• Bunker, B. and R. Thorpe (1986). The curriculum model. Rethinking games teaching. R. Thorpe, Bunker, D., & Almond, L. Loughborough, University of Technology, Loughborough: 7-10.

The purpose of this article is to outline what 'teaching for understanding' is about. Not only does it provide a theoretical base from which to work, it also gives guidance for those planning sessions insofar as it places elements in temporal sequence.

• Curtner-Smith, M. D. (1996). "Using games invention with elementary children--teaching for understanding: Tactical approaches to teaching games." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 67(3): 33-37.

Explains how teachers of students in grades four through six can use the Teaching Games for Understanding Approach and incorporate games invention into the physical education curriculum. A three-step model is proposed: selection and modification of games; teaching games with an understanding approach; and student invention of games. Summaries of modified tennis, golf, softball, and skittle ball are included

• Griffin, L., P. Dodds, et al. (1996). "Pedagogical content knowledge for teachers: Integrate everything you know to help students learn." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 67(9): 58-61.

The importance of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in helping students learn is emphasized to physical education teachers. Developing PCK is a task for highly committed educators who are willing to examine their instructional techniques and make substantial changes over time

• Griffin, L. L. (1996). "Improving net/wall game performance." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 67(2): 34-37.

Information on arranging net/wall games according to tactics is provided, along with practical examples of modified games. The tactics should never exceed the technical or skill abilities of students.

• Holt, N. and B. Strean (2002). "Expanding the Teaching Games for Understanding Model: New Avenues for Future Research and Practice." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2): 162-67.

Examines the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) research in Canada. Presentation of a extended TGfU model; Benefits of the TGfU approach; Suggestions of avenues for future research and practice.

• Hopper (1998). "Teaching games for understanding using progressive principles of play." CAHPERD 27(1): 1-5.

The purpose of this article is to suggest progressive principles of play that extend existing work in the teaching games for understanding approach (Spackman, 1983; Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986; Werner, Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996) .  Spackman (1983) defines principles as primary elements of play such as possession, invasion and scoring in games like football and rugby.  The primary elements of play are formed by the physical properties and primary rules of games as defined by two game classification systems (Ellis, 1983; Thorpe, et al., 1986).   

• Hopper (2003). "Four R's for tactical awareness: Applying game performance assessment in net/wall games." Journal of Teaching Elementary Physical Education 4(2): 16-21.

This article will explain how a teaching games for understanding approach advocated by Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond (1986) has led to the development of a tactical framework and player decision-making model for teaching net/wall games.  Drawing on Hopper (1998) work on the “principles of play,” positioning for consistency, placement and spin/power, and the tactical awareness components space, force and time developed by Hopper & Bell (2000), this paper will suggest how students can be taught to read game play and make more sophisticated tactical decisions based on the four R elements of READ, RESPOND, REACT and RECOVER.  The paper will suggest how Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin's (1997) game performance assessment instrument (GPAI) can be adapted to suit the demands of providing authentic assessment for net/wall games. 

• Hopper, T. (1994). "Can we play the game?" RUNNER 32(2): 21-22.
   
• Hopper, T. and F. Bell (2001). "Can we play the game again?" STRATEGIES 15(1).

Whenever we teach games to children, they want to play the game.  Children literally want to play the adult game that the motor-skills they are practicing represent (Hopper, 1994).  However, when asked by the students, "Can we play tennis?" the teacher will normally reply, "Not yet, you need to practice some more.  At the end of the lesson if you behave."  Such a response does not encourage children to practice because they want to play.  We suggest that children need to play games early in a lesson, but the games they play need to be modified to suit their physical, mental and social abilities.  Unfortunately, modified games at first seem like poor substitutes to the 'real' games seen on television.  The modified game is not enough to get students to play.  The attitude of students to a modified game has to be one of excitement.  Students' excitement grows from an understandings of how to play tactically, grows from an awareness of what makes a game play.  

• Hopper, T. and R. Bell (2000). "A Tactical Framework for Teaching Games: Teaching Strategic Understanding and Tactical Awareness." Physical and Health Education Journal 29(4): 14-19.

When we teach games we need to teach motor-skills in learnable elements, but how do we teach tactics?  How can we break tactical components down into learnable elements?  This paper will explain, based on a games classification system, a tactical framework for teaching games that enables strategic understanding and tactical awareness to be taught in simplified elements that build into concepts that can transfer between games.  A game is understood as those physical activities with an object that are played in society such as football, tennis, golf and softball.  Strategic understanding is identified as understanding ways of playing, for example keeping the ball going when playing tennis.  Tactical awareness is identified as ways of playing to gain an advantage over opponents for example a fast break in basketball.

• Bell, R. and T. Hopper (2003). "Space the first frontier: Tactical awareness in teaching games for understanding." Physical and Health Education Journal (In press).

Knowing how to use space while playing a game is fundamental to being an effective games player. This article describes a method to design the learning environment so that students learn not only the motor skills but some of the tactics and strategies associated with playing a game. A lead-up game from the territorial games category is used to describe how teachers can teach students how to use space more effectively when playing games of this type. Specific activities are identified for each of the three principles of play associated with territorial games.

• Kirk, D. and MacPhail, A. (2002). "Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2): 177-192.

Presents a new version of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model in physical education which draws on a situated learning perspective, describing the TGfU approach, reviewing recent research on TGfU, discussing constructs for conceptualizing learning in games, and outlining a situated learning perspective. This perspective is applied to rethinking the TGfU model.

• Mandigo, J. L. and N. L. Holt (2002). The inclusion of optimal challenge in teaching games for understanding, Brock University & University of Alberta: 23.

The area of physical education is rich in ideas pertaining to pedagogical principles and theoretical models that are intended to improve the quality of teaching practices. Despite these advances, the vast amount of information often seems overwhelming and sometimes irrelevant in terms of its application. In this paper we identify strategies that embrace the psychological construct of optimal challenge as a principle to enhance children’s intrinsic motivation in physical activity environments. The construct of optimal challenge will be introduced in the games dimension, utilizing the Teaching Games for Understanding framework (TGFU) (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). While a variety of teaching styles may be incorporated into this framework, we highlight the usefulness of the inclusion style (Mosston & Ashworth, 1986) in the promotion of optimally challenging physical activity.

• Mitchell, S. A. (1996). "Improving invasion game performance." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 67(2): 30-33.

Suggestions are offered for teaching invasion games with a focus on game tactics, using soccer as an example. This approach is meant to improve game performance by providing a concrete link between skills and tactics, and to encourage skill practice at a time when students appreciate the value of skills within the game context.

• Oslin, J. L. (1996). "Tactical approaches to teaching games." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 67(1): 27.

A special section on tactical approaches to teaching games. The article provides an overview of the Teaching Games for Understanding model.

• Werner, P., R. Thorpe, et al. (1996). "Teaching games for understanding: Evolution of a model." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 67(1): 28-33.

There is more than one way to teach games, and it may not be necessary to separate skill development from game play. Insight into the future of game teaching in public schools is offered, focusing on the interplay between games, learning and enjoyment.