By Annie Kay
Primary Physical Education and Classroom Teacher, Firbank Grammar School, Melbourne, Australia
Bachelor of Applied Science (Physical Education) and Master of Health Sciences (Research)
Member of the TGfU Special Interest Group
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/annie-kay-304a03152?
Linkedin:https://www.linkedin.com/in/annie-kay-304a03152?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/annie.kay.968983
Primary Physical Education and Classroom Teacher, Firbank Grammar School, Melbourne, Australia
Bachelor of Applied Science (Physical Education) and Master of Health Sciences (Research)
Member of the TGfU Special Interest Group
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/annie-kay-304a03152?
Linkedin:https://www.linkedin.com/in/annie-kay-304a03152?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/annie.kay.968983
A Conversation (True Story)
Daughter (11 years old): “I don’t like PE. I don’t like sport.”
Mother: “Why?”
Daughter: “In PE, we practice skills, then play a game with the whole class. The boys who are good at sport hog the ball and don’t pass to us. It’s not fun.”
Mother: “Does your teacher try to fix it?”
Daughter: “Yes, she said the boys had to pass to a girl before scoring. But if we missed, the kids who are good at sport got annoyed. I stopped trying. I didn’t want to mess up.”
Why This Matters
As a compulsory subject, Physical Education (PE) plays a crucial role in children's physical, cognitive, and emotional development, especially for those with limited physical activity opportunities (Janssen & Leblanc, 2010; MacNamara et al., 2011; McLennan & Thompson, 2015). Enjoyment in PE is a key predictor of lifelong participation in physical activity (Lubans et al., 2010). Yet, many students have negative experiences due to overemphasis on performance, teacher-centred pedagogies, low perceived competence, and limited variety in traditional sport-focused programs (Garrett, 2004; Kirk, 2005; Lubans et al., 2010; Tinning, 2010). This highlights the need for inclusive, engaging approaches that build confidence and foster positive attitudes towards movement.
Although the use of traditional Technical Approaches (TAs) to teach PE dominate globally (Cothran et al., 2005; López et al., 2016), Game-Based Approaches (GBAs) have been shown to enhance enjoyment and support learning across physical, cognitive, and affective domains (Breed & Spittle, 2021; Harvey & Jarrett, 2014). By starting with game play, GBAs promote autonomy, tactical awareness, social connection and perceived competence, especially for students with lower skill levels (Barnett et al., 2011; Mandigo et al., 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
While some students, like the girl in this narrative, eventually find their way into sport with support, many others (particularly those lacking confidence or competence) remain disengaged. This is concerning considering the high percentage of adolescents not meeting global physical activity guidelines (Guthold et al., 2020; Bolger et al., 2021; Robinson et al., 2015).
My Professional Journey
As a primary PE teacher, I’ve always aimed to engage all learners, while meeting curriculum standards (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2024) and learning outcomes across the three domains of learning (Bailey et al., 2009; Breed et al., 2024). I have experimented with various pedagogies, including TAs, GBAs, the Sport Education Model, Cooperative Learning, and the Personal and Social Responsibility Model, to name a few. However, it was through my action research study that I truly came to understand the value and nuance of GBAs when teaching games. I conducted the study at an independent girls’ school in Melbourne, where I compared multiple learning outcomes across two teaching models:
These findings strengthened my belief in the effectiveness of GBAs for promoting learning across the three domains, such as increased enjoyment, development of movement competence and confidence and improved in-game skills, in upper primary students, particularly girls.
What I’ve Learned About GBAs
(1) Games comprise approximately two-thirds of PE instruction time (Mitchell et al., 2021), highlighting the importance of selecting effective pedagogical approaches. In my experience, I have found that GBAs align with how children learn best and promote enjoyment.
(2) Use small-sided games to maximise involvement, ball touches, and learning opportunities. Students are more invested when the lesson is centred around a meaningful game context. Anecdotally, I find that lower-skilled and less confident students enjoy playing small-sided games with peers of similar ability levels.
(3) Use modified equipment to suit the developmental level of the students. This fosters greater enjoyment as students of all levels experience success.
(4) Using multiple small-sided games in a class allows each group to play with different equipment and rules suited to their ability level, enabling effective differentiation. For example, four small-sided games can run simultaneously, with one game incorporating more advanced constraints than the others.
(5) Explicitly teach fair play and self-umpiring before engaging students in small-sided games. In my experience, upper primary students respond positively to this and can self-manage their own games.
