By Barry Mullane
Director and founder of Active Sports Coaching and part time PE lecturer at Mary Immaculate College, Limerick

Twitter: @barrymullane1
Email: barrymullane@gmail.com

I can sum up my own philosophy in these points:

• “Every pass must have a thought” – Dennis Bergkamp
• Use and receive the ball under pressure
• Repetition without repetition

Before you sit down and design your games, or your coaching session, it’s important to note that a games based approach (GBA) does not just mean 2 goalposts, 2 teams and play a match. A GBA means, using multiple goals, zones, gates, keeping possession, game based scenarios, small sided games (SSG), wide sided games (WSG), long sided games (LSG) and overload games.

Ometto et al., (2018) described a GBA and in particular using SSG as an opportunity to practice performance in a sub scaled version of the whole formal game. These games provide opportunities to experience physical, physiological, cognitive and technical demands of the sport. When designing or adapting the games, always keep in mind the demands of the sport (see Fig 1). Ask yourself the question; what will the players experience during the match? If your sport is soccer, are your players being afforded the opportunities to look up and pass under pressure? In my own coaching, my aim for each session is to ensure the players are able to make a decision with each ball they get and use the ball under pressure.
​
(Fig 1) where does your sport fit into Dave Alred’s matrix?
​

As mentioned earlier, a GBA can mean many things. Below (Fig 2) is what looks like a linear/prescriptive practice but in this practice players are using and receiving the ball under pressure and making decisions on and off the ball.
​
(Fig 2)

​The above exercise is a classic example or Bernstein’s (1967) concept of ‘repetition without repetition’. Bernstein suggested that ‘practice does not mean to mechanically repeat the same solution to a given task, but, to repeat over and over, the process of solving the task itself. For us as coaches, we must put players into situations where they can develop technically in an environment they will experience in the actual match. The repetition should be making a decision on ball just as it is in a match environment. While prescriptive activities and structure is good for tactical and skill development, chaos is essential for learning and developing players. Chaos brings a challenge to players, allows them solve problems and promotes leadership. If your training is too predictable, the teams’ performance will become predictable as well.

Types of games

Hristovski et al., (2006) discussed the ‘metastable performance region’ when highlighting that the environment you create for your players or athlete is crucial. If you place a boxer too near a punching bag, their jabs will suffer. Place the boxer too far and their uppercuts will suffer due to an over use of the jab! The same applies to coaches who constantly use the same type of game. Using SSG for the majority of a coaching session can lead to overuse injury, bad habits developing and a neglect of other technical skills.

When you are designing your games, think about what you are trying to improve. A coach should isolate the part of the game they wish to improve and then design the session/game around that. As mentioned earlier, one should not mistake a GBA as just playing SSG. A coach needs to be cognisant of lengthening or widening the playing pitch. It worth noting Gabbet, Jenkins and Abernethy’s (2009) belief that realistic improvements in fitness and performance happen when sessions stimulate the physiological and technical demands of competition.

(Fig 3)

The above games are examples of a long sided game and a wide sided game. The ‘give it long game’ is designed to improve long passing under pressure. The idea is to work on the technical aspects of the game in a match environment. Similarly in the ‘switch’ game. The pitch is made as wide as possible so players have lots of space to work on technical aspects of the game such as off the ball running, passing as well as scoring under pressure.

In my professional capacity as director of Active Sport Coaching, we teach primary school children fundamental movement skills through a GBA. Simple chasing or tag games like stuck in the mud or freeze tag can teach children the fundamentals of movement in team sports. Tag games help children learn about occupying space, evading opponents, making decisions like ‘will I run or stay? Will I help my friend or will I save myself?
​
Similarly, fun games like over the river or bench ball (Fig 4) help develop technical skills such as throwing and catching in a fun and challenging environment. Games help develop children technically, physically, cognitively and socially.

(Fig 4)

By Dr Aspasia Dania
Assistant Professor in Physical Education Teaching
​School of Physical Education and Sport Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

Email: adania@phed.uoa.gr
​Twitter: @AspasiaDania
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aspasia_Dania 

​Helping Physical Education (PE) teachers to develop a sound understanding of the TGfU teacher’s role is a major challenge that goes beyond the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Focusing on the real work done at schools, it seems that even though game-based training seminars and workshops are ambiguously designed to improve, maintain and advance PE teachers as knowledgeable professionals, the final changes in students’ learning will rely on each teachers’ ability to represent game content in a meaningful way. Acting as a reflective pedagogue, the TGfU teacher has to create supportive conditions of practice and inquiry within which students will feel cognitively triggered and emotionally safe to develop tactical awareness while learning to play the game. In order to be able to establish such a culture and successfully navigate the “teaching-to-understanding” process, the TGfU teacher needs to adopt a facilitator’s role.

Effective facilitation is a difficult task since it requires teachers to transform the edges of their traditional practice and not only go around immediate lesson concerns and managerial issues.  With a focus on students and their needs, teachers have to be able to frame learning in ways that students recognize what they already know and what they have to know in order to be able to play the game effectively. Summarizing, encouraging, questioning, idea exchange and consensus building are essential facilitation skills for team-based learning. For many PE teachers, the adoption of such an instructional stance is experienced as a complex professional endeavor, one that involves changes at various levels, ranging from the use of materials for planning and delivering instruction, to the alteration of their beliefs. Dilemmas that PE teachers may face during their move to the facilitator’s position include time and resource shortages, trust and confidence in their abilities to move forward, as well as a lack of comfort to balance between the roles of the “lesson’s leader” and the “students’ follower”. Research further shows that for change to be authentic and not experienced at a surface level, the core values of prospective TGfU teachers need to be challenged. As such, substantial time for interaction, idea and resource sharing is needed.

Being part of a community or a working team of like-minded colleagues and sharing experiences of personal successes or struggles proves to be rather beneficial for teachers that want to fill knowledge deficits and pave their way to change. Community based learning provides a capacity building structure that is coherent to teachers’ needs and thus more authentic. Although labor and time intensive, community-based learning is a worthwhile endeavor for promoting teacher success, and providing opportunities for knowledge building rather than knowledge dispersing.

From the position of a committed advocate of the TGfU approach, I would strongly recommend for the establishment of regional collaborative TGfU community networks within which PE teachers could learn how to facilitate game-based instruction through social learning practices. Community based learning could involve continuous cycles of meeting, establishing direction, hands-on-work, sharing and evaluating TGfU strategies. The latter would allow PE teachers to collectively reflect on situations that arise in their practice and decide on teaching practices that are not merely technical but rather authentic and applied.

At an organizing level, the TGfU SIG could provide guidelines and standards in order to assist regional communities to plan, deliver and evaluate the impact of their initiatives. Further, a repository of shared best TGfU practices could provide points of reference for debating and comparing alternatives in usable and appropriate ways. National workshops, seminars and community publications could further raise PE teachers’ awareness on how to facilitate instruction while persevering energy and commitment to improve their TGfU teaching and personally advance within it.
​
Though the virus pandemic has put stress on PE teachers’ efforts to maintain continuity of game-based instruction, some unique challenges have arisen concerning TGfU professional development programming. From my point of view, it is a perfect time for collaboration and community networking. The launching of online workshops and initiatives could support PE teachers in a remote “learning by doing” style and provide guidance on facilitation skill development in a timely manner (i.e. sessions focusing on skills such as leadership, questioning, problem solving, management, communication, conflict resolution). Geared towards future TGfU action, such skills are definitely needed for effectively directing student learning and building high performance group instruction and course development.

