By Ellen-Alyssa Gambles
Lecturer in PE Initial Teacher Training
School of Education, University of Sunderland, UK
Staff Profile: https://www.sunderland.ac.uk/about/staff/teacher-training-and-education/ellengambles/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellen-gambles-550508a9/
Lecturer in PE Initial Teacher Training
School of Education, University of Sunderland, UK
Staff Profile: https://www.sunderland.ac.uk/about/staff/teacher-training-and-education/ellengambles/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellen-gambles-550508a9/
Background
In the UK, pupils may elect to study PE at GCSE (age 14 to 16), and then at A Level (age 16 to 18) or complete BTECs at a secondary school or Further Education college. Subsequently, those wishing to become a secondary PE teacher undertake a 3 year undergraduate degree programme in a sports-based subject followed by a 1 year PGCE with Qualified Teacher Status. In my institution this route has been truncated into a 3 year undergraduate degree programme with students gaining Qualified Teacher Status upon completion of a dialogic assessment. Our curriculum includes theoretical and practical teaching in the university with increasing periods of time spent on placement (practicum) in local secondary schools.
The Initial Teacher Training course, encompassing multiple other secondary subjects, had been running for a few years, and my colleague and I joined the department at the time that the first PE cohort had reached Year 3. In the creation of the initial (‘old’) course, the Year 2 PE curriculum had been merged with the other undergraduate secondary courses (e.g. Science, Maths etc.), and the Year 3 PE curriculum was merged with that of the 1 year PGCE programmes from different subjects (e.g. English, History, Science, Maths, Computer Science etc.). Under this structure our PE students shared generic teaching sessions with these other undergraduate or PGCE students and also received some hours of subject-specific content each week.
We observed that our Year 3 students had gaps in GCSE and A Level subject content leaving some under-equipped for teaching these classroom sessions on placement. It also became apparent that our students were repeating some earlier learning during the shared lessons with the PGCE students. In ensuring that our students were competent PE teachers upon graduation, in the short-term we assessed their subject-content knowledge and specifically supplemented lectures with GCSE and A level knowledge. For example, a lecture on “planning for interaction in classroom sessions” included examples of engaging activities/gamification strategies that could be used to teach GCSE/A Level content. This approach delivered aspects of content knowledge that had been identified as requiring strengthening and infused it within the pedagogical content knowledge. The teaching of practical sessions of PE was not met by generic classroom-based approaches thus a key point for us was to ensure that the latest teaching approaches in PE such as Game-Based Approaches (GBAs) (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982; Gambles and Gutierrez, 2023; TGfU SIG, 2021) were included.
The programme underwent a fundamental restructuring and revalidation process to separate it from the PGCE courses in time for the 2024-2025 cohort. The ‘new’ programme had an increased allocation for subject-specific theoretical and practical content, subject-specific assignments, an increase in the number of hours in university sessions and was restructured to make more effective use of the placement opportunities. Thus at the start of the 2024-25 academic year, Cohort A had completed the first year of their degree under the old programme and began the new programme at Year 2, whereas the new recruits of Cohort B began Year 1 of the new programme (see Figure 1).
In the UK, pupils may elect to study PE at GCSE (age 14 to 16), and then at A Level (age 16 to 18) or complete BTECs at a secondary school or Further Education college. Subsequently, those wishing to become a secondary PE teacher undertake a 3 year undergraduate degree programme in a sports-based subject followed by a 1 year PGCE with Qualified Teacher Status. In my institution this route has been truncated into a 3 year undergraduate degree programme with students gaining Qualified Teacher Status upon completion of a dialogic assessment. Our curriculum includes theoretical and practical teaching in the university with increasing periods of time spent on placement (practicum) in local secondary schools.
The Initial Teacher Training course, encompassing multiple other secondary subjects, had been running for a few years, and my colleague and I joined the department at the time that the first PE cohort had reached Year 3. In the creation of the initial (‘old’) course, the Year 2 PE curriculum had been merged with the other undergraduate secondary courses (e.g. Science, Maths etc.), and the Year 3 PE curriculum was merged with that of the 1 year PGCE programmes from different subjects (e.g. English, History, Science, Maths, Computer Science etc.). Under this structure our PE students shared generic teaching sessions with these other undergraduate or PGCE students and also received some hours of subject-specific content each week.
We observed that our Year 3 students had gaps in GCSE and A Level subject content leaving some under-equipped for teaching these classroom sessions on placement. It also became apparent that our students were repeating some earlier learning during the shared lessons with the PGCE students. In ensuring that our students were competent PE teachers upon graduation, in the short-term we assessed their subject-content knowledge and specifically supplemented lectures with GCSE and A level knowledge. For example, a lecture on “planning for interaction in classroom sessions” included examples of engaging activities/gamification strategies that could be used to teach GCSE/A Level content. This approach delivered aspects of content knowledge that had been identified as requiring strengthening and infused it within the pedagogical content knowledge. The teaching of practical sessions of PE was not met by generic classroom-based approaches thus a key point for us was to ensure that the latest teaching approaches in PE such as Game-Based Approaches (GBAs) (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982; Gambles and Gutierrez, 2023; TGfU SIG, 2021) were included.
