Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2010, 29, 378-398
© 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Teaching Games for Understanding
to In-Service Physical Education Teachers:
Rewards and Barriers Regarding
the Changing Model of Teaching Sport
Mario Díaz-Cueto, Juan Luis Hernández-Álvarez,
and Francisco Javier Castejón
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of in-service Physical
Education (PE) teachers when using Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)
in teaching sports. Data were gathered from interviews, work group meetings,
and participants’ diaries. The results show the difficulties PE teachers had in the
planning and implementation of TGfU. In the initial stage of implementing TGfU,
teachers reported feelings of insecurity to the point of doubting their own pedagogical expertise and knowledge. They also reported anxiety and exhaustion. Once they
surpassed the first stage, teachers’ feelings of satisfaction increased in parallel with
students’ improvement, in particular because students with the lowest skill level had
made significant progress in decision-making, overall compression of the game,
and tactical problem solving. This study identified some major challenges facing
PE teachers wishing to implement TGfU, and thus allows for the development of
support strategies to promote teachers’ pedagogical self-assessment.
Keywords: TGfU, teacher change, teacher development, constructivist approaches.
In the last few decades, the literature has begun to reflect deficiencies in the
traditional skill-based approach to teaching games and sports (e.g., Bunker &
Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986). Authors claim that the traditional approach, based on games broken down into various skills, isolated skill
practice, and learning not placed in the realistic context of the game, does not
consistently yield the desired results. Indeed, different authors have identified
several limitations: lack of progress in technical skills of students with lower
physical skills (Devís, 1996; Thorpe, 1992), boredom and low motivation of pupils
(Allison, 1996; Ennis, 1999), marginalization and alienation of low-skilled girls
and boys (Ennis, 1999), and the weakness of the traditional approach to promote
global understanding of the game (e.g., Allison, 1996; Devís, 1996; Ennis, 1999;
The authors are with the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid—Physical Education, Sport and Human
Kinetics, Madrid, Spain.
378
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 379
Thorpe, 1992). In addition, as Allison & Thorpe (1997, p.12) argued, the “skillsbased approach serves only to highlight, confirm and reinforce the pupils’ lack
of physical ability”.
As a result, an orientation with a constructivist approach to learning in sports,
known as the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model, has been developed (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Griffin & Butler, 2005; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002;
Light & Fawns, 2003; Rovegno, Nevett, Brock, & Babiarz, 2001; Werner, Thorpe,
& Bunker, 1996). Rather than teaching skills in isolation, disconnected from learners’ understanding of games, as a course of action characteristic of the traditional
skill-based perspective, the TGfU model promotes decision-making and tactical
exploration which is combined with skills development within a realistic context
and/or within modified games aimed at increasing engagement and cognitive
learning. Consequently, as indicated by several authors (e.g., Kirk & MacPhail,
2002; Light & Fawns, 2003), TGfU can be described as an approach consistent
with constructivist principles and analyzed in terms of situated learning theory
(Rovegno & Dolly, 2006). The TGfU model tries to situate the student in a sport
setting where the tactics, principles of the game, and decision-making and problemsolving situations are relevant.
In the last decade, the TGfU model has elicited a significant number of
theoretical and practical proposals for teaching and curricular development in
games and sports (e.g., Azzarito & Ennis, 2003; Griffin, Brooker, & Patton,
2005; Light, 2002b, 2003b; Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin, 2006; Nevett, Rovegno,
& Babiarz, 2001). However, in our view, there is a lack of balance between the
studies focused on students (learning processes) and the studies focused on
teachers (teaching processes) and their problems and barriers to implementing
the TGfU approach. In fact, as recognized by Oslin & Mitchell (2006, p. 635),
“much of the early research on games-centered approaches has involved comparative analyses of technical and tactical approaches to games education” focused
on students’ outcomes.
Several studies, focused on students’ learning and conducted at primary and
early secondary levels, have contrasted the traditional skills-based approach with
a tactical model. Many of these studies have reported no significant differences
in skill performance (Oslin & Mitchell, 2006). However, in contrast to the skillbased approach, several authors have reported how the TGfU perspective resulted
in significantly higher and more positive outcomes in tactical decision making
and learning tactics (e.g., Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Nevett et al., 2001; Rovegno et
al., 2001; Tallir, Lenoir, Valcke, & Musch, 2007; Tallir, Musch, Valcke, & Lenoir,
2005; Turner, Allison, & Pissanos, 2001; Wright, McNeill, Fry, & Wang, 2005).
They have also reported good outcomes in affective variables such as motivation,
engagement, and enjoyment of physical education lessons (e.g., Allison & Thorpe,
1997; Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997; McKeen, Webb, & Pearson, 2008; Tallir et
al., 2007). These findings contribute to the development of new research aimed at
understanding the barriers that teachers perceive in the implementation of TGfU
in the teaching of physical education (PE).
Most of the studies on TGfU have been undertaken with preservice teachers
(Almond, 1986; Butler, 1996, 2005; Forrest, Webb, & Pearson, 2008; Gubacs,
2004; Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Light, 2003a; Light & Butler, 2005; McMahon
& MacPhail, 2007; Nevett et al., 2001; Rovegno, Chen, & Todorovich, 2003;
380 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
Sweeney, Everitt, & Carifio, 2003; Tallir et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2005). What
many of these studies have in common is the development of teaching units of
games based on constructivist approaches (e.g., Allison and Thorpe, 1997; Gubacs,
2004; Light, 2003a; Sweeney et al., 2003). These studies on TGfU reveal, among
other things, that (a) this approach facilitates the implementation of constructivist
perspectives in PE and provides more equitable experiences of sport than traditional
approaches, (e.g., Ennis, 1999; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Light & Butler, 2005;
Light & Fawns, 2003; McKeen at al., 2006; Rovegno & Dolly, 2006); and (b) in the
first stage of teaching units there usually emerge feelings uncertainty and lack of
confidence among teachers (e.g., Butler, 1996; Griffin et al., 1997; Gubacs, 2004;
Gubacs-Collins, 2007). In addition, these studies show that, at first, the traditional,
skill-based, approach is easier to implement than TGfU (Georgakis, 2007; GubacsCollins, 2007; Light, 2002b). Moreover, the implementation of a constructivist
approach requires higher technical and tactical knowledge of games and sport,
but many teachers did not have it (Griffin et al., 1997; McNeill et al., 2008). Yet,
in a more advanced stage of TGfU, teachers’ feelings of lack of confidence give
way to feelings of satisfaction. In fact, these feelings of satisfaction increased in
parallel with the students’ improvement in decision-making, problem-solving,
motivation and affective relations (e.g., Allison and Thorpe, 1997; Brooker, Kirk,
Braikua, & Bransgrove, 2000; Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Light & Butler, 2005; Nevett
et al., 2001; Tallir et al., 2007).
