Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
ISSN (Print): 2333-4371 ISSN (Online): 2333-438X Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/rpbs Editor-in-chief: Apply for this position
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. 2020, 8(1), 1-10
DOI: 10.12691/rpbs-8-1-1
Open AccessArticle

Enhancing Students’ Metacognitive Knowledge, Metacognitive Regulation and Performance in Physical Education via TGFU

G. Stephanou1, and D. Karamountzos2

1Early Childhood Education, University of Western Macedonia, Florina, Greece

2Hellenic Open University, Patra, Greece

Pub. Date: March 25, 2020

Cite this paper:
G. Stephanou and D. Karamountzos. Enhancing Students’ Metacognitive Knowledge, Metacognitive Regulation and Performance in Physical Education via TGFU. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. 2020; 8(1):1-10. doi: 10.12691/rpbs-8-1-1

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of the TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding) tactical-game approach in promoting metacognitive knowledge (declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge, information management), metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring, problem solving strategies, evaluation, imagery) and game- play performance in physical education. An experimental intervention study in basketball was conducted with pre- and post- intervention measures. The participants were forty-one, seventh grade, students who came from two classes of a Senior High School from a rural area of Southern Greece. The classes were randomly labelled as experimental group (8 boys, 12 girls), which was taught basketball by the TGfU, or control group (10 boys, 11 girls), which was taught basketball by the technical skill-based approach. Both participating groups of students were taught ten lessons in respective ten weeks, each of which lasted forty-five minutes. Students’ metacognition was assessed pre- and post- intervention using self-report questionnaire, and their basketball game performance was estimated by two experts in both conditions. The main results showed that (a) after the completion of the intervention, the TGfU group of students, compared to technical teaching group of students, reported higher metacognition in perceptual knowledge, information management, conditional knowledge, problem solving strategies and evaluation, and performed better in games, and (b) in the post- vs pre- teaching condition, the technical teaching group only referred to higher using of declarative knowledge, whereas the TGfU teaching group achieved higher performance in games, and it referred to more frequent use of metacognitive knowledge of declarative, perceptual, information management and conditional, and of metacognitive regulation of planning, problem solving strategies and evaluation. Overall, the tactical-game approach of TGfU proved effective in improving both metacognition and performance in physical education classes. The results are discussed for their applications into effective learning and future research.

Keywords:
metacognition tactical-game approach physical education

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
 
[2]  Adler, I., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2016). The effect of explicit environmentally oriented metacognitive guidance and peer collaboration on students’ expressions of environmental literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 620-663. (000119147).
 
[3]  Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdate, NJ: Erlbaum.
 
[4]  Cleary, T. J. (2012). Emergence of self-regulated learning microanalysis: Historical overview, essential features, and implications for research and practice. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self- Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 329 -345). New York, NY: Routledge.
 
[5]  Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277-287.
 
[6]  Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 
[7]  Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S.G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 225-278.
 
[8]  Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422.
 
[9]  Perry, B. (2013). Metacognitive awareness: Impact of a metacognitive intervention in a pre-nursing course (Ph.D. thesis). Louisiana State University, USA.
 
[10]  Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2018). Metacognition in schools: What does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71(4), 483-500.
 
[11]  Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.
 
[12]  Tanner, K. D. (2012). Feature approaches to biology teaching and learning. Promoting Student Metacognition. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11, 113-120.
 
[13]  Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6-25.
 
[14]  Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature Review. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education
 
[15]  Artelt, C., Naumann, J., & Schneider, W. (2010). Lesemotivation und Lernstrategien. In E. Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Köller, M. Prenzel, W. Schneider, & P. Stanat (Eds.), PISA 2009. Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt (pp. 73-112). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
 
[16]  Cera, R., Mancini, M., & Antionietti, A. (2013). Relationships between Metacognition, Self-efficacy and Self-regulation in Learning. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 7, 115-141.
 
[17]  Hacker, D. J. (1998). Metacognition: Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
 
[18]  Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and what education can do to promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 857-867.
 
[19]  Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42, 149-161.
 
[20]  Veenman, M. V. J., van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.
 
[21]  Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139.
 
[22]  Serra, M. J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Effective implementation of metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 278-298). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 
[23]  Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. New York: Taylor & Francis.
 
