Invasion Gamesteaching Games For Understanding

TGfU is a holistic teaching model which “provides a learner-centred approach that puts the needs and abilities of the participants first over the importance of the game

  1. Invasion Games Teaching Games For Understanding People
  2. Invasion Games Teaching Games For Understanding Students
  3. Invasion Games Teaching Games For Understanding Strategies
  4. Teaching Games For Understanding Invasion Games

(Mandigo & Butler, 2007, pg 14).

Invasion games like soccer, floorball etc. Are very popular in Sweden and frequently in use during PEH lessons. Ball players (mostly boys) gain advantages during lessons and use this as a power tool towards other students lacking skills for playing ball (Londos 2010). “Wayne Smith and Teaching Games for Understanding: Game Sense encourages players to understand and appreciate the gameit enables them to make informed decisions, take ownership of their learning and exercise choice and control over how they play the game. (p.195)” “The games in TGfU are a key to designing training sessions. DEMONSTRATION OF TEACHING GAMES FOR UNDERSTANDING IN INVASION GAMES SUFFOLK ZONE APHERD 2014 SUFFOLK ZONE, NY NOVEMBER 4, 2014 Dr. Stephen Harvey West Virginia University, WV, USA 2. WHAT IS THE BIG IDEA? Development of Deep Understanding That can be transferred to other games. A range of these approaches, including Teaching Games for Understanding, Game Sense, Play Practice and the Tactical-Decision Learning Model vary in detail but share enough in common to be referred. Invasion Games for Gym Class If you’re like most PE teachers you’re probably always looking for fun games to play in the gym. Games that keep the kids interested, especially when they’re in elementary school might be more difficult than when they’re older.

The primary objective of Teaching Games for Understanding is to produce players who are games literate. Players are classified to be games literate if they:

“A) have knowledge and understanding that enables them to anticipate patterns of play;

B) possess technical and tactical skills to deploy appropriate imaginative responses;

C) are able to experience positive motivational states while helping to facilitate motivation among others involved in the game”

(Mandigo & Holt, 2004, pg 6).

Games literacy thrives on the concept that different games can be grouped together because they share similar structures (Ellis, 1983). Games can therefore be categorised by structure into four different types. These are: Target games, Striking/fielding games, Net/Wall games, and Invasion/Territorial games (Ellis, 1983). Understanding these structures allows principles of play, tactical cognition and skill execution to be learned, mastered and transferred with efficacy to a variety of game situations and this ultimately leads to increased game play competence (Hopper & Bell, 2000).

The TGfU model follows a simplistic six stage procedure.

  1. Game: The model begins immediately with a game based upon a learning objective. The game is typically a smaller modification of a pre-existing formal game and demands a variety of skills relevant to a vast majority of situations within a game type.
  2. Game appreciation: a realisation of how the rules, skills required and strategy interact.
  3. Tactical awareness: Learners begin to formulate tactics of how to succeed within the game.
  4. Decision making: after developing tactics, learners discover how to make appropriate decisions regarding what they know. This usually involves timing or location – when to use certain skills or tactics based upon these parameters.
  5. Skill execution: Learners should have realised why certain skills are important and what are the benefits of executing them correctly.
  6. Performance: after progressing through the previous stages, has improvement been demonstrated? Are Learners achieving the objective of the game? Feedback is essential at this stage to reinforce understanding of the concepts learned so far. The game can then be progressed, or regressed depending upon the degree of learning that has taken place.

(Bunker & Thorpe, 1986).

Football falls into the category of invasion games (Eliis, 1983; Hughes & Bartlett, 2002). To effectively implement the TGfU model within invasion games, four criteria must be met. These criteria are: the use of progressive small-sided games and analysis, inventive game creation, developing effective attacking and defensive strategies, and an effective questioning strategy (Hubball et al., 2007).

The use of small-sided games (attack vs. defence) in a smaller area is an excellent way of replicating full-sized game conditions in an invasion game context. They promote more touches with the ball, which represent more passes, the need for intelligent movement and produce more shooting opportunities, developing efficacy in these technical components and the physical skills required to perform them.

Smaller sided games although less complex in design still encourage psychological engagement. Decision making is prevalent within the game but can also be encouraged during progressions of the game structure.

