TGfU & Mini Game Flip Book

TGfU & MINI GAME



TGfU & MINI GAME
























SANMUGA NATHAN JEGANATHAN (PhD)
Sultan Idris Education University of Malaysia


Prof. GL Khanna (PhD)
Manav Rachana Internatinal University
























RELIABLE PUBLISHING HOUSE
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

Published by




RELIABLE PUBLISHING HOUSE
A-302, Tridev Complex
Near Pavapuri Bus Stand, Ghatlodia
Ahmedabad-380061, Gujarat (India)
Tel.: 07964506032 • Mob: 09228163237



All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise without the prior written permission from the publishers.



© 2015 Publishers

TGfU & MINI GAME
ISBN–978-81-8204*******



Wholesale Distributor:
MASTER RAMESHWAR DUTT SHARMA
EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST (Regd.)
Regd. Office:
C-84, LIG Flats, Ashok Vihar Phase IV, Delhi-52
Administrative Office:
T-1, Plot No 270, Sector 29,
Gandhinagar 382030 Gujarat
Ph:8733934440, 9990803459,
Website: www.mrdsect.org,
Email: [email protected], [email protected]



Printed in India

At Balaji Offest, Shahdara Delhi (INDIA)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS





First, I would like to acknowledge the support of
Sultan Idris Education University of Malaysia, Manav
Rachana International University, Indian hockey coaches
and Indian junior hockey players for their support,
sharing their passion and enthusiasm in involving in
this research of utilizing pedagogical model of Teaching
Games for Understanding (TGfU) in the Indian hockey
coaching context. We hope that, we will continue to
conduct more research in future. I would like to give
special thanks to the Academic Sections of, Sultan Idris
Education University of Malaysia (Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris) for giving approval for a attachment stint
with Manav Rachana International University and
providing support in completing this research. Without
forgetting a special thanks to the individual of great
help, Prof. Omar Abul Kareem (UPSI, RMC Director),
Dean of the Faculty of Sports Science and Coaching
(Dr. Mohd Sani b. Madon, ex-dean Assoc. Prof Ahmad
B. Hashim), Prof. Gl Khanna (Co-researcher), Prof
Nagendralingam as well as the Indian national coaches
Mr. M.K Kaushik, Dr. Ajay Bansal and Mr. Sishial
Nigam for giving unlimited support and encouragement
in completing this research. In addition, I would like to
extend a special thanks to Dr, John Haynes (University
of New England, Australia), in validating the
interventions and Instrumentations.

— Sanmuga Nathan Jeganathan (PhD)



ABSTRACT







This study investigated the effect of pedagogical
model of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and
compared to control group labeled as Technical Model
(TM) in coaching contexts. The effectiveness of these
two pedagogical model were evaluated in term of bal
control, decision making, and skill execution on five-
versus-five mini game configuration. In addition, speed
and accuracy in executing general hockey skills as well
as pulse rate and cardiovascular fitness among India’s
junior hockey players also evaluated. The study was a
quasi-experimental equivalent pretest–posttest control
group design whereby n=30 India junior hockey players
(14–17 years old) were randomly and equally assigned
to experimental group and a control group. The TGfU
model used a tactical approach of training, whereas TM
utlised skill-based hockey training. Game observation
instrument, Henry-Freidel Field Hockey Test, Radial
Heart Measurement, and Multistage Fitness Test were
used to measure all the dependent variables. ANOVA
and ANCOVA were used to analyze the data. The results
indicated a significant difference between the TGfU and
TM pedagogical model on players’ posttest scores on
ball control, F(2, 27) = 2.31, p < 0.05; decision making,
F(2, 27) = 2.31, p < 0.05; skill execution, F(2, 27) = 2.31,
p < 0.05, on five-versus-five game play. The results

viii TGfU & MINI GAME


indicated that there was a significant difference between
TGfU and TM on players accuracy executing hockey
skills F(2,27) =18.64, p<0.05. Whereas for cardiovascular
fitness respond too indicated significant difference, F(2,
27) = 2.31, p < 0.05 at posttest. The findings revealed
the TGfU model suitable to be employed as long term
training program to improve ball control, decision
making, skill execution, accuracy executing general
hockey skills and cardiovascular fitness.
Keywords: Ball control, skill execution, decision
making, accuracy, pulse rate, cardiovascular.

CONTENTS









Acknowledgement v
Abstract vii
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii


1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Research Problem 3
1.3 Purpose of the Study 4
1.4 Research Questions 5
1.5 Hypotheses 6
1.6 Significant of the Study 7
1.7 Operational Definitions 8
1.8 Delimitation of the Study 10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 12
2.1 Introduction 12
2.2 Theoretical Framework 13
2.3 Literature Review 19
2.4 Conceptual Framework 20
2.5 Conclusion 21

x TGfU & MINI GAME


3. METHODOLOGY 22
3.1 Introduction 22
3.2 Methodology 22
3.3 Participants 23
3.4 Intervention Procedures 23
3.5 Instrumentation 30
3.6 Validity of Treatment 32
3.7 Data Analysis 35

4. RESULTS 36
4.1 Introductions 36
4.2 Five versus Five (5 vs. 5) Mini Game Play 36
4.3 Speed and Accuracy Executing General
Hockey Skills 42
4.4 Pulse-rate and Recovery 44
4.5 Cardiovascular Fitness 46

5. DISCUSSION 49
5.1 Introduction 49
5.2 Five versus Five (5 vs. 5) Mini Game
Play Configuration 49
5.3 Speed and Accuracy Executing General
Hockey Skills 51
5.4 Pulse-rate and Cardiovascular Fitness 52
5.5 Conclusion 55

