the ways they may physically communicate in this game. This came as a shock to me because this type of situation likely happens frequently in physical education programs, as teachers may assume students know what to do when they want to participate in a game.
 
Next, with an effort to inspire more interaction, I took advantage of the time they were rotated off to the side lines and became quite animated in my demonstration of what a ‘ready position’ and a ‘ready to interact position’ looked like in Tchoukball. I showed feet shoulder width apart, knees bent, body shifting forward, hands out in front of you and head up facing your opponent as a basic ready position. This was quite a different stance compared to their upright yet slouched over posture. I then added more movement to this ready to interact posture by quite literally bouncing around with multiple students in the class. My goal was to demonstrate how their peers will know they are ready to catch a pass by reading teammates body postures and movements.
 
Although this micro intervention did not change their posture instantaneously as they did not assume a ready position exactly like how I demonstrated it, they now had a better understanding of what a ready to interact position looked like – and they began to interact and play with their peers. When later prompted through a journal reflection, both students noted that Tchoukball was not their favourite game, but that they felt a sense of joy and accomplishment while being able to interact with their peers. This to me was more important than learning to catch the tchoukball, as these students were now able to interact, participate, and make appropriate decisions to help them engage with their peers. Seeing the difference that this made for these two students was a massive win for me as a teacher, and it came from engaging with some of the fundamental principles of the IA4L project.



(3) Taking it Further – Potential prompting questions for Assessing InterActivity  
When my classes participate in games, there are many ways in which I have prompted my students to think more deeply about the ways they may meaningfully interact. Some ways in which I have done this include:

  • Teacher documentation (anecdotal notes) framed by the IF2F relational dimensions of observable postures, positions, gestures and expressions.
  • Have students reflect on the physical signs and ways they communicate in the form of exit cards. This teacher-student interaction prompts students to think about the ways they physically experience tactics. For example, I often will prompt students to describe how they are feeling during activities. Or ask: what ways can you and your partner position yourself in space to improve interaction? What part of yours and your partners movements helped to create a feeling of connection? Were you and your partner able to find a pace to your movement where you were progressively moving together (mirrored or matching)? Were you and your partner able to find a sense of flow? How could you read your partners body movements to assist you in on-and-off-ball offense and defensive strategies?
 
I will also continue to incorporate and adapt the lead-up games developed with teacher education students involved in the IA4L project that exemplify relational connection through space. With a focus on activities that have particular relevance for TGfU lessons, I would recommend: ‘Fake Out Race Out’, ‘Be the Ball’, and ‘Guess the Copycat’ – My personal favorite!


​
(4) Final thoughts  
With the focus that is put on the cognitive, decision-making aspects of a TGfU lesson, I feel as though we are missing the mark on teaching our students how to physically sense the ways we may develop relational connection in a game or activity. Through the IA4L project, I further refined my approach to introducing TGfU to my students by also considering the kinaesthetic aspects of developing game appreciation and tactics (Lloyd & Smith, 2010). And regardless of the game or context, I will turn to the Tools for Teachers and Assessment Tools to help me emphasize the physical dimensions of relational connection.
 
TGfU strives to provide students with multiple domains for students to solve the problems that arise in similar activities (Tan, Chow & Davids, 2011). In understanding this, I believe that involving aspects of the IA4L project that have been outlined, teachers and students will be able to further their focus on how they feel and the joy of moving in a TGfU lesson or unit through understanding what a ‘ready to interact’ position looks like and feels like. In something as simple as introducing the ways we may physically communicate, we provide students with opportunities to experience the positive feelings of becoming Interactive4Life. 
References
Lloyd, R. J. (2020, October). The power of interactive flow in salsa dance: a motion-sensing phenomenological inquiry featuring two-time world champion, Anya Katsevman. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, October, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020.1820559

Lloyd, R. J., & Smith, S. J. (2010). Feeling ‘flow motion’ in games and sports. In J. Butler, & L. Griffin (Eds.), More teaching games for understanding (pp. 89-103). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Lloyd, R. & Smith, S. (2021). A Practical Introduction to Motion-Sensing Phenomenology. PHEnex journal/revue phénEPS, 11(2), 1-18.

Lloyd R. J. and Smith S. J. (2022) Becoming InterActive for Life: Mobilizing Relational Knowledge for Physical Educators. Front. Sports Act. Living 3:769031. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.769031https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.769031/full?&utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Sports_and_Active_Living&id=769031

Lloyd, R. & Smith, S. (in press) Leaning into life with somatic sensitivity: Lessons learned from world-class experts of partnered practices. Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices, 1-30.
​
Tan, C. W., Chow, J. Y., & Davids, K. (2012). ‘How does TGfU work?’: Examining the relationship between learning design in TGFU and a nonlinear pedagogy. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 17(4), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.582486 
0 Comments

Understanding tactical knowledge within game-based approaches

6/2/2022

0 Comments

 
By Francesco Sgrò [1] and Michele Barca [2]

[1] “Kore” University of Enna
Email: francesco.sgro@unikore.it
Twitter: @francescosgro
ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francesco_Sgro
 

[2] “Kore” University of Enna
Email: michele.barca@unikore.it
Learning is a complex process that arises from the interdependence of three learning domains (Hoque, 2016): cognitive (knowledge), psychomotor (skills), and affective (attitudes). It is well known that game-based physical and sport activities can offer development opportunities which are related to psychomotor and socio-affective (Sgrò et al., 2020; Sgrò et al., 2021), but what can we say about the effect of these activities on the cognitive domain?