Adopting a democratic teaching style and allowing learners to make decisions about how they would like the game to be played and develop sustains intrinsic motivation levels. This is in accordance with Deci & Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory whereby individuals have an intrinsic yearning to feel autonomous, competent and related to others. Self determination needs are met when learners are given opportunities to make decisions (Chatzisarantis et al., 1997).

Invasion Games Teaching Games For Understanding People

Inventive games are an excellent means of inspiring creativity within performers and encouraging emergent leaders to develop. Introducing new challenges and posing unusual problems inevitably encourage capable individuals to provide new and unorthodox solutions to them (Rink, 2002). Such ideology links with Riemer & Chelladurai’s (1995) Multi-dimensional model of sport leadership where effective leadership emerges from member and leader characteristics, situational requirement and the interaction between participants perceived behaviour during the task, the actual required behaviour for the task and the coach’s preferred behaviour of participants.

Inventive games also create an appreciation of how rules enforce equality and positive interaction between learners. Learners are enabled to share ideas and points of view in order to create new variations of the game (Hubball et al., 2007).

Understanding

Leadership is also encouraged through developing attacking and defensive strategies. By implementing strategy which relies upon formation or position, players assume responsibilities and leaders naturally emerge or are appointed (Earles & Chase, 2001).

Such strategies which require positional responsibilities also promote team cohesion towards the tasks (objectives) of the game (Grehaine et al., 1999).

For

Developing tactics and strategies dependent on positions and responsibilities reflect a task-orientated environment – attacking and defensive players must work together to achieve specific goals as a team, regardless of prior skill levels of individuals within their team, particularly when competence is low such as during innovative games (Murcia, 2005; Papaioannou, 1995).

The importance of an effective questioning strategy is paramount, “…without it the approach will not succeed” (Webb & Pearson, 2008, pg 5). Century schoolbook font free download macsoftfreethsoft full. Effective questioning techniques can offer invaluable intervention to aid and reinforce student learning (Hopper, 2002; Hubball & Robertson, 2004). Opportunities to utilise can arise during game-play, between progressions but should always occur as a debrief to small-sided games (Hubball et al.,2007). Students should be inspired to think like coaches whilst still enjoying the intrinsic benefits of learning through game play (Light & Fawns, 2003).

Effective questioning utilises open-ended, probing questions to evoke higher levels of Bloom & Krathwohl’s (1956) cognitive taxonomy of learning and to achieve this a set of hierarchical questions must be planned based upon learning objectives (Richard & Godbout, 2000).

References

  1. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman, Green.
  2. Bunker, D, & Thorpe, R. (1986). The curriculum model. In Thorpe, R, Bunker, D & Almond, L (Eds.) Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough University: University of Technology, Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, pp. 7-10.
  3. Chatzisarantis, N, L, D., Biddle, S, J, H., & Meek, G, A. (1997). A self-determination theory approach to the study of intentions and the intention-behaviour relationship in children’s physical activity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2, pp. 343-360.
  4. Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 21(4), pp. 328-354.
  5. Deci, E, D., & Ryan, R, M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
  6. Earles, M., & Chase, M. (2001). Enhancing team confidence for success. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Education, 14(3), pp. 12-14.
  7. Ellis, M. (1983). The classification and analysis of games: A system for the classification of games. Unpublished manuscript. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  8. Grehaigne, J, F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1999). The foundation of tactics: Strategy in team sports. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 18, pp. 159-174.
  9. Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7), pp. 44-48.
  10. Hopper, T, & Bell, F. (2000). A tactical framework for teaching games: Teaching strategic understanding. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Journal, 66(4), pp 14-19.
  11. Hubball, H, Lambert, J & Hayes, S. (2007). Theory to Practice: Using the Games for Understanding Approach in the Teaching of Invasion Games. In. Physical and Health Education, autumn 2007, pp. 14-20.
  12. Hubball, H, T., & Robertson, S. (2004). Problem-based learning in youth soccer academy program. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(4), pp. 38-43.
  13. Light, R, & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGFU. Quest. 55, pp. 161-176.
  14. Mandigo, J.L, & Holt, N.L. (2004). Reading the Game: Introducing the Notion of Games Literacy. In. Physical and Health Education, autumn 2004, pp. 4-10.
  15. Murcia, J,A,M. (2005). Goal Orientations, Motivational Climate, Discipline and Physical Self-Perception Related to the Teacher’s Gender, Satisfaction and Sport Activity of a Sample of Spanish Adolescent Physical Education Students. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 17 (2), pp. 44-58.
  16. Papaioannou, A. (1995). Differential Perceptual and Motivational Patterns when Different Goals are Adopted. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, pp. 18-34.
  17. Richard, J, E., & Godbout, P., (2000). Formative assessment as an integral part of the teaching-learning process. Physical and Health Education Journal, 66(3), pp. 4-10.
  18. Riemer, H, A., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and satisfaction in athletics. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, pp. 276-293.
  19. Webb, P, & Pearson, P. (2008). An Integrated Approach to Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). University of Wollongong: Faculty of Education. http://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers/52

