This article was downloaded by: [University of Alberta]

On: 26 October 2014, At: 15:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quest
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

Teaching for Understanding: A Model for Improving Decision

Making During Game Play
a b
Adrian Turner & Thomas J. Martinek
a
School of HPER at Bowling Green State University, Memorial Hall , Bowling Green , OH , 43403
b
Department of Exercise and Sport Science , University of North Carolina at Greensboro ,
Greensboro , NC , 27412
Published online: 16 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Adrian Turner & Thomas J. Martinek (1995) Teaching for Understanding: A Model for Improving Decision Making
During Game Play, Quest, 47:1, 44-63, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.1995.10484144

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1995.10484144

 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 QUEST, 1995, 47,4463
O 1995 National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education

Teaching for Understanding: A

Model for Improving Decision
Making During Game Play
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

Adrian Turner and Thomas J. Martinek

A predominant area of instruction in school physical education programs is
game play. Effective decision making is important to the successful execution
of skills. Unfortunately, the task of teaching effective decision making in
varying game situations is not easy. The demands of the game require
far more than simply physical skillfulness. Game play is interwoven with
numerous decision-making opportunities for the participant. Successful game
players must make these decisions in an effective and timely manner. The
purpose of this article is to compare two models of game instruction: the
technique model and the "games for understanding" model. This analysis
indicates that the games for understanding model provides a more viable
way of teaching strategic decision making for game players. Included will
be discussions on the various theories that contrast the two approaches. A
final section provides suggestions for future research into the validity of the
"games for understanding model."

Jim Larson has just finished teaching a unit of field hockey to his sixth-
grade class. During the unit he focused on teaching the basic skills of the game
(dribbling, passing and receiving, tackling, and shooting). The majority of his
learning tasks were structured drills, and the students were given a chance to
play some games at the conclusion of the unit. During the games Jim noticed
that many of the students who did so well during the practice drills performed
poorly during the games. In fact, it appeared that some students were unable to
execute many of the basic skills (passing to a partner, receiving passes, defending
passes) while playing a field hockey game.
The above vignette illustrates a situation that is not uncommon: Students
who seem to possess the necessary game skills have great difficulty performing
those same skills in game situations. Like Jim Larson, teachers and coaches have

Adrian Turner is with the School of HPER at Bowling Green State University,
Memorial Hall, Bowling Green, OH 43403. Thomas J. Martinek is with the Department
of Exercise and Sport Science at University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro,
NC 27412.
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 45

often tried to present skills first and then put them in game situations, hoping
that the application of those skills will surface. Unfortunately, the majority of
teachers and coaches find that only a few of their students can effectively make
the transition. Even with the persistent practice of these skills, ineffective game
play frequently ensues.
One of the main reasons for this problem is that most people believe that
a "skilled child" already possesses the necessary prerequisites for performing
a task in any game-like situation. We believe, however, that the demands of the
game require students to have more than physical skillfulness to be successful.
We contend that game play is interwoven with various decision-making opportu-
nities for the participant; some of these decisions need to be made instantaneously,
whereas others are more anticipatory. It is critical, therefore, that the successful
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

game player possess the knowledge to make these decisions in a timely and
effective way. For example, even those students who have mastered the basic
fundamentals of passing in field hockey will be doomed to failure during game
play if they cannot make proper decisions regarding where and when to execute
the appropriate pass.
Traditionally, games lessons have been structured around learning specific
skills and developing techniques associated with these skills. This approach
places the emphasis of instruction on developing physical ability rather than on
understanding the overall dynamics of game play (Bailey & Almond, 1983).
Some researchers have shown that understanding what is necessary requires
knowledge and perception; thus, excellent technical performers may not be skill-
ful, because they may not understand when and where to use their techniques.
These performers do not know "what to do" in the context of game situations.
Knowledge and perception are fundamental to decision making. It is neces-
sary to be able to sift the essential from the nonessential and the first priority
from the second and lower priorities. For example, in soccer the first priority of
a defender who is guarding an offensive player in possession of the ball is to
win the ball. The second priority (if the ball cannot be won) is to prevent the
offensive player from playing the ball forward. It is posited that students should
be encouraged to understand that effective games participation is contingent upon
making appropriate decisions and that physical education teachers are in a position
to facilitate this concept (Hughes, 1980).
The importance of teaching an understanding of game play is also demon-
strated in the way students are motivated during skill practice. We strongly
believe that an inherent problem of discrete skill practice is that learning is often
decontextualized. That is, pupils often practice a skill wanting to know where
the skill will apply. Without this frame of reference, practice becomes meaning-
less. For example, it is not unusual to see teachers and coaches begin a basketball
unit by having their students pair off and pass to each other, first using the two-
hand chest pass, then the bounce pass, then the overhead pass, and so on. We
contend that these types of experiences provide little relevance for learners
concerning when and how these passes will be used; learners are unable to
experience the game condition to which the skills will be applied. As a result,
students quickly lose their motivation to practice these skills. It is little wonder
that the familiar cry, "When do we play the game?" is often heard by teachers
and coaches.
 46 TUFSJER AND MARTINEK

The purpose of this article is to describe an alternative model for teaching

effective decision making for game play. Special emphasis will be placed on
presenting a theoretical overview of the development of tactical knowledge and
how it can be linked to effective decision making in game play. Following this,
we will present an alternative teaching model for enhancing tactical awareness
in learners. Finally, a review of research that has attempted to validate the impact
of the games-centered and traditional technique models of instruction will be
provided. Included in this section will be suggestions for future researchers who
attempt to test the model's viability.