References 56

Appendices 63

LIST OF FIGURES








2.1 Original Model of TGfU (Bunker & Thorpe,
1986) 14
2.2 Technical Model (TM), (Rink, 2002) 16

2.3 Conceptual Framework of TGfU and TM 20
3.1 Intervention framework for TGfU 25
3.2. Interventions framework for TM 28

4.1 Pretest results for ball control 37
4.2 Posttest results for ball control 37

4.3 Pretest results for decision making 39
4.4 Posttest results for decision making 39
4.5 Pretest results for skill execution 41

4.6 Posttest results for skill execution 41
4.7 Pretest results for speed and accuracy 43

4.8 Posttest results for speed and accuracy 43
4.9 Pretest results for V0 max 47
2
4.10 Posttest results for V0 max 47
2



LIST OF TABLES





3.1 A TGfU Training Unit 27

3.2 A Technical Model Training Unit 29
3.3 Comparison coaching process involved TGfU
and TM orientated in coaching lesson
sequence (adapted from Harvey, 2007) 33

3.4 Hypothesis and Data Analyses 34
4.1 Analyses of covariance summary for ball control 38

4.2 Estimated marginal means for ball control 38
4.3 Analyses of covariance summary for decision
making 40
4.4 Estimated marginal means for decision making 40

4.5 Analyses of covariance summary for skill
execution 42

4.6 Estimated marginal means for skill execution 42
4.7 Analyses of covariance summary for accuracy 44
4.8 Estimated marginal means for accuracy 44

4.9 Heart rate reading (pretest and posttest results) 45
4.10 Results of cardiovascular fitness (V0 max) 46
2
4.11 Analyses of covariance summary for
cardiovascular fitness (V0 max) 48
2
4.12 Estimated marginal means for cardio-vascular
fitness (V0 max) 48
2



1







INTRODUCTION








1.1 Introduction
Playing well in sports related games such hockey, players
should command high degree of game configuration and
game competence. Coaching and teaching players to
acquire high caliber of game configuration and game
competence as well as sport related motor fitness are
among many challenges faced by coaches (Rink, French
and Tjeedsma, 1996). Parameters such as tactical
decision making, speed and accuracy executing skills,
cardiovascular fitness, coordination, flexibilities,
anaerobic capacity, are important game configuration
in upgrading game performances (Drewe, 2000; Wassmer
& Mookerjee, 2002; Wilsmore & Curtis, 1992). Coaches
and physical educationist dealing with games like
hockey, soccer, basketball players need to educate their
players to have a good command of game knowledge for
quick decision-making as to “what to do” and “how to
do” in game situation as well as executing skills with
speed and accuracy at the right time in a game play

2 TGfU & MINI GAME



coupled with cardiovascular fitness (Gerhaigne, Godbout
& Bouthier, 2001; Light, 2005; Siedentop, 2001). Asian
giants in hockey such as Malaysia, India, Pakistan,
Korea and Japan in order to avoid taking a backseat at
international arena, a research-based pedagogical
approach training is essential to upgrade the players’
game configuration and performance in line as what
noted by Rink, French & Graham, (1996) and Rink
(2002).

The TGfU, was suggested as a better model of
teaching and coaching games compared to a technical
model (Hopper, 2002), however limited research has been
conducted across different age level, ability across
different cultural background.. The technical model (TM)
lessons are considered too structured, with warming up
activities and skill drills as the main components and
students lack of chances to play in game play. The
emphasis of this technical model is on acquiring technical
skills for game play, while the cognitive skills essential
for effective participation in games are often undermined
(Tuner & Martinek, 1999). As a result, it is suggested
that students fail to transfer the skill and knowledge,
tactical decision making elements of game performance
to game plays. Proponents of the TGfU model suggest
that exposing students to game like experiences early
in the teaching-learning process helps them acquire
substantive declarative and procedural knowledge,
thereby facilitating tactical decision making during game
play (Crespo, Reid & Mileyo, 2004; Grehaigne & Godbout,
1995; Mitchell, Griffin & Oslin, 1994; Turner, 1996;
Turner & Martinek, 1999; Werner, Thorpe & Bunker,
1996). Based on TGfU approaches, which advocate

INTRODUCTION 3



guided discovery method of teaching in training. On the
other hand TM utilized skill drills activities and then
followed mini game approach at the end of the lesson
also known as skill-based training approach. Therefore
based on this concept of skill-based and anecdotal
observation from Indian hocking training, Indian coaches
view, a conventional pedagogical training approach
labeled as skill-based approach know as Technical model
(TM) are predominant hockey style in India.

1.2 Research Problem

Coaching process in Indian hockey context still at large
using conventional type of training labeled as Technical
model (TM) or skill based pedagogical approaches, coach-
centered that underpin behaviorism theory. However,
there are some pioneer work has been done to incorporate
constructivism teaching model of TGfU in teaching
contexts among some Asian Countries such Singapore
and Hong Kong (Tan, 2005). While on the coaching
context, Nathan (2008) conducted earlier research in
Malaysia in the field of hockey via TGfU, while another
Malaysian Balakrishnan (2011) completed handball
research using Physical Education setting in Malaysia.
As for India, TM seemed to be the dominate pedagogical
coaching model fancied by the coaches and players.
However limited research has been conducted in coaching
context in India among young hockey players comparing
pedagogical model of Teaching Games for Understanding
(TGfU) versus skilled-based or Technical model (TM) in
hockey. Apparently research findings that utilized skilled
based or technical model (TM) indicated tiny
improvement general game skills and fitness respond in

4 TGfU & MINI GAME



games such as soccer, hockey and furthermore players
failed to transfer learned skills in a real game situation.
Whereas research findings using pedagogical model of
TGfU a tactical approach, indicated players able to make
right game decision, improving their declarative and
procedural game knowledge. However in contrast
findings of TGfU model indicated players unable
execution the skills well in game situation (Turner &
Martinek, 1999).