By Dr Clancy M. Seymour, Ed.D.
Assistant Professor
Director of Physical & Health Education Teacher Education (P/HETE), Sport Studies, & Coaching Programs, Department of Kinesiology, Canisius College
NYS AHPERD President

Email: seymourc@canisius.edu 
Twitter: @DrClancySeymour
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Clancy_Seymour 

​As a current physical education teacher educator, I strongly support Games-Based Approaches (GBA) for K-12 physical education (PE).  In my pedagogy courses, I inform and train teacher candidates with GBA and provide authentic experiences to utilize these models.  I am also a coach educator in my institution's sport pedagogy program and pleased to see that GBA have gained traction in the coaching ranks thus creating what I call The GBA Hat-Trick.


The first goal of this trifecta occurred by chance when my wife and I registered our four young children (ages 4-5) in many beginner youth sport programs like soccer, baseball, swimming, ice hockey, golf, dance, and lacrosse.  As proud parents, the opportunity to see our children learn about new ways to be active was certainly priceless, but not without our fair share of frustrations for two physical and health educators (yes, my wife is too).  Classic errors in engagement would best describe the practices we witnessed including poor instruction, unclear teaching cues, fragmented session flow, and developmentally inappropriate tasks that could easily be rectified with key pedagogical features of GBA like representational modifications and/or small-sided games.  Indeed, many novice coaches would face similar criticism from parents trained in PE, nevertheless, my ribs are still bruised from my wife's elbow as she lamented: “Can you believe they are doing this?”; “Look at all of them standing around?”; or “These children cannot understand or play the game yet!”


Thankfully, we both survived the experience and have since moved on to a new stage of our children’s sport participation.  As a former ice hockey player/coach myself, I was proud that two of my children chose (probably forced) to play the game so near and dear to my heart.  With this decision however, also came pressure for me to volunteer and help coach.  Kicking and screaming, I agreed and have been coaching both children since. As a result and much like other youth sports in the United States, volunteer coaches in ice hockey are required to register with USA Hockey.  This association performs background checks and mandates all coaches complete a series of training workshops. During this process, I was pleased to see that USA Hockey has adopted what is called the American Developmental Model (ADM).  The ADM “is an athlete-centered, coach-enhanced, administrator-supported framework that aims to help all individuals realize their athletic potential and utilize sport as a path toward an active and healthy lifestyle” (What is the ADM?, n.d.). 


This is exciting and reinforces the work of Drs. Harvey, Light, Pill and others who have taken the original concepts of GBA in PE and applied them to the coaching sphere.  USA Hockey’s ADM is an extension of these efforts and is underpinned by the many guiding principles from GBA.  Skill fundamentals like skating, stick-handling, and shooting are embedded within open learning environments that mirror game-like conditions.  For example, all children nine years old and under are required to play cross-ice instead of the full ice version.  This is a representational modification from TGFU originators Bunker and Thorpe that provide children with more skill repetition and engagement while still preserving many aspects of the game of hockey.  As a result, cross-ice hockey allows both beginners and advanced children to experience successes and failures in a safe learning environment—a feature not only pertinent to GBA—but a fundamental premise of the physical literacy construct itself. 


At the same time, the ADM embraces other representational modifications like small-sided games (2 vs. 2; 3 vs. 3; or 4 vs. 4) that simulate many authentic components of the game of hockey.  Similarly, ADM strategies are not only for younger children, but are applicable to athletes of all ages.  Ice hockey, like many other invasion games, is often contended within smaller areas of the larger ice surface itself.  This is critical for children to learn at any age and lends to another GBA principle—exaggeration.  Constraining young hockey players within a confined space on the ice in a 3 vs. 2 or 4 vs. 3 simulation teaches the importance of movement with and without the puck in creative and innovative ways.  Coaches who also include inquiry and questioning throughout practice and/or small sided tasks (sometimes a challenge in an ice rink) provide another layer of discovery and learning for his or her athletes.


Overall, the opportunity to coach my own children (and others) the game I love while bridging my own professional interests in pedagogy has been very rewarding.  From an intentional context—goal two of the GBA Hat-Trick—resulted not only in this current piece, but also a recent publication (Seymour & Reeds, 2018) that urges coaches to adopt many key pedagogical (TGFU) principles utilized in PE. Lastly, I am excited to complete the GBA Hat-Trick by exploring new research endeavors with these models moving forward in both PE and sport pedagogy.

References
​
Seymour, C. M., & Reeds, G. K. (2018). Teaching Methods for Coaches — Coaching Methods for Teachers. Strategies . https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2018.1515679
​
What is the ADM? (n.d.). ADM Kids. Retrieved April 2, 2020, from https://www.admkids.com/page/show/910488-what-is-the-american-development-model-

Hi everyone,

From the TGfU SIG (Teaching Games for Understanding Special Interest Group) we propose to create short videos (less than 5 minutes) of super-small side games (invasion, net and wall, field and bat, or target) that could be played at home. The objective is to keep people physically and mentally active; particularly for the students who are without Physical Education or after-school sports due to COVID-19.

As we are designing modified games for home, we will also have to overcome the spatial and equipment limitations, as well as having a very small number of players, and possibly of different ages and skill level. You will have to do it with high doses of creativity and UNDERSTANDING. For the videos to be of high educational quality, we propose that the following key TGfU / ECD elements should be maintained:

• "Playable" games: games that do not have great technical limitations and that allow the student to really play from the beginning.
• The game must be, above all, a problem, which highlights the component of decision-making above the motor difficulty.
• Game + reflect + Game. Once the kids have experienced the game and understands its rules, ask guided discovery questions that focus their thinking to solve the different problems that occur during the game, both defensive and offensive, on and off the ball.

​We propose the following scheme for the video:

• Presentation: name of the game
• Explanation of the basic rules of the game (the secondary ones can remain unexplained, they can either be intuited when watching the video or they are left for the players to agree on, which is also very educational)
• Questions for guided discovery
• Possible modifications for
• Use other spaces or materials
• Players with different skill levels

​Video example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcI4rXx3-tc (English subtitles)

The easiest way to spread them will be to upload them to YouTube, Twitter or Instagram including the tag #TGfU_athome in the title.

Also, to be able to centralize and spread them through TGfU SIG channels, you can send the video link to this address: TGfUathome@gmail.com. This initiative is an adaptation of the TGfU Video Tutorial Library Project developed by the TGfU Advisory International Board of the TGfU SIG.
​
David Gutiérrez
TGfU IAB chair
Castilla-La Mancha University

In the rush to play more games in training, many well-meaning coaches have missed an opportunity to improve their players. Instead they allow poor practice and discipline to negate the gains from playing in this environment, and sometimes, demotivate players.
 
Game-sense (or games-based constraint-led) coaches use games to encourage players to develop skills, techniques and decision-making. With a competitive atmosphere and more randomised scenarios, the players are motivated to find solutions and discover new skills. They also put current skills under pressure, testing out their ability to execute them correctly and at the right moment.
 
All this sounds far more preferable to drilling in the skills in a more closed environment.
 