The programme underwent a fundamental restructuring and revalidation process to separate it from the PGCE courses in time for the 2024-2025 cohort. The ‘new’ programme had an increased allocation for subject-specific theoretical and practical content, subject-specific assignments, an increase in the number of hours in university sessions and was restructured to make more effective use of the placement opportunities. Thus at the start of the 2024-25 academic year, Cohort A had completed the first year of their degree under the old programme and began the new programme at Year 2, whereas the new recruits of Cohort B began Year 1 of the new programme (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Roadmap for Programme Revalidation
Model-Based Pedagogy Module
Under the old degree programme, model-based pedagogies were not introduced until Year 3 - effectively limiting the amount of time for theoretical learning in lessons and embedding this learning in practical sessions. Under the revalidation, a module for model-based pedagogies was devised for the Year 2 curriculum which, by providing a greater emphasis on innovative teaching practices, was intended to overcome the traditional pedagogies prevalent in many UK schools. By extending the learning period for GBAs (and other approaches), this earlier exposure in Year 2 was supported by teaching on their application in Year 3 practical sessions to enhance consolidation of model-based pedagogies throughout both years of the students’ assessed placements.
By the end of this module successful students would be able to do the following: (1) Describe core principles of psychological and sociological perspective underpinning physical education, (2) analyse the implementation of model-based pedagogies, (3) design, present and reflect on a model-based pedagogy resource for use in physical education and (4) contrast models-based pedagogies, justifying pros and cons, Theoretical input on models and relevant sociological and psychological theories were presented and learning assessed by completion of two assignments: (i) Model-Based Resource and (ii) Reflection on a Digital Medium.
Assignment 1- Model-Based Resource: This assignment was to create a suitable models-based teaching resource that might be used in either a PE theory or practical session and devised to support, enrich, and enhance pupil learning towards achieving the desired learning objectives. The resource was to be underpinned by any of the following, alone or in combination, – a sociological theory or a psychological theory. The teaching resource could be a printed matter, an object, audio, visual, audio-visual or electronic format. Students would then complete a 10-minute oral presentation and defence of their resource explaining how the resource connects to literature and best practices, and to provide a rationale for implementation of the resource in their specific teaching context. An additional 5-minutes was allocated for the presenter to answer questions from the lecturer and their cohort.
Assignment 2- Reflection on a Digital Medium: Students were required to watch/listen to a podcast/webinar relevant to PE and to use a model of reflection to write a reflection based on model-based pedagogy, psychological and/or sociological theory with any underpinning theories and best practice discussed. It must also consider how the subject matter applies in teaching practice and their teaching context, and extend to how it will affect their future teaching practice.
Under the old degree programme, model-based pedagogies were not introduced until Year 3 - effectively limiting the amount of time for theoretical learning in lessons and embedding this learning in practical sessions. Under the revalidation, a module for model-based pedagogies was devised for the Year 2 curriculum which, by providing a greater emphasis on innovative teaching practices, was intended to overcome the traditional pedagogies prevalent in many UK schools. By extending the learning period for GBAs (and other approaches), this earlier exposure in Year 2 was supported by teaching on their application in Year 3 practical sessions to enhance consolidation of model-based pedagogies throughout both years of the students’ assessed placements.
By the end of this module successful students would be able to do the following: (1) Describe core principles of psychological and sociological perspective underpinning physical education, (2) analyse the implementation of model-based pedagogies, (3) design, present and reflect on a model-based pedagogy resource for use in physical education and (4) contrast models-based pedagogies, justifying pros and cons, Theoretical input on models and relevant sociological and psychological theories were presented and learning assessed by completion of two assignments: (i) Model-Based Resource and (ii) Reflection on a Digital Medium.
Assignment 1- Model-Based Resource: This assignment was to create a suitable models-based teaching resource that might be used in either a PE theory or practical session and devised to support, enrich, and enhance pupil learning towards achieving the desired learning objectives. The resource was to be underpinned by any of the following, alone or in combination, – a sociological theory or a psychological theory. The teaching resource could be a printed matter, an object, audio, visual, audio-visual or electronic format. Students would then complete a 10-minute oral presentation and defence of their resource explaining how the resource connects to literature and best practices, and to provide a rationale for implementation of the resource in their specific teaching context. An additional 5-minutes was allocated for the presenter to answer questions from the lecturer and their cohort.
