This material may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying without the permission of the copyright holder

Author Tim Hopper. Accepted by JOPERD, July 2001. Revised November, 2001

What is a TGFU approach to games teaching and what's wrong with teaching skills? Tactic-to-skill games teaching

Introduction: Common misinterpretation

As a teacher educator and leader of workshops on the teaching games for understanding (TGFU) approach I am often confronted with the question "What is a TGFU approach to games teaching and what's wrong with teaching skills?" My usual response is that there is nothing wrong with teaching skills if students are ready to learn them. The reason for this question is based upon a misinterpretation of the TGFU approach. This paper will address this misinterpretation and follows an explanation developed by working with undergraduate students who want to understand what TGFU has to offer. Essentially, the TGFU approach focuses upon the idea of progressing from tactics to skills, not tactics or skills (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997; Mitchell & Griffin, 1994; Werner, Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996). A common misinterpretation is that in TGFU lesson learners just play games with guidance from the teacher, this is not the case. In a TGFU approach skill progression and skill practice is very important. What the TGFU approach focuses upon is students’ understanding of “why” a skill is needed before they are taught “how” to do a skill. This paper will show that the TGFU approach is a “tactic-to-skill” method to games teaching based on a synthesis of a “tactical” perspective and a “technique” perspective. Throughout this paper, “games” will refer to the array of activities that use an object, which can develop into the culturally valued adult-games played in society such as tennis, basketball and baseball.

Background to the TGFU approach

The TGFU phrase was first coined in the United Kingdom in the early 1980s. The ideas were spawned by Thorpe, Bunker, and Almond (1986) and drew on the earlier work of Mauldon & Redfern (1981). The TGFU was set up as an alternative to the technique focus of learning to play a game because, as Bunker and Thorpe (1986b, p. 11) noted a technique approach produces:

(a) large percentage of children achieving little access due to the emphasis on performance, (b) skillful players who possess inflexible techniques and poor decision-making capacities, (c) performers who are dependant on the teacher/coach to make their decisions, and (d) a majority of youngsters who leave school knowing little about games.

In general, it was noted that techniques practiced in isolation did not transfer to the game. The TGFU approach was seen as a way of putting the WHY of a game before the HOW. In this approach, learners are taught an appreciation of an adult game through a modified game that is suitable for their physical, social and mental development. This appreciation invites learners to realize a tactical awareness of how to a play a game to gain an advantage over their opponents. With such a tactical awareness, the learner is capable of making appropriate decisions about “what to do?” and “how to do it?’ When learners make decisions to work at a technical skill (i.e. trapping a ball, striking a ball into a certain space) they do this because they are aware of a need for the skill based on a tactical appreciation for the game. In a process of appropriate decision making, learners can recursively evaluate and develop their own performance within a game that gradually, under the guidance of teachers, evolves towards an adult game enjoyed in society.

The tactical approach and the skills approach: What are the differences?

In response to the rhetoric of the TGFU literature Silverman (1997) asked the question, “Is the tactical approach to teaching games better than a skills approach?” This question framed research comparing skill and tactical approaches (Alison & Thorpe, 1997; Rink, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1992), with a whole issue of the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education devoted to research on this question (Rink, French, & Graham, 1996). Though the results of these studies were inconclusive, it was noted that children in a tactical approach model indicated more enjoyment when learning. However, a key concern of the research studies was effectively discerning between a technique approach and a tactical approach. This concern is problematic because a TGFU perspective is about teaching tactical understanding then combining it with skill development; a skill approach is about teaching motor-skills then combining them with tactical understanding. The difference between the two perspectives is about the order skills or tactical awareness is taught. In reality, one approach becomes the other throughout a lesson and a unit of instruction. Depending on how the teacher sees the students responding to the lesson, a lesson may be more tactic or skill based.

