TGfU & Mini Game Flip Book

METHODOLOGY 35



3.7 Data Analysis
The dependent variables for 5 versus 5 game play for
ball control, decision making (passing, dribbling, tackling
and scoring) and skill execution (passing, dribbling,
tackling and scoring) were calculated with total marks
based on successful and unsuccessful responses (5-1
mark range) for each dependent variable of game play.
While for general hockey skill speed and accuracy was
analyzed based on speed score represented in time and
accuracy was a total score out of nine marks. While for
pulse-rate measurement was calculated using Redial-
heart rate per minute. On the other hand cardiovascular
fitness was analyzed using V0 max (converted from
2
multistage bleep test). The effect of the TGfU and TM
training model at pretest and posttest were analyzed
using SPSS version 19, using ANOVA as table 3.4. In
addition ANCOVA (as pretest score was used as
covariate) and were used to confirm the results when
there were significant difference at base line level. While
hypotheses testing with alpha set at 0.05

36 TGfU & MINI GAME








4






RESULTS








4.1 Introductions

Chapter four (4) reports the result of effectiveness TGfU
and TM pedagogical model in term of ball control,
decision making, skill execution in five versus five mini
game play, speed and accuracy executing general hockey
skills, pulse-rate reading as well as cardiovascular
respond among India’s junior hockey before and after
the training interventions.


4.2 Five Versus Five (5 vs. 5) Mini Game Play
The ANOVA test indicated there was no significant
difference between TGfU and the TM training model on
ball control in five-versus-five game play at pretest, F(1,
28) = 1.61, p > 0.05 (TGfU, M/SD: 7.07 ± 6.98, n = 15, and
TM, M/SD: 6.98 ± 4.20, n = 15). However, posttest results
indicated significant difference between TGfU (M/SD:
9.01 ± 8.97) and the TM (M/SD: 3.07 ± 1.09), F(1, 28) =
6.46, p < 0.05. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 indicates the mean and
standard deviation for ball control at pretest and posttest

RESULTS 37



levels. TGfU seems to be a significantly better training
model after training intervention based on mean score.
This result was confirmed using ANCOVA, which also
indicated significant difference between the two models
in ball control, F(2, 27) = 2.31, p < 0.05. The results of
ANCOVA are presented in Table 4.1, and the estimated
marginal means for the ball control posttest are presented
in Table 4.2



60

40
TGfU
20
TM
0
Mean SD



Figure 4.1. Pretest results for ball control


60


40
TGfU
20
TM
0

Mean SD


Figure 4.2. Posttest results for ball control

38 TGfU & MINI GAME



Table 4.1: Analyses of covariance summary for ball
control

Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig
Group 316.75 1 316.75 7.98 0.10



Table 4.2: Estimated marginal means for ball control

95% Confidence Interval
Model Mean SE Lower Bound Upper Bound

TGFU 9.375 a 1.65 5990 12.759
TM 2.692 a 1.65 –.693 6.072


As for overall decision making (passing, dribbling,
tackling and scoring), ANOVA indicated no significant
difference between TGfU and TM training model at
pretest, F(1,28)=5.63, p<0.05 (TGfU, M/SD: 4.43±4.13,
n = 15 and Technical (TM), M/SD : 2.72±1.92, n=15).
However overall posttests, result for decision making
indicated the was significant difference between TGfU,
(M/SD: 7.35±6.47,n=15) and Technical model (M/SD:
2.97±3.06), n = 15 F(1,28)=5.63, p<0.05. Figure 4.3 and
4.4 indicated the mean and SD for decision making at
pretest and posttest level, TGfU seems to be significantly
better training model after training intervention based
on mean score. This result was confirmed using analysis
covariate (ANCOVA) too indicated significant difference
between these two models in for overall decision making,
F(2,27) =2.31, p<0.05. The results of ANCOVA presented
in Table 4.3 and the estimated marginal means for
posttest decision making presented in Table 4.4

RESULTS 39




50

40

30
TGfU
20
TM
10

0
Mean SD




Figure 4.3. Pretest results for decision making


50

40

30
TGfU
20
TM
10

0
Mean SD



Figure 4.4. Posttest results for decision making

40 TGfU & MINI GAME



Table 4.3: Analyses of covariance summary for decision
making

Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig
Group 123.33 1 123.33 4.670 0.44