Assignment 2- Reflection on a Digital Medium: Students were required to watch/listen to a podcast/webinar relevant to PE and to use a model of reflection to write a reflection based on model-based pedagogy, psychological and/or sociological theory with any underpinning theories and best practice discussed. It must also consider how the subject matter applies in teaching practice and their teaching context, and extend to how it will affect their future teaching practice.
Personal Observations and Reflections
This is a brief personal reflection on the first year of implementing the ‘new’ Year 2 model-based pedagogies module with Cohort A (see Figure 1), focusing on the aspects relating to the teaching and assessment of GBAs.
At this point in the programme, I have observed that in both their practical teaching and assignments many of the students have been adhering to the traditional approach of teaching skills prior to gameplay. On occasions when students were specifically tasked with devising and delivering a GBA lesson, some students created game-based teaching sessions aimed at the more-able pupils rather than with consideration for all the pupils. Typically students failed to address the whole of the sessions as being game-based and instead the emphasis was still on teaching skills first through an isolated drill and only after this were they putting the players into a GBA “game”. Common weaknesses in their games were; limited examples of applying pedagogical principles, progressing to play full version games when the players lack competency, a lack of knowledge of the game categories and an understanding of the key tactical components within the category.
Since the introduction of the TGfU Curriculum model in 1982, the belief of a requirement for skills prior to gameplay has been commonly observed in the literature with both in-service and pre-service teachers (Gambles, 2024; Harvey, Cushion and Sammon, 2015; McNeill et al., 2004; Pill, 2011; Thorpe and Bunker, 1983; Wang and Ha, 2009). This persisting conviction is a crucial barrier to the implementation of GBAs and something that needs to be actively tackled in PE Teacher Education. Similarly, research has also highlighted how teachers may lack competence and knowledge of the content material to teach GBAs (Almond, 1986a; Kirk, 2011; Metzler, 2011) which can result in teachers being hesitant to adopt the model (Li and Cruz, 2006 cited in Wang and Ha, 2009). Significant barriers to GBAs for pre-service and in-service teachers are a lack of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (for example Diaz-Cueto, Hernandez-Alvarez and Castejon, 2010; Harvey and Pill, 2016; Harvey, Cushion and Sammon, 2015;Stran, Sinelnikov and Woodruff, 2012). Metzler (2011) suggested for successful implementation of models-based pedagogies, teachers require expertise in content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge which facilitate the identification and exaggeration of tactical problems and allow them to develop appropriately modified games.
It was also noted that my students’ work showed limited incorporation of the sociological or psychological theories that underpin GBAs and pedagogical models particularly in their model-based resource and reflection of a digital medium assignments. GBAs have been legitimised by a strong research base and demonstrate key benefits associated with theories such as complexity theory, self-determination theory, situated learning theory, domain-specific knowledge schema theory, constructivism, ecological psychology etc. (Gil-Arias et al., 2021; Kirk and MacPhail, 2002; Ovens, Gutierrez and Butler, 2021). For example, since 1998, understanding the application of the TGfU approach has been dominated by constructivism (Kirk and Macdonald, 1998; Light, 2013), whereby the pupil actively reconstructs knowledge through their own experiences and social interactions rather than acquiring it by passive transmission from the teacher. By extension, my students’ lack of understanding of psychological and sociological theories will limit their understanding of GBAs and therefore, when we are teaching GBAs, we need to promote student discussions of the relevance of these theories.
My students appeared to have difficulties with both understanding the theoretical material, and also in its application in practical and written assignments. I have not fully determined the reasons for their difficulties but speculate that their basis might lie in potent childhood experiences of PE (Capel, 2007; Lawson, 1983; Lortie, 1975) coupled with a lack of previous exposure to these ideas due to dominant traditional approaches in schools. Memmert et al., (2015) suggested a number of reasons to explain why teachers find TGfU (and GBAs) problematic, including; the divide between academic research and practical application, the limited consensus on best practices, the implications on teachers and schools, and how GBAs can be implemented into PE lessons. I feel that my students need more time and reiteration supported by frequent, consistent experiences to reconstruct their personal understanding and facilitate a transformation of the theories from intangible concepts into practical actions which they can implement appropriately. Therefore, to promote student engagement with the literature and evidence-based practice, I plan to probe their perspectives and experiences of the module/assignments and find different ways to explore the material together in dialogic and practical settings.
This is a brief personal reflection on the first year of implementing the ‘new’ Year 2 model-based pedagogies module with Cohort A (see Figure 1), focusing on the aspects relating to the teaching and assessment of GBAs.
At this point in the programme, I have observed that in both their practical teaching and assignments many of the students have been adhering to the traditional approach of teaching skills prior to gameplay. On occasions when students were specifically tasked with devising and delivering a GBA lesson, some students created game-based teaching sessions aimed at the more-able pupils rather than with consideration for all the pupils. Typically students failed to address the whole of the sessions as being game-based and instead the emphasis was still on teaching skills first through an isolated drill and only after this were they putting the players into a GBA “game”. Common weaknesses in their games were; limited examples of applying pedagogical principles, progressing to play full version games when the players lack competency, a lack of knowledge of the game categories and an understanding of the key tactical components within the category.