Irena Valantine • Dejan Madić • Goran Sporiš

DOI: 10.31382/eqol.170602

Abstract

Studies concerning the effects of different invasion games on physical fitness in school children are scarce. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the application of invasion games on physical fitness in primary school children. A total of 62 primary school children aged 10-12 years voluntarily participated in this study. They were divided into experimental (32) and control (30) group. Physical fitness of children was estimated by the following tests: Standing broad jump, Vertical jump, Bent-arm hang, Sit-ups, Pushups, Medicine ball test and Andersen test. The experimental group had twice per week invasion games on non-consecutive days for 12 weeks. Participants in control group did not perform specific program but attended their regular PE class twice per week. Compared with initial measurement, there was a significant (p < 0.05) improvement in vertical jump test for both groups. Furthermore, the group that participated in the invasion games program made significantly greater gains compared to the control group (p < 0.05) in Standing broad jump (8.2%; ES=0.56 vs. 3%; ES=0.2) and Medicine ball test (8.2%; ES=0.6 vs. 3%; ES=0.3). There was a significant improvement in bent arm hang, sit ups and push-ups in experimental group. Compared with initial measurement, there was a significant (p < 0.05) improvement in Andersen test in invasion games group, which was not the case with control group (p>0.05). To conclude, invasion games were an effective way of improving physical fitness in primary school children, because the results of this study indicate that this method was more effective for physical fitness than traditional school program.

Keywords invasion games• teaching•effects •children


References

Adeniran, S. A., & Toriola, A. L. (1988). Effects of continuous and internal running programs on aerobic and anaerobic capacities in schoolgirls aged 13 to 17 years. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 28(3), 260-266.
Allison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus agames for understanding approach. British Journal of Physical Education, 28(3), 9-13.
Andersen, L. B., Andersen, T. E., Andersen, E., & Anderssen, S. A. (2008). An intermittent running test to estimate maximal oxygen uptake: The Andersen test. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 48(4), 434.
Bala, G., Krneta, Ž., & Katić, R. (2010). Effects of kindergarten period on school readiness and motor abilities. Collegium Antropologicum, 34(1), 61-67.
Baquet, G., Berthoin, S., Gerbeaux, M., & Van Praagh, E. (2001). High-intensity aerobic training during a 10 week one-hour physical education cycle: effects on physical fitness of adolescents aged 11 to 16. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 22(4), 295- 300.
Belka, D. E. (2004). Combining and sequencing games skills. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(4), 23-27.
Broek, G., Boen, F., Claessens, M., Feys, J., & Ceux, T. (2011). Comparison of three instructional approaches to enhance tactical knowledge in volleyball among university students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30(4), 375-392.
Castro-Piñero, J., González-Montesinos, J. L., Mora, J., Keating, X. D., Girela-Rejón, M. J., Sjöström, M., & Ruiz, J. R. (2009). Percentile values for muscular strength field tests in children aged 6 to 17 years: influence of weight status. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(8), 2295-2310.
Chevrier, J., Roy, M., Turcotte, S., Culver, D. M., & Cybulski, S. (2016). Skills trained by coaches of Canadian male volleyball teams: A comparison with long-term athlete development guidelines. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(3), 410-421.
Faigenbaum, A. D., McFarland, J. E., Keiper, F. B., Tevlin, W., Ratamess, N. A., Kang, J., & Hoffman, J. R. (2007). Effects of a short-term plyometric and resistance training program on fitness performance in boys age 12 to 15 years. Journal of Sports and Science in Medicine, 6(4), 519-525.
Faigenbaum, A., & Mediate, P. (2006). Effects of Medicine ball training on physical fitness in high school physical education students. The Physical Educator, 63(3), 161- 168.
Faigenbaum, A.D., Zaichkowsky, L.D., Westcott,W.L, Micheli, L.J, & Fehlandt, A.F. (1993).The effects of a twice per week strength training program on children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 339-346.
Gabbett, T. J. (2002). Training injuries in rugby league: an evaluation of skill-based conditioning games. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16, 236–241.

