This article was downloaded by: [University of Northern Colorado]On: 16 February 2014, At: 13:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Physical Education and Sport PedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20

Working towards legitimacy: twodecades of teaching games forunderstandingLinda L. Griffin a , Ross Brooker b & Kevin Patton ca University of Massachusetts , USAb University of Tasmania , Australiac University of Northern Colorado , USAPublished online: 16 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Linda L. Griffin , Ross Brooker & Kevin Patton (2005) Working towardslegitimacy: two decades of teaching games for understanding, Physical Education and SportPedagogy, 10:3, 213-223, DOI: 10.1080/17408980500340703

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408980500340703

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Working towards legitimacy: two

decades of Teaching Games for

Understanding

Linda L. Griffina�, Ross Brookerb and Kevin PattoncaUniversity of Massachusetts, USA; bUniversity of Tasmania, Australia; cUniversity of

Northern Colorado, USA

Time and acceptance are criterion often used to measure the legitimacy and worth of an idea. Two

decades have passed since the first publications that introduced Teaching Games for Understanding

(TGfU) as a means to conceptualize games teaching and learning. For over two decades various

professionals have advocated for TGfU as a sound idea, which is built on assumptions about

games education. We will outline why we believe that there is cause for celebration for TGfU as

an innovation to games learning. Second, we will argue for the need to work toward legitimacy

through data-based, not data-free development. Absent from current discourse are efforts to

support assumptions about how students learn games while engaged in the TGfU approach. The

case for legitimacy will only improve with more data-based development work. Field-based

research needs to be an essential part of good development work thus leading us toward research-

based practice. We should consider more programmatic research, which could be grounded in

three possible robust theoretical frameworks: (a) achievement goal theory; (b) information

processing; and (c) situated learning theory, which could have strong implications for games

learning specifically as it relates to TGfU.

Keywords: Achievement goal theory; Constructivism; Information processing, Teaching

Games for Understanding; Situated learning

Introduction

Time and acceptance are criterion often used to measure the legitimacy and worth of

an idea. Two decades have passed since the first publication (1982) by Bunker and

Thorpe that introduced Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) as a means to

conceptualize games teaching and learning. In terms of acceptance, since 1982,

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

Vol. 10, No. 3, November 2005, pp. 213–223

�Corresponding author. Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, School of

Education, 113 Furcolo Hall, University of Massachusetts, 813 North Pleasant Street, Amherst,

MA 01003, USA. Email: lgriffin@educ.umass.edu

ISSN 1740-8989 (print); ISSN 1742-5786 (online)=05=30213–11# 2005 The Physical Education Association of the United KingdomDOI: 10.1080=17408980500340703

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

TGfU has been a focus for researchers and teachers in several countries (e.g., USA,

Canada, Singapore, UK, Australia, France), there has been an accumulation of a

considerable body of both research focused on TGfU, several texts have been

published to support games teaching through a TGfU approach, two successful

international conferences have been held with a specific focus on TGfU research

and teaching with a further two planned, and an international task force has been

established to further promote TGfU as a legitimate conceptual framework for

games teaching.

Clearly, there is cause for celebration of TGfU as an innovation for the teaching

and learning of games. To celebrate—a verb that means to mark an occasion, to

give public praise or recognition to something special. In this paper, we firstly and

briefly pause to recognize the substantial progress made with respect to TGfU.

TGfU has emerged as a significant advance for teaching sport-related games. Con-

sidering the challenges and inherently slow nature involved in any change process

we believe that TGfU is gaining momentum. Secondly, we argue that while TGfU

has gained widespread acceptance, its place as a legitimate model or movement for

games learning can only be established through ongoing and well-designed research

and development work which is connected with theories that underpin games learning

and teaching.

Celebrating TGfU

Let us examine why there is cause for celebration. Firstly, as a TGfU community of

researchers and teachers, we have collectively committed to gather through inter-

national conferences focused specifically on TGfU (2008 in Canada, 2005 in Hong

Kong, 2003 in Melbourne, Australia and 2001 in New Hampshire, USA). The first

conference, held in New Hampshire in 2001, brought together 150 delegates from

18 different countries with a common interest in developing the understanding

approach to teaching. The second conference in Melbourne represented an increased

interest in celebrating TGfU, drawing some 250 delegates from 19 different countries.