One of the main characteristics of the constructivist approach is to engage
the students’ cognitive learning through questions and answer; but both teachers
and students require taking on new roles. This, in turn, requires conducting the
lesson at a slower pace. In the beginning stages, given that teachers tend to be
concerned with completing all the planned tasks, they usually report lacking time
for questions (e.g., Gréhaigne, Wallian, & Godbout, 2005; Griffin & Butler, 2005;
Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Light & Fawns, 2003). Still, the teachers report that the constructivist approach is quite enriching, especially for the students with lower ability
levels in sports. As such, the low-ability students improve in decisions concerning
the appropriate use of the skill within the context of the game situation, motivation,
and social relations with other students and with the teacher (e.g., Ennis, 1999;
Gubacs, 2004; Light, 2003b; Wright et al., 2005).
In view of this, it seems logical to assume that studies such as these not only
further the possibilities of implementing a constructivist approach to teaching
games, but also help identify mechanisms which facilitate or impede the of curriculum goals. The present study adds to this body of knowledge by providing a
research perspective on TGfU from the in-service teachers’ perspective.
Despite the studies and the work developed on the TGfU approach, in some
countries, “there is still a gap between research on teaching and learning games and
sport and TGfU practices and development” (Webb & Person, 2008, p. 7). This is
the case of Spain. In addition, there are still many difficulties encountered by PE
teachers in implementing proposals aimed at developing a constructivist approach
in learning games (Georgakis, 2007; Light, 2002b). The TGfU model could mitigate the teachers’ difficulties in implementing constructive learning (McKeen et
al., 2006), but TGfU requires considerable knowledge and understanding of tactical games, which many in-service teachers may not have (Griffin et al., 1997).
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 381
Consequently, for TGfU to be incorporated into mainstream practice, it needs to
be included both in teacher training institutions and in professional development
programs.
In the time elapsed since the pioneering work of Thorpe et al. (1986), TGfU has
gained popularity around the world. Nonetheless, the change process in teaching
needs further research, leadership within educational communities, and, especially,
the teachers’ commitment toward the methodological change (Hargreaves, 2003).
In a preliminary study (Díaz del Cueto & Castejón, in press), we have found that
the theoretical constructivist approaches to teaching sport was well accepted by
PE teachers. It can also be said that the teachers in the study showed a favorable attitude toward the methodological change as a necessary first step toward
real change. However, they encounter many difficulties in implementing these
approaches, showing that having a favorable attitude is not sufficient. As such,
specific knowledge about TGfU and leadership for change is also needed for success in the development of TGfU.
Among the barriers encountered, the PE teachers in the aforementioned pilot
study recognized the need and difficulty of designing new and more problem solving tasks, the fear of losing control of the group, and, especially, the lack of habit
for reflection during the class to help students to understand the game and develop
tactical awareness (McNeill et al., 2008). In the framework of a constructivist
approach, the objective is to encourage the link between thought and action, as
Light & Fawn (2003, p. 2) have indicated; “engagement in these activities involves
forms of cognition and perception that are inseparable from the body’s action”.
But, at the same time, the reflective interaction could be one of the greatest barriers perceived by teachers in service. The reflective interaction between teachers
and students by the use of open-ended questions is one of the key strategies of
constructivist approaches aimed at the active construction of knowledge, which
serves to assess students’ cognitive processes and game understanding (Contreras,
de la Torre, & Velázquez, 2001; Gréhaigne, Wallian, & Godbout, 2005; Griffin &
Butler, 2005; Light & Fawns, 2003; Thorpe et al., 1986).
Thus, the current study focused on in-service teachers’ perspectives on the
implementation of a TGfU approach in secondary physical education. Within the
framework of the constructivist perspectives (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Light &
Fawns, 2003; Rovegno & Dolly, 2006), the specific purposes of this study were:
(a) to identify teachers’ preconceived notions regarding TGfU; (b) to identify
teachers’ difficulties (barriers) and satisfaction with the implementation TGfU
approach in the PE class; and (c) to explore the use of questions as a key element
of students’ reflection and its effects on teachers.
Our design is a collaborative approach, in which researchers and PE teachers
have planned and put into practice two units of a syllabus for teaching invasion
sports from the TGfU model (basketball and team handball). The research team’s
own experience as well as other authors’ proposals (e.g., Contreras et al., 2001;
Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2006) were taken into consideration in the design
of these units. However, it is important to clarify that this article is not about the
results of the application of these teaching units on students’ learning, but rather
about the perceptions, the barriers, and the satisfactory or unsatisfactory experiences of the teachers.
382 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
Teaching Professional Development and TGfU
Our study focused on perceptions, concerns, hopes and fears of PE teachers when
trying to implement the TGfU model as a new approach to instruction. In this sense,
the study referred to the teachers’ development and teaching change. However, the
content of the teaching change was games and sport. For this reason, but brevity
required by the space of this manuscript, we need to make a reference to TGfU, its
principles and a basic model of classes of teaching in games. Our study, following
a model of professional development called Professional and Student Learning in
Context (Knapp, 2003), needs a mixed framework focusing both in development
in teaching and in learning change.
TGfU was proposed by Bunker and Thorpe (1982) as an alternative to traditional skill-based approaches to games teaching and learning. The original model of
TGfU has experienced some adaptations and modifications in the last years. In our
study, the model’s implementation by in-service teachers has followed the expanded
model described by Holt, Stream, and Garcia Bengoechea (2002). This adapted
model integrates the six-component-curriculum model (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982):
Game, Game-Appreciation, Tactical-Awareness, Decision-Making, Skill-Execution,
and Performance. It also incorporates four pedagogical principles (i.e., sampling,
modification-representation, modification-exaggeration, and tactical complexity)
to achieve a “more holistic view of the learner” (Holt et al., 2002, p. 164).
In our study, TGfU was implemented according to the Gubacs’ (2004) model.
Each lesson included four components of a cycle upon which the tactical lesson
was built: (a) the initial game; (b) a student-centered questions and answers (Q&A)
part guided by the teacher; (c) practice related to the contests of the Q&A part; and
(d) a closing game stressing the application of the skill in the game’s context (see
also, Gubacs-Collins, 2007).
Extensive research has been carried out on the TGfU model and its principles;
yet, this research has mainly focused on the learner. By contrast, with few exceptions, the experience of teachers regarding the implementation of such a model still
remains unstudied. Among these exceptions describing the implementation process
of TGfU with teachers, most of them not only focus on preservice teachers (see
Griffin & Butler, 2005; Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Light, 2002a; Light & Butler, 2005;
Mitchell et al., 2006), but also lack of an analysis of the change process which these
teachers undergo while attempting to implement the new model.