It’s also the preferred method of many top coaches and coaching bodies. Instead of the previous hard-wiring methods of repeated practice, the whole learning process is much looser.
 
But this all comes unstuck if the coach fails to do the following:

1. Have a structure to the game
2. Have clearly defined rules
3. Let the game take time to develop
4. Adapt the rules to include players
5. Play the game for the right length
6. Allow the players the chance to reflect
7. Prevent the consequences of sloppy thinking or sloppy play
8. Return to the game at a later date

 

 
1. HAVE A STRUCTURE TO THE GAME  

Every game should have a start, middle and end. At the start, give clear guidelines on the scoring system. The actual technical and tactical outcomes can be revealed now, or later.
 
The middle should have some form of change or progression. It might be simply changing the teams, or could be introducing new rules. The middle could be pre-ordained or based on how the game itself is developing.
 
The last part of the game should come to a climax with the result making some difference. “Next score wins” is the safest way. However, the real end comes with the players reflections on what they have discovered.
 
With no structure, you may realise there is little development by the end and sometimes plenty of effort without an idea of where the gains are.
 
While one might be pleased that the players have enjoyed the session and are keen to come back next week, they will also want to sense they are making progress. If there are no sure of that progress week-in, week-out, then you may well start to lose their engagement.
 

2. HAVE CLEARLY DEFINED RULES  

Aligned closely to structure are rules. Players enjoy a simple game and quick game. If they know a game well, then you can introduce additional rules. Otherwise, start with a few very clearly defined rules: easy to understand, and easy to referee.
 
If the game allows players to cheat or break the rules, it will quickly lead to frustration. It can be demotivating too. Players who take the game seriously will be quickly turned off the activity.
 

3. LET THE GAME TAKE TIME TO DEVELOP
 
Competitive games often seem chaotic from the outside. Both sides are jockeying for position. Also, as players learn the rules, they will make mistakes that aren’t conducive to the learning points you’re hoping to instil.
 
Coaches who jump in too soon or keep stopping the game won’t let the players discover their own solutions. It becomes an activity rather than a game.
 
Be comfortable that it may be chaotic, it might not work out, or work out how you expect.
 

4. ADAPT THE RULES TO INCLUDE PLAYERS  

A game can be dominated by just a few players. Though you can’t make players join in if they don’t want to, it’s no good if the most dominating players take charge.
 
The worst scenario is that the most competitive players love the game and the others become bystanders, just as they might be in a normal match.
 
Now is the time to adjust the rules. Perhaps rebalance the teams or change the possession terms so players are limited to their time on the ball. For example, in netball players have three seconds on the ball and there are limited places for players to move to.
 

5. PLAY THE RIGHT LENGTH  

A good game is a quick game too. Too long and the players tire. They lose their motivation to make the extra effort.
 
A good training session works at different paces to allow players chances to express themselves physically and mentally.
 
Leave them wanting more rather than dragging it out. If they haven’t achieved what you want, revisit it another time. You will be amazed how different the game is the next time.
 
If you are coaching developing players, or younger players, be wary of their energy levels. Some children will happily run and run. Others really struggle. An endless game, without breaks, will soon lose its appeal.
 

6. ALLOW THE PLAYERS A CHANCE TO REFLECT  

Though we love playing games, we also take much from feeling we have understood the purpose. We want something to hold on to. That’s why drills are so good.
 
So with games, you have to give a chance for players to review what just happened. Perhaps they can pick out good moments. They can also think what they can do better next time.
 
During the game, have 10-30 second breaks for players to talk tactics.
 
Also, encourage in-game chat. That’s the players telling each other what’s going well and what needs to change.
 

7. PREVENT THE CONSEQUENCES OF SLOPPY THINKING OR SLOPPY PLAY  

We want players to express themselves, make mistakes and learn from them. That’s why the rules are important. If a mistake leads to a turnover of possession, a good piece of play soon after might mean a chance to regain possession. Therefore, a mistake in a game in training is quickly forgotten.
 
But if the game allows players success from low levels of execution, you are not pushing the players. Are the players moving as fast they can? Are they on the edge of their skill levels? How easy is it to score?
 
It might be time to change the size of the pitch or the scoring criteria. For example, a point can only be scored if a certain technique is performed correctly.
 

8. RETURN TO THE GAME AT A LATER DATE  

All the reflection, learning and creativity is reduced if you don’t return to the game later in the season.
 
The second time around players might recall previous solutions. There’s also a good chance that new ideas will come from either players who weren’t there last time or the players who have been more engaged.
 
Overall, the players are layering their learning. Perhaps this time they will also bring additional ideas from other games or match situations.
 
 
In summary…you have to work harder for the players to enjoy their chances to learn. Be structured, clear and adaptable in your use of games. And then you can enjoy watching and experiencing their learning in return.

By Balbinder Singh
Physical Education Teacher in Singapore

Twitter: @ReinventTheGame 
Email: balbindersingh1972@gmail.com
Blog: Reinventing the Game....        https://reinventingthegame.wordpress.com/

Taken from Reinventing the Game... by request of the author

As a teacher of Physical Education, being able to teach a game effectively is an obvious part of the job. The big question that dominates my professional thought processes is “What is effective teaching of a game?”. Do we want a student to replicate and mimic successful sports actions/movements and consider that effective? (I will use the word ‘Game’ and ‘Sport’ interchangeably at times). Or does good teaching allows the student to appreciate and adhere to that game even after the PE lesson is over? Contemporary education practices suggest that a deeper level of learning that goes further than just reproduction of actions is necessary. Personal understanding of the role of physical education in our lives tells me that skills learnt in PE classes need to embrace a part of the human psyche that allows a life-long contribution to that individual. It cannot be a once-off series of lessons in predetermined action movements that we require to meet our system’s short term objective.

Reinventing The Game (RtG) is about creating that environment of ‘reinvention’ for the students as they explore the Playability of games while they embark on the understanding journey to learning games.
​
In RtG, I explore ideas of Technical Concepts and Tactical Concepts. I look at games as a complex system and the solutions to solving problems in games (ie. learning in games) requiring complex system adaptation. Excellent work has been done in this areas by many and I find that pulling it all together is the work of us teachers. I once attended an international conference and sat in 3 concurrent sessions on learning. One was from a neuroscience perspective, the other from a cognitive learning specialist and the last from a pedagogy point of view. All 3 could have achieved more comprehensive pragmatic outcomes if they had come together to leverage on each other’s specialties when looking at the common point of how students learn. One of the big problem I see clearly (at least to me) is the lack of connection in research to the everyday on-goings of a classroom. Without doubt, the work done at the academia level does concerns the teacher and is vital information to lesson development in PE but I feel the need to also have good bottom-up initiatives from teachers on the ground to put together leanings from controlled environment research with their real day-to-day experience in a seemingly uncontrollable environment.

​As I took an overseas journey with one of our elite 17 year old football player to join his team in an international tournament, he shared his perspective on what is putting him off from PE. I paraphrase him, “I spent much time in PE doing drills…I play maybe one game in a period of about 5 weeks, with the rest of the time doing drills…I use to play volleyball happily with my schoolmates until they started teaching volleyball in PE, after which we only practise hitting the ball against the wall…in volleyball, the teacher introduce the one bounce rule but we are more than able to hit without the bounce and we don’t have a choice to take away the rule…” I can tell from his anecdotes that he has teachers who are trying their best to ensure teaching is happening but perhaps overlooking some aspects of being game and student centred. There is the need to maintain competence, autonomy and relatedness that allows for that internal motivation for students. I dread but have to admit that I might very well have skipped quite a bit of this few aspects for my classes. The need to balance between creating fun, joy, learning, etc. is so important and is a formula that is definitely organic and in the need of constant formulating for teachers. Most of our learners are much lower in competency and autonomy as compared to the above football player and will need much more innovation in teaching.

