The Role of Nonlinear Pedagogy in Physical Education

Review of Educational Research
September 2007, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 251–278

DOI: 10.3102/003465430305615
© 2007 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
The Role of Nonlinear Pedagogy

in Physical Education
Jia Yi Chow
Nanyang Technological University
Keith Davids
Queensland University of Technology
Chris Button
University of Otago
Rick Shuttleworth
Australian Institute of Sport
Ian Renshaw
Queensland University of Technology
Duarte Araújo
Technical University of Lisbon
In physical education, the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) ped-

agogical strategy has attracted significant attention from theoreticians and
educators for allowing the development of game education through a tactic-
to-skill approach involving the use of modified games. However, some have
proposed that as an educational framework, it lacks adequate theoretical
grounding from a motor learning perspective to empirically augment its per-
ceived effectiveness. The authors examine the literature base providing the
theoretical underpinning for TGfU and explore the potential of a nonlinear
pedagogical framework, based on dynamical systems theory, as a suitable
explanation for TGfU’s effectiveness in physical education. Nonlinear peda-
gogy involves manipulating key task constraints on learners to facilitate the
emergence of functional movement patterns and decision-making behaviors.
The authors explain how interpreting motor learning processes from a non-
linear pedagogical framework can underpin the educational principles of
TGfU and provide a theoretical rationale for guiding the implementation of
learning progressions in physical education.
KEYWORDS: Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), nonlinear pedagogy,