Briefly, TM emphasis on structural lesson of
warming up, followed by skills teaching or coaching via
skill drills activities, mini games or full games with
some tactics at end of the lesson through teachers or
coaches instruction and finally limbering down activities
and reflections. Not many researchers especially in India
have developed and investigated the effectiveness of
TGfU model which emphasizes on tactics and mini game
situation compared to TM. TM dominantly emphasizes
on coach demonstration, skill drill activities and only
little priority given to tactics towards the end of lesson.
Therefore based on the given scenario, this study
intended to investigate the effectiveness TGfU and TM
in 5 versus 5 mini game play situations in term of ball
control, decision making, skill execution players as well
as speed and accuracy of executing general hockey skills.
In addition this study intended to investigate the pulse–
rate and cardiovascular fitness (V0 max) among Indian
2
junior hockey players.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect
of TGfU model compared to TM in coaching context in

INTRODUCTION 5



term of ball control, decision making (passing, dribbling,
tackling and scoring), and skill execution (passing,
dribbling, tackling and scoring) in five (5) versus (5)
mini game situations; as well as speed and accuracy in
executing general hockey skills. In addition this research
intended to study the pulse-rate pattern as well as the
cardiovascular fitness (V0 max), among India junior
2
hockey players after 12 units of training intervention
via pedagogical model of TGfU model and TM.

1.4 Research Questions

1.4.1 Is TGFU compared to TM effective in ball
control by players with ball in 5 vs. 5 mini
game situations before and after
interventions among Indian junior hockey
players?

1.4.2 Is TGfU compared to TM model effective in
decision making (passing, dribbling, tackling
and scoring) players with the ball in 5vs. 5
mini game situations before and after
interventions among Indian Junior hockey
players?
1.4.3 Is TGfU compared to TM effective in skill
execution (passing, dribbling, tackling and
scoring) players with the ball in 5vs. 5 mini
game situations before and after
interventions among Indian junior hockey
players?

1.4.4 Is TGfU compared to TM effective in speed
of executing general hockey skill before and
after interventions among Indian junior

6 TGfU & MINI GAME



hockey players?
1.4.5 Is TGfU compared to TM effective in
accuracy of executing general hockey general
skill before and after interventions among
Indian hockey players?

1.4.6 Is TGfU compared to TM effective in pulse-
rate and cardiovascular fitness (V0 max)
2
before and after interventions among India
junior hockey players?


1.5 Hypotheses
H : There is no significant difference between
0(1)
TGfU compared to TM effective in ball
control players with the ball in 5 vs. 5 mini
game situations before and after
interventions among Indian junior hockey
players?

H 0(2) : There is no significant difference TGfU
compared to TM model effective in decision
making (passing, dribbling, tackling and
scoring) players with the ball in 5 vs. 5 mini
game situations before and after
interventions among Indian Junior hockey
players?
H : There is no significant difference between
0(3)
TGfU compared to TM effective in skill
execution (passing, dribbling, tackling and
scoring) players with the ball in 5vs 5 mini
game situations before and after
interventions among Indian junior hockey
players?

INTRODUCTION 7



H : There is no significant difference between
0(4)
TGfU compared to TM effective in speed of
executing general hockey general skill before
and after interventions among Indian junior
hockey players?
H 0(5) : There is no significant difference between
TGfU compared to TM effective in accuracy
of executing general hockey skill before and
after interventions among Indian junior
hockey players?
H : There is no significant difference TGfU
0(6)
compared to TM effective in Pulse-rate and
cardiovascular fitness (V0 max) before and
2
after interventions among India junior
hockey players?


1.6 Significant of the Study
1.6.1 To investigate the effectiveness pedagogical
model of TGfU and TM in coaching context
using Indian junior hockey players, in term
of ball control, decision making, skill
execution in 5 vs. 5 game play, speed and
accuracy executing general hockey skills,
pulse-rate and cardiovascular fitness
respond. Limited research so far have been
done in hockey especially using Indian
hockey players in India

1.6.3 Findings of the present study will contribute
in enhancing TGfU as pedagogical model
especially suitable in coaching context.
Furthermore, it probably will guide India

8 TGfU & MINI GAME



coaches and teachers to further conduct
research and utilized the TGfU model in
coaching context especially in hockey
training.

1.7 Operational Definitions

1.7.1: TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding).
This study employed original pedagogical
model of TGfU as underpinning theory in
designating 5 weeks hockey intervention in
coaching context among Indian junior
hockey players. The coaching approach using
mini game situations and instructions in
form of guided discovery approach of
teaching

1.7.2: TM (Technical Model). This model developed
using technical model approach
(Conventional pedagogical approach of
training) using skill drills and some
elements of tactical via mini game activities
towards end of a lesson or training stint.
This pedagogical model emphasizes on a lot
of skill drills activities and some form mini
game or full game situations at the end of
the lessons. The coaching lesson utilizing
direct instruction by the teachers or coaches
using command and practice styles of
instruction.

1.7.3: Mini game play. In this study modified small
sided of game using 5 vs.5 approaches were
used, whereby tactics and skilled taught by
guided discovery method of instructions

INTRODUCTION 9



1.7.4: Ball control. In this study ball control meant
as a skill action whereby a good ball control
indicated when a player able to stop and
control the ball before releasing the ball to
his teammates. The ball control performance
were coded 5,4,3,2 for successfully (5- very
effective performance; 4-effective perfor-
mance, usually; 3-moderately effective
performance, sometimes; 2-very weak
performance and 1(very weak performance,
never) for unsuccessful

1.7.5: Decision making in this study indicated
when players able make right cognitive
decision whether to pass, dribble, tackle and
score wherever necessary. These decision
making performance were coded 5,4,3,2 for
successfully (5- very effective performance;
4-effective performance, usually; 3-
moderateely effective performance, some-
times; 2-very weak performance and 1(very
weak performance, never) for unsuccessful

1.7.6: Skill execution in this study indicated when
players able to execute pass, dribble, tackle
and scoring skills with proper techniques.
These skill performance were coded 5,4,3,2
for successfully (5- very effective
performance; 4-effective performance,
usually; 3-moderateely effective perfor-
mance, sometimes; 2-very weak performance
and 1 (very weak performance, never) for
unsuccessful

10 TGfU & MINI GAME



1.7.7: Pulse-rate measurement Wrist radial
palpitation method was used to take pulse
rate at three different intervals to measure
recovery: (a) before mini game (warm-up
pulse rate), (b) immediately after mini game,
and (c) after 3 min of mini game play. The
pulse was taken for 10 seconds x 6 (for a 1-
min pulse rate reading).

