Physical Education Teachers’ Interpretations of Teaching Games for

Understanding Model

Soni Nopembri

Faculty of Sports Science, Yogyakarta State University, Colombo Road No.1, Indonesia

soni_nopembri@uny.ac.id

Keywords: Physical Education, Teacher, Action.

Abstract: Physical education teachers need to adopt various teaching approaches to meet the school curriculum and

their professional competence. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to evaluate the implementation of

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model by conducting action to physical education teacher who

has got long teaching experience. The research applied Participatory Action Research. The subjects of this

research were 19 physical education teachers who had got training of Teaching Games for Understanding.

Data collection was conducted intensively through questionnaires, in-depth interviews, Focused-Group

Discussion (FGD), observation, and documentation. The collected data were analysed qualitatively and

quantitatively. Physical education teachers had got proper interpretations of the TGfU model. The research

indicators are PE teachers had a good understanding of the TGfU model, PE teachers had a competence in

applying the TGfU model on Physical Education at school, the teacher itself is a highly influential factor,

and PE teachers’ perspectives on the TGfU model were good. Physical education teachers’ interpretations of

the TGfU model have been proper.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Physical education is an education that applies

students’ physical activities as a means to achieve

the educational goals. Physical education is an

educational process that uses systematically planned

physical activities to improve individual organically,

neuromuscularly, perceptually, cognitively, and

emotionally. Physical education is an integral part of

the general education process, which is intended to

develop better students’ physical, mental, and

emotional, using physical activities as the mean

(Bucher, 1995). There is no education without

pedagogical goals, and there is no complete

education without physical education. It is because

movements are essential for human beings to

recognize the world and one’s self that develops

along with time. The Movement is the main purpose

of physical education learning, which has dynamic

meaning and significance. The instruction that

explores students’ creativity in moving could help

the achievement of the instructional goal.

The biggest part of physical education is game

learning that is related to sports. Nowadays, middle

schools and universities use games as one of the

activities to achieve physical education goals.

Students are very fond of various games, either

individual or group. Teaching games in physical

education put more emphasis on the playing skills

mastery by repeated drilling, so that chance to play

reduced. As a result, students’ performance on the

games frequently indicates obstacles to cooperate

and compete. For that reason, it is considered

necessary to have game teaching that engages

students in the game organization without merely

emphasizing on the skill mastery through drilling.

The emphasis on the technique mastery results in

saturation and boredom for the students, though

teaching game is intended to gain the excitement of

the game. For instance, as a football player, a

student would prefer to handle and play the ball.

The technical mastery in games is necessary, but in

physical education teaching, the exploration of other

areas must be comprehensive and holistic. Most

current teaching methods emphasize more on the

technical mastery than the tactic. Meanwhile, the

emphasis on tactics will lead to the spatial awareness

and shape game technique well, so that the teaching

would be more efficient. On the other hand, the

cognitive aspect would properly develop as well.

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)

model pays more attention to develop cognitive

domain dominant without forgetting psychomotor

and affective domains. Behaviour measurement is

conducted to measure the effectiveness and

Nopembri, S.

Physical Education Teachers’ Interpretations of Teaching Games for Understanding Model.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 1, pages 24-29

ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9

engagement of the games that are developed to

contribute to the action and skill measurement,

which measured about the cognitive domain.

Researchers and educators have paid little attention

to cognitive and affective domains. The influences

of working and having fun in the sport would give

greater effects on the game learning. For instance,

children, coaches, and parents must know games and

game situations that are more fun than continuous

technique-oriented drilling. Teaching Games for

Understanding (TGfU) approach is a game learning

approach that focuses on the game itself. In TGfU,

the most important thing is answering why and what

is the purpose of the game teaching, not on what and

how the game played. TGfU stimulates children to

comprehend tactical awareness of how to play a

game to get its benefit so that player could make a

decision quickly toward what to do and how to do

(Setiawan and Nopembri, 2004). TGfU is a game

and student-centered teaching an approach to

teaching games that are closely related to sports with

constructivist learning (Griffin and Patton, 2005).

TGfU is an educational approach that helps students’

development of tactical awareness and skill learning.