**p<0.05
Table 4.4: Estimated marginal means for decision
making

95% Confidence Interval
Model Mean SE Lower Bound Upper Bound
TGFU 7.255 a 1.35 4.46 10.02
TM 3.06 a 1.35 –.296 5.83


Univariate ANOVA, F(1,28)=.3.91, p>0.05 indicated
for overall skill execution (passing, dribbling, tackling
and scoring) at pretest indicated no significant difference
between TGfU (M/SD: 3.82±2.56) and Technical training
model (TM) (M/SD:2.28±1.58). Univariate Anova,
indicated significant difference for overall skill execution
at posttest, F(1,28) =10.0, p<0.05 between TGfU (M/SD:
4.62±2.16) and Technical training model (1.70±1.43).
Figure 4.5 and 4.6 indicated the mean and SD for skill
execution (passing, dribbling, tackling and scoring) at
pretest and posttest level, TGfU seems to be significantly
better training model after training intervention based
on mean score. This result was confirmed using analysis
covariate (ANCOVA) too indicated significant difference
between these two models in for overall decision making,
F(2,27) =2.31, p<0.05. The results of ANCOVA presented
in Table 5 and the estimated marginal means for posttest
skill execution presented in table 6

RESULTS 41




12
10
8

6 TGfU
4
TM
2
0
Mean SD



Figure 4.5. Pretest results for skill execution





6
5

4
3 TGfU
2
TM
1
0

Mean SD


Figure 4.6. Posttest results for skill execution

42 TGfU & MINI GAME



Table 4.5: Analyses of covariance summary for skill
execution

Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig
Group 63.74 1 63.74 18.64 0.01

**p<0.05

Table 4.6: Estimated marginal means for skill execution
95% Confidence Interval
Model Mean SE Lower Bound Upper Bound

TGFU 4.71 a .494 3.701 5.73
TM 1.60 a .494 –.589 2.62


4.3 Speed and Accuracy Executing General
Hockey Skills
Univariate ANOVA indicated there no significant
difference between TGfU (speed, M/SD: 11.30±1.13,
accuracy, M/SD: 4.07±2.21) and TM (speed, M/SD:
10.38±1.64, accuracy, M/SD: 4.93±2.01) on speed,
F(1,28)=3.12, p > 0.05 and accuracy, F(1,28)=1.25, p >
0.05 at pretest level. As posttest results for speed
indicated there was no significant difference between
TGfU (M/SD: 8.97±.732) and Technical model (M/SD:
9.20±1.05), F(1,28)=.497, p > 0.05. However for accuracy,
posttest results indicated, the was significant difference
between TGfU (M/SD: 6.60±1.12) and Technical model
(M/SD: 5.40±1.55), F(1,28)= 591, p < 0.05, and TGfU,
seems to be a better model for accuracy. Figure 4.7 and
4.8 indicated the mean and SD for speed and accuracy
at pretest and posttest level, This result was confirmed
using analysis covariate (ANCOVA) too indicated

RESULTS 43




12
10
8
6 TGfU
4
TM
2
0

Mean SD


Figure 4.7. Pretest results for speed and accuracy


6
5

4
3 TGfU
2
TM
1

0
Mean SD



Figure 4.8. Posttest results for speed and accuracy


significant difference between these two models for
accuracy, F(2,27) =2.31, p<0.05. The results of ANCOVA
presented in Table 4.7 and the estimated marginal
means for posttest accuracy presented in Table 4.8

44 TGfU & MINI GAME



Table 4.7: Analyses of covariance summary for accuracy

Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig
Group 14.03 1 14.3 8.50 0.07
**p<0.05

Table 4.8: Estimated marginal means for accuracy

95% Confidence Interval
Model Mean SE Lower Bound Upper Bound
TGFU 8.70 a .336 6.01 7.39
TM 5.30 a .336 4.61 5.99



4.4 Pulse-rate and Recovery
Findings indicated there were no significant difference
in pulse rate reading at pretest level between TGfU and
TM (i) at warming-up stage, F(1,28) = 1.55, p>0.05), (ii)
Immediately after the seven minutes of mini game play
F(1,28) = 2.95, p>0.05 and (iii) three minute after the
mini game F(1,28) = 28.77, p>0.05. This indicates there
was no difference between in pulse rate and recovery
pattern among these two models. As for posttest results
indicated too no significant difference in pulse rate
reading between TGfU and TM (i) at warming-up stage,
F(1,28) = 0.01, p>0.05), (ii) Immediately after the seven
minutes of mini game F(1,28) = .047, p>0.05 and (iii)
three minutes after the mini game play F(1,28) = 0.03,
p>0.05. Table 4.9 illustrates the pulse rate comparison
at pretest and posttest level. This indicates there was
no difference in pulse rate reading and recovery pattern
among the players in these two models before and after
the intervention.