As a community we have the opportunity (a) to examine the ways in which the under-

standing approach has developed in the various cultures across the globe, and (b) to

strengthen existing international networks of educators committed to an understand-

ing approach.

A second cause for celebration stems from the power that comes from an inter-

national perspective. Since the original TGfU model there have been a number of

development efforts that cut across various parts of Europe, North and South

America, Africa, Australia and Asia. Firstly, this perspective has provided energy

for multiple TGfU variations such as tactical games, game sense, conceptual-based

games and tactical decision learning model. While we would argue that in principle

the name does not matter, each of these variations reflects the diversity of the

various cultural settings in which they are situated. Secondly, our development

efforts include an endless number of teacher and coach workshops, conference pre-

sentations, summer institutes and college/university courses attempting to spread

214 L. L. Griffin et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

the good word about TGfU as a conceptual-based model for games teaching and

learning. Thirdly, we have become increasingly prolific, writing textbooks, book chap-

ters, theoretical and practically based articles and reporting various research findings.

Fourthly, there have been several success efforts to integrate TGfUwith other instruc-

tional models such as Sport Education, Cooperative Learning and Teaching Social

Responsibility. Finally, we are even accessible on the web through Google; by

simply typing in Teaching Games for Understanding you are able to access numerous

web sites as well as various PDF publication files. One of those destinations is our very

own web site (http://www.tgfu.org), supported by the TGfU Task Force.

Our intent in this brief introduction has been to highlight events and ideas that have

helped shape and situate TGfU as a major games teaching movement and provide us

with the occasion to celebrate. So, to all of you who have shared in the development of

any of these highlights—congratulations! If we believe however that TGfU has the

potential to develop as a best practice model then we must put our energy toward

future research and development work (i.e., you cannot have one without the

other) to truly move TGfU toward legitimacy.

Working toward legitimacy through research and development

In the second part of this paper we argue firstly for the need to work toward legitimacy

through data-based not data-free development. Secondly, we will offer possible theor-

etical frames to help us with the development of game knowledge as a way to improve

games learning. TGfU (Thorpe et al., 1984) can provide an organizing structure to

help teachers develop games teaching that promotes more reflective and self-directed

learners. In using this model, games as content in physical education would move

beyond the learning and applying of technical skills (i.e., learning in the psychomotor

domain) toward an increased emphasis on cognitive development as well as the socio-

cultural aspects of sport (Holt et al., 2002).

We begin by exploring the word ‘legitimacy’. Legitimacy means to establish accep-

tance; to be credible (i.e., trustworthy or reliable). Synonymous with legitimacy are

words such as genuineness or authenticity, which speak to the validity of something.

Clearly, time and acceptance give some legitimacy to TGfU. There is however

limited empirical support (i.e., validity and reliability) to back up an intuitive sense

that this approach works for students.

The TGfUmodel was built on the basic assumption that ‘students learn best if they

understand what to do before they understand how to do it’ and puts an emphasis on

‘the engagement of students through the affective domain’ (Butler et al., 2003,

p. 215). Thus this model centers on getting students engaged in a game-like

manner, thinking about the tactical problem on which instruction is focused and

answering questions designed to develop tactical awareness (i.e., decision-making)

(Griffin & Sheehy, 2004). As with all teaching methodology, TGfU makes some

assumptions about how students learn (Rink, 2001).

Three major assumptions about games underpin TGfU. Firstly, games can

be modified to be representative of the advanced game form, and conditioned

Working towards legitimacy 215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

(i.e., exaggerated by rule changes) to emphasize tactical problems encountered within

the game. The use of small-sided games helps to slow down the pace and momentum

of the game so that there is a better chance for the development of game appreciation,

tactical awareness and decision-making. Teachers should view the small-sided games

as building blocks to the advanced form, not as ends in themselves.

Secondly, games share common tactical problems which form the basis of the

games classification system and serve as the organizing structure for the tactical

games model. Advocates of the model argue that games within each category have

similar tactical problems and understanding these similar tactical problems can

assist in transferring performance from one game to another.