Developing Tactical Awareness: A Theoretical Overview

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

Bunker and Thorpe (1986) indicated that the uniqueness of games is the
decision-making process that precedes the execution aspect of performance in
the game. Thomas, French, and Humphries (1986) explained that "sport perfor-
mance is a complex product of cognitive knowledge about the current situation
and past events combined with a player's ability to produce the sport skill(s)
required" (p. 259). Bunker and Thorpe contended that each game situation poses
a problem and that this element of games lies within the cognitive area of learning.
Entwistle (1969) introduced the notion of intelligent performance based
upon the participant's knowledge of the situation. But what knowledge is im-
portant in terms of understanding and performing intelligently in games? Thomas
et al. (1986) postulated that the ability to select appropriate responses in game
situations is a type of decision making that requires several kinds of knowledge,
including knowledge about the game and its goals and knowledge of actions
within the context of game situations. If teaching games is concerned with
developing good decision makers, then the "knowledge concept" appears to be
crucial.
Anderson (1976) proposed two distinct classifications of knowledge: declar-
ative and procedural. Declarative knowledge is defined as the knowledge of
factual information. It is a propositional network consisting of nodes and links
(Chi & Glaser, 1980; Chi & Rees, 1983). Each node indicates a concept and the
links represent associations between concepts. Procedural knowledge is usually
conceptualized in terms of production systems (Anderson, 1976, 1982; Chi &
Rees, 1983). Procedures are (if-then) statements for completing sequences
- - of
action that are activated through associations with declarative concepts. If the
condition side matches the contents of the short-term memory, then the action
is executed. For example, in baseball, knowledge of the players, the field, and
different positions would be declarative knowledge, whereas knowledge of the
appropriate actions during the course of the game would be procedural knowledge
(Thomas et al., 1986).
The link between knowledge development and performance is further sub-
stantiated when looking at earlier studies on expertise. In a summary of research
on expertise Chi et al. (1988) characterized experts as having a rich, well-
organized, domain-specific knowledge base. In other words, experts' knowledge
structures contained more concepts, more relations defining each concept, more
interconnections among concepts, greater ability to retrieve related concepts, and
more production systems or procedures concerning how to perform in a given
situation than did those of novices (Chi & Glaser, 1980).
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 47

The depth and organization of knowledge influences how experts deal with
problem-solving situations. According to Housner (1991), experts are able to
interpret and recall domain information in large and meaningful chunks. Experts
spend more time analyzing problems and apply more powerful algorithms or
heuristics to solve these problems than do novices. Expert-novice differences
have been found to be generalized across various domains including chess
(Chase & Simon, 1973), physics problem solving (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser,
198I), taxi driving (Chase, 1983),medical diagnosis (Elstein, Shulman & Sprafka,
1978), and sport (Housner, 1981; Starkes, 1987).
French and Thomas (1987) contend that many of the cognitive decision-
making processes involved in sports situations could be modeled by productions
(proceduralknowledge). If, as Anderson (1976) and Chi and Rees (1983) suggest,
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

a foundation of declarative knowledge is necessary for the development of proce-

dural knowledge (such as what to do in a given game situation), then an adequate
declarative knowledge base must be formed before one can develop good deci-
sion-making skills. As French and Thomas (1987) have shown, "this could
include knowledge of the rules of the game, player positions, goals, and subgoals
of the game" (p. 17).
The importance of students thinking about the rules to ensure they under-
stand the goal they are trying to achieve is emphasized by Bunker and Thorpe
(1982). Brackenridge (1979) has also noted in reference to games that the code
of rules identifies the problem and ensures that teams or individuals meet on an
equal basis. The rules provide a structure for the game because they clearly state
the nature of the problem and closely constrain the means available to the player(s)
for solving the problem (how winning can be achieved). All competitive games
are characterized by having a set of rules that provide a structure that defines
the problem (e.g., playing area, equipment, number of players, time allowed, and
the goal or ai6 of the game).
Chiesi, Spilich, and Voss (1979) and Spilich, Vesonder, Chiesi, and Voss
(1979) have identified a conceptual framework in which the structure of the
knowledge base for a sport is organized. The framework focuses on the game's
goal structure, game states, and actions and on the setting in which the game
takes place.
The goal structure is hierarchically organized, with the highest goal being
to win the game. Spilich et al. (1979) also suggest that most games can be
described interms of sequences of game states and game actions. The game state
is the existing condition in a game at any given time. A game action is an action
or actions occurring during the game that may produce a change in the game
state. The importance of a specific game action is determined by the game's goal
structure.
Past research suggests that "high-knowledge" individuals tend to process
input information relevant to the goal structure of the game. High-knowledge
individuals are able to monitor changes in game states and actions and can
selectively process information relatedto the goal structure (Chiesi et. al., 1979).

Knowledge Development and the Teaching of Games

The implication of this research appears to be very important for teaching
games. This research implies that an individual who is more knowledgeable
about the sport is better able to select the appropriate response for a situation
 48 TURNER AND MARTINEK

within the context of a game's goal structure (Thomas et al., 1986). That is, sport
performance differences may result from an individual's knowledge of "what
to do" in the context of a sport situation.
One of the only experiments to address this issue was undertaken by
McPherson and Thomas (1989). They classified 9- to 12-year-old tennis players
as experts or novices. Novices had 3-6 months playing experience and had never
played in tournaments. The experts had a minimum bf 2 years experience and
had played in junior tournaments. In this study, after each point in a game, the
players were interviewed and asked what they had attempted to do on the previous
point. This information was then compared to what they had done, which was
established from a videotape of the points played.
In general terms, the experts knew what to do nearly all of the time, whereas
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

the novices did not. Experts formed condition action (if-then productions), which
may facilitate the development of if-then-do productions stored in sport knowl-
edge. The verbal protocols of the experts' actions included both the selection of
the action (then) and the method for carrying out this action (do) (McPherson &
Thomas, 1989). The researchers noted thefollowing example from an expert
player: "If my opponent has a weak backhand then I will stroke my forehand
deep down the line to his backhand and I will do it by placing topspin on the
ball and making sure I will follow through" (p. 208).
In contrast, novices were still forming a declarative base of knowledge and
how to solve the problems (make decisions during game play) which follows
along with the characteristics of the development of procedural knowledge (e.g.,
general interpretiveprocedures). Novices exhibited a much more general approach
to solving the problem: "I was just trying to hit it" (McPherson & Thomas,
1989, p. 208). The interviews indicated that the novices were unable to use
procedural references during game play because such references did not exist.
As French and Thomas (1987) have indicated, "many mistakes commonly ob-
served in young children in various sports situations may stem from a lack of
knowledge about what to do in the context of a given sport situation" (p. 17).
Interestingly,Magill (1993) noted that although the experts were able to show
that they knew what action goal to establish in a particular situation, they were not
always able to fulfill this goal in their performance of the action. That is, experts
could not attach the appropriate parameter values to the specified motor program.
The studies of French and Thomas (1987) and McPherson and Thomas (1989)
have shown that the development of sport declarative knowledge was related to
the development of productions that allowed sport participants to make better
decisions during game play. An important issue facing practitioners, then, pertains
to knowing how this relationship is affected by the timing of tactical and skill
instruction. Recently, ~ c ~ h e r s oand
n French (1991) conducted two experiments
to examine this concept. In Experiment 1 of their research, the participants were
given instruction in fundamental tennis skills emphasizing consistent motor patterns
and declarative tennis knowledge (rules, goals, and subgoals of the game) followed
by the introduction and integration of tennis strategies. In Experiment 2 participants
received declarative and procedural (decision-making) tennis knowledge and mini-
mal fundamental skill instruction, followed by an emphasis on refining knowledge
and skill in the context of game situations.
The results from Experiment 1 suggested that participants may have experi-
enced interference at midterm when strategies were introduced because skill did
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 49