TGfU is very efficient on student and game-centered

teaching. It requires students to comprehend tactics

and strategies of playing sports before learning the

techniques. Some experts such argued that TGfU is a

teaching approach that focuses on tactic skill to

improve the use of technical skills, not technical

skills to improve tactical skills (Hopper, 2002).

TGfU is a teaching model focusing on students’

development of game playing techniques (Metzler,

2000). The model emphasize tactics, decision-

making, and problems-solving in game situation

(Webb and Pearson, 2008).

The main roles of teachers in education are to

teach, educate, coach, direct, and shape character

and personality. They have got the responsibility to

change a human being to be a knowledgeable, smart,

and noble individual. Therefore, not all people can

be teachers or perform teacher duty. Teachers need

professional requirements obtained through designed

education so that, in accomplishing the duty, they

would not make mistakes. If they wrongly

conducted their role, it would cause a fatal effect on

students’ future and harm education. For this reason,

they need a professional education that could create

professionally competent teachers as it was required

as a profession. For example, physical education

teachers are required to adapt the curriculum

properly so that various teaching approaches are

needed to meet the school curricula. The

development of TGfU in physical education has

been conducted widely by practitioners and

instructors in the whole world. Many articles and

studies discussing TGfU showed how special this

approach is. Moreover, the TGfU approach has been

adopted by Physical Education Teacher Education

(PETE) in some countries like Australia, the United

States of America, Singapore, and European

countries. For two decades (20 years), TGfU had

explored and discussed, not only the ideas and the

important events but also the pedagogical principles

(Griffin and Butler, 2005). Considering those points,

the purpose of the study is to explore senior high

physical education teachers’ interpretations of the

TGfU model in Yogyakarta by conducting action

research. The specific purposes of the study are to

examine (1) the physical education teachers’

understand to the TGfU model, (2) their competence

in teaching games through the TGfU model, (3) the

factors hindering the implementation of the TGfU

model, (4) the PE teachers’ perceptions of the TGfU

model.

2 METHODS

Figure 1: The cycles of par.

Senior

High

School

Teacher

PLANNI

Preparing

TGfU

Model

ACTION

OBSERVA

TION

REFLECTI

Workshop on

TGfU Model

Implementatio

n of TGfU

Model in the

Schools.

Monitoring

Evaluati

 In-depth

Interview

 Focus Group

Discussion

 Documentatio

 Questionnair

 Test Sheet

 Teaching

ability

Physical Education Teachers’ Interpretations of Teaching Games for Understanding Model

The research applied Participatory Action

Research (PAR), consisting of one cycle covering:

Planning, Action (execution of the planning),

Observation (evaluation on Action), and Reflection

(academic experience). On the planning stage, the

study was started by preparing the TGfU model and

identifying physical education teachers that would

be involved in the research. On the action and

observation stage, training on the implementation of

the TGfU model to physical education teachers was

conducted and then followed by implementation of

this model by physical education teachers, and

monitoring and evaluation (data collection) on the

gradual implementation of the TGfU model. On the

reflection stage, the collected data analyzed by

referring to the prior planning. The cycles conducted

in this research presented in Figure 1.

The participants were 19 physical education

teachers of senior high schools in Yogyakarta with

approximately 5 – 20 years’ teaching experience and

had never obtained training or education on the

TGfU model. Also, students in those schools were

also part of the research subject of teachers’ action

research. So, the participant’s not only physical

education teachers but also their students. This

research utilized a variety of instruments and

techniques of data collection, namely questionnaires,

the TGfU model understanding test sheet, in-depth

interview guide and FGD, TGfU/TPCQ Teaching

Ability, and Documentation (photo, video, lesson

plans). The quantitative data analysis conducted

through three processes, namely: data display, data

reduction, and verification/conclusion and the

percentage category for the quantitative data.

3 RESULTS

3.1 PE Teachers’ Uderstanding of the

TgfU Model

The test score of PE teachers' understanding of the

TGfU model was very high (15.79 %), high (73.68

%), low (10.53%), and very low (0 %) shown in

Figure 2. The Interview and FGD results indicated

that teachers have got different understanding from

one another, less comprehend teaching steps of the

TGfU model, and know explicitly that TGfU

learning promotes active, creative, and joyful

learning. Figure 2. PE Teachers’ Understanding of

the TGfU Model

Figure 2: PE Teachers’ Understanding of the TGfU

Model.

