
 
Further  analysis  revealed  that  there  was  a 
significant  difference  in  the  traditional  game  skill 
mastery  between  male  students  who  learned 
traditional  games  using  TGFU  and  male  students 
who learned traditional games using TGT, with TGT 
being more effective in improving traditional game 
skill  mastery  than  TGFU.  In  this  respect,  Gerdin 
(2008) state, “Boys tend to enjoy physical education 
in school further up the years compared to the girls.”  
4  LIMITATIONS 
The main limitations of this research were the small 
sample size and the time constraints for students to 
participate in the extracurricular activities. 
5  CONCLUSIONS 
This  research  has  revealed  there  are  different 
impacts  between  TGT  and  TGFU  instructional 
model  on  traditional  game  skill  mastery  at  the 
elementary  school  level  and  has  determined  an 
effective instructional model in terms of gender. 
REFERENCES 
Bailey,  R.,  Armour,  K.,  Kirk,  D.,  Jess,  M.,  Pickup,  I., 
Sandford, R., 2009. The educational benefits claimed 
for physical education and school sport: An academic 
review.  Research  Papers  in  Education.  24(1),  1–27. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701809817. 
Brody,  L.  R.,  Hall,  J.  A.,  2008.  Gender  and  emotion  in 
context.  Handbook  of  Emotions.  395–408. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/2076468 
Butler,  J.  I.,  2006.  Curriculum  constructions  of  ability: 
Enhancing  learning  through  Teaching  Games  for 
Understanding  (TGfU)  as a  curriculum  model.  Sport, 
Education  and  Society.  11(3),  243–258. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320600813408. 
Chaplin, T. M., 2015. Gender and Emotion Expression: A 
Developmental  Contextual  Perspective.  Emotion 
Review. 7(1), 14–21.  
Cheng, A. Y. N., Tang, S. Y. F., Cheng, M. M. H., 2016. 
Changing  conceptions  of  teaching:  A  four-year 
learning  journey  for  student  teachers.  Teachers  and 
Teaching:  Theory  and  Practice.  22(2),  177–197. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055437. 
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Plaut, V. C., Meltzoff, A. N., 
2014.  Designing  Classrooms  to  Maximize  Student 
Achievement. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and 
Brain  Sciences.  1(1),  4–12. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548677. 
Cohen, M. T., 2008. The effect of direct instruction versus 
discovery  learning  on  the  understanding  of  science 
lessons  by  second  grade  students.  NERA  Conference 
Proceedings. Paper 30, 2–37. 
Dudley, D., Baxter,  D.,  2013.  Metacognitive analysis of 
pre-service teacher conception of Teaching Games for 
Understanding  (TGfU)  using  blogs.  Asia-Pacific 
Journal  of  Teacher  Education.  41(2),  186–196. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.777028. 
Gutierrez,  D.,  García-López,  L.  M.,  2012.  Gender 
differences  in  game  behaviour  in  invasion  games. 
Physical Education and Sport  Pedagogy. 17(3), 289–
301. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.690379. 
Hanover  Research,  2014.  The  Impact  of  Formative 
Assessment  and  Learning  Intentions  on  Student 
Achievement, 16. 
Kim, H., Ke, F., 2017. Effects of game-based learning in 
an  OpenSim-supported  virtual  environment  on 
mathematical  performance.  Interactive  Learning 
Environments.  25(4),  543–557. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1167744. 
Koekoek, J., Knoppers, A., 2015. The role of perceptions 
of friendships and peers in  learning skills  in physical 
education.  Physical  Education  and  Sport  Pedagogy. 
20(3), 231–249.  
Light,  R.,  Fawns,  R.,  2003.  Knowing  the  game: 
Integrating  speech  and  action  in  games  teaching 
through  tgfu.  Quest.  55(2),  161–176. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491797 
Mogari,  D.,  2010.  Gender  differences  in  the  learners’ 
learning of properties of a rectangle. African Journal of 
Research  in  Mathematics,  Science  and  Technology 
Education.  14(3),  92–109. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2010.10740694 
Oslin,  J.,  Mitchell,  S.,  Griffin,  L.,  1998.  the  Game 
Performance  Assessment  Instrument  (GPAI) 
Development  and  preliminary  validation.  Journal  of 
Teaching in Physical Education. 17, 231–243. 
Pearson,  P.,  Webb,  P.,  2008.  Developing  effective 
questioning  in  Teaching  Games  for  Understanding 
(TGfU), Faculty of Education - Papers, (January), 1–9. 
Sabin, J. T., 2012. Teacher Morale, Student Engagement, 
and  Student  Achievement  Growth  in  Reading:  A 
Correlational  Study.  ProQuest  Dissertations  and 
Theses.  1(1),  136.  (online)  availabele  at: 
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1427345297?acco
untid=10673%0Ahttp://openurl.ac.uk/redirect/athens:e
du/?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004andrft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertationa
ndgenre=dissertations+%26+thesesandsid=ProQ:ProQ
uest+Dissertations+%26+Theses+Globalanda 
Slavin, R. E., 1995. Classroom applications of cooperative 
learning. APA  educational psychology handbook.  Vol 
3:  Application  to  learning  and  teaching.,  359–378. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/13275-014. 
Tan, C. W. K., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., 2012. “How does 
TGfU  work?”:  Examining  the  relationship  between 
learning  design  in  TGfU  and  a  nonlinear  pedagogy. 
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 17(4),  331–
348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.582486. 
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
228