not improve thereafter, but across the semester, students improved their decision-
making ability in game situations. In Experiment 2, attention was focused more
on strategy than on skill. Overall, students' knowledge (declarative) and decision
making during games increased dramatically, whereas motor skill ability (skill
tests) denoted little improvementover time. After midterm, in Experiment 2, when
response execution was instructed, skill execution during game play improved.
In a similar study by Rink, French, and Werner (1991) the effects of three
different treatments (tactical awareness, skill development, and a combination
of strategy and skill development) were examined on the knowledge base of
ninth-grade novice badminton players. No differences were observed between
the treatment groups on the knowledge test, which was split into categories of
knowledge of rules, technique, and strategy. All of the treatment groups scored
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

better than the control group of students who did not take badminton.
The studies by McPherson and French (1991) and Rink et al. (1991)
examined the issue of time spent on skill instruction and tactical instruction and
how these instructional strategies influenced knowledge and the components of
game performance from a relational perspective. However, the issue of how to
go about teaching the decision aspects during game play from a games-centered
perspective was not addressed in these studies. This emphasis is at the very
center of the games approach, teaching for understanding, which stresses the
importance of the player making correct decisions in the light of tactical aware-
ness.
Although virtually untested in terms of a research base, the strength of the
Bunker and Thorpe (1992) "understanding approach" to games teaching is the
focus on tactical awareness and decision-making processes before skill selection
and execution. In addition to the work of Thomas et al. (1986), theoretical support
for Bunker and Thorpe's sequence distinction between what to do and how
to do it is provided from an information-processing perspective. Information-
processing models that specify the movement preparation process usually stipulate
the determination of the action goal as a stage that occurs prior to the preparation
of the movement parameters. Requin, Lecas, and Bonnet (1984) and Sanders
(1980) have shown in their motor preparation models that specification of the
goal-directed action precedes the creation of a motor program to carry out the
action. Pew (1984) and Schmidt (1988) also consider that after a goal-oriented
representation has been accessed from memory (what to do), then the movement
parameterization process takes place (how to do it).
Research by Bard and Fleury (1976) and French (1985) indicated that the
component of game performance that discriminated expert and novice players
wasthe ability-to make appropriate decisions within the context of the game.
French and Thomas (1987) report that a significant relationship exists between
sport-specific knowledge and the decision component of performance. There is
speculation that the acquisition of domain related knowledge is responsible, in
part, for the facilitationof performance on certain tasks, and consequently,varying
instructional strategies may impact on knowledge and performance.

Teaching for Understanding Model

It appears that the approach to game instruction should include ways to
provide learning tasks that give learners the opportunity to make tactical decisions.
According to Bunker and Thorpe (1982), the traditional way of teaching games
 50 TURNER AND MARTINEK

focuses more on teaching skills as a means for improving performance in a game.

Teachers using this method rely on highly structured lessons that lean heavily
toward teaching techniques. Unfortunately, these skills are taught outside of the
context of the game condition, thereby precluding the acquisition of tactical
knowledge.
Bunker and Thorpe (1982) propose a model that fosters both tactical aware-
ness and skill instruction. The model focuses on the teaching for understanding
approach (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). Unlike the traditional linear approach to
game-skill instruction, this model operates from the premise that game situations
or circumstances should be introduced to the learner first. This helps to ensure
that learning specific skills will be contextualized throughout instruction. Figure
1 illustrates the basic components of the model.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

Specifically, the model suggests that teaching games takes place in six
stages. The first stage introduces the game form. During this stage, an adult game
may be the aim, but initially, students should be introduced to a variety of
mini (lead-up) games. A suitable playing surface, small numbers, and adapted
equipment may be used to present children with situations and problems involved
in playing games. If an appropriate minigame is constructed it may look very
similar to the adult version of the game.

(4) MAKING APPROPRIATE

DECISIONS

Figure 1 - The games for understanding model. Note. From "A Model for the
Teaching of Games in Secondary Schools," by D. Bunker and R. Thorpe, 1982,
Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1),p. 6. Copyright 1982. Reprinted with permission.
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 51

In the game appreciation stage (Stage 2) the emphasis is on children

understanding the rules of the game they are Iearning to play. The rules provide
the scope of the game. The laws of the game will place constraints of time and
space on the game. They will state how points (goals) are scored and will also
determine the range of skills that are required.
Stage 3, tactical awareness, suggests that after some involvement and an
understanding of the rules, it is necessary to consider the tactics to be used in
the game. For example, ways of creating space when attacking and of denying
space when defending may be used to overcome the opposition. Common princi-
ples of play form the basis for a tactical approach.
Decision making in Stage 4 emphasizes the difference between decisions
based upon what to do, and how to do it, thus permitting both the learner and
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

teacher to recognize and attribute shortcomings in decision-making. While tactical

