# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over 30 years ago the original teaching games for understanding (TGfU) proposition was published in a special edition of the Bulletin of Physical Education (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). In that time TGfU has attracted significant attention from a theoretical and pedagogical perspective as an improved approach to games and sport teaching in physical education (PE). It has been particularly championed as a superior alternative to what Kirk (2010) and Metzler (2011) described as a traditional method. Recently, however, one of the TGfU authors suggested that the TGfU premise needs to be revisited in order to explore and rethink its relevance so that pedagogy in PE again becomes a central and practical issue for PE (Almond, 2010), as it has not been as well accepted by PE teachers as it has by academics. In order to review and revisit TGfU and consider its relevance to games and sport teaching in PE this paper outlines two areas of the TGfU proposition: (1) the basis for the conceptualisation of TGfU; (2) advocacy of TGfU as nuanced versions. The empirical-scientific research surrounding TGfU and student learning in PE contexts is reviewed and analysed. This comprehensive review has not been undertaken before. The data-driven research will facilitate a consideration as to how TGfU practically assists the physical educator improve games and sport teaching. The review of the research literature highlighted the inconclusive nature of the TGfU proposition and brought to attention the disparity between researcher as theory generator and teacher practitioner as theory applier. If TGfU is to have improved relevance for teachers of PE more of an emphasis needs to be placed on the normative characteristics of pedagogy that drive this practice within curricula.

Davids, K, Araujo, D, Shuttleworth, R (2005) Applications of dynamical systems theory to football. Available at: http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:WOWBpGpV5coJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=2000 (accessed 19 November 2011).
Google Scholar

Forrest, GJ, Pearson, PJ, Webb, PI (2006) Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU); a model for pre service teachers . Fusion Down-under: 1st International Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (ICHPER). Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/328/ (accessed 19 November 2011).
Google Scholar

Harvey, S (2003) Teaching games for understanding: A study of U19 college soccer players improvement in game performance using the game performance assessment instrument. Paper presented at: The Sport and Physical Education for Understanding Conference, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Google Scholar

Hopper, T, Kruisselbrink, D (2001) Teaching games for understanding: What does it look like and how does it influence student skill acquisition and game performance? Available at http://web.uvic.ca/∼thopper/articles/JTPE/TGFU.htm (accessed 31 January 2013).
Google Scholar

Light, R, Georgakis, S (2005) Can 'Game Sense' make a difference? Australian pre-service primary school teachers' responses to 'Game Sense' pedagogy in two teacher education programs. Paper presented at: The Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference. Available at: http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/geo05240.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012).
Google Scholar

Mosston, M (1968) Problem solving - A problem for physical educators. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of New York City Association of Physical Education Teachers. Available at: http://www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org/pdfs/literature/Mosston_1968_Problem_Solving.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012).
Google Scholar

Piltz, W (2002) Developing competent and confident players using a 'Play Practice' methodology. Available at: http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2002/achper/Piltz.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012).
Google Scholar

Thorpe, R (2012) Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. Available at: http://www.wcmt.org.uk/fellows-today/rod-thorpe.html (accessed 30 July 2012).
Google Scholar

Turner, A, Martinek, T (1995) An investigation into teaching games for understanding: effects on skill, knowledge and game play. Paper presented at: The AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California.
Google Scholar

Turner, A, Martinek, T (1999) An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70(3): 286-296.
Google Scholar

Wiske, MS (1998) Teaching for Understanding. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching games and sport for understanding

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over 30 years ago the original teaching games for understanding (TGfU) proposition was published in a special edition of the Bulletin of Physical Education (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). In that time TGfU has attracted significant attention from a theoretical and pedagogical perspective as an improved approach to games and sport teaching in physical education (PE).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Games for Understanding - Lesson Demonstration

# data[].attributes.body
1. Game
2. Game Appreciation
3. Tactical Awareness
4. Making Appropriate Decisions
5. Skill Execution
6. Performance
7. Game

# data[].attributes.body
Cognitive:
Tactical awareness and decision making in games. Developing an understanding of when and how a skill will be used based on an awareness of the need for the skill.

Psychomotor:
Participation in games to promote Game Sense. Skill learning in the context of the game and tactical understanding in conjunction with skill development.

Affective:
Enjoy participating in games, display positive attitudes and good sportsmanship.

(Luttrell & Chambers, 2013, p.26)

# data[].attributes.body
Bunker D, Thorpe R (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1), p.5–8.
Department of Education and Science and National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2003). Junior Cycle Physical Education. Dublin: Government Publications.
Kirk, D. & MacPhail, A. (2002).  Teaching games for understanding and situated earning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model . Journal of teaching in physical education, 21, p.177-192.
Luttrell, S. & Chambers, F.C. (2013). Pathways for teacher implementation: Senioe cycle physical education curriculum and instructional models. Dublin: e-print.ie.

# data[].attributes.body
Each student is starting second level education in a class of eighteen other students which they may not know. The elements of teamwork allow the students to develop relationships with one another, which will be integral in their school experience. Additionally, games are a familiar concept to most students which will allow them to participate confidently. They are largely enjoyed by students and allows them to experience success regularly which will encourage their participation in PE class. The mixture of skills used throughout the module enables teacher observation and assessment of the skills the students already possess and how they might be improved.

The learning profile of the students in the class, and the range of special educational needs within the class means that the traditional drill-style method of teaching would be wholly unsuitable for the students present. Instead, the teaching games for understanding model keeps the students mentally engaged through games analysis, physically involved through small-sided games, and participating in a social and team environment where they can increase their self-efficacy in an enjoyable atmosphere

TGfU  involves game play and modified games where modifications are made to rules, playing area, and equipment (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002, p.179). The focus on learning throughout will be on the development of knowledge and skills that can be transferred across different games, as well as increasing the students ability to analyse a games situation (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). Providing students with an increased opportunity to play is one of the ways in which these skills can be developed. In order to ensure that each student is given the opportunity to develop their understanding of the principles of play in the greatest way possible, adaptations are made using the TREE model (teaching style, rules, equipment and environment).

The focus on the learning throughout will be based around the principles of attack and defense, developing an ability to analyse a games situation and the students ability to make an appropriate decision and act on it.

"The teaching of skills and technique is given less priority than the development of tactical awareness through the exploration of principles of play. Skill acquisition is seen in the context of the students’ involvement in the game situation and of enabling them to make appropriate decisions based on their evolving level of tactical awareness." (NCCA, 2003, p.7).

The role of the teacher as a questioner is very important in keeping the learning focused and to prevent it from descending into a "throw the ball in" PE class (Luttrell & Chambers, 2013).

# data[].attributes.body
This is the students first time in the school and, as such, their attitudes are not yet known. This topic will be used to assess their attitude towards Physical Education and games through teacher observation.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the students first time in the school and, as such, their skill level is not yet known. This topic will be used to assess some of their skills through teacher observation.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the students first experience of second level Physical Education. They come from a variety of different primary schools and have had different experiences of Physical Education within those. There will be a range of experience in games, both within and outside of school, and some may have played Benchball or Dodgeball. The module will be aimed at a complete beginner level.