Thirdly, games provide an authentic context for assessment. Assessing students

during a game is the most meaningful way for them to receive formative feedback

and to focus the learner’s development toward skillfulness and competence as a

games player (Corbin, 2002). As is commonly espoused in physical education, assess-

ment should be an ongoing part of instruction in that students are provided with

continuous feedback for reflecting on and self-managing of learning.

Proponents of the tactical games model argue that games teaching is dramatically

enriched through the use of assessment, particularly when that assessment is

aligned with instructional objectives (Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2003). For

example, if improved tactical awareness is the goal of instruction then assessment

should be conducted within the context of the game. Having students play games

allows them the opportunity to reflect upon their decision-making abilities. To this

end, game performance assessment tools such as the Game Performance Assessment

Instrument (Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell & Oslin, 1999; Oslin et al., 1998) and the

Team Sport Assessment Procedure (TSAP: Grehaigne et al., 1997; Richard et al.,

2002; Grehaigne et al., 2005) have been developed to measure outcomes during

game play. These authentic assessment tools can assist teachers in gaining insight

into students’ prior knowledge and help them link their new knowledge to game

performance (Placek & Griffin, 2001).

Absent from the current discourse around TGfU are efforts to support assumptions

about how students learn games while engaged in the TGfU approach. Thus our case

for legitimacy will only improve with more data-based development work and there

are various ways in which a legitimacy for TGfU can be constructed. Firstly, teachers,

coaches, teacher educators and researchers need to value field-based research, some

of which should occur in naturalistic settings such as physical education classes in

schools and coaching sessions in sport. Field-based research, while messy and

trying at times, needs to be an essential part of good development work which in

turn will lead us toward research-based practice. We realize that development work

alone is challenging enough without research but there is a pressing need to move

forward in developing our understanding of games learning.

Secondly, there should be a focus on more programmatic research (that is, a plan

under which small steps can be taken). Such research might involve a couple of insti-

tutions following a particular theoretical framework with each carrying out a shared

but separate research agenda. We are not advocating that we all take this on,

216 L. L. Griffin et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

however this type of research could lead to more robust findings. In fact, this mono-

graph as well as the TGfU Task Force could serve to foster such partnerships and

begin to plan specific research agendas.

Finally, we must ground our research questions in a theoretical framework, which

can help lead to strong research designs thus more robust findings. We offer three

strong theoretical frameworks: (a) information processing theory from cognitive psy-

chology; (b) situated learning; and (c) achievement goal theory. Each could have

implications for games learning and could help frame and examine the following

two broad research questions:

a. Does the constructivist nature of TGfU lend itself to more motivated learners?

b. How do learners construct knowledge of games, strategies, tactics and decision-

making in games?

These questions provide us with a starting point to begin this important work toward

legitimacy. We believe that research and development must work hand-in-hand

(i.e., you cannot have one without the other).

Exploring learners’ domain-specific knowledge

Grounding work in learning theories that underlie different teaching methods and

approaches to teaching will enable researchers, teachers and curriculum experts to

create a knowledge base that extends beyond identifying direct links between what

a teacher does and what a student learns to begin to test the assumptions of different

methodologies. For instance, in the case of TGfU, application of a theory of learning

may enable researchers to identify questions that more closely examine the assump-

tions of the model.

Physical education researchers have argued that instructional strategies should be

based on learning theory because without a clear understanding of how students

and teachers learn, one cannot expect to achieve intended learning outcomes

(Rink, 2001; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). Researchers with a learning orientation

put an emphasis on understanding what students know, can do, bring to physical

education (prior knowledge), and how their knowledge changes as a function of

physical education instruction (see Griffin & Placek, 2001).

Research on the development of learners’ domain-specific knowledge confirmed

the importance of studying the specific content of the prior knowledge (Griffin &

Placek, 2001; Griffin & Patton, 2005). Findings indicated that students vary in

their type and range of experiences as well as the source of their knowledge. Research-

ers have verified that students not only need to be aware of their own knowledge, but

they must also have opportunities to articulate and share their knowledge publicly if

changes in their mental models are to occur (Wandersee et al., 1994).

Information processing theory, from cognitive psychology, provides a theoretical

framework for investigating domain-specific knowledge and contributes to ideas of

what learners know and how they learn cognitive aspects of movement activities.