(6) GBAs draw from multiple motor learning theories:
(7) GBAs also reflect contemporary skill acquisition principles:
(8) GBAs are examples of Non-linear Pedagogy, which promotes implicit learning and adaptability (Chow et al., 2007; Renshaw et al., 2010). They also align with Self-Determination Theory, supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness to drive motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
What I’m Still Curious About
From Participation to Passion: How we can help students love PE
Research highlights that students' enjoyment in PE is influenced by the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Mandigo et al., 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Enjoyment increases when students feel confident, experience success, and engage in developmentally appropriate, inclusive, and relevant activities within a supportive environment (Barnett et al., 2011; Duncan et al., 2018; Azzarito & Solomon, 2005; Gray et al., 2008; Hastie et al., 2013; Breed & Spittle, 2021). These conditions foster motivation, confidence, and perceived competence, which are linked to greater effort and sustained participation in physical activity (Lubans et al., 2010; Ntoumanis, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2021).
Final Reflection
Every child deserves the opportunity to develop confidence and competence in movement, laying the foundation for lifelong physical activity. GBAs offer a valuable pathway to support this goal when teaching games in PE. However, their successful implementation depends on teachers having a strong understanding of both the theoretical underpinnings and practical applications. My own journey revealed just how much I didn’t know until I explored the approach more deeply.
Let’s change the narrative. Let’s create PE learning environments where our children come home saying:
“I love PE.”
Daughter (11 years old): “I don’t like PE. I don’t like sport.”
Mother: “Why?”
Daughter: “In PE, we practice skills, then play a game with the whole class. The boys who are good at sport hog the ball and don’t pass to us. It’s not fun.”
Mother: “Does your teacher try to fix it?”
Daughter: “Yes, she said the boys had to pass to a girl before scoring. But if we missed, the kids who are good at sport got annoyed. I stopped trying. I didn’t want to mess up.”
Why This Matters
As a compulsory subject, Physical Education (PE) plays a crucial role in children's physical, cognitive, and emotional development, especially for those with limited physical activity opportunities (Janssen & Leblanc, 2010; MacNamara et al., 2011; McLennan & Thompson, 2015). Enjoyment in PE is a key predictor of lifelong participation in physical activity (Lubans et al., 2010). Yet, many students have negative experiences due to overemphasis on performance, teacher-centred pedagogies, low perceived competence, and limited variety in traditional sport-focused programs (Garrett, 2004; Kirk, 2005; Lubans et al., 2010; Tinning, 2010). This highlights the need for inclusive, engaging approaches that build confidence and foster positive attitudes towards movement.
Although the use of traditional Technical Approaches (TAs) to teach PE dominate globally (Cothran et al., 2005; López et al., 2016), Game-Based Approaches (GBAs) have been shown to enhance enjoyment and support learning across physical, cognitive, and affective domains (Breed & Spittle, 2021; Harvey & Jarrett, 2014). By starting with game play, GBAs promote autonomy, tactical awareness, social connection and perceived competence, especially for students with lower skill levels (Barnett et al., 2011; Mandigo et al., 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
While some students, like the girl in this narrative, eventually find their way into sport with support, many others (particularly those lacking confidence or competence) remain disengaged. This is concerning considering the high percentage of adolescents not meeting global physical activity guidelines (Guthold et al., 2020; Bolger et al., 2021; Robinson et al., 2015).
My Professional Journey
As a primary PE teacher, I’ve always aimed to engage all learners, while meeting curriculum standards (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2024) and learning outcomes across the three domains of learning (Bailey et al., 2009; Breed et al., 2024). I have experimented with various pedagogies, including TAs, GBAs, the Sport Education Model, Cooperative Learning, and the Personal and Social Responsibility Model, to name a few. However, it was through my action research study that I truly came to understand the value and nuance of GBAs when teaching games. I conducted the study at an independent girls’ school in Melbourne, where I compared multiple learning outcomes across two teaching models:
- Game Sense (GS): A student-centred, inquiry-based GBA.
- Technical Approach (TA): A traditional, skill-drill model building to a game.
- Engagement: GS students reported greater enjoyment.
- In-game skills: Both groups improved, but GS students progressed more.
- FMS (Fundamental Movement Skills): TA group had higher gains, though GS students also improved.
- Physical activity: GS lessons generated more movement overall.
These findings strengthened my belief in the effectiveness of GBAs for promoting learning across the three domains, such as increased enjoyment, development of movement competence and confidence and improved in-game skills, in upper primary students, particularly girls.
What I’ve Learned About GBAs
(1) Games comprise approximately two-thirds of PE instruction time (Mitchell et al., 2021), highlighting the importance of selecting effective pedagogical approaches. In my experience, I have found that GBAs align with how children learn best and promote enjoyment.
