http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.

qst;jsessionid=MnzGvhcLTF52hhjtm7gcQFgLvpB2BmG3HGfM5n
T4GCzgvcv94TK9!-775909462!-493281967?docId=5002249790

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 ...
Read this entire Journal Article and more with a FREE trial.