Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Summative Assessment 1 – Research Project
Transcript of Summative Assessment 1 – Research Project
Can a teaching games for understanding (TGFU) or game sense approach be used to teach fundamental movement skills?
6 Step Model
The sequential aspects of the six step model outlined by Thorpe, Bunker & Almond (1986)
In a day and age were health and active lifestyles are becoming more important and teaching methods within sports and education are changing, the question should be asked are the new methods of teaching actually working? Can a teaching games for understanding (TGFU) or game sense approach be used to teach fundamental movement skills?
What are fundamental movement skills and why are they important?
Fundamental movement skills are the building blocks for movement. They are the skills which children need to participate successfully in all types of games, physical activities and sports. (GET SKILLED: GET ACTIVE, 2000)
The NSW Department of Education and Training says that there are three categories that make up fundamental movement skills (2000):
, such as the run, jump, hop, skip, gallop, leap and dodge
, such as the static balance, bend, sway, twist and turn
, such as the catch, throw and kick.
All together there are 12 skills suggested by the NSW Department of Education and Training that are key fundamental movement skills (2000).
• the static balance
• the sprint run
• the vertical jump
• the catch
• the hop
• the side gallop
• the skip
• the overarm throw
• the leap
• the kick
• the two-hand strike
• the dodge
Summative Assessment 1 – Research Project - Joshua Grantham
What is the game sense approach?
Game sense is a sport specific version of teaching for understanding (TGFU) (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002), and exists in three parts (Pill, 2013 p.7):
• knowing what to do in context of play (
• knowing how to do it (
• the ability to execute the response successfully (
A game sense approach emphasizes tactical learning and movement skills in the context of game situations and therefore game intelligence. The dominant strategy for using the Game Sense approach is the use of questioning to stimulate thinking about the game instead of using more direct teaching such as running drills (Pill, 2015).
Learning the skills of the game are placed in the wider context of the game itself. The game is taught first, and the skills are added at a pace manageable by the players. By doing this, the thinking and problem solving aspects of the game are taught in tandem with the skills. The result is a participant who is skilled in the broader sense of understanding the game rather than simply being skilful at the game (Pill, 2015).
Game sense can therefore be thought of as both the objective of games teaching and an approach to game skill learning by developing the tactical and technical sport competency (Pill, 2015).
Original Literature Review
Research into this area is still being undertaken however research that has been conducted suggests that a game sense approach or TGFU
be used to teach fundamental movement skills.
Game sense approach
The aim of the game sense approach is to provide participants/students with the ability to execute responses successfully (Movement Capability) by knowing how to (Movement Knowledge) and knowing what to do in context of play (Decision Making) (Pill, 2013, p.7).
The dominant strategy for using the Game Sense approach is the use of questioning to stimulate thinking about the game instead of using more direct teaching or coaching approaches such as running drills (Pill, 2015).
Six step model
Thorpe, Bunker & Almond outline the sequential aspects of the six step model and how they are critical for the TGFU approach to be successful. If the six steps are not followed participants or students may not gain correct or full understanding of the learning that should be taking place (1986).
Questioning is an integral part of TGFU and it is essential that coaches and practitioners have a process that enable them to provide appropriate and challenging questions (Pearson & Webb, 2008).
Deep understanding of games is the art of successful questioning (Forrest, Pearson & Webb, 2009)
Setting the optimal challenge
Setting the optimal challenge for students and including them in the decision making and game changing processes allows them to feel a sense of ownership of the game (Mandingo & Holt, 2002). This can increase the chances of them liking the activity. Students are much more likely to succeed and achieve while having fun (Light, 2003).
Learning should not be constrained to one method fits all (Light, 2003).
Nonlinear pedagogy is effective and it is not necessary for learners to achieve the “ideal movements” in order to be successful (Lee, Chow, Komar, Tan & Button, 2014). – In line with this evidence participants of my experiment were not told the correct method for throwing and catching leaving them to figure it out on their own
– One participant became upset however when she dropped the ball because she was not paying attention
– To remedy the problem she was given a brief one on one teacher directed drill session.