Comparing the TGFU approach to a skills approach oversimplifies the problem of teaching games to students; the comparison ignores the complexity of learning to play a game. Too often when we seek simple answers to complex questions, we create binaries to show one perspective is better. Good teaching is taking what a student can do, then challenging the student’s ability with a related but more advanced form of the activity. To effectively teach students a game, the teacher needs to teach a progression of skills needed to play the game (i.e. catching, kicking, striking, etc). At the same time the teacher needs to teach a progression of tactical understandings to play effectively (i.e. anticipate where the ball will travel, aim for the spaces, etc) within the rules of the game. TGFU makes us aware that tactical understanding needs to be taught first to make the learning of skills purposeful.

In a "tactical" approach to games teaching, students are taught by playing modified games. These games are simplified by changing game structures such as reducing the area of play, playing with less players, adapting rules to players needs and using lighter, smaller equipment and slower moving objects (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). Whilst playing the game students are asked to solve problems related to the game. For example, in a modified tennis game, a problem set by the teacher could be, "where should you go after hitting a ball into an opponent's court?" the answer being the centre of the opponent's target area. This is an area that changes depending on where a ball is hit in an opponent's court.

In a “technique” approach, a skill is practiced in a space, individually or in pairs, with simplified equipment and objects, often with a goal of successful repetition of the skill. For example, in the same tennis lesson a teacher could ask students, "How do you keep the ball going in a rally with your partner?" The teacher could then emphasize the following technique points (1) get the racquet back before the ball bounces, (2) hit a falling ball, (3) hit the ball high, and (4) follow through in the direction of your hit. In a way, this is like a very simple modified game with a problem to solve. Too often it is perceived that a technique perspective to teaching games implies "telling" students how to do a skill. This is just one strategy to teaching that on its own does not enable meaningful learning. The whole array of teaching styles described by Mosston and Ashworth (1986) can be applied to any technique being learned. So for teaching games, what is the difference of a technique approach compared to a tactical approach?

TGFU as a combined tactical and technique approach

Figure 1 contrasts technique and tactical perspectives by using a meaning matrix. The matrix shows how a “technique” approach relates to a “tactical” approach by highlighting how common misinterpretations of the two approaches often confuse understanding. The matrix is divided into four quadrants. One side of the diagram has a traditional technique perspective to teaching games, the other a tactical perspective made explicit by the TGFU approach. The top half of the diagram is games teaching with a student emphasis, the bottom half of the diagram is games teaching with a content emphasis. The student emphasis refers to teaching focused upon adapting the progression of a lesson to students’ needs in learning content. Content emphasis refers to teaching focused on covering content as planned. For example, a teacher can cover content by teach passing technique with demonstrations and critical cues, but such content has no meaning, no student emphasis, if students have never been in a situation to make a pass to a teammate. A key aspect of teaching is that skills and tactics are taught in a progression from simple to complex, with movement tasks taught to refine students’ abilities to play more challenging game structures. The arrows in the diagram will be referred to later in the paper where it will be proposed that PE teachers can use the matrix to reflect on their games lessons as they aim for the tactic-to-skill domain.

__________________________________

Insert Figure 1 about here

__________________________________

Technique perspective: Content emphasis in a skill non-learning progression

Focusing on a "technique" perspective, Bunker and Thorpe (1986b) argue "often the teacher sees the teaching of techniques as the critical part of the lesson. Indeed lists of skills are presented, week-by-week, to be ticked off and assessed in an evaluation of the children's performance" (p. 11). In Figure 1 this description would refer to the bottom left of the diagram. This is called a “skill non-learning progression”, an isolated skill focus approach where covering content is emphasized over student learning. Though on paper this approach looks like a progression of skills are taught, in reality a progression of skills are covered but learned only by the most able. Bunker and Thorpe (1986b) use this problem to justify the need for a TGFU. Although their observation of the worst type of games teaching is right, often this critique conceals the need for a skill progression. This critique alienates effective game teachers who work from a technique focus in their games teaching; offering a set skill progression based on the needs of a relatively homogeneous group of learners. Examples of this are skill development advocated by books focused upon coaching a particular sport (i.e. (Claxton, 1999)), or coaches of teams where children are selected to play the game.

