CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 169Physical Education and PedagogySports and Physical Education ResearchPhysical education and sports games research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why the Constraints-Led Approach is not Teaching Games for Understanding: a clarification

Open access
Renshaw, Ian, Araújo, Duarte, Button, Chris, Chow, Jia Yi, Davids, Keith, Moy, Brendan·2016·Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
DOI 10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: There is some apparent confusion regarding similarities and differences between two popular physical education (PE) pedagogical frameworks, that is, the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA) and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU).Purpose: Our aim in this commentary is to detail important theoretical and pedagogical concepts that distinguish these approaches, as well as to recognise where commonalities exist.Findings: In particular, we note that TGfU had its roots in the 1960s in the absence of a substantial theoretical framework, although several attempts to retrospectively scaffold theories around TGfU have subsequently emerged in the literature. TGfU is a learner-centred approach to PE in which teachers are encouraged to design modified games to develop the learner's understanding of tactical concepts. In contrast, the CLA has arisen more recently from the umbrella of Nonlinear Pedagogy (NLP), emerging from the empirically rich theoretical framework of ecological dynamics. The CLA adopts a ‘learner–environment’ scale of analysis in which practitioners are encouraged to identify and modify interacting constraints (of task, environment and learner) to facilitate the coupling of each learner's perceptual and action systems during learning. The CLA is a broader framework which has been adapted for the design of (re)learning environments in PE, sport and movement therapy. Other key distinctions between the approaches include: the overall goals; the way in which the learner and the learning process are modelled; the use of questioning as a pedagogical tool; the focus on individual differences vs. generic concepts; and how progressions and skill interjections are planned and implemented.Conclusions: Despite such distinctions, the two approaches are somewhat harmonious and key similarities include: their holistic perspective of the learner; the proposed role of the teacher and the design characteristics of learning tasks in each. Both TGfU and the CLA have a powerful central focus on the nature of learning activities undertaken by each individual learner. This clarification of TGFU and the CLA is intended to act as a catalyst for more empirical work into the complementarity of these juxtaposed pedagogical approaches to learning design.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 82 references

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Araújo D., 2009, Perspectives on Cognition and Action in Sport, 119
  2. Atencio M., 2014, European PE Review, 20, 244
  3. Bunker D., 1986, Rethinking Games Teaching, 7
  4. Chow J. Y., 2009, TGfU … Simply Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge, 131
  5. Chow J. Y., 2006, Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 10, 71
  6. Chow J. Y., 2013, Conditions of Talent Development in Youth Sport, 41
  7. Chow J. Y., 2013, Complexity in Physical Education: Reframing Curriculum, Pedagogy and Research, 121
  8. Davids K., 2005, Journal of Physical Education, New Zealand, 38, 17
  9. den Duyn N., 1996, Sports Coach, 6
  10. den Duyn N, 1997, Game Sense – Developing Thinking Players Workbook
  11. Guerin S., 2004, Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 8, 131
  12. Launder A. G., 2001, Play Practice: The Games Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sport
  13. Maulden E., 1969, Games Teaching: An Approach to Teaching in the Primary School
  14. Mitchell S. A., 2012, Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills
  15. Newell K. M., 1990, Quest, 42, 184
  16. Pigott B, 1982, Bulletin of Physical Education, 18, 17
  17. Renshaw I., 2009, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40, 580
  18. Renshaw I., 2012, Open Science Journal, 5, 88
  19. Seifert L, 2010, Motor Learning in Practice: A Constraints-Led Approach, 184
  20. Tan S., 2002, REACT, 1, 77
  21. Thorpe R, 2005, Athlete-Centred Coaching: Developing Inspired and Inspiring People, 229
  22. Thorpe R., 1986, Re-thinking Games Teaching, 25
  23. Thorpe R. D., 1984, Sport Pedagogy: Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings, 163

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Renshaw, I., Araújo, D., Button, C., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Moy, B.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
Corresponding author
Renshaw, Ian
ORCID
Venue
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-10-21
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
459-480
ISSN
  • 1362-7120 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-8989
  • 1742-5786
DOI
10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870
OpenAlex
W2174709392
Semantic Scholar
82bcf421534715aa94359f6c84a2e5e553008e71
Cited by
169
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
22.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy (publishedVersion)
  • NIE Digital Repository (National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University) (acceptedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Physical Education and Pedagogy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Physical education and sports games research
Keywords
constraints-led approach, Teaching Games for Understanding, pedagogical framework, nonlinear pedagogy, ecological dynamics, learner-centred pedagogy, modified games, tactical knowledge, learner-environment interaction, teacher questioning, individual differences, skill progression, learning design, physical education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review