Working towards legitimacy 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Knowledge can be broadly characterized as declarative, procedural, conditional and

strategic (Anderson, 1976; Alexander & Judy, 1988). Sport pedagogy research

reveals that individuals may simultaneously be highly knowledgeable about some

aspects of sport and physical education while far less knowledgeable about others.

For example, individuals in a physical education setting in the same class in school will

differ greatly in their knowledge structures of sport-related games. A student could

be highly knowledgeable about the tactics involved in invasion games while their

knowledge structures relating to the tactics of net/wall games may contain many gaps.

We believe that understanding and development of learners’ domain-specific

knowledge provides us, as teachers and researchers, with an additional means to

facilitate learning and to find out what students know about physical education at

the outset of instruction and as instruction unfolds over time (Griffin & Placek,

2001). This strategy acknowledges that learners are active participants in the teach-

ing-learning process (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986) and come to every new learning

experience with some knowledge about the topic already established. In a physical

education context, players’ knowledge is important in building overall game skills,

in knowing what to do and under which conditions to do it, knowing how to

perform particular motor skill components of the game, and how to apply these

tactically and strategically to one’s own advantage during game play.

Viewing the learning process with information-processing theory and research

demonstrates just how complex the instructional environment is and the difficulty

teachers face to facilitate learning (Dodds et al., 2001). From the research base

using the information processing perspective, French and McPherson (2004) pro-

vided what they refer to as ‘best guess approaches’ to sport-related games learning,

which directly relate to a TGfU model. First, teachers and coaches should design

game-play situations so that students must repeatedly make decisions. Second,

teachers and coaches should use questions to gain insight and information from

students about what they are processing or not processing. Much more research and

development work is needed to understand how to facilitate the development of

game knowledge. A challenging but important question is to explore which types of

learning situations (i.e., games or practice) elicit which types of improvement in game

performance (i.e., decision-making and execution) (French & McPherson, 2004).

A better theory for games learning has implications for physical education students.

As physical education teachers learn how to access students’ prior knowledge struc-

tures to gain a more complete picture of where gaps exist within groups of students’

knowledge, they may become more adept at providing challenging learning environ-

ments that will facilitate students’ learning and skillfulness.

Exploring a situated learning perspective

Constructivist and situated learning perspectives have been promoted in the physical

education literature (Rovegno & Kirk, 1995; Rovegno & Bandhauer, 1997; Kirk &

Macdonald, 1998; Chen & Rovegno, 2000; Ennis, 2000; Dodds et al., 2001; Light

& Fawns, 2001). These theories have the potential to stimulate social, cultural and

218 L. L. Griffin et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

physical education within a TGfU model. TGfU has several pedagogical principles

(Dyson et al., 2004). First, TGfU advocates a student-centered approach in which

learning takes place in a participation framework (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Second,

learning activities have the potential to include social, physical and cognitive learning

outcomes. Third, students work in small groups (i.e., communities of practice) and

rely on each other (positive interdependence). Fourth, the teacher facilitates learning

activities that shifts responsibility to students. TGfU emphasizes active learning

within a social practice and involves the processes of decision-making, social inter-

action and cognitive understanding of various physical activities. TGfU considers

developmental factors, which involve the modification of activities to meet the

needs of the learners and optimize the potential for success.

A situated learning perspective provides a compelling framework for the study of

games teaching and learning. Situated learning perspectives assert that knowledge

is inseparable from the culture, contexts and activities in which it develops and ident-

ifies ‘communities of practice’ as a way to characterize learning (Wenger, 1998).

Knowledge and skill are acquired when new members ‘move toward full participation

in the sociocultural practices of a community’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29).

A situated learning perspective is a type of the social constructivism that we believe

provides a more holistic view of learning. As social learners, students construct knowl-

edge through social interaction with their peers, facilitated by their teachers. As

creative learners, students are guided to discover knowledge themselves and to

create their own understanding of the subject matter. Individuals draw on prior

knowledge and experiences to construct knowledge. A situated learning theory inves-

tigates the relationships among the various physical, social and cultural dimensions of

the context of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Social and cultural contexts contrib-

ute to and influence what is learned and how learning takes place. Lave and Wenger

(1991, p. 42) discuss ‘legitimate peripheral participation within a community of

practice’ as a key concept for situated learning theory. Kirk & Macdonald (1998)

provide a useful explanation of community of practice: ‘We understand the notion

of community of practice to refer to any collectivity or group who together contribute

to shared or public practices in a particular sphere of life’ (p. 380). The social and

cultural situation of the teaching environment contributes significantly to what is

learned and how learning takes place (Kirk & Macdonald 1998). We argue that

TGfU provides a structure for situated learning to occur within a community of

practice, based in the meaningful, purposeful and authentic tasks presented and

practiced by students.

