TEACHING GAMES FOR UNDERSTANDING

The evolution of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) started in

the 80s when the model was first put forward by Thorpe et al. but the
inspiration for this new model could date back to the 60s when pupils
began to lose interest in the skill based focus of Physical Education (PE)
and educational gymnastics was introduced.
Throughout the 70s and 80s an interest had developed in improving the
learning experience of pupils and differentiation. By the 90s the model
was implemented by national governing bodies in sporting initiatives
such as Top sport and Play sport.
The question remains why is this model of learning not implemented
throughout schools? Answers to this question may be; teachers find it
hard to translate the model into everyday lessons, it is easer to assess
skills and there is heavy emphasis on teachers of PE to be seen to
teach - to have grades on paper.
TGfU draws on concepts (defence/attack, space and angles of
play), which were not considered important in the traditional teaching of
games. Thorpe draws on the ideas of a holistic approach to games where no part of the game is denied. The reason teachers teach skills is
to play the game but Thorpe would argue that without putting the game
into context (rules, form, tactical appreciation etc.) the game is
destroyed. TGfU was introduced in contrast to the traditional method
and hoped to develop pupils game sense.
Thorpe suggests that all games will fit into categories (invasive,
net/wall and striking/fielding) therefore generic games could be used
to highlight main tactics for each game in a category - hoping to increase
a pupil's game knowledge in such a way that it will transfer over to
different games. This may be good for working in schools where time is
a constraint but raises the question as to whether teaching skills fit into
teaching in generic games.
Research has shown in many cases there isnt the lifespan or transfer
hoped for in TGfU. It should be noted here that research
surrounding TGfU is not conclusive due to variable research
making it hard to make a comparison. Teaching skills is not

ignored in TGfU but is given at times where technique

becomes relevant to pupils as they play the game. In the
traditional teaching of games, skills are taught first and then have to be
slotted into the games in the last part of the lesson. This could lead to
having skilled performers that cannot play the game!
In conclusion TGfU may have a place in schools, however, the
model needs to be more transferable for teachers, and schools
need to recognise there is a medium between skills teaching and
play.
TGfU is aimed at facilitating tactical understanding of games for all
pupils. The problem arises on how to grade tactical awareness,
therefore TGfU may be better suited to core PE where teachers are not
under the same pressure to produce good grades.