Since the introduction of the TGfU Curriculum model in 1982, the belief of a requirement for skills prior to gameplay has been commonly observed in the literature with both in-service and pre-service teachers (Gambles, 2024; Harvey, Cushion and Sammon, 2015; McNeill et al., 2004; Pill, 2011; Thorpe and Bunker, 1983; Wang and Ha, 2009). This persisting conviction is a crucial barrier to the implementation of GBAs and something that needs to be actively tackled in PE Teacher Education. Similarly, research has also highlighted how teachers may lack competence and knowledge of the content material to teach GBAs (Almond, 1986a; Kirk, 2011; Metzler, 2011) which can result in teachers being hesitant to adopt the model (Li and Cruz, 2006 cited in Wang and Ha, 2009). Significant barriers to GBAs for pre-service and in-service teachers are a lack of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (for example Diaz-Cueto, Hernandez-Alvarez and Castejon, 2010; Harvey and Pill, 2016; Harvey, Cushion and Sammon, 2015;Stran, Sinelnikov and Woodruff, 2012). Metzler (2011) suggested for successful implementation of models-based pedagogies, teachers require expertise in content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge which facilitate the identification and exaggeration of tactical problems and allow them to develop appropriately modified games.
It was also noted that my students’ work showed limited incorporation of the sociological or psychological theories that underpin GBAs and pedagogical models particularly in their model-based resource and reflection of a digital medium assignments. GBAs have been legitimised by a strong research base and demonstrate key benefits associated with theories such as complexity theory, self-determination theory, situated learning theory, domain-specific knowledge schema theory, constructivism, ecological psychology etc. (Gil-Arias et al., 2021; Kirk and MacPhail, 2002; Ovens, Gutierrez and Butler, 2021). For example, since 1998, understanding the application of the TGfU approach has been dominated by constructivism (Kirk and Macdonald, 1998; Light, 2013), whereby the pupil actively reconstructs knowledge through their own experiences and social interactions rather than acquiring it by passive transmission from the teacher. By extension, my students’ lack of understanding of psychological and sociological theories will limit their understanding of GBAs and therefore, when we are teaching GBAs, we need to promote student discussions of the relevance of these theories.
My students appeared to have difficulties with both understanding the theoretical material, and also in its application in practical and written assignments. I have not fully determined the reasons for their difficulties but speculate that their basis might lie in potent childhood experiences of PE (Capel, 2007; Lawson, 1983; Lortie, 1975) coupled with a lack of previous exposure to these ideas due to dominant traditional approaches in schools. Memmert et al., (2015) suggested a number of reasons to explain why teachers find TGfU (and GBAs) problematic, including; the divide between academic research and practical application, the limited consensus on best practices, the implications on teachers and schools, and how GBAs can be implemented into PE lessons. I feel that my students need more time and reiteration supported by frequent, consistent experiences to reconstruct their personal understanding and facilitate a transformation of the theories from intangible concepts into practical actions which they can implement appropriately. Therefore, to promote student engagement with the literature and evidence-based practice, I plan to probe their perspectives and experiences of the module/assignments and find different ways to explore the material together in dialogic and practical settings.
Key Learning Points and Next Steps
Based upon these observations, I have suggested a number of possible strategies I feel may help to embed GBA knowledge and understanding with students during their time at university.
1) Exploit all opportunities: To weaken the students’ childhood experiences of traditional ‘skills and drills’, and instill GBAs requires the integration of innovative approaches into all aspects of the course. Rather than pedagogical models being presented solely in a discrete module, it should be a topic that is also repeatedly introduced into other areas of the theoretical and practical course.
(a) Cross-modular reinforcement of GBAs: Include GBAs into other more generic modules, such as when teaching students how to develop a unit of work. Another example is linking EDI topics in your lessons to how your students might teach these ideas with their own pupils through the application of appropriate GBAs (Haneishi et al., 2023). Students may be encouraged to use ‘inventing games’ with their own pupils to proactively address undesirable behaviours (e.g. bullying, antisocial behaviour) in schools. In this example, pupils would invent their own game which incorporates a basis of fair play and consistency, to promote discussion of social justice and democracy whilst also gaining a better understanding of games (Butler, 2016).
(b) Assessments: Learning may be further embedded by encouraging students to incorporate a GBA focus into other assignments that are not specifically aimed at teaching GBAs, for example, to conduct a research study on model-based pedagogies/GBAs for their dissertation.
(c) Regular Recaps: To provide a recap after extended periods or breaks without GBA learning opportunities. Although models and GBAs are covered extensively in a Year 2 module, I begin Year 3 with a recap of theory and practical lessons.