awareness (what to do) is necessary for making decisions, the nature of games
means that circumstances are continually changing. In order to decide what to
do, each situation has to be assessed. The ability to recognize cues and predict
potential outcomes is essential. Thomas et al. (1986) emphasize that if students
are facilitated to realize the importance of monitoring changes in game states
and actions, then they are more apt to develop strategies to monitor changes and
plan responses in advance. A higher knowledge student has the ability to predict
game-related actions based upon a small set of environmental cues. They select
relevant cues from the situation and attach possibilities to game actions. The
"how to do it" refers to the decision about what is the best way to execute the
skill, and the selection of an appropriate response is critical.
The fifth stage refers to skill execution where the actual production of the
required movement is envisioned by the teacher and seen in the context of the
learner, recognizing the learner's limitations. Skill execution is always seen in
the context of the learner and the game. It is separate from performance because
it contains a qualitative component, judging the efficiency of the skill and its
appropriateness in the game (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982).
The final stage is pe$ormance. During this stage, outcomes derived from
the other stages are assessed (Bunker & Thrope, 1982). This is the classification
of students as good or bad players at school or international level based on the
appropriateness of the response as well as the efficiency of the skill. Bunker and
Thorpe (1986) have shown that "unlike traditional teaching methods this ap-
proach starts with a game and its rules which set the scene for the development
of tactical awareness and decision-making, which, in their turn, always precede
the response factors of skill execution and performance" (p. 3).

Application of Model
In the games for understanding approach, the teacher constructs a game
form at the start of each lesson. One of the main elements of this approach is
the provision of small-group learning experiences that are gamelike initially.
Students are introduced to the game as quickly as possible under conditions that
are appropriate for them to handle. Examples of this might include a 2-on- 1 keep
away game and a 3-on-3 minigame. The teacher observes the game and then
investigates tactical problems. This will be done by stopping the game and
questioning the students, thereby encouraging them to think about the aim of the
 52 TURNER AND MARTINEK

game and exactly what they are trying to achieve. Students are allowed to learn
the rudiments of strategies (give and go, screen, post play, rebounding) before
they have mastered the intricacies of individual skills (dribble, pasq shoot).
If the game is "breaking down," it is appropriate to ask the students,
"Why is this occurring?" The teacher attempts to elicit responses from the
pupils. An example might occur when the play is compressed in a small space
in a soccer game. From an attacking perspective this will make the game difficult.
Once the students are aware of the tactical problem, they need to be helped to
develop a strategy that could amend this predicament.
This help may be in the form of a game-related practice decided upon by
the teacher. If the reason for the game breakdown is technique related but the
strategy is appropriate, then the teacher will intervene to promote (teach) the
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

skill. However, as specified in Bunker and Thorpe's (1982) model, student

decision making based on tactical awareness always precedes teaching the skill.
The theory attached to this approach is that students should see the need for,
and relevance of, particular techniques as they are required in the game situation
(Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). The students will then return to the game and the
teacher will stop the game and teach game principles based on the students'
performances.
The lesson structure for this method is indicated below:

1. The teacher sets up the game form.

2. The teacher observes playlpractice.
3. The teacher and students investigate tactical problems and potential solu-
tions (game-related practices).
4. The teacher observes play.
5. The teacher intervenes to promote skill (if necessary).
6. The teacher observes the game and intervenes to teach.

The structure is flexible, and rather than cover tactics and strategies necessarily
in a specific order, the teacher may select practices based upon game weaknesses
that he or she observes in conjunction with the students. Unfortunately the typical
format used to teach games and sports has not reflected this premise.

Technique Versus Games for Understanding Approaches

Bunker and Thorpe (1986) have shown that observation of "present games
teaching shows a series of highly structured lessons leaning heavily on the
teaching of techniques" (p. 26). A similar emphasis is identified by Joyce and
Weil(1986) in reference to the theory-to-practice model of teaching. This method
mixes information about a skill with demonstrations, practice, feedback, and
coaching until the skill is mastered.
Bunker and Thorpe (1986) hypothesized that the reason teachers are so
technique oriented is a result of the emphasis placed upon skill acquisition courses
and upon measurement and evaluation courses during the teachers' training
period. The focus on simple skills that are rarely employed in a sport context
(Thomas, French, Thomas, & Gallagher, 1988), but that are so much easier to
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 53

evaluate than other aspects of games, such as decision making, may have pulled
the physical educator toward the technical side of games. Bailey and Almond
(1983) have shown that one of the consequences has been a clear division in
schools between those who are good or bad games players. Teachers may have
unwittingly been fostering incompetence in the majority of children. Earls (1983)
noted that there is little evidence that conventional instruction is positively related
to learning and developing motor skills for most children.
In addition, Bunker and Thorpe (1986) contended that the insistence by
training colleges and universities upon a lesson plan that ensures student teachers
follow a clear and easily documented preparation procedure has led to a lesson
format divided into an introductory activity, a skill phase, and a game. The
following provides a typical example of the technique model:
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

introductory activity + skill phase + game

At worst this structure has led to an introductory session unrelated to what is to
follow, a technique section seen as essential only by the teacher, and a game
inappropriate to the ability of many of the children. A consequence of this format
may be a "command" or "task" teaching style (Mosston & Ashworth, 1986)
that more readily fits techniques than other aspects of games, including decision
making. Research supporting the wide use of this technique approach was doc&
mented in a study by Cheffers and Mancini (1978). They analyzed patterns of
teaching of 83 physical education teachers recorded in Anderson and Barrette's
(1978) video data bank. Cheffers and Mancini concluded that the PE teachers
used lecture, demonstration,and directions as their predominant mode of teaching.
Rink (1992) has also suggested that teaching is a linear process in which students
are shown what to do, the students do it, and the teacher evaluates how well
they have done.
Most teachers appear to believe that a list of techniques to be taught offers
the strongest framework for thinking about games teaching (Almond, 1986).
Rovegno (1993) found that 9 of the 12 physical education teacher education
students in her study did not recognize game play and inherent strategy as content
to be taught. Instead, these preservice teachers viewed games as interesting
contexts for practicing skills.
Rink (1992) supported the view that there should be a move away from
how to execute techniques toward the use of skills in game play at the upper
elementary, middle school, and high school age levels. Rink elucidates that over
the years there has been a tendency to teach games using a technical approach
focusing on skill instruction and then attempting to incorporate these skills in
games. Vickers (1990) identified this methodology as a bottom-up teaching
strategy in which simpler skills are built one upon the other. The more complex
material is supposedly reached as the result of a linear process. The bottom-up
process may be easier for beginning teachers and coaches to comprehend because
the simple-to-complex ordering of hierarchical information is intuitively appeal-
ing. Unlike expert teachers, novices cannot easily attend to multiple ideas and
events simultaneously (Rovegno, 1992; Sabers, Cushing, & Berliner, 1991).
However, Vickers (1990) has shown that learning simpler skills may not always
occur before complex ones are learned. By restricting instruction to this one
approach, the limitations placed on students are inappropriate (Vickers, 1990).
 54 TURNER AND MARTINEK