[24]  Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
 
[25]  Abdellah, R. (2015). Metacognitive awareness and its relation to academic achievement and teaching performance of pre-service female teachers in Ajman. University in UAE. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 560-567.
 
[26]  Dimmitt, C., & McCormick, C. B. (2012). Metacognition in Education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 157-187). Washington, DC: APA.
 
[27]  Efklides, A. (2014). How Does Metacognition Contribute to the Regulation of Learning? An Inte-grative Approach. Psychological Topics, 23(1), 1-30.
 
[28]  Gomes, C. M. A., Golino, H. F., & Menezes, I. G. (2014). Predicting school achievement rather than intelligence: Does metacognition matter? Psychology, 5, 1095-1110.
 
[29]  Karagiannidis, Y., Barkoukis, V., Gourgoulis, V., Kosta, G., & Antoniou, P. (2015). The role of motivation and metacognition on the development of cognitive and affective responses in physical education lessons: A self-determination approach. Motricidade, 11(1), 135-150.
 
[30]  Mannion, J., & Mercer, N. (2016). Learning to learn: Improving attainment, closing the gap at Key Stage 3. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 246-271.
 
[31]  Stephanou, G., & Mpiontini, M. (2017). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in self-regulatory learning style, and in its effects on performance expectation and subsequent performance across diverse school subjects. Psychology, 8, 1941-1975.
 
[32]  Stephanou, G., & Tsoni, F. (2019). Effects of metacognition on performance in mathematics and language- multiple mediation of hope and general self-efficacy. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 11(4), 30-52.
 
[33]  Theodosiou, A. & Papaioannou, A. (2006). Metacognition and orientations. Their role in the Self-regulation of learning in Physical Education. Inquiries in Physical Education and Sport, 4(2), 148-167.
 
[34]  Veenman, M. V. J. (2016). Metacognition. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Reading: Reader, Text, and Context (pp. 26-40). London: Routledge.
 
[35]  Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 89-109. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004
 
[36]  Callan, G. L., & Cleary, T. J. (2018). Multidimensional assessment of self-regulated learning with middle school math students. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 103-111.
 
[37]  Carr, M. (2010). The importance of metacognition for conceptual change and strategy use in mathematics. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds), Metacognition, Strategy Use, & Instruction (pp. 176-197). London, U.K.: The Guildford Press.
 
[38]  Harris, M. M. (2015). The Role of Metacognition in a Montessori Environment and the Effects on Academic Achievement (Ph.D thesis). Ed.D. Union University, Jackson, MS.
 
[39]  Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41, 219-226.
 
[40]  Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J. C. (2010). The psychology of academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 653-678.
 
[41]  Zohar, A., & David, B. A. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177-195.
 
[42]  Rosman, T., Mayer, A., & Krampen, G. (2015). Combining Self-Assessments and Achievement Tests in Information Literacy Assessment: Empirical Results and Recommendations for Practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 740-754.
 
[43]  Price, A., Collins, D., Stoszkowski, J., & Pill, S. (2019). Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts. International Sport Coaching Journal, 6(1), 126-131.
 
[44]  Storey, B., & Butler, J. (2013). Complexity thinking in PE: Game centred approaches, games as complex adaptive systems, and ecological values. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(2), 133-149.
 
[45]  Taasoobshirazi, G., & Farley, J. (2013). Construct validation of the physics metacognition inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 447-459.
 
[46]  Zepeda, C. D., Richey, J. E., Ronevich, P., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2015). Direct instruction of metacognition benefits adolescent science learning, transfer, and motivation: An in vivo study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 954-970.
 
[47]  Chatzipanteli, A., Digelidis, N., Karatzoglidis, C., & Dean, R. (2015). Promoting students’ metacognitive behavior in physical education through TGFU. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 28-36.
 
[48]  Jamon, K. G. G & Lusung-Oyzon, M. V. P. (2019). Utilizing Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education: Effects on primary students’ metacognition. Alipato: A Journal of Basic Education, 10, 1-20.
 