One belief I have is that even the best thought out theory needs a stamp of approval from its intended users. In our field, there are times that the seal of approval remains evasive, as we, the practitioners, are just too busy in our field to recognise the importance of being current in necessary knowledge. It is a tough battle that probably results in the theory-practise gap that we often talk about.

Recently, my professional learning network on social media (an ever-questioning Swedish professor!) pointed out the research area of phenomagraphy and the Variation Theory of Learning. Wright and Osman, (Wright & Osman, 2018) quoted Ference Marton (1981), describing phenomagraphy as a qualitative research specialisation which focused on “content-oriented and interpretative descriptions of the qualitatively different ways in which people perceive and understand their reality.” When compared to our more familiar constructivist paradigm, i.e. learners construct their knowledge from experience, phenomagraphy includes taking a step backward (or forward) to figure why the same content is understood differently, perhaps allowing us to understand social constructivism better. The concept of discernment and therefore being aware of a possible solution from a not as feasible one comes to mind. Therefore, discerning ability plays an important role in learning and it was disected further to explore what allows that better, i.e. through the Variation Theory of Learning. The paper being referenced here does not deal with Physical Education (PE) (the stretch to movement skill acquisition may or may not be significant possible) and is written from a social perspective that puts emphasis on the environment of the learner and not individual differences, which is enough for me put it to a PE context. It looks at the existence and meaning of awareness and thus possible learning.


Let me quote these lines from the Wright and Osman (2017) paper;
“According to Variation Theory the theory, a meaning always presupposes discernment and discernment presupposes variation (Marton & Pong, 2005). We can only discern a new meaning through the difference between meanings (Marton, 2015). “Every feature discerned corresponds to a certain dimension of variation in which the object is compared with other objects.” (Marton & Pong, 2005). Its central conjecture is that “meanings are acquired from experiencing differences against a background of sameness, rather than from experiencing sameness against a background of difference” (Marton & Pang, 2013). According to Marton (2015) “The secret of learning is to be found in the pattern of variation and invariance.” The pattern of variation and invariance in teaching does not guarantee learning but makes it possible. ”

The pattern variation and invariance mentioned above suggest that in order to learn, what is critical is first the ability to be aware that something needs to be learn via discernment in the learning design, i.e. what works well and what not so well in contrast. These discernment features are alternatives presented with activity design and does not support the fixed, one-solution learning activity where no alternatives are presented that allows for that discernment. This suggest an optimal learning environment that needs exploration of possible solutions in order for learning to be locked-in meaningfully. A simple outlier example given was that one could not understand colour if there was only one colour!
I am going to quote a few more lines from the paper again as it is very clear as it is;

The notion of the ‘object of learning’ is further specified by Pang and Marton (2005) as the 1) intended, 2) the enacted and 3) the lived object of learning. The intended object of learning, the capability that is intended for students to develop in relation to a subject matter content. The enacted object of learning refers to making the object of learning available to the students to learn in in the classroom. The lived object of learning refers to the ways in which the object appears to the learners.

The above screams to me our practitioner emphasis on the first two points and a big disregard or ignorance of the last point, the lived object of learning. Our teacher training and experience focuses a lot on being aware of what needs to be taught and presenting that to the students. Many of our formal structures in planning and evaluation are rather good in presenting this flow that is expected to allow learning. I call it the teacher input-student output flow of expected learning that may inadvertently ignore what happens between teaching cues and learning. While I use the word “between” which might suggest only teacher and learner variables, it is clear with the areas of expertise that I have been leveraging on for understanding that important information from context and internal processes comes together and even from further afield sometimes, i.e. social-cultural factors.


Quoting again;
Teaching involves making judgements of what is to be learnt, identifying the necessary conditions for learning and organizing educational practices to support learning. (Marton, Tsui et al., 2004). If teaching is truly focused on improving student learning towards expanded awareness of different aspects of reality, the teacher needs to understand what their students understand about the content about which they are learning. What is critical for teaching is thus not their general subject knowledge or pedagogical knowledge, teaching style, methods, skills or competences in general, but what they intend their students to learn, what they understand their students’ need to learn so that can develop their understanding of the object of learning and how they see teaching can help their students’ learning. This requires understanding of different ways in which students make sense of the content prior to, during and after teaching. Furthermore, it requires continuous assessment of the different ways in which the content is understood by the learners in relation to the aims and continuous revision of plans to further improve students learning. (Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton et al., 2004)

All these are the latest in my pursuit of understanding the context better for learning. Long ago I created a framework to help deliver teaching strategies for the teaching of games, Reinventing the Game (RTG). This framework looks at games from four perspectives; Passing, Scoring, Interception and Positioning (Replacing the original word Movement as I realised the incredible overarching significance of this word in the world of PE! – see Fig 1) – PSIP. These perspectives in its offering to students can represent rules and/or desired action-behaviour. Of course, this needs to be presented via effective pedagogy. The overarching initial desire for me to categorize all learning consistently and conveniently is to allow a familiarity of common themes between games for students in their learning and for teachers in their teaching. Over time, I find that such categorisation also allows a systematic planning and implementation framework as I discover and learn more in the field of teaching and learning, even after two decades of service. The realisation came later but I realised that RTG was also a personal philosophy of teaching where I grappled with understanding the seemingly simple elements of a game and what it takes to make games, as part of physical activities, a vital part of any learners’ life. It is about learning for understanding and creating enough ability in a learner that skills are always being generated as a mainstay of teaching as opposed to decomposing movement as primary.

Another perspective are the actual descriptors used in PSIP. They are words that equates easier in the typical vocabulary for a learner and thus understanding, when it comes to games. They are easy descriptors that can be built on for necessary complexity depending on learning stage. At the moment much of our learning in games are usually categorised into the terms defensive and offensive. For me, these usually results in a technical perspective that may not seem game-like as opposed to passing, scoring, interception or positioning. Of course, we still built up all learning to these two important elements, i.e. defensive and offensive. The other thing I notice is that any learning that involves at least two of the PSIP elements becomes game-like and representative, albeit modified, of an actual game situation. It also sorts of keeps me in-check when I spent too much time on single element activity, i.e. isolated unidimensional drills, and neglect adding a purpose for understanding for the skill being taught. E.g. while I try understand action-behaviours in terms of the four perspective above, I absolutely do not expect responses in the four areas separately to gauge learning. It might end up not being relevant and too far off authenticity to effect good leaning progression.


A key point here is that order and linearity in teacher thinking and planning does not represent the non-linearity and complexity of actual learning and thus movement in learners. I endeavour to use RtG to allow me to progressively plan for needed variability in solution exploration presented through carefully thought out relevant problem scenarios. Order within the disorder. While my learning design may involve minimum two of the four perspectives of PSIP, attempting relevancy to game context, the focus of learning for the activity can be just one of the areas.
As I look deeper into concepts of affordances (what possibilities the context present to the learner), cognitive theories (traditional vs ecological/computational vs perception-action/indirect vs direct perception), social constructs in learning (learning for understanding via experience), etc., I realised that all these are part of the big picture and that a basic guiding framework helps in supporting implementation – see Fig 2. A framework is needed to help guide if you have a group of learners facing you for PE tomorrow, i.e.

