The Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) approach used in physical education settings has also (in some cases more than others) been used by coaches in developing players and teams in sports settings (development and competitive). I’ve been using the TGfU, or a very close approach to its original format since 1995. Samenvatting A comprehensive look at the Teaching Games for Understanding model, a dynamic approach to sports education that has gained worldwide popularity over the last 25 years. Teaching games for understanding (TGFU) is understood as an inquiry approach to games teaching where the play of a game is taught before skill refinement. The TGFU approach has encourage d debate on games teaching which has often polarized into skill s v tactics arguments.

Teaching Grammar‎ > ‎

Teaching Grammar Using the PACE Model

The PACE model is a story-based approach to teach grammar, and it is described in detail on chapter 7 of Shrum and Glisan's Teacher's Handbook. This is a summary of the steps.
The rationale behind this model is that linguistic elements only gain significance and meaning when they are put into context. This model works best for 'larger' grammatical structures, not smaller ones where the presentation would be artificial.
1. Presentation of Meaningful Language
In the presentation phase, the students are presented to the language in a 'whole' thematic way. This can happen when students listen to an interesting story, are presented to a TPR lesson, listen or read an authentic document or watch a demonstration of an authentic task. This initial text should be presented to the students using pre, while and post reading/listening/viewing activities, so that students can fully grasp its meaning. Because one of the objectives of this lesson is to teach a grammar point, the grammatical feature should be well-represented in the text.
2. Attention
On this second step, the teacher calls students' attention to the grammatical structure that is being taught, by isolating sentences where the structure can be observed - this can be done by projecting sentences on the board and highlighting the important words and phrases, for example. These sentences should have enough semantic clues to allow the students to infer the function of the grammatical structure (e.g. if the grammar point to be taught is a verb tense, the sentences should have time expressions that show when that tense is used - 'yesterday', 'tomorrow', etc).
3. Co-Construction - Explanation as Conversation
In this phase, teacher and students engage in a conversation in which the teacher guides students into understanding first the meaning of the grammatical point (e.g. We use presente to talk about things that happen regularly.) and then the form (e.g. We conjugate verbs in the present by removing -ar from the infinitive form and adding different endings according to the subject.) It is very important to start with the meaning and not the form. The teacher should be ready for this step by preparing questions that will help guide the students.
Depending on the level of the class and the complexity of the grammatical structure, the use of English may be necessary at this point. However, if the conversation can be simplified, the used of the target language may be possible and useful.
4. Extension Activities
In this phase of the PACE lesson, students should engage in activities in which they have opportunities to use the structure that they studied. 'Extension activities are not worksheets on which learners use the target language to fill in blanks of disconnected sentences; instead, they can be information-gap activities, role-play situations, dramatizations, games, authentic writing projects, paired interviews, class surveys, out-of-class projects, or simulations of real-life situations'*
*Shrum and Glisan (2010), p. 229.


Teaching Games for Understanding Model: Teaching Games for Understanding places an emphasis on the play, where tactical and strategic problems are posed in a modified game environment, ultimately drawing upon students to make decisions (Webb, Pearson, & Forrest, 2006).

Too much training is boring. Too much training barely raises itself above level one in Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. That is, the reaction of students; what they thought and felt about the training. Too much training ignores the learning needs of the participants. Too much corporate training spending is wasted.

Adults have some simple requirements as learners. They have an expectation of being treated as an adult with respect shown for their experience and knowledge of the training topic. Even if they cannot describe what they know in the theoretical terms they are about to learn they still want their experience acknowledged. They have a need to share that experience with others.

Above all, adults have a desire to be active participants in the learning process. They, of course, abhor boring day long presentations where presenters ask for and receive no interaction from the participants. However, they also tend to dislike good interactive presentations which give no scope for learning through experience.

Unfortunately, what adults also have is a predilection that training must somehow be painful and difficult. The old, 'no pain, no gain', adage of physical training seems to transfer to corporate learning. They believe that training whilst being lively and fast moving cannot equate to fun.

Mentioning the word, 'game', sends most adults into a thought process something like: game equals child's play, equals not serious, equals no learning. The truth is the opposite. Adults learn better through experiential games as part of a coaching learning environment than through a presentation.

A study by Bloom and others published in their book 'Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains' demonstrated a structure for design of training that complemented the desired outcomes.

The structure of learning knowledge escalated through six levels; Knowledge (finding out), Comprehension (understanding), Application (making use of the knowledge), Analysis Questions (taking apart the known), Synthesis (putting things together in a different way) and Evaluation (judging outcomes).

Games are good training tools which can be used at all levels of learning objectives using Bloom's Taxonomy.

Quizzes, twenty questions and game show formats such as Jeopardy can transfer knowledge and test for comprehension. Using multiple choice questions in a competitive jeopardy show format reinforces learning and tests comprehension by using multiple choice questions which have at least two plausible but only one correct answer.

For

Online games and other computer based training games can provide methods to test application, analysis synthesis and evaluation.

A good method of training people to meet learning objectives across the whole spectrum is to use a board game. Board games can be designed to integrate process Eg, a sales process with questions about knowledge of the topics being taught and decisions to test ability to evaluate options within a scenario using the theory being taught tests participants cognitive ability across all of Bloom's structure.

Board games can be developed for almost any topic from an organisation's safety policies and processes to the organisation's three year strategy. Careful consideration needs to be given to the actual design of the board and the parameters which will be impacted by decisions made by the teams. However, a well constructed board game will test the use of theory within an organisation's operating environment.

Using games in a training event improves the learning process by creating an environment where people's creativity and intelligence are engaged and addressing the different ways in which different people best learn; through movement, hearing, and seeing.

However, when games are used as an end in themselves and not a means towards an end, they waste time and can hamper learning and using too many games can destroy learning effectiveness.

Games are best used in conjunction with other learning methodologies, such as presentations and discussions. Games used at the beginning of a program can measure existing knowledge providing a basis for future measurement and can build immediate interest in the training material.

Games used during a training programme can help people discover the learning themselves, which strengthens recall and commitment, practice using new knowledge or skills, or reinforce initial learning. Games used near the end of a program can test knowledge gained and people's ability to apply it in their work environment.

For games to be effective, they must be related to the workplace by providing knowledge, reinforcing attitudes, and initiating action that is important to job success. They must also teach people how to think, access information, react, understand, and create value for themselves and their organizations.

Themodelteaching games for understanding people

They must be enjoyable and engaging without being overly simplistic or silly. Games must also allow for reflection. That is, they must be debriefed. In many instances they need to be facilitated.

Themodelteaching Games For Understanding Kids

Games have a strong place in an organisation's learning environment. They are very effective learning tools for people. Encourage your people to play them.

Kevin Dwyer is Director of Change Factory. Change Factory helps organisations who do do not like their business outcomes to get better outcomes by changing people's behaviour. Businesses we help have greater clarity of purpose and ability to achieve their desired business outcomes. To learn more visit http://www.changefactory.com.au or email kevin.dwyer@changefactory.com.au

Themodelteaching Games For Understanding Strategies

To see more articles visit http://www.changefactory.com.au

Themodelteaching Games For Understanding People

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kevin_Dwyer
http://EzineArticles.com/?Training:-Using-Games-to-Embed-Learning&id=268530





⇐ ⇐ Pinterest Marketing: How To Get Started
⇒ ⇒ What Is The Best Open Text Editor For Big Files On Mac