1.7.8 Cardiovascular respond. As for
cardiovascular respond, this research
utilized MSFT instrument, developed by
Leger and Lambert (1983) to monitors the
development of the athlete’s maximum
oxygen uptake (VO max). This test requires
2
the athlete to run 20 m in time with a beep
from a CD recording.


1.8 Delimitation of the Study
There are several limitations to this research. The scope
of the research is on what is measurable and observable
parameters of 5 vs.5 game play (ball control, decision
making and skill execution), speed and accuracy
executing hockey skills, pulse-rate and cardiovascular
fitness (V02 max) among Indian junior hockey players
who trains at national hockey stadium at New Delhi,
India. This games coaching/training research is carried
out with the cooperation of sample of Indian junior
hockey players (boys 14-16 year old) who agree to
participate in the quasi-experimental study. As the
researcher deals with human beings, a number of ethical
concerns have been considered.

O
I
N
C
T
N
D
U
O
T
R
I
INTRODUCTION 11
The study employed intact random sampling all the
samples of Indian junior hockey players were selected
either in TGfU or TM group. The study limits the
intervention of TGfU and TM to 5 weeks and research
design and statistically techniques of covariate was used
to counter inter and external outliers. Coding rating
scale of 1,2,3,4 and 5 used in Games observational
Instrument adapted from Turner and Martinek (1999)
and adapted from Mitchell, Oslin and Griffin (2005)
rating scale also has several limitations. The observer
may have a tendency to rate a player inaccurately in
term of ball control, decision making, and skill execution
However to minimize this halo effect, the principle
researcher employed inter observer agreements (IOA)
strategy.

12 TGfU & MINI GAME








2






LITERATURE REVIEW








2.1 Introduction

Another alternative seriously should be considered by
coaches in sports and games contexts in utilizing the
pedagogical theory, model and principle developed by
physical educationist to optimize the sports and games
performances. Teaching Games for Understanding
(TGfU) seems to be versatile model that can be utilized
in the coaching context. The original model of TGfU
which underpins Constructivism theory, a tactical
approach model proposed by Bunker and Thorpe (1986)
constitute many elements that could be utilize in
upgrading and optimize games performance through
small sided game (Mandigo & Holt, 2002; Turner &
Martinek, 1999). Whereas many part of the world still
at large practicing conventional or traditionally the
technical or skill based model underpins behavioral
theory in games and sport teaching and coaching context.
According to Pill (2011) sports are broken down into
their component skills and these are then taught,

LITERATURE REVIEW 13



gradually using skill-based approach. This technical or
skill-based approach, developed after World War 2,
taught the skills isolated from the game and then the
skills and the game are put back together. Well, this
study examined the original model of TGfU competed to
Technical Model (TM) predominately using skill drills
activities in five versus five mini game performance (Ball
control, decision making and skill execution),, speed and
accuracy executing general hockey skills, pulse-rate and
cardiovascular respond among India junior hockey
players..


2.2 Theoretical Framework
Coaches often fail to understand the relevance and
importance of pedagogical theory for their work or
studies, be it practical coaching, hands-ob-teaching and
learning. However in coaching context, pedagogical
approach is based upon some sort underpinning theory.
Here we discuss Teaching Games for Understanding
model contains many attributes of constructivism theory,
and Technical model underpins behavioral theory.

2.2.1 TGfU Model

The TGfU as a pedagogical model was first coined at
Loughborough University in late 1960s, in response to
concerns that children were leaving school with: (a) little
success due to the emphasis on performance; (b) knowing
very little about game; (c) some supposed skills, but in
fact possessing inflexible techniques and poor decision-
making capacity; dependence on the coach/teacher; and
(e) little development as thinking spectators and knowing
administrators (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986, Nathan, 2008).

14 TGfU & MINI GAME



TGfU was proposed as an alternative to the
traditional skill approached because it was noted that
the traditional skill approach practiced in isolation and
did not transfer the games learning (Bunker & Thorpe,
1986). In addition Bunker and Thorpe (1986) observed
and believe this is still the same today that “games
teaching shows at best, a series of highly structured
lesson leaning heavily on the teaching of technique or
at worst lessons which rely on the children themselves
to sustain interest in the game (Nathan, 2008;
Balakrishnan 2011). This approach is contrast to
traditional linear approaches of skill drills or technical
model, which focus on technical development before
applying these techniques to game situation (Hopper,
2002; Martin & Gaskin, 2004)
Tactical model of Teaching Games for Understanding
(TGfU) contains many attributes of constructivism, a



(1)
GAME


(2) GAME (6)

APPRECI PERFORM
ATION ANCE
LEAR
NER



(3) (4) MAKING (5) SKILL
TACTIC APPROPRIATE EXECUT
AL DECISIONS ION


WHAT HOW
TO DO? TO DO?