Change, on its part, has been thoroughly studied in teacher training (e.g.,
Conway & Clark, 2003; Fullan & Hargreaves, 2002; Hord, 1997, 2008; Knapp,
2003; Taylor, 1998). In general, these studies have explored the common advantages and disadvantages of different models of teacher development, as well as the
stages through which the change in education flows, pointing to individualism as
one of the biggest barriers to change and to improvement in schools. As Fullan &
Hargreaves point out (2002), the culture of schools and the culture of the teaching
favor individualism at the expense of teacher development and collaborative work.
Recognizing this reality, our framework is initially based on the need to support
the “lone ranger” (each teacher participant) looking for change in their teaching in isolation (Taylor, 1998). In a second step, extend the school-wide change
and, if possible, to neighboring schools, as a way for future development of the
professional learning community as a structure for teaching improvement (Hord,
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 383
2008). Adding to this, Knapp’s (2003) model for professional development (i.e.,
Professional and Student Learning in Context) describes a dynamic and reciprocal relationship between the two kinds of learner: the teacher-learner and the
student-learner. Moreover, Conway and Clark (2003) offer an adapted model from
Fuller’s teacher developmental stages (concerns about self, concerns about tasks,
and concerns about students) within which hopes or aspirations offer a balance or
counterpoint to concerns and fears.
Justification and Theoretical Structure of the Study
Despite the amount of aforementioned research on change, few studies have been
done regarding the process of change in PE, and, to our knowledge, no studies
have addressed the process of teacher change in relation to the implementation
of TGfU. Yet, as Conway and Clark point out (2003, p. 468), “attention to both
hopes and fears together… provides the opportunity to present a more balanced
and expansive view of prospective teachers’ actual experience and anticipations
about learning to teach than a concerns-only focus”. From this, it follows that the
concerns and satisfaction teachers experience while implementing TGfU ought to
be analyzed. Our study not only does precisely this, but it addresses also the need
for improving teaching and learning in a real context and a specific content (the
implementation of TGfU).
To carry out our study, and based on our own experience in teacher training,
we adapted the stages of change from several authors (Havelock, 1973; Hord, 2008;
Knapp, 2003; Taylor, 1998) in planning change in teaching and came up with an
adapted model consisting of six stages: diagnosing the need of change, acquiring
relevant resources for change, choosing and planning the solution, preliminary
intervention and concerns, gaining acceptance and satisfaction, and stabilizing the
innovation. As can be seen in the following paragraphs, these stages guided our
study. The first three stages are reflected in the preliminary work from the configuration of the working group, the first sessions, and the design of teaching units. The
remaining three stages are reflected in the development of the study and its results.
Method
Context and Participants
To form a group of participants, we contacted a considerable number of PE teachers, both by telephone and e-mail, to inform them of our intentions to undertake
the study and to ask for their participation. Seven teachers agreed to do so. Yet, due
to personal and work commitments, two teachers dropped out, leaving the final
number of participants to five (three men and two women). Once these teachers
had confirmed their participation, they were given, and signed, the corresponding
consent forms. We also requested the approval of their respective school principals
and the parents or guardians of these teachers’ students.
These teachers’ participation was sparked by their own need to change their
pedagogy, as they believed it would help them enhance their teaching skills. Furthermore, they thought that TGfU could provide them with a more educational
384 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
focus. The participating teachers taught at five separate high schools (two in the
inner-city and three in the suburbs) in the metropolitan area of Madrid. The study
lasted eight months.
In compliance with ethical principles of privacy, pseudonyms have been used
to protect the identities of the five teachers who participated in this study. Antonio
had the most experience (20 years) in teaching with a specialization in rugby. In
his previous career as a teacher, he perceived he had developed from using the
traditional approach to one that was closer to constructivism. At the time when he
joined the research group, he pointed out that he was concerned about what students
think. Marta, with 18 years of experience in teaching, had expertise in gymnastics.
She considered teaching the contents to be essential, although, in recent years, she
had begun to encourage self-direction in her students. Rosa had 12 years teaching
experience and had not specialized in any specific sport; she was greatly drawn to
the idea of developing students’ analytical thinking. Even though Sergio, with 11
years of teaching experience and with a specialization in athletics, had never taught
using the TGfU approach, he believed it would allow for a more educational means
of teaching sport. Lastly, there was Armando, the teacher with the least teaching
experience (five years) and whose expertise lay in soccer. He felt that the type of
cognitive learning promoted in TGfU made this approach essential in teaching PE.
Each teacher used the TGfU approach to teach two classes of 25–30 students
(ages 15–16) with similar ratios of female to male students. Each group had PE
lessons twice a week, with each session lasting about 50 min. The sports equipment and resources which each teacher had at his/her disposal were similar and
commonly found in secondary schools.
These teachers’ initial training had focused on the acquisition of technical
skills. Both, Armando and Antonio said they had been given information about
TGfU when they were getting their degree. The two teachers stated that they had
never used TGfU systematically in teaching sports in PE class. Instead, they had
focused on implementing a technical approach, incorporating games toward the
end of the lessons.
The Unit
In the initial lessons, we gave the teachers information about TGfU so they would
be fully acquainted with this model of teaching. At the same time, the teachers
were unanimous in their desire to have units of work exemplifying TGfU specifically applied to teach basketball and team handball as these were the sports which
would be taught.
To accede to their request and to further their exploration of the TGfU approach,
we designed, along with the five participants, a work unit with 14 basketball lessons
and 14 team handball lessons. The choice of these two sports was motivated by
the fact that they are commonly taught in most high schools. Each teacher selected
the units he/she would teach in accordance with his/her context and school sports
facilities.
The units of work were designed with three purposes: (a) developing the students’ dexterity and motor skills; (b) giving the students practice in decision-making,
plotting their own offensive and defensive tactics; and (c) having them learn to collaborate in groups. To achieve these purposes, each session was designed so that
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 385
the degree of challenge would progressively increase. Students were put in game
situations of 2 versus 1, 2 versus 2, 3 versus 3, etc., and ending with situations which
approximated a real game, 5 versus 5 in basketball and 7 versus 7 in team handball.
In addition to the lesson plans, as a further aid, we supplied the teachers with
questions that could be used in class along with possible responses the students
might offer. These questions provided the teachers with a basic reference, so they
could formulate questions as particular situations arose (e.g., What should I do to
assist the teammate who has the ball? Before passing the ball, what should one do?).
The request by the teachers to have the teaching units, which they had helped
design, raised some concern that they would then rigidly follow the lesson plans,
preventing them from taking their own initiative. For this reason, we held a session
with them in which we urged them to feel free to be responsive to what they observed
in the class and that they guide the students’ learning based on their observations.
Likewise, we informed them that, throughout the unit, they should center on the
aims of the lesson because other elements, such as tasks, organization, and questions,
were susceptible to change to adapt to varying situations and events in the class.
