This describes what a Game Sense approach is and its strengths in adopting it as a teaching strategy for PDHPE. It also provides additional references should you require further information.

1. Game Sense
In 5/6M, our PE lessons are conducted based on the Game Sense
teaching approach. Game Sense presents an approach to
teaching/coaching games and team sport as an excellent example
of Positive Pedagogy (Light, 2013).
The Game Sense approach is a variation of Bunker and Thorpe’s
Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU) model (Pill, 2013).
Game Sense is an innovative learner-centred approach that is
gaining popularity within the teaching and coaching environment.
Games Sense incorporates games as the focus of the session rather
than on technique practice. The game itself is not as important as
the needs and abilities of the learner (Mandigo, et al, 2007, Stolz
& Pill, 2014).

2. The Game Sense approach can be divided into four categories –
invasion (or territorial) games, striking/fielding games,
net/court games and target games (Light, 2006).
Some examples of these are shown in the table below (Neals,
2011).
NEALS, 2011

3. These category games are assumed to share certain principles
in terms of the tactical knowledge needed to play well and this
is transferable across sports, which is only achieved because
students are able to perform in the game with more
understanding (Mitchel, 1996). Furthermore, it allows the
student to develop their own skills and understanding while
actively being involved in the game.
When the learning environment has its emphasis on the aspect
of the sport, it helps students develop skills such as decision-making,
tactics, problem-solving (Brookes, n.d).
The way in which questioning is used during training is what
distinguishes the Game Sense approach from other games-based
training (Light,2006). Moreover, skills are still
developed, however they are learned contextually during the
game.

4. With relation to NSW PDHPE syllabus, a Game Sense approach to
teaching is directly linked to the Games and Sports strand. The
subject matter for this strand incorporates games to help develop
communication, decision making and problem solving prompted by
questioning which allows students to develop confidence,
competence and understanding in a variety of game and sport.
‘This strand aims to develop each students competence and
confidence in a broad range of games, sports and physical
activities. Students develop fundamental movement skills (FMS),
progressing to more games-and sports-specific skills in non-competitive
and competitive environments that foster positive
feelings of success and enjoyment’ (Board of studies, 2007).

5. A Game Sense teaching approach has much strengths. My students
are the centre of the learning and I act as a facilitator. Since the
students are experiencing the game, it allows them to be independent
learners and hopefully there will exist a transfer of training to the
game.
There is an inclusive nature of Game Sense training because all
students are engaged in the game, which can be an added motivation
for them. I provide immediate feedback to them and this allows the
players to develop decision-making, tactics, problem-solving skills.
Although skill is still an important aspect when participating in any
sport, the technical instruction will be provided at the performance
level of the children. More playing time is available to the children
during a Game Sense approach.
Griffin & Butler, 2005

6. Studies have indicated that Game Sense has a positive effect on
social interactions and relationships, student perceptions of
learning and attitudes towards the sport (Pill, 2013).
This has definitely proven true with my teaching 5/6M. They
seem to look forward to participating in PE and those students
who participate in out of school sports activities have been able
to perform better because they have further developed skills such
as problem solving, decision-making and tactical thinking.
In adopting a Game Sense approach in PDHPE, it makes the
sport more relevant and rewarding for the children.

7. REFERENCES
Board of Studies, NSW. (2007). Personal development, health and physical education K-
6: Syllabus. Sydney, Australia: Author.
Brookes, L.(n.d). How the game sense approach in physical education can develop
cognitive thinking. Retrieved from
http://www.somerville.qld.edu.au/sites/default/files/How%20the%20Game%20Sense%20
Approach%20in%20Physical%20Education%20can%20Develop%20Congnitive%20Thi
nking_Leanne%20Brookes_0.pdf
Griffin, L.L. & Butler, J. (2005). Teaching games for understanding: theory, research
and practice. (1st ed.). USA: Human Kinetics
Light, R. (2006). Game sense: Innovation or just good coaching? Journal of Physical
Education New Zealand, 39(1), 8-19.
Mandigo, J., Butler, J., & Hopper, T. (2007). What is teaching games for understanding?
A Canadian perspective. Physical & Health Education Journal, 73(2), 14-20.
Mitchell, S. 1996. Improving invasion game performance. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance,67(2), 30-33

8. REFERENCES
Mitchell, S. (n.d). Games sense approach to practical lessons. Retrieved from
http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/secondary/pdhpe/assets/pdf/pa_002.pd
f
NEALS. (2011). Rethinking the teaching of games and sport. Retrieved from
http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/secondary/pdhpe/pdhpe7_10/physical_
activity/games_002.htm
Pill, S. (2013). Using appreciative inquiry to explore Australian football coaches'
experience with game sense coaching. Sport, Education and Society.
DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2013.831343
Pill, S. (2011). Teacher engagement with teaching games for understanding - game sense in
physical education. Journal of Physical Education and Sport 11(2), 111-123.
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.
DOI: 10.1177/1356336X13496001