Sports performance requires an important activation of cognitive processes (i.e., elaboration, understanding, development, and problem solving) related to the execution of tasks, together with rigid time constraints and continuous interactions with objects and opponents (Hodges et al., 2006). The greater the players’ tactical knowledge, the more the players can perceive and select relevant stimuli from the environment and ignore less useful information (Mcpherson, 2008). Therefore, it is essential that players learn how to adapt their performance to the constraints of each task and develop knowledge structures and cognitive processes so that they can anticipate any environmental changes (Williams et al., 2012) accordingly to the game flow. It is therefore evident that the development of cognitive factors (tactical and decisional knowledge) is essential for the development of sports skills, also in the initial approaches of sport education within the school context. Accordingly, having this awareness is essential for planning and delivering meaningful physical and sport education processes. However, teachers often attribute great importance to the technical aspects of performance, at the expense of the cognitive component (Metzler, 2011). In this regard, Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) is one of several second-generation pedagogical models, also identified as a game-based approach (GBA), which is focused on promoting contextualized and participatory games. (Harvey et al., 2020). In this regard, the aspect of the cognitive domain that is the most relevant in games and team sports is tactical knowledge. Indeed, it is undoubtedly believed that this knowledge plays a crucial role both in the teaching of play and sport in the school environment and in the field of extracurricular and professional sports performance (Ford & O'Connor, 2019; Marasso et al., 2014). Tactics include all the timely orientation settings that players voluntarily perform during the game to adapt, based on the immediate needs of an ever-changing opposition, their spontaneous or organized actions through a predetermined strategy (Lopes & Casey, 1994). Specifically, when an athlete performs tactical actions during a game phase, his/her ability to plan and anticipate situations that will affect his/her decision-making process will depend on his/her level of tactical knowledge (Kump et al., 2015). Tactical knowledge is defined as the ability to identify problems that arise while a game is in progress and to select the skills needed to solve them (Mitchell et al., 2020). Anderson (1976) has proposed two distinct classifications of tactical knowledge: declarative and procedural.

Declarative Tactical Knowledge (DTK) is the knowledge of factual information, or "knowing what to do" in the context of the game, through knowledge of the rules, positions, tasks and offensive and defensive strategies, as well as an understanding of the technical aspects of the game (Sánchez-López et al., 2021). In other words, DTK reflects the ability to express technical and strategic decisions, verbally or in writing (McPherson & French, 1991). If the player knows, for example, the dimensions of a volleyball court, the most appropriate skills for receiving a service, or with which part of the fingers to touch the ball to make a profitable setup, one could say that that player has an adequate level of declarative knowledge (Moreno et al., 2010).

Procedural tactical knowledge (PTK), on the other hand, is intimately linked to the authentic gameplay dimension of the game because it represents the tactical dimension of the behaviour and is characterized by a very complex logic due to its high unpredictability and randomness of events, referring to the player's performance in the context of the game (Sánchez-López et al., 2021). PTK is identified with "know-how", that is, the player's ability to perform sporting skills by understanding the dynamics of the game, even if he/she may not be able to express or describe it verbally (McPherson, 1994). Scientific literature argues that increasing DTK will make it easier for players to develop PTK (Williams & Davids, 1995). Therefore, it is clear the relevant role of PTK and DTK in the process that guides a student to become a good player. For this reason, in this note we believe it is essential to schematically illustrate some tools that teachers and grassroots coaches could use to evaluate their children:
(1) Questionnaires
McGee and Farrow (1987) are the pioneers in the use and development of questionnaires to study tactical knowledge. They designed different tests for several team sports, such as basketball, soccer, handball, badminton, tennis, gymnastics, soccer, and volleyball. During the development and subsequent validation of these questionnaires, they grouped all items or questions into three factors:
• remembering;
• understanding;
• thinking.
 
All questionnaires have the same question structure, with four possible answers, of which only one is correct. Some validated questionnaires are shown in the following table 1:
Table 1. Questionnaire to assess DTK and PTK
Questionnaire
Authors
Aim
Features
Tactical Skills Inventory for Sports (TACSIS)
Kannekens, R., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2009).
Assess the levels of declarative and procedural knowledge in soccer players
  • 34 questions,
  • Four subscales
​--------DTK: knowledge of ball actions and knowledge of others and of positioning
--------PTK: decision making and action in situations with variable dynamics
The 35-question volleyball knowledge test
Pritchard, T., Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R., & Metzler, J. N. (2008).
Measurement of declarative and procedural knowledge in the school setting in the sport of volleyball
  • 35 questions
​------- 20 referred to technical and regulatory considerations (DTK)
--------15 on game strategies (PTK)
The declarative knowledge questionnaire (DKQ)
Moreno, A., Moreno, M. P., García-González, L., Gil, A., & Del Villar, F. (2010).
Measurement of declarative knowledge in volleyball
  • 24 questions
  • 5 categories (technique, general knowledge, terminology, rules and tactics)
(2) Questioning and Answers (Q&A)
In addition to multiple choice questionnaires administered in decontextualized contexts, other authors proposed to use question and answer sessions within GBA teaching-learning processes (i.e., Tactical Games Model) for assessing the development of tactical knowledge of in-learning players. These questions should be short and be proposed at the end of the “first game”, to avoid altering the flow of the lesson, while they can be more complex during the relative "closing" phase. These are opportunities to ask students three types of questions:
a. What happened?
b. What does it mean?
c. And now?
 