(d) Practical Sessions: Reinforce theoretical content in practical sessions to reduce the disconnect between theory and its practical implementation.
2) Putting it into Practice: Consistently begin practical sessions with references to GBAs and exploit opportunities to reinforce them by explicitly linking them to relevant aspects of the sessions.
(a) Move from Theoretical to Practical: Reinforce theoretical learning, such as key vocabulary, by modelling its usage within practical sessions which will encourage students to become familiar with the language and to identify these aspects of GBAs. Our course is structured with a theoretical lecture in the morning followed by a practical session in the afternoon, thus aspects covered in the morning can be emphasised in the afternoon to strengthen students’ knowledge and bridge the gap between theory and practice.
(b) Progressions and Pedagogical Principles: Teach the students the most simplistic game forms with examples of how the pedagogical principles (Thorpe and Bunker, 1989; Thorpe, Bunker and Almond, 1986) can be applied. Encourage the students to develop their own ideas as they begin to understand and master this process, then follow this with demonstrations of the progressions that they could use and how they could be applied to different sports within each game classification (Almond, 1986b; O’Connor, Alfrey and Penney, 2024). This approach will help them to understand how to build upon previous learning and to dispel the notion of playing full version games with beginners, a key barrier to GBAs (Thorpe, 1983). An understanding of the transferability of tactical problems across game classifications will raise students’ awareness of common tactical problems/solutions and help to overcome beliefs that they can only teach certain sports (e.g. can teach football but cannot teach hockey). Similarly when introducing students to sports they may be unfamiliar with, e.g. describing tchoukball as an invasion game, provides a shared fundamental understanding of its underlying strategy.
3) Module Assignments: In summative assessments and assignments, capable students can perform poorly when they fail to understand the requirements that will be awarded marks. Examples of past students’ work and a clear assessment rubric can support student performance in graded tasks.
(a) Understanding the Assignment: Allocate more time with students for an in-depth discussion of the assignment rubric to emphasise key aspects relating to the application of models and sociological/psychological theories in their work including how marks are awarded.
(b) Past Examples as a Resource: Examples of past students’ work can illustrate a range of possible ways to complete an assignment, which can make the requirements clearer for students. As there were no past examples of the assignments devised for the new course the tasks were described in purely theoretical terms during the assignment briefing sessions. I feel this may have led to some of the misunderstandings within the assignment and limited engagement with model-based pedagogies and sociological/psychological approaches. To better support understanding with future cohorts, I think it is important to make a video or slides that students can refer back to and give examples of how a resource could be applied through the lens of each pedagogical/curriculum model. For example, how a set of football game cards could be applied with a particular GBA such as Tactical Games Model, TGfU, Play with Purpose etc. or other models such as Sport Education, Cooperative Learning etc as appropriate for the module.
4) Cross-Institutional Support for GBAs: The level of support from school mentors whilst pre-service teachers are on placement can be a key barrier to implementing innovative pedagogies and result in the student teacher capitulating to the mentor’s teaching style (Gambles, 2024; Harvey, Cushion and Sammon, 2015; Wright, McNeill and Butler, 2004). Therefore, in Higher Education we need to find ways to bridge the gap between university and school-based learning to ensure that there is no erasure of GBAs in students’ teaching practice/during their practicum. To achieve this we could teach and provide support for school mentors to implement GBAs within their own practice, which in turn would encourage our own pre-service teachers to apply them during their placements.
I have provided a number of strategies for supporting my students’ learning of GBAs which I plan to implement with the upcoming cohorts and then to evaluate their effectiveness. If you have any of your own strategies to support pre-service teachers’ understanding and application of GBAs/model-based pedagogies, I would welcome hearing them. Please feel free to contact me directly or add below to share with our community.
Based upon these observations, I have suggested a number of possible strategies I feel may help to embed GBA knowledge and understanding with students during their time at university.
1) Exploit all opportunities: To weaken the students’ childhood experiences of traditional ‘skills and drills’, and instill GBAs requires the integration of innovative approaches into all aspects of the course. Rather than pedagogical models being presented solely in a discrete module, it should be a topic that is also repeatedly introduced into other areas of the theoretical and practical course.
(a) Cross-modular reinforcement of GBAs: Include GBAs into other more generic modules, such as when teaching students how to develop a unit of work. Another example is linking EDI topics in your lessons to how your students might teach these ideas with their own pupils through the application of appropriate GBAs (Haneishi et al., 2023). Students may be encouraged to use ‘inventing games’ with their own pupils to proactively address undesirable behaviours (e.g. bullying, antisocial behaviour) in schools. In this example, pupils would invent their own game which incorporates a basis of fair play and consistency, to promote discussion of social justice and democracy whilst also gaining a better understanding of games (Butler, 2016).
(b) Assessments: Learning may be further embedded by encouraging students to incorporate a GBA focus into other assignments that are not specifically aimed at teaching GBAs, for example, to conduct a research study on model-based pedagogies/GBAs for their dissertation.