• Where (where in a learner’s journey is something needed),
• What (what the learner needs at the above point in time),
• How (how we delivering what the learner needs) and
• Why (why is what we are doing effective and needed for the learner’s understanding).

While the where and what can be guided directly by a framework like my suggested RtG, the how and why are supported by our own professional expertise in matters of pedagogy and their underpinning sciences.


Reference
Wright, E., & Osman, R. (2018). What is critical for transforming higher education? The transformative potential of pedagogical framework of phenomenography and variation theory of learning for higher education. JOURNAL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, 28, 257 – 270. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2017.1419898

By Dr Greg Forrest
Senior Lecturer and Academic Program Director of Health, Physical Education and Sport Studies at University of Wollongong.
​
Email: gforrest@uow.edu.au
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/grammarofgames/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/greg-forrest-53a497b/

Greg has been a Physical Educator for 35 years, in schools, sporting environments and for the last 13 years lecturing and researching in games and sports, PE and Sport at UOW. The Grammar of Games emerged from his doctoral study into how undergraduate PE teachers from a variety of movement backgrounds understood and used GBA. It is the basis of movement courses in for PE and Sport Studies at UOW, where undergraduates are drawn from the wide range of sports and movement experiences available in the community. Greg has worked for a number of years with community-based sports and with beginners in sporting teams. 

​The playing, teaching and coaching of games and sports has been integral to engagement in movement in adult life. For many of us, especially those reading this blog, the most meaningful way to develop the skills to engage is through the use of Game Based Approaches (GBA). However, despite logical and persuasive arguments as to the value of the GBA in games and sports, uptake has been inconsistent and there has been consistent resistance from participants and practitioners to adopt the pedagogies. Simply put, transfer of learning has been uncertain or has not occurred in GBA. Therefore, this article will use the transfer lens to examine games and sports and suggest a new approach they may enhance ToL in games and sports.

Transfer of Learning (ToL) is typically seen as the use of understandings from one learning experience in another. It is a foundational expectation of PE, where the very purpose of our discipline requires transfer of understanding into lifelong engagement in movement. While many reasons have been given for GBA development, from a ToL perspective, developing movement skills simply did not transfer to game play understanding, especially for those who were not experienced in the game or sport selected. On the other hand, it was posited that GBA engaged learners in authentic, progressive, game play and, with supporting divergent questioning, students could improve game play understanding. To put this simply, advocates argued that by using a GBA there would be enhanced ToL for more students.

While much attention has been devoted to exploring the use of GBA and the development of the various aspects of the pedagogies, as evidenced by the wide variety of excellent posts in the TGfU blog, there has been limited exploration of GBA from a ToL perspective. To do so is a worthwhile process, especially considering the explicit lack of evidence of ToL in games and sports, PE and Sport. Areas of concerns with ToL identified in other education disciplines provide an interesting viewpoint, especially as some concerns can be directly connected to GBA use or lack of use. These inhibitors of ToL can be summarised as follows:

• There is an inadequate amount of time in lessons, units, sessions to develop mastery in key concepts required to facilitate the transfer of these concepts into different contexts;
• Activities assumed to be authentic and relevant by educators are not viewed in the same way by the learner;
• There is a lack of clarity about what is to be transferred, leading to an over optimistic expectation of ToL, noted by Perkins and Salomon (1992) as the Bo Peep or ‘leave it alone’ teaching strategy and
• There is an assumption by educators that learners will be motivated to engage with the transfer process, which requires them to be active agents who are willing to challenge old beliefs and adopt new ones.

When GBA are viewed from this perspective, a strong case can be made that GBA may provide compelling arguments but may be no more successful at ensuring ToL than the traditional approach, despite compelling arguments and best intentions. The points above may also provide reasons for inconsistent uptake and resistance in the PE community.
​
So, if a strong case can be made for potentially poor ToL, what is the starting point to addressing ToL issues? It may not actually begin with addressing pedagogy, which has been the focus of research and professional learning in PE. For me, it is interesting that advocates of GBA provided the initial way forward by arguing that strategy and tactics and decision making are key concepts in game play understanding. The grouping of sports into game categories also began to address recognised issues with the limitations with time, connecting sports together based on common concepts. However, the focus then shifted to pedagogical solutions which, from a ToL perspective, did not address the ‘elephant in the room’, that is the traditional perspective that Games and Sports operates as one of five /six, separate movement disciplines and is separate to the other areas. While understandable because the perspective was understanding games and sports, it immediately lost the ToL potential. After all, are all three concepts not important in these other PE disciplines?

Since we have come this far, what is the next step? This may be considered a heretical question BUT what if the traditional divisions of PE actually inhibit ToL, make it difficult, if not impossible for ToL to occur. Our learners come from all different movement backgrounds, but the disciplines create disconnected contexts that need to be learnt and understood, the very thing game categories tried to address.

So, what if we group all of these together under ‘Games and Movement Experiences’, treat them all as contexts where concepts interact organically with each other? How would this look for games and sports? It would mean that the concepts are not the sports of the disciplines but the underlying factors or concepts that underpin all of the game and movement contexts. What would such an approach look like?

Welcome to the Grammar of Games.

The ‘Grammar of Games’ identifies these interacting concepts and builds on developing a deep understanding of their relationship with each other in all games / movement contexts.  It is an alternative approach to teaching and learning that originated in the games and sports field. The approach aims to improve understanding of all games and sports by attempting to address issues with ToL. Just as grammar provides the tools to understand the signs and symbols of language, the Grammar of Games aims to give meaning to movement experiences through deep understanding of the four ‘grammatical’ concepts that underpin and give meaning to all games or movement contexts.
​
The Grammar of Games does not necessarily draw upon new knowledge but builds upon the progress made in PE, especially in the GBA field but it perceives it in a different way. The Traditional Approach argued Movement Skill was the foundational concept that was transferable, GBA argued Strategy and Tactics, Decision Making were equally important for the ToL to occur. Based on my own extensive experiences, I have taken the liberty of adding Communication and Concentration as the fourth concept, as I believe it is the most neglected area of game / movement context understanding, especially for beginners. It also draws upon more thematic approaches in GBA that, of all GBA, have demonstrated some evidence of ToL (see Mitchell and Oslin, 1999). And the work of Gréhaigne, Richard and Griffin (2005), who have provided in depth content knowledge in the concepts of strategy and tactics and decision making but only applied this in FTI games and sports.

So how does it work? Well, a game, sport or movement experience can be placed in the centre of the model (and if we want to connect with all students, any experience is valid). Every experience is founded in principles, action and primary rules, configurations and spaces. Play action can be a product of the plans we make beforehand (strategy) or during play (tactics), is based on decisions at a team or individual level, which in turn determined by movement skills, which then influence what we communicate about and concentrate on. However, each concept interacts with the others organically as play evolves and has an influence on the other three. For example, any tactical change will necessitate an alteration in what we concentrate on and what decisions we make and what movement skill adaptations we make. As we are dealing constantly with interaction, learning experiences are generally based in game play and the approach can be used at a more generic game level or in a specific sport context. However, the game play aspect positions the Grammar of Games firmly in the GBA family with the concepts providing both the basis of observation and questions and the frame in which to make game progressions. Thus, if the educator wishes to focus on Tactical Changes to strategy, he/she can progress the game by changing a parameter (primary rule) that directly impacts on tactics in play, all the while knowing that there may be potential changes to the other three concepts.