​
(3) Scenarios
Grehaigne et al. (1995) have suggested the use of game simulations through scenarios for assessing the tactical knowledge level of development.  These scenarios are made by using some recordings of real game situations modified according to the objectives of the analysis, or animations made using specific software. These tools are considered important assessment procedures within the pedagogical process and valid support for the teachers in choosing the most appropriate teaching models to face the different tactical contents and to plan the necessary activities (Greco et al., 2010). Table 2 shows three validated tools of this type.
Table 2. Scenario to assess DTK and PTK
Scenario
Authors
Aim
Features
Game Understanding Test
Blomqvist, M., Vänttinen, T., & Luhtanen, P. (2005).
Evaluate students’ game understanding in soccer.
  • 42 sequences of offensive and defensive game situations;
  • Each video sequence began with 4–7 seconds of lead-up to the match situation to be evaluated;
  • The video sequence is followed by a still image (15 seconds) on which arrows have been imposed representing three optional responses of play, pass or movement;
  • Based on the freeze frame, students had to decide what to do and, in addition, they had 45 seconds to select two relevant topics from the list of eight written topics to verify their decision
Declarative Tactical Knowledge Test (DTKT:Vb)
​Costa, G. D., Castro, H. O., Cabral, F. A., Morales, J. C., & Greco, P. J. (2016).
Evaluating DTK in the sport of volleyball
  • 66 real game scenarios filmed with top perspective;
  • Four tactical situations: extremity attack, central attack, setting, block
Measuring Declarative Tactical Knowledge in Basketball IMDTK-Bb
Reis, C., Pérez Morales, J., Gomes, C., De Azevedo Alves Pereira, F., & Ibáñez, S. (2021).
Evaluate DTK in the sport of basketball with an emphasis on game tactics, using reduced response time.
  • 26 game scenes in which the player is in possession of the ball;
  • Scene frozen for three seconds before the definition of the action;
  • 5 seconds to answer the following question: What decision should the athlete make with ball possession in this situation?
  • Additional 35 seconds to list all possible options for resolving the problem related to the game situation;
  • At the end of the time each participant is asked to classify their answers;
  • Each scene rated from one to four points.
In conclusion, considering the important role that an adequate development of tactical knowledge has in school and extracurricular sports training, these tools can be a support for teachers and coaches in enhancing the role of DTK and PTK within their learning processes.
REFERENCES:
 
Anderson, J.R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Blomqvist, M., Vänttinen, T., & Luhtanen, P. (2005). Assessment of secondary school students’ decision-making and game-play ability in soccer. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy, 10(2), 107–119.

Costa, G. D., Castro, H. O., Cabral, F. A., Morales, J. C., & Greco, P. J. (2016). Content validity of scenes of the declarative tactical knowledge test in volleyball–DTKT: Vb. Brazilian Journal of Kinanthropometry and Human Performance, 18(6), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.5007/1980- 0037.2016v18n6p629.

Ford, P. R., & O’Connor, D. (2019). Practice and sports activities in the acquisition of anticipation and decision making. In A. M. Williams & R.C. Jackson (Eds.), Anticipation and Decision Making in Sports (pp. 267–285). Routledge.

Greco, P., Memmert, D., & Morales, J. C. (2010). The effect of deliberate play on tactical performance in basketball. Perceptual and motor skills, 110(3), 849-856.

Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest, 47(4), 490–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00336297.1995.10484171.

Harvey, S., Gil-Arias, A., & Claver, F. (2020). Effects of Teaching Games for Understanding on tactical knowledge development in middle school physical education. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 20(3), 1369-1379.

Hodges, N. J., Starkes, J. L., & MacMahon, C. (2006). Expert performance in sport: a cognitive process. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 471– 488). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hoque, M. E. (2016). Three domains of learning: Cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The Journal of EFL Education and Research, 2(2), 45-52.

Kannekens, R., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2009). Tactical skills of world-class youth soccer teams. Journal of Sport Science, 27, 8, 807-812.

Kump, B., Moskaliuk, J., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2015). Cognitive foundations of organizational learning: Re-introducing the distinction between declarative and non-declarative knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1489. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2015.01489.

Lopes, L.L., & Casey, J.T. (1994). Tactical and strategic responsiveness in a competitive risk-taking game. Acta Psychologica, 85, 39–60.

Marasso, D., Laborde, S., Bardaglio, G., & Raab, M. (2014). A developmental perspective on decision making in sports. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2014.932424

McGee, R. & Farrow, A. (1987). Test questions for Physical Education Activities. Champaign.

McPherson, S. L. (1994). The development of sport expertise: Mapping the tactical domain. Quest, 46(2), 223– 240.

McPherson, S. L. (2008). Tactics: using knowledge to enhance performance. In D. Farrow, J. Baker, & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Developing sport expertise: researchers and coaches put theory into practice (pp. 155– 167). London, UK: Routledge.

McPherson, S.L., & French, K.E. (1991). Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill in tennis. J Sport Exerc Psychol;13(1):26-41.

Metzler, M. W. (2011). Instructional Models for Physical Education (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., & Griffin, L. (2020). Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach. Human Kinetics. Publishers (UK) Ltd;

Moreno, A., Moreno, M. P., García-González, L., Gil, A., & Del Villar, F. (2010). The development and validation of the declarative knowledge questionnaire in volleyball. Motricidad: European Journal of Human Movement, 25, 183-195.

Pritchard, T., Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R., & Metzler, J. N. (2008). Effects of two instructional approaches on skill development, knowledge, and game performance. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 12, (4), 219-236.

Reis, C., Pérez Morales, J., Gomes, C., De Azevedo Alves Pereira, F., & Ibáñez, S. (2021). Construct Validation of a New Instrument to Measure Declarative Tactical Knowledge in Basketball. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 128. 003151252110162. 10.1177/00315125211016247.

Sánchez-López, R., Etxeazarra, I., & Castellano, J. (2021). Validation of a Football Competence Observation System (FOCOS), Linked to Procedural Tactical Knowledge. Sustainability. 13. 6780. 10.3390/su13126780.

Sgrò, F., Barca, M., Schembri, R., Coppola, R. & Lipoma, M. (2021). Effects of different teaching strategies on students’ psychomotor learning outcomes during volleyball lessons. Sport Sciences for Health. 1-9. 10.1007/s11332-021-00850-8.

Sgrò, F., Barca, M., Schembri, R. & Lipoma, M. (2020). Assessing the effect of different teaching strategies on students' affective learning outcomes during volleyball lessons. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 20. 2136-2142. 10.7752/jpes.2020.s3287.