physical education, manipulation of constraints.
Educators are challenged to provide learning experiences for students that are
realistic and present opportunities for potential performance solutions to be gen-
erated by learners themselves. Windschitl (2002) argued that learning, particularly
with the implementation of constructivist approaches in learning contexts, would
251
Chow et al.
be optimized if students were engaged in complex and meaningful problem-based
activities as well as applying knowledge in diverse and authentic performance con-
texts. These ideas have some relevance within the domain of physical education,
because in recent years, teaching approaches attempting to improve students’
involvement in meaningful and context relevant learning have emerged.
In curricular studies research, pedagogically oriented work on value orienta-
tions has provided the foundation for curricular development and analysis (Jewett,
Bain, & Ennis, 1995). It has been noted that one of the most prominent value ori-
entations in the domain of physical education is disciplinary or subject mastery,
whereby practitioners attempt to teach perceptual-motor skills through verbal
explanation, demonstration, practice drills, and simulated game play (Jewett et al.,
1995). However, there are other significant value orientations in the study of edu-
cation and curriculum, such as the learning process approach, which highlights the
importance of how learning occurs, as well as the ecological integration of learn-
ers with specific learning contexts (see Jewett et al., 1995). This specific value ori-
entation suggests that learners play a pivotal role in the acquisition of game skills
and that the learning process needs to occur in representative performance contexts
within physical education classes facilitated by teachers. The Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGfU) approach for games teaching in physical education is one
such increasingly popular1 teaching approach that advocates a learner-centered ori-
entation, with emphasis on exploratory learning within “gamelike” situations.
In this article, we review research that underpins the implementation of TGfU
as a pedagogical approach for games teaching, and we discuss a theoretical frame-
work within motor learning with the potential to provide an explanatory rationale
for observed effects of this approach. This is because although TGfU has grown in
popularity as a teaching approach, researchers and practitioners are still attempt-
ing to fully understand why learning within such a pedagogical approach may be
successful. This lack of clarity has led researchers in the past decade to attempt to
identify post hoc a theoretical foundation that may fit the TGfU approach.
Therefore, specifically, we (a) provide a description of the TGfU approach, (b)
review key empirical research in TGfU relating to its effectiveness, (c) provide a
discussion of previously suggested theoretical underpinnings for the TGfU
approach, (d) propose a theoretical explanation for TGfU based on recent advances
in the motor learning literature, and (e) provide further suggestions for programs
of work in TGfU to build on such a theoretical orientation.
Teaching Games for Understanding
The TGfU approach was originally developed because of dissatisfaction with
how motor skills were taught in schools in the early 1980s. Bunker and Thorpe
(1982), who first conceptualized TGfU, highlighted the limitations of traditional
approaches to games education. Traditional approaches were viewed as being tech-
nique dominated, following a series of highly structured lessons in which a list of
movement skills was sequentially taught to groups of learners (Werner, Thorpe, &
Bunker, 1996). Such pedagogical approaches have tended to overemphasize (a) the
isolation of movement skills from performance contexts during practice, (b) task
decomposition during learning, and (c) the role of repetition in skill practices to
allow learners to transfer acquired technical skills into game situations (Rink,
2005). The dominance of such a technique-oriented approach to games education
252
Nonlinear Pedagogy in Physical Education
led to calls for a greater emphasis on developing the cognitive and decision-
making skills of students in physical education classes. Specifically, it has been
proposed that (a) a large percentage of children have achieved little success as a
result of emphasis on component skill performance, (b) the majority of students
leave school understanding very little about games playing, (c) there has been a
development of putatively technically sound players with poor decision-making
capacity, (d) such practices emphasized the development of players who were
teacher or coach dependent, and (e) there was a failure to develop “thinking” spec-
tators and knowledgeable administrators at a time when games (and sports) are an
important form of entertainment (Hopper, 2002; Thorpe, 1990).
The Rationale for TGfU
So how does TGfU purport to alleviate these concerns in games education? The
focus of TGfU is to design learning experiences for individuals to acquire tactical
skills of the major games through playing modified versions of target games con-
sidered suitable for their current physical, intellectual, and social states of devel-
opment. Because TGfU emphasized tactical understanding being developed
before movement techniques, it was seen as an approach for redressing the balance
toward understanding the “why” of games playing performance before the “how”
(Hopper, 2002; Werner et al., 1996). To exemplify the focus on tactical awareness,
Thorpe (1990) pointed out that “the basic philosophy of TGfU is that a person can
play games with limited techniques and, even with limited techniques be very com-
petitive” (p. 90). Traditional approaches to teaching games skills are centered on
acquiring relevant movement patterns in isolation of a game context, before using
these skills in adult versions of a particular game (Turner & Martinek, 1995). On
the other hand, TGfU is student centered, with the learning of both tactics and skills
occurring in modified game contexts (Griffin, Butler, Lombardo & Nastasi, 2003;
Hopper, 2002; Thorpe, 2001). Modified versions of the major games are practiced
to enhance the understanding and awareness of learners when they transfer to full-
game contexts. The modified games usually involve adapting equipment, playing
areas, or rules to constrain or guide learners toward solving targeted tactical prob-
lems, such as how to maintain possession of a ball as a team or how to defend
against dribbling opponents.
There are four game categories in the TGfU approach: (a) target, (b) net or wall,
(c) striking or fielding, and (d) territory or invasion games (Werner & Almond,
1990). A TGfU lesson typically begins with games in one of these categories, mod-
ified to encourage students to think about a specific tactical problem targeted in the
lesson (see Figure 1 for the TGfU model). The introductory game is followed up
with questions and explanations by the teacher on the tactical implications of the
tactical solutions being practiced. These questions emphasize the interactions
between cognition, perception, and action during practice and performance.
Game appreciation is emphasized to enhance understanding of the rules and the
strategic nature of the game to provide some structural shape to team performance.
Tactical awareness is also encouraged to challenge learners to solve problems posed
in the game by teammates and opponents and to gain relevant knowledge for per-
formance. This initial emphasis is followed by developing decision making, which
leads to knowing “what to do” and “how to do it” in relation to specific tactical sit-
uations (e.g., when defending or attacking). Skill execution and performance
253
FIGURE 1. Teaching Games for Understanding model. Adapted from Werner, Thorpe,
and Bunker (1996).
are then assessed by observing the outcomes of decisions as they are executed
by learners during actual game play (Turner & Martinek, 1999; Werner et al.,
1996). To summarize, the key features of TGfU are its student-centered approach
and its flexibility in manipulating constraints in modified games to enhance
interactions between learner cognition, perception, and actions to teach tactical
knowledge and skills related to specific tactical concepts (Griffin et al., 2003;
Hopper, 2002).
Empirical Support for TGfU?
Although the TGfU methodology was proposed by Bunker and Thorpe (1982) as
an ideal alternative to traditional technique-based teaching approaches, empirical
studies have revealed mixed conclusions about the validity and merits of the TGfU
or a tactical approach. Much of the research on TGfU over the past decade has
focused on comparing it with technique-oriented games-teaching approaches.
Studies have tended to use quasi-experimental designs in which learners’ knowledge
has been assessed using knowledge tests and game play has been examined using
protocols focusing on the control, decision-making, and skill execution components
of performance. It is also important to note that participants’ skill levels have often
been measured by component skill tests (Turner & Martinek, 1995). In this section,
we review the key empirical findings of research on TGfU to determine its efficacy
over more technical approaches.
Rink, French, and Tjeerdsma (1996) noted that TGfU students performed better
on tests relating to tactical knowledge compared with those who were taught with
a “technique”-based approach. In addition, from an affective perspective, TGfU was
254
found to be more enjoyable, and learners were more motivated to participate in
physical education classes (e.g., Griffin, Oslin, & Mitchell, 1995). It has also been
reported that when the intervention period was long (i.e., 15 lessons), students from
a middle school in a group taught with the TGfU model in field hockey made bet-
ter decisions than students in a technique instruction group (e.g., Turner, 1996).
Some studies have also sought to examine possible differences between tactical and
technical approaches to knowledge acquisition pertaining to declarative (what to
do) and procedural (how to do it) processes in decision making. Declarative knowl-
edge was higher for students who experienced the TGfU approach for field hockey
(Turner, 1996) and volleyball (Griffin et al., 1995).
However, some studies have found less support for the TGfU or a tactical
approach compared with a technique approach. For example, Turner and Martinek
(1999) found that students taught with a tactical approach did not show significant
improvements in some performance outcome measures related to tackling, drib-
bling, and shooting in field hockey, although the same students displayed better
control and passing. Turner (1996), in an earlier study, also did not find any dif-
ferences in skill development between a tactical and a technical approach. In addi-
tion, Gabriele and Maxwell (1995) did not find any differences in execution
abilities between a direct teaching approach (i.e., a technique-oriented method) and
an indirect method (i.e., games centered) when squash was taught for 6 weeks,
although it was reported that students exposed to indirect teaching were able to
make better decisions in terms of shot selection. Other studies examining differ-
ences relating to skill performance in soccer for middle school students (Mitchell,
Griffin, & Oslin, 1995), volleyball (Griffin et al., 1995), and badminton in a high
school (French, Werner, Rink, Taylor, & Hussey, 1996) mainly failed to report
significant differences between tactical and technical approaches. Interestingly, a
follow-up study with a longer intervention period (6 weeks vs. 3 weeks) was con-
ducted by French, Werner, Taylor, Hussey, and Jones (1996) to determine if dif-