Data collection
Interviews, group meetings, diaries, observations, and the video recordings of the
classes were used. The collective use of these instruments allowed us to link the
information which was obtained throughout this process, contrasting and triangulating the information received from each teacher (Denzin, 1970; McKernan, 1996).
Individual Interviews. At the beginning and half-way through the investigation,
private, semistructured interviews were conducted with each teacher (Patton, 2002).
The purpose of these interviews was to gain an insight into the teachers’ understanding, beliefs, and background experience with regards to TGfU. In such interviews,
the teachers had an opportunity to express their own perceptions regarding their
own process of change regarding the TGfU implementation.
Work Group. The purpose of the work group was to verify the difficulties experienced by the teacher when putting TGfU into practice. Approximately every three
weeks (eight times in total), meetings with the teachers were held to reflect and
discuss, with at least one of the researchers, their new developments, concerns,
difficulties and satisfactions. The researcher’s role was to coordinate and moderate the debates while incorporating aspects regarding the purposes of the research,
classroom observations, and information stemming from the teachers’ diaries and
interviews which could be considered relevant to the investigation. Therefore, the
agenda set for the meetings, was flexible, incorporating into debate issues that
group members considered to be of interest and which could enrich the research.
The information obtained from these meetings, was compared with the diaries and
the individual interviews. On the occasions in which a teacher could not attend a
meeting, whether it was for personal or professional reasons, one of the investigators would reach the person either by phone or by e-mail.
The group meetings were audio taped and transcribed following each meeting
to facilitate the ongoing analysis of data. Emergent findings were used to guide
discussions at each subsequent meeting and, in the final meeting, the teachers were
asked to verify the researchers’ data analysis.
386 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
Diaries. Diaries were used to obtain information on each of the teacher’s per-
ceptions, concerns, doubts, and feelings of satisfaction while putting TGfU into
practice. Each teacher was asked to make an entry at the end of lesson and e-mail
it to the investigators.
Some general guidelines were set for the teachers to follow when making their
diary entries. These guidelines included their personal perceptions regarding their
concerns and satisfactions, observations regarding their students, and thoughts on
their own performance in the teaching process. This procedure allowed us to delve
into each teacher’s development and prepare for the next meeting and individual
interview.
Videotaped Classes. Half-way in the process of implementing TGfU, we videotaped two of each teacher’s classes (ten in total). The purpose for the videotaping was
to be able to witness each teacher’s performance while applying TGfU to contrast
it to the comments made by each teacher in the various instruments employed.
Thus, we could interpret each teacher’s perspectives in relation to their context as
he or she implemented TGfU. Nonetheless, the diaries, the group meetings and
individual interviews were the instruments most used to obtain information which
was subsequently categorized. The video tapes were used in the aforementioned
meetings to spark teacher reflection on particular aspects of the process of change
in TGfU implementation.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using inductive constant comparison and using individual and
cross-case analysis (Huberman & Miles, 1998; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Patton,
1990). The inductive analysis contributed to building the theoretical categories by
first looking for topics, regularities and themes which emerge from an initial reading
of the data and then coding the data into categories. To validate the report on each
teacher, we triangulated the information gathered from four different instruments
(i.e., the transcripts according to the referenced literature, the researchers’ own
experience in the implementation of TGfU, the initial interviews, and the diaries
and group meetings of teachers).
As data collection and analysis occurred, numerous categories emerged from
the teachers’ responses to their experience in the application of TGfU. Initially, the
first interview, the first group meeting, and the first entries in each diary allowed
the researchers to know the teachers’ preconceived notions regarding TGfU.
Then, we extracted some of their comments in the last meeting in which they
expressed their thoughts regarding the analysis and interpretations made:
I personally agree with regards to mine. I have read it and it’s alright with me.
It was good to go over each point in timeline fashion, chronologically, seeing
the development, how one changed (Armando: Working Group).
I have already said that I like it a lot. It seems to me that it is balanced with
what was said, reflecting it all rather well. (Antonio: Working Group)
I think so too. There is a lot of thought; the conclusions reached are based on
what we said. (Rosa: Working Group)
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 387
I think it’s good. I think it is interesting to see how we have evolved, things
we have in common and the differences. Basically, I believe that it is what was
happening to us. (Sergio: Working Group)
When I read it, I could see myself at the meeting, and then it was as if I could
hear your voices. (Marta: Working Group)
Moreover, throughout the following group meetings, the second interview and,
mainly, the diary entries (sent to the researchers weekly by e-mail) allowed us to
get a triangulated picture of the three main themes of this study: Namely, teachers’
(a) preconceived notions regarding TGfU, (b) difficulties (barriers) and satisfaction
with the implementation TGfU approach in the PE class, and (c) use of questions
as a key element of students’ reflection and its effects on teachers.
Once categories of analysis were drawn up, an analysis of the developmental
changes of the teachers’ thoughts served to establish the similarities and differences
marking the participants.
Results and Discussion
While the participants of this study displayed a range of characteristics, we were
able to make a global description of the general difficulties and perceptions of
the group. We organized the data into three major categories: (a) framework of
changes in teachers’ thoughts: teachers’ preconceived notions regarding TGfU;
(b) difficulties, uncertainties, and satisfaction experienced while implementing
TGfU; and (c) the use of questions as a key element of students’ reflections and
its effects on teachers.
Direct quotes taken from participants are included below, and the following
abbreviations are used to indicate the instrument from which they were gathered:
“Di” for Diary, “In” for Interview, and “WG” for Working Group.
Framework of Changes in Teachers’ Thoughts:
Teachers’ Preconceived Notions Regarding TGfU
The participating teachers had never used this comprehensive model (TGfU) to
instruct students in the invasion sports of basketball and team handball before this
study. However, in some cases, a few of them had experimented with this model.
I had used it on a few occasions. Not in its pure form but mixing it with bits
of guided discovery and direct instruction. I had never before planned the
questions for each task. (Marta: In)
The fact that TGfU had not been used did not mean that the participants were
satisfied with the traditional methodology. On the contrary, in general, there seemed
to be a lack of satisfaction with the technical focus, which was the decisive factor
in the teachers wanting to participate in this research.
My degree of satisfaction with the technical focus is low because most of the
students do not learn what the aims of the lessons are and those who do just
repeat what they already know. (Rosa: In)
388 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
Nonetheless, this dissatisfaction was not felt by all the teachers. From the
remarks made by Armando (the only one to have been given some information
about TGfU when he was getting his degree), a certain degree of satisfaction was
observed with the technical focus before the introduction of game situations.