RESULTS 45






Posttest Sig F(1,28) = 0.01, p>0.05 F(1,28) = .047, p>0.05 F(1,28) = 0.03, p>0.05








SD/Mean 99.20±28.04 98.20±25.11 140.93±26.06 138.80±27.83 85.60±22.96 85.20±20.18




Table 4.9: Heart rate reading (pretest and posttest results)
F(1,28) = 1.55, p>0.05 F(1,28) = 2.95, p>0.05 F(1,28) =28.77, p>0.05




Pretest Sig







SD/Mean 88.20± 9.04 92.13±8.21 133.73±31.70 128.80±15.19 75.87±12.4 95.20±6.36










Phase Warm-up Mini game Three minutes



Model TGfU TM TGfU TM TGfU TM

46 TGfU & MINI GAME



4.5 Cardiovascular Fitness
Pretest results indicated there were no significant
deference between TGfU and TM in cardiovascular
fitness using bleep test (MSFT), F(1,28) = 2.83, p>0.05.
As for posttest results there was significant difference
between TGfU (M/SD:9.27±1.22 and Technical model (M/
SD:7.42±.79) in term of cardiovascular fitness, F(1,28) =
22.45, p<0.05. Table 4.10 illustrates the results mean
and SD converted V0 max calculations as suggested by
2
Legar and Lambert (1982). As the Figure 4.9 and 4.10
indicated the mean and SD cardiovascular fitness using
V0 max calculation at pretest and posttest level, TGfU
2
seems to be significantly better training model for
cardiovascular fitness after training intervention based
on mean score. This result was confirmed using analysis
covariate (ANCOVA) too indicated significant difference
between these two models in for cardiovascular fitness
(V0 max), F(2,27) =2.31, p<0.05. The results of ANCOVA
2
presented in Table 4.11 and the estimated marginal
means for posttest cardiovascular fitness presented in
Table 4.12



Table 4.10: Results of cardiovascular fitness (V0 max)
2
Model N Mean/SD V0 max Sig
2
Bleep test ml/kg/min/SD
TGfU-Pretest 15 9.03±1.22 38.83±3.26 F(1,28)=.014, p>0.05

TM -Pretest 15 8.23±1.38 38.77±3.64
TGfU- Posttest 15 9.27±1.27 44.13±4.68 F(1,28)=18.60, p<0.05
TM-Posttest 15 7.42±.79 37.84±3.14

RESULTS 47




50

40


30
TGfU
20
TM
10


0
Mean SD


Figure 4.9. Pretest results for V0 max
2



50


40

30
TGfU
20
TM
10


0
Mean SD


Figure 4.10. Posttest results for V0 max
2

48 TGfU & MINI GAME



Table 4.11: Analyses of covariance summary for
cardiovascular fitness (V0 max)
2
Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig
Group 62.26 1 62.26 4.63 0.41

**p<0.05


Table 4.12: Estimated marginal means for cardio-
vascular fitness (V0 max)
2
95% Confidence Interval
Model Mean SE Lower Bound Upper Bound

TGFU 11.17 a .970 42.18 46.16
TM 37.61 a .970 35.82 39.80

49








5






DISCUSSION








5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings of effectiveness and
implications of the two pedagogical model (TGfU and
TM) in coaching context among Indian junior hockey
players for invasion game in term five versus five (5 v.
5) mini game play, speed and accuracy executing general
hockey skills, pulse-rate and cardiovascular fitness
respond. Based on the present findings, as discussed
below, it’s proposed that TGfU is a suitable pedagogical
model to be incorporated in coaching context in
upgrading game configuration, cardiovascular and game
performance especially in field hockey.


