Teaching TGfU

First Author(s): Second Author(s): Note: Everything must be referenced according to the APA Guide. References are added in the text (short version) and at the end of the page (long version)

Teaching Implications
Teaching games for understanding allows students to learn imperative skills that can be transferred to several games, rather than just one (Butler, Hopper & Mandigo, 2007). To teach using theTeaching Games for Understandingmodel, some teaching points are in place to allow teachers to make successful games for their students. Some examples of teaching points are: 1. To provide rules for the students that will ultimately affect attributes of the game such as the number of players for the game or the type of equipment (Ellis, 1986). 2. A set of rules that the teacher presents in which the student chooses from, such as type of ball used or scoring rules (Ellis, 1986). 3. Conditions that the teacher puts in place as well as student involvement on how the conditions are met such as the area of play or what happens if the ball hits the net (Ellis, 1986). 4. Finally, presenting suggestions that can be in the form of a question such as how can you position your body to intercept the ball or look for open spaces (Ellis, 1986). Clearly, it is crucial that physical educators realize the importance of teaching games for understanding and how to properly implement the strategy. This allows for increased participation and makes physical education and tactical games more enjoyable for all students. When students are taught how to understand the structure of games and movement skills, tactical understanding and skill execution can be learned, transferred and perfected (Butler et al., 2007). Educators/coaches must have a deep understanding of games both within and across categories (target, invasion, striking/fielding and net/court) (Forrest, Webb & Pearson, 2006).Student's that have been taught both the basic and advanced aspects of sport through use of a positive media , should be more likely to value an active life style. Hopefully these teaching and learning models can help generate more interest from students and athletes to participate by having them learn through games, as opposed to simply learning about games (Butler et. al., 2003, p.1). I could not put this any other way: "Adoption of this model will give pre-service and practicing physical education teachers a process that allows them to firstly develop an elementary and then an advanced understanding of the elements of games within and across categories and secondly allows them to develop appropriate modified games

and guiding questions to provide opportunities for critical thought in games in their lessons" (Forrest et. al., 2006, p. 8).

Pedagogical Principles
Butler, Hopper and Mandigo (2007) describe that the teaching games for understanding model is a learner-based approach where the goal of the physical educator is to create physically literate students. Butler et al., (2007) highlight four pedagogical principles that are used when teaching this model: Sampling - This provides the students with situations to realize that skills, rules and tactical solutions can be transferred between different games. For example rolling a bowling ball and doing an underhand serve in volleyball are similar skills. Students will be able to make connections like this. Game Representation - This is where the educator creates developmentally appropriate gamelike situations to demonstrate how to use a certain skill in a game. Exaggeration - This principle focuses on one particular point in a game and based on this a game is created so that the students can learn about this scenario. For example, altering the dimensions of the court in net/wall games exaggerates the importance of strategic implement placement. Tactical Complexity - This point demonstrates that there should be developmental progression of tactical solutions. "A physically literate person moves with poise, economy and confidence in a wide variety of physically challenging situations, is perceptive in reading all aspects of the physical environment, anticipates movement needs of possibilities and responds appropriately with intelligence and imagination" (Whitehead, 2001)

Misinterpretation
I believe that there is a misinterpretation in the assumption that students "like" TGfU more then the old model. Being in my practicum over the first semester, I have learned that many students still prefer the old model over the TGfU model. Just food for thought...(Koleric, R.). I am in agreeance with (Koleric, R) that there is a misinterpretation that students "like" TGfU more than the old model, however, I do believe in the overall goal of TGfU, which is aiming for increased student participation and increased understanding of games. There must be a balance between what the students like and what will benefit them most outside the classroom. If the majority of students had their way there would be months of Basketball and Floor Hockey, etc. (Johnson, H).

References

Butler, J., Hopper, T., & Mandigo, J. (2007). What is Teaching Games for Understanding? A Canadian Perspective. Physical &Health Education Journal. 7(2), 14-21. Ellis, Margaret. Rethinking Games Teaching. England: Nene Litho, 1986. 61-65. Forrest,G., Webb,P., and Pearson,P., (2006) Teaching Games for Understanding; A Model for Pre-service Teachers. Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance Journal. 1-4. Butler, J., Griffin, L., Lombardo, B. & Nastasi, R. (Ed.). (2003). Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport. Reston (VA): NASPE.