[49]  Papaioannou, A., Theodosiou A., Pashali, M., & Digelidis N. (2012). Advancing Task Involvement, Intrinsic Motivation and Metacognitive Regulation in Physical Education Classes: The Self-Check Style of Teaching Makes a Difference. Advances in Physical Education, 2, 110-118.
 
[50]  Krebs, S. S., & Roebers, C. M. (2010). Children’s strategic regulation, metacognitive monitoring, and control processes during test taking. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 325-340.
 
[51]  van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2014). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of young adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 117-137.
 
[52]  Chatzipanteli, A., Grammatikopoulos, V., & Gregoriadis, A. (2013). Development and evaluation of metacognition in early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 184, 1223-1232.
 
[53]  Conrady, K. (2015). Modeling metacognition: Making thinking visible in a content course for teachers. REDIMAT, 4(2), 132-160.
 
[54]  Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-Regulated through Transactional Strategies Instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 51-75.
 
[55]  Huff, D. J., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgmentsto improve metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition Learning, 4, 161-176.
 
[56]  Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive Development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178-181.
 
[57]  Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 194-218.
 
[58]  Chatzipanteli, Α., Digelidis, Ν. & Papaioannou, G. Α. S. (2015). Self-regulation, motivation and teaching styles in physical education classes: An intervention study. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(2), 333-344.
 
[59]  Csíkos, C., & Steklács, J. (2010). Metacognition-based reading intervention programs among 4th-grade Hungarian students. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research (pp. 345-366). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
 
[60]  Lin, X. D., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Towards teacher’s adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 40, 245-256.
 
[61]  Peteranetz, M. S. (2016). Fostering Metacognition in K-12 Classrooms: Recommendations for Practice. The Nebraska Educator: A Student-Led Journal, 3, 64-86.
 
[62]  Boekaerts, M., & Corno L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54, 199-231.
 
[63]  Efklides, A., & Misailidi, P. (2010). Introduction: The Present and the Future in Metacognition. In A. Efklides & P. Misailidi (Eds.), Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research (pp. 1-20). New York, US: Springer Science + Business Media.
 
[64]  Langdon, J, Botnaru, D.T., Wittenberg, M., Riggs, A. J,, Mutchler, J., Syno, M, & Caciula M. C. (2019). Examining the effects of different teaching strategies on metacognition and academic performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 43, 414-422.
 
[65]  Schunk D. H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychology, 40 85-94.
 
[66]  Zimmerman B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychology, 48, 135-147.
 
[67]  Brocklehurst, B. (2016). What is the relationship between a tactical-game approach and metacognitive behavior? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 87(1), 50-51.
 
[68]  Chatzipanteli, A., Digelidis, N., Karatzoglidis, C., & Dean, R. (2014). A tactical-game approach and enhancement of metacognitive behaviour in elementary school students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(2), 169-184.
 
[69]  Price, A., Collins, D., Stoszkowski, J., & Pill, S. (2017). Learning to play soccer: Lessons on meta-cognition from video game design. Quest. 70(3), 321-333.
 
[70]  Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, j., & Wang, J. (2005). Teaching teachers to play and teach games. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 61-82.
 
[71]  Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R., (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.
 
[72]  Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., & Griffin, L. (2003). Sport foundations for elementary physical education: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
 
[73]  Griffin, L. L., & Butler J. I. (2005). Teaching games for understanding. Theory, research and Practice. Illinois: Human Kinetics.
 
[74]  Light, R. (2002). Engaging the body in learning: promoting cognition in games through TgfU. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 49, 23-26.
 
[75]  Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., & Griffin, L. (2006). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
 
[76]  Papaioannou, A., Theodorakis, I., & Goudas, M. (2009). For a better Physical education. Thessaloniki, Greece: Christodoulidi.
 
[77]  Popelka, J. (2012). Comparison of tactical and technical teaching approaches and their influence on the level of volleyball performance of pupils aged 13 and 14. Sport SPA, 10(2), 9-13.
 
[78]  Popelka, J., & Pavlovic, R. (2015). A comparison of different teaching approaches and their impact on the level of theoretical knowledge of volleyball among 13-14 year old pupils. Sport SPA, 12(1), 5-9.
 