Using the Grammar of Games allows us to change our perspective (as educators and learners) in how we understand games and sport as movement experiences. By developing a deep understanding of the grammatical concepts and their relationship in play, players, students, coaches and teachers can have a greater opportunity to connect with each other through the activities used, regardless of their background. This means that it does not matter whether we teach, assess or program water polo, football, rock climbing, snowboard cross, hammer throw, diving, swimming, surfing, lacrosse, lawn bowls, cycling, show jumping or have students who engage in chess, cards or video games*. Each is simply a context where these four concepts interact.  

There are also a range of advantages to such an approach in relation to ToL. They include;

• An explicit connection with all movement experiences via the concepts provides the potential for authenticity with all students in our classes, irrespective of their movement background and clearly;
• Content knowledge is based on four concepts, addressing the time factor in developing depth of understanding, allowing for more in depth of understanding and connection as activities to move from the simple (generic games) to more complex representations (game categories, disciplines, specific sports);
• Assessment is based on the for concepts and how they interrelate in game play, regardless of the context, rather than a sport or category or discipline. Thus, students can demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the concept across a range of discipline contexts and teachers can compare different contexts more effectively. The approach also removes the bias of assessing those who have learnt sports in different environments by requiring them to be flexible with the knowledge understanding and application of concepts, demonstrating true game play understanding;
• The potential to improve teacher capacity to use educationally sound approaches such as GBA more meaningfully. An understanding of the four concepts provides an entry level into all movement experiences, removing the barrier of what we know based on the category or discipline and examining games and movement experiences based on how the concepts interact in the game in front of us. The concepts are also directly derived from GBA so by deepening our knowledge in these concepts from a general perspective, we have a greater capacity to meet the important markers that make GBA such a valuable pedagogy, such as game progression and questioning.

​Using the Grammar of Games as the foundation of understanding in movement experiences and educational programs gives educators the capacity to potentially address the issues of ToL. By changing perspective on what are key concepts and contexts in relation to what we wish all students to learn and understand in games and movement experiences, we can have the potential to improve. While it cannot necessarily motivate people to change habits or willingly embrace the process required to enhance ToL, it gives us a unique opportunity to connect our learners and educators in a meaningful fashion and provide potential for GBA to meet some of the ToL challenges. 

References
Lobato, J. (2006) Alternative Perspectives on the Transfer of Learning: History, Issues, and Challenges for Future Research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15:4, 431-449.

As 2019 is ending, I thought I would reflect on some of the events that have happened this year within the TGfU Sig.

For me, I would say, I have had a good year, although it has been long and at times very stressful, it has been one of good fortune. I started off the year in this new role with the TGfU Sig with the intention of promoting games-based approaches and trying to reconnect with our community. Since May, we have had a monthly blog post about the latest developments in our field and I am so happy and grateful to those of you who contributed and to those of you who read them. We restarted and released our quarterly newsletter in November to share the events and latest news with the community. Celebrating our field by helping to create a central place where we can share ideas and continue to network is vital. I hope all of you can continue to engage with the Sig. I am proud and honoured that I can contribute to the TGfU Sig and wider community and I hope I can continue to improve our resources for everyone.
 
Some of you may know that Kelly Ann Parry, our very hard-working Executive Board member for Administration and Communications, added to her family in the past year. Subsequently Kelly has passed the baton to me and other members of the Board to allow her time to complete her PhD and spend more time with her family. We would like to thank her for all her efforts over the years and wish her and her family well for the future.
 
Towards the end of 2019, we lost a dear friend and colleague, Dr Joy Butler. Joy passed away on September 16th surrounded by close friends and family. Joy was a pioneer in so many things in her career and life– moving countries three times, developing innovations in teaching and learning, and most significantly leading, shaping and supporting an international movement around sport and physical education. Her research and teaching have been developed around constructivism, complexity thinking, situated ethics and community wellness. In comparison to many of you, I only had the pleasure of knowing Joy for a short amount of time, but I would like to share some of my thoughts. Every time I spoke with Joy, it was clear that she had so much passion for her work in TGfU, fairness and social justice and it was a pleasure to be a part of it. Despite her health issues, she was exercising daily and was a firm believer in getting moving. It was inspiring to see her commitment and determination in the face of adversity. She will be dearly missed, and her legacy will live on in her numerous interests including the graduate cohort program for practicing teachers. My hope is to include a commemoration page for Joy on our website shortly, and if you would like to contribute do please let me know.
 
On the 8th to 10th November we had the fifth International Game Sense for Teaching and Coaching Conference which was convened by the Tokyo Gakugei University, one week after the final of the highly successful 2019 Rugby World Cup. The conference was designed as small and friendly events that ran over two and a half days. They began with an opening keynote and welcome in the evening before with day 2 devoted to oral presentations and day 3 to demonstration of Game Sense by international experts. This conference attracted 140 attendee's from Japan, Taiwan, Korea, China, Macau, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US. The opening keynote was delivered by Professor Richard Light from the University of Canterbury and the other keynotes by Professor Stephen Harvey from Ohio University and Professor Karen Richardson from Bridgewater State University. There were two strands of oral presentations with one in Japanese and one in English. The Sunday workshops were delivered by experts from New Zealand, Australia, the UK, the USA and Japan. Unfortunately, I was unable to make the event however I have been told that perhaps the highlight of the conference was the wonderful and warm conference dinner in a local izakaya. In the New Year, I hope to incorporate some more information from the conference and if any of our community attended, we would be happy to share some of your experiences so please get in touch. 
 
Plans are well underway for our upcoming conference at the University of Worcester (28th to 30th July 2020), and I am looking forward to it being a big success. The overarching academic themes for the event will be: Inclusivity, Integration and Implementation. We already have confirmed keynote speakers including; Professor Linda Griffin, Professor Daniel Memmert, Professor Stephen Harvey and Professor Jean Côté. We also have extended seminar speakers including: Dr Jane Powell, Will Roberts, Dr Andy Cale, Stuart Armstrong and Dr David Gutierrez. If you are wanting to present at the conference, don’t forget abstract submission deadline is Wednesday 18th December 2019 at 4pm GMT (more details on our website and Twitter)! Conference registration will open in the New Year. On behalf of the Executive Board, we look forward to seeing many of you there.
 
As we get closer to the end of the year, I often find myself thinking about all the things I haven’t accomplished or regret. Personally, I often struggle looking back and thinking about all the amazing things I have done and am proud of, and some of you may be in similar positions. It is very important to celebrate our accomplishments no matter how small or big.  So, I would like to invite you to think of at least one thing that you have done that you are proud of and share it with us either on here or on Twitter. For myself, I am proud to have passed the halfway milestone for my PhD, and I am looking forward to being able to share some of my work with you in the near future.
As the holidays and the end of the year fast approaches, the Executive Board would like to extend our warmest wishes to all our community for a happy, healthy and peaceful New Year. We look forward to celebrating with you all the amazing things that 2020 will bring.
 