ferences could be observed between tactical and technique groups. They noted that
the technique group performed as well as the tactical group in decision making and
in skill performance, even with an extended intervention period. Although Mitchell
et al. (1995) indicated that there were no differences between tactical and techni-
cal approaches, it was reported that students were more successful in “off-the-ball”
movement for soccer when taught with a tactical approach, with no differences in
skill-related knowledge, examined using an 18-item written test. No significant dif-
ferences in declarative and procedural knowledge were also observed over time
between tactical and technical approaches for badminton (Lawton, 1989) and field
hockey (Turner & Martinek, 1992). In summary, there seems to be an absence of
a clear affirmation of the superiority of a tactical over a technical approach for var-
ious performance outcome measures in different games, and analysis of the extant
literature generally reveals little in the way of empirical evidence to support its
apparent effectiveness (Strean & Bengoechea, 2003; Turner & Martinek, 1999).
Why has there been such ambiguity in the data on the effectiveness of such a
popular pedagogical method in physical education? There are a number of poten-
tial reasons for these inconclusive results, including key variations in study design
and problems with research methods. Studies have varied according to the game
chosen for analysis, the age of participants, the length and nature of the interven-
tion, the variables chosen for investigation, and how these variables were measured
255
Chow et al.
(Rink, French, & Graham, 1996). For example, game performance for soccer in
Mitchell et al.’s (1995) study was measured using the Games Performance
Assessment Instrument (developed by Oslin, Mitchell, & Griffin, 1995), whereas
in Turner’s (1996) study of field hockey, game performance was measured using
an observational tool (Turner & Martinek, 1992) designed to measure the quality of
decisions and motor execution during game play. In addition, different measure-
ment tools were also used to determine cognitive knowledge for different studies,
even though the games were similar in nature (e.g., both soccer and hockey can be
categorized as invasion or territorial games). Certain knowledge items could be
generic, such as moving into space, supporting for possession, or closing down
space, and these could be assessed across games with similar characteristics.
However, Mitchell et al. (1995) used an 18-item written test, whereas Turner and
Martinek (1999) used a hockey knowledge test encompassing 15 procedural and 15
declarative items pertaining to the hockey curriculum. Studies have also used dif-
ferent intervention lengths, and this approach casts further doubt on the validity of
comparing across different studies (e.g., 3 weeks of a total of 12 lessons for French,
Werner, Taylor, et al., 1996; 15 lessons for Turner, 1996; 6 weeks but no informa-
tion on the number of lessons for Gabriele & Maxwell, 1995). This lack of consis-
tency in testing, measurement, and the design of research has inadvertently added
to the equivocal findings from past studies examining differences between tactical
and technical approaches.
Hopper (2002) attempted to address some of the misinterpretations of the TGfU
approach by stressing the inadequacy of a dichotomous approach in focusing on
either skill execution or tactical development. This dichotomy was based on the
perceived emphasis of TGfU on students’ understanding of why a skill is needed
before they are taught how to perform a skill. The difference between a technique
and tactical approach is a sequencing of what comes first. The TGfU approach has
a “tactic-to-skill” emphasis, in contrast to the skill-based approach, which has a
“skill-to-tactic” emphasis. The argument proposed by Hopper was to emphasize a
student-centered approach rather than a content-based approach that promoted the
precedence of either technical or tactical development. According to Hopper, both
the skill-to-tactic and tactic-to-skill approaches can be effective if the skills and
tactics taught are delivered with proper progressions and within the relevant game
context to be effectively understood and used by students. Hopper concluded by
arguing that the comparison of skill-to-tactic and tactic-to-skill approaches repre-
sented an irrelevant direction for future TGfU research. Moreover, the debate has
tended to center too much on performance outcomes, creating a false dichotomy
between tactical and technical teaching approaches (Strean & Bengoechea, 2003).
Instead, it has been argued that the focus of research should be on the teaching and
learning processes underlying the different approaches (N. L. Holt, Strean, &
Bengoechea, 2002; Rink, 2001).
A Search for a TGfU Theoretical Framework
Although research on TGfU has been actively pursued over the past two
decades, a number of questions still exist over its relative efficacy as a pedagogi-
cal method: (a) Is the perceived need to differentiate skill development from tacti-
cal development valid in assessing the effectiveness of TGfU compared with
traditional technique-based approaches? (b) Is there a theoretical framework of
256
adequate power for providing explanatory concepts and testable hypotheses to dis-
ambiguate expectations and predictions in empirical research related to TGfU? and
(c) Is TGfU suitable for individuals at all stages of learning?
Clearly, the key observation is that TGfU currently lacks a sound theoretical
base for examining its relative efficacy as a pedagogical approach. Griffin,
Brooker, and Patton (2005) commented in their review of TGfU that its efficacy
could be grounded in three possible theoretical frameworks: (a) achievement goal
theory, (b) information processing, and (c) situated learning.
Achievement Goal Theory
In relation to achievement goal theory, it has been suggested that a classroom
goal structure, usually referred to as motivational climate, affects a student’s adop-
tion of achievement goals (Xiang, McBride, & Solmon, 2003). It has been pur-
ported that when the goal is to develop an individual’s ability through learning a
task (task mastery), TGfU provides the relevant opportunities to increase students’
motivation. Such an observation is based on the report that games help increase sit-
uational interest because they have structure and outcomes that are meaningful to
performance (Griffin et al., 2005). From a psychological and affective perspective,
achievement goal theory seems to provide a relevant theoretical grounding to sup-
port the efficacy of TGfU. However, achievement goal theory provides only a lim-
ited picture to augment our understanding of the underlying theoretical processes
of TGfU. Other theoretical perspectives also focusing on explaining what decisions
to make and the acquisition of the appropriate movement skills during games
teaching are required.
Information Processing Approaches
In particular, many physical education researchers have proposed that the TGfU
approach is generally aligned to the theoretical orientations of cognitivism and
constructivism to which the information processing approach is linked (e.g.,
French & McPherson, 2004; Turner & Martinek, 1995). Specifically, the cognitive
framework focuses on investigating domain-specific knowledge and how such
knowledge about movements can be stored as well as built on through “knowledge
structures or programs” with learning (Anderson, 1976). From a constructivist per-
spective, learners are seen as the center of the teaching and learning process, and
it is assumed that students “construct” knowledge about a game from person-
environment interactions (Gréhaigne & Godbout, 1995). For example, Turner and
Martinek (1995) attempted to provide a theoretical overview for developing tacti-
cal awareness by examining the role that declarative and procedural knowledge
plays in TGfU. Specifically, they viewed the development of decision-making skill
in TGfU from an information processing perspective, in which learners use
different knowledge bases to underpin the function of cognitive processes such as
perception, attention, and memory during the motor learning. The acquisition of
procedural knowledge, facilitated by TGfU, has been found to underpin success-
ful movement performance because it engages less conscious modes of attention
and movement planning.
French and McPherson (2004) attempted to provide “best-guess approaches” to
sports-related games learning (e.g., TGfU) on the basis of an information process-
ing approach. It was proposed that situational games in which opportunities for
257
Chow et al.
making decisions, on the basis of desired concepts to be taught, should first be pro-
vided. Thereafter, questions need to be presented to elicit insights and information
on the knowledge to be processed. Their approach emphasized how knowledge is
“constructed” and built on past knowledge stored in memory structures. The acqui-
sition of higher order cognitive skills through the understanding of tactics and
problem-solving activities present in TGfU suggests that it may be suitably
grounded in such cognitive-based theories for understanding its perceived effec-
tiveness as a teaching methodology. Certainly, the constructivist perspective has
helped shaped many previous empirical works on TGfU, examining how knowl-
edge is acquired through the TGfU teaching approach and comparing that to a tech-
nical approach (e.g., French, Werner, Rink, et al., 1996; Mitchell et al., 1995;
Turner, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1999).
However, investigations at a micro-level, although seemingly attractive and
comprehensive, may not have provided an accurate picture of how development of
decision making occurs in TGfU. What is required is a perspective that takes into
account the dynamic interaction that occurs in learning environments, one that is
not centered only on the construction of knowledge by a learner, emphasizing the
examination of learning at a micro-level. In this respect, the ideas emanating from
information processing theory have received increasing criticism, with a view that
understanding learning through information processing theory is too simplistic and
narrow, failing to account for the dynamic and extensive environmental interac-
tions that occur in most learning situations (e.g., Kelso, 1995; Thelen, 1995; Van
Gelder & Port, 1995).
Situated Learning Perspectives
A theoretical model that allows TGfU to be examined at a macro-level could
provide a multidisciplinary framework to capture the multitude of physical, social,
cognitive, and environmental factors that interact to influence a learner’s ability to
develop goal-directed behavior. In this vein, a situated learning perspective has
been proposed as a possible explanation of the processes underlying the TGfU
approach. Specifically, a situated perspective assumes that learning incorporates
the active engagement of learners with their environment (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002;
Rovegno & Kirk, 1995). Sociological aspects emphasizing the role of the envi-
ronment and how learning is constructed within a “situated” setting argue that the
relationships among the various physical, social, and cultural parameters in the
learning context play a crucial role in TGfU (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Light and
Fawns (2003) highlighted the need to adopt an embodied approach to understand
the interdependence of cognition, perception, and movement skill execution within
the TGfU learning context. By this they meant that the acquisition of tactical
knowledge can be achieved only by actually moving within a game context, which