I think that what I have been working on has had good results. As the students
have had a variety of experiences in game situations (modified in most cases,
but close enough to real games) having previously worked on developing a
technical base, so they had the necessary information to execute tactics they
had previously not been able to do. (Armando: In)
Any move made toward TGfU by these teachers before this investigation had
been the result of a generalized development of their perceptions of teaching and
learning. In this sense, it is important to point out that this evolution was a result
of the changes brought about by the educational reforms instituted in Spain in the
1990s, with the introduction and implementation of a constructivist approach in
education. The teachers agreed with the idea expressed by McKeen et al., (2006)
in the sense that the TGfU model could mitigate the teachers’ difficulties in implementing constructive learning.
This development and its corresponding approximation to comprehensive
teaching of sports can be seen in the following comment by one of the teachers:
In the teaching methods aspect, I have also changed, going from a behaviorist
approach to one that is more of constructivist in nature. Now I am more worried about how they feel and how the student thinks. (Antonio: In)
Many of the students who don’t like sports haven’t developed a positive view of
the game; my aim is for them to understand the basic principles. (Antonio: In)
In this context, the teachers who participated shared the belief that TGfU
constituted a new focus in teaching, which differs significantly from the traditional
approaches, and which implies a new conception of the role the student has to play
in his or her learning.
I think the TGfU model contrasts with other educational approaches . . . It does
so in the moment with the reflection the group on their practices performed . . .,
this approach moves away from other technical and individualistic approaches
to more participatory learning by the student. (Sergio: Di)
As with any change, difficulties in the implementation of TGfU could hinder
innovation. The teachers were aware of the difficulties:
It is so much easier to tell them to run, take the ball, and have them imitate
me; it is really so easy, let’s pass, let’s dribble, let’s throw. In other words,
imitate movement. I think it is easier to imitate a model and later correct that
imitation than to discuss alternatives. (Sergio: WG)
Indeed, it is easier to use the “prototypical training model consisting of first
providing explanation or demonstration, followed by skills practice and culminating
in game play” (Gubacs-Collins, 2007, p. 106). Notwithstanding, it is precisely the
comfort level that stems from this “prototypical training model” that represents a
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 389
barrier to change. Nonetheless, the teachers felt the need to change their approach
to teaching and tried to adopt one based on TGfU. As already indicated, they had
information on TGfU, but they did not perceive themselves as being able to implement this alternative approach on their own. In this sense, their desire for change
and their expressed need for help were the main reasons for their taking part in
this investigation. Another important reason for participation was the possibility
of increasing their capacity to provide “more equitable experiences of sport for all
involved than traditional approaches” (Light & Butler, 2005, p. 247) through TGfU.
I think I will learn more about how to apply this approach to teaching, get
resources and as a result, the students will come out winning. (Rosa: In)
I needed to improve the way I taught by using an approach I had never used
before so deliberately and systematically. (Sergio: In)
Although not appearing as preconceived notion in the preliminary interviews,
it became clear that these teachers experienced a deep sense of insecurity at the
beginning of the process of implementation of TGfU. This coinciding with the
findings of other studies on perceptions of teachers implementing a constructivist
approach (e.g., Butler, 1996; Griffin at al., 1997; Gubacs, 2004; Gubacs-Collins,
2007), uncertainty and a lack of confidence were commonly manifested perceptions among the participating teachers. They felt insecure when challenged with,
for example, what to do to bring about their students’ cognitive involvement. Being
unfamiliar with what could happen in the classroom also generated feelings of
insecurity and anxiety, as they questioned how the students would behave, and
how they would respond as teachers. These were feelings they did not have when
they used the traditional approach to teaching sports, which led them to admit to
the extent to which they were unacquainted with the constructivist TGfU approach.
I felt insecure implementing this approach; I had the feeling I did not know
much about it. (Sergio: In)
I wasn’t tense or insecure (about putting the traditional approach into practice)
and the feeling, of not being at eases asking the questions, is the result of being
tense with this approach. (Marta: In)
Despite these concerns, the participating teachers in this investigation agreed
on the need to use the guidelines set in TGfU to enhance the perceived educational
value of PE and to eradicate the deficiencies in the technical approach identified by
diverse writers (e.g., Contreras et al., 2001; Devís, 1996; Griffin & Butler, 2005;
Thorpe, 1992; Thorpe et al., 1986). This coincides with the sentiment of other
teachers in other countries (e.g., Light, 2002a). The following commentaries serve
as examples of the participants’ acceptance of the approach:
Yes, I think that an educational focus directs development of the contents (that
way we get the students to reason, activate the strong sense of “what to do”
that Arnold talks about in practical knowledge of sport games, no?). And I still
have had the feeling that I am not doing anything, which is why it’s useful,
since the students want attention and they’re not used to working without a
teacher or rather without a teacher’s direct control. (Rosa: Di)
390 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
More and more I am convinced of the fact that this is a useful approach for
education, not only for this type of sport activity, but for any kind of physical
activity, as the principle mistake teachers tend to make is to just settle for the
practical execution of the activity, without taking into account the importance
it has (and, above all, in this educational field in which we are) in the cognitive participation of the students as a starting point so that the lessons are an
educational process, not a training session. (Armando: Di)
This last comment also highlights the perception of a key factor of this teaching approach. As noted in other studies (e.g., Gréhaigne, Wallian, & Godbout,
2005; Griffin & Butler, 2005; Light & Fawns, 2003), the participants in this study
agreed that the central characteristic of this educational approach is to engage the
students’ cognitive involvement, but it is precisely this objective which they find
the most difficult to bring about. This objective not only requires the instructors to
take on a different role, but it also requires students to play an unaccustomed role,
particularly in PE, students are now called upon to make a considerable cognitive
effort in deciding what to do and how to do it.
What is complicated, difficult in this type of approach is being able to lead
to this discovery, these types of discovery and see which is their real level of
comprehension. (Antonio: WG)
Difficulties, Uncertainties and Satisfaction Experienced while
Implementing TGfU
As has already been indicated, the teachers asserted that, even though they had
read about this type of approach, they had no knowledge as to how to put it into
practice, and they had the perception that applying TGfU in the classroom would
be very difficult. In their opinion, it would have been helpful to have some type
of sample lesson plans within the curriculum, developed from the standpoint of
TGfU, which took into account the reality of physical education within the school.
The actual implementation of these units of work revealed some of the difficulties
the teachers faced.
The questions that were in the lessons? Yes, they helped me because if not it
would have been hard work because I would not have been able to come up
with those questions. (Rosa: En)
At the beginning of implementation, the teachers expressed feelings of concern
and anxiety. In the Working Group and the Diaries, there were constant references
to the lack of time due to changed dynamics of the lessons (organizational factors,
time dedicated to the tasks, frequency of student participation, etc.).
I needed more time for everything and I left the questions for the next class.
I had to go through everything quickly, and I think I did not achieve anything
other than to feel bad. (Marta: Di)
In addition to these worries, comments emerged referring to the information
(initial instruction and feedback) that the teachers gave to the students. In effect,
the teachers perceived they were giving too much instruction when they reflected
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 391
with students as a group as well as when they were instructing students on the aims
of the lesson. The teachers believed the learners were not able to assimilate all this
information because they were not accustomed to being cognitively challenged.