5.2 Five Versus Five (5 vs. 5) Mini Game Play
Configuration
These findings show that TGfU model compared to TM
was effective for ball control, overall decision making
(passing, dribbling, tacking and scoring), overall skill
execution (passing, dribbling, tacking and scoring), and

50 TGfU & MINI GAME



cardiovascular fitness. One of the reasons for this
improved performance in ball control, overall decision
making and skill execution, as suggested from the model
application of mini game activities assists the players
to improve ball control, tactical decision making and
improve how they execute passing, dribbling, scoring
hockey skills in 5 versus 5 game plays. This finding
supports that the TGfU model is an important model
for learning as it develop high order of thinking and
training motor skills in decision making, (Bunker &
Thorpe, 1986) and Light (2005). Improvement in players
decision making in 5 versus 5 based on the content
knowledge were taught “what to do” and “how to do” in
their 5 weeks training with TGfU pedagogical model, as
the fourth steps in teaching the TGFU model. This
finding was parallel with the motor learning theory that
suggests that there is relationship between motor
performances and game knowledge acquisition through
the mini game (Denis, 1993; Anderson, 1976). The
present findings on decision making improvement in 5
versus 5 in Indian junior hockey player were parallel
with previous findings in soccer and hockey (Harvey,
2003; Light & Fawns, 2003; Nathan, 2007; Turner &
Martinek, 1999) and badminton (French, Werner, Taylor,
Hussey, & Jones, 1999).
As for details in skill execution in 5 versus 5,
execution of passing, dribbling, and scoring except
tackling indicated significant improvement using TGfU,
compared TM. This finding similar with findings in field
hockey (Turner & Martinek, 1999), badminton (Lawton,
1989), soccer (Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin 1995), and
volleyball (Griffin, Oslin, & Mitchell, 1995). There were

DISCUSSION 51



no significant improvement tackling skill execution
between TGfU with TM among Indian junior players,
probably due to short intervention period of 5 weeks (12
lesson). Therefore subject’s needs longer period of
training in order to improve skill execution of tackling
performance

5.3 Speed and Accuracy Executing General
Hockey Skills

Findings revealed that there was no significant
improvement in speed of executing general hockey skill
after invention using TGfU model. This present findings
contra with the finding of Turner and Martinek (1999).
This result probably due to short period of intervention
period meted out in this present study. However, future
research in TGfU need to organize the game at higher
level of intensity and explosive method of playing mini
game in order to improve speed of executing general
hockey skills On the other hand, as for accuracy
executing hockey general hockey skill among players in
TGfU group indicated significant improvement. Thus
this findings similar with the finding of Turner and
Martinek (1999). Therefore, this finding supports the
importance of mini game activity via TGfU to enhance
accuracy executing hockey skills. As accuracy proven to
be an important element in scoring goal in hockey game
(Aziz, Chia & Teh, 2000; Wassmer & Mookerjee, 2002).
TGfU through mini game activity enable the players to
posses better neuromotor coordination. This findings
parallel with the motor learning principle players have
better neuromuscular, eye-leg coordination, fast reflexes,
motivation and high concentration (Wrisberg, 1993). The

52 TGfU & MINI GAME



achievement of TGfU in accuracy, was parallel with
previous research (Nevett et al., 2001).. This finding
supports the TGfU model as suitable pedagogical in
coaching context to improve accuracy of scoring goals
and suitable playing in turf hockey

5.4 Pulse-rate and Cardiovascular Fitness

However for the measurement pulse-rate recovery
pattern before warming-up, immediately after seven
minutes mini game play and three (3) minutes recovery
after the mini game play indicated there was no
significant difference between TGfU and TM. This may
be due to the intensity and volume of activities no
difference between these two models.

