Effect of Teaching Games for Understanding Approach on Students- Cognitive Learning Outcome

The study investigated the effects of Teaching Games for Understanding approach on students ‘cognitive learning outcome. The study was a quasi-experimental non-equivalent pretest-posttest control group design whereby 10 year old primary school students (n=72) were randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. The experimental group students were exposed with TGfU approach and the control group with the Traditional Skill approach of handball game. Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI) was used to measure students' tactical understanding and decision making in 3 versus 3 handball game situations. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the data. The results reveal that there was a significant difference between the TGfU approach group and the traditional skill approach group students on post test score (F (1, 69) = 248.83, p < .05). The findings of this study suggested the importance of TGfU approach to improve primary students’ tactical understanding and decision making in handball game.




References:
[1] Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2006). Dynamic physical education for
secondary school students (5th. ed). SanFrancisco, CA: Pearson
Education.
[2] Wuest, P. A., & Butcher, C. A (2006). Foundation of Physical Education
and Sport. 15thUSA : McGraw Hill.
[3] Bunker, B., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for teaching games in
secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18, 5-8.
[4] Butler, J., & McCahan, B. J. (2005). Teaching games for understanding
as a curriculum model. In L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds), Teaching games
for understanding: Theory, research and practice (pp. 33-35). Windsor:
Human Kinetics.
[5] Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (1998). Situation learning in physical
education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376-387.
[6] Rovegno, I., & Dolly, J. P. (2006). Constructivism perspectives on
learning. In D. Kirk, D. Mcdonald, & M. O-Sullivan (Eds.), Handbook
of Physical Education (pp.242-261). London: Sage.
[7] Webb. P., & Pearson, P. (2008). An integrated approach to Teaching
Games For Understanding. A paper presented at 1st AsiaPacific Sport in
Education Conference, Adelaide, Australia. Journal of Health, Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 28-33.
[8] Mitchell, S. A. (2005). Teaching and learning games at the elementary
level. In L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for
understanding: Theory, research and practice (pp. 55-70). Champaign.
IL: Human Kinetics.
[9] Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for
understanding: Evolution of a model. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28-33.
[10] Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., &
Araujo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in Physical
Education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), pp. 251-278.
[11] Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986b). From theory to practice. In R.
Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching
pp. 11-14. Loughborough UK: University of Technology.
[12] Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., Barbiaz, M., & McCaughtry, N. (2001).
Changes in basic tactics and motor skills in an invasion-type game after
a 12-lesson unit of instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 20, 352-369.
[13] Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1992). A comparative analysis of two
models for teaching games. International Journal of Physical Education,
29, 15-31.
[14] Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding. The importance
of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Physical
Education Recreation and Dance, 73(7), 44-48.
[15] Thorpe, R. D., & Bunker, D. J. (1997). A changing focus in games
teaching. In. L. Almond (Ed.), Physical Education in school (pp. 50-80).
London: Kogan Page.
[16] Mandigo, J., Buttler, J., & Hopper, T. (2007). What is Teaching Games
for Understanding? A Canadian perspective. Physical and Health
Education, 14-20.
[17] Kirk, D. (2005a). Future prospects for teaching games for understanding
and delight of Human activity. In L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching
games for understanding: Theory, research and practice (pp. 213-226).
Windsor: Human Kinetics.
[18] De Vries, L. A. (2008). Overview of recent innovative practices in
physical education and sports in Asia. In Innovative Practices in
Physical Education and Sports in Asia (pp. 1-21). Bangkok, Thailand:
UNESCO.
[19] Salleh, A. R. (1997). The attitudes towards physical education of
students from different ethnic groups at secondary school level in
Malaysia. PhD. thesis, University of Manchester, England.
[20] Rengasamy, S. (2006). The current status of teaching cardiovascular
endurance among Malaysian school children: Theory and practice.
Masalah Pendidikan, 29, 91-101.
[21] Sanmuga. N. (2008). The effects and sustainability of training
programmers- using Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU) with
different teaching style on students with varying hockey skill levels. A
paper presented at 1st Asia Pacific Sport in Education Conference,
Adelaide, Australia.
[22] Wee, E. H. (2001). Attitude of Physical Education teachers towards
Physical Education and implementation of Physical Education program
in secondary school. Unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur.
[23] Griffin, L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sports
concepts and skill: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
[24] Capel, S. (1991). Teaching games as an interactive activity. International
Journal of Physical Education, 27(2), 6-9.
[25] Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., & Babiaz, M. (2001). Learning and teaching
invasion game tactics in 4th grade: Instructional and theoretical
perspective. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 20(4), 341-351.
[26] Tallir, I. B., Mush, E., Lannoo, K., & Voorde, J.V. (2003). Validation of
video-based instruments for the assessment of game performance in
handball and soccer. Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference,
Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding. University
of Melbourne.