Over 30 years ago the original teaching games for understanding (TGfU) proposition was published in a special edition of the Bulletin of Physical Education (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). In that time TGfU has attracted significant attention from a theoretical and pedagogical perspective as an improved approach to games and sport teaching in physical education (PE). It has been particularly championed as a superior alternative to what Kirk (2010) and Metzler (2011) described as a traditional method. Recently, however, one of the TGfU authors suggested that the TGfU premise needs to be revisited in order to explore and rethink its relevance so that pedagogy in PE again becomes a central and practical issue for PE (Almond, 2010), as it has not been as well accepted by PE teachers as it has by academics. In order to review and revisit TGfU and consider its relevance to games and sport teaching in PE this paper outlines two areas of the TGfU proposition: (1) the basis for the conceptualisation of TGfU; (2) advocacy of TGfU as nuanced versions. The empirical-scientific research surrounding TGfU and student learning in PE contexts is reviewed and analysed. This comprehensive review has not been undertaken before. The data-driven research will facilitate a consideration as to how TGfU practically assists the physical educator improve games and sport teaching. The review of the research literature highlighted the inconclusive nature of the TGfU proposition and brought to attention the disparity between researcher as theory generator and teacher practitioner as theory applier. If TGfU is to have improved relevance for teachers of PE more of an emphasis needs to be placed on the normative characteristics of pedagogy that drive this practice within curricula.

Physical literacy is developing as a contested concept with definitional blurring across international contexts, confusing both practitioners and researchers. This paper serves the dual purpose of reporting on an interrogation of concepts associated with physical literacy in academic writing and exploring the use of a text mining data analysis tool. The Leximancer text mining software was applied to 49 research papers relating to physical literacy from 2001–2016, sourced from academic repositories and scholarly search engines. The findings from the text mining analysis revealed that the concept of physical literacy is used in a variety of contexts, specifically in connection with ‘education’, ‘activity’, ‘fitness’, ‘health’, ‘concept’, ‘competence’, ‘understanding’, ‘roles’, ‘curriculum’ and ‘assessment’. The concept with the most relevance connected to physical literacy is ‘education’, the very term that is commonly being replaced by ‘literacy’. A number of concepts were identified from the text mining analysis that were not explicitly mentioned within the definitions of physical literacy, including educational components such as ‘curriculum’, ‘teaching’ and ‘assessment’. It was also revealed that many of the strongest relational concepts from the text mining of the physical literacy literature were of a physical domain, with less relevance and connection to concepts of cognitive, social and emotional domains. The study fills an important gap in the literature by showing that while a multiplicity of conceptions of physical literacy exists, the concept gives dominance to the physical domain and the marginalisation of cognitive and affective domains in various constructions of physical literacy.

Background: Teaching games for understanding (TGfU) has stimulated so much attention, research and debate since the 1980s that it is easy for its origins to become refracted and misunderstood. For example, in a recent edition of the Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy journal there was paper arguing a constraints-led approach (CLA) as distinctive from TGfU, where TGfU was positioned as merely an operational model without an initial underpinning theory. Purpose: In this paper, we draw on historical records of existing literature and the memory of one the founders of TGfU to explore the various theoretical contributions to TGfU during its foundational years, which included the work of Bruner on guided discovery, and others (i.e. Stenhouse, Suits). Findings: First, we clarify that TGfU was not developed by Thorpe and Bunker, it was developed by what we refer to as a ‘games team.’ Second, we argue that although in practice TGfU and a CLA may look alike, epistemologically they rest on very different theoretical foundations. From its inception, the epistemological development of TGfU has been from an educative perspective rather than sport science/skill acquisition like that of a CLA. Not only have these competing epistemological/theoretical descriptions led to tensions between education and sport science in the physical education and sport coaching research and literature, they also cause confusion for the practitioner. It is however, inappropriate to privilege one fields’ theoretical discourse or to create a ‘verses’ mentality to theoretical descriptions of what to the practitioner appear essentially the same pedagogical actions (Stolz, S., and S. Pill, 2014. “Teaching Games and Sport for Understanding: Exploring and Reconsidering Its Relevance in Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review 20 (1): 36–71). Notwithstanding these different epistemological foundations, we go on to ask for caution in the messages that are sent to practitioners using game-centered approaches (GCAs) such as TGfU or the CLA that simply manipulating constraints and letting the ‘game be the teacher’ is a sufficient condition for learning to occur. Conclusions: The theoretical development of TGfU overviewed in this paper provides a historical record of several perspectives similar to the CLA – such as modifying game constraints, representation of the full game form in designer games, etc. which may render any ‘new’ GCA that has these features such as the CLA as ‘old wine in new bottles.’ We contend that the major differential in the work of TGfU and CLA authors is TGfU’s emergence from the educative perspective rather than the field of sport science/skill acquisition. From its inception, the interpretation of TGfU has been through the prism of discovery learning. It was only in the 1990s that physical education pedagogues ascribed TGfU to a constructivist approach. We believe the historical insights offered in this paper are critical to physical educators’ understanding of the theoretical development of TGfU as a pedagogical approach to games teaching/coaching.