Figure 2.1: Original Model of TGfU
(Bunker & Thorpe, 1986)

LITERATURE REVIEW 15



cognitive learning theory that allows learners to make
new learning from previous knowledge in attempt to
foster understanding-not just the simple recall of
memorized facts or the execution of static skills only.
As noted by Light (2005) Constructivism adopts a holistic
view of learning and cognition that extends beyond the
mind as a separate entity to include the body and all its
senses. From a constructivist perspective, cognition
occurs not only in the mind, but is embodied. Therefore
teaching game for understanding via game situations is
a process of holistic learning. A constructivist view of
learning sees it as a process of adapting to and fitting
into a constantly changing world. Therefore playing game
situations even though its mini game situations, the
situation changes, therefore by playing games situations
holistic learning occurs engagement learners through
perception, motor action and bodily senses

The use of tactical problem in situated game forms
and the emphasis on cognitive learning before motor
performance. TGFU is a cyclical approach which places
skill learning within its game content via game situations
and allows students to see relevance of the skills to game
situations, in order to gain an understanding on how to
play the game and suggested better model (Bunker &
Thorpe, 1986) as illustrate in figure 2.1. As noted Griffin
and Paton (2005), the original model presented by Bunker
and Thorpe (1982) is a step-by-step procedural models
for students or players to become skillful games players.
The model consists of six steps namely, step 1:
understanding game form, step 2: game appreciation,
step 3: tactical awareness, step 4 : making appropriate
decision , what tactics to use and how to do it, step 5 :how

16 TGfU & MINI GAME



to execute skill execution and finally step 6: upgrading
game performance by adapting all the steps. Based on
the original TGfU model, a simplified pedagogical model
was created, known as Tactical Game Model (TGM), by
Mitchell, Oslin & Griffin, (2005) advocates the invasion
game framework of scoring, preventing scoring and
restarting play by players on ball and players without
ball (Mitchell, Oslin & Griffin, 2005).


2.2.2 Technical Model (TM)
This research utilized the pedagogical framework of skill
development known as Technical Model (TM) outlined
by Rink (2002). She outlined four stages in skill
development and tactical development, with giving
attention to skill first and then tactical as illustrated in
figure 2.2. Stage one (1) the ability to control the object
(example: roll and tap in ball control hockey, stage two
(2) execution skills in combination (example, passing
and dribbling in hockey), stage three (3) basic offensive


Stage one (1)
Ability to control the object

Stage two (2)
Execution skills in combination

Stage three (3)
Basic offensive and defensive strategy

Stage four (4)
Modified games or full games

Figure 2.2: Technical Model (TM), (Rink, 2002)

LITERATURE REVIEW 17



and defensive strategy (example, one-on-one but no
shooting at goals and stage four (4) modified games
with changes in rules, boundaries, players or playing
full game.
The technical model or skilled-based learning
underpins behaviorism theory. As Light (2005) noted
that behaviorism theory focuses on gross body behavior;
therefore the behaviorism requires a highly structured
and technical lessons pedagogical approach. Behaviorist
conceives of cognition and learning as being mechanical
processes and strives to understand learning by reducing
to simplest components. As skilled-based approach
focuses on body in terms of observable measurements.
Again Light (2005) argued, game players need to develop
fundamental movement skills before embarking to a
more complex movement of game play, as this indicated
skill-based approach too vital in developing fundamental
as prerequisite for game play.
The common practice of coaches and teachers using
traditional skill approach is called as direct instructional
approach (Metzler, 2005). It is characterized by coach or
teacher-centered decision and coaches and teachers
directed engagement patterns for learners. In this
approach, (1) the coach has a clear set of learning goals,
(2) presents the players with the desired movement,
skill or concept, and (3) organizes the activities into
blocks of time that are arranged to provide high rates of
feedback during practice. This approach focuses on giving
the students as many practice opportunities as possible
so that the coach or teacher can observe the skill
attempts and provide high frequencies of appropriate
feedback (Metzler, 2005; Turner & Martinek, 1999)

18 TGfU & MINI GAME



The technical model (TM) lessons are considered
too structured, with warming up activities and skill drills
as the main components and students lack of chances to
play in game play. The emphasis of this technical model
is on acquiring technical skills for game play, while the
cognitive skills essential for effective participation in
games are often undermined (Turner & Martinek, 1999).
The technical model follows the following structure: first
with warm-up, skill development, modified game, and
then the actual game. As a result, it is suggested that
students fail to transfer the skill and knowledge, tactical
decision making elements of game performance to game
play.

Technical model assumes there is only one right
way to perform a skill, but we know from observation of
elite sports people that they don’t kick the ball or swing
the racquet frequently like the ideal model. Successful
sport athletes often do not have perfect stylized
technique, frequently having individual technique
differences and successful unorthodoxies. The other
problem with this technical approach is that the thinking
and problem solving aspects required for successful game
performance are not central to the initial learning as
the technical requirements are isolated from the game
in skill drills. This traditional technical approach begins
with the question, “How is this skill performed?” and
then focuses on teaching the skills of the game before
putting the skills into practice. It conditions participants
to attention technique during activity and not the joy of
being active. The reality is that the majority of players
wishes to play and have fun, and so coaching with
excessive emphasis on the technical requirements of the

LITERATURE REVIEW 19



game tends to lessen motivation and enjoyment (Pill,
2012)


2.3 Literature Review
Research on using the TGfU model showed that this
model was effective in hockey (Nathan, 2008; Turner,
1996; Turner & Martinek, 1999), tennis (Crespo, Reid &
Miley, 2000), basketball and hockey (Light & Fawns,
2003), basketball (Nevett, Rovengno, Babiaz &
McCaughtry, 2001), especially in game components like
ball control, decision making on tactical elements of the
games, as well as in upgrading declarative and
procedural knowledge (French, Werner, Rink & Taylor,
1996; Tuner & Martinek, 1996).

Whereas a number of research using technical
approach via style B, E and H of the Mosston’s Spectrum
of teaching styles in sports like shooting, karate, hockey,
volleyball, skill-related components improved
significantly (Boyce, 1992; Goldberger & Gurney 1986;
Harrison, Fellingham, Buck & Pellet, 1995; Goldberger
& Howarth, 1993; Nathan, 2008).
Research on sports and games training detected the
importance of components such as tactics, skills, speed,
coordination, flexibilities, aerobic, anaerobic, as well as
speed and accuracy (Drewe, 2000; Wassmer & Mookerjee,
2002; Wilsmore & Curtis, 1992). Findings too indicated
speed and accuracy to be an important element in scoring
goal in hockey game (Aziz, Chia & Teh, 2000; Wassmer
& Mookerjee, 2002). As Chelly et al. (2010) findings
have indicated sprinting ability is correlated with
measures of leg power.