3.2 PE Teachers’ Competence in

Implementing of the TGfU Model

PE teachers teaching competence is good, regarding

the opening, material delivery, empowering, and the

use of media and instructional tools, class

management, discussion arrangement, questioning

ability, facility management, instructional

evaluation, and closing. This condition was affected

by their long experiences in teaching, understanding

of students’ characteristics, and understanding of the

school atmosphere. PE teachers’ specific ability in

implementing TGfU model did not face a serious

problem. They implemented the TGfU model as

learning model procedures, covering: Game form

(the first game), Questions, Practice task, and Game

(the second game). It could obtain through the

analysis of documentation of teachers’ lesson plan.

However, most teachers had not been able to apply

the lesson plans properly. They did not understand

the game tactics well so that the teaching often put

more emphasis on the game techniques. As a result,

the modified games were less appropriate for the

teaching.

3.3 The Influential Factors of the

Implementation of the TGfU Model

at Schools

The influencing factors in the implementation of the

TGfU model, in sequence, were a teacher (43.5 %),

facilities (22.9 %), environment (17.6 %), and

students (16 %) as shown as in Figure 3. The results

of this quantitative descriptive analysis were

justified by the observation, interview, and FGD

results. They indicated that the teacher was the

principal influencing factor in the implementation of

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

the TGfU model, especially in comprehending the

TGFU model comprehensively, making the lesson

plans and lacking mastery on materials.

Figure 3 : The Influential Factors of the Implementation of

the TGfU Model at Schools.

The facility factor was also one of the influence

factors of the implementation of this model at

schools, especially the limited equipment and

facilities. The environment factor, such as school

support, was an influencing factor as well. Students’

different attitudes, behaviors, and motivation in

following the lesson contributed to the influence

factors of the implementation of this model.

3.4 PE Teachers’ Perspectives on the

TGfU Model

Based on the descriptive analysis of the score of PE

teachers perspective of the TGfU model, the results

were very good (21.05 %), good (57.89 %), poor

(21.05 %), and bad (0 %) (None). These shown in

Figure 4. The interview, FGD, and observation

results indicated that PE teacher supports the

development of the TGfU model at senior high

school. They appreciate the TGfU model. They

perceived that the TGfU model increases their

confidence, make the teaching more efficient and

effective, and simplify the evaluation process. A less

positive perspective came from some teachers due to

some reasons, such as the fear that this model would

not be fully admitted by curriculum and school

supervisors and not fully acknowledged by senior

teachers.

Figure 4 : PE teachers’ perspectives on the TGfU model.

4 DISCUSSION

Understanding of the TGfU model is critical to be

identified first by physical education teachers to

make the systematic frame of thought concerning the

intended object. Understanding is the foundation of

action. The understanding or knowledge is one’s

ability to recall or recognize names, terms, ideas,

symptoms, formulas, and so forth, without expecting

the capacity to utilize them (Sudijono, 2007). The

mastery of knowledge is also the main goal that has

possessed by a teacher, especially a physical

education teacher. Understanding, in this term, is the

acquisition of the TGfU model by physical

education as part of teaching. The introduction of

TGfU as a reaction to the traditional skill-drill model

may well have contributed to the direct comparison

of the approaches from an empirical perspective

(Holt, Strean, dan Bengoechea, 2002). So, it requires

a good understanding of the teachers to be able to

implement TGfU on PE instruction.

Teaching competence is essential for physical

education teachers. Ability to teach physical

education emphasizes on how teachers could put

into practice the skills they knew so that available

theories could apply as pedagogical values.

Teaching game materials using the TGfU model

needs to be attained by physical education teachers

so that the implementations of TGfU model run well

as the teaching procedures. The real competence of

teaching the TGfU model should improve by

teaching the TGfU model experience continuously.

Teachers must learn good teaching methods to

achieve the goal of physical education teaching

properly. Teachers’ main role is conducting

appropriate learning. Teachers are emphasized to

more explicitly in teaching games by playing games

itself (Kirk and MacPhail, 2002).