Background: There have been calls for research that provides a description of how physical education teachers persist in integrating student-centred pedagogical models, such as Sport Education (SE), in their professional practice [Hastie, P. A., and T. Wallhead. 2016. ‘Models-Based Practice in Physical Education: The Case for Sport Education.’ Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35 (4): 390-399]. Specifically, more information is required on how physical education teachers navigate the contextual challenges that schools provide to deliver the core structural features of SE. This study adds to the existing literature in this domain by using social media as a novel platform to explore an international sample of physical education teachers’ perceptions of implementing SE. Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the range of dilemmas physical education teachers face when integrating SE into their curricula. Method: This qualitative research was completed through conducting a Twitter #chat with fifty-two physical education teachers who self-identified through their participation in the #chat as having an interest in SE. An inductive content analysis was used to analyze the data, grounded in Windschitl’s ( 2002 Windschitl, M. 2002. “Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of Dilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and Political Challenges Facing Teachers.” Review of Educational Research 72 (2): 131–175. doi: 10.3102/00346543072002131 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] ) dilemmas framework. Findings: The main benefits/successes of the physical education teachers’ use of SE were related to pedagogical dilemmas. However, several conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political constraints affected physical education teachers’ implementation of the model. A conceptual shift was needed to embrace a student-centred modality of instruction, however, the associated student learning outcomes related to this shift were viewed positively. Contextual challenges such as existing curricular structures and available resources often led to a pragmatic (and modified) version of SE manifesting in practice. Conclusions: Using Twitter enabled the capture of the realities of physical education teachers’ practice with SE, suggesting they were interpretatively pragmatic in adapting the model to their situated context.

This paper provides a rationale for The Spectrum of Teaching Styles (The Spectrum) as a pedagogical model in teaching physical education (PE). Building on prior discussions/debates ( SueSee et al., 2021 ), we will contest the view that the concept of teaching styles is different from that of a pedagogical model. In doing so, we highlight the most central aspects of The Spectrum and explain fundamental characteristics that warrant its representation with existing pedagogical models. The paper demonstrates for teachers how The Spectrum details the ‘how’, ‘when’ and ‘why’ of their pedagogical decisions, in understanding how they may meet educational outcomes for increased curriculum alignment, or successful enactment of models-based practices. The contention we present is The Spectrum is valuable to PE teachers in understanding the context-specific realities of teaching episodes and therefore improving teaching and learning practices in PE by helping teachers align their pedagogy with their desired learning outcomes.

Many physical education curriculum frameworks include statements about the inclusion of critical inquiry processes and the development of creativity and problem-solving skills. The learning environment created by physical education can encourage or limit the application and development of the learners' cognitive resources for critical and creative thinking. This article presents the argument for critical and creative thinking in physical education, and then describes and explains pedagogical perspectives and teaching tools that foster student inquiry, creativity and problem solving in physical education. The ideas and examples presented are consistent with the expectations of contemporary curricula frameworks, such as the SHAPE America National Standards for K–12 Physical Education, the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program, and the Australian Curriculum for Health and Physical Education.