I made the mistake of giving them too much information before the start of an
activity, and I think they were left with unanswered questions. They could not
assimilate all that information given to them. Maybe the problem is that some
of the students had little cognitive involvement. (Armando: Di)
Further, teachers felt uneasy about the pauses (silences) signaled to involve
the students cognitively during tasks. In some cases, the teachers perceived that the
time they dedicated to giving instruction did not allow the students enough time to
contribute their own solutions.
I made the mistake of not giving them enough time so they could, in their
groups, come up with a strategy to deal with a new situation. (Armando: Di)
Another reason for their worry originated in their own sense of mastery of
the sport pertaining to each unit of work. In the traditional skills-based methods,
the instructor is the expert in the sport, and the students are novices. In a comprehensive system, the teacher moves away from the expert position. As teachers felt
inexperienced teaching sports with this approach, they began to question their base
knowledge of the sport itself. The change of routine in the traditional class caused
some of the teachers to feel a drain on their energy when implementing TGfU.
I worried about finding myself in situations which were too difficult for me to
handle. Situations like making a decision about tactics which I had no notion
about. (Marta: WG)
It is a sport I am not totally familiar with. I should be knowledgeable about the
technical and tactical aspects of team handball but I do not have the expertise,
and I do not have the necessary resources. What I mean is that I would have
more questions to ask if I knew the sport, I would know what is important.
(Sergio: In)
Nonetheless, as teachers became more familiar with this model, their initial
preoccupations lessened as they perceived their students’ learning was in keeping
with what they had anticipated. As with the Gubacs-Collins (2007) and Light and
Butler (2005) studies, our study also showed that the improvement in the students’
learning contributed to feelings of satisfaction among the teachers. This, in turn,
served to generate greater validation of TGfU:
I feel happy because I believe there is a development in their games; it is more
fluid and one can see there is a more developed sense of premeditation among
the offensive players without the ball, which is manifest in greater mobility.
(Antonio: Di)
Just as it occurred in other studies (e.g., Allison and Thorpe, 1997; Brooker et
al., 2000; Gubacs-Collins, 2007), in most cases, the doubts the teachers had been
expressing (in the diaries, interviews, and group meetings) were replaced by feelings of satisfaction as they progressed through the unit of work and when repeating
392 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
the same lesson with other groups of learners since they felt more confident. These
feelings of satisfaction were generally expressed as being comfortable in using this
new teaching approach, being motivated by seeing how their students were learning, and being able to have a concrete reference in the application of this approach
through the unit of work. Likewise, the new role they were taking on was another
source of satisfaction, although, with regards to this aspect, there are significant
differences among the participants.
. . . at some point in this approach, experience is needed to deal with formulating
the questions, as in the moment that we formulate a question, we stimulate and
guide student cognitive participation . . . so that everything can go smoothly.
It is indispensable and irreplaceable for the students’ cognitive participation.
When these conditions are met, the approach is good. (Armando: Di)
I have felt drained of energy; I deduce that this is possibly due to not being
used to working this way. (Rosa: Di)
As the teachers’ anxieties concerning their new role as educators receded,
new concerns about the students’ reactions to their so-called “new” classes and
their consequences became stronger. At this time, feelings of uncertainty among
the teachers were noted, as they wondered whether the change in teaching method
would be reflected in a change in the students’ behavior and also how they could
best deal with this possible change.
As the classes continued to evolve, the teachers noted differences in the
students’ cognitive involvement. They detected differences in the functioning of
the various groups of students, observing that those groups with a higher degree
of involvement were manifesting behaviors more in keeping with the established
objectives, and that the students themselves felt more attended to and appreciated.
The teachers’ feelings of satisfaction increased in parallel with the improvement
in the students’ learning outcomes and motivation. As reported in similar studies
(Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Light & Butler, 2005), elevated student interaction, motivation, and learning that emerged from TGfU became a source of satisfaction for
the teachers. The key here may have been in the increased cognitive involvement
of the students.
During the teaching process, teachers discovered that those students who
did not feel any degree of satisfaction with a traditional approach in PE education were precisely those same students who now felt most pleased, at the same
time demonstrating a greater improvement in learning. Specifically, the teachers
indicated that the girls (traditionally less motivated) were more involved in the
learning process with the TGfU model and attained a better understanding of
the game, becoming more involved with the tactical development, although they
continued to show a lack of technique. Further, the teachers noticed greater feelings of responsibility and more cognitive and motor involvement in almost all the
students. Special note was taken of this change in those students who previously
had demonstrated a lesser degree of knowledge of the sports used in this study
(basketball and team handball). A higher level of participation seemed to cause
an improvement in motivation, also noted by Light (2002a), and improved the
learning results of most of the students.
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 393
The Use of Questions as a Key Element of Students’
Cognitive Reflection and its Effects on Teachers
As indicated in the introduction, the use of questioning behavior in the learning
process is a key part of the TGfU model (Griffin & Butler, 2005; Gubacs-Collins,
2007). Knowing and doing constitute the factors which give meaning to the execution of a motor activity (Light & Fawns, 2003), and, consequently, the reflexive
processes (teacher–student, student–student, as well as the student with herself or
himself) should be promoted through the adequate use of questions to the students
in the learning process of sport.
In most cases, the teachers showed an appreciable degree of anxiety and
concern about the obligation to interact with students through questions about the
purpose of the task and while performing the task. The teachers felt uncomfortable
in this new role, as they were not accustomed to this type of didactic relationship.
I am not too happy because the students have reflected very little about the
tasks; they did not welcome the idea of reflecting and they hardly participated
in the 1 v. 1, 2 v. 1 tasks. (Rosa: Di)
The first impression I had was: “Do they think what I am asking them is rubbish?” (Marta: WG)
These comments reflect anxiety among the teachers, and they made two related
mistakes: They did not give students sufficient time to think of an answer, and they
supplied the answers because of a perceived lack of time. Furthermore, teachers
often observed that only a few students were responding, and they did not know
how to address the situation.
I have been tense, in a hurry. The first lessons were hard; getting organized
was difficult because of the rush I was in to discuss the objectives with them.
I felt uncomfortable about deciding when to ask the questions and not give
them the answers. (Sergio: In)
The class did not come out the way I wanted. Some students were “absent”
in their involvement in the session, they did not respond during reflection.