[79]  Bohler, H. (2009). Sixth-grade students' tactical understanding and decision making in a TGM volleyball unit. In T. Hopper, J. Butler, B. Story (Eds.), TGfUSimply good pedagogy: Understanding a complex challenge (pp. 87-99). Ottawa, Canada: PHE Canada.
 
[80]  Howarth, K. (2000). Context as a Factor in Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teaching of Thinking Skills in Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 270-286.
 
[81]  Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2000). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Re-thinking the Bunker- Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177-192.
 
[82]  Webb, P. I., & Pearson, P. J. (2012). Creative unit and lesson planning through a thematic / integrated approach to Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). New Zealand Physical Educator, 45(3), 17-22.
 
[83]  Butler, J. (1996). Teacher Responses to Teaching Games for Understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28-33.
 
[84]  Hubball, H., Lambert, J. & Hayes, S. (2007). Theory to Practice: Using the Games for Understanding Approach in Teaching of Invasion Games. Physical and Health Education Journal, 73(3), 14-20.
 
[85]  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). Stanningley: Human Kinetics.
 
[86]  Chatzipanteli, Α. (2018). Inclusion Teaching Style and Metacognition in Physical Education Classes. Education Journal, 1(1), 51-59.
 
[87]  Stolz, S. & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for Understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in Physical Education. European Physical Education Review, 20 (1), 36-71.
 
[88]  Kirk, D. (2010). Physical Education Futures. New York: Routledge.
 
[89]  Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1994). Teaching physical education (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
 
[90]  Alanzi, W. K. (2013). Middle School students’ game play performance and levels of enjoyment while engaged in two curricular models (PhD thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School at Middle Tennessee State University). Murfreesboro, Estados Unidos.
 
[91]  Forrest, G., Pearson, P, & Webb, P. (2006). Teaching games for understanding (TGfU), a model for preservice teachers. In R. Brooker (Ed.), Fusion own under: 1st ICHPER SD Oceania Congress (pp. 1-10). Upper Hutt, NZ: PENZ.
 
[92]  Chow, J. Y., & C. Tan, C. (2010). Enhancing game play in PE and sport: A holistic approach. In N. Aplin (Ed.), Perspectives on physical education and sports science in Singapore: An eye on the youth olympic games (106-117). Singapore: McGraw Hill.
 
[93]  Gray, S., & Sproule, J. (2011). Developing pupils’ performance in team invasion games. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(1), 15-32.
 
[94]  Kioumourtzoglou, E., & Goudas, M. (2003). Basketball beyond the basics and systems. Thessaloniki, Greece: Christodoulidi.
 
[95]  Rink, J. (2010). TGFU: Celebrations and cautions. In J. Butler & L. L. Griffin (Eds.), More Teaching Games for Understanding: Move globally (pp. 33 - 47). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
 
[96]  García-López, L. M., Jordán, O. R., Penney, D., & Chandler, T. J. L. (2009). The role of transfer in games teaching: Implications or the development of the sports curriculum. European Physical Education Review, 15(1), 47-63. 105211.
 
[97]  Hepler, T. J., & Chase, M. A. (2008). Relationship between decision-making, task self-efficacy, and the performance of a sport skill. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 603-610.
 
[98]  Memmet, D., & Harvey, S., (2010). Identification of non- specific tactical tasks in invasion game. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(3), 287-305.
 
[99]  Salimin, N., Noruzzaman, A., R., Shahril, M. I., Taff, M., et al., (2018). Students reasoning achievement using games performance assessment in Physical Education. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 278, 166-170.
 
[100]  Harvey, S., Wegis, H, M., Beets, M., Bryan, R., Massa-Gonzalez, A-N., & van der Mars, H. (2009). Changes in student perceptions of their involvement in a multi-week TGfU unit of soccer. In T. Hopper, J. Butler & B. Storey (Eds.), TGfU Simply Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge. Ottawa, Ont. PHE-Canada.
 
[101]  Jarrett, K., Eloi, S., & Harvey, S. (2014). Teaching games for understanding (TGFU) as a positive and versatile approach to teaching adapted games. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 7(1), 6-20.
 
[102]  Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Training metacognitive skills in students with availability and production deficiencies. In J. Bembenutty, T. Cleary & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines (pp. 299-324). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
 
[103]  Turner, A. P. (1996). Teaching for understanding: Muth or Reality? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46-48.
 