However for cardiovascular respond, there was
significant improvement by TGfU group compared to
TM, TGfU group recorded V0 max of 43.9ml/kg/min or
2
reaching (M/SD: 9.27/1.27) in level and stage in bleep
test compared to TM with V0 max of 37.2 ml/kg/min or
2
at (M/SD: 7.42/.79) in bleep test. This indicated the TGfU
model have reached above average level based on norms
set at 42.7 V0 Max max by (Leger and Lambert, 1982;
2
Mackenzie, 1999). Whereas the TM was below average
level in term of V0 max of cardiovascular fitness based
2
on norms (Leger & Lambert, 1983; Mackenzie, 1999).
The TGfU model with mini game situation activities
such 2 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 2 able upgrade players
cardiovascular abilities This finding contra with earlier
findings of Ghosh, Goswami, Majumdar & Mathur (1991)
using n = 25 junior hockey players (18±0.6 years) mean
heart rate during full hockey match was 143.4±15.3 and
V0 max 53.8 ml/kg/min. High intensity game using
2

DISCUSSION 53



TGfU in research similar with findings by Boyle et al.,
(1994) using 9 Irish international soccer players (26 ±
4.5 years), indicated mean HR during match play =158.6
± 8 and V0 61.8 ml/kg/min (Lythe, 2008). Therefore to
2
have higher level of cardiovascular fitness a longer period
than 5 weeks needed to improve cardiovascular fitness.
This finding supports the TGfU model as suitable
pedagogical approach to be incorporated in games
training as to improve cardiovascular fitness especially
for playing turf hockey.
Therefore TGfU seems to be suitable pedagogical
method to train hockey player to meet the present
changes the rule of hockey in penalty flick (draw after
extra time), whereby the new ruling requires to play 1
v. 1 (goal keeper vs. 1 striker). The findings of the study
showed that coaches and sport researcher can develop
game training or improvised TGfU model. By using this
tactical training plan and changing skill pattern, the
approach of this study can be utilized for future training
research of other invasion games such soccer, basketball
and many others

One of the reasons for this improved performance
by Indian players per se, is the application of TGfU
model in which players have got centered task of mini
game activities model. Mini activities such as small sided
game 3 vs. 3, 4 vs. 4 as well as 5 vs. 5 continuous for the
period of 7-14 minutes, create situation for players to
indulge with ball mainly in receiving, control and
passing, therefore improve the decision making and skill
execution skills as compared to TM (Control group) with
their training being too structured with technical tasks
in nature. The present findings on decision making and

54 TGfU & MINI GAME



skill execution improvement through TGfU in 5 versus
5 among sports school players were parallel with
previous findings in soccer and hockey (Nathan, 2008;
Harvey, 2003; Light & Fawns, 2003; Turner &Martinek,
1999) and badminton (French, Werner, Taylor, Hussey,
& Jones, 1999).
The decision making component improved via TGfU
due to the model which advocated guided discovery
method coaching enabling the players to think and read
game in advance in turnenabling the players to solve
the game problem. The modus operandi of TGfU coaching
tremendously assisted the players to improve tactical
decision making and improve on how they execute
passing, dribbling and scoring hockey skills in 5 versus
5 game plays.

The findings on decision making were similar with
findings of Turner & Martinek (1999) in hockey, similar
findings reported by Psotta & Martin (2011) indicating
tactical model (CTA: 0.81±0.12, p<0.05) significantly
higher mean score after intervention compared to
Technical model (CTE: 0.75±0.12, p<0.05) in women
soccer in Czech Republic. As for overall skill execution
of passing, dribbling, scoring and tackling - it indicated
significant difference between using TGfU compared to
SDT model among Indian players and TGfU seems to
be a better model.
These findings support the findings infield hockey
(Turner &Martinek, 1999), badminton (Lawton, 1989),
soccer (Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin 1995), and volleyball
(Griffin, Oslin, & Mitchell, 1995) on skill execution.

DISCUSSION 55



5.5 Conclusion
In conclusion, teachers and coaches in Asia region
especially in India should adopt TGfU model with small
sided mini game situations such 3 versus 3 or 4 versus
3 or 5 versus 5 and game approach in training in order
to improve decision making and skill execution as been
proven from this research. TGfU approach seems to be
suitable coaching method to train hockey player to meet
the present changes the hockey rules especially in
penalty flick situations (draw after extra time), whereby
the new ruling requires the players to play 1 versus 1
(goal keeper vs. 1 striker). However, more research has
to be done on how TGfU would improve other
components of the game play.

56 TGfU & MINI GAME







REFERENCES







Anderson, J.R. (1976). Language memory and thought.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aziz, A. R., Chia, M., & Teh, K.C. (2000). The relationship
between maximal oxygen uptake and repeated sprint
performance indices in field hockey and soccer players.
Journal Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 40 (3),
195-2000.

