Damien Dimmick


The impact of the teaching games for understanding model (TGfU) in education has mainly focussed on mainstream children who have not been diagnosed with having an additional or specific educational need (SEN). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the TGfU model by focussing on the feedback of the children about their learning journey. The activity of Table Tennis was used as the teaching medium in which to enact this student’s voice and then the children reviewed their learning by completing a questionnaire after each lesson. The questionnaire was adapted from the previous research of Cervelló et al., (2007) who originally devised a twenty-four-point questionnaire which was shortened to twelve questions for the purpose of this study. The research problem was whether the TGfU model and its principles could be adopted and adapted after giving the SEN students a greater sense of ownership of their own learning. In total, twelve children aged 11-16 from one special school institution were involved in this study and they all had additional learning needs. After a comprehensive literature review, there have been very few research papers which have looked at this specific topic with only one article on this subject coming from Malaysia (Ibrahim, 2021). The findings of this study show that there was a positive change in the levels of communication and control over the learning, social interaction and activity levels as a result of using a models-based approach to learning physical education with SEN children.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter


special needs, physical education, Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), student voice

Full Text:



AfPE (2015). Health Position Paper, University of Worcester. Worcester.

Amado D., Del Villar F., Leo F. M., Sánchez-Oliva D., Sánchez-Miguel P. A., García-Calvo T. (2014). Effect of a multi-dimensional intervention programme on the motivation of physical education. PlosOne 9(1): e85275.

Arias-Estero J. L., Castejón F. J., Yuste J. L. (2013). Psychometric properties of the intention to be physically active scale in primary Education]. Revisit the Education 362: 485–505.

Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982). The curriculum model: rethinking games teaching. Loughborough UK: 7-10.

Carifio J., Perla R. J. (2007). Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response Formats and their Antidotes. J Social Sci. 3(3):106.

Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant. Journal of PE & Sport Pedagogy. Volume 19, P18-34.

Casey, A. & Quennerstedt, M. (2015). “I just remember rugby”: Re-membering Physical Education as More Than a Sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. (86) 40–50.

Cervelló E., Moreno J. A., Del Villar F., Queen R. (2007). Development and validation of a measuring instrument of the motivational strategies in physical education classes. Iberoamerican Journal of exercise psychology and sport (2) 53-72.

Cook-Sather, A. (2014). The trajectory of student voice in educational research. N. Z. J. Educ. Stud. 49, 131–148.

Dawes J. (2008). Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used? An experiment Using 5-point, 7 point and 10 Point Scales. Int J Market Res. 51 (1).

Emmer, E. & Evertson, C. (2013). Classroom management for middle and high school teachers. Boston: Pearson.

Forrest, G. J., Pearson, P. J. & Webb, P. I. (2006). Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU); a model for preservice teachers. Fusion Down-under: 1st ICHPER.SD Oceania Congress (pp. 1-10). PENZ Website: PENZ.

Gehlbach, H., & Artino Jr., A. R. (2018). The survey checklist (manifesto). Academic Medicine, 93(3), 360-366.

Goodyear, V. A., Casey, A., and Kirk, D. (2016). Practice architectures and sustainable curriculum renewal. Journal of Curriculum Studies.

Haerens, L. & Kirk, D. (2011). Toward the Development of a Pedagogical Model for Health-Based Physical Education. Quest -Illinois- National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education- 63(3):321-338.

Ibrahim, M. (2021). The Application of Teaching Games for Understanding Using the Traditional Games (TGfU) for Teaching Physical Education for Special Needs Children in Malaysia. Book of PE & Sport for children: best practices. (Pp1-12).

Jaworski, B. (1993). The professional development of teachers – the potential of critical reflection. Journal of in-service education, 19(3), p37-42.

Kirk, D. & Macdonald, D. (2001). Teacher Voice and Ownership of Curriculum Change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, 551-561.

Kirk, D. (2017). Teaching Games in Physical Education: Towards a pedagogical model. Keynote Paper for International Congress of Sports Games.

Lund, J. & Tannehill, D. (2010). Standards-based physical education curriculum development. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Lynch, S., and Curtner-Smith, M. (2019). ‘You have to find your slant, your groove:’ one physical education teacher’s efforts to employ transformative pedagogy. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 24, 359–372.

Moon, J. A. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: theory and practice. Routledge.

Metzer, M. (2005). Chapter 8: Direct instruction. In M. Metzler (Ed.), Instructional models for physical education (2nd Ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Hawthorne Hathaway.

O’Leary N. (2014). Learning informally to use teacher games for understanding. The experiences of a recently qualified teacher. European Physical Education Review, 20, 367-384.

Oliver, L. & Nieves, A. (2017). Navigating the benefits and challenges of teaching games for understanding. Autumn Journal of PE Matters. AfPE 55-58.

Singleton, E. (2009). From command to constructivism: Canadian Secondary School Physical Education. Curriculum Enquiry. 39 (2) 321-342.

Wang, L. & Collins, J. (2014). Perceptions of Hong Kong physical education teachers on teaching games for understanding: Implications for continuing professional development. Educational Research Journal, 29, 91-110.

Wang, L. & Ha, A. S. (2009). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of teaching games for understanding. A Hong Kong perspective. European Physical Education Review, 15, 407-429.

Wang, L. & Ha, A. S. (2013). Three groups of teachers’ views, learning experiences and understanding of teaching games for understanding. Physical education and sport pedagogy, 18 (3), 336-350.

Wang, M. & Wang, L. (2018). Teaching games for understanding games intervention to promote physical activity among secondary school students. Biomedicine research international, 20 (8), 1-11.

Webb, P, I., Pearson P. J., & Forrest, G. (2006). Teaching games for understanding in Primary and Secondary PE. John Wiley & Sons.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2022 Damien Dimmick

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science (ISSN 2501 - 1235) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).