[104]  Turner, A. P. (2003). A comparative analysis of two approaches for teaching tennis: Game based Approach versus Technique Approach. Paper presented at the 2nd ITF Tennis science and technology Congress. London, UK.
 
[105]  Griffin, L., Mitchell, S., & Oslin, J. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
 
[106]  Mitchell, S, A., Griffin, L, L., & Oslin, J. L. (1995). An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching invasion games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 66 (Suppl.), A-65.
 
[107]  Allison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus games for understanding approach. British Journal of Physical Education, 28, 9-13.
 
[108]  McKeen, K., Webb, P., & Pearson, P. (2005). Promoting physical activity through teaching games for understanding in undergraduate teacher education. AISEP, World Congress Proceedings. Active Lifestyles. The Impact of Education and Sport. Lisbon, Portugal.
 
[109]  Lee, M.-A., & Ward, P. (2009). Generalization of tactics in tag rugby from practice to games in middle school physical education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 14(2), 189-207.
 
[110]  McPhail, A., Kirk, D., & Griffin, L. (2008). Throwing and Catching as Relational Skills in Game Play: Situated Learning in a Modified Game Unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 100-115.
 
[111]  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, 286-296.
 
[112]  Chatzipanteli, A., & Digelidis, N. (2012). Promoting the development of metacognitive processes through teaching games for understanding. Inquiries in Physical Education and Sports, 10, 30-37.
 
[113]  French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones, J. (1996). The effects of a 6-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 439-463.
 
[114]  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, 15-31.
 
[115]  Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in games. Bulletin of Physical Education, 25, 35-38.
 
[116]  Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araujo, D. (2007). The role of non linear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251-278.
 
[117]  Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996). Foundations for the Learning and Instruction of Sport and Games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 399-417.
 
[118]  Olosová, G., & Zapletalová, L. (2015a). Immediate and retention effects of teaching games for understanding approach on basketball knowledge. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae, 55(1), 39-45.
 
[119]  Olosová, G., & Zapletalová, L. (2015b). School basketball: Teaching games for understanding or technical approach? Fiep Bulletin 85, 309-311.
 
[120]  Gutiérrez, D., Fisette, J., García-López, L.M., & Contreras, O. (2014). Assessment of secondary school students’ game performance related to tactical contexts. Journal of Human Kinetics, 42, 223-234.
 
[121]  Harvey, S. (2003). Teaching games for understanding: A study of U19 college soccer players improvement in game performance using the game performance assessment instrument. Paper presented at The Sport and Physical Education for Understanding Conference. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
 
[122]  Harvey, S., Cushion, C. J., Wegis, H. M., & Massa-Gonzalez, A. N. (2010). Teaching Games for Understanding in American high-school soccer: A qualitative analysis using the games performance assessment instrument. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 15(1), 29-54.
 
[123]  Hopper, T., Sanford, K., & Clarke, A. (2009). Game-as teacher and game play: Complex learning in TGfU and video games. In T. Hopper, J. Butler, & B. Storey (Eds.), TGfU...Simply Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge (chapter 15). Ottawa: PHE Canada.
 
[124]  Jani, J., Pearson, P., Forrest, G. & Webb, P. (2012). University students' subject matter knowledge and misconception of teaching games for understanding and its implication to teaching practice. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 2(1), 45-59.
 
[125]  Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching Games for Understanding: The Importance of Student Emphasis over Content Emphasis. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7), 44-48.
 
[126]  Oslin, J. L., & Mitchell, S, A. (1998). An investigation of tactical transfer in net games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. (Suppl.), A-98.
 
[127]  Oslin, J., & Mitchell, S. (2006). Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Ed.), The Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 627-651). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
 
[128]  Turner, A.P. (2005). Teaching and learning games at the secondary level. In L.L. Griffin & J.I. Butler (Ed.), Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research and practice (pp. 71-90). Windsor, ON, Canada: Human Kinetics.
 
[129]  Bunker, B., & Thorpe, R. (1986). The curriculum model. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, & L. Almond, L (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 7-10). Loughborough, U.K.: University of Technology.