TGfU provides. For them, the separation of knowledge and movement, devoid of
the influence of specific learning contexts, is unrealistic in explaining how learn-
ing occurs in the TGfU approach. Certainly, a situated learning perspective pro-
vides a valuable starting point in understanding the need to investigate learning in
TGfU as context dependent, in which the interactive components within the learn-
ing situation all play an important role. Rovegno, Nevett, and Babiarz (2001)
adopted a “situated perspective,” emphasizing individual and environmental inter-
actions and focusing on participation rather than representation of knowledge in
258
memory stores to examine the learning and teaching of invasion game tactics in
fourth grade. Adopting qualitative analytical approaches such as interviews, meet-
ings, and discussions, data on decision-making behavior and skills used in game
settings were examined. It was confirmed how decision making and the execution
of skills were relational and did not specifically depend on either the passer or
receiver in invasion games (Rovegno, Nevett, Brock, & Babiarz, 2001). More
recently, situated learning perspectives have been used by researchers (e.g.,
McNeill et al., 2004; Wright, McNeill, Fry, & Wang, 2005) to examine behaviors
and perceptions of teaching abilities for student teachers in teacher education pro-
grams for games teaching.
However, although a situated learning perspective provides a viable description
of how learning occurs by taking into account learner-environment interactions,
inadequate information is provided with regard to how learning or goal-directed
behavior could actually emerge under such interactions. Specifically, what are the
mechanisms that allow interactions between learners, their environment, and, more
important, their tasks, to constrain learners’ behaviors? Can these interactions be
adequately informed by a theory that can explain how these processes shape behav-
ior? How is it that the manipulation of rules, instructions, and equipment can
adversely influence certain behaviors of learners, especially in situational games
present within the TGfU approach?
The provision of an empirically supported theoretical model of learning in phys-
ical education is required to provide a testable framework for investigating the rela-
tionship between pedagogical principles of TGfU and motor learning processes,
with the aim of validating methodological decision making by pedagogists.
McMorris (1998) noted that there have been few attempts to examine the relation-
ship between research on TGfU and prominent theories of perceptual-motor learn-
ing. Thus, despite its popularity, few extensive theoretical rationales for TGfU
have been forthcoming in the literature that emphasizes how goal-directed move-
ment behavior emerges in a TGfU setting. It seems that pedagogists have tended
to focus on how TGfU can be operationalized in specific pedagogical contexts
from a problem-centered approach, with few attempts to critically evaluate and
adequately develop the theoretical basis of TGfU.
One contemporary theoretical framework of motor learning with the potential
for explaining the efficacy of the TGfU approach is the constraints-led framework,
with its basis in dynamical systems theory (Araújo, Davids, Bennett, Button &
Chapman, 2004; Davids, Button & Bennett, 2007; Handford, Davids, Bennett, &
Button, 1997; Rossi, 2003; Williams, Davids, & Williams, 1999). The essence of
a constraints-led approach to skill acquisition, which provides the scaffold for a
nonlinear perspective to pedagogy in physical education, implies that educators
need to understand the nature of the interacting constraints on each individual
learner and how to manipulate key task constraints to facilitate the emergence
of functional movement repertoires. Evidence shows that the manipulation of
constraints by educators can lead to the production of successful motor patterns,
decision-making behavior, and intentions that guide the achievement of task goals
(Chow et al., 2006). Interestingly, it was briefly discussed by French, Werner,
Taylor, et al. (1996) that the manipulation of tasks and establishing “environmen-
tally designed tasks” (see Rink, 1993; Siedentop, Herkowitz, & Rink, 1984) to
influence movement patterns can be associated with dynamical systems theory
259
Chow et al.
(Kugler, Kelso, & Turvey, 1982). In a later article on levels of information pro-
cessing, Rink (2001) also briefly drew attention to how learners could make suit-
able movement responses without the need for conscious processing and how the
variables in a learning environment could constrain learners to “select” an appro-
priate response. Although Rovegno, Nevett, and Babiarz (2001) came closest to
describing a theoretical perspective on the basis of situated learning, slanting
toward a constraints-led perspective, the discussion of the theoretical perspective
could have been further developed to espouse its role in TGfU. However, there has
since been little further examination of the specific processes that dynamical sys-
tems theory could offer to provide a greater theoretical underpinning for the TGfU
approach. Perhaps researchers in pedagogy may not have adequate access to the
concepts of dynamical systems theory from a motor learning perspective, or per-
haps advancement in understanding the pedagogical applications of a dynamical
systems theory was still at an infant stage to limit its discussion at that point in time.
To remediate this possibility, in the remainder of this article, we show how key
concepts from dynamical systems theory, pertaining to the interaction of con-
straints and the emergence of goal-directed behavior, can provide a theoretical
basis for evaluating the merits of the TGfU approach. We discuss how the appli-
cation of a nonlinear pedagogical framework can provide rich theoretical insights
for training educators, leading to better understanding of how tasks constraints can
be introduced and manipulated to enhance game awareness and movement skills
in learners using the TGfU approach.
Specifically, in the remaining sections of this article, we (a) appraise key fea-
tures of TGfU from a dynamical systems perspective and (b) examine how a non-
linear pedagogical framework, emanating from concepts in dynamical systems
theory, may provide the basis for a model to determine how TGfU can be imple-
mented by educators, leading to effective motor learning.
Nonlinear Pedagogy: A Constraints-Led Approach
as a Theoretical Model for TGfU
The Influence of Dynamical Systems Theory
In the past decades, dynamical systems theory has provided a theoretical stim-
ulus for understanding movement behavior, as well as the role of decision-making
behavior, intentions, and cognitions on motor performance (Carson & Kelso, 2004;
Davids, Williams, Button, & Court, 2001; Jirsa & Kelso, 2004). Prominent ideas
from dynamical systems theory have been allied to concepts of ecological psy-
chology (Gibson, 1979) to understand how movements are coordinated and con-
trolled with respect to dynamic environments such as sports. Research has adopted
a systems perspective and sought to characterize neurobiological systems as com-
plex, dynamical entities, revealing how the many interacting parts of the body are
coordinated and controlled during goal-directed movements (Bernstein, 1967). It
is well established that patterns emerge between parts of dynamical movement sys-
tems through processes of self-organization ubiquitous to physical and biological
systems in nature (Davids, Shuttleworth, Araújo, & Renshaw, 2003). Dynamical
systems are able to exploit surrounding constraints to allow functional, self-
sustaining patterns of behavior to emerge in specific contexts. Interest has
focused on the transitions between different stable patterns as a consequence
260
of the interaction between different components or constraints in a system. And the
type of order that emerges is dependent on initial conditions (existing environ-
mental conditions) and the constraints that shape a system’s behavior. For exam-
ple, investigations can focus on understanding how learners acquire one movement
pattern rather than another movement pattern on the basis of the interaction of skill
level with the equipment, instructions, and feedback provided. With respect to the
study of dynamical movement systems, it has been argued that the number of pos-
sible movement solutions offered by the human body that need to be regulated by
the central nervous system can vary in magnitude because of the temporary assem-
bly of muscle complexes called coordinative structures. Coordinative structures
are task-specific coordination patterns assembled for the functional purpose of
achieving specific movement goals (e.g., catching or hitting a ball or running
toward a target in space; see Williams et al., 1999).
The great flexibility with which the central nervous system organizes motor sys-
tem degrees of freedom (i.e., possible movement solutions offered by parts of the
body) into functional coordination patterns that emerge under constraints is an
important feature of the constraints-led approach, suggesting how TGfU may work
(Chow et al., 2006). Particularly relevant to TGfU, the interaction of task, per-
former, and environment provides the “boundaries” for an individualized goal-
directed behavior to emerge, and this dynamic interaction between the constraints
in the learning context is inherent in situational games in a TGfU lesson. This
emergent characteristic of movement coordination suggests that the existence of a
common optimal motor pattern for performing a skill is a fallacy attributable to the
variability often observed in human motor performance (see Brisson & Alain,
1996). Individuals can use the great abundance of movement possibilities offered
by the human musculoskeletal apparatus to vary the ways in which they solve
movement problems, and an optimal movement pattern for one individual may not
be optimal for another in relation to a specific task goal. This idea contradicts many
traditional approaches to teaching motor skills predicated on the notion of an ide-
alized, common optimal motor pattern toward which all learners may aspire (often
presented by demonstrations from an expert model). Rather, the concept of emer-
gence under constraints emphasizes the individualized nature of movement solu-
tions as learners attempt to satisfy the unique constraints on them (Davids et al.,
2001; Davids et al., 2007). Although similar movement patterns can be adapted
and subsequently refined for motor performance, detailed analysis of movement
kinematics are revealing that the specific movement patterns used by different indi-
viduals to achieve similar outcomes are not the same (Davids et al., 2003).
Movement pattern variability has traditionally been viewed as dysfunctional
and a reflection of “noise” in the central nervous system. A constraints-led
approach, however, suggests that movement variability is an intrinsic feature of
skilled movement behavior because it provides the flexibility required to adapt to
dynamic physical education environments (Williams et al., 1999). In fact, indi-
viduals find it extremely challenging to repeat a movement pattern identically
across practice trials (Davids et al., 2003). Variability in movement patterns
encourages exploratory behavior in learning contexts, a feature of relevance when
engaging in TGfU. The paradox between stability and variability explains why
skilled individuals are capable of both persistence and change in motor output
during physical education (Davids et al., 2003). This feature of human movement
261
Perception
Task (Information)
Movement Goal
(Coordination)
Environment Performer
Action
(Movement)
FIGURE 2. Emergence of movement behavior from the interaction of key performer,