Research by Buck and Harrison (1990) indicated that students regress in

skill level during game play. They postulate that a common error in teaching
sport skills is to practice the skill using drills and then incorporate the skill into
a game situation. The scenario presented below provides an illustration of this
problem that is explicit in the technique approach to games instruction:
It is very common to see an elementary school class practice soccer dribbling
around cones, practice dribbling and shooting at a goal, and then play a
game. However, the skills that are practiced often fall apart in games, and
students and teachers get discouraged because teaching these skills does
not appear to affect performance. (Peterson, 1992, p. 37)
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

The template that appears to have emerged for games teaching is one in which
teachers have structured the learning experience so that students are guided
and prompted continually, culminating in the development of teacher-dependent
performers. Under a guided learning approach identified by Singer (1982), think-
ing (improvising, planning, adapting) behaviors are discouraged, and learning is
deemed efficient as specific acts are acquired in rapid time.
Earls (1983) and Peterson (1992) have noted in reference to game play
that a child's readiness is frequently violated by the leap from simple practice
drills to complex games. It appears that a weakness may exist in the practice
conditions for teaching games during physical education lessons. A key prediction
of the schema theory of motor learning (Pew, 1974; Schmidt, 1975) is that
schemata, or rules, governing a category of movements become stronger with
more variable practice of these movements. The variable practice will develop
schemata that are retained longer and are more adaptable. It may be argued that
current games teaching practices neglect this theory.
The variability prediction has prompted much research attention and has
found general, though not always convincing, support (e.g., Carson & Wiegand,
1979; Kelso & Norman, 1978; Moxley 1979). Although these and other tests of
the variability of practice notion have focused on closed skills, the predictions
about variable practice would seem to be more significant for the acquisition of
"open" skills as shown by Gabbard (1984), where greater demands are made
upon response adaptation during games.
Buck and Harrison (1990) indicated that the effective transition from skill
drills to game play requires students to practice in game-like conditions early in
the learning sequence. Singer (1982) has shown that if the purpose of the learning
situation is to lead to the development of the learning process and to encourage
learners to think, resolve any situational dilemmas, and adapt to new but related
game situations, then the encouragement of problem-solving approaches (guided
tactfully by the teacher) in the initial learning situations should be advantageous.
To be in a state of inquiry, the learner must move away from cognitive acquies-
cence (to accept passively) and towards cognitive dissonance (to create an active
disturbance). Festinger (1957) contended that a cognitive disturbance creates the
requisite desire to inquire and seek solutions.
Open skills are predominant in games. Open tasks involve adaptive
processes, the ability to react suddenly to the unknown and to anticipate. The
ability to anticipate and to make accurate predictions stems from the experience
of playing games (Davies & Armstrong, 1989). Singer (1982) has shown that
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 55

habitlike learned acts could be disastrous for performance in game situations.

In field hockey, for example, a player in possession of the ball must be able
to use the appropriate technique at the correct time. Rigid habits may cause
the field hockey player to make mistakes. Gentile (1972) suggested that it is
possible for an open-skill performer to have a consistent motor pattern that
simply does not work to produce the desired environmental consequence.
Hoffman (1983) indicated that decision errors are only eliminated when the
performers learn to pay closer attention to the temporal relationship between
their movements and relevant signals in the environment. Open skills are
difficult to execute because of the complexity of the environment and the need
to select the most appropriate action for the occasion. Hence, there is a need
to move away from drill and repetition towards a situation in which the students
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

actively pursue solutions to their problems in games (Gabbard & McBride,

1990).
Bunker and Thorpe (1986) contend that each game situation poses a problem
and that this element of games lies within the cognitive area of learning. For
example, Schwager and Labate (1993) have shown that in a basketball game a
student may ask, "How do I get the basketball downcourt while I am closely
guarded?" The student must examine the situation on the court, decide on a
possible course of action, establish which movements will result in success, and
then assess the outcome of the choice that was selected. Voss, Green, Post, and
Penner (1983) have alluded to the importance of domain-specific knowledge as
a determinant of problem-solving ability, and McBride (1991) suggested that in
order to think critically in an effective fashion in any domain, one must first
have knowledge about that domain.
The focus on cognitive components in Bunker and Thorpe's (1982) model
makes it possible to compare its effects on game performance with those of a
technique-orientedteaching method. The examination could focus on knowledge
(declarative and procedural) and decision-making components in game perfor-
mance and skill acquisition. If it is the intention of physical education profession-
als to aid students to become better game performers, then research focusing on
the viability of these two approaches to games instruction may produce important
findings for games teaching.

Validity of the Model

While the model proposed by Bunker and Thorpe (1982) makes good
intuitive sense, little empirical evidence exists to support its validity. We believe
that this is unfortunate because 65% or more of the time allotted to physical
education instruction is occupied by the games curriculum (Thorpe, Bunker, &
Almond, 1984). In the following sections we will discuss some preliminary work
that has tested the validity of the model. Much of this research has utilized a
quasi-experimentaldesign in which knowledge has been measured using a knowl-
edge test; game play has been monitored using a protocol focusing on the control,
decision, and execution components of performance; and skill has been measured
by skill tests. In addition, suggestions for guiding future research in this area
will be given.
 56 TURNER AND MARTINEK

Development of Knowledge
Although some studies have focused on the relationship of expertise (skill-
fulness) to decision making and skill development, only a few have focused on
the fidelity of the games for understanding approach in the development of game
knowledge. Lawton (1989) conducted one of the first studies that compared the
games for understanding approach with a skill-based teaching approach. Lawton
compared the two approaches on the development of declarative and procedural
knowledge in 12- and 13-year-old badminton players. The treatment period was
6 weeks. The results indicated that there were no significant differences for
student knowledge of badminton over time or betweentreatments.
A similar finding was also reported in a recent study by Turner and Martinek
(1992). The game selected by these researchers was field hockey. The games
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

for understanding approach was compared to a technique approach for 6 weeks.

