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

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 378-398

  Díaz Cueto, Mario ^a   Hernández Álvarez, Juan Luis ^a   Castejón, Francisco Javier ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Constructivist approaches; Teacher change; Teacher development; TGfU

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649660048     PISSN: 02735024     EISSN: 15432769     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.29.4.378     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. 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 Unpublished PhD.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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Azzarito, L., & Ennis, C.D. (2003). A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education. Sport Education and Society, 8, 179-198.
5. 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.
6. Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.
7. Butler, J.I. (1996). Teacher responses to Teaching Games for Understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(9), 17-20.
8. Butler, J.I. (2005). TGfU pet-agogy: old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 225-240.
9. Contreras, O., de la Torre, E., & Velázquez, R. (2001). Iniciación deportiva. Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.
10. 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.
11. Denzin, N. (1970). The research act in sociology. London: Butterworths.
12. Devís, J. (1996). Educación física, deporte y currículum. Madrid, Spain: Visor.
13. 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).
14. Ennis, C. (1999). Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sport Education and Society, 4(1), 31-50.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Gréhaigne, J-F., Wallian, N., & Godbout, P. (2005). Tactical-decision learning model and students' practices. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 255-269.
19. 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.
20. Griffin, L.L., & Butler, J.I. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching games for understanding. Theory, research and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
21. Griffin, L.L., Mitchell, S.A., & Oslin, J.L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
22. 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.
23. Gubacs-Collins, K. (2007). Implementing a tactical approach through action research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12(2), 105-126.
24. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers' College Press.
25. Havelock, R.G. (1973). A Guide to Innovation in Education. Michigan: Publications Division, Institute for Social Research.
26. 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.
27. 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/
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Knapp, M. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in Education, 27, 109-157.
32. LeCompte, M.D. & Schensul, J.J. (1999). Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.
33. 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.
34. Light, R. (2002b). Engaging the body in learning: promoting cognition in games through TGfU. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 49(2), 23-26.
35. nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding (pp. 42-52). Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
36. Light, R. (2003b). The joy of learning: Emotion and learning in games through TGfU. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 36(1), 93-99.
37. Light, R., & Butler, J. (2005). Australian and American early career teachers' experiences of TGfU teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 241-254.
38. Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action through TGfU. Quest, 55, 161-177.
39. 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).
40. McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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].
45. 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.
46. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Taylor, P.G. (1998). Institutional change in uncertain times: lone ranging is not enough. Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), 269-279.
56. 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.
57. Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (Eds.). (1986). Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology.
58. 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.
59. 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
60. Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: Evolution of model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 28-33.
61. 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.