Tactical perspective: Content emphasis in a tactical non-learning progression

Bunker & Thorpe (1986b) noted "many teachers have realized that for many children the techniques are of little value and have let children get on with the game, only to realize that they seem to enjoy themselves more with less interference from the teacher" (p. 11). From this scenario a teacher can be left wondering what to teach. In the worst-case scenario this can lead to "the" game focus approach noted in the bottom right of the diagram. Here students may be playing "the" game for example of soccer or baseball, with the teacher emphasizing the content of the rules of the game and telling students where to position themselves in the game, but there is no progression in the students understanding of how to play tactically, tactical content is simply covered. In this situation the teacher is satisfied with the students being occupied in an organized recess type lesson. The problem with this approach is that the majority of students are overwhelmed by the complexity of the game and eventually the novelty of the game wears off, with even the more capable students becoming bored or frustrated. Though organized recess has its place (usually at recess) in a school PE program, too often opponents of the TGFU approach see this type of games lesson as a TGFU lesson. Some teachers, especially at the elementary ages, focus upon playing a game where the children seem active (i.e. dodgeball and relays), but these simple games lack a sense of purpose based on the games valued in society (Williams, 1992). However, in activities like these, what is missing is the complexity of teaching tactics to children that connect to adult game playing.

Tactical perspective: Student emphasis in a tactical progression

The tactical perspective to games teaching, located in the top right-hand side of the diagram, has a student emphasis with a focus upon learning tactical elements of playing a game. This “tactical” focus is a progression of tactical understandings that are taught in relation to a gradually more increasingly challenging environment. Tactical understanding is complex and as argued by (Hopper, 1998; Hopper & Bell, 2000) and Griffin, Mitchell and Oslin, 1997; Mitchell and Griffin (1994), has to be taught in progressive elements related to the development and experience of students. In a tactical approach a teacher teaches from a game form where as Chandler (1996, p. 50) comments, “skill learning is not for playing games; rather, playing games is for skill learning.” In a tactical approach to games teaching the rules of "the" game are only used when they enable students to play. The mindset in a tactical approach is that the purpose of rules is to make games play. For example, in this approach the teacher could start a game of hitting the ball up with a racquet then hitting again after one bounce to develop consistency. The key tactical awareness being to relocate to the space where the ball will bounce to have time to play another shot. Then the teacher would start a tennis like game where in pairs the aim of the game is to hit the pylon with simple rules like, (1) the ball must bounce, (2) the ball must be hit up above head height, and (3) players hit the ball alternatively (Hopper, 1994). The students would be asked to play the game to figure out the answer to “Where should you go after hitting the ball?” The answer being opposite your partner’s target--the other side of the pylon. This tactical awareness causes learners to move in preparation for partners’ shots before they hit a ball, thus giving them time to get set-up to play the next shot. This tactical progression focuses upon students being consistent at hitting the ball, then learning about placement to a target and positioning in anticipation of partner’s shot. This game has been referred to as the castle game (see (Hopper (1998); Hopper & Bell (2000) for further examples of tactical progressions).

Technique perspective: Student emphasis in a skill progression

The technique perspective to games teaching, located in the top left-hand side of the diagram, has a student emphasis on learning a technique to perform skills better to then play a game better. A “technique” focus has a progression of skills taught in relation to a gradually more challenging environment. Skill-refinements are taught that enable students to move from an elementary movement pattern to a mature movement pattern (Gallahue, 1996). A critique of traditional skill learning can alienate effective game teachers who work from a technique focus in their games teaching; offering a skill progression based on the needs of the learner. Examples of this are skill development advocated by movement approaches to teaching games such as those discussed by (Gallahue, 1996; Wall & Murray, 1994). In such an approach a student is given a broad open task such as “Selecting a ball of your own choice show me how you can keep the ball in the air after one bounce.” As students attempt to keep the ball going the teacher can work on refinements such as more height for more time, bend your knees as you prepare to hit, hit the ball with a flat surface and beneath the ball. If the task is too difficult for some students they can be guided to catch and send the ball or change the ball to a slower bouncing one. Others students can be encouraged to hit the ball without a catch. Students could then be asked to hit the ball over a line or to a target as the teacher refines their skill further. Eventually this task will be applied to an application game like the castle game discussed in the tactical approach. In this way the application game gives purpose to hitting the ball up in the air. However, Berkowitz (1996), described as a successful “technique” games teacher, explained how she learned to integrate “technique” games teaching with “tactical” games teaching. As she stated "technical skill work still has its place, but never in isolation -- always as it would be in the game and mostly as a means to accomplish the tactical problem.” She emphasizes that skills cannot be taught without tactical awareness. This sentiment brings us back to the goal of a TGFU, to teach tactical awareness.

