Search

Background: Teaching games for understanding (TGfU) has stimulated so much attention, research and debate since the 1980s that it is easy for its origins to become refracted and misunderstood. For example, in a recent edition of the "Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy" journal there was paper arguing a constraints-led approach (CLA) as distinctive from TGfU, where TGfU was positioned as merely an operational model without an initial underpinning theory. Purpose: In this paper, we draw on historical records of existing literature and the memory of one the founders of TGfU to explore the various theoretical contributions to TGfU during its foundational years, which included the work of Bruner on guided discovery, and others (i.e. Stenhouse, Suits). Findings: First, we clarify that TGfU was not developed by Thorpe and Bunker, it was developed by what we refer to as a "games team." Second, we argue that although in practice TGfU and a CLA may look alike, epistemologically they rest on very different theoretical foundations. From its inception, the epistemological development of TGfU has been from an educative perspective rather than sport science/skill acquisition like that of a CLA. Not only have these competing epistemological/theoretical descriptions led to tensions between education and sport science in the physical education and sport coaching research and literature, they also cause confusion for the practitioner. It is however, inappropriate to privilege one fields' theoretical discourse or to create a "verses" mentality to theoretical descriptions of what to the practitioner appear essentially the same pedagogical actions (Stolz, S., and S. Pill, 2014. "Teaching Games and Sport for Understanding: Exploring and Reconsidering Its Relevance in Physical Education. European Physical Education Review" 20 (1): 36-71). Notwithstanding these different epistemological foundations, we go on to ask for caution in the messages that are sent to practitioners using game-centered approaches (GCAs) such as TGfU or the CLA that simply manipulating constraints and letting the "game be the teacher" is a sufficient condition for "learning" to occur. Conclusions: The theoretical development of TGfU overviewed in this paper provides a historical record of several perspectives similar to the CLA--such as modifying game constraints, representation of the full game form in designer games, etc. which may render any "new" GCA that has these features such as the CLA as "old wine in new bottles." We contend that the major differential in the work of TGfU and CLA authors is TGfU's emergence from the educative perspective rather than the field of sport science/skill acquisition. From its inception, the interpretation of TGfU has been through the prism of discovery learning. It was only in the 1990s that physical education pedagogues ascribed TGfU to a constructivist approach. We believe the historical insights offered in this paper are critical to physical educators' understanding of the theoretical development of TGfU as a pedagogical approach to games teaching/coaching.

Physical educators should be selective in deciding what games to include in the games curriculum. Several theoretical frameworks for selecting and teaching games are discussed, and a framework for developing a well-balanced games program is suggested. (IAH)

A conceptual framework for developing track and field programs in public schools is related. The framework consists of three phases of experiences: a fundamental movement phase, an athletic form phase which emphasizes action possibilities based on personal striving, and a final phase with a dual focus (health and sport skills/strategies). (IAH)

Opinion. Discusses the perceptions on scholarships, highlighting specific features of innovation that have not been reported adequately and may constitute service-related scholarship. Description of a form of scholarship outside of the traditional academic lines in England; Issues raised by the author within one's personal perspective as well as within a traditional university perspective; What must be done to present an alternative view of scholarship.

Background:Teaching games for understanding (TGfU) has stimulated so much attention, research and debate since the 1980s that it is easy for its origins to become refracted and misunderstood. For example, in a recent edition of thePhysical Education and Sport Pedagogyjournal there was paper arguing a constraints-led approach (CLA) as distinctive from TGfU, where TGfU was positioned as merely an operational model without an initial underpinning theory. Purpose:In this paper, we draw on historical records of existing literature and the memory of one the founders of TGfU to explore the various theoretical contributions to TGfU during its foundational years, which included the work of Bruner on guided discovery, and others (i.e. Stenhouse, Suits). Findings:First, we clarify that TGfU was not developed by Thorpe and Bunker, it was developed by what we refer to as a ‘games team.’ Second, we argue that although in practice TGfU and a CLA may look alike, epistemologically they rest on very different theoretical foundations. From its inception, the epistemological development of TGfU has been from an educative perspective rather than sport science/skill acquisition like that of a CLA. Not only have these competing epistemological/theoretical descriptions led to tensions between education and sport science in the physical education and sport coaching research and literature, they also cause confusion for the practitioner. It is however, inappropriate to privilege one fields’ theoretical discourse or to create a ‘verses’ mentality to theoretical descriptions of what to the practitioner appear essentially the same pedagogical actions (Stolz, S., and S. Pill, 2014. “Teaching Games and Sport for Understanding: Exploring and Reconsidering Its Relevance in Physical Education.”European Physical Education Review20 (1): 36–71). Notwithstanding these different epistemological foundations, we go on to ask for caution in the messages that are sent to practitioners using game-centered approaches (GCAs) such as TGfU or the CLA that simply manipulating constraints and letting the ‘game be the teacher’ is a sufficient condition forlearningto occur. Conclusions:The theoretical development of TGfU overviewed in this paper provides a historical record of several perspectives similar to the CLA – such as modifying game constraints, representation of the full game form in designer games, etc. which may render any ‘new’ GCA that has these features such as the CLA as ‘old wine in new bottles.’ We contend that the major differential in the work of TGfU and CLA authors is TGfU’s emergence from the educative perspective rather than the field of sport science/skill acquisition. From its inception, the interpretation of TGfU has been through the prism of discovery learning. It was only in the 1990s that physical education pedagogues ascribed TGfU to a constructivist approach. We believe the historical insights offered in this paper are critical to physical educators’ understanding of the theoretical development of TGfU as a pedagogical approach to games teaching/coaching. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article offers information related to the benefits and importance of physical education (PE) among teachers and students. It mentions the four fundamental components of PE which include health as a resource that generates vitality and energy feelings, promotion of physical pursuits that nurture lives, and helping young people to shape their life and give them a purpose. It presents guide for PE teachers to develop principle of procedure or the implementation of new ideas in PE training.

The article focuses on the approach to physical education in England. Topics discussed include the importance of children's learning in physical education and in schools, perspective of understanding such as promotion of discipline and learning application, and the use of theoritical foundation under the Teaching for Understanding (TfU) framework.

The article highlights the importance of physical activity in the early years and discusses factors like lack of guidelines, lack of physical activity emphasis and prioritisation on early years curriculum for the low levels of physical activity in children and offers suggestions to deal with the same. The author also urges Public Health England of the Department of Health in Great Britain to send out a strong message to key organizations about the importance of physical activity in early years.

The article explores the concept of understanding in the teaching of games. Topics mentioned include the means to achieve understanding about the essence of a game and how it functions, the association of understanding a game with the pedagogical process used by the teacher, and the importance of understanding of physical literacy and imagination in understanding games.

The article offers information on various aspects related to the importance of movement skills for physical education in Australia. Topics discussed include the English National Curriculum for Physical Education programmes released by the Department of Education, the benefits of student participation in physical fitness programs, and the significance of athlete development in schools.