Williams, A. M., & Davids, K. (1995). Declarative knowledge in sport: a by-product of experience or a characteristic of expertise? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 259-275. doi:10.1123/jsep.17.3.259.
​
Williams, A. M., Ward, P., Bell-Walker, J., & Ford, P. R. (2012). Perceptual-cognitive expertise, practice history profiles and recall performance in soccer. British Journal of Psychology, 103(3), 393-411.
0 Comments

Implementing TGfU Strategies and Principles in Adolescent Top Level Soccer–An Exploratory Approach

5/2/2022

4 Comments

 
By Can Ünal [1] & Stefan König [2]
[1] SSV Ulm 1846 (Germany)
[2] University of Education, Weingarten (Germany)
​
​Corresponding author:
Email: koenig@ph-weingarten.de
ORCID: http://ORCID.org/0000-0002-7851-1973
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stefan_Koenig6
Google Scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IQ44XRMAAAAJ&hl=de
Regarding the role TGfU plays as a teaching conception in both degree courses for sport science at German universities and in coach education organized by German sport associations we can observe that it hardly matters and seems to be exclusively approached as a teaching method for Physical Education in primary and secondary schools. TGfU is scarcely considered as an issue which might be of relevance for coaches in children’s and adolescents’ team sports. In the following we will report on a pilot study in which juvenile soccer players from a German top club were confronted with teaching along the principles of Bunker & Thorpe (1982) and their followers.        


1   Introduction
German soccer seems to be in a process of change. Since the winning of the world championship in 2014 the German soccer association (DFB) is struggling hard to keep pace with other nations like Italy or France. As a consequence, the DFB is continuously reforming its scouting and training system, e. g. by establishing academies and integrating science-based training methods into the development of talents. Especially with regard to training methods it seems to be significant to keep in mind that there are different performance factors in soccer which are more or less relevant for planning and designing the training process. No matter which perspective is taken, tactics are a key component in soccer as in any other game; thus, all participants need appropriate instruments to teach and improve game intelligence and creativity (Memmert & König, 2019).

Before this background we decided to apply TGfU as a rather school-based teaching concept to top level adolescent soccer teams and evaluate it in this setting. In doing so, we wanted to get a first idea of how players and coaches experience and evaluate this approach. This seems to be quite interesting and innovative because usually players in clubs are not used to develop their own thoughts on tactical solutions in an analytic process during games. As a result, we believe that cognitive activation through TGfU-based reflections may be a benefit for developing the players’ tactical competence and their motivation.            
 
2   Methods of Teaching Games
Traditionally, there have been two opposing approaches for teaching games, namely skill-orientation and deliberate play. Whereas the first pursues the objectives of overlearning and stabilizing skills in rather isolated and standardized situations in order to apply them in game situations, the second method confronts learners from the very beginning with “real game situations” and assumes that skills are learned more or less along the way. Meanwhile, this dichotomy has been overcome and both positions have been integrated into the fruitful concept that “game appreciation and the development of tactical awareness should precede development of the motor skills of a game” (Rink, French & Tjeerdsma, 1996, S. 399). However, there is still the question of how to implement this idea in a training session.

TGfU, as one interpretation of the game-based approach (cf. http://www.tgfu.info/consensus-statement.html), may be regarded as one, if not the best concept of realizing playing before practicing. The original concept (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) recommends proceeding in a circle (1 teaching unit) or a helix (several units) to organize the issue at hand. In addition, TGfU wants to enhance its learners’ tactical knowledge by integrating him or her into the teaching process with questions aiming at an analysis of specific game situations. With regard to quality issues in PE this proceeding is meanwhile described as cognitive activation, a teaching approach which aims at developing and acquiring cognitive-reflective dispositions (Herrmann & Gerlach, 2020) to develop pupils’ physical literacy.

With a view on Germany, the implementation of TGfU can nearly exclusively be observed in Physical Education; in contrast, there seems to be almost no application in the setting of competitive sports. Regarding coach education courses for instance, especially those for youth coaches, the respective curricula do not take TGfU strategies into account. However, and relating to international results we might assume that utilizing TGfU in adolescent team sports will improve the tactical behaviour of players. This seems to be evident considering the work of international authors more closely because they point out that the benefit of TGfU and its offshoots is the tendency to develop thinking players (Gréhaigne, Godbout, & Bouthier, 1999; Howarth, 2000; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). Thus, we assume that players’ adaptive skills and tactical understanding can be trained more effectively when coaches use methods and variations of the TGfU approach (Light, 2005, p.179).
 
3   The Research Project
Idea: In general, coaches and managers in the DFB youth development centres work in a very player-centred manner, i.e. the players are put at the heart of all processes concerning training and management. As a consequence, our research project focused on the idea of a potential connection between tactical impulses implemented by means of self-reflection and open coaching – as pursued by the TGfU approach – and the development of young soccer players. Thus, our research aims were on the one hand to find out potentials for the further development of young talents in soccer and on the other to stimulate the discussion about the teaching of tactical intelligence and creativity among practicing coaches in top level adolescent soccer. Our research question read as follows:

“Which elements of the TGfU model are relevant for improving individual tactical competencies in top level adolescent soccer?”

Method: In the empirical study we cooperated with the management of a youth training centre and the respective U12, U14, U16 players and coaches of a German professional club (1st league). The players and coaches were introduced to the TGfU topic by watching a video about implementing TGfU principles and methods into a training session of the U19 Bundesliga team of SSV Ulm 1846; the main issue of the recorded training session was “offering and free running”. After having attentively viewed the video recording, all participants were questioned using semi-structured interviews. All interviews were transcribed and analysed via Kuckartz’s approach (2014) of Qualitative Content Analysis to get insights and impulses on different estimations and viewpoints.

Results: All three coaches regard the TGfU approach as an opportunity for high learning effects in the tactical context. Likewise, the players assumed a high potential of TGfU approaches in training sessions nearly unanimously, especially in the context of understanding tactical questions. They said that they would like to be trained more regularly with tactical elements in such a manner. This coincides with Uppal & Vaconcelos (2012) who emphasized the positive impact that the TGfU model can have on improving the cognitive and affective domains of students in physical education, which then leads to more positive experiences and increased intrinsic motivation.