(c) Regular Recaps: To provide a recap after extended periods or breaks without GBA learning opportunities. Although models and GBAs are covered extensively in a Year 2 module, I begin Year 3 with a recap of theory and practical lessons.
(d) Practical Sessions: Reinforce theoretical content in practical sessions to reduce the disconnect between theory and its practical implementation.
2) Putting it into Practice: Consistently begin practical sessions with references to GBAs and exploit opportunities to reinforce them by explicitly linking them to relevant aspects of the sessions.
(a) Move from Theoretical to Practical: Reinforce theoretical learning, such as key vocabulary, by modelling its usage within practical sessions which will encourage students to become familiar with the language and to identify these aspects of GBAs. Our course is structured with a theoretical lecture in the morning followed by a practical session in the afternoon, thus aspects covered in the morning can be emphasised in the afternoon to strengthen students’ knowledge and bridge the gap between theory and practice.
(b) Progressions and Pedagogical Principles: Teach the students the most simplistic game forms with examples of how the pedagogical principles (Thorpe and Bunker, 1989; Thorpe, Bunker and Almond, 1986) can be applied. Encourage the students to develop their own ideas as they begin to understand and master this process, then follow this with demonstrations of the progressions that they could use and how they could be applied to different sports within each game classification (Almond, 1986b; O’Connor, Alfrey and Penney, 2024). This approach will help them to understand how to build upon previous learning and to dispel the notion of playing full version games with beginners, a key barrier to GBAs (Thorpe, 1983). An understanding of the transferability of tactical problems across game classifications will raise students’ awareness of common tactical problems/solutions and help to overcome beliefs that they can only teach certain sports (e.g. can teach football but cannot teach hockey). Similarly when introducing students to sports they may be unfamiliar with, e.g. describing tchoukball as an invasion game, provides a shared fundamental understanding of its underlying strategy.
3) Module Assignments: In summative assessments and assignments, capable students can perform poorly when they fail to understand the requirements that will be awarded marks. Examples of past students’ work and a clear assessment rubric can support student performance in graded tasks.
(a) Understanding the Assignment: Allocate more time with students for an in-depth discussion of the assignment rubric to emphasise key aspects relating to the application of models and sociological/psychological theories in their work including how marks are awarded.
(b) Past Examples as a Resource: Examples of past students’ work can illustrate a range of possible ways to complete an assignment, which can make the requirements clearer for students. As there were no past examples of the assignments devised for the new course the tasks were described in purely theoretical terms during the assignment briefing sessions. I feel this may have led to some of the misunderstandings within the assignment and limited engagement with model-based pedagogies and sociological/psychological approaches. To better support understanding with future cohorts, I think it is important to make a video or slides that students can refer back to and give examples of how a resource could be applied through the lens of each pedagogical/curriculum model. For example, how a set of football game cards could be applied with a particular GBA such as Tactical Games Model, TGfU, Play with Purpose etc. or other models such as Sport Education, Cooperative Learning etc as appropriate for the module.
4) Cross-Institutional Support for GBAs: The level of support from school mentors whilst pre-service teachers are on placement can be a key barrier to implementing innovative pedagogies and result in the student teacher capitulating to the mentor’s teaching style (Gambles, 2024; Harvey, Cushion and Sammon, 2015; Wright, McNeill and Butler, 2004). Therefore, in Higher Education we need to find ways to bridge the gap between university and school-based learning to ensure that there is no erasure of GBAs in students’ teaching practice/during their practicum. To achieve this we could teach and provide support for school mentors to implement GBAs within their own practice, which in turn would encourage our own pre-service teachers to apply them during their placements.
I have provided a number of strategies for supporting my students’ learning of GBAs which I plan to implement with the upcoming cohorts and then to evaluate their effectiveness. If you have any of your own strategies to support pre-service teachers’ understanding and application of GBAs/model-based pedagogies, I would welcome hearing them. Please feel free to contact me directly or add below to share with our community.
References
Almond, L. (1986a) Asking teachers to research. In Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. and Almond, L. (eds.) Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology, pp. 35-44.
Almond, L. (1986b) Reflecting on themes: A games classification. In Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. and Almond, L. (eds.) Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology, pp. 71-72.
Bunker, D. and Thorpe, R. (1982) A Model for the Teaching of Games in Secondary Schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), pp.5-8.
Capel, S. (2007) Moving beyond physical education subject knowledge to develop knowledgeable teachers of the subject. Curriculum Journal, 18(4), pp. 493-507.
Díaz-Cueto, M., Hernández-Álvarez, J.L. and Castejón, F.J. (2010) Teaching games for understanding to in-service physical education teachers: Rewards and barriers regarding the changing model of teaching sport. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(4), pp. 378–398.