Take care of yourselves.  
Ellen

By Gwen Weeldenburg
Physical education teacher educator, educational designer and researcher in the School of Sport Studies at Fontys University of Applied Sciences.
Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 

Email: g.weeldenburg@fontys.nl
Twitter: @GwenWeeldenburg          @TeachingGames
Facebook: Netwerk Teaching Games
LinkedIn: Gwen Weeldenburg
​Website: www.netwerkteachinggames.nl
​

The Game Insight Approach (GIA) and the corresponding Game Insight Model (GIM; Weeldenburg, Zondag & De Kok, 2016; see figure 1) was developed on the basis of extensive experience and research in the field of physical education and (elite) sports coaching. This approach applies a learner- and game-centred pedagogy to teaching games and is inspired by and based on the principles of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) concept. Although the GIA is primarily aimed at physical education (PE) teachers in primary, secondary, vocational and special needs education, this approach can also be of value to other sport professionals involved in designing and teaching (sport) games. 
​
The model includes guidelines for the process of designing, teaching and assessing games. By following the various didactical components in the model, the PE teacher is able to create and manage a learning environment in which the learning process of the students (i.e. learners; players) will be facilitated, supported and monitored. However, given the complexity of the real (games) world, and the variety within contexts, conditions, psychomotor and affective skills of students, the model should be used flexibly rather than rigid. The main objectives of the GIM is to facilitate understanding, aid decision making and offer structure within the processes of designing and teaching games.

GIM is underpinned by theoretical frameworks with regard to motivation (i.e. self-determination theory; achievement goal theory), learning (constructivism; situated learning theory) and motor learning (dynamical systems theory; constraints-led approach). ​

​Authentic learning environment
Like TGfU and other game-based approaches, the GIA places the individual learner (i.e. player; student) at the centre of the learning process within a realistic context of a game or game form. Continuously creating an authentic and meaningful game learning environment for students is one of the basic principles. An environment in which students’ engagement and problem-solving is elicited by giving them autonomy and responsibility for their own learning process.
 
 

​
Games classification
To provide players with insights into the underlying structure and (tactical) principles of games, and thereby promote transfer of learning, the classification of games into Invasion, Net/Wall, Striking/Fielding and Target games is explicitly used in this approach. 

For each game family (i.e. game type) we defined (tactical and technical) challenges with which players are confronted during game play. Per game challenge we described success criteria and if-then principles (see table 1). For example, to keep possession of the ball (i.e. ‘game challenge’) during an(y) invasion game the player needs to shield the ball from opponents by using the body (i.e. ‘success criteria’). To promote transfer of learning between different invasion games we therefore explicitly use the if-then principle in our teaching: ‘If the opponent wants to reach for the ball, then you have to protect the ball by positioning your body between the ball and the opponent’.
 
Within the GIM these kind of game challenges with underlying success criteria and if-then principles form the starting point for the designing process. Based on a specific game challenge intended learning outcomes are determined. Outcomes on which relevant game learning and teaching activities can be designed and conducted, and the learning progress and outcomes can be assessed. ​

Table 1.    Game challenges, success criteria and if-then principles for Invasion games (in Dutch while the English translation is still ongoing) 
​

​The metaphor of the ski slopes
To optimise students’ learning it is important to provide students with game activities which are feasible, but at the same time challenging. Therefore, the psychomotor and affective differences between students should be considered. By utilising the metaphor of the green, blue, red and black ski slopes, the game learning activities in GIA are designed and presented in varying levels of complexity based on specific learning outcomes (see figure 2). The green game slope represents less complex activities than for example the red game slope activities. With that you can place students on different game slopes within the same class based on their skill level and abilities. For example, one group of students is learning skills with regard to maintaining possession of the ball (‘game challenge’) by shielding the ball from opponents by using the body (‘success criteria’) in a red game slope activity (e.g. 4 versus 4). While at the same time another group of students is involved and challenged in a green game slope activity (e.g. 3 versus 1). 

Figure 2.  Game activities of varying complexity levels focus on a specific learning outcome (e.g. ‘maintaining possession of the ball’) and presented by the metaphor of the green, blue, red and black ski slopes in Dutch (the English translation is still ongoing).
​

Determine learning outcomes
To enable intentional learning, it is crucial to make the learning outcomes explicit at the beginning of the learning process. The learning outcomes provide students with a clear purpose (‘feed-up’) to focus their learning efforts. At the same time, these outcomes direct and guide your choice of instructional and assessment activities and strategies. In GIA the elaboration of the (authentic) game challenges and underlying success criteria and principles, form the basis for determine and describe the learning outcomes.

Optimise Engagement & Appreciation
After you have determined the (authentic and realistic) learning outcomes it is important that the students gain positive and meaningful learning experiences at the beginning of their learning process. Experiences that increase, or at least preserve, engagement in and appreciation for playing games. By placing the students directly at the beginning of the learning process in an authentic (green, blue or red) game form that matches their skill level, this could be achieved. A game form in which the students know what is expected of them, in which every student is of value and can be successful. But also, a game form in which the students frequently are being confronted with the game challenge you have selected and described as a learning outcome (e.g. ‘maintaining possession of the ball’ in invasion games).

Figure 3.  Game activities of varying complexity levels based on a specific learning outcome and focussing on the optimisation of engagement and appreciation. For each game activity the explanation of the intention and rules of the game form, and guidelines relating to sizes of the playing field and equipment, are given (in Dutch while the English translation is still ongoing).
​

Optimise development of Tactical skills
After you have focused on students’ engagement in, and the appreciation for game play/ the game form, special attention should be devoted to optimising tactical skills. Skills which ensure students know what to do when and why in game situations. In the previous given example concerning ‘maintaining possession of the ball’ during invasion games, the attention in this phase of the learning process should be therefore focused primarily on designing and conducting game forms in which students learn what to do (i.e. ‘protect the ball by positioning your body between the ball and the opponent’), when (i.e. ‘if the opponent reach for the ball’) and why (i.e. maintaining possession of the ball, to continue the game and eventually attempt to score). ​

​​Assess learning progress and learning outcomes
At the start of the learning process you determined the direction of student learning by describing and communicating the learning outcomes. In this you have taken the starting level of the students into account and selected learning outcomes which were feasible and challenging for every student. Based on these learning outcomes you systematically designed and managed a differentiated game learning environment.

In order to guide and support student learning properly, information on the learning progress and learning outcomes is needed. By employing assessment activities, the PE teacher can obtain this information. Through formative assessment activities (or ‘process feedback’; for an overview see Shute, 2008), the teacher is able to monitor student learning and identify strengths, weaknesses and difficulties that need work and help to address problems immediately during the learning process. To determine to what extent the learning outcomes have been achieved by students and your teaching has been effective, you will need summative assessment activities. Both assessment types (i.e. formative and summative) are essential in the context of PE. However, since feedback received within the learning process is more powerful for student learning than feedback received at the end of the learning period (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), the emphasis should be on employing formative assessment activities.
 