20 TGfU & MINI GAME



2.4 Conceptual Framework
This study investigated the effect of pedagogical model
of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and control
group labeled as Technical Model (TM) as independent
variables, Whereas, mini game performance of ball
control, decision making (passing, tackling, dribbling,
scoring), skill execution (passing, tackling, dribbling,
scoring), speed and accuracy executing general, pulse
rate and cardiovascular fitness (V02 max) served as the
dependent variables were undergone pretest and
posttest. Figure 2.3 illustrate the conceptual framework
independent variables and dependent variables


VARIABLES (DV) INTERVENTION (IV) VARIABLES (DV)

(a) 5 vs. 5 mini TGfU components
game play (a) Six steps from TGfU (a) 5 vs. 5 mini
model game play
- Ball Control and
plus TGM components - Ball Control
-Decision making (b) scoring, prevention of -Decision making
scoring, restarting play
- Skill execution
from TGM -Skill execution

(b) Genera hockey
skills (b) Genera
hockey skills
Speed and accuracy
Speed and
(c) Fitness accuracy
TM
-pulse rate (c) Fitness
a. Skill drills scoring
b. Skill drills prevention
-Cardiovascular -pulse rate
fitness of Scoring
c. Skill drills restarting -Cardiovascular
play, push in and hit fitness
in.

Figure 2.3: Conceptual Framework of TGfU and TM

LITERATURE REVIEW 21



2.5 Conclusion
The chapter two has discussed about the underpinning
theories and literature reviews that support the
developments of conceptual framework as the backbone
of this study

22 TGfU & MINI GAME








3






METHODOLOGY








3.1 Introduction

This chapter explains research methodology,
participants, measurements, reliability and validity of
instruments, intervention and data analyses procedure.
It took more than six months in conducting the process
of validation and reliability procedures. The actual
research intervention process was implemented for the
duration of 7 weeks


3.2 Methodology
The main methodology that proposed in this research is
Quasi-experimental balanced group design pre and
posttest to determine the effect of TGfU compared to
TM on five (5) versus five (5) mini game performance of
ball control, decision making (passing, tackling,
dribbling, shooting), and skill execution (passing,
tackling, dribbling, shooting). As well as speed and
accuracy executing general hockey general skills, pulse-
rate and cardiovascular fitness.

METHODOLOGY 23



3.3 Participants
The samples consists of n = 30, India’s junior hockey
academic players aged 14-17 years old that were selected
out randomly from total of n= 45 players using simple
random technique and assigned equally into groups of
TGfU, n = 15 and TM, n = 15. The players had some
experience playing hockey using indigenous and skill
based approach. Informed consent was obtained from
all n= 30 samples and their parents or guardians through
their coaches.

3.4 Intervention Procedures

The training units of TGfU and TM were validated by
two Indian national senior hockey coaches (MK Kaushik
and Dr. Ajay Bansal). Two qualified and experienced
hockey coaches were selected to train the samples using
the two models. In order to maintain the fidelity in
implementation of these models, following steps were
taken. A simultaneous briefing session was conducted
on how to implement these two different models, by the
principal researcher. The two coaches were given
modules and checklist on implementing two training
models. A pre training stint was conducted by researcher
on implementation of these training intervention and
method on carrying out all the required test of measures.
A preliminary interview was conducted by the principal
researcher to make sure these teachers conducted the
training units accordingly.

The players underwent three training session per
week (1 hour per session) for five weeks (5) as training
intervention. Group A has undergone TGfU model using

24 TGfU & MINI GAME



guided approach, players centered approach of training,
while group B has gone through TM, a direct instruction
approach and coach centered training model. The TGfU
model employed mini games situations as main activities
to improve student’s tactical strategy, physical
conditioning and skill components of the game. Whereas
TM the players undergo skill demonstration, skill drills
method and mini game play towards end of each lesson.
The implementation of these two models was based on
sports training principle and motor learning principle
(Bompa, 1999; Fitts & Posner, 1967).


3.4.1 TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding)
The original TGfU model based on six steps of original
model of TGfU model (Bunker & Thrope, 1982) in
teaching TGfU were used, (1) game form, (2) game
appreciation, (3) tactical awareness, (4) making
appropriate decisions, (5) skill execution and finally, (6)
performance is based the whole process (Griffin &
Patton, 2005) using mini games situations as main
activities. In the treatment intervention apart from TGfU
model, the research too utilized the Tactical Game Model
(TGM) by Mitchell, Oslin & Griffin (2005) a simple
framework advocate tactical elements of scoring,
preventing scoring and restart play in invasion game
context.
This present intervention of TGfU model in this
study developed using the original TGfU model and
combined with Tactical Game model (TGM) for invasion
game by Mitchell, Oslin & Griffin, (2005) in coaching
context. Previous research was conducted in physical
education context independently via original TGfU model

METHODOLOGY 25



In this intervention model of TGfU, six steps of
TGfU (game, game appreciation, tactical awareness,
decision making, skill execution and performance) were
interwoven with attacking strategy (maintaining ball
possessions, attacking towards go, creating space),
defending strategy or preventing scoring (defending
space, defending the goal, winning the ball) and
restarting strategy (push in and hit in for hockey and
varies according to different game) from TGM especially
at step 4 and 5 of original TGfU (“what to do, how to do”
and skill execution). Moreover since this research deals
in coaching contexts, the sports training principle too
were included as in Figure 3.1 illustrates the
intervention framework for TGfU in this present study..
The training intensity was kept 70-90%. in term of
volume and with intensity at 55-70% intensity for
intervention week of 1, 2 and 3, whereas for weeks 4
and 5 volume was reduced 55 % and intensity was
increased to 75-85 for peaking purpose.