Gambles, E-A. (2024) Teaching Games for Understanding: Teachers’ Socialisation, Perceptions and Interpretations. Doctoral thesis, The University of Sunderland.
Gambles, E-A.F. and Gutierrez, D. (2023) An International Consensus on Terminology: Game-Based vs Game-Centred. Physical Education Matters, 18(2), pp.59-61.
Gil-Arias, A., Harvey, S., García-Herreros, F., González-Víllora, S., Práxedes, A. and Moreno, A., (2021) Effect of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit on elementary students’ self-determined motivation in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 27(2), pp.366-383.
Haneishi, K., Tse Sheng, T., Nkala, B. and Boyd, K. (2023) Promoting Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (JEDI) through Game-Based Approach (GBA) in Physical Education. In S. Pill, E-A. F. Gambles and L.L. Griffin (eds.) Teaching Games and Sport for Understanding (pp. 175-185). Routledge.
Harvey, S. and Pill, S. (2016) Comparisons of Academic Researchers’ and Physical Education Teachers’ Perspectives on the Utilization of the Tactical Games Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35, pp. 313-323.
Harvey, S., Cushion, C. and Sammon, P. (2015) Dilemmas faced by pre-service teachers when learning about and implementing a game-centred approach. European Physical Education Review, 21(2), pp. 238-256.
Kirk, D. (2011) The crisis of content knowledge. How PETE maintains the id2 of physical education-assport-techniques (part 3). Physical Education Matters, 6(2), pp. 34-36.
Kirk, D. and Macdonald, D. (1998) Situated learning in Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, pp. 376-387.
Kirk, D. and MacPhail, A. (2002) Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(2), pp. 177-192.
Lawson, H.A. (1983) Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: the subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education (part 1). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(3), pp. 3-16.
Light, R. (2013) Games Sense: Pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Lortie, D.C. (1975) School teacher: a sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, M.C., Fry, J.M., Wright, S.C., Tan, W.K.C., Tan, K.S.S and Schempp, P.G. (2004) ‘In the local context’: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport, Education and Society, 9(1), pp. 3-32.
Memmert, D., Almond, L., Bunker, D., Butler, J., Fasold, F., Griffin, L., Hillmann, W., Hüttermann, S., Klein-Soetebier, T., König, S., Nopp, S., Rathschlag, M., Schul, K., Schwab, S., Thorpe, R. and Furley, P. (2015) Top 10 Research Questions Related to Teaching Games for Understanding. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86(4), pp. 347-359.
Metzler, M. (2011) Instructional Models for Physical Education 3rd edition. Scottsdale, AZ: Holocomb Hathaway.
O’Connor, J., Alfrey, L., & Penney, D. (2024) Rethinking the classification of games and sports in physical education: a response to changes in sport and participation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 29(3), 315–328.
Ovens, A., Gutierrez, D. and Butler, J. (2021) Teaching Games for Understanding: From conception to Special Interest Group. In Mitchell, S. and Griffin, L. (eds) Lifetime Contributions in Physical Education: Celebrating the lives & work of Len Almond (1938-2017) & Joy Butler (1957-2019). Radstock: Scholary, pp. 104-119.
Pill, S. (2011) Teacher engagement with games for understanding – Game sense in physical education. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 11(2), pp. 115–123.
Stran, M., Sinelnikov, O. and Woodruff, E. (2012) Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum: Sport education and teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review, 18(3), pp. 287–308.
Teaching Games for Understanding Special Interest Group (TGfU SIG) (2021). Game-Based Consensus Statement. http://www.tgfu.info/game-based-consensus-statement.html
Thorpe, R. (1983) An ‘understanding approach’ to the teaching of tennis. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), pp. 12-19.
Thorpe, R. and Bunker, D. (1983) Issues that arise when preparing to ‘teach for understanding’. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), pp. 9-11.
Thorpe, R. and Bunker, D. (1989) A changing focus in games teaching. In Almond, L. (ed.) The place of physical education in schools. London: Kogan Page, pp. 52-79.
Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. and Almond, L (1986). A change in focus for the teaching of games. In M. Piéron and G. Graham (Eds.) Sport pedagogy: The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings (Vol. 6). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 163-169.
Wang, C.L. and Ha, A. (2009) Pre-service teachers’ perception of Teaching Games for Understanding: A Hong Kong perspective. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), pp. 407–429.
Wright, S., McNeill, M. and Butler, J.I. (2004) The role that socialization can play in promoting teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(3), pp. 4652.
Almond, L. (1986a) Asking teachers to research. In Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. and Almond, L. (eds.) Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology, pp. 35-44.
Almond, L. (1986b) Reflecting on themes: A games classification. In Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. and Almond, L. (eds.) Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology, pp. 71-72.
Bunker, D. and Thorpe, R. (1982) A Model for the Teaching of Games in Secondary Schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), pp.5-8.