Physical Education Teachers’ Interpretations of Teaching Games for Understanding Model

Obstacles to the implementation of physical

education learning should avoid, if possible. The

success of the teaching-learning process at schools is

the teacher’s responsibility. Teachers of physical

education and sports have long concerned that

traditional approaches to teaching sport have done

little beyond developing inert skills that have a little

reasonable chance of being used in a real setting

(Rink, French, and Tjeerdsma, 1996). Physical

education teachers should be able to plan, make, and

do a learning model appropriately so that efficient

and effective physical education teaching could

obtain. It implied that teachers might not be the

greatest problem in developing an innovation of a

learning model. Although their teaching competence

has been good, the interview and FGD results

indicated that they were one of the influential

factors. They felt that they could not understand this

model comprehensively. They thought they were not

capable enough of applying this model maximally at

school due to many limitations, which were

influential factors as well. Also, students’

motivation, equipment, and limited facilities, as well

as less conducive school environment hinder the

implementation too. TGfU stressed the game and

guided learners to discover the game, to capitalize

affiliation (i.e., social interaction, social reassurance,

and making friends) by encouraging children to

develop rules and to challenge them to work out

ways to arrive at appropriate tactics (Holt, Strean,

and Bengoechea, 2002).

The analysis of the questionnaires, interviews,

observations, and FGD showed that physical

education teachers engaged in the research had got

good perspectives on the development of the TGfU

model at schools, despite the limitations. A

perspective is an external stimulant through our

senses transmitted to the central brain to be resolved,

filtered, and reorganized, to be interpreted or

expressed in the form of attitude or behavior. This

opportunity is significant because affective

outcomes resulting from the TGfU approach may

have implications for children’s physical activity

experiences, future motivation to participate, and, in

turn, psychological and physical health (Holt,

Strean, and Bengoechea, 2002). A perspective is a

process of acceptance, interpretation, and meaning

production of conclusions perceived by our senses.

Besides, a perspective is picturesque of un-absolute

objectives of the outer world.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The interpretation of physical education teachers on

the TGfU model has been proper. It indicated by a

good understanding, a moderately good competence,

considering influential factors, and a useful

perspective of physical education teachers on the

TGfU model. The teacher needs to improve their

teaching ability, confidence, and optimistic in the

development of this model in physical education

classes. The more cycles in participatory action

research are necessary to know the broad

interpretation of PE teachers in using the model. In

the future investigation, other influential factors

should be explored deeply to find the effectiveness

of the model in teaching physical education.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thankful all PE teachers and theirs’

student who participated in the study. The work

supported by I-MHERE research grant.

REFERENCES

Bucher, C.A. 1995. Foundation of Physical Education. St.

Louis: C.V. Mosby Company.

Griffin, L., Patton, K. 2005. Two Decades of Teaching

Games for Understanding: Looking at the Past,

Present, and Future. In L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds.),

Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, research,

and practice (pp. 1-18). Champaign, Illinois: Human

Kinetics.

Griffin, L.L., Butler, J.I. 2005. Teaching Games for

Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice.

Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B., Bengoechea, E. G. 2002.

Expanding the Teaching Games for Understanding

Model: New Avenues for Future Research and

Practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

21:162-176.

Hopper, T. 2002. Teaching Games for Understanding: The

Importance of Students Emphasis over Content

Emphasis. Journal of Physical Education Recreation

and Dance, 73(7): 44-47.

Kirk, D., MacPhail, A. 2002. Teaching Games for

Understanding and Situated Learning: Rethinking the

Bunker-Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 21: 177-192.

Metzler, M.W. 2000. Instructional Models for Physical

Education. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, a Person

Education Company.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E., Tjeerdsma, B.L. 1996.

Foundations for the Learning and Instruction of Sport

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

and Games. Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 15:399-417.

Setiawan, C., Nopembri, S. 2004. Teaching Games for

Understanding (Konsep dan Implikasinya dalam

Pembelajaran Pendidikan Jasmani). Jurnal Nasional

Pendidikan Jasmani dan Ilmu Keolahragaan, 54-61.

Sudijono, A. 2007. Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan.

Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Webb, P., Pearson, P. 2008. An Integrated Approach to

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). A paper

presented at the 1st Asia Pacific Sport in Education

Conference, Adelaide.

Physical Education Teachers’ Interpretations of Teaching Games for Understanding Model