In a TGfU model, games develop within a community of practice, which provides

learners with a framework for making sense of learning activities being presented.

Legitimate peripheral participation is intended to convey the sense of authentic, mean-

ingful and purposeful participation by students in an activity. Lave andWenger (1991)

refer to legitimate peripheral participation as participation that occurs within sets of

relationships in which ‘newcomers’ can move toward ‘full participation’ by being

involved in particular experience or practice and this develops new sets of relation-

ships. Learning is viewed as the legitimate (having access) peripheral (complex

Working towards legitimacy 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

interplay of persons, activity, knowledge and the social world) participation (activity

towards a specific task/goal) (Lave &Wenger, 1991). Learning takes place in the inter-

active social world within social practices or interpersonal relationships that are in the

process of production, reproduction, transformation and change (Lave & Wenger,

1991). Individuals are viewed as part of the whole, not acting or participating in iso-

lation. Based on the potential of situated learning perspectives to acknowledge and

highlight the constructivist and social nature of games teaching and learning, it has

emerged as a framework to theorize and analyze pedagogical practices in games teach-

ing and learning (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Kirk, 2005).

Exploring achievement goal theory

The last theoretical frame that we propose for examining TGfU is that of achievement

goal theory. Achievement goal theory research has speculated that a classroom goal

structure, referred to as motivational climate, influences students’ adoption of

achievement goals (Xiang et al., 2003). Achievement goals have been identified as a

mastery and performance goal orientation. Given that a mastery-focused climate

(i.e., goal of developing an individual’s ability through learning or task mastery) is

beneficial to studentmotivation and achievement-related behaviors in school, research-

ers could identify and assess how TGfU influences classroom motivational climates.

We argue that when students request the game, students take the position that

games, as compared to skills practice, are fun! One reason games are more fun is

that they have structure and outcomes that give meaning to performance, which

could be directly tied to situational interest. Situational interest is a multisource con-

struct in which students report that an activity provides a sense of novelty and chal-

lenge, demands exploratory action and high-level attention, and generates a feeling

of instant enjoyment (Deci, 1992). Chen (2001) points out that situational influence

may have a stronger impact on students’ motivation to learn than goal orientations.

Proponents of TGfU argue that the decision-making process of games, which pre-

cedes the use of skills and movement execution, places students into situations that

are developmentally appropriate, however demand exploratory action and high

level attention (Thorpe, 2001).

In 1992, Thorpe argued for using a psychological framework, specifically intrinsic

motivation theory, to support TGfU as a viable model for games teaching and learn-

ing. Thorpe outlined Alderman and Wood’s (1976) work on incentive systems (i.e.,

affiliation, achievement, sensation, social facilitation and self-direction) that operate

in sport as a way to examine TGfU. Research indicates that social factors that encou-

rage feelings of competence can foster intrinsic motivation (e.g., Vallerand, 2001).

In addition, when individuals receive information that increases their perceptions

of competence, their intrinsic motivation increases (Weinberg & Jackson, 1979;

Vallerand & Reid, 1988; Rudisill, 1989; Whitehead, 1993). There is also evidence

that an individual’s experience might affect their perception of competence in

attempting a physical task (Rutherford et al., 1992). We would argue that using this

theoretical frame to examine the affect of TGfU on perceived competence, and

220 L. L. Griffin et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

how experience and performance information interact to affect intrinsic motivation,

would be valuable to the TGfU movement.

Each of these theoretical frames has the potential to truly extend our understanding

of TGfU as an instructional model as well as our understanding of games teaching and

learning. Sport pedagogy researchersmust begin tomove forward and explore new and

important avenues of study. Grounding work in theories that underlie different teach-

ingmethodswill enable researchers, teachers and curriculumexperts to create a knowl-

edge base that extends beyond identifying direct links betweenwhat a teacher does and

what a student learns, to begin to test the assumptions of different methodologies.

