TGfU

PTPE501 - Primary games

2006384

Most effective method for teaching basic movement skills and concepts

Children are provided with lots of feedback & corrections

Detailed and repeated instructions, explanations and modelling

Learning broken down into smaller steps

"Teacher as instructional leader"(Metlzer and Colquitt, 2021)

1) Review of previously learned material2) Presentation of new content/skills 3) Initial student practice 4) Feedback and correctives 5) Independent practice 6) Periodic reviews

Instructional models in physical education

Direct Instruction

CONS

vs

PROS

Doesn't develop higher order thinking skills (tactical awareness)

Restricted learning for high ability pupils (Hellison and Templin, 1991, pp42).

Demonstrations and modelling need to be of high quality

Maximises practice opportunities

Lots of opportunities to give and receive feedback

Promoting student on-task behaviour through expert instruction (Guzmán and Payá, 2020)

Instructional models for physical education

Sports Education

"Sport Education is an approach developed by Daryl Siedentop (2002) and was designed to provide an authentic, educationally rich, sport experience for girls and boys in the context of school physical education." Player Official Media crew - photos and performance analysis Coach Team captain/manager Equipment manager Fair play/welfare

CONS

vs

PROS

Lack of commitment to roles to some students may have a detrimental effect

Social interactions can be affected by social status within the class

Time Consuming

Everyone participates both as a player and an assigned role (inclusivity)

(Metzler and Colquitt, 2021)

(Harvey et al., 2020)

Promotes positive conduct and cooperative learning

Students are given an active not passive role, often making decisions adults might usually be making

Competition is used in an educational way

- PLAY PRACTICE

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) is the development of tactical awareness and decision making within the framework of modified games and the teaching of skills where appropriate and always at the individual's level" (Allison and Thorpe, 1997)

- TACTICAL GAMES

- GAME SENSE

what is teaching games for understanding?

Teaching games for understanding (Tgfu)

other variations...

Bunker & thorpe, 1982

TGfU model

Rationale for chosen approach

Age/StageMotivation Activity Levels "Play competitive games, modified where appropriate [for example, badminton, basketball, cricket, football, hockey, netball, rounders and tennis], and apply basic principles suitable for attacking and defending" (Department for Education, 2013)

Specific to characteristics/needs of the group

ability to provide tactical feedback

excellent questioning skills

PRerequisites of the teacher needed to be successful

secure subject knowledge

to understand how i can support my teammates off-the-ball to maintain possession

to be able to support teammates with off-the-ball movement

Learning intention 1: Learning Intention 2:

movement off the ball space/spatial awareness

How do we keep possession?Why do we move into a space to receive a pass?

Teams must now make their way from one side of the area to the other, still avoding the team as they move through.

teaching points

- Increase/decrease number of groups working in one area

- Lay out some flat spots to mark areas that the players must avoid

- Every player must touch the ball

- Make area smaller/larger

Progression

possession box - groups of 4

Activity 1

- Different size ball

How can I support my teammate off the ball?How does my distance of support help/hinder my teammate? How can I create a good passing angle for my teammate?

Introduce a scoring system - every time the team in possession make 5 passes, they score a point; every time the defender wins the ball, they score a point. Defender stays in for 60-90 secs and then switches with another player.How many passes can the team in possession make?

ANGLE OF SUPPORT DISTANCE OF SUPPORT

progression

- Add in another defender

- Maximum of 3 touches before passing the ball- Introduce the scoring system

- Make the area larger/smaller

TEACHiNG POINTS

3V1 POSSESSION DRILL

Activity 2

As well as movement off the ball, how can I support my teammates?

progression

For every 5 passes made, another defender can go and help. The team in possession will now have more defenders in a small space, making it more difficult to maintain possession. What is the maximum amount of passes they can make as a team? This will test their decision making, tactical awareness and teamwork.