(2) Use small-sided games to maximise involvement, ball touches, and learning opportunities. Students are more invested when the lesson is centred around a meaningful game context. Anecdotally, I find that lower-skilled and less confident students enjoy playing small-sided games with peers of similar ability levels.
(3) Use modified equipment to suit the developmental level of the students. This fosters greater enjoyment as students of all levels experience success.
(4) Using multiple small-sided games in a class allows each group to play with different equipment and rules suited to their ability level, enabling effective differentiation. For example, four small-sided games can run simultaneously, with one game incorporating more advanced constraints than the others.
(5) Explicitly teach fair play and self-umpiring before engaging students in small-sided games. In my experience, upper primary students respond positively to this and can self-manage their own games.
(6) GBAs draw from multiple motor learning theories:
- Dynamic Systems Theory (DST): Learning emerges through interaction between learner, task, and environment (Chow et al., 2007).
- Ecological Models & Affordances: Emphasise perception-action coupling—learners act based on opportunities the environment offers (Renshaw & Chow, 2019).
- Constraints-Led Approach (CLA): Teachers shape learning by manipulating constraints (Chow et al., 2006).
- Situated Learning Theory: Learning is social and contextual (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
(7) GBAs also reflect contemporary skill acquisition principles:
- Promote external focus of attention (e.g., “aim for the target”) rather than internal (e.g., “kick the ball by making contact with the top of your foot”) (Wulf, 2013).
- Use variable and random practice to support retention and transfer (Magill & Anderson, 2021).
- Simplify tasks through constraint manipulation, not isolated breakdown (Renshaw & Chow, 2019).
- Teach functional skills that transfer into real games (Breed & Spittle, 2021), rather than idealised models
- Use questioning to guide learning, improving cognitive engagement and procedural knowledge (Breed & Spittle, 2021). Avoid overloading students with feedback, as it can reduce motivation (Schmidt et al., 2019).
- Always aim to match practice with game conditions to enhance transfer (Renshaw & Chow, 2019).
(8) GBAs are examples of Non-linear Pedagogy, which promotes implicit learning and adaptability (Chow et al., 2007; Renshaw et al., 2010). They also align with Self-Determination Theory, supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness to drive motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
What I’m Still Curious About
- How can we build a stronger evidence base for GBAs in primary PE, particularly across less-studied game types like striking and fielding, target, and net/wall games?
- Can more school-based research explore how students best achieve multiple learning outcomes in PE?
- How do we embed motor learning theory and skill acquisition principles into teacher professional development, so pedagogical decisions are theoretically informed?
- Could GBAs effectively support FMS development in the younger primary years through a focus on external cues and functional outcomes?
- What role might GBAs play in non-traditional PE contexts like gymnastics, swimming, or outdoor education?
- And finally, could FMS assessment shift toward functional, real-world criteria rather than idealised checklists?
From Participation to Passion: How we can help students love PE
Research highlights that students' enjoyment in PE is influenced by the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Mandigo et al., 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Enjoyment increases when students feel confident, experience success, and engage in developmentally appropriate, inclusive, and relevant activities within a supportive environment (Barnett et al., 2011; Duncan et al., 2018; Azzarito & Solomon, 2005; Gray et al., 2008; Hastie et al., 2013; Breed & Spittle, 2021). These conditions foster motivation, confidence, and perceived competence, which are linked to greater effort and sustained participation in physical activity (Lubans et al., 2010; Ntoumanis, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2021).
Final Reflection
Every child deserves the opportunity to develop confidence and competence in movement, laying the foundation for lifelong physical activity. GBAs offer a valuable pathway to support this goal when teaching games in PE. However, their successful implementation depends on teachers having a strong understanding of both the theoretical underpinnings and practical applications. My own journey revealed just how much I didn’t know until I explored the approach more deeply.
Let’s change the narrative. Let’s create PE learning environments where our children come home saying:
“I love PE.”