Subsequently, our participating coaches regard the application of the TGfU model as a process that should be boosted. For coaches the cognitive functions of the players are trainable parts (Memmert, 2020), which can be developed through the TGfU framework. For the coach of the U12 team it is even a quality feature that players can play and think at the same time at that level. As to the practical implementation, the participants mainly rely on small-sided-games and their advantages. Integrating questions and self-reflection is a relevant component of TGfU’s commitment with the players. The player is placed at the centre of the learning environment to acquire a more meaningful learning and take responsibility for his own learning (Mc Askill, 2012, p. 255). In our analysis, this result poses a challenge for the coaches’ communication. In particular, the time required under the framework conditions in a youth development centre and also the use of open-ended questions are of concern for them. 

With regard to the project in general, we are now able to account situations and principles that speak for an application of the TGfU model in top level adolescent soccer from the perspective of coaches:
  • The coach teaches tactical knowledge and tactical basics following the principle “from playing to playing and exercising” by implementing relevant skills in target games.
  • The coach ensures that in the training sessions the players mainly play with a certain nearness to the true game and a maximum number of ball contacts.
  • In his coaching and through choosing adequate training forms, the coach sets tactical impulses so that players can develop an understanding of the game.
  • The coach sees cognitions as trainable factors of his players. The tool for diagnosing cognitive capacities in the process of training control are specific games or game test situations that create stress situations and time pressure for the players involved.
  • The coach is responsible for and ensures an open exchange about the tactical features of the game with his players, including coaching feedback for both the group as a team and the individual players.
  • The coach does not simply conclude training sessions and individual training forms, but takes time for joint reflections based on technical-tactical contents. The issues for reflection are close to the game and can therefore be transformed easily into the individual game performance.
  • The coach acts and leads in a player-centred way, i.e. players’ interests and views are taken into account in the planning and implementation of training sessions. The adolescent players are also introduced to background information and considerations of the coaches on the specific focal points in various training sessions.
In summary, the positive features that speak for an introduction of the TGfU based approach are clearly recognizable and promising. For the coaches TGfU methods can become an important tool in the development of young talents.
 
4   Summary and Perspectives
Our analysis was based on two starting points: first, we analysed the situation of soccer in Germany and could observe that the DFB is struggling hard to keep pace with other nations; this especially applies to the technical and tactical development of young players. Second, we observed that TGfU and its variations do not play a role in the education of youth coaches in Germany. As a consequence, we conducted a research project on the implementation of training sessions based on the TGfU approach in adolescent top level soccer. Based on our results we finally want to frame three demands for the future although we know that our research is limited due its case structure:
  1. As to coach education we believe that an integration of TGfU as a teaching method is absolutely obligatory because it will bring additional training effects especially in U12 and U14 teams.
  2. With regard to research we encourage sport associations to critically examine the development of their young athletes, in particular with regard to their tactical and cognitive competencies.
  3. Finally, and with a look at a fruitful cooperation between science and praxis, we want to encourage researchers and coaches to approach one another for the benefit of soccer or any other game.     ​
Bibliography

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Psychological Education, 18(1), 5–8.

Gréhaigne, J.-F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1999). The foundations of tactics and strategy in team sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 159–174.

Hapke, J. & Waigel, S. (2019). „Sporttreiben mit Köpfchen” – Kognitive Aktivierung im Sportuntericht [”Doing sports with brain“ – cognitive activation in PE]. In A. Gawatz & K. Stürmer (Hrsg.), Kognitive Aktivierung im Unterricht. Befunde der Bildungsforschung und fachspezifische Zugänge (S. 148–162). Westermann Gruppe.

Howarth, K. (2000). Context as a factor in teachers’ perceptions of the teaching of thinking skills in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19 (3), 270–286.

König, S. & Memmert, D. (2021). Teaching Decision-making and Creativity as a Vital Issue for teacher Education – a Qualitative Intervention Study with German Trainee Teach-ers. In Light, R. L., & Curry, C. (Eds.), Game Sense for Teaching and Coaching: Inter-national perspectives (S. 99–112). Routledge.

Kirk, D., & MacPhall, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177–192.

Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.

Light, R. (2005). Making Sense of Chaos: Australian coaches talk about Game Sense. In Griffin, L., & Buttler, J. Teaching Games for Understanding (p.169–180). Human Kinetics.

McAskill, B. (2012). Coaching for decision-making: A practical application of TGfU on a senior boys’ varsity volleyball-team. In Butler, J. Reconceptualizing physical education through Teaching Games for Understanding (p. 233–258). UBC.

Memmert, D. & König, S. (2019). Models of game intelligence and creativity in sport: Implica-tions for skill acquisition. In Hodges, N. J., & Williams, M. A. (Eds), Skill acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 220–236). 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996). Foundations for the Learning and Instruction of Sport and Games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 399–417.

Roth, K., & Kröger, C. (2015). Ballschule. Ein ABC für Spielanfänger [Ball school. An ABC for beginners] (5th ed.). Schorndorf: Hofmann.

Uppal, S., & Vaconcelos, K. (2012). Teaching Games for Understanding and Student Motivation. In Butler, J. Reconceptualizing physical education through Teaching Games for Understanding (p.160). UBC.
​
Ünal, C. (2021). Teaching Games for Understanding als sportdidaktisches Vermittlungskonzept im Nachwuchsleistungs-Fußball [Teaching Games for Understanding as a teaching conception in top level junior soccer]. University of Education, Weingarten. 
4 Comments

TGfU and student motivation in Physical Education

4/5/2022

0 Comments

 
By Alexander Gil Arias
Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain.