environmental, and task constraints on the learner, as modeled by Newell (1986, 1996).
systems actually provides performers with the capacity to invent novel ways to
solve typical motor problems and to adapt to the changing task constraints of mod-
ified games. This radically different theoretical conceptualization of movement
variability fits well with pedagogical claims of the efficacy of the TGfU perspec-
tive. For example, den Duyn (1996) observed that
one of the interesting aspects of the game sense approach [the name given to
the TGfU approach in Australia] is that incorrect technique is not necessarily
seen as a “bad thing” that must be immediately changed. Many athletes use
unorthodox techniques that still achieve the right result (and often bamboo-
zle their opponent). (p. 7)
However, this is not to say that coaches and physical educators allow “free play”
and hope that learners complete set tasks or game situations in whatever way the
learners deem appropriate. Teachers must consider the constraints within the learn-
ing environment so that appropriate responses can be used by learners to achieve
the desired learning outcomes planned for the sessions.
Constraints Framework for TGfU
From a motor control perspective, Kugler et al. (1982) and Newell (1996)
emphasized the role of constraints in channeling motor behavior because the sta-
bility of functional coordination patterns can be altered by constraints imposed on
performers. The concept of constraints is important to the nonlinear pedagogical
framework espoused for TGfU. Constraints have been defined as boundaries or
features that shape the emergence of behavior by a learner seeking a stable state of
organization (Newell, 1986). Newell (1986) classified constraints into three dis-
tinct categories to provide a coherent framework for understanding how movement
patterns emerge during task performance (see Figure 2). The three categories of
constraints are performer, environment, and task.
Performer Constraints
Performer constraints are existing structural and functional characteristics of an
individual, including height, weight, and body composition (physical attributes) and
the connective strength of synapses in the brain, motivations, emotions, intentions,
and cognitions (functional characteristics). An important performer constraint is the
262
neuroanatomical design of the muscles and joints of the human body. Learners
of different ages may present intrinsic differences in development of the neuro-
anatomical features specific to the stage of development of their bodies. These dif-
ferences will have implications for how pedagogists structure learning tasks and
plan modified games in TGfU. As noted earlier, the skill levels of learners are a cru-
cial performer constraint that will have an impact on how relevant the TGfU
approach is for the development of tactical awareness for specific learners. This
observation is supported by data from French, Spurgeon, and Nevett (1995), who
examined performance differences in youth baseball related to skills, expertise, and
age. They noted that younger players were unable to use advanced tactics because
they were constrained by the inability to appropriately execute the necessary move-
ment skills. It seemed that skills and tactics constrain each other, developing in tan-
dem. These findings are harmonious with the theoretical tenets of a constraints-led
perspective, as we outline later, and it is notable that some proponents of TGfU have
proposed modified games to introduce tactics so that all learners can learn without
being handicapped by a lack of skill (Hopper, 2002).
Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints are often physical in nature and could include such
features as ambient light, temperature, or altitude. In any movement task, gravity
is a key environmental constraint that influences how movement coordination may
be adjusted. Other environmental constraints are social, including factors such as
peer groups, social norms, and cultural expectations. Such factors are of particular
relevance for young learners, for whom motor performance is often strongly influ-
enced by the presence of critical group members such as teachers or classmates.
Task Constraints
Task constraints are more specific to particular performance contexts than envi-
ronmental constraints. Task constraints are particularly important for the TGfU
approach because they include the rules of games, the equipment used, boundary
playing areas and markings, nets and goals, the number of players involved, and
the information sources present in specific performance contexts. Clearly, peda-
gogists need a mastery of the task constraints of specific sports and games, because
their manipulation could lead to the channelling of certain coordination patterns
and decision-making behaviors (Araújo et al., 2004; Davids et al., 2007). Modified
games in the TGfU approach typically involve the modification of task constraints
to allow for appropriate progressions for tactical development. For example,
instead of playing a full-sided game in soccer, manipulation of the rules to allow a
three-against-one situation may be presented to encourage ball possession for the
team of three players. The use of modified equipment is also widely promoted in
TGfU. Shorter rackets, bigger playing balls, and lighter projectiles are all possible
manipulation of task constraints to make modified games easier for learners to
play. The manipulation of task constraints and making modified games “playable”
for all learners certainly meets Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) proposals of develop-
ing a games appreciation outcome for TGfU.
An important task constraint relates to the available information in specific per-
formance contexts that learners can use to coordinate actions. It has been argued
that biological organisms, including humans, are surrounded by huge arrays of
263
Chow et al.
energy flows that can act as information sources (e.g., optical, acoustic, proprio-
ceptive) to support movement behavior, including decision making, planning, and
organization, during goal-directed activity. The role of information in regulating
movement was particularly emphasized by Gibson (1979), who suggested that
movement generates information that in turn supports further movement in a cycli-
cal process. Understanding the need to keep key information sources and move-
ments coupled together could inform how TGfU proponents design educational
environments to facilitate perceptual-motor learning and the acquisition of decision-
making skills in games. As a pedagogical principle, information-movement cou-
pling certainly mitigates against traditional approaches such as task decomposition
and the isolation of movement skills from game contexts for practice execution
(Davids et al., 2007).
Implications of the Constraints-Led Perspective for TGfU
Following this brief synopsis of the constraints-led perspective, it is pertinent
to assess how this particular theoretical framework can improve our understand-
ing of the TGfU approach. In this section, we attend to these issues of pertinence,
demonstrating how a constraints-led perspective can provide theoretical insights
into issues of mechanism and function, while emphasizing person-environment
interactions during teaching and learning.
A major implication of a constraints-led perspective in motor learning suggests
that a key aim of games teaching in physical education is for learners to become
attuned to the relevant informational properties in specific environments. Because
information flow patterns are specific to particular environmental properties, they
can act as invariant information sources to be acquired by individual performers to
constrain their actions (Davids & Araújo, 2005). The use of task constraints,
specifically informational constraints, in TGfU will allow games players to
become better at detecting key information variables that specify movements from
a myriad of noncritical variables in practice environments. Learners can attune
their movements to essential information sources available through practice, thus
establishing information-movement couplings that can regulate behavior (Jacobs
& Michaels, 2002). For example, in a striking and batting game such as baseball,
for which the tactical problem in a TGfU lesson could be “preventing scoring,”
outfielders need to successfully perceive positional and timing information from
ball flight and to couple these sources with appropriate movement patterns to suc-
cessfully intercept the ball. A good example of this idea was provided by Thorpe
(2001), who illustrated how someone who is falling can still pass a basketball in a
temporally constrained situation, thus demonstrating the interconnectedness of
perception and movement in such dynamic sporting contexts.
It is also important to note that the interacting nature of key constraints shapes
the emergence of motor behavior in the form of actions, intentions, and decisions.
The presence of task constraints does not influence the emergence of a decision to
act per se but determines how the specific intentions of a performer and information-
movement couplings interact to allow a functional movement pattern to emerge in
a modified game context (see Davids et al., 2007). It seems that a rich mix of struc-
tural, task, and intentional constraints interact to shape the emergence of stable,
coordination modes, a finding that has strong implications for learners needing to
use equipment in performance (e.g., rackets, oars, balls and bats).
264
How will a constraints-led perspective inform future research on TGfU?
Certainly, the measurement of discrete variables to explain students’ learning is
incomplete and could provide a slanted perception of emergent behavior. The need
to take into account how different constraints interact to produce a goal-directed
behavior provides valuable information on the learning processes that are present
within the TGfU approach. Although it is easy to acknowledge the need to exam-
ine interactions among the different performer, task, and environmental constraints
in the learning context, it is more challenging to interpret the interactions of the
different constraints and explain the emerging behaviors from a constraints-led
perspective.
To establish ideas for future research programs on TGfU from a constraints-led
perspective, our research group has undertaken a series of investigations on how
emerging behavior can occur on the basis of the presence of specific task con-
straints in a learning environment. For example, one study examined how coordi-
nation changes as a function of practice for a soccer kicking task with specific task
constraints. For the task, novice adult male participants were required to kick a soc-
cer ball to a “live” receiver over a height barrier (bar) with different height con-
straints (1.5 to 1.7 m) and to various distances (10 to 14 m). All participants
practiced over a period of 12 weeks with three sessions of 40 kicking trials per ses-
sion. No explicit instructions were provided to the participants, and only a short
video showing the ball’s approach to the live receiver was provided to highlight
ball flight characteristics upon ball reception by the receiver. Performance scores
using a 7-point, Likert-type scoring scale were used to determine the appropriate-
ness of the kicks in relation to the accuracy and weight of the passes. It was found
that early in learning, participants were generally “driving” the ball, with little suc-
cess in clearing the height barrier. Subsequently, later in practice, participants
achieved success in clearing the height barrier and acquired higher performance
scores. It was also found that the kicking patterns of the participants changed from
a driving to a “lifting” or “scooping” action, which facilitated the attainment of the
task goal. Interviews with participants after every practice session provided valu-
able information on their thought processes as they attempted to improve perfor-
mance. It was particularly fascinating to note how participants were trying different
techniques to first clear the height barrier before attempting to improve on accu-
racy. Interestingly, the change in coordination and improvement in performance
was achieved without the presence of explicit instructions on technique, and goal-
directed behavior emerged as a consequence of the presence of the specific task
constraints in the learning task.
The findings from that study highlighted how the presence of the appropriate task
constraints can help direct learners to search for functional behaviors to achieve task
goals in the absence of direct instructions on technique. Moreover, in the study, both
outcome (performance scores) and process (kinematic data analysis that provided
information on coordination and interviews that provided qualitative information
on cognitive processes during learning) measurements were useful in constructing
a reflection of the learning process that encompassed the interaction of key per-
former, task, and environmental constraints. This study has implications for fram-
ing future research in TGfU, highlighting the situated learning and constraints-led
approach that could be adopted to better understand the learning processes of stu-
dents in a TGfU setting. Particularly, a multitude of variables focusing on both
265
Chow et al.
processes and outcomes of teachers’ teaching behavior (e.g., task manipulation,
questioning technique, delivery of skill learning opportunities) and students’ behav-
ior (e.g., decision-making behavior, movement skills demonstrated in simulated sit-
uational games) should be measured and analyzed to provide a clearer interpretation
of the processes underlying the TGfU approach in a constraints-led perspective in
future research. For example, we can compare how goal-directed behavior can be
present in small situational games when the “appropriate” task constraints are
manipulated, in relation to a learning context in which those task constraints are
absent. Dependent variables pertaining to observable students’ behaviors can be cat-
egorized using existing tools (e.g., the Games Performance Assessment Instrument
developed by Oslin et al., 1995; the Team Sport Assessment Procedure developed
by Gréhaigne, Godbout, & Bouthier, 1997; or any other self-developed validated
behavior coding tool) if relevant. Further quantitative measures on skill and perfor-
mance can be determined to investigate specific technical skills acquired through
TGfU lessons. Questionnaires or interviews with both teachers and students could
also be undertaken to elicit qualitative information on perceptions or even thought
processes driving the movement and decision-making behaviors.
In relation to understanding the development of skilled games players from a
practitioner’s perspective, the constraints-led framework, based on the tenets of
nonlinear pedagogy, could provide further insights into how sports expertise is
acquired. Possession of superior knowledge, organization of task-specific knowl-
edge, superior recognition of patterns of play, and effective perception of kine-
matic information are all reportedly characteristics of sports expertise (e.g.,
Abernethy, 1994). It is plausible that skilled games players are able to form effec-
tive information-movement couplings through effective practices that present var-
ious task constraints that interact with performer and environmental constraints.
Task-specific actions that satisfy goal-directed behavior could generally be seen
as qualities of effective decision making, which could help in improving under-
standing of game tactics in TGfU.
Below, we elucidate key practical implications of a constraints-led perspective
for teaching decision-making behavior from the TGfU approach, using the vol-
leyball attack subphase as an exemplar.
Constraints on Decision Making in TGfU
The ideas of Newell (1986) on performer, environmental, and task constraints
provide a sound framework for examining the central principle in the approach of
TGfU (i.e., to develop appropriate tactical behavior in games through the manip-
ulation of key constraints). Teachers’ manipulation of constraints can lead learn-
ers to attempt to satisfy them in a lesson context, thereby guiding them toward a
range of suitable action solutions to tactical problems. In this view, intentions in
humans are “embodied,” that is, based in real-world settings and constrained by a
number of factors, including mind, body, social, and biological contexts (Davids
et al., 2007). It is important to understand that the intention of a performer is emer-
gent; that is, the decision making takes into account initial conditions that allow
the attainment of a final condition along a goal path governed by the existing envi-
ronmental context. Along the goal path from initial conditions to final outcome,
more and more information becomes available as a learner advances toward a spe-
cific movement goal (e.g., moving to intercept a ball). Given that information
266
LESSON PLAN (UNIT: Net-Volleyball)
Level: 8th Grade Lesson No.: 3 Class Time/ Duration: 30 mins
Date: _______ Venue: Indoor Courts
Equipment needed: 3 sets of badminton posts and nets
16 volleyballs, markers and cones
Tactical Problem: Setting up to attack
Lesson Focus: Set up volley pass for attack hit
Situational Game 1: Organization: Observation/ Evaluation: Time:
Goals: 3 v 3 in half a badminton court Ball to be set high near the 8mins
1) Score points to win rally net
2) 10 points to win set
Conditions: net
1. Bounce between passes
allowed
2. No consecutive hits by
the same player
3. Ball has to be hit above
head when played over to
opponents
4. Toss to serve
5. Maximum 3 hits per side
Question & Answer: Time:
1) Where is it easiest to attack from? Ans: Near the net 2mins
2) How would you score a point? Ans: Execute an attack hit above the head
3) What must your team do to prepare for an attack hit? Ans: Set up to attack
Practice Task: Organization: Teaching Points: Time:
Volley pass from setter to 1) For setting, get under the 8mins
spiker ball
Goals: 2) Bend knees
net
1) Successful pass to spiker B 3) Contact ball with finger
C (set)
2) 3 good passes before (catch) pads, flick wrist, elbows
rotation A(toss) bent and wide
Condition: 4) Set the ball high
1) Toss, set, catch 5) Face direction of pass
2) A to toss, B to set and C
to catch the ball above head
Situational Game 2: Organization: Evaluation: Time:
Goal: 10mins
To execute setting up to
attack effectively (as a
team) net
Condition:
1. As per Situational Game 1
2. Point won only with set

