TEACHING GAMES FOR UNDERSTANDING…Does it really work?

The practicalities of developing new courses in schools.

Paul Stoddart (1985).

Summary by Stephanie Eaton

ISSUE/FOCUS: The author is concerned with the ‘new’ concept of “teaching for understanding” (Keep in mind that this article is almost 20yrs old). He wants to know if the concept is another ‘bandwagon’ or if it is actually here to stay. It specifically deals with invasion games and the development, implementation, and evolution of a course offered for the first time (from this ‘new’ TGFU perspective).

REASONING: Stoddart is interested in the TGFU perspective; furthermore, he believes that there is a need at some point in a physical education program to focus on the attacking and defending principles of games in order to foster competence and some knowledge of games. (Note: he is specifically dealing with invasion games). Stoddart also senses a need to deliberately plan for a particular aspect of learning to take place, rather than allowing that learning to be incidental or leaving it to chance. He also reasons that children love to be involved in playing a game of some sort, so the TGFU approach advocates teaching through game situations.

ASSUMPTIONS: Stoddart believes that pupils are leaving schools without sufficient knowledge of the games they have played. He also assumes that most phys. Ed. Departments and colleagues are willing to experiment with new ideas to improve existing programs (which we know is not always the case!).

CONCLUSIONS: The overall outcome was successful- there was an overall feeling within the department to try to incorporate a variety of games into our teaching of the course to enable pupils to recognize transfer of concepts from one game to another and to experience handling different equipment. It was also found that lots of feedback is crucial- it’s tough to gauge the exact level at which to pitch individual lessons in terms to which pupil would be able to grasp the concepts. The staff also found that their initial schemes tended to be a bit too ‘far off the ground’ and so there was a need to bring it closer to their levels of cognitive development.

SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION: Stoddart emphasizes that it is imperative to have a commitment to an innovation in terms of being able to justify its inclusion in the program for sound educational purposes. I also found this statement rather ‘inspirational’:

“I strongly believe that as physical educationists we have an obligation to help all our pupils understand some of the tactics involved commensurate with their ability, not just those who will be good enough to represent our schools and counties, but all pupils passing through our hands”

PERSONAL COMMENTS: I feel that Stoddart has good insight into the TGFU framework, especially for his era (early eighties). He gives us an idea of the struggles that may ensue when we as new, creative, energetic teachers attempt to implement new ideas into our schools.