Twitter: @agilarias
Mail: alexander.gil@urjc.es
Studies examining student motivation suggest that fostering high levels of autonomous motivation in students has a positive effect on their propensity to engage in physical education (PE; Chanal et al., 2019). A theoretical framework that examines student motivation in the educational context is self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2020). The proposed SDT sequence suggests that social factors (e.g., autonomy support from the teacher) nurture the basic psychological needs (BPNs) of the students that, in turn, will positively develop more self-determined behaviours and various cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes (Vasconcellos et al., 2020). A unifying construct within SDT relates to the degree to which a social agent (e.g., PE teacher) satisfies the three innate, universal, and essential BPNs for human behaviour of autonomy (student’s need to experience a sense of willingness in their actions, which is satisfied when they perceive that their actions are consistent with their integrated sense of self), competence (students’ need to develop a feeling of mastery through interacting with their environment to reinforce their sense of being capable individuals) and relatedness (student’s need to interact with, be connected to, and cared for, by other individuals and is fulfilled when students experience positive interactions with their classmates) (Ryan & Deci, 2017). If these innate needs are satisfied, the students become more autonomously motivated and this, in turn, gives rise to high quality motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Different systematic reviews have claimed that students taught via TGfU are more autonomously motivated in PE lessons (Harvey & Jarrett, 2014; Miller, 2015; Stolz & Pill, 2014). In this sense, we can establish the following question: How can we satisfy these three needs by using TGfU in PE? In terms of competence, the PE teacher can design authentic learning tasks based on TGfU pedagogical principles (e.g., representation, exaggeration, and tactical complexity) to adapt to students’ needs and levels of competence. For example, in basketball smaller formats such as 1 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 3 can be used to increase the students’ game involvement. Numerical superiority (e.g., 2 vs. 1 and 3 vs. 2) tasks can also be presented so that tactical complexity was increased based on the developmental progression of the students. Moreover, modification exaggeration principle can be employed by PE teacher to modify game rules to emphasize specific tactical learning objectives and help students learn the tactics and strategies of game play in tandem with technique development. Related to autonomy, the PE teacher can employ questioning to facilitate the exchange of ideas among group members. Thus, for example, students can be empowered to solve specific tactical problems with the teacher providing additional support when needed to help facilitate students’ learning. Even so, it should be noted that the provision of greater autonomy support to students by teachers within units of TGfU must be continuous and progressive throughout the duration of the unit to foster a teaching–learning process that encourages personal effort and progress. Finally, and regarding relatedness, questioning can be also a relevant strategy to stimulate within-group exchanges and the discussion of ideas among group members to solve tactical problems in collaboration with peers, which can potentially increase students’ sense of unity and engagement in cooperative group dynamics. In this learning environment, students work in small groups and the PE teacher stepped back to observe the group discussions, providing them with positive feedback, and prompting them with more questions (Harvey & Light, 2015).

In short, it can be noted that TGfU is a decisive and effective strategy to empower needs-supportive behavior from PE, and consequently, generate positive dispositions in the students, which are strongly related to enjoyment and autonomous motivation. 
References:
​
Chanal, J., Cheval, B., Courvoisier, D. S., & Paumier, D. (2019). Developmental relations between motivation types and physical activity in elementary school children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43, 233-242.

Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278-300.

Harvey, S., & Light, R. L. (2015). Questioning for learning in game-based approaches to teaching and coaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(2), 175-190.

Miller, A. (2015). Games centered approaches in teaching children & adolescents: Systematic review of associated student outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(1), 36-58.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.

Stolz, S., & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 36-71.

Vasconcellos, D., Parker, P. D., Hilland, T., Cinelli, R., Owen, K. B., Kapsal, N., ... & Lonsdale, C. (2020). Self-determination theory applied to physical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1444-1469.
0 Comments

Implementing a Game Sense Approach with young academy football players in England

3/2/2022

2 Comments

 
By Ross Ensor
PhD Researcher in Sports Coaching at Loughborough University & Former Premier League Academy Football Coach 

Email: r.ensor@lboro.ac.uk
Twitter: @ross_ensor  
Youth academy football coaching has often been conceptualised as ‘linear’, aligning this notion to coaching practice, pedagogy, and subsequent behaviours. With coaches often conceptualizing this as drill-based activities to develop technical competency of players before ‘transferring’ this into a game. As a coach experiencing coach education in the United Kingdom this was the narrative promoted on courses as a generic ‘how to’ of coaching. My first introduction to Games Based Approaches (GBA) such as Game Sense was during my undergraduate university modules, and I can only describe the experience as ‘liberating’. The contrast of a total director of learning of the coach to a pedagogy and experience that aligns with players desires and can fulfil their learning needs was my motivation to implement this within my practice.

The approach I adopted was that of Game Sense (den Duyn, 1997) whose pedagogy is underpinned their theoretical tenets of Social Constructivism (Dewey, 1916/97) and Complex Learning Theory (Davis & Sumara, 2003) that learning is a social, complex, and interactive process. Underpinned by four key features for the coach to design…
  1. Designing a representative learning environment
  2. Emphasizing questioning to generate dialogue
  3. Providing opportunities for collaborative formulation, testing and evaluation of solutions
  4. Developing a supportive environment

Light (2013) contends that the coach must consider all four of these features when adopting a Game Sense approach, I will now articulate and provide examples of how I implemented these within practice when coaching youth academy football players in England.
​
Designing a representative learning environment
The Game Sense approach emphasizes that for all activities the coach should contextualize learning within ‘game or game type activities. In contrast to common taken for granted assumptions that technique must be developed first before playing a game. Although as Light (2013) contends this does not deny there is a place for ‘separate activities’ to develop skill and technique, however by placing too much of practice of context this may come at the expense of other areas such as decision making and tactical understanding. To design such activities, I adopted Launder (2001)’s concept of ‘designer games’ in which the game is modified to focus on specific aspects of the game within an activity. An example I adopted was aligning game challenges semantically to a team to add to the authenticity of such games for players. The example within Figure 1 is a game designed to encourage developing or retaining possession…
Picture
Emphasizing questioning to generate dialogue
The implementation of questioning with Game Sense requires a repositioning of myself as a coach to a facilitator of learning as opposed to a director of it. The benefits of questioning are widely acknowledged in developing problem solving and promoting critical thinking. Additionally providing a reflective link between the social and cognitive areas of learning. For example, when a question is asked, we as coaches provide players with an opportunity to critically reflect on the activity by bringing to their ‘conscious’ mind there ‘unconscious actions’ to develop ‘understanding in action’ (Harvey & Light, 2015). This requires effective design by the coach to provide questions that provide evaluation and synthesis, acknowledging that questions should not limit the number of potential responses but expand them. To implement this within practice activities I used an adapter version of Kracl (2012)’s question starters for an activity of developing possession with overloads…

