Content and Method for TGFU

Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1989).  A changing focus in games teaching. In L. Almond(Ed.), The place of physical education in schools (pp. 42-71). London: Kogan/Page.

Issues/Focus

The key problem identified by the authors is that teachers do not have a clear framework as to how to introduce the ‘understanding’ of games into their lesson’s .  The purpose of the article is to layout an overall beneficial curriculum that incorporates the ‘new’ games teaching focus.  As well, the authors demonstrate some games and progression which can be used to successfully achieve the ‘understanding’ of games in their lesson’s.

Reasoning

                Bunker and Thorpe (1989) suggest that the general elements used to create  the curriculum are the model for games teaching (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) coupled with four fundamentals: sampling, modification-representation (a game that represents the adult game), modification-exaggeration(a game that exaggerates the tactics of an adult game), and tactical complexity.

                Based on this guideline, a foundation course, which is introduced in elementary school, is developed.  The strategies used in this foundation course are to move smoothly between the least complex kind of game (batting/fielding), to the mediocre in complexity game (net/wall), and finally to the most complex games (invasion/territory). During this progression, emphasis is placed upon the tactical awareness of each independent game, as well as the similarities and differences of the tactics used between different games and different categories of games.  After the foundation course, specific games can be introduced.  At this point, more emphasis is placed on specific tactics and rules, until the ‘adult’ game is achieved.   The final stage suggested by Thorpe and Bunker (1989) is the sports education stage, where students can find ways to continue to participate in games on their own time.

Assumptions

                The authors assume that the students will be motivated to learn these tactical concepts.  Without the cooperation of certain students, it would be hard to get through Thorpe and Bunker’s suggested curriculum in the time allotted.  Another assumption is that the teacher will be willing to put in a lot of time to create a lesson.  In Thorpe and Bunkers curriculum model, each lesson leads into the next, and there is no significant ‘unit break’ to speak of.   This would not be a problem if all physical  education teachers were devoted to their work.  

Conclusion/Significant Information

                This article was very good at demonstrating how to go from one game category to the next, while demonstrating the similarities and differences between them.  It was interesting to see for myself how to go from hitting a ball into and open field could be made into a net game, which was so easily turned into a territory/invasion game.  It seemed as though their creativity really made their plans work, and there are endless possibilities.

Personal Comments

                I just wanted to say that I can’t seem to remember having any kind of experience in school of the TGFU.  I was never taught the tactics of any game in particular, unless it was outside of school time (school volleyball team etc.).  We usually always played the 15 (or however many were in class that day) a side soccer games with lots of ‘clumping’, and only now am I really starting to understand the logic behind how the game is actually played.  My question is:  Was I really ‘deprived’ of my physical education or is this a common trend in other schools???