Capel, S. (2007) Moving beyond physical education subject knowledge to develop knowledgeable teachers of the subject. Curriculum Journal, 18(4), pp. 493-507.
Díaz-Cueto, M., Hernández-Álvarez, J.L. and Castejón, F.J. (2010) Teaching games for understanding to in-service physical education teachers: Rewards and barriers regarding the changing model of teaching sport. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(4), pp. 378–398.
Gambles, E-A. (2024) Teaching Games for Understanding: Teachers’ Socialisation, Perceptions and Interpretations. Doctoral thesis, The University of Sunderland.
Gambles, E-A.F. and Gutierrez, D. (2023) An International Consensus on Terminology: Game-Based vs Game-Centred. Physical Education Matters, 18(2), pp.59-61.
Gil-Arias, A., Harvey, S., García-Herreros, F., González-Víllora, S., Práxedes, A. and Moreno, A., (2021) Effect of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit on elementary students’ self-determined motivation in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 27(2), pp.366-383.
Haneishi, K., Tse Sheng, T., Nkala, B. and Boyd, K. (2023) Promoting Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (JEDI) through Game-Based Approach (GBA) in Physical Education. In S. Pill, E-A. F. Gambles and L.L. Griffin (eds.) Teaching Games and Sport for Understanding (pp. 175-185). Routledge.
Harvey, S. and Pill, S. (2016) Comparisons of Academic Researchers’ and Physical Education Teachers’ Perspectives on the Utilization of the Tactical Games Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35, pp. 313-323.
Harvey, S., Cushion, C. and Sammon, P. (2015) Dilemmas faced by pre-service teachers when learning about and implementing a game-centred approach. European Physical Education Review, 21(2), pp. 238-256.
Kirk, D. (2011) The crisis of content knowledge. How PETE maintains the id2 of physical education-assport-techniques (part 3). Physical Education Matters, 6(2), pp. 34-36.
Kirk, D. and Macdonald, D. (1998) Situated learning in Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, pp. 376-387.
Kirk, D. and MacPhail, A. (2002) Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(2), pp. 177-192.
Lawson, H.A. (1983) Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: the subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education (part 1). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(3), pp. 3-16.
Light, R. (2013) Games Sense: Pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Lortie, D.C. (1975) School teacher: a sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McNeill, M.C., Fry, J.M., Wright, S.C., Tan, W.K.C., Tan, K.S.S and Schempp, P.G. (2004) ‘In the local context’: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport, Education and Society, 9(1), pp. 3-32.
Memmert, D., Almond, L., Bunker, D., Butler, J., Fasold, F., Griffin, L., Hillmann, W., Hüttermann, S., Klein-Soetebier, T., König, S., Nopp, S., Rathschlag, M., Schul, K., Schwab, S., Thorpe, R. and Furley, P. (2015) Top 10 Research Questions Related to Teaching Games for Understanding. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86(4), pp. 347-359.
Metzler, M. (2011) Instructional Models for Physical Education 3rd edition. Scottsdale, AZ: Holocomb Hathaway.
O’Connor, J., Alfrey, L., & Penney, D. (2024) Rethinking the classification of games and sports in physical education: a response to changes in sport and participation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 29(3), 315–328.
Ovens, A., Gutierrez, D. and Butler, J. (2021) Teaching Games for Understanding: From conception to Special Interest Group. In Mitchell, S. and Griffin, L. (eds) Lifetime Contributions in Physical Education: Celebrating the lives & work of Len Almond (1938-2017) & Joy Butler (1957-2019). Radstock: Scholary, pp. 104-119.
Pill, S. (2011) Teacher engagement with games for understanding – Game sense in physical education. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 11(2), pp. 115–123.
Stran, M., Sinelnikov, O. and Woodruff, E. (2012) Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum: Sport education and teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review, 18(3), pp. 287–308.
Teaching Games for Understanding Special Interest Group (TGfU SIG) (2021). Game-Based Consensus Statement. http://www.tgfu.info/game-based-consensus-statement.html
Thorpe, R. (1983) An ‘understanding approach’ to the teaching of tennis. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), pp. 12-19.
Thorpe, R. and Bunker, D. (1983) Issues that arise when preparing to ‘teach for understanding’. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), pp. 9-11.
Thorpe, R. and Bunker, D. (1989) A changing focus in games teaching. In Almond, L. (ed.) The place of physical education in schools. London: Kogan Page, pp. 52-79.
Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. and Almond, L (1986). A change in focus for the teaching of games. In M. Piéron and G. Graham (Eds.) Sport pedagogy: The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings (Vol. 6). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 163-169.
Wang, C.L. and Ha, A. (2009) Pre-service teachers’ perception of Teaching Games for Understanding: A Hong Kong perspective. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), pp. 407–429.
Wright, S., McNeill, M. and Butler, J.I. (2004) The role that socialization can play in promoting teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(3), pp. 4652.