(Armando: Di)
Fortunately, as the unit progressed, the teachers began to feel more at ease and
self-confident in their interactions with the learners. As described in other studies
(e.g., Gubacs, 2004; Light, 2003b), in their diaries and/or interviews, teachers
referred to the fact that the TGfU approach significantly enriched the students
who, until then, had shown lower ability levels in the sports in which they were
working. For example, in response to the question, “How do students deal with
the questions?” Rosa said:
I think they are fine with this approach. There’s a bit of everything. There are
girls who, especially the girls, the ones who know less, benefit from it because
you give them clues, and it helps them to move around the court. Maybe they
don’t score, but they are active. You can see that they want to give it a try,
because before they didn’t even want to make the attempt, which that is what I
394 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
tell them, “we have to play as if we have every intention of doing something,”
and before they didn’t. Of course, how are they going to improve their technique? They just can’t improve in 10 lessons, but some things do improve,
such as they wanting to give it try; I really see they have improved. (Rosa: In)
The open task resulted in a greater degree of cognitive involvement by students.
The change from closed tasks in which students reproduce a model removed from
a real sport context (traditional approach) to open tasks, which require students to
make decisions about tactics, what to do, and when to do it, is challenging to both
teacher and students.
This tactical approach is suitable for learning with the tasks we have used, but
if everything is to go right, students’ cognitive participation is essential. When
the conditions are there, the approach is good, the activities are good and the
learning-teaching process is good, too. (Armando: Di)
Conclusion
The findings of this study confirm that a constructivist approach to teaching invasion
sports is considered by in-service teachers to be difficult for designing lessons and
complicated to put into practice. TGfU demands greater mastery of the relevant
sport disciplines than the traditional approach, contributing to feelings of anxiety
and insecurity in its application. While such concerns could give rise to the teacher
abandoning the approach, in this study, the teachers responded instead by increased
self-training and a search for alternatives ways to learn the knowledge required.
In this investigation, participating teachers were observed to have deep-rooted
characteristics of the older, more traditional approaches developed during their
socialization in sports, in their secondary schooling, and in their university training. Now, as in-service teachers, they have come to understand the weak aspects of
this approach, but the change, in spite of their positive attitude, produced anxiety,
insecurity, and doubts of their own knowledge of the discipline.
One of the fundamental barriers to switching to a constructivist approach to
teaching sports is the lack of complete understanding of the fundamentals of TGfU
and its use in the design of units of work. On the one hand, teachers requested
materials (units of work designed by researchers and teachers) which can guide their
teaching and increase his/her self-confidence. On the other hand, they felt insecure
due to their doubt if they could, in effect, achieve their aims and have the students
successfully complete the tasks, and, especially, guide students’ understanding by
asking questions in key moments.
It is precisely the use of questions to promote understanding and to create
meaningful learning which exerts the most pressure on teachers. In effect, as
noted in the results and discussion section, the use of questions to favor cognitive
involvement of the students and to affect the understanding of the various aspects
of the different sport disciplines constitutes, for the teachers, its greatest difficulty.
Among the most relevant doubts are those that refer to such aspects as when to
generate questions, which students they should ask, what students will think of this
approach and the questions, the suitability of the questions regarding the different
individuals, and, finally, the fatigue brought on by answering so many questions.
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 395
The possibility that experienced teachers could change their teaching routines
depends on various factors (Almond, 1986; Rovegno & Bandhauer, 1997), such as
the perception of a need to make such a change, the ability to make use of units of
work, and a desire to experiment and put new situations into practice. In this sense,
our research has served to identify those difficulties and concerns to which special
attention should be paid in training programs for in-service teachers.
We believe that collaborative investigation is a good way to improve teacher
training while reducing the negative impact which the change in teaching approach
produces, not only in teachers (anxiety, insecurity, excessive energy expended,
perception of lack of mastery in the field of knowledge, etc.) but also in students.
We suggest that teacher training must focus on developing a different type
of disciplinary knowledge from the one constructed in the traditional teaching
approach. Teachers need to learn to modify learning tasks, design learning situations that give students the choice of possible response options, and teach students
to justify the reason for their choices. It also appears that in-service PE teachers
need support from other teachers with expertise in TGfU and curricular materials
that illustrate new situations and problems they will have to solve during teaching.
They need to be retrained in teaching sports and to count on curricular material
thus involving them in problems or new situations they would have to solve with
its support. Teacher training programs must be prepared to teach teachers how
to cope with the changes among the students and the doubts that teachers face.
Without a doubt, this path requires the support of the teaching administration, as
not only do they have to allow the design and development of training processes
within the school, but also to provide appropriate financing and social and professional acknowledgment.
The process followed in this investigation has not been easy for the participating
teachers. In some initial moments, acknowledging their own limitations and facing
self-doubts regarding their mastery of the subject made this research difficult for
them. This was especially true for teachers who had higher initial doubts about the
approach and for those who were more specialized in individual sports and, thus,
whose level of knowledge of invasive sports was lower. Despite initial difficulties,
the positive perceptions at the end of the study generated optimism that the inertia
supporting traditional methods of teaching sport can be overcome.
We also think it is significant that the teachers felt satisfaction in teaching TGfU
because they perceived that it was especially beneficial for low-skilled students who
did not enjoy the traditional approach. In the teachers’ opinions, the low-skilled
students were more motivated and improved because they understood the game
tactics and thus knew what to do and where and when to move.
Furthermore, for those teachers who had put the constructivist approach in
place, a certain degree of professional autonomy has developed. A key question
to address now is how to continue this process, to allow educators to develop and
maintain this autonomy, and to reduce the potential of reversion to a traditional
approach when difficulties feel overwhelming.
Acknowledgment
Funds for this project were provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
(code SEJ2007-672687/EDU).
396 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
References
Allison, S.R. (1996). A Survey of Current Practice with Reference to the Teaching of Games
within Physical Education in Secondary Schools in Lincolnshire. Unpublished PhD.
paper. Loughborough University.
Allison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches
to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus a games for
understanding approach. The British Journal of Education, 28(3), 9–13.
Almond, L. (1986). Reflecting on themes: a games classification. In D. Thorpe, D. Bunker,
& L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 71–72). Leicestershire, UK:
Loughborough University.
Azzarito, L., & Ennis, C.D. (2003). A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist
physical education. Sport Education and Society, 8, 179–198.
Brooker, R., Kirk, D., Braikua, S., & Bransgrove, A. (2000). Implementing a game sense
approach to teaching junior high school basketball in a naturalistic setting. European
Physical Education Review, 6(1), 7–26.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games. Bulletin of Physical
Education, 18(1), 5–8.
Butler, J.I. (1996). Teacher responses to Teaching Games for Understanding. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(9), 17–20.
Butler, J.I. (2005). TGfU pet-agogy: old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 225–240.
Contreras, O., de la Torre, E., & Velázquez, R. (2001). Iniciación deportiva. Madrid, Spain:
Síntesis.
Conway, P.F., & Clark, Ch.M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: a re-examination
of Fuller’s concerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 19, 465–482.
Denzin, N. (1970). The research act in sociology. London: Butterworths.