REFERENCES
Australian Curriculum Assessement and Reporting Authority. (2024, January). Understand this learning area Health and Physical Education Curriculum Version 9.0. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/teacher-resources/understand-this-learning-area/health-and-physical-education
Azzarito, L., & Solomon, M. A. (2005). A reconceptualization of physical education: The intersection of gender/race/social class. Sport, Education and Society, 10(1), 25-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/135733205200028794
Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., & Sandford, R. (2009). The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: an academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701809817
Barnett, L. M., Morgan, P. J., van Beurden, E., & Beard, J. R. (2011). Perceived sports competence mediates the relationship between childhood motor skill proficiency and adolescent physical activity and fitness: A longitudinal assessment. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-42
Bolger, L. E., Bolger, L. A., O'Neill, C., Coughlan, E., O'Brien, W., Lacey, S., Burns, C., & Bardid, F. (2021). Global levels of fundamental motor skills in children: a systematic review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(7), 717-753. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1841405
Breed, R., & Spittle, M. (2021). Developing game sense in physical education and sport. Human Kinetics. https://us.humankinetics.com/collections/physical-education/products/developing-game-sense-in-physical-education-and-sport
Breed, R., Kittle, A., Lindsay, R., and , & Spittle, M. (2024). Content and quality of comparative tactical game-centred approaches in physical education: a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 0(0) https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241227236
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2006). Nonlinear pedagogy: a constraints-led framework for understanding emergence of game play and movement skills. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci, 10(1), 71-103.
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251-278. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305615
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., Banville, D., Choi, E., Amade-Escot, C., MacPhail, A., Macdonald, D., Richard, J.-F., Sarmento, P., & Kirk, D. (2005). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Use of Teaching Styles. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(2), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599280
Duncan, M. J., Eyre, E., Bryant, E., & Clarke, N. D. (2018). The relationship between fundamental movement skills and perceived competence in children. European Journal of Sport Science, 18(6), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1457082
Garrett, R. (2004). Negotiating a physical identity: girls, bodies and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 9(2), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332042000233958
Gray, S., Sproule, J., & Wang, C. K. J. (2008). Developing pupils' performance in PE through a mastery motivational climate. European Physical Education Review, 14(2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X08090708
Guthold, R., Stevens, G. A., Riley, L. M., & Bull, F. C. (2020). Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: a pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1·6 million participants. Lancet Child Adolesc Health, 4(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(19)30323-2
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
Hastie, P. A., Rudisill, M. E., & Wadsworth, D. D. (2013). Providing students with voice and choice: Lessons from intervention research on student motivation in physical education. Health Education, 113(6), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-02-2013-0006
Janssen, I., & Leblanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 7(1), 40-40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-40
Kirk, D. (2005). Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation: the importance of early learning experiences. European Physical Education Review, 11(3), 239-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X05056649
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
López, I., Práxedes, A., & del Villar, F. (2016). Effect of an intervention teaching program, based on tgfu model, on the cognitive and execution variables, in the physical education context. / Efecto de la aplicación de un modelo de enseñanza tgfu sobre las variables cognitivas y de ejecución, en la educación física escolar. Motricidad: European Journal of Human Movement, 37, 88-108. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=s3h&AN=120882011&site=ehost-live&custid=s1145751
Lubans, D. R., Morgan, P. J., Cliff, D. P., Barnett, L. M., & Okely, A. D. (2010). Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: Review of associated health benefits. Sports Medicine, 40(12), 1019–1035. https://doi.org/10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000
Magill, R. A., & Anderson, D. I. (2021). Motor learning and control: concepts and applications (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/vu/detail.action?docID=6212901.
Mandigo, J., Holt, N., Anderson, A., & Sheppard, J. (2008). Children’s motivational experiences following autonomy-supportive games lessons. European Physical Education Review, 14(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X08095673
McLennan, N., & Thompson, J. (2015). Quality Physical Education Guidelines for Policy-Makers. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231101
McNamara, E., Hudson, Z., & Taylor, S. J. C. (2010). Measuring activity levels of young people: the validity of pedometers. British medical bulletin, 95(1), 121-137. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq016
Mitchell, S. A., Osline, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2021). Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games approach. Human Kinetics.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158497
Renshaw, I., & Chow, J. Y. (2019). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1552676
Renshaw, I., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010). A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: a basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980902791586
Robinson, L. E., Stodden, D. F., Barnett, L. M., Lopes, V. P., Logan, S. W., Rodrigues, L. P., & D’Hondt, E. (2015). Motor Competence and its Effect on Positive Developmental Trajectories of Health. Sports Medicine (Auckland), 45(9), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.
Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C. J., Wulf, G., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2019). Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis (Sixth edition. ed.). Human Kinetics.
Tinning, R. (2010). Pedagogy and Human Movement: Theory, Practice, Research. Routledge.
Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International review of sport and exercise psychology, 6(1), 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728
Australian Curriculum Assessement and Reporting Authority. (2024, January). Understand this learning area Health and Physical Education Curriculum Version 9.0. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/teacher-resources/understand-this-learning-area/health-and-physical-education
Azzarito, L., & Solomon, M. A. (2005). A reconceptualization of physical education: The intersection of gender/race/social class. Sport, Education and Society, 10(1), 25-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/135733205200028794
Bailey, R., Armour, K., Kirk, D., Jess, M., Pickup, I., & Sandford, R. (2009). The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: an academic review. Research Papers in Education, 24(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701809817
Barnett, L. M., Morgan, P. J., van Beurden, E., & Beard, J. R. (2011). Perceived sports competence mediates the relationship between childhood motor skill proficiency and adolescent physical activity and fitness: A longitudinal assessment. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-42
Bolger, L. E., Bolger, L. A., O'Neill, C., Coughlan, E., O'Brien, W., Lacey, S., Burns, C., & Bardid, F. (2021). Global levels of fundamental motor skills in children: a systematic review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(7), 717-753. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1841405
Breed, R., & Spittle, M. (2021). Developing game sense in physical education and sport. Human Kinetics. https://us.humankinetics.com/collections/physical-education/products/developing-game-sense-in-physical-education-and-sport
Breed, R., Kittle, A., Lindsay, R., and , & Spittle, M. (2024). Content and quality of comparative tactical game-centred approaches in physical education: a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 0(0) https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241227236
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2006). Nonlinear pedagogy: a constraints-led framework for understanding emergence of game play and movement skills. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci, 10(1), 71-103.
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251-278. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430305615
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., Banville, D., Choi, E., Amade-Escot, C., MacPhail, A., Macdonald, D., Richard, J.-F., Sarmento, P., & Kirk, D. (2005). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Use of Teaching Styles. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(2), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599280
Duncan, M. J., Eyre, E., Bryant, E., & Clarke, N. D. (2018). The relationship between fundamental movement skills and perceived competence in children. European Journal of Sport Science, 18(6), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1457082
Garrett, R. (2004). Negotiating a physical identity: girls, bodies and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 9(2), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332042000233958
Gray, S., Sproule, J., & Wang, C. K. J. (2008). Developing pupils' performance in PE through a mastery motivational climate. European Physical Education Review, 14(2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X08090708
Guthold, R., Stevens, G. A., Riley, L. M., & Bull, F. C. (2020). Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: a pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1·6 million participants. Lancet Child Adolesc Health, 4(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(19)30323-2
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
Hastie, P. A., Rudisill, M. E., & Wadsworth, D. D. (2013). Providing students with voice and choice: Lessons from intervention research on student motivation in physical education. Health Education, 113(6), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/HE-02-2013-0006
Janssen, I., & Leblanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 7(1), 40-40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-40
Kirk, D. (2005). Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation: the importance of early learning experiences. European Physical Education Review, 11(3), 239-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X05056649
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
López, I., Práxedes, A., & del Villar, F. (2016). Effect of an intervention teaching program, based on tgfu model, on the cognitive and execution variables, in the physical education context. / Efecto de la aplicación de un modelo de enseñanza tgfu sobre las variables cognitivas y de ejecución, en la educación física escolar. Motricidad: European Journal of Human Movement, 37, 88-108. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=s3h&AN=120882011&site=ehost-live&custid=s1145751
Lubans, D. R., Morgan, P. J., Cliff, D. P., Barnett, L. M., & Okely, A. D. (2010). Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: Review of associated health benefits. Sports Medicine, 40(12), 1019–1035. https://doi.org/10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000
Magill, R. A., & Anderson, D. I. (2021). Motor learning and control: concepts and applications (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/vu/detail.action?docID=6212901.
Mandigo, J., Holt, N., Anderson, A., & Sheppard, J. (2008). Children’s motivational experiences following autonomy-supportive games lessons. European Physical Education Review, 14(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X08095673
McLennan, N., & Thompson, J. (2015). Quality Physical Education Guidelines for Policy-Makers. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231101
McNamara, E., Hudson, Z., & Taylor, S. J. C. (2010). Measuring activity levels of young people: the validity of pedometers. British medical bulletin, 95(1), 121-137. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq016
Mitchell, S. A., Osline, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2021). Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games approach. Human Kinetics.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158497
Renshaw, I., & Chow, J. Y. (2019). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1552676
Renshaw, I., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010). A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: a basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980902791586
Robinson, L. E., Stodden, D. F., Barnett, L. M., Lopes, V. P., Logan, S. W., Rodrigues, L. P., & D’Hondt, E. (2015). Motor Competence and its Effect on Positive Developmental Trajectories of Health. Sports Medicine (Auckland), 45(9), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.
Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C. J., Wulf, G., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2019). Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis (Sixth edition. ed.). Human Kinetics.
Tinning, R. (2010). Pedagogy and Human Movement: Theory, Practice, Research. Routledge.
Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International review of sport and exercise psychology, 6(1), 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728
