Evaluating the Teaching Games for Understanding Model (TGfU) and its impact on tactical development

Having touched upon it very briefly in my previous article, the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model is very much the opposite of a contemporary phenomenon within theoretical framework; it’s foundations were laid in the work of Bunker and Thorpe (1982) when they studied the skill set of school leavers.

You may be sitting there thinking ‘what is TGfU?’…..well, it is quite a simple approach to understand and comprehend. Whereas its predecessor in coaching models, instructional behaviour, was predominantly focused on a technical model for development, TGfU places emphasis on a tactical ideology (Turner and Martinek, 1999). To simplify it even further, the Teaching Games for Understanding model places constraints into small-sided games to aid decision-making and tactical knowledge.

A basic diagram explaining the TGfU Model (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) Photo from @PENathan

There is a slight difference from small-sided game practices and TGfU sessions; the former is more likely to place focus on improving technical skill, whilst it will inevitably improve decision-making in game-related practices but that is not the ultimate goal of the coach. As for TGfU, the coach puts significance into the tactical knowledge of the sport, i.e. formations, positioning.

Now getting into the gritty content of Teaching Games for Understanding; Procedural Knowledge is a major component of the methodology as it refers to the psychological process athletes or students go through when determining what action(s) may be required to complete a movement (McPherson and French, 1991) – which is a pivotal thinking process athletes need in competitive situations. Procedural Knowledge (PK) and decision-making are tightly knitted, and continuous practice will improve both. However, studies have proven that for PK to increase significantly and effectively, then the TGfU approach has to be implemented over a long period of time. The impact on PK over a short-term run of sessions has next to no change in a TGfU framework.

The other type of knowledge is called ‘Declarative’ – knowing the rules or regulations of the sport – information that does not grow or expand over time as a cause of practice (Turner, 1996)

It is said to be of great importance to implement Procedural Knowledge at a young age, as non-experts have been found to be lacking the decision-making capacity expecting during competitive games (Turner, 1993). For coaches to employ this within the TGfU approach when teaching children, that should give the student or athlete a longer period of time to improve their decision-making. Although, it has come under some pressure; that advising young children to begin understanding a tactical perspective of a particular sport is not appropriate for their age and development stage, and that the focus should be on isolated technical skill (possibly coach-led?).

Practical application of Teaching Games for Understanding

Before we discuss the application of TGfU, I must thank George Jones (@georgejjones) for bringing this component of research to my attention.

One major way to employ the methodology of Teaching Games for Understanding is through ‘questioning’. Light (2003) explains that possessing questioning skills as a coach can be of huge benefit to the athlete as it promotes a ‘thinking’ environment where it provides a platform for tactical reflection and to be an effective teacher, TGfU is viewed by practitioners as an integral approach in pedagogy (Pearson, Webb and McKeen, 2005). Moreover, it is important to practice a certain process of questioning in order to be a constructive coach.

For instance, to integrate athlete-centred questioning coaches can use the ‘Who, What, Where, When, Why and How?’ framework which addresses every aspect of a tactical decision (Griffin and Butler, 2005), and from my experience can be more successful when reflecting with a group rather than individual. Mitchell et al. (2006) designed a different approach to questioning within TGfU; breaking questions down into three categories.

Time – when is the best time to?

Space – where is or where can?

Risk – which choice is safest and which is most risky?

Both processes are effective in questioning as they address the tactical aspects expected within sports and physical education. Whilst Griffin and Butler’s (2005) framework is adaptable to any teaching situation, Mitchell et al. (2006) is more restricted to just physical education environments and it depends on the surroundings as to which you may prefer to employ. Nevertheless, developing a strategic questioning process will be of benefit to the athlete as they will be able to grow their tactical understanding and knowledge of the game (Pearson and Webb, 2008).

Contemporary Research

Notable contributions to the research of Teaching Games for Understanding were made over the first twenty years to follow Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) work. Nevertheless, studies are still being compiled to assess any changes in the methodology.

Alaoui et al. (2020) completed research of 28 tennis participants between the ages of 9-12. 14 were placed into the experimental group who were coached using TGfU coaching, whilst the other 14 were put into a controlled group where they were under a coach-led approach. The participants trained for 45 minutes per session twice a week, for eight weeks. Performance was measured through the athletes’ practical execution of tactical knowledge, as supported by Bunker and Thorpe (1982).

The results of this study were somewhat unsurprising in that participants of the experimental group had better tactical knowledge as observed through field position and became quicker servers as time progressed – this is likely an effect of improved tactical development (Crespo and Machar, 2002). The evidence of this study would suggest TGfU is still of use in modern sport and physical education and remains effective in coaching delivery in addressing the gap of tactical knowledge.

From a personal perspective, Teaching Games for Understanding is an ideal session design to improve tactical knowledge at a young age, with constraints to develop particular aspects, and at the end of the day, children will always enjoy playing games. The TGfU approach supports a facilitative stance from the coach and, therefore, expand decision-making capabilities as the practice is not being over-complicated. Whilst there are several ways to address its approach in delivery, effective questioning seems to be the most blatant and easily adaptable method to use; in addition, it provides a curious environment where learning is prioritised.

As always, thank you for taking the time out of your day to read my blog – it is greatly appreciated. If you would like to reach out to me and discuss this topic further then by all means do so – on Twitter @RyanJ_White99 or email at whitr182@gmail.com. Stay safe.

Alaoui, M., Kpazaï, G., Portmann, M., & Comtois, A. S. Outcome of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU) approach when applied to tactical understanding of strategy and tactics in the game of tennis for young people.

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of physical education, 18(1), 5-8.

Crespo, M., & Reid, M. (2002). Modern tactics: an introduction. ITF CSSR, 27(2).

Griffin, L. L., Oslin, J. L., & Mitchell, S. A. (1995). An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching net games. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 66(suplemento A), 64.

Griffin, L. L., & Butler, J. (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research, and practice. Human Kinetics.

Light, R. (2003). The joy of learning: Emotion and learning in games through TGfU. New Zealand Physical Educator, 36(1), 93.

Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in games. Bulletin of Physical Education, 25(1), 35-38.

Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2006). Teaching sport skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,.

McPherson, S. L., & French, K. E. (1991). Changes in Cognitive Strategies and Motor Skill in Tennis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13(1).

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(2), 231-243.

Pearson, P. J., & Webb, P. (2008). Developing effective questioning in teaching games for understanding (TGfU).

Rink, J., French, K. E., & Werner, P. (1991). Tactical awareness as the focus for ninth grade badminton. In Higher Education World Congress. Congreso Mundial de Atlanta. International Association for Physical Education (AIESEP). Georgia.

Thomas, K. T., & Thomas, J. R. (1994). Developing expertise in sport: The relation of knowledge and performance. International journal of sport psychology, 25, 295-295.

Turner, A. P. (1993). A model for working with students with varying knowledge structures. In annual meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Washington, DC.

Turner, A. (1996). Teaching for understanding: Myth or reality?. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(4), 46-55.

Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1992). A comparative analysis of two models for teaching games (technique approach and game-centered (tactical focus) approach). International Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15-31.

Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge, and game play. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 70(3), 286-296.

Webb, P., Pearson, P., & McKeen, K. (2005, December). A model for professional development of teaching games for understanding (TgfU) for teachers in Australia. In 3rd Teaching Games for Understanding International Conference, Hong Kong.