pass prior to attack hit
FIGURE 3. Representative Teaching Games for Understanding lesson plan for

net-barrier (volleyball) game.
267
Chow et al.
emerges to carry out the intended action, the available action paths become clearer,
and eventually, at the penultimate moment of achieving the goal, a final path can
be uniquely defined from a number of action choices (Kugler, Shaw, Vincente, &
Kinsella-Shaw, 1990). From a constraints-led approach, physical educators’
manipulation of key task constraints can guide learners toward a range of highly
suitable action paths, narrowing down the time needed for exploratory behavior of
the learners.
In a typical TGfU lesson, constraints that need to be satisfied by each learner
and that may be manipulated by a physical educator are outlined in Figure 3. Figure
3 depicts a lesson in which a physical educator can provide a tactical problem to
learners with an emphasis on “setting up to attack” in a volleyball game (i.e., net-
barrier game). Learners can be challenged to “decide” when, where, and how to set
up an attack in the game of volleyball. In Figure 3, it can be seen that an introduc-
tory game presents an appropriate context for learners to explore how best to make
an attacking hit into the opponents’ court (assuming that learners have previously
learned how to “dig” a ball in previous TGfU lessons). Suitable task constraints
can be manipulated to provide the necessary boundaries to encourage learners to
execute an attack. For example, equipment constraints can be manipulated so that
only badminton nets, which are much lower in height than actual volleyball nets,
are used. In addition, specific instructional constraints can emphasize “playing the
ball toward an opponent by contacting the ball above your head,” encouraging
learners to “set” the ball up for an attack above the head. Other constraints that
allow for a bounce between hits within the same team and tossing for service pro-
vide opportunities for greater success in the situational game. The task constraints
in this lesson guide the learners to search for appropriate goal-directed movements
to attempt to outplay their opponents. With the appropriate task constraints in
place, learners will soon realize that for an attack hit to be played across to the
opponents’ court, the pass prior to the attack hit will have to be high and elevated.
In turn, the learners will possibly attempt to set the ball high, either by digging the
ball or trying a “volley” set. In this sense, goal-directed behavior emerges without
the need to provide explicit and prescriptive instructions for executing an overhead
set pass for a smash. Subsequently, skill development occurs after the question-
and-answer session (which confirms the demonstration of the desired movement
behavior and decision for setting up an attack). Task constraints can be manipu-
lated further to provide “tighter” boundaries for learners to set up an attack with
the modified instructions “to execute set pass prior to attack hit.” Through attempt-
ing to satisfy constraints manipulated by the physical educator, learners will grad-
ually acquire the appropriate decision-making skills to set up an attack and
therefore solve the tactical problem for this particular TGfU lesson.
In the TGfU approach to teaching tactics and decision making, the example on
volleyball setting and smashing indicates the value of allowing decision making to
emerge under interacting constraints, on the basis of the satisfaction of task con-
straints that interact with environmental and performer constraints. The skill lev-
els and physical makeup of the learners, together with intentionality to perform the
task, may also interact with the task and environmental constraints to influence the
development of decision making in TGfU. The provision of relevant informa-
tion through suitable questions presented by educators, coupled with setting up
appropriate task constraints, may encourage the emergence of effective tactical
268
awareness on the part of the learners. Wright et al. (2005) summarized it neatly in
their study examining games teaching in teacher education: Game players need to
execute the necessary movements required in the game by understanding why cer-
tain moves are appropriate. The questioning process in TGfU reinforces the
“knowing” of strategy, but the goal is to embody that knowing in the actions car-
ried out during the learning process (Wright et al., 2005). And from a constraints-
led perspective, the knowing comes about from learners’ satisfying the various
interacting constraints in the TGfU lesson, in which appropriate goal-directed
movements and decisions to move emerge through the teacher’s careful manipu-
lation of key task constraints.
Constraints and Skill Learning in TGfU
Earlier, we suggested that links with a model of motor learning were required
for the successful understanding and implementation of the TGfU approach in ped-
agogical practice. A useful model for this purpose is Newell’s (1985) model of
motor learning, which can be used to address the question of TGfU’s relevance for
performers of different skill levels. Newell (1985) proposed that early in learning,
an individual is in the coordination stage, seeking to harness available movement
possibilities offered by the neuromuscular system to provide stable solutions to
specific motor tasks. The successful search for a functional coordination pattern
allows performance of the task to a basic level, as the learner assembles compo-
nent relations between relevant parts of the body. Stability and refinement of a
coordination pattern is achieved as a result of the learner’s exploring the coupling
between varying informational constraints and different performance contexts.
Performers are in the control stage of learning when they can flexibly adapt stable
coordination patterns to imprecisely fit changing performance environments.
Subsequently, expert performers reach the skill stage when they can vary coordi-
nation patterns in an energy-efficient manner to fit changing circumstances in
dynamic environments (Davids et al., 2007).
The constraints-led approach, incorporating Newell’s (1985) model of motor
learning, illustrates how a suitable progression in lessons within a TGfU curricu-
lum could be structured to allow optimum learning opportunities for learners. One
suggestion is to begin with less complex games, such as target games with simple
tactical concepts, in the TGfU curriculum as categorized under the classification
system for games (see Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997) before proceeding to more
complex games such as invasion games (Werner et al., 1996). The use of modified
games and questioning techniques within the TGfU approach serves to encourage
learners to actively seek and explore a variety of solutions to tactical problems
rather than receiving information passively. The delivery of exploratory or dis-
covery learning promotes functional variability in practice and the exploration of
movement dynamics, which enhances the search process by increasing learners’
exposure to varieties of task solutions (Newell & McDonald, 1991). In relation to
Newell’s model of motor learning, such exploratory practice is valuable in both the
coordination and control stages of learning for different reasons (see also Davids
et al., 2007).
In the coordination stage, exploratory learning is useful for learners to assem-
ble functional and unique coordination structures to achieve a specific task goal,
such as kicking a ball. At this stage of learning, simple tactical problems could be
269
Chow et al.
presented, and the emphasis may be on acquiring some basic movement pattern of
performing a skill before decision making could be taught. This is to allow learn-
ers to find success in both skill execution and decision making at this stage of learn-
ing. Specifically, learners who are in the coordination stage of learning may require
modified games that have task constraints ensuring experiences of success,
because learners at that stage may not have the necessary skills required to play a
modified game that is more similar to the adult version of the game. For example,
smaller activity groups or bigger targets or projectiles could be made available so
that learners could achieve success in the modified games while attempting to solve
simple tactical problems without worrying too much about the lack of necessary
“skills” to perform the required movement in situational games. For example, in
the previous example on volleyball, bigger and softer balls can be used so that the
learners have a greater likelihood to execute a volleyball set or dig pass success-
fully so that an attacking hit can occur in the situational game. Thus, the use of
modified balls allows learners to acquire basic movement patterns to execute vol-
leyball set or dig passes, which will be useful for learners in the coordination stage
of learning. Certainly, the appropriate manipulation of task constraints supports the
stand put forth by proponents of TGfU that all learners can play a game if suitable
modifications to the game are made to generate meaningful play (see Mitchell,
Oslin, & Griffin, 2005). Subsequently, physical educators could proceed to present
specific skill practices that place emphasis on the acquisition of relevant movement
patterns that use age- and skill-appropriate equipment for learners. While later in
learning, exploratory practice allows players to refine and adapt existing coordi-
nation patterns to enhance flexibility in coordinating actions to the events of
dynamic environments.
Practice structure, particularly when individuals proceed beyond the coordina-
tion stage into the control stage, should emphasize keeping information and move-
ments together so that learners can start to associate movements with key
information sources (e.g., hand movements with a moving ball or movement of a
learner in relation to teammates in the situational game). Traditional methods of
decomposing tasks to manage information loads on learners inadvertently prevent
such information-movement couplings from forming. An example of task decom-
position is when learners practice the ball-toss phase of a serving action in racket
sports separately from the hitting component. Task simplification refers to the
process whereby scaled-down versions of tasks are created in practice and per-
formed by learners to simplify the process of information pickup and coupling to
movement patterns (Davids et al., 2003). The use of modified games with a preser-
vation of the intended tactical concepts at the beginning of a TGfU lesson can be
seen as another example of task simplification. For example, when learning to
maintain possession in soccer, instead of passing with the feet in an introductory
game, learners can be introduced to the tactical concept by participation in a pass-
ing game with the hands. This manipulation of task constraints could allow more
opportunities to develop an awareness of tactical requirements in a modified version
of soccer, with specific task constraints maintained (e.g., goals, line markings,
other players). In this sense, learners in the control stage can focus more on the tac-
tical aspect of the game in terms of movement off the ball or concurrent movement
by teammates in the surrounding environment. Subsequently, learners can engage
in additional skill practices on passing with the feet, acquiring the specific skills
270
and information-movement couplings in the game of soccer to facilitate ball con-
trol as well as ball possession.
Moreover, the use of hands in the introductory game for maintaining possession
in soccer could provide teachers with an opportunity to highlight the generality of
tactical concepts used in different types of invasion games. The provision of a vari-
ety of experiences accentuates the similarities and differences among games,
which is the purpose of game sampling in a TGfU setting (Griffin & Sheehy, 2004).
For example, positive transfer of game performance and cognitive knowledge has
been observed from badminton to pickle ball (Mitchell & Oslin, 1999). However,
this assumption of “skill substitution” in TGfU, whereby one skill is substituted
for by another to reduce the technical demands of the game, requires further inves-
tigation because this may lead to negative transfer when the real game is introduced
(J. E. Holt, Ward, & Wallhead, 2006).
Whereas past research on TGfU has presented mainly dichotomous views on
skill learning from either a tactic-to-skill or skill-to-tactic approach (e.g., Alison &
Thorpe, 1997; Rink, 1996; Rink, French, & Tjeerdsma, 1996), from a constraints-
led perspective, this distinction may be a false dichotomy warranting further inves-
tigation. On the basis of Newell’s (1985) model, the key issue of delivering either
skills or tactics will be resolved by adopting a student-centered approach (see also
Hopper, 2002). This decision is a matter of differences in the proportion of empha-
sis on both approaches, which is dependent on students’ stages of learning. The
implication here is not to focus solely on skill development for beginners in the
coordination stage of learning but to place greater emphasis on presenting games
that challenge learners to develop fundamental skills required for the specific