Balakrishnan, M., Rengasamy, S. & Aman, M.S. (2011).
Effects of Teaching Games for Understanding Approach
on students’ cognitive learning outcome. Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology (77 ), 961-963
Boyce, B. A. (1992). The effects of three styles of teaching
on university students’ motor performance. Journal of
Teaching Physical Education, 18, 389-401.

Bompa, T. (1999). Periodization: Theory and methodology
of training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetic.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986). A model for the teaching
of games in the secondary schools. The Bulletin of
Physical Education, 5-8.
Chelly, Souhaiel, Najet, Amar, Ben M, Hermassi, Souhail,
Mourad, Bouhlel, Ezdine, Tabka, Zouhair, Shephard
& Roy J. (2010). Relationships of Peak Leg Power, 1
Maximal Repetition Half Back Squat, and Leg Muscle
Volume to 5-m Sprint Performance of Junior Soccer

REFERENCES 57



Players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
Volume 24 (1), 266-271.

Crespo, M., Reid, M. M., & Miley, D. (2004). Tennis: Applied
examples of a game-based teaching approach.
Strategies, 17(4), 27-31.

Denis, G. (1993). Human Skills: Ideas, Concepts and
Models. Handbook Research in Sports Psychology. New
York. Macmillan Publishing Company.

Drewe, S. B. (2000). An examination of the relationship
between coaching and teaching. QUEST. National
Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in
Higher Education, 52, 79-88.
Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.I. (1967). Human Performance.
Belmont, CA; Brooks and Cole Publishing.
French, K. E, Werner P.H, Rink J.E & Taylor, K. (1996).
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Volume
15, Issue 4, 1996, pages 418-438. Human Kinetics
Publishers.
French, K.E., Werner, P.H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones,
J. (1996). The effects of a 6 week unit of tactical, skill,
or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton
performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of
Teaching Physical Education, 15, 439-463.
Grehaigne, J.F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, P. (2001). The
teaching and learning of decision making in team
sports. QUEST. National Association for Kinesiology
and Physical Education in Higher Education, 53, 59-
75.

Grehaigne, J.F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge
in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist
perspective. QUEST. National Association for

58 TGfU & MINI GAME



Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher
Education, 47, 490-505.

Ghosh, A. K., Goswami, A., Mazumdar, P., & Mathur, D.
N. (1991). Heart rate and blood lactate response in
field hockey players. Indian Journal of Medical
Research, 94, 351-356.
Goldberger, M., & Gerney (1986). Teaching strategies and
instructional formats in physical education: Total
teaching or ideology. The British Journal of Physical
Education, 24(1), 5-9.
Goldberger, M., & Howarth, K. (1993). The national
curriculum in physical education and the spectrum of
teaching styles. The British Journal of Physical
Education, 24(1), 23-26.

Griffin, L. L., & Patton, K. (2005). Two decades of teaching
games for understanding: Looking at the past, present
and future in Griffin, L.L., & Butler, J.I. (2005).
Teaching games for understanding: Theory, Research,
and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Harvey, S. (2003). A study of U19 college soccer players
improved in game performance using the game
performance assessment instrument. Proceedings of the
2nd international conference: Teaching sport and
physical education for understanding. University of
Melbourne, Australia 11-14 December 2003.
Harvery, S. (2007). Effects of Teaching Games for
Understanding on Game Performance and
Understanding in Middle School Physical Education.
Unpublished dissertation submitted to Oregon State
University in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

REFERENCES 59



Harison, J. M., Fellingham, G.W., Buck, M. M., & Pellet,
T.L. (1995). Effects of practice and command styles on
rate of change in volleyball performance and self-
efficacy of high, medium, and low skilled learners.
Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 14, 328-339.
Hede, C et al. (2011). PE Senior Physical Education for
Queensland. UK: Oxford University Press. p. 178-179.
Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The
importance of student emphasis over content emphasis.
Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 73(7), 44-48.

Leger, L.A. & Lambert, J. (1982). A maximal multistage
20m shuttle run test to predict VO2max. European
Journal of Applied Physiology, 49, p. 1-5.

Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in
games. Bulletin of Physical Education, 25(1), 35–38.

