Background: Although a great deal of research has been undertaken from 1982 on TGfU, teachers consider its implementation to be complex and are reluctant to integrate it into their teaching practice. Furthermore, some TGfU literature does not suggest how it might be implemented and how problems might be overcome. On the other hand, a review of TGfU studies showed three shortcomings. First, most of them only compared TGfU with a technique-based approach in the school setting. Second, the studies did not follow the fidelity guidelines for models-based practice research and it is therefore difficult to contrast their results. Third, lesson design was not aligned on the principles of play. Thus, this study provide additional support for going forward from comparative studies in educational settings, and enacting an aligned TGfU unit of floorball contextualized in the principles of play. Purpose: To verify whether pupils improved in variables related to performance and adherence after the enactment of an aligned TGfU unit. Method: An eight lessons unit was designed, validated, and enacted using a mixed-methods quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test design. Participants were 41 pupils (23 boys and 18 girls; M = 11.73, SD = .66 years old) from two regular physical education classes with the same teacher. The teacher was trained in the TGfU approach. In pre-test and post-test assessments, data from decision-making, technical execution, cover, support, game performance, game involvement, enjoyment, perceived competence, and intention to be physically active were collected, using the Game Performance Assessment Instrument, two psychological scales, and two focus groups interviews with the pupils and the teacher. We analysed quantitative data using t-tests and qualitative data following an open and axial coding based on the pre-existing categories. Results: Pupils improved in decision-making, technical execution, cover, support, game performance, game involvement, enjoyment, perceived competence, and intention to be physically active after implementation of the TGfU unit. The pupils and the teacher perceived improvement in all the variables analysed as a consequence of the intervention. Conclusion: After the implementation of the aligned TGfU floorball unit, pupils improved in the variables related to performance and adherence. Based on participants’ key comments, four aspects appeared to be essential for the success of the unit: (a) the lesson design; (b) collaboration from planning to teaching the unit between the researcher and the teacher; (c) the inclusion of learning tasks linked with cover and support; and (d) the use of two reflective periods that helped pupils to understand and apply new knowledge.

According to the theory of practice architecture, every practice enacted in classrooms is a result of interaction between social, physical and spatial elements. In relation, from a practice-referenced perspective, it is necessary to know which teaching-learning implementation features could help teachers/coaches/researchers to assemble Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) interventions in relation to the institutional environment. Purpose: This review aimed to explore from a practice-referenced perspective how TGfU researchers reported their interventions based on the teaching-learning implementation features (intervention design as a function of the context, intervention length, lesson content, basic lesson elements, lesson alignment, teacher/coach experience with the approach, and lesson validation and treatment verification) and their association with learners’ outcomes. Results: We found 20 studies that included some of the teaching-learning implementation features, but none of the studies included all of these features. We also found that studies of TGfU measured and reported learners’ outcomes in a variety of ways. This creates difficulties for drawing conclusions about the relationships between the presence of teaching-learning implementation features and student learning outcomes. Conclusion: Further TGfU interventions should be planned to consider the following: (a) that lessons need to be designed as a function of the context; (b) the number of intervention lessons, their duration and the duration of each lesson task; (c) the concrete tactical and technique contents and goals per lesson; (d) the modified games, questions and achievable challenges as basic lesson elements; (e) the alignment between the basic lesson elements and the structure of lessons, based on the goals of each lesson; (f) that teachers/coaches need to have previous experience in TGfU and be trained on the specific study purpose; (g) that lessons should be validated before implementation and verified during intervention; (h) researchers should regulate the ways in which learners’ outcomes are measured and reported within TGfU studies.

Different authors have reported on the influence of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) intervention on game performance and psychosocial variables. This review aimed: (a) to explore the TGfU experimental studies; (b) to compare the effects of the TGfU vs. technical approach pedagogy on game performance; and (c) to determine the effect of the TGfU approach on game performance and psychosocial variables (motivational climate, task orientation, perceived competence and enjoyment). This systematic review with meta-analysis adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases (PubMed, WOS, EBSCO and Google scholar metasearch) were searched. Study quality was measured with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score. Thirteen studies were included. A pooled analysis of all interventions demonstrated a large significant improvement in decision making for TGfU when compared to technical approach pedagogy (SMD = 5.93, I2 = 98%; CI (95%) = 2.15–9.71; p = 0.004) and no differences between groups for skill execution (SMD = 1.70; I2 = 8%; CI (95%) = −5.34–8.73; p = 0.60). The effect of a TGfU intervention on game performance is strong (decision making, execution skills and tactical skills). Moderate evidence is reported by psychosocial variables (motivational climate, task orientation, perception of motivation and achievement in physical education). In addition, it is unclear its effect on perceived competence, enjoyment, knowledge of the game and intention to be physically active. TGfU intervention could be an appropriate approach for males and females in the context of education or sport. There is a need for a greater number of studies.