game. The development of simple decision awareness could also be taught in the
coordination learning stage for beginners to allow them to acquire basic yet essen-
tial understanding of game play to enable them to achieve success. In the control
stage, greater emphasis could be placed on providing variations in task constraints
in modified games to optimize learners’ acquisition of movement skills and game
awareness through increasing interactions with the environment. Such a process in
motor learning occurs by adapting basic coordination pattern to achieve more chal-
lenging and varied task goals.
In summary, Newell’s (1985) motor learning model presents pedagogists with
a content framework to vary emphasis of TGfU games to suit the needs of each
individual learner, regardless of the stage of learning. This model of motor learning
shows how a constraints-led approach can be harmonious with the student-
centered perspective advocated by TGfU (e.g., Hopper, 2002). A key issue for ped-
agogists interested in TGfU is not whether skills teaching should precede tactics
but how an appropriate model of motor learning can be used by teachers to adjust
TGfU lessons through manipulating appropriate constraints in an individualized,
student-centered approach.
Constraints and Feedback in TGfU
An important aspect of pedagogical practice concerns the provision of feedback
to learners. For many years, motor learning theorists have been concerned with the
verbal and visual delivery of augmented feedback to learners (Newell, Broderick,
Deutsch & Slifkin, 2003). Recently, Davids et al. (2007) viewed the role of aug-
mented information as directing learners’ (continually evolving) search for solutions
271
Chow et al.
that satisfy the constraints imposed on them. From a constraints-led perspective, cur-
rent research has supported the idea of allowing discovery of learning through focus-
ing on an image of achievement (focus on the movement effects to be achieved in a
practice setting) rather than an image of the act (focus on movement dynamics or spe-
cific topological form of a movement to be acquired) (see also Vereijken & Whiting,
1990). It was argued that an emphasis on achieving effective movement outcomes in
sport would allow functional coordination patterns to emerge from the interactions
of the various task, performer, and environmental constraints. These ideas on aug-
mented feedback have received some support from work by Wulf and Shea (2002),
who observed that an external focus that directed performers’ attention toward the
movement effects, rather than to other external sources of information, yielded
better learning and performance of a tennis forehand drive. They proposed that an
“external focus of attention” did not distract learners from the movements required
but instead allowed the implicit regulation of task performance and learning.
These ideas on the use of augmented feedback from a constraints-led approach
have important implications for TGfU, in which the teacher is seen as a facilitator
and questioning is an important aspect of the educational process for the develop-
ment of tactics in learners (Griffin et al., 2003). The provision of augmented feed-
back through questioning after the introduction of modified games helps direct
learners’ attention to the specific tactical knowledge required rather than to the
skills needed. The infrequent presentation of augmented knowledge coupled with
an external focus of attention in the skill acquisition process of TGfU can allow
learners to use discovery learning to full effect and exploit self-organization
processes in the motor system during practice. In addition, the use of a less pre-
scriptive and a self-regulated feedback mechanism, which complements discovery
learning, could encourage learners to more effectively explore constraints provided
in TGfU for decision making.
Conclusions: Nonlinear Pedagogy in
TGfU—Implications for Physical Education
TGfU has been actively adopted across the globe as an effective approach to
teach games skills to learners in physical education. In reviewing previous
research, we have argued that the constraints-led framework within a nonlinear
pedagogical perspective has the necessary theoretical underpinnings to explain
how and why TGfU is effective in creating appropriate learning outcomes for
learners. There is a clear need for future research to continue to provide empirical
data to validate a constraints-led framework as a sound basis for implementing
TGfU. The analysis of empirical data could present important implications for
structuring practices and the delivery of instruction as well as the provision of feed-
back in physical education more generally.
The use of appropriate models of motor learning, such as that of Newell (1985),
will assist researchers on TGfU in understanding how it can be used with learners
at different skill levels. Specifically, the valid categorization of learners at differ-
ent stages could help researchers understand differences in expected performance
outcomes for different learners within the TGfU approach more successfully.
Progressions for TGfU lessons and activities in physical education may be more
effectively planned, taking into account the needs of learners at different stages of
learning in a student-centered approach. Greater emphasis on tactics or skills can
272
be presented in introductory games through the manipulation of task, performer,
and environmental constraints without compromising the core objective of devel-
oping game awareness for learners through TGfU. For example, a teacher could
present more complex games by progressively manipulating specific task,
performer, and environmental constraints to guide learners to explore relevant tac-
tical solutions. The challenge for teachers is not just to understand how to manip-
ulate constraints but to identify the key individual constraints that can be presented
to students to encourage learning. From a pedagogical perspective, the TGfU
approach empowers learners to become active learners (Kidman, 2001), and the
manipulation of constraints within TGfU lessons encourages learners to engage in
self-discovery in attempting to satisfy individually specific constraints, which
could lead to greater enjoyment and motivation. The debate about the need to dif-
ferentiate skill development from tactical development in assessing the effective-
ness of TGfU over traditional technique-based approaches may be somewhat
secondary because the primary goal is to determine and comprehend how con-
straints can be presented to meet individual learning objectives.
In this article, we have reviewed a number of alternative explanations for the
efficacy of TGfU, focusing initially on cognitive, constructivist theories based on
situated learning. Later, we emphasized how a constraints-led framework from a
dynamical systems perspective could provide a relevant framework for the imple-
mentation of TGfU, which needs to be empirically examined through an evidence-
based practice approach in physical education. It was indicated how TGfU could
gain input from the motor learning and control literature to provide a much-needed
explanatory theoretical framework for understanding and implementing TGfU (see
criticisms of McMorris, 1998). We also showcased some empirical work on how
emergent behaviors can occur under specific task constraints. It was suggested how
such empirical work could frame future research programs on investigating the
interaction between intentionality of learners and emergent behaviors as a conse-
quence of manipulating performer, task, and environmental constraints in TGfU.
We proposed how the exploration of using key conceptual components from a
dynamical systems perspective could also lay the foundations for the development
of a conceptual model for nonlinear pedagogy, providing a theoretical framework
to further examine motor learning issues in pedagogy and physical education.
Although the potential for theory development in this area is significant, there is
now clearly a need for established programs of empirical research to investigate
how manipulating performer, environmental, and task constraints can strengthen
the interaction between the intentionality of learners and the emergent movement
behavior. This body of research will clarify specific practical recommendations for
structuring effective learning progressions during the process of skill acquisition
through TGfU and also shed valuable knowledge on structuring appropriate ped-
agogical interventions in our schools.
Note
1
A Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) task force consisting of academic
researchers from different parts of the world has been set up to undertake continued
research in TGfU. A series of conferences have also been organized since its inception
to advance the delivery and presentation of TGfU lessons for learners (see
http://www.tgfu.org).
273
References
Abernethy, B. (1994). The nature of expertise in sport. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, &
V. Pataco (Eds.), International perspectives on sport and exercise psychology
(pp. 57–68). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Alison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches
to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus a games for
understanding approach. British Journal of Physical Education, 28(3), 9–13.
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Araújo, D., Davids, K., Bennett, S., Button, C., & Chapman, G. (2004). Emergence of
sport skills under constraint. In A. M. Williams & N. J. Hodges (Eds.), Skill acqui-
sition in sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 409–433). London: Taylor &
Francis.
Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The control and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon.
Brisson, T. A., & Alain, C. (1996). Should common optimal movement patterns be
identified as the criterion to be achieved? Journal of Motor Behavior, 28, 211–223.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary
schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8.
Carson, R. G., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2004). Governing coordination: Behavioral principles
and neural correlates. Experimental Brain Research, 154, 267–274.
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2006).
Nonlinear pedagogy: A constraints-led framework to understand emergence of game
play and skills. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 10(1), 74–104.
Davids, K., & Araújo, D. (2005). A constraints-based framework for the organization
of sport coaching. In D. Araújo (Eds.), O contexto da decisão: A acção táctica em
desportos dinâmicos (pp. 35–60). Lisbon, Portugal: Edições Visão e Contextos.
Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. J. (2007). Acquiring movement skill: A constraints-
led perspective. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Davids, K., Shuttleworth, R., Araújo, D., & Renshaw, I. (2003). Understanding con-
straints on physical activity: Implications for motor learning theory. In R. Arellano
& A. Oria (Ed.), Proceedings of Second World Congress on Science of Physical
Activity and Sports (pp. 56–77). Granada, Spain: University of Granada Press.
Davids, K., Williams, M., Button, C., & Court, M. (2001). An integrative modeling
approach to the study of intentional and movement behavior. In R. Singer,
H. Housenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 144–173).
New York: John Wiley.
den Duyn, N. (1996, Spring). Why it makes sense to play games! Sports Coach,
pp. 7–9.
French, K. E., & McPherson, S. L. (2004). The development of expertise. In M. R. Weiss
(Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective
(pp. 403–424). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
French, K. E., Spurgeon, J. H., & Nevett, M. E. (1995). Expert-novice differences in
cognitive and skill execution components of youth baseball performance. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(3), 194–201.
French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Rink, J. E., Taylor, K., & Hussey, K. (1996). The effects
of a 3-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on bad-
minton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 15, 418–438.
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
274
performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15,
439–463.
Gabriele, T. E., & Maxwell, T. (1995). Direct versus indirect methods of squash
instruction [abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(Suppl.), A-63.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). An ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.
Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a con-
structivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest, 47, 490–505.
Gréhaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1997). Performance assessment in team
sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 500–516.
Griffin, L. L., Brooker, R., & Patton, K. (2005). Working towards legitimacy: Two
decades of Teaching Games for Understanding. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 10(3), 213–223.
Griffin, L. L., Butler, J., Lombardo, B., & Nastasi, R. (2003). An introduction to teach-