(1) GAME

(2) GAME (6)
APPRECI PERFORMANCE
ATION LEARNER

(3) TACTICAL (4) MAKING APPROPRIATE (5) SKILL
AWARENESS DECISIONS EXECUTION

WHAT TO DO? HOW TO DO?


i. ATTACKING STRATEGY
ii. DEFENDING STRATEGY
iii. RESTARTING STRATEGY

TRAINING PRINCIPLES

Figure 3.1: Intervention framework for TGfU

26 TGfU & MINI GAME



TGfU model is a tactical approach on ‘what to do’
and ‘how to do’ – more to guided discovery and purely
was used in mini game situations (Bunker & Thorpe,
1986). The training units were carried in the following
sequence over period of 5 weeks. Firstly with warming
up session (10-12 minutes), followed with short briefing
on tactical topic, continuing with game situation 1 (12-
14 minutes), and then short briefing with short recovery,
followed by game situation 2 (12-14 minutes) and finally
limbering own and feedback activities (7-10 minutes).
The TGfU lessons was be carried out using tactical
approach of scoring, prevention of scoring and restarting
of play via guided problem solving method. The training
units were divided into scoring tactics, prevention tactics
and restarting play tactics. Each training unit used
guided discovery method. As illustrated in Table 3.1,
indicates training objectives and the training content of
TGfU model while Appendix 1, for daily training units

3.4.2 Technical Model (TM)

While the TM (skilled-based model) or the control group
is another independent variable in this study as illustrate
in figure 3.2 intervention framework for TM. The TM
training predominantly conceptualized based on four
stage skill development proposed by Rink (2002) which
focuses on skill development and then tactics. As for
tactics concern the TM model adapted framework of
scoring, preventing scoring and restart play as proposed
by Mitchell, Oslin & Griffin, (2005). Herein TM model
skills of the players were development first using skill
drills activities and then moved to some form of mini
game activities and full game activities at end of each

METHODOLOGY 27



Table 3.1: A TGfU Training Unit

A TGfU training unit
Lesson Focus: Passing and receiving balls

Objectives :

1. Make 5 accurate and firm short passes in game
situations
2. Use one touch to control and set up next move

Activities : Game situations 1 (with one touch)

Organization: Mini Game Task
• Guided Discovery Approach: Discussion

• Q: What must you do in the game to maintain ball
possessions?
• A: Keep the ball
• Q: How can keep the ball?
• A: Pass

Activities: Game situation 2 (with more than one touch)

Organization: Mini Game Task

• Approach: Discussion
• Q: What must you do in the game to maintain ball
possessions?
• A: Keep the ball

• Q: How can keep the ball?
• A: Pass as well as receiving ball with proper technique

28 TGfU & MINI GAME



lesson. Skill development such basic ball control drills,
executing skills combination drills, simple game strategy
play such as one-on-one were introduced gradually before
they play mini game and full game activities with tactics.
Similar with the model of TGfU, the sports training
principle too were included. The training intensity were
kept 70-90%. in term of volume and with intensity at
55-70% intensity for intervention week of 1, 2 and 3,
whereas for weeks 4 and 5 volume was reduced 55 %
and intensity was increased to 75-85 for peaking purpose.
The TM predominantly using combination of skill
drills activities and towards end utilizing tactical
approach mini game situation. Skill drills activities based
on technical model proposed by Rink (2002) as in
conceptual framework that emphasizes the importance




Stage 1: Ability to control the object
Stage 2: Execution skills in combination
Stage 3: Basic offensive and defensive strategy
Stage 4: Modified games or full games



i. Attacking strategy
ii. Defending strategy
iii. Restarting strategy




Training principles



Figure 3.2. Interventions framework for TM

METHODOLOGY 29



of teaching and learning skills prior game play through
skill drills practice (French, Werner, Rink & Taylor,
1996). While the training units topic based on lesson for
invasion game framework of scoring. Prevention of
scoring and restarting play (Mitchell, Oslin & Griffin,
2005). As illustrated in table 3.2, listed a training unit
that indicates training objectives and the training
content of TM, refer Appendix 2 for daily training units.



Table 3.2: A Technical Model Training Unit


Coach Centered Approach focusing skill development

Lesson Focus: Passing and receiving balls
Objectives:

1. Players able to make 8-10 accurate and firm short passes
in pair work in skill drills activities
2. Able to apply accurate short passes from skill drills
activities in small sided game
Activities : Skill Drills
Organization: Pair work Task

• Approach: Coach centered via Command style
• Execute at least 8 firm short passes with proper
technique
Activities: Small sided game (with more than one touch)
Organization: 5 vs. 5

• Approach: Coach direct the players firm short passes in
small sided game (5 vs. 5)
• Emphases on proper technique with speed and accuracy

30 TGfU & MINI GAME



3.5 Instrumentation
The study utilized the following instruments to measure
the effect of interventions on all the dependent variables.
(i) Game Play Observational Instrument to measure ball
control, decision making and skill execution, (ii). Henry
Friedel Field Hockey test to measure, speed and accuracy
of executing general hockey skills, (iii). Radial heat-rate
measurement was use to measure heart-rate and Multi-
Stage Fitness Test (Bleep Test) was used to measure
cardiovascular fitness among the Indian hockey players.