Create a motivational climate
The PE teacher faces the challenging task to provide students with competencies that enable and encourage them to participate in (game) activities in and outside the school setting.  The PE teacher is however unable to enforce student learning and to determine which student learns what at what time. Consequently, the focus should be on creating the most favourable conditions in which student learning can take place. By systematically constructing a learning environment that meets the motivational needs of the student, a positive impact can be exerted on the motivation, well-being and therefore the learning process of the student. The motivational constructs (i.e. the psychological basic needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness) derived from the self-determination theory Deci & Ryan, 2000) and constructs (i.e. TARGET principles: Task, Authority, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation and Time) from the achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1984, 1989; Elliot & McGregor, 2001) are utilised in the GIA to create a motivational game learning climate.
​
For example, to become a successful game player, problem-solving and decision-making skills, among others, are crucial. According to GIA the PE teacher needs to employ teaching strategies for indirect instruction to promote the development of those (tactical) skills. Therefore, the use of questions and discussion are important strategies. By using (e.g.) the small-group discussion ‘think-pair-share’ method (teacher poses a question; students think individually; each student discusses her/his answer with a peer; students share their answers with the whole group) the students can be guided into discovering (new) ways of resolving a game (play) problem/ challenge. While at the same time these kinds of teaching strategies will satisfy students’ psychological need of autonomy and therefore promote student motivation.

Currently, we are still working on the English book edition ‘Game Insight’ based on the third edition of the Dutch book ‘Spelinzicht’. The first (theoretical) section of the book explains the Game Insight approach and the various components of the Game Insight Model. In the second section of the book, it is demonstrated how this approach and model can be applied in practice. A broad range of learning activities are presented that are arranged in order of the game families (i.e. invasion games, net and wall games, striking and fielding games, target games) and the (tactical and technical) game challenges that players face within these types of games. All game activities are related to specific teaching components of the GIM and represented by the different game slopes (complexity levels).
 
If you are interested in this book, please let us know by sending us an email at gameinsightnl@gmail.com.
​

References
 
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

Newell, K.M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M.G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341-361). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
​
Weeldenburg, G., Zondag, E., & de Kok, F. (2016). Spelinzicht: Een speler- en spelgecentreerde didactiek van spelsporten [Game Insight: A learner- and game-centred approach to teaching games]. Zeist, Nederland: Jan Luiting Fonds. 

By Sam Richardson
Postgraduate Researcher (PhD student) at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) and Sports Coach.  

Email: s.j.richardson@2018.ljmu.ac.uk
Twitter: @SamRichardson77
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/sam-richardson-b44051118
​

Since the inception of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) in 1982 (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982), we have witnessed an increase of game-based approaches (GBAs) and now have a myriad of GBAs available for sports practitioners to apply in their practice. Out of all the various GBAs available, TGfU is one of the most well-known and researched – just a simple search of TGfU displays numerous papers that have been published since its inception to the present year. Within the GBA literature, the challenges and difficulties sports practitioners experience with TGfU have been explored and acknowledged, however these challenges and difficulties are not only associated to those practitioners applying TGfU; other GBAs (e.g. Game Sense) have also been found to present difficulties and challenges to sports practitioners as well.  


To try and support sports practitioners with GBAs, resources (see Breed and Spittle, 2011; Mitchell, Oslin, and Griffin, 2013) that have included practical examples and guidelines have been published. While these resources have been a welcome addition to the GBA literature, there is a dearth of research evidence to confirm the effectiveness of these resources in supporting sports practitioners with their GBA knowledge or practice. Along with the GBA resources, action research, case study, and self-reflective methodologies have been applied in GBA research (see Evans and Light, 2008; Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Harvey, Cushion, and Massa-Gonzalez, 2010; Pill, 2016; Thomas, Morgan and Mesquita, 2013) to explore the challenges sports practitioners experience with GBAs and how they can be supported with their GBA pedagogy. Although action research methodology has been regarded as a particularly beneficial methodology in supporting sport practitioners with their GBA practice (see Evans and Light, 2008; Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Pill, 2016), further research exploring the effectiveness of this methodology and other novel approaches are required if we are to further develop approaches and resources which are effective in supporting sport practitioners with their GBA pedagogy and knowledge.
 
​
Considering the inception of TGfU was in 1982, we are still witnessing, hearing and reading about the difficulties and challenges many sports coaches and teachers are experiencing with this GBA. Perhaps it is time to consider what alternative approaches can also be applied in an attempt to support sports practitioners with their TGfU knowledge and pedagogy. By expanding on the current GBA research, my research will use a multidisciplinary and pedagogical cases (Armour, 2017) approach to design a TGfU resource for sports practitioners. By working with a range of sport coaches and teachers who are coaching and teaching sports across the four games categories and within different contexts, the research will aim to support these practitioners with their TGfU knowledge and pedagogy through applying an action research methodology, and by analysing their knowledge, perceptions and application of TGfU by administering a SWOT analysis and a multidisciplinary approach throughout the course of the intervention. As part of the research, each sports practitioner will also be assigned one of the four TGfU pedagogical principles to enable further analysis of how each practitioner understands, plans and applies the pedagogical principles in their practice.


The purpose of the research is not only to identify the difficulties and challenges sports practitioners are experiencing with TGfU and how they can be supported with their TGfU practice, but also to analyse how each practitioner is applying TGfU and how their current coaching and teaching practice and pedagogical skills are contributing or could contribute towards supporting their TGfU practice. Administering a multidisciplinary approach to analyse the data will provide multidisciplinary perspectives on the practitioner’s knowledge, perceptions, and application of TGfU and how this is supporting or hindering their TGfU practice. Furthermore, it will enable recommendations from a multidisciplinary perspective to be put forward and applied in practice in an attempt to support the practitioners with their TGfU knowledge and pedagogy.


​Data obtained from the sports practitioners and the multidisciplinary analysis will help form the pedagogical cases that will form part of the TGfU resource. To disseminate and analyse the resource, social media platforms will be used and comments, emojis, and likes/dislikes along with some follow up interviews will be analysed to evaluate the TGfU resource. Overall, it is hoped that by expanding on the current GBA research and through applying a multidisciplinary and pedagogical cases approach to design a TGfU resource for sport practitioners, an alternative and effective approach can be provided for how sports practitioners can be supported with their TGfU knowledge and pedagogy.   


If you would like to know more about this research or would potentially be interested in being involved, please contact me on either of the contact details listed above.  
 

 
References   
Armour, K.M. (2017) Pedagogical cases: A new translational mechanism to bridge theory/research practice gaps in youth physical activity education (PAE). Kinesiology Review, 6 (1), 42-50.

Breed, R. and Spittle, M. (2011) Developing game sense through tactical learning: a resource for teachers and coaches. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

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

Evans, J.R. and Light, R.L. (2008) Coach development through collaborative action research: A rugby coach’s implementation of Game Sense pedagogy. Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports Science, 5 (1), 31-37.

Gubacs-Collins, K. (2007) Implementing a tactical approach through action research. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 12 (2), 105-126.

Harvey, S., Cushion, C.J. and 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.

Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L. and Griffin, L.L. (2013) Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach for ages 7 to 18. 3rd ed. USA: Human Kinetics.

Pill, S. (2016) Implementing Game Sense coaching approach in Australian football through action-research. Agora Para La Educacion Fisica Y El Deporte, 18, 1-19.

Thomas, G., Morgan, K. and Mesquita, I. (2013) Examining the implementation of a Teaching Games for Understanding approach in junior rugby using a reflective practice design. Sports Coaching Review, 2 (1), 49-60.