ing games for understanding. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi
(Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport (pp. 1–9).
Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education Publications.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills:
A tactical games approach. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
Griffin, L. L., Oslin, J. L., & Mitchell, S. A. (1995). An analysis of two instructional
approaches to teaching net games [abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 66(Suppl.), A-64.
Griffin, L. L., & Sheehy, D. A. (2004). Using the tactical games model to develop
problem-solvers in physical education. In J. Wright, D. Macdonald, & L. Burrows
(Eds.), Critical inquiry and problem-solving in physical education (pp. 33–48).
London: Routledge.
Handford, C., Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Button, C. (1997). Skill acquisition in sport:
Some applications of an evolving practice ecology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15,
621–640.
Holt, J. E., Ward, P., & Wallhead, T. L. (2006). The transfer of learning from play prac-
tices to game play in young adult soccer players. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 11(2), 101–118.
Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B., & Bengoechea, E. G. (2002). Expanding the teaching games
for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 162–176.
Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student
emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and
Dance, 73(7), 44–48.
Jacobs, D. M., & Michaels, C. F. (2002). On the apparent paradox of learning and real-
ism. Ecological Psychology, 14, 127–139.
Jewett, A. E., Bain, L. L., & Ennis, C. D. (1995). The curriculum process in physical
education. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Jirsa, V. K., & Kelso, J.A.S. (2004). Coordination dynamics: Issues and trends. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kidman, L. (2001). Developing decision makers. An empowerment approach to coach-
ing. Wellington, New Zealand: Innovative Print Communication.
275
Chow et al.
Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learn-
ing: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 21, 177–192.
Kugler, P., Kelso, J. S., & Turvey, M. (1982). On the control and coordination of nat-
urally developing systems. In J. S. Kelso & J. Clark (Eds.), The development of
movement control and coordination (pp. 5–78). New York: John Wiley.
Kugler, P., Shaw, R., Vincente, K., & Kinsella-Shaw, J. (1990). Inquiry into intentional
systems: issues in ecological physics. Psychological Research, 52, 98–121.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in games. Bulletin of Physical
Education, 25(1), 35–38.
Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in
games teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55, 161–176.
McMorris, T. (1998). Teaching Games for Understanding: Its contribution to the
knowledge of skill acquisition from a motor learning perspective. European Journal
of Physical Education, 3, 65–74.
McNeill, M. C., Fry, J. M., Wright, S. C., Tan, W. K. C., Tan, K. S. S., & Schempp, P. G.
(2004). “In the local context”: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on
practicum. Sport, Education and Society, 9(1), 3–32.
Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L., & Oslin, J. L. (1995). The effects of two instructional
approaches on game performance. Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching
in Physical Education and Sports, 1(1), 36–48.
Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1999). An investigation of tactical understanding in net
games. European Journal of Physical Education, 4, 162–172.
Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2005). Teaching sport concepts and skills:
A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Newell, K. M. (1985). Coordination, control and skill. In D. Goodman, I. Franks, &
R. B. Wilberg (Eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control
(pp. 295–317). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade
& H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children. Aspects of coordination
and control (pp. 341–360). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Newell, K. M. (1996). Change in movement and skill: Learning, retention and transfer.
In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 393–430).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Newell, K. M., Broderick, M. P., Deutsch, K. M., & Slifkin, A. B. (2003). Task goals
and change in dynamical degrees of freedom with motor learning. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 379–387.
Newell, K. M., & McDonald, P. V. (1991). Practice: A search for task solutions. In
R. Christina & H. M. Eckert (Eds.), Enhancing human performance in sport: New
concepts and developments (pp. 51–60). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Griffin, L. L. (1995). The Game Performance Assess-
ment Instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation [abstract].
Research Quarterly Exercise and Sport, 66(Suppl.), A-66.
Rink, J. (1993). Teaching physical education for learning. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Rink, J. E. (1996). Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 397–516.
Rink, J. E. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 20, 112–128.
276
Rink, J. E. (2005). Teaching physical education for learning (5th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Graham, K. C. (1996). Implications for practice and
research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 490–502.
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,
399–417.
Rossi, T. (2003). Linking games for understanding with dynamic systems of skill
acquisition: Old milk in new bottles or have we really got a new research agenda in
physical education and sport? In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi
(Eds.), Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport
(pp. 321–344). Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education
Publications.
Rovegno, I., & Kirk, D. (1995). Articulations and silences in socially critical work on
physical education: Toward a broader agenda. Quest, 47, 447–474.
Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Learning and teaching invasion-game
tactics in 4th grade: Introduction and theoretical perspective. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 20, 341–351.
Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., Brock, S., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Teaching and learning basic
invasion-game tactics in 4th grade: A descriptive study from situated and constraints
theoretical perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 370–388.
Siedentop, D., Herkowitz, J., & Rink, J. (1984). Elementary physical education meth-
ods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Strean, W. B., & Bengoechea, E. G. (2003). Beyond technical vs tactical: Extending the
games-teaching debate. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B. Lombardo, & R. Nastasi (Eds.),
Teaching games for understanding in physical education and sport (pp. 181–188).
Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education Publications.
Thelen, E. (1995). Motor development. A new synthesis. American Psychologist,
50(2), 79–95.
Thorpe, R. (1990). New directions in games teaching. In N. Armstrong (Ed.), New
directions in P.E. (Vol. 1, pp. 79–100). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Thorpe, R. (2001). Rod Thorpe on teaching games for understanding. In L. Kidman
(Eds.), Developing decision makers. An empowerment approach to coaching
(pp. 22–36). Wellington, New Zealand: Innovative Print Communication.
Turner, A. (1996). Myth or reality? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance, 67(4), 46–49.
Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. (1992). A comparative analysis of two models for teach-
ing games (technique approach and game-centered-tactical focus-approach).
International Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15–31.
Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. (1995). Teaching for understanding: A model for improv-
ing decision making during game play. Quest, 47, 44–63.
Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for under-
standing: Effects on skill, knowledge, and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 70(3), 286–296.
Van Gelder, T., & Port, R. F. (1995). Explorations in the dynamics of cognition: Mind
as motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vereijken, B., & Whiting, H. T. (1990). In defence of discovery learning. Canadian
Journal of Sport Psychology, 15, 99–109.
Werner, P., & Almond, L. (1990). Models of games education. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, 61, 23–27.
277
Chow et al.
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding:
Evolution of a model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1),
28–33.
Williams, A. M., Davids, K., & Williams, J. G. (1999). Visual perception and action
in sport. London: E & FN Spon.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constuctivism in practice as the negotiation of dilem-
mas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges
facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
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.
Wulf, G., & Shea, C. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not
generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 185–211.
Xiang, P., McBride, R. E., & Solmon, M. A. (2003). Motivational climates in ten teach-
ers’ elementary physical education classes: An achievement theory approach.
Elementary School Journal, 104, 71–92.
Authors
JIA YI CHOW is a lecturer in the Physical Education and Sports Science Section of the
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk,
Singapore 637616, Singapore; email: [email protected]. He was awarded an
Overseas Graduate Scholarship from the National Institute of Education to undertake
doctoral study with University of Otago, New Zealand, in 2004. His area of specializa-
tion is in motor control and learning, with specific research interests in examining the
coordination of discrete multiarticular movement, physical education pedagogy from a
nonlinear approach, and the functional role of movement pattern variability.
KEITH DAVIDS is currently head of the School of Human Movement Studies at Queensland
University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia; email: k.davids
@qut.edu.au. He was a first-class honors graduate in education and physical education at
the University of London and gained a PhD at the University of Leeds in 1986. His main
research interests concern how theoretical ideas from ecological psychology and nonlin-
ear dynamics can be integrated into a nonlinear pedagogical framework for designing
strategies for organizing learning and teaching opportunities in physical education.
CHRIS BUTTON is a senior lecturer in motor learning in the Division of Sciences, School
of Physical Education, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; email: chris.button
@otago.ac.nz. His research interests include the control of interceptive actions, coordi-
nation variability, and decision making. A summary of much of his research can be gained
from the textbook Dynamics of Skill Acquisition (Human Kinetics, 2007).
RICK SHUTTLEWORTH is a skill acquisition specialist in the Australian Institute of Sport.
He joined the Australian Institute of Sport in 2007, coming from a university and also an
applied coaching background. His research and applied interests are dynamical systems,
coordination dynamics at the individual and team levels, decision making in sports,
constraints-led coaching, and rugby union.
IAN RENSHAW is a senior lecturer in the School of Human Movement Studies at
Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia;
email: [email protected]. His research interests include visual regulation of loco-
motion, perceptual training and the development of a nonlinear pedagogy for the teach-
ing and coaching of sport.
DUARTE ARAÚJO is an assistant professor on the Faculty of Human Kinetics at the
Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; email: [email protected]. His
research involves the study of expert decision making in sports, which led to his receiv-
ing the Young Researcher Award at the European College of Sport Science in 2001 and
at Association des Chercheurs en Activités Physiques et Sportives in 2002.
278

The Role of Nonlinear Pedagogy in Physical Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Nonlinear Pedagogy in Physical Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Nonlinear Pedagogy in Physical Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Educational Research

September 2007, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 251–278

The Role of Nonlinear Pedagogy

In physical education, the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) ped-

KEYWORDS: Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), nonlinear pedagogy,

FIGURE 2. Emergence of movement behavior from the interaction of key performer,

2. Point won only with set

FIGURE 3. Representative Teaching Games for Understanding lesson plan for

You might also like