It is stressed in a number of readings that for success using the TGFU approach in the education system, pre service teachers should be the focus of training as it can be difficult to change existing teachers behaviours (Ellis, 1986) (Pearson & Webb, 2008) (McKeen, Pearson & Webb, 2006).
My Investigation / Method
Before any games were played players were tested to measure their current skill levels and capabilities. This was done by asking players to stand in two lines with a partner and then asked to pass the ball back and forth. After a few attempts the players were asked to take a step back. This was continued until an optimum distance was reached were all participants were comfortable with the distance that would be used.
In order to maximize learning and motivation, instructors should attempt to structure an environment that is optimally challenging for all individuals. That is to say, a child's perception of the challenge of the activity should be equal to the perception of his/her skill level or abilities. Activities where skill and challenge are not balanced can lead to boredom or anxiety (Mandingo & Holt, 2002).
My Investigation / Method
My investigation was to find out if a game sense approach could be used to teach the fundamental movement skills of throwing and catching.
These skills were chosen because of the age and current skill level of available participants.
My Investigation / Method
Practice and Warm Up
Each week before the games were played players were allowed a short warm up and time to practice.
This was done as I was unable to have any training sessions with the participants
My Investigation / Method
Step 3 - Game
• Throwing/Passing and Catching
Players were to stand equal distances apart in a straight line.
For a pass to be deemed successful it must reach the intended player on the full and be within the chest area so that it can be caught.
A successful catch is awarded when the ball is caught on the full with little to no fumble during the catch.
• An even mixture of both male and female students from Reynella Primary School
• 5 Males and 5 Females.
• All participants were from a year 1/2 class.
Age of participants
Attention span of participants (did not help that I am a pre service teacher and I only see the participants once a week, and they do not listen to me)
My Investigation / Method
The game used was a modified game of tunnel ball. Players were to pass a ball down the line then once at the end the ball was to be passed back.
This game focused on a number of fundamental movement skills including throwing, catching and balancing or turning.
Game simulation was applied by having to teams to compete as if it was a race. By doing this there was simulated stress of a game that requires players to move the ball quickly and while under pressure for example basket ball or netball.
Data Collected - Team 1
Data Collected - Team 2
The data collected shows that participants within team 1 improved slightly over the four sessions
The data collected shows that participants within team 2 improved slightly over the four sessions
The results from both team 1 and team 2 suggest that players were indeed improving over the weeks.
This can be seen in the number of successful passes and catches being made especially when comparing session one and session four for both teams.
Both team 1 and team 2 showed almost a 50% drop in errors made over the four sessions taken. This suggests that the game sense approach was indeed allowing the players to increase their fundamental movements skill level.
From observations, conducted over the course of the teaching cycle, it was evident improvement had occurred in the students’ performances. Whilst the improvements did not result in a large number of students being considered proficient, it was a positive reflection on the progress being made by the students.
In comparison with a similar study conducted by (Austin, Haynes & Miller, 2004) my results show that the games sense approach (TGFU) can provide enough guidance for skill level of fundamental movements to develop.
High levels of participation and interest was shown by the participants. Eagerness to participate was also shown by students that were not chosen for participation. Whether this is because of the games sense approach or not; cannot be understood by this investigation. It is suggested that eagerness to participate stems from the jealousy of the fellow classmates that did not get to participate.
The age of participants makes this sort of research project difficult to judge as it is difficult to get meaningful or useful feedback from the participants. Limited time and the short attention spans of the students made it hard to construct a well-balanced conversation about what was taking place and what was being learned.
Overall students were exposed to a minimum of 80 minutes of extra physical education time, which can be seen as a great triumph in itself as students at this particular school only have 1 planned PE session a week.
The Games Sense approach has provided an effective method of gaining and maintaining children’s interest in the participation and performance of the fundamental movement skills of throwing and catching; which was the question posed by this investigation.