One of the comparisons made in the study concerned the development of declara-
tive and procedural knowledge. Similar to Lawton's (1989) findings, no signifi-
cant differences in the development of procedural and declarative knowledge
were found. One of the reasonsfor this finding may have been that children who
are novices often lack sufficient amounts of declarative and procedural knowledge
(French & Thomas, 1987). At the end of the short treatments in Lawton's (1989)
and Turner and Martinek's (1992) studies, all of the students may still have been
novices in terms of their knowledge base. The treatment period of 6 weeks in
both of these studies may have placed limitations on the amount of knowledge
that the students could realistically gain during such a short time. A longer
treatment period may have provided a more stringent examination of the games
for understanding and technique-centered methods of instruction and their effects
on student knowledge.
In response to this possible limitation, Turner's (1993) study of beginners
(sixth and seventh grade) in a field hockey unit lasted an entire semester. This
study contrasted the games for understanding and technique methods of instruc-
tion with students in a control group. Turner found significant knowledge gains
for the two treatment groups, but not for the control group. Interestingly, a
significant Time x Group interaction was found in favor of the games for under-
standing group for declarative knowledge. This finding appears to support the
view that the emphasis placed on knowledge in Stages 2 (game appreciation)
and 3 (tactical awareness) of the games for understanding model may have a
definitive impact on the knowledge base of the learners.
No significant differences existed between the treatment groups for proce-
dural knowledge. This finding is also interesting in light of French and Thomas'
(1987) view that a foundation of declarative knowledge is necessary for the
development of procedural knowledge. Students in Turner's (1993) study may
have developed a superior declarative knowledge base resulting from the games
for understanding approach, but the development of procedural knowledge may
actually take a longer time (Thomas et al., 1988) and may not yet have evolved
in the students in this study.

Decision Making
Throughout this paper we have stressed the importance of tactical awareness
and decision making during game play, a prime tenet of the games for understand-
ing approach. If both the quality of decisions and motor skill execution determine
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 57

successful performance in games, the contribution of motor skill execution to

skilled performance cannot be ignored. By using specially designed observation
tools, researchers have looked at decision making, as well as control and execution
ability, of children during actual game play (French & Thomas, 1987; Turner &
Martinek, 1992; McPherson & French, 1991). It is assumed that offensive play
for the majority of games occurs in the following sequence: a player controls
the ball or puck, decides which action is appropriate, and then executes the skill.
The decision component usually involves selecting which skill to use, as well
as which teammate to pass to, when to shoot, which direction to move with the
ball or puck, when to tackle, and so on.
Turner and Martinek's (1992) study indicated that the games for understand-
ing and technique approaches had similar effects on the improvement of game-
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

playing ability. The results showed that there were no significant differences
between the two treatment groups for the control, decision-making, and execution
variables. However, there was a significant difference over time for the control
variable. The nonsignificant results were partially attributed to a large number
of decision opportunities found at the end of the treatment period. These may
have increased due to the students' ability to control the hockey ball over time,
thus enabling the students to make more decisions on the posttest and subsequently
commit more errors. At the beginning of the treatment, Turner and Martinek
found that the students' inabilities to stop the hockey ball meant that fewer
decisions were made.
In addition, the short treatment period may have impaired the effects of
the two treatments on decision making. This notion is supported by Thomas et
al. (1988), who contend that the ability to make correct decisions within the
context of the game takes considerable time and many hours of practice. Further
research supporting this view was reported by Turner (1993), who found that
with a longer treatment period for field hockey (across a semester), students
receiving instruction under the games for understanding model made significantly
better decisions during games than students in the technique instruction or the
control groups. There were no significant differences between the two treatment
groups in terms of game execution.
These recent findings are also interesting in light of McPherson and
Thomas' (1989) study with child expert and novice tennis players. Although the
experts were quite capable of showing that they knew what action goal to establish
in a specific situation (i.e., they made the correct decision), they were not always
capable of accomplishing it in their game performance. While the appropriate
goal may have been established, there were problems in attaching the correct
parameter values to the selected motor program in the game. A's Magill (1993)
speculated, the distinction between what to do and how to do it may be unique
to complex motor skills, unlike verbal skills where knowing what to do is enough.
It would appear that differences in game decision making are beginning to emerge
favoring the use of an understanding approach to games instruction.

Skill Development
An important dimension in examining the impact of the games for under-
standing approach is the development of physical skill. In general, studies have
shown that the games for understanding approach has had an impact on skill
 58 TURNER AND MARTINEK

development similar to the technique approach. For example, Turner and Martinek
(1992) found that there was little difference between children receiving either
the games for understanding approach or a technique approach in the development
of field hockey skills (dribbling, shooting).
Turner's (1993) findings also suggest that the change in emphasis from a
technique to a games for understanding approach does not adversely affect sub-
jects' performanceson specific field hockey skills. This finding parallels Lawton's
(1989) study. Lawton found no differences between the skill based and teaching
for understanding treatments on skill tests for badminton.
We also feel that the skill variable needs to be studied in relation to
knowledge development and decision-making ability. This will allow the re-
searcher to determine how long it takes to change each of the variables as they
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

are being exposed to various instructional approaches. Some researchers have

suggested that the rate of change for the three variables may vary considerably.
For example, French and Thomas (1987) indicated that children's ability to use
cognitive skills and the knowledge involved in sport performance progressed at
a faster rate than the development of motor skills. McPherson and French (1991)
also hypothesized that "the learning curve for cognitive components may have
a greater slope early in the learning process than the curve for the motor compo-
nent" (p. 38). Given the short treatment periods used in past studies, it is not
surprising to find that skill development is not affected as much as knowledge
and decision making under varying instructional approaches.