Conclusion

While it is important to celebrate two decades of TGfU as a significant innovation for

games learning, it is our hope that in two more decades there will be further cause for

celebration of TGfU as a well established and legitimated instructional model in the

field of games education. To achieve this milestone we must continue to debate and

explore TGfU as a conceptually based model for games learning, the potential of

which can only be realized if teachers, coaches and researchers value and commit

to establishing a body of evidence that positions TGfU as an accepted best-practice

model. From a broader educational perspective, if we are able to demonstrate

that TGfU can articulate with theoretical frameworks that underpin learning, then

the legitimacy of TGfU can extend beyond games learning to support more generic

outcomes from schooling.

In the paper we have proposed three theoretical frames that can provide lenses

through which the aims and outcomes of games units in physical education settings

can be explored and ‘tested’. Ultimately, we want students and players to participate

and enjoy a level of success so that they will have increased motivation to play and gain

the benefits from participation in sport-related games (Rink, 1996). As teachers and

researchers, we want to be able to demonstrate that TGfU can facilitate the develop-

ment of such thinking players. It is the intent of this paper to highlight TGfU’s current

and future roles in achieving this ultimate objective and to encourage future research

and development work which will serve to further legitimize TGfU as an instructional

model for games learning.

References

Alderman, R. B. & Wood, N. L. (1976) An analysis of incentive motivation in Canadian athletics,

Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Science, 1, 169–176.

Alexander, P. & Judy, J. (1988) The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in

academic performance, Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404.

Anderson, J. R. (1976) Language, memory, and thought (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).

Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982) Amodel for the teaching of games in the secondary school, Bulletin

of Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8.

Butler, J., Griffin, L., Lombardo, B. & Nastasi, R. (Eds) (2003) Teaching Games for Understanding in

physical education and sport (Reston, VA, National Association for Sport and Physical

Education).

Working towards legitimacy 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Chen, A. (2001) A theoretical conceptualization for motivation research in physical education: an

integrated perspective, Quest, 53, 35–58.

Chen, W. & Rovegno, I. (2000) Examination of expert teachers’ constructivist orientated teaching

practices using a movement approach to physical education, Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 71, 357–372.

Corbin, C. (2002) Physical education for everyone: what every physical educator should know

about promoting lifelong physical activity, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21,

128–144.

Deci, E. L. (1992) The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: a self determination theory

perspective, in: K. A. Renninger, S. Hihi & A. Krapp (Eds) The role of interest in learning and

development (Hilldale, NJ, LEA).

Dodds, P., Griffin, L. & Placek, J. (2001) A selected review of the literature on development of lear-

ners’ domain-specific knowledge, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(4), 301–313.

Dyson, B., Griffin, L. L. & Hastie, P. (2004) Theoretical and pedagogical considerations for

implementing sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning instructional

models, Quest, 56, 226–240.

Ennis, C. D. (2000) Canaries in the coal mine: responding to disengaged students using theme-

based curricula, Quest, 52, 119–130.

French, K. E. & McPherson, S. L. (2004) The development of expertise, in: M. R. Weiss (Ed.)

Developmental sport and exercise psychology: a lifespan perspective (Morgantown, WV, Fitness

Information Technology).

Grehaigne, J., Godbout, P. & Bouthier, D. (1997) Performance in team sports, Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 16, 500–505.

Grehaigne, J., Richard, J-F. & Griffin, L. L. (2005) Teaching and learning team sports and games

(NY, RoutledgeFalmer).

Griffin, L. L. & Patton, K. (2005) Two decades of Teaching Games for Understanding: looking at

the past, present and future, in: L. L. Griffin & J. I. Butler (Eds) Teaching Games for Under-

standing: theory, research and practice, (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).

Griffin, L. & Placek, J. (2001) The understanding and development of learners domain-specific

knowledge: introduction, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(4), 299–300.

Griffin, L., Mitchell, S. & Oslin, J. (1997) Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games approach

(Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).

Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B. & Bengoechea, E. G. (2002) Expanding the teaching games for under-

standing model: new avenues for future research and practice, Journal of Teaching for Physical

Education, 21, 162–176.

Kirk, D. (2005) Future prospects for Teaching Games for Understanding, in: L. L. Griffin &

J. I. Butler (Eds) Teaching Games for Understanding: theory, research and practice (Champaign,

IL, Human Kinetics).

Kirk, D. & Macdonald, D. (1998) Situated learning in physical education, Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 17, 376–387.

Kirk, D. &MacPhail, A. (2002) Teaching Games for Understanding and situated learning: rethink-

ing the Bunker-Thorpe model, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 117–192.

Lave & Wenger (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (New York, Cambridge

University Press).

Light, R. & Fawns, R. (2001) The thinking body: constructivist approaches to games teaching in

physical education, Melbourne Studies in Education, 42(2), 69–87.

Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1999) Assessment in games teaching: NASPE assessment series (Reston,

VA, National Association for Sport and Physical Education).

Mitchell, S., Oslin, J. & Griffin, L. L. (2003) Sport foundations for elementary physical education: a

tactical games approach (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).

222 L. L. Griffin et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A. & Griffin, L. L. (1998) The game performance assessment instrument

(GPAI): development and preliminary validation, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17,

231–243.

Placek, J. & Griffin, L. L. (2001) The understanding and development of learners’ domin–specific

knowledge: concluding comments, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 402–406.

Richard, J-F., Godbout, P. & Griffin L. L. (2002) Assessing game performance, Physical Education

and Health Education Journal, 68(1), 12–18.

Rink, J. E. (Ed) (1996) Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games [monograph],

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 3.

Rink, J. E. (2001) Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy, Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 20, 112–128.

Rovegno, I. & Bandhauer, D. (1997) Norms of the school culture that facilitated teacher adoption

and learning of a constructivist approach to physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 16, 401–425.

Rovegno, I. & Kirk, D. (1995) Articulations and silences in social critical work on physical

education: toward a broader agenda, Quest, 447–474.

Rudisill, M. E. (1989) Influences of perceived competence and casual dimension orientation on

expectations, persistence, and performance during perceived failure, Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport, 60, 166–175.

Rutherford, W. J., Corbin, C. & Chase, L. A. (1992) Factors influencing intrinsic motivation

towards physical activity, Health Values, 16, 19–24.

Thorpe, R. (1992) The psychological factors underpinning the teaching for understanding games

movement, in: T. Williams, L. Almond & A. Sparkes (Eds) Sport and physical activity:

moving toward excellence (London, St. Edmundsbury).

Thorpe, R. (2001) Rod Thorpe on Teaching Games for Understanding, in: L. Kidman (Ed.) Devel-

oping decision-makers: an empowerment approach to coaching (New Zealand, Innovation Print

Communication).

Thorpe, R. D., Bunker, D. & Almond, L. (1984) A change in the focus of teaching games,

in: M. Pieron & G. Graham (Eds) Sport pedagogy: Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings, 6

(Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).

Vallerand, R. (2001) A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise,

in: G. C. Roberts (Ed.) Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (Champaign, IL, Human

Kinetics).

Vallerand, R. & Reid, G. (1988) On the relative effects of positive and negative verbal feedback on

male’s and female’s intrinsic motivation, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 20, 239–250.

Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J. & Novak, J. (1994) Research on alternative conceptions in science, in:

D. L. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of research on science teaching (NY, Macmillan).

Weinberg, R. S. & Jackson, A. (1979) Competition and extrinsic rewards: effect on intrinsic

motivation and attribution, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 50, 494–502.

Weinstein, C. E. &Mayer, R. E. (1986) The teaching of learning strategies, in: M. C.Wittrock (Ed.)

Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edn) (New York, Macmillan), 315–327.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press).

Whitehead, J. R. (1993) Physical activity and intrinsic motivation, Research Digest, 1(2), 1–6,

(Washington, DC, President’s Council on Physical Education and Sports).

Xiang, P., McBride, R. E. & Solmon, M. A. (2003) Motivational climates in ten teachers’ elemen-

tary physical education classes: an achievement theory approach, The Elementary School

Journal, 104, 71–92.

Working towards legitimacy 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

ern

Col

orad

o] a

t 13:

10 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

014