Coach: By using the ‘joker’ players what would this allow us to do?
Player: Keep the ball easier because we have an extra player
Coach: Okay, great so could the ‘joker’ players help us more?
Player: They could stand in space away from other players
Coach: Great answer, so if they’re in space how would it make the game harder for the other team?
Player: They would not know who to mark, or whether to come to the ball or not
 
Providing opportunities for collaborative formulation, testing and evaluation of solutions  
At appropriate times within the activities as an extension of individual questioning I have implemented what Light (2013) conceptualises as ‘team talks’. This provides opportunities for players within their team to collectively formulate strategies to solve problems and then ‘test’ their effectiveness within the game. Furthermore, they can critically reflect upon whether their strategy was effective or not and why, to then potentially formulate alternate tactics and strategies. In accordance with Complex Learning Theory (David & Sumara, 2003) which conceptualised learning as an ‘interactive and interpretive process’, such team talks allow players to share their experiences through discussion thereby achieving consensus and empathy through listening to others. To transfer this concept into practice I adopted an adapted version of Grehaigne et al. (2005)’s ‘debate of ideas’ format, this was adopted within a competitive game of 4x20 minute quarters which provided 3 ‘team talks’ for the players. For each quarter I nominated a ‘player coach’ to facilitate discussion around the questions provided…

Question 1: What are the strengths of the other team?
Discussion Points: They play with a lot of width and move the ball to the left quickly

Question 2: How can we stop the strengths of the other team?
Discussion Points: We could try and stop the ball going down that side by forcing play onto the right where the players ‘cuts inside’

Question 3: How will we know that this strategy has worked?
Discussion Points: Coach to count how many times the ball goes to the left-hand side, no crosses from the left-hand side

​One issue with this format identified was that 2 players dominated the discussion, to negate this a rule was included that whoever was ‘holding the ball’ was permitted to speak. With a 30 second timer.  
Picture
Designing a supportive environment 
To allow players to feel safe, confident, and comfortable to be creative and independent learners, according to Light (2017) it is the role of the coach to build a supportive environment to facilitate this. As a coach within an elite premier league academy there is a culture of ‘elitism’ within youth football where players are often expected to be ‘exceptional’ with the narrative of ‘mini adults’ perpetuated from a young age. This often facilitates a ‘binary’ view for players of success and failure. Which can undoubtedly lead to decreased confidence and creativity to try (Light, 2017). I aim to reconceptualise this communicating to players that ‘mistakes are a part of learning’, in accordance with Light (2017)’s concept of manageability in which players require coaches to frame challenges as both manageable and rewarding. I adopt this through ‘hidden challenge’ in accordance with Launder’s (2001) action fantasy games by implementing a scoring system for training and in-game challenges. For example, challenges that are of increased difficulty, will result in a higher score being given if completed to encourage persistence and motivation. 

Conclusion
In conclusion I have attempted to provide a real-world example of how in the day-to-day aspects of youth coaching I have aimed to implement game sense pedagogy within my practice. If anyone has any further questions, I would be more than happy to answer them via email or twitter. 

Thanks, and happy coaching!  
Ross
Reference List
 
den Duyn, N. (1997). Game Sense: Developing thinking players. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission

Dewey, J. (1916/97). Democracy in education. New York: Free Press

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2003). Why aren’t they getting this? Working through the regressive myths of constructivist pedagogy. Teaching Education, 14(2), 123–140.

Light, R. L. (2013). Game Sense: Pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. London: Routledge.

Launder, A. G. (2001). Play practice: The games approach to teaching and coaching sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Harvey, S., & Light, R. L. (2015). Questioning for learning in game-based approaches to teaching and coaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(2), 175–190 

Kracl, C. L. (2012). Review or true? Using higher-level thinking questions in social studies instruction. The Social Studies, 103, 57–60.

Gréhaigne, J.-F., Richard, J.-F., & Griffin, L. L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer

Light, R. L., & Harvey, S. (2017). Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 271–287
2 Comments

Action research with youth in recreational programs: Making the case for TGfU

2/1/2022

0 Comments

 
By Jennie Petersen
PhD Candidate Brock University/ Instructor, Mount Royal University

Email: jp17ub@brocku.ca
In 2017, I embarked on my PhD journey with Brock University and decided to conduct an action research project with YMCA facilities in one large Canadian city. The focus of my research was to investigate what pedagogical approaches to physical literacy youth find engaging within a YMCA recreation context. An important goal of my dissertation research was to develop practical solutions with youth and YMCA staff that could be implemented in a YMCA recreational sport and physical activity context. This blog highlights specific aspects of my dissertation work that connect to Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). 

In Canada, participation in sport and physical activity declines in children at approximately 11-14 years of age (CFLRI, 2017; Colley et al., 2016; Comte et al., 2013). Limited research has explored pedagogical approaches that can support youth physical literacy and engagement in recreational sport and physical activity contexts. While there has been a high degree of proliferation of curricula, training and materials developed by different organizations intended for recreation organizations and coaches (Active for Life, 2021; Graham & Pask, 2013), there is very little peer-reviewed literature available on the types of pedagogical approaches used to encourage youth physical literacy in recreational contexts. Pedagogical models and theories that have gained traction in physical education for supporting physical literacy outcomes have potential to transfer to recreational sport contexts. This includes the TGfU model.

Three studies were conducted between 2018-2020 involving 41 youth 9-15 years and 26 YMCA stakeholders. For my first study, I completed 18 interviews that focused on exploring the experiences of youth and YMCA coaches involved in YMCA recreational sport programs. In my second study, 31 youth participated in a series of focus group meetings exploring what approaches to physical literacy resonate amongst youth. In my last study, a youth-informed recreation instructors training was designed, developed, and co-created with six YMCA stakeholders over the course of seven focus group meetings.

