2. WHAT IS
THE GAME
SENSE
APPROACH
?
BACKGROUND
The Games Sense Approach is a student centered approach where
student experience leads to learning. It breaks away from
traditional behaviorist theories and is more skewed towards
constructivist learning theories (Garrett & Wrench, 2008). In other
words, students construct knowledge as they engage. In game
sense, teachers modify activities to develop concepts and
strategies that lead to understanding of the tactics of the game
for their students. It maximises inclusion and challenge, and taps
into children’s cognition, as they critically analyse the tactical
approaches they will use in games. It promotes the development
of thinking players and focuses on aspects of games rather than
skills. It is influenced by the “teaching games for understanding
model” (Light, 2013, p.37) where the play of game is taught
before skill refinement.
APPLYING GAME SENSE
- Teachers modify activities based on their category and design.
- Emphasis is on skills, strategies and rules.
- Focuses on features of the game which develops students skill
application and tactical awareness.
(Hopper, Butler & Storey, 2009, p.3-5).
3. TEACHING GAMES
FOR
UNDERSTANDING
MODEL
Categories of games:
Invasion Games – based on
invading components territory
Net and wall games – player to
send an object into opponent’s
court so it cannot be played at or
returned within the boundaries.
Striking fielding games – contest
between batters and fielders to
score more points.
Target games – place a projectile
near, or in a target in order to
have the best possible score.
(Webb, Pearson & Forrest, 2006).
The Game Sense approach has similar features to TGfU, but it
is not TGfU. The TGfU literature typically describes a six step
learning cycle (as above) where game appreciation and
tactical understanding precede skill development and game
performance, contrasting the common PE directive approach
assuming mastery of movement competency before
application in game play. TGfU therefore flipped the technical
before tactical focus of the common directive PE approach,
where the game is broken into separate parts that are
identified and then refined through drill practice before put
into play, to a tactical before technical description.
4. WHY IS GAME SENSE EFFECTIVE?
This approach “focuses on the game, rather than on technique practice, players are
encouraged to become more tactically aware and make better decisions during the game,
as well as beginning to think strategically about game concepts whilst developing skills
within a realistic context and most importantly, having fun”. (Towns, 2002, p.1)
It differs from convention methods used in sporting which primarily rely on repetition, and
allows the coach to take a step back and let kids explore and have fun. It deals with all
aspects of sports from basic skills to technical moves and strategies. This pedagogy
brings attention to the cognitive dimensions of sports (Feith, 2017), this application
applies tactics, techniques and fitness components.
Game sense pedagogy approaches physical activity holistically, taking into account more
than skilful performers by focusing on the “indirect social and moral learning that arises
from sport and is potentially more important than improving athletic performance” (Light,
2013, p.40). It is influenced by the Teaching Games for Understanding Model (Werner,
Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996).
This technique is in line with the NSW (2018) Syllabus propositions (p.9):
1. Focus on educative purposes.
2. Take a strengths-based approach.
3. Value movement.
4. Develop health literacy.
5. Include a critical inquiry approach.
5. GAME SENSE TEACHING
SEQUENCE
WARM UP INITIAL GAME
Q&A, SETTING
NEW
CHALLENGE
PRACTICE
TASK/S
GAME
PROGRESSION
QUESTION AND
ANSWER
FEITH, 2017
6. RATIONALE:
The distinctive pedagogical feature of the Game Sense approach is the
purposeful teacher use of questioning to guide student discovery and then
understanding of game performance. The second distinctive feature of a Game
Sense approach is purposefully teaching for transfer between games within a
category and across game categories. This teaching for transfer acknowledges
that while games may look distinctive due to the constraints imposed by rules
or the performance environment games within a category (for example: cricket
and baseball are both striking/fielding games) “make sense” through common
principles of play. For example, the requirement of the batter to place the ball
into space away from the fielder to create time for the batter to run without
getting out is common to understanding both baseball and cricket. This
conceptual understanding of the nature of play can enable students to
eventually be able to adapt to problems presented when learning new games
or observing new games through the recognition of the similarities in the new
to games already known. It is however, the PE teachers responsibility to teach
for transfer and not assume the students will make the connections.
7. TEACHING
STRENGTHS:
Game sense develops student game performance, game literacy
(Mandigo and Holt, 2004) and game intelligence (McCormick,
2009; Wein, 2001). It’s key strength is that it is student centered
and focuses on the following:
knowledge and understanding of how to read patterns of play
possession of technical and tactical skills
ability to set up appropriate, creative, flexible and adaptive
responses when necessary
understand game rules and its impacts on game play
know how to create structural and tactical similarities and
differences between games
experience positive motivational states in games through
developed confidence in coordination and control of movement
responses
opportunity to reflect on the application of specialised skills in
games and suggest strategies for improvement
(Stolz & Pill, 2013, p.58).
NSW Education Standards
Authority (2018, p.15)
Syllabus sets out “skill
domains”. The game sense
approach incorporates skills
in each domain including:
• Self management skills (S)
• Interpersonal skills (I)
• Movement skills (M)
8. REFERENCESFeith, J. (2017). Play with Purpose: An Introduction to the Game Sense Approach. The Physical Educator. Retrieved from
https://thephysicaleducator.com/2014/07/09/play-with-purpose-an-introduction-to-the-game-sense-approach/
Garrett, R., & Wrench, A. (2008). Connections, pedagogy and alternative possibilities in primary physical education. Sport,
Education and Society, 13(1), 39-60.
Hopper, T., Butler, J., Storey, B. (2009). TGfU…simply good pedagogy: Understanding a complex challenge. Ottawa, ONT. PHE-
Canada.
Light, R. (2013). Game Sense: pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge.
Mandigo, J., & Holt, N. (2004) Reading the game: Introducing the notion of games literacy. Physical and Health Education,
70(3), 4–10. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas_Holt3/publication/291993168_Reading_the_game_Introducing_the_notion_of
_games_literacy/links/5b06b90ba6fdcc8c25236549/Reading-the-game-Introducing-the-notion-of-games-literacy.pdf
McCormick B (2009) Developing Basketball Intelligence (1st ed.). Denmark, Sweden: Lulu Marketplace.
NSW Education Standards Authority. (2018). Personal development, health and physical education K-10 Syllabus. NSW
Education Standards. Retrieved from http://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/home
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.
Towns, J. (2002). About Game Sense. University of Wollongong. Retrieved from
https://vuws.westernsydney.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3912527-dt-content-rid-
28958810_1/courses/102072_2019_1h/Games%20Sense%20Supplemental%20Reading.pdf
Webb, P.I., Pearson, P.J., Forrest, G. (2006). Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) in primary and secondary physical
education. International conference for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance, 1st Oceanic Congress,
Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://scholar.google.com.au/&httpsredir=1&article=1075&context=edu
papers
Wein, H. (2001). Developing Youth Soccer Players: Coach Better with the Soccer Development Model. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: evolution of a model. The Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 28-33.