Being a pre service teacher myself I feel the importance of education using TGFU is shown within this investigation however small it may be. It can be seen that this method even when used by an amateur teacher is effective. Therefore it is suggested that the games sense approach be adapted by all teacher training facilities to ensure it is used throughout future schooling.
This statement is supported by Pearson & Webb (2008) that suggest the key to moving forward with TGFU in the education system is to educate pre service teachers as it is difficult to change existing teachers methods.
This research project has found supporting evidence that a games sense approach to teaching games for understanding is a valid and effective way of teaching fundamental movement skills.
It is important to take into consideration the size and scale of this research project. While it does support the claims that the games sense approach does help fundamental movement skills it is an extremely small study and lots more research needs to be done on this matter.
The aim of the game sense approach is for students to execute responses successfully by knowing how to and knowing what to do, appears to provide sufficient information for students to build their understanding of a game and allows them to practice their fundamental movement skills whist participating in such games.
While this research project suggests that the games sense approach can improve fundamental movement skills there is little evidence done on this specific theory and it is suggested that further research be conducted to support this claim.
Austin, B., Haynes, J., & Miller, J. (2004). USING A GAME SENSE APPROACH FOR IMPROVING FUNDAMENTAL MOTOR SKILLS (1st ed.). New England: University of New England.
Ellis, (1986). Rethinking Games Teaching – The Curriculum Model (1st ed.). Loughborough. Retrieved from http://flo.flinders.edu.au/pluginfile.php/1395010/mod_resource/content/1/PHED%20RETHINKING%20GAMES.pdf
Forrest, Pearson, P., & Web, P. (2009). Expanding the teaching games for understanding (TGfU) concept to include sport education in physical education program (SEPEP) (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=edupapers
GET SKILLED: GET ACTIVE. (2015) (1st ed.). NSW. Retrieved from http://www.healthykids.nsw.gov.au/downloads/file/teacherschildcare/Get_skilled_get_active_booklet.pdf
Kirk, D., MacPhail, A. (2002) Teaching Games for Understanding and Situated Learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21 (2) January, pp.177-192.
Lee MCY, Chow JY, Komar J, Tan CWK, Button C (2014) Nonlinear Pedagogy: An Effective Approach to Cater for Individual Differences in Learning a Sports Skill. PLoS ONE 9(8): e104744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104744
Light, R. (2003). The joy of learning: Emotion and learning in games through TGfU (1st ed.). New Zealand: Journal of Physical Education New Zealand. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/docview/211243737/fulltextPDF/BB6EE60AD11B46A4PQ/1?accountid=10910
Mandingo, J., & Holt, N. (2002). The Inclusion of Optimal Challenge in Teaching Games for Understanding (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~jmandigo/inclusionOC.pdf
McKeen, K., Pearson, P., & Webb, P. (2006). Teaching games for understanding - 10 years in Australia (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1646&context=edupapers
NSW Department of Education and Training, 2000, GET SKILLED: GET ACTIVE. (2015) (1st ed.). NSW. Retrieved from http://www.healthykids.nsw.gov.au/downloads/file/teacherschildcare/Get_skilled_get_active_booklet.pdf
Pearson, P., & Webb, p. (2008). http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=edupapers (1st ed.). Adelaide. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=edupapers
Pill, S. (2013). Play with purpose. Hindmarsh, S. Aust.: Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (ACHPER).
Pill, S. (2015). Sports Coach: Teaching games for understanding. Ausport.gov.au. Retrieved 25 September 2015, from http://www.ausport.gov.au/sportscoachmag/coaching_processes/teaching_games_for_understanding
Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (1986). Rethinking Games Teaching – The Curriculum Model (1st ed.). Loughborough. Retrieved from http://flo.flinders.edu.au/pluginfile.php/1395010/mod_resource/content/1/PHED%20RETHINKING%20GAMES.pdf