Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) links tactics and skills by emphasizing the appropriate timing and application within the tactical context of the game. It has been linked to the development of enhanced tactical knowledge. The purpose of the study was to determine immediate and delayed effects of TGfU on procedural and declarative knowledge of basketball and to compare it with a technical approach. Experimental group (EG) (11 fifth graders + 18 sixth graders) was taught by TGfU and a control group (CG) (16 fifth graders + 24 sixth graders) was taught by a technical approach for 8 weeks in Physical Education (PE) classes, both. A written test was constructed to evaluate pupils’ declarative and procedural knowledge of basketball. The test was applied after the intervention to determine immediate effects and 8 months after the intervention to determine retention effects of the experimental programme. Shapiro-Wilk test, Wilcoxon T-test, Man-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis of obtained data. Cohen’s d was used to calculate effect size. Generally basketball knowledge was better in EG than in CG after the intervention (p<0.05) what confirms moderate effect size. When declarative and procedural knowledge were analysed separately there was no significant difference between EG and CG. Nevertheless, moderate effect sizes indicate that the data are particularly meaningful in terms of school practice. Retention effects of both approaches were similar. Total knowledge and declarative knowledge were worse after 8 months than immediately after the intervention in both groups (p<0.01). In both groups, there was no significant difference in procedural knowledge between the test written immediately after the intervention and 8 months later. Differences of changes were not significant between the groups.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. ALLISON S. and R. THORPE 1997. A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus games for understanding approach. In: British Journal of Physical Education 28 (3) p. 9-13.
2. BUTLER J. I. and L.L. GRIFFIN 2010. More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally. Human Kinetics. ISBN-13: 978-0-7360-8334-8.
3. COHEN J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates 1988.
4. GRIFFIN L. and J. BUTLER 2005. Teaching Games for Understanding: theory research and practice. Champaign: Human Kinetics. ISBN 0-7360-4594-5.
5. GRIFFIN L. L. J.L. OSLIN and S.A. MITCHELL 1995. Two instructional approaches to teaching net games. Poster session presented at the American Alliance for Health Physical Education Recreation and Dance National Convention Portland OR.
6. KIRK D. and A. MACPHAIL 2002. Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. In: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21 p. 117-192.
7. MCBRIDE R.E. and P. XIANG 2004. Thoughtful decision making in physical education: a modest proposal. In: Quest 56 p. 337-354.
8. MITCHELL S. A. L.L. GRIFFIN and J.L. OSLIN 1995. Two instructional approaches to teaching invasion games. Poster session presented at the American Alliance for Health Physical Education Recreation and Dance National Convention Portland OR.
9. OSLIN J. L. and S.A. MITCHELL 2006. Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In KIRK D. MACDONALD D. OSULLIVAN M. 2006. Handbook of teaching physical education. London: Sage p. 627-651.
10. PIAGET J. 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: W. W. Norton.
11. PICKARD A. and P. MAUDE 2014. Teaching Physical Education Creatively: Learning to teach in the primary school series. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-65607-8.
12. POPELKA J. 2012. Comparing different approaches to teaching volleyball on volleyball theoretical knowledge of secondary school pupils (in Slovak). In Od výskumu k praxi v športe. Zborník vedeckých prác. Bratislava: STU p. 243-248. ISBN 978-80-227-3854-5.
13. TURNER A. P. and T.J. MARTINEK 1999. An investigation into TGFU: Effects on skill knowledge and game play. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70 p. 286-296.