Communication body positioning

- More than 1 defender at a time

- Different size ball

- Players cannot pass back to the person they just received from

- Make the area larger/smaller

TEACHING POINTS

4V1 POSSESSION DRILL - TRANSITION

Activity 3

- Have one team overloaded so they have to work harder to support their peers

- Different size ball- Different size goals

- Must make a certain number of passes before they can shoot

- Make the area larger/smaller

Small-sided game - 5 v 5

Activity 4

CONS

vs

PROS

Heavily relies on teacher confidence and subject knowledge

Age and ability restricted

Time consuming

Increased Physical Activity Levels (Lonsdale et al., 2009: Haerens et al., 2010)

Increased intrinsic motivation(Smith et al., 2014)

"TGfU develops physically literate and competitive individuals."(Oliver and Meléndez, 2017)

THANK YOU!

Department for Education (2013). Physical Education Programmes of study: Key Stages 1 and 2. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239040/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Physical_education.pdf. Griffin, L.L. and Butler, J. (2005). Teaching Games for Understanding : theory, research, and Practice. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics. Guzmán, J.F. and Payá, E. (2020). Direct Instruction vs. Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: Effects on Student Learning, Behaviors, and Subjective Experience. Sustainability, 12(12), p.4893. Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Motivational profiles for secondary school physical education and its relationship to the adoption of a physically active lifestyle among university students. European Physical Education Review, [online] 16(2), pp.117–139. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1356336X10381304. Harvey, S., Gil-Arias, A. and Claver, F. (2020). Effects of Teaching Games for Understanding on Tactical Knowledge Development in Middle School Physical Education. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2020(03). Harvey, S. and Jarrett, K. (2014). A Review of the game-centred Approaches to Teaching and Coaching Literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), pp.278–300.

Reference List

Harvey, S., Pill, S. and Almond, L. (2017). Old Wine in New bottles: a Response to Claims That Teaching Games for Understanding Was Not Developed as a Theoretically Based Pedagogical Framework. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(2), pp.166–180. Harvey, S., Pill, S., Hastie, P. and Wallhead, T. (2020). Physical Education Teachers’ Perceptions of the successes, constraints, and Possibilities Associated with Implementing the Sport Education Model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25(5), pp.555–566. Hellison, D.R. and Templin, T.J. (1991). A Reflective Approach to Teaching Physical Education. Champaign, Ill., Human Kinetics. Kinnerk, P., Harvey, S., MacDonncha, C. and Lyons, M. (2018). A Review of the Game-Based Approaches to Coaching Literature in Competitive Team Sport Settings. Quest, 70(4), pp.401–418. Lonsdale, C., Sabiston, C.M., Raedeke, T.D., Ha, A.S.C. and Sum, R.K.W. (2009). Self-determined motivation and students’ physical activity during structured physical education lessons and free choice periods. Preventive Medicine, [online] 48(1), pp.69–73. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743508005094 [Accessed 26 May 2020]. Metzler, M. and Colquitt, G.T. (2021). Instructional Models in Physical Education. S.L.: Routledge. Oliver, L.E. and Meléndez, A. (2017). Navigating the Benefits and Challenges of the Teaching Games for Understanding Model. Physical Education Matters, 17(3).

Reference List

Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport Education: a Retrospective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(4), pp.409–418. Smith, L., Harvey, S., Savory, L., Fairclough, S., Kozub, S. and Kerr, C. (2014). Physical Activity Levels and Motivational Responses of Boys and Girls. European Physical Education Review, 21(1), pp.93–113. Stolz, S. and Pill, S. (2013). Teaching Games and Sport for Understanding. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), pp.36–71. Turner, A.P. and Martinek, T.J. (1999). An Investigation into Teaching Games for Understanding: Effects on Skill, Knowledge, and Game Play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3), pp.286–296. Webb, P., Pearson, P. and Forrest, G. (2006). Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) in Primary and Secondary Physical Education. [online] Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/74 [Accessed 25 Mar. 2022].

Reference List