3.5.1 Game Play Observational Instrument

This study adopted no habitual game play observational
instrument used by Turner and Martinek (1999) and
adapted by permission from Mitchell, Oslin and Griffin
(2005) to evaluate ball control decision making and skill
execution. The dependent variables of ball control,
decision making, and skill execution players were coded
5,4,3,2 for successfully (5- very effective performance; 4-
effective performance, usually; 3-moderateely effective
performance, sometimes; 2-very weak performance and
1(very weak performance, never) for unsuccessful ball
control skill, decision making (dribbling, tackling,
passing and scoring) and skill execution (dribbling,
tackling, passing and scoring), refer appendix 3 for Game
Play Observational Instrument. This adopted game
observation instrument was validated by John Haynes
(PhD) from University New England, Australia and
made some correction as suggested by Haynes (refer
Appendix 3).
An experienced and qualified Indian hockey coach
was trained to code all the dependent variables using

METHODOLOGY 31



game play observational instrument by watching all two
video tape of 5 versus 5 game play situations. As for
inter coder reliability, based on the 20 players featured
in three game situations of 5 versus 5 the agreements
between the coder and principal researcher were 89%
for ball control, 81% for decision making and 88% for
skill execution and supporting role 89%


3.5.2 Henry Freidel Field Hockey Test (H.F.F.H.T)
This research used Henry Freidel Field Hockey Test
(H.F.F.H.T) adapted from Turner and Martinek (1999)
and Nathan (2008) was used to measure general field
hockey tests in speed and accuracy of executing hockey
skills. This test incorporated the skills of ball control,
dribbling, tackling, evading an opponent and shooting.
The reliability using H.F.E.H.T in Malaysian
environment (secondary school boys) was calculated
using Cronbach’s alpha at .81 for speed of execution
and .72 for accuracy of executing skill using Malaysian
secondary school students (Nathan, 2008).


3.5.3 Radial Heart Measurement
Wrist radial palpitation method was used to take pulse
at three different intervals to measure recovery: (a)
before mini game (warm-up pulse rate), (b) immediately
after mini game, and (c) after 3 min of mini game play.
The pulse was taken for 10 s x 6 (for a 1-min pulse rate
reading).


3.5.4 Multi-Stage Fitness Test (Bleep Test)
MSFT, developed by Leger and Lambert (1982), monitors
the development of the athlete’s maximum oxygen

32 TGfU & MINI GAME



uptake (VO2max). This test requires the athlete to run
20 m in time with a beep from a CD recording. The
athlete must place one foot on or beyond the 20-m marker
at the end of each shuttle. The assistant starts the CD,
and the athlete commences the test. If the athlete fails
to reach the end of the shuttle before the beep, they
should be allowed two or three further shuttles to regain
the required pace before being withdrawn. The research
assistant records the level and number of shuttles
completed at that level by the athlete when they are
withdrawn.


3.6 Validity of Treatment
The confirm hybrid TGfU model and the Technical model
as valid training program, the principal researcher and
team researchers have conducted some preliminary
studies in hockey as well badminton across India and
Malaysia
These two training approaches were adapted using
protocol implemented by Harvey (2007). In the TGfU
model the player is placed at the center of the learning
process, which immediately affords the learner a more
holistic view of the game. When playing games or a
game form, it is hoped that players then develop an
appreciation for the hockey game and learn the rules
alongside with the tactics/strategies needed so they can
develop tactical awareness in order to make effective
decisions to solve certain problems the game poses. Once
decisions (what to do) have been made (e.g., which
technique to use), players would then execute the
technique (when and how to do it) in the game context
(skill). If they execute the appropriate technique(s)

METHODOLOGY 33



effectively and at/in the correct time frame, they improve
the game performance. When using TGfU, the coach
starts the session with a game (stage c) and d) refer
Table 3. 3 of the TM-orientated lesson) and only when
the teacher/coach and/or students see the need for the
themselves to learn the skills of the game are they
introduced to them (stages 5 and 6 in Figure 2. 1). While
TM more to technique orientated approach of training
where the coach start the game with warm-up, technique
drills or skill drills, modified game or full game and
limbering down, reflection as well. Table 3.3 illustrate
these two model approach in training hockey at piloting
stage


Table 3.3: Comparison coaching process involved TGfU
and TM orientated in coaching lesson sequence
(adapted from Harvey, 2007)


Format of a TGFU training Format of a Technical training
Lesson Sequence in hockey Lesson Sequence in hockey

a) Specific Warm-Up–Game a) Conventional Warm-Up
form
b) Game (Always Start b) TechniqueSkill drills
with a gameform)
c) Questions & Challenges c) Modified Game – coach
adopting tactical approach
d) Game d) Game
e) Further Questions &
Challenges
f) Progression of Game
g) Repeat Cycle

34 TGfU & MINI GAME



Table 3.4: Hypothesis and Data Analyses

Hypothesis Construct Data Data Analyses
Technique
H : There is no significant difference TGfU, Mean,
0(1)
between TGFU compared to TM TM SDANOVA/ANCOVA
effective in ball control players with the Ball
ball in 5 vs. 5 mini game situations control
before and after interventions among
Indian junior hockey players?
H : There is no significant difference TGfU, TM Mean,
0(2)
TGFU compared to TM model effective Decision SDANOVA/ANCOVA
in decision making (passing, dribbling, making
tackling and scoring) players with the
ball in 5 vs. 5 mini game situations
before and after interventions among
Indian Junior hockey players?
H : There is no significant difference TGfU, Mean,
0(3)
between TGFU compared to TM TM SDANOVA/ANCOVA
effective in skill execution (passing,
Skill
dribbling, tackling and scoring) players execution
with the ball in 5vs 5 mini game
situations before and after
interventions among Indian junior
hockey players
H : There is no significant difference TGfU, Mean,
0 (4)
between TGFU compared to TM TM SDANOVA/ANCOVA
effective in speed of executing hockey Speed
general skill before and after
interventions among Indian junior
hockey players?
H : There is no significant difference TGfU, Mean,
0(5)
between TGFU compared to TM TM SDANOVA/ANCOVA
effective in accuracy of executing hockey Accuracy
general skill before and after
interventions among Indian junior
hockey players?
H : There is no significant difference TGfU, Mean,
0 (6)
TGFU compared to TM effective in TM SDANOVA/ANCOVA
Pulse-rate and cardiovascular fitness Accuracy
(V0 max) before and after interventions
2
among India junior hockey players?