Invasion Games Teaching Games For Understanding Students

Griffin, L. L., & Butler, J. (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research, and practice. Human Kinetics.
Harrison, J. M., Blakemore, C. L., Richards, R. P., & Oliver, J. (2004). The Effects of Two Instructional Models-Tactical and Skill Teaching-on Skill Development and Game Play, Knowledge, Self- Efficacy, and Student Perceptions in Volleyball. Physical Educator, 61(4), 186.
Hastie, P. A., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid Sport Education—Teaching Games for Understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 11(01), 1-27.
Hopkins, W., Marshall, S., Batterham, A., & Hanin, J. (2009). Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine Science in Sports Exercise, 41(1), 3.

Invasion Games Teaching Games For Understanding Strategies

Janssen, I., & LeBlanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 40.
Kirk, D. (2005) Future prospects for teaching games for understanding. In L.L. Griffin and J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 213-226). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Krističević, T., Sporiš, G., Trajković, N., Penčić, N., & Ignjatović, M. (2016). Skill- based conditioning training in young female volleyball players: Impact on power and change of direction speed. Exercise and Quality of Life, 8(1), 3-12.
McKenzie, T.L., Sallis, J.F., Kolody, B., & Faucette, F. (1997). Long term effects of a physical education curriculum and staff development program: SPARK. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 280- 291.
Metzler, M.W. (2000). Instructional Models for Physical Education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Musch, E., Mertens, B., Timmers, E., Mertens, T., Graça, A., Taborsky, F., & Vonderlynck, V. (2002). An innovative didactical invasion games model to teach basketball and handball, presented on cd. In 7th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science.
Otto III, W. H., Coburn, J. W., Brown, L. E., & Spiering, B. A. (2012). Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1199-1202.
Webb, P. I., & Pearson, P. J. (2008). An integrated approach to teaching games for understanding (TGfU).
Ricardo, V., & Graça, A. (2008). Developing secondary school students’ competence in playing basketball: Analysis of an experimental teaching unit. In the teaching games for understanding 2008 international conference, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Invasion games teaching games for understanding strategies

Teaching Games For Understanding Invasion Games

Rotstein, A., Dotan, R., Bar-Or, O., & Tenenbaum, G. (1986). Effect of training on anaerobic threshold, maximal aerobic power and anaerobic performance of preadolescent boys. International journal of sports medicine, 7(5), 281-286.
Sheppard, J.M., Gabbett, T.J., & ReebergStanganelli, L.C. (2009). An analysis of playing positions in elite men’s volleyball: considerations for competition demands and physiologic qualities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(6), 1858–1866.
Simons-Morton, B.G., Taylor, W., Snider, S., & Huang, I. (1993). The physical activity of fifth-grade students during physical education classes. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 262-264.
Smith, J. J., Eather, N., Morgan, P. J., Plotnikoff, R. C., Faigenbaum, A. D., & Lubans, D. R. (2014). The health benefits of muscular fitness for children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports medicine, 44(9), 1209-1223.
Szymanski, D. J., Szymanski, J. M., Bradford, T. J., Schade, R. L., & Pascoe, D. D. (2007). Effect of twelve weeks of medicine ball training on high school baseball players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(3), 894-901.
Tallir, I. B., Lenoir, M., Valcke, M., & Musch, E. (2007). Do alternative instructional approaches result in different game performance learning outcomes? Authentic assessment in varying game conditions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38(3), 263-282.
Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge, and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3), 286-296.
Wall, M., & Côt, J. (2007). Developmental activities that lead to dropout and investment in sport. Physical Education &Sport Pedagogy, 12(1), 77–87.