Criteria for teaching TGFU

Figure 1 highlights how the “technique” focus and the “tactical” focus are linked as two essential components of games teaching. The teacher of games must have knowledge of both skill progressions and tactical progressions. The ability to shift between the two perspectives means teachers of games transform the content knowledge into forms that are pedagogically powerful, yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented by students. Content emphasis in either perspective results in a misinterpretation of how to teach students to play games. The arrows in figure 1 highlight how the movement in games teaching is aimed at the gray shaded area between the “technique” and “tactical” approaches - the “tactical-to-skill” domain. However, as stated at the beginning of this paper separating tactics and skills is hard to do. For one student, learning to be consistent at keeping the ball going after one bounce may be a tactical awareness game but to another student this may be a boring skill practice that seems too easy. The key to teaching tactical awareness that leads to meaningful skill learning is the attitude to play that learners have with the task (Asquith, 1989; Hopper, 1996). Teachers have to understand their learners in relation to their developmental levels of game play and their experimental understanding of a game.

To assist teachers at locating this attitude to play, the following criteria for teaching for tactic-to-skill has been developed. Based on Bunker and Thorpe, (1986a) original curriculum model for TGFU, the teacher should consider the following:

1. A suitably active warm-up where skills to be used in a game are made ready. In figure 1 the warm-up activity could be in the skill or tactical progression area with the students beginning with locomotive skills, stopping and simple manipulative skills in low-organized games using an object. The activity should gradually increase in intensity and connect to the main focus of the lesson (Wall & Murray, 1994).

2. Then, a modified game suitable for students’ developmental abilities and skill levels (Thorpe & Bunker, 1989). In figure 1 the modified game represents a shift into the tactical progression area with a focus on tactics. This tactical perspective causes the students to think, with the teacher guidance, about what they have to do as players in the modified game.

3. Working with the students’ responses to game play, the teacher develops student awareness, depending on the type of game, of how to cover and attack space, create time and reduce opponent’s time, support teammates and apply force appropriately to the object. In figure 1 this represents a shift into the tactic-to-skill domain where skill learning/refining becomes meaningful and willingly worked upon by students when needed.

4. As needed the teacher can guide students into developing skill progressions, and developing further tactical awareness as the modified game is made more challenging with the structures of the game developing towards the adult game.

5. However, this fine balance between tactical awareness and skill learning does not always work as planned. A modified game may be too complex for some or all of the students, or even too simple, becoming a tactic non-learning progression as shown in figure 1. At this point the teacher has to change the learning environment to suit the needs of the students either to simplify the game structure to return to the ‘tactical progression’ area, change the conditions of the game to make it more challenging or focus upon skills in the ‘skill progression’ area that would enable the students to play the game.

6. Whenever students practice skills a teacher must be wary of falling into the trap of teaching technical cues that have no meaning to the students. This is the common problem that Bunker and Thorpe (1986b) observed at the beginning of this paper. The skill non-learning progression only happens when students are not mentally engaged in the needs of the game. When this occurs a re-focusing of how the skills are being practiced may be needed to move into the skill progression area, or a new modified game is needed to shift the students into the tactical learning area.

7. If (1) to (6) above is not observed then games teaching can become caught in the “teaching games with no understanding”, where students do as asked but rarely seek opportunities to repeat the experience.

