Three groups of teachers' views, learning experiences, and understandings of teaching games for understanding

Background: The Physical Education (PE) curriculum has already been reformed in most countries across the world. Problem solving, lifelong learning, and health issues have become major concerns of PE curricula. With the innovation of PE curricula, a variety of teaching approaches based on the constructivism learning theory have been designed and tested. Bunker and Thorpe, in an attempt to shift from the teacher-centred and skill-based learning to a student-centred approach, initially developed teaching games for understanding (TGfU), which links tactics and skills within a game context. This approach has attracted increasing attention from researchers and PE teachers, with a large body of literature examining the attitude of PE teachers and their implementation of TGfU. However, the differences in the perspective of TGfU among pre-service teachers, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors remain unexplored. Purpose: The present study aimed to examine the views, learning experiences, and understandings of pre-service PE teachers, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors of TGfU in Hong Kong. Context: Comprehensive PE curriculum reformation programmes were conducted in Hong Kong in 2002 and 2007 to promote student generic skills. The new PE curriculum has challenged teachers to introduce new strategies that promote students' generic skills, such as TGfU. Participants and settings: Ten pre-service teachers and their mentors, including nine cooperating teachers and three university supervisors were involved in the present study, which was conducted during the teaching practicum of pre-service teachers. Data collection: A semi-structured interview was conducted with each participant. Data analysis: Interview data were analysed through deductive content analysis to identify meaningful pieces of information comprising the comprehensive text segment. Findings: Three groups of teachers have positive views on TGfU although the reason behind their positive views varies. On the other hand, the three groups of teachers had learning experience of TGfU, but the university supervisors appeared to be the most proactive group because they seek more approaches in learning TGfU. In terms of the understanding of TGfU, although the three groups of teachers demonstrated constructivist views regarding TGfU, cooperating teachers had more consideration for student skill level and skill development compared with university supervisors and pre-service teachers.