Light, R. (2003). The joy of learning: Emotion and learning
in games through TGFU. Journal of Physical Education
New Zealand, 36(1), 93-103.

Light, R.,& Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game:
Integrating speech and action in games teaching
through TGfU. QUEST. National Association for
Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher
Education, 55, 161-176.

Mackenzie, B. (1999). Flying 30 meter Test . Available
from: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/flying30.htm
[Accessed 23/7/2012]

Mandigo, J. L., & Holt, N. L. (2002). The inclusion of
optimal challenge in teaching games for understanding.
Brock University, Department of Physical Education:
1-23.

60 TGfU & MINI GAME



Metzler, M. (2005). Implications of models-based
instruction for research on teaching: A focus on teaching
games for understanding dalam Griffin, L.L., & Butler.
J.I . (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory,
Research, and Practice, Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L., & Griffin, L.L. (2005). Teaching
Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach.
Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., & Griffin, L. (1995). The effects of
two instructional approaches of game Performance.
Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching in
Physical Education and Sport, 1, 36–48.
Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L., & Oslin, J. L. (1994). Tactical
awareness as a developmentally appropriate focus for
teaching of games in elementary and secondary physical
education. The Physical Educator, 51, 21-27.

Nathan, S. (2008). The effects and sustainability of training
programmers’ using Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGfU) with different teaching style on
students with varying hockey skill levels. A paper
presented at 1st Asia Pacific Sport in Education
Conference, Adelaide, Australia.

Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., Babiarz, M., & McCaughtry, N.
(2001). Changes in basic tactics and motor skills in an
invasion type game after a 12-lesson unit of instruction.
Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 20, 352-369.
Pill, S (2011), Flinders University School of Education and
President, SA Branch, Australian Council for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation, Vol(2), 29.
Psotta, R., & Martin, A. (2011). Changes in decision making

REFERENCES 61



skill and skill execution in soccer performance: The
intervention study. Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomic, Gymn,
Vol. 41 (2), 7-15.
Rink, J. E. (2002). Teaching physical education for learning.
(4th Ed). New York: McGraw Hill.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Graham, C. (1996).
Implications for practice and research. Journal of
Teaching Physical Education, 15, 490-502.

Rink, J.E., French., & Tjeerdsma (1996). Foundation for
the learning and instruction of sport and games.
Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 15, 399-417.
Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Graham, C. (1996).
Implications for practice and research. Journal of
Teaching Physical Education, 15, 490-502.
Siedentop, D. (2001). Introduction to physical education,
fitness, and sport (4th Ed). Los Angeles, CA: Mayfield
Publishing Company.
Tan, S (2005). Implementing Teaching Games for
Understanding: Stories of Change in Griffin & Butler
(2005). Teaching games for Understanding: Theory,
Research and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

Turner, A. (1996). Teaching for understanding: Myth or
reality? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance, 67(4), 46-48.

Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into
teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill,
knowledge, and play. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 70, 3-21.
Wassmer, D. J., & Mookerjee, S. A. (2002). Descriptive

62 TGfU & MINI GAME



Profile of Elite U.S. Women’s Collegiate Field Hockey
Players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical
Fitness, 42(2), 165-171.
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching
games for understanding: Evolution of a model. Journal
of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,
67(1), 28-33.
Wilsmore, G., & Curtis, O. (1992). Sport specific assessment
of talented male and female junior hockey players.
Sports Coach, April-June 15 (4): 33-37.
Wrisberg, C., A (1993), in Singer R., N., Murphy, M. &
Tennant, L. K. (1993). Handbook of research on sport
psychology: A project of the international society of sport
psychology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

APPENDIX 1 63





APPENDIX 1: TEACHING GAMES FOR UNDERSTANDING (TGFU)

64 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 1 65











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

66 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 1 67











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

68 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 1 69











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

70 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 1 71











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

72 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 1 73











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

74 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 1 75











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

76 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 1 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 2 77


























APPENDIX 2: TECHNICAL MODEL (TM)

78 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 2 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 2 79











































APPENDIX 2 (CONTD…)

80 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 2 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 2 81











































APPENDIX 2 (CONTD…)

82 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 2 (CONTD…)

APPENDIX 2 83











































APPENDIX 2 (CONTD…)

84 TGfU & MINI GAME











































APPENDIX 2 (CONTD…)