This criterion describes how physical educators can integrate everything they know to teach games and develop what has been termed pedagogical content knowledge (Chandler, 1996; Griffin, Dodds, & Rovengo, 1996). Pedagogical content knowledge implies "the capacity of a teacher to transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into forms that are pedagogically powerful yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented by students " (Chandler, 1996, p. 51).

Conclusion

When teaching games a teacher should move around the model in Figure 1, adapting the lesson to try to shift learning into the play rich area of the “tactical-to-skill” domain. It is too easy for teachers to focus on content, believing they are teaching tactics or techniques, when in reality they are covering material but not engaging the learner. The key in games teaching is to move the lesson away from the lower half of the model in Figure 1 into the “tactic-to-skill” domain where the students learns to appreciated the game and the skills they need to learn.

Teaching skills is essential for students to be better game players. Teaching tactical understanding is essential to allow students to understand how to use the skills they are acquiring, and why they need these skills to play a game. The TGFU has created a perspective that challenges PE teachers to understand the deep intellectual structures of playing and learning to teach a game effectively (Chandler, 1996; Griffin, Dodds, & Rovengo, 1996). The PE profession should not waste its time measuring skill versus tactic concerns, seeking a simple answer to the complexity of games teaching. As a profession we should embrace the complexity and teach the play of games. What is needed is research into how a tactic-to-skill approach to teaching games enables students to acquire skills, develop conceptual understanding of game playing and makes game playing and appreciation a reality in more peoples’ lives

References

Alison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus a games for understanding approach. The British Journal of Physical Education, 28(3), 9-13.

Berkowitz, R. (1996). A practitioner's journey: From skill to tactics. JOPERD, 67(4).

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

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986b). From theory to practice. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 11-14). Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough.

Chandler, T. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: Reflections and further questions. JOPERD, 67(4), 49-51.

Claxton, D. (1999). Winning edge series: Tennis. Toronto: WCB McGraw-Hill.

Gallahue, D. L. (1996). Developmental physical education for today's children (3rd ed.). Madison: Brown & Benchmark.

Griffin, L., Dodds, P., & Rovengo, I. (1996). Pedagogical content knowledge for teachers: Integrate everything you know to help students learn. JOPERD, 67(9), 58-61.

Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills : A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hopper, T. (1994). Can we play the game? RUNNER, 32(2), 21-22.

Hopper, T. (1996). Play is what we desire in physical education: A phenomenological analysis (Paper ED 391 805). Edmonton: University of Alberta.

Hopper, T. (1998). Teaching games for understanding using progressive principles of play. CAHPERD, 64(3), 4-7.

Hopper, T., & Bell, F. (2000). A tactical framework for teaching games: Teaching strategic understanding. CAHPERD, 66(4), 14-19.

Mauldon, E., & Redfern, H. (1981). Games Teaching. London: Macdonald and Evans.

Mitchell, S., & Griffin, L. (1994). Tactical awareness as a developmentally appropriate focus for the teaching of games in elementary. Physical Educator, 51(1), p. 8-29.

Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching Physical Education. Columbus: Merrill.

Rink, J. (1996). Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games: Introduction. Journal of teaching in physical education, 15, 397-398.

Rink, J., French, K., & Graham, K. (1996). Implications for practice and research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 490-502.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 51, 1-22.

Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skill in physical education. Cakifornia: Mayfield publishing company.

Silverman, S. (1997). Is the tactical approach to teaching games better than a skills approach? JOPERD, 68(7), 5.

Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1989). A changing focus in games teaching. In L. Almond (Ed.), The place of physical education in schools (pp. 42-71). London: Kogan/Page.

Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (Eds.). (1986). Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough.

Turner, A., & Martinek, T. (1992). A comparative analysis of two models for teaching games (technique approach and game centered (tactical focus) approach). International Journal of Physical Education, XXIX, 131-152.

Williams, N. (1992). The physical education hall of shame. JOPERD, 63, 57-60.

Wall, J., & Murray, N. (1994). Children and movement. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brow Publishers.