Teaching Games for Understanding: Evolution of a Model.

by Peter Werner , Rod Thorpe , David Bunker

The games curriculum occupies an important place in public school physical education.
Research suggests that 65 percent or more of the time spent in physical education is allotted
to games (Hill, cited in Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1984). The purpose of this article is to
inform teachers about current models of teaching games in the public schools. First, the
technical model is outlined. It is followed by the history of an emerging model of teaching
games called the understanding approach (which stresses the importance of the game, tactical
awareness, and decision making, among other things). A brief literature review followed by a
discussion of new testing instruments provides the reader insight into the future of games
teaching in the public schools.

The Technical Model

Over the last decade there has been considerable debate as to how games should be presented
to youth. The traditional model follows a series of highly structured lessons relying heavily
on the teaching of skills and techniques. This model is similar to one proposed by Rink
(1993), in which the first two game stages are concerned primarily with the development of
control and combination experiences through extending, refining, and application tasks which
lead toward skillfulness. It has been the belief that once skills have been mastered, the student
will be in a position to transfer these skills into game situations. Thus at stage three a student
typically enters modified game situations, in which the number of players, rules, and
conditions of the game are gradually introduced (Read, 1993; Rink, 1993). Finally at stage
four, students play games under conditions which represent the rules and standards of the
official game. Students learn specific offensive and defensive tactics under direct guidance of
the teacher.

The Tactical Model

An alternative model has been termed an understanding approach to the teaching of games
(Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) and has evolved as observations of the technical model of teaching
games consistently revealed: (a) a large percentage of children achieving little success due to
the emphasis on performance, (b) skillful players who possess inflexible techniques and poor
decision-making capacities, (c) performers who are dependent on the teacher/coach to make
their decisions, and (d) a majority of youngsters who leave school knowing little about
games. In addition, the authors noted that skills (perhaps more appropriately called
techniques, in that they were usually practiced out of context) that were taught often did not
transfer to the game, that children approached this phase of the lesson with low motivation
(children are often heard to ask, "When can we play the game?"), and that the skills were
focused at the average child.

The history of the understanding approach to games actually dates back to the late 1960s and
1970s to a group at Loughborough University, England (Werner & Almond, 1990). This
approach does not assume that tactical or strategic awareness in games must wait for the
development of sophisticated skills. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argue that if it does, some
children will never be able to play because they will never attain the skill level required of
them. These authors take the point of view that the task of the teacher is to present a game
which children can enter with some of the skills already developed and that improvement can
be achieved through understanding what the game is about. Rules and equipment used in
games are modified to ensure that all children can play and gain insight into the games they
play.

Evolution of a Game

The evolution of any game follows the model presented in figure 1 (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982).
First, students must be capable of understanding (with guidance) the particular game form,
and will be led to recognize the unique problems to be solved. It is important at this level for
teachers to give careful thought to the size and shape of the playing surface, the number of
players on a team (e.g., small sided 2 vs. 2, unbalanced sides 3 vs. 1), and the modified
equipment to be used in an attempt to present students with problems involved in playing a
game (e.g., creating space to attack/denying space to defend).

Gradually students should learn to appreciate the primary and secondary rules which shape
each game. They may learn to recognize that the height of the net affects the pace of a game,
that changing the number of fielders makes it easier or more difficult ...