Future Considerations
There appears to be limited substantiation of the validity of the games for
understanding model. Given the methodological shortcomings indicated in this
paper, however, research must continue with increased refinement. Refinement
of future research should be bounded by several considerations. One consideration
for study would be to describe the interconnections between various stages of
the model. Although the model assumes linear direction among the stages, little
is known about the relative impact each stage has on one another. For example,
one could study how (or if) the experience of the game (Stage 1) impacts on the
student's appreciation of the game (Stage 2). Or how does game appreciation
relate to tactical awareness (Stage 3)? An extension of this type of inquiry might
also include the identification of various instructional strategies that influence
each stage. By knowing this, more credible information about the model's utility
can infuse into in-service delivery programs.
Continued research will also require an improvement in the sophistication
of the tools needed to determine the power of the games for understanding
approach. For example, one might determine if there is more global impact on
procedural knowledge development. Many of the studies reported in this article
used only domain-specific questions to determine the knowledge level of the
learners. We believe inventories should also include items that describe general
problem-solving ability (i.e., metacognitive or strategic ability). Having this infor-
mation will have important implications regarding cany-over effects to other
settings beyond the walls of the gymnasium and athletic field.
Moreover, the assessment of decision-making ability needs broader applica-
tion in future investigations. Studies have described those decisions that were
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 59

made by performers who were executing a predetermined skill (i.e., striking a

tennis ball) or who were in control of an object (i.e., in possession of the ball
in field hockey). Little is known, however, about those who are indirectly involved
offensively or defensively but who must make decisions about where and when
to move or who to guard. Thus far, the view of decision-making has been rather
restricted and has failed to look at all decisions and their interrelationships.
Another important consideration relates to the teacher's ability to learn
how to use the games for understanding approach. Many of the teachers used in
past research may have been unfamiliar with this "new" and "different" ap-
proach to teaching games. Although in-service programs were provided for many
of the teachers, we suspect that the in-service efforts were relatively brief and
only provided a basic overview of the concepts and philosophy underlying the
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

approach.
It should be noted that teaching through this interpretation of the games
for understanding model takes considerable pedagogical skill and therefore needs
much practice. The teachers may simply not have had enough experience with
this style of teaching in the previous studies. Werner (1989) has suggested the
following:

The strength of this approach can also be its downfall-though it sounds

easy, it is a most difficult process. It takes a talented teacher to know when
students are ready to be independent learners, what game situations will
yield proper games of appropriate difficulty, when to make suggestions or
let the students work through a problem. (p. 98)

In the games for understanding approach, tactics and strategies specific to

various sport forms must be understood first by the teachers, and introduced to
students in language and through imposed conditions that can be easily compre-
hended. Hellison and Templin (1991) note that timely teacher intervention in the
game situation is crucial to this approach. Furthermore, Metzler (1990) has shown
that these interruptions in games are really "teaching moments" that are crucial
to this type of teaching.
Future research should also take into account individual student differences.
Past studies have examined game-playing ability, knowledge, and skill develop-
ment on a group basis. Future research might investigate the development of
these components on individual students. In addition, the learning styles of the
students might also be examined in relation to the treatment effects. For example,
Good and Brophy (1990) have suggested that the conceptual tempo (a type of
learning style) of a student has a significant impact on decision making during
learning. Conceptual tempo refers to two types of psychological dispositions a
student might have, one that is impulsive and the other that is reflective. According
to Good and Brophy, cognitively impulsive students respond quickly when given
several options from which to choose. That is, little thought may be given to the
differences existing among the options. Reflective thinkers, on the other hand,
tend to study the differences carefully before deciding which one to select. These
two concepts could have variable effects on learning when gamelike situations
and spontaneous decision-making opportunities are the standard mode of instruc-
tion. The extent to which these, as well as other, cognitive styles interact with
 60 TURNER AND MARTINEK

the effectiveness of games for understanding and technique approaches remains

empirically untested.
Finally, both cognitive and psychomotor areas have been the primary focal
points of past studies. They have not examined the effect of the treatments on
the affective domain. The results of previous action research and case studies
(Burrows, 1986; Turner, 1993) refer to the affective component as one of the most
apparent benefits that can result from adopting a "teaching for understanding"
approach. Although Lawton (1989) examined this area in his study, he failed to
find conclusive evidence for this hypothesis. Therefore, research in the affective
domain would provide a more extensive student profile emerging from a games
for understanding approach to physical activity instruction.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

References
Almond, L. (1986). Research-based teaching in games. In J. Evans (Ed.), Physical educa-
tion, sport and schooling: Studies in the sociology of physical education (pp. 155-
165). London: Falmer Press.
Anderson, J.R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89,369-406.
Anderson, W.G., & Barrette, G.T. (Eds.) (1978). What's going on in gym: Descriptive
studies of physical education classes. Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice (Mono-
graph I).
Bailey, L., & Almond, L. (1983). Creating change: By creating games? In L. Spackrnan
(Ed.), Teaching games for understanding (pp. 56-59). Cheltenham, England: The
College of St. Paul and St. Mary.
Bard, C., & Fleury, M. (1976). Analysis of visual search activity during sport problem
situations. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 3, 214-222.
Brackenridge, C. (1979). Games: Classification and analysis. Paper presented to Kirklees
teachers, Kirklees, Scotland.
Buck, M.M., & Harrison, J.M. (1990). Improving student achievement in physical educa-
tion. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 61(9), 40-44.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools.
Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986). Is there a need to reflect on our games teaching? In
R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 25-
33). Loughborough, England: Loughborough University of Technology.
Burrows, L. (1986). A teacher's reactions. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.),
Rethinking games teaching (pp. 45-51). Loughborough, England: Loughborough
University of Technology.
Carson, L., & Wiegand, R.L. (1979). Motor schema formation and retention in young
children: A test of Schmidt's schema theory. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 247-
251.
Chase, W.G. (1983). Spatial representations of taxi drivers. In D.R. Rogers & J.A. Sloboda
(Eds.), Acquisition of symbolic skills (pp. 391-405). New York: Plenum.
Chase, W.G., & Simon, H.A. (1973). The minds eye in chess. In Visual information
processing. New York: Academic Press.
Cheffers, J.T.F., & Mancini, V.H. (1978). Teacher-studentinteraction.In W.G. Anderson &
G.T. Barrete (Eds.), What's going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical
education classes. Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice (Monograph I), pp. 39-50.
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 61

Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of
physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Chi, M.T.H., & Glaser, R. (1980). The measurement of expertise: Analysis of the develop-
ment of knowledge and skill as a basis for assessing achievement. In E.L. Baker &
E.S. Quellmely (Eds.), Educational testing and evaluation (pp. 37-47). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Chi, M.T.H., Claser, R., &Fan; M. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M.T.H., & Rees, E.T. (1983). A learning framework for development. In M.T.H. Chi
(Ed.), Contributions in human development (Vol. 9, pp. 71-107). Basel, Switzerland:
Karger.
Chiesi, H.L., Spilich, G.T., & Voss, J.F. (1979). Acquisition of domain related information
in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273.