Devís, J. (1996). Educación física, deporte y currículum. Madrid, Spain: Visor.
Díaz del Cueto, M., & Castejón, F.J. Perfil académico, profesional y planteamientos metodológicos del profesorado de Educación Física con experiencia. Tándem. Didáctica
de la Educación Física (in press).
Ennis, C. (1999). Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sport
Education and Society, 4(1), 31–50.
Forrest, G., Webb, P., & Pearson, P. (2006). Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU): A
model for pre-service teachers. Retrieved April 23, 2008 from: http://www.penz.org.
nz/downloads/IchperConf/FOR06014_final.pdf
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2002). Teacher development and educational change. In M.
Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher Development and Educational Change (pp. 1–9).
London: Falmer Press.
Georgakis, S. (2007). From drills to skills to game sense: The meta-cognitive revolution
in physical education. In R. Light (Ed.), Proceedings for the Asia Pacific Conference
on Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding (pp. 45-58). Sydney:
University of Sydney.
Gréhaigne, J-F., Wallian, N., & Godbout, P. (2005). Tactical-decision learning model and
students’ practices. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 255–269.
Griffin, L.L., Brooker, R., & Patton, K. (2005). Working towards legitimacy: Two decades
of teaching games for understanding. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3),
213–223.
Griffin, L.L., & Butler, J.I. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching games for understanding. Theory,
research and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Griffin, L.L., Mitchell, S.A., & Oslin, J.L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
TGU to In-Service PE Teachers 397
Gubacs, K. (2004). Implementing a tactical approach into a net/wall games unit. Journal of the
Florida Association of Health, Physical Education. Recreation and Dance, 42(2), 8–10.
Gubacs-Collins, K. (2007). Implementing a tactical approach through action research.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12(2), 105–126.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity.
New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Havelock, R.G. (1973). A Guide to Innovation in Education. Michigan: Publications Division, Institute for Social Research.
Holt, N.L., Stream, W.B., & Garcia Bengoechea, E. (2002). Expanding the Teaching Games
for Understanding model: new avenues for future research and practice. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 21(2), 162–176.
Hord, S.M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry
and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/
Hord, S.M. (2008). Evolution of the professional learning community: Revolutionary
concept is based on intentional collegial learning. Journal of Staff Development,
29(3), 10–13.
Huberman, A.M., & Miles, M.B. (1998). Data Management and analysis methods. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp.
179–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching Games for Understanding and situated learning:
Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21,
177–192.
Knapp, M. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in
Education, 27, 109–157.
LeCompte, M.D. & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data.
Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.
Light, R. (2002a). The social nature of games: Australian preservice primary teachers &
Iacute: First experiences of Teaching Games for Understanding. European Physical
Education Review, 8(3), 286–304.
Light, R. (2002b). Engaging the body in learning: promoting cognition in games through
TGfU. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 49(2), 23–26.
Light, R. (2003a). A snap shot of pre-service and beginning teacher experiences of implementing TGfU. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and
Physical Education for Understanding (pp. 42-52). Melbourne, Australia: University
of Melbourne.
Light, R. (2003b). The joy of learning: Emotion and learning in games through TGfU.
Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 36(1), 93–99.
Light, R., & Butler, J. (2005). Australian and American early career teachers’ experiences
of TGfU teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 241–254.
Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action through
TGfU. Quest, 55, 161–177.
McKeen, K., Webb, P., & Pearson, P. (2006). Promoting physical activity through teaching
games for understanding in undergraduate teacher education. AISEP, 2005 World Congress Proceedings. Active Lifestyles. The Impact of Education and Sport (pp. 251-258).
Lisbon, Portugal: Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (17-20 November).
McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and resources
for the reflective practitioner (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
McMahon, E., & MacPhail, A. (2007). Learning to teach sport education: The experiences
of a pre-service teacher. European Physical Education Review, 6(13), 229–246.
McNeill, M.C., Michael, C., Fry, J.M., Wright, S.C., Tan, C.W.K., & Rossi, T. (2008). Structuring time and questioning to achieve tactical awareness in games lessons. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(3), 231–249.
398 Diaz-Cueto, Hernández-Álvarez, and Castejón
Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L., & Griffin, L.L. (2006). Teaching sport concepts and skill. A
tactical games approach (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Fourth grade children’s knowledge of cutting,
passing and tactics in invasion games after a 12-lesson unit of instruction. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 389–401 [Monograph].
Oslin, J., & Mitchell, S. (2006). Game-centered approaches to teaching physical education.
In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education
(pp. 627–651). London: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rovegno, I., & Bandhauer, D. (1997). Psychological dispositions that facilitated and sustained the development of knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 136–154.
Rovegno, I., & Dolly, J.P. (2006). Constructivist perspectives on learning. In D. Kirk, D.
Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 242–261).
London: Sage Publications.
Rovegno, I., Chen, W., & Todorovich, J. (2003). Accomplished teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of teaching dribbling to third grade. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 22, 426–449.
Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., Brock, S., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Teaching and learning basic
invasion-game tactics in 4th grade: a descriptive theoretical perspectives. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 20(4), 370–388.
Sweeney, M., Everitt, A., & Carifio, J. (2003). Teaching games for understanding: A paradigm shift for undergraduate students. In J. Butler, L.L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R.
Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in Physical Education and Sport:
An international perspective (pp. 113–122). Oxin Hill, MD: AAHPERD Publications.
Tallir, I.B., Lenoir, M., Valcke, M., & Musch, E. (2007). Do alternative instructional
approaches result in different game performance learning outcomes? Authentic assessment in varying game conditions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38(3),
23–32.
Tallir, I.B., Musch, E., Valcke, M., & Lenoir, M. (2005). Effects of two instructional
approaches for basketball on decision-making and recognition ability. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 36(2), 107–126.
Taylor, P.G. (1998). Institutional change in uncertain times: lone ranging is not enough.
Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), 269–279.
Thorpe, R. (1992). La comprensión en el juego de los niños: una aproximación alternativa a
la enseñanza de los juegos deportivos. In J. Devís & C. Peiró (Eds.), Nuevas perspectivas
curriculares en Educación Física: la salud y los juegos modificados (pp. 185–207).
Barcelona, Spain: Inde.
Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (Eds.). (1986). Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology.
Turner, A.P., Allison, P.C., & Pissanos, B.W. (2001). Constructing a concept of skillfulness
in invasion games within a games for understanding context. European Journal of
Physical Education, 6, 38–54.
Webb, P., & Pearson, P. (2008). An integrated approach to Teaching Games for Understanding
(TGfU). 1st Asia Pacific Sport in Education. Retrieved October 25, 2009 from: http://
ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/52
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: Evolution
of model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 28–33.
Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, J., & Wang, J. (2005). Teaching teachers to play and teach
games. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 61–82.