The purpose of the present work was to explore whether fourth-grade physical education students improved their game performance, knowledge and psychosocial variables with Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) to a greater extent after an eight-lesson period in comparison to a 14-lesson period. The study followed a mixed-methods approach in which the design consisted of a first assessment, a second assessment after Lesson 9 (eight-lesson period) and a third assessment after Lesson 16 (14-lesson period). A TGfU floorball intervention was carried out between assessments. The participants (n = 40) were in their fourth year of elementary education. According to students’ background and setting, we decided to implement three broad and interrelated strategies to enact the intervention built on the TGfU pedagogical features. Data were collected through Game Performance Assessment Instrument, knowledge questionnaire, enjoyment, perceived competence and intention to be physically active scales and semi-structured interviews. Quantitatively, Friedman’s χ² was used to explore differences in the variables and Wilcoxon’s Z post-hoc comparisons were performed to determine: (a) first–second and first–third assessment differences; and (b) second–third assessment differences. Qualitatively, data were open and axial coded line-by-line and incident-to-incident in sub-themes. The quantitative results show no significant differences between the two periods (p > 0.05). However, there were improvements after both periods compared with the first assessment (p < 0.05). The qualitative information supported that the pedagogical strategies implemented could be key to explain the similarities between the two practice volumes. In conclusion, the amount of practice should not be considered as the only variable in the design of interventions with TGfU.

Young players report that they dropout of organized football due to excessive emphasis on technical execution, low success, and the lack of autonomy and motivation experienced by players during training sessions. Purpose: To determine whether a TGfU intervention during a youth football program led players to improve in variables related to dropout. That means tactical-technical competence (decision-making, skill execution), success (successful game performance), autonomy (number of decisions made, player autonomy, number of game involvements, player participation), and motivation (enjoyment, intention to be physically active). Method: Twenty under-11-players and two coaches were recruited from 17 clubs. A pretest-posttest design with a multi-method approach was used. Coaches were trained and mentored in TGfU. Data were collected using Game Performance Assessment Instrument, enjoyment and intention to be physically active scales, and two focus groups with the players and the coaches. Results: Players improved in decision-making, skill execution, successful game performance, number of decisions made, number of game involvements, and intention to be physically active (p < .05). Participants attributed the results to the TGfU pedagogical features emphasized during the coaches’ training and mentoring. Conclusion: Considering the reasons for dropout in football, in terms of excessive emphasis on technical execution, low success, and the lack of autonomy and motivation experienced by players, TGfU could be a useful pedagogical approach for teaching-learning organized youth football. The TGfU pedagogical features emphasized during coaches’ training and mentoring could be crucial to obtain these results due to the fact that they were the sub-themes highlighted during the focus groups.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to know whether an intervention using an adaptation of the teaching games for understanding approach (named teaching races for understanding [TRfU]) led participants to improve skill execution, decision making, race performance, race involvement, race knowledge, enjoyment, intention to continue practicing sailing, and perceived competence. Method: Participants were 67 children from a randomly selected sailing school (M_age = 9.32 years, SD = 2.60 years) and 2 coaches. We designed and validated the TRfU lessons, and 1 coach was trained in the approach. The TRfU group participated in 11 lessons. This study followed a mixed-methods data approach. Quantitative data were evaluated using a quasiexperimental pretest–posttest design with a control group. The intervention consisted of teaching sailing using the TRfU approach. Children and coaches’ perceptions were evaluated through an interview on completion of the study. Data were collected using an adaptation of the Game Performance Assessment Instrument, a knowledge questionnaire, 2 psychological scales, and interviews with children and coaches. Results: The TRfU group showed statistically significant improvements in skill execution, decision making, and race performance compared with the control group, as well as significant improvements in race involvement, race knowledge, and enjoyment (ES = 0.64–2.63). Conclusion: Teaching races for understanding can be used in sailing to improve students’ capacity to reflect and connect theoretical knowledge with their motor performance in the race.