Davies, D., & Armstrong, M. (1989). Psychological factors in competitive sport. London:
Falmer Press.
Earls, N. (1983). Research on the immediate effects of instructional variables. In T.J.
Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 254-264). Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Elstein, AS., Shulman, L.S., & Sprafka, S.H. (1978). Medicalproblem solving: An analysis
of clinical reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Entwistle, H. (1969). Theoretical and practical learning. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 17, 115-121.
Festinger, L. (1957). The theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
French, K.E. (1985). The relation of knowledge development to children's basketball
performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
French, K.E., & Thomas, J.R. (1987). The relation of knowledge development to children's
basketball performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 15-32.
Gabbard, C. (1984). Teaching motor skills to children: Theory into practice. Physical
Educator, 41(2), 67-71.
Gabbard, C., & McBride, R. (1990). Critical thinking in the psychomotor domain. Interna-
tional Journal for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 26(2), 24-27.
Gentile, A.M. (1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application of teaching.
Quest, 17, 3-23.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1990). Educational psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston.
Hellison, D.R., & Templin, T.J. (1991). A reflective approach to teaching physical educa-
tion. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hoffman, S.J. (1983). Clinical diagnosis of a pedagogical skill. In T.J. Templin & J.K.
Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (pp. 35-45). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Housner, L. (1981). Expert-novice knowledge structure and cognitive processing differ-
ences in badminton. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American
Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Asilomar, CA.
Housner, L. (1991). Teacher cognition. In T. Martinek, Psycho-social dynamics of teaching
physical education (pp. 35-58). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.
Hughes, C. (1980). The football association coaching book of soccer tactics and skills.
London: Queen Anne Press.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 62 TURNER AND MARTINEK

Kelso, J.A.S., & Norman, P.E. (1978). Motor schema formation in children. Developmental
Psychology, 14, 153-156.
Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in games. Bulletin of Physical
Education, 25(1), 35-38.
Magill, R.A. (1993). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Brown & Benchmark.
McBride, R.E. (1991). Critical thinking-An overview with implications for physical
education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 112-125.
McPherson, S.L., & French, K.E. (1991). Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill
in tennis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 26-41.
McPherson, S.L., & Thomas, J.R. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in
boys' tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48,
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

190-211.
Metzler, M.W. (1990). Teaching in competitive games-not just playing around. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 61(9), 57-61.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Columbus,
OH: Merill.
Moxley, S.E. (1979). Schema: The variability of practice hypothesis. Journal of Motor
Behavior, 11, 65-70.
Peterson, S.C. (1992). The sequence of instruction in games: Implication for developmental
appropriateness. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63(6),
36-39.
Pew, R.W. (1974). Human perceptual-motor performance. In B.H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human
information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Pew, R.W. (1984). A distributed processing view of human motor control. In W.O. Prinz &
A.F. Sanders (Eds.), Cognitive and motor processes (pp. 19-27). Berlin: Springer.
Requin, J., Lecas, J.C., & Bonnet, M. (1984). Some experimental evidence for a three-
step model of motor preparation. In S. Komblum & J. Requin (Eds.), Preparatory
states and processes (pp. 259-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rink, J. (1992). Teaching physical education for learning. St. Louis: Mosby.
Rink, J., French, K., & Wemer, P. (1991, January). Tactical awareness as the focus for
ninth grade badminton. Paper presented at AIESEP World Congress, Atlanta, GA.
Rovegno, I. (1992). Learning a new curricular approach: Mechanisms of knowledge
acquisition in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 253-264.
Rovegno, I. (1993). The development of curricular knowledge: A case of problematic
pedagogical content knowledge during advanced knowledge acquisition. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64(1), 56-68.
Sabers, D.S., Cushing, K.S., & Berliner, D.C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a
task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American
Educational Research Journal, 28, 63-88.
Sanders, A.F. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction process. In G.E. Stelmach & J. Requin
(Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior, (pp. 334-354). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Schmidt, R.A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological
Review, 82, 225-260.
Schmidt, R.A. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (2nd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Schwager, S., & Labate, C. (1993). Teaching for critical thinking in physical education.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 64(5), 24-26.
 TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 63

Singer, R.N. (1982). The learning of motor skills. New York: Macmillan.
Spilich, G.J., Vesonder, G.T., Chiesi, H.L., & Voss, J.F. (1979). Test processing of
individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290.
Starkes, J.L. (1987). Skill in field hockey: The nature of the cognitive advantage. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 9, 146-160.
Thomas, J.R., French, K.E., & Humphries, C.A. (1986). Knowledge development and
sport skill performance: Directions for motor behavior research. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 8, 259-272.
Thomas, J.R., French, K.E., Thomas, K.T., & Gallagher,J.D. (1988). Children's knowledge
development and sport performance. In F.L. Smoll, R.A. Magill, & M. Ash (Eds.),
Children in sport (pp. 179-202). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 15:06 26 October 2014

Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (1984). A change in focus for the teaching of
games. Paper presented at the Olympic Scientific Congress, Eugene, OR.
Turner, A.P. (1993, March). A model for working with students with varying knowledge
structures. Paper presented at the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, National Conference, Washington, DC.
Turner, A.P., & Martinek, T.J. (1992). A comparative analysis of two models for teaching
games (technique approach and game-centered (tactical focus) approach). Interna-
tional Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15-31.
Vickers, J.N. (1990). Instructional design for teaching physical activities: A knowledge
structures approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Voss, J., Green, T., Post, T., & Penner, B. (1983). Problem solving in the social sciences.
In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in
research and theory (Vol. 17, pp. 205-232). New York: Academic Press.
Werner, P. (1989). Teaching games: A tactical perspective. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 60(3), 97-101.