As I completed the first two studies which involved interviews and focus groups with youth and YMCA coaches, it became evident that some of their perspectives, experiences and ideas had strong alignment with the goals, principles, and methods of the TGfU approach. I want to highlight two patterns that I observed throughout my research and their connection to the TGfU approach.

1. Experiences of wandering ghosts  

Feelings of exclusion were described by a few of the girls participating in the research. The following excerpt was a story shared during an interview with a 12 year old girl participating in a co-ed basketball sport camp:

“Sometimes I kinda felt like wandering off to the side and dribbling on my own without playing a game with everyone else. I guess before the rule [pass to a girl before you shoot] happened, we [the girls] just felt like little wandering ghosts having nothing to do, because it was always like two, three people on the team that would constantly pass to each other. Some of the younger kids, they didn't get passed to… just the older boys, they would get the balls passed to them.”

The term ‘wandering ghost’ seemed to perfectly capture the embodied experience of youth who were participating, yet not included in the game. The mention of a rule that was put in place – ‘pass to a girl before you shoot’ also demonstrates that coaches were aware of the exclusion that the girls and younger boys in their program were experiencing and thus the rule was their attempt to modify the game to support inclusion. However, this rule is problematic as it implies that women and girls are not as competent playing the game and thus require special rules to ensure they are passed to.

In traditional formats of teaching sports and games, it’s common to see large group games. In large group games, it’s typical to see the same few kids getting the ball. Use of a TGfU approach helps address issues of exclusion that some participants feel, especially those who may not be as experienced or highly skilled in a particular sport. Through use of modified game formats that are based on the developmental age and stage of the participants while relying on smaller groups (vs. large group games), TGfU helps address issues of exclusion. Although TGfU may not address deeper issues related to gender and gaps in participation, it helps set the coach or instructor up for success because inclusive practices are embedded in the methods of teaching.


2. Youth preference for games

Another interesting perspective shared by several youth participants highlights their preference for games-based approaches instead of emphasis on skills and drills. During focus group meetings with youth, I presented different types of throwing activities and asked youth about them afterward. Below are a few quotes from youth about their experiences and perspectives:

“Because in games, it makes you feel like you are having fun instead of just being forced to do something.. The word game just makes you feel like you are already having fun.”

“I think if you're going to do a drill, don't overwhelm it. Don't keep doing different drills that leave you like only five minutes to play…because in our gym class sometimes I've noticed that majority is just learning the game and the coach talking and doing drills and then you only get five minutes of game play.”

“When coaches do warmups, everyone's fine when they do it for five minutes… but doing it for 20 minutes is very annoying to youth”

Several youth participants remarked that when too much time is spent on drills, it takes away from the fun and enjoyment of the program. Games-based approaches, such as TGfU, are often considered an alternative approach to the traditional models of sports and games instruction which tend to use highly prescriptive and directive forms of instruction (Harvey et al., 2010). Although the TGfU approach emerged 40 years ago, its use in recreational sport environments remains limited. Very few recreational sport instructors have been trained on the methods and principles of TGfU.

During my last study, I presented the TGfU model to YMCA staff. They were excited by its potential to offer a practical alternative to the skill-focused, traditional ways of teaching sports. The majority of the YMCA staff participants involved in my last study had many years of experience with delivering and managing recreational sport and physical activity programs, yet only one staff had previously been exposed to the model. Although TGfU may be ‘nothing new’ for many physical literacy researchers and physical education teachers in Canada, a research to practice gap appears to exist for the recreational sport sector. Thus, there is enormous potential within this sector to advance use of the TGfU model as a way to support more engaging, inclusive sport experiences for youth. 
References

Active for Life. (2021). Resources. Retrieved from https://activeforlife.com/resources/

Canadian Fitness & Lifestyle Research Institute. (2017). Bulletin 01: Physical activity levels of Canadian children and youth. Retrieved from https://cflri.ca/sites/default/files/node/1558/files/2014-2016%20CANPLAY_Bulletin%201%20-%20PA%20levels%20of%20children%20and%20youth.pdf

Colley, R.C., Carson, V., Garriguet, D., Janssen, I., Roberts, K.C., & Tremblay, M.S. (2017). Physical activity of Canadian children and youth, 2007 to 2015. Statistics Canada Health Reports, 28(10), 8-16. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2017010/article/54876-eng.pdf

Comte, M., Hobin, E., Majumdar, S.R., Plotnikoff, R.D., Ball, G.D.C., McGavock, J., & the MIPASS and Healthy Hearts Investigators Teams (2013). Patterns of weekday and weekend physical activity in youth in 2 Canadian provinces. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 38(2), 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2012-0100

Graham, K., & Pask, A. (2013). Maximum engagement in games and activities. The Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence (PISE). Retrieved from https://activeforlife.com/content/uploads/2013/11/PISE_MEGA_Document-9.pdf
​
Harvey, S., Cushion, C.J., & Massa-Gonzalez, A.N. (2010). Learning a new method: Teaching games for understanding in the coaches’ eyes. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(4), 361-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980903535818
Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank Brock University, YMCA and Mitacs for their financial support. I want to express my sincere appreciation to all participants involved in the research and to the YMCA stakeholders for their dedication to this work. I’m also extremely grateful to my supervisor, Dr. James Mandigo and all members of my PhD dissertation committee for their guidance and support.
0 Comments
<<Previous
    Picture

    TGfU SIG Executive

    This blog has been set up in response to the growing interesting in developing a global community for discussions on game-based approaches in Physical Education and Sport. The following pedagogical approaches have been identified with game-based approaches: Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), Play Practice, Game Sense, Tactical Games approach, Games Concept approach, Tactical Games Model, Tactical Decision Learning model, Ball Schulle and Invasion Games Competence model.

    Archives

    December 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    February 2014
    June 2013
    May 2013
    June 2011
    May 2011
    October 2010

​© COPYRIGHT 2020 AIESEP TGfU Special Interest Group
Picture
Administration Only:  Executive space 
                                       IAB Space