Promoting Students' Metacognitive Behavior in Physical Education Through TGFU

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding) model in promoting metacognitive activity in physical education classes. TGfU is a tactical-game approach to teaching games which utilises modified game forms (e.g., adapting equipment, playing areas, or rules) with the aim of reducing the demands of the game, and by implication, the complexity of learning. Seventy-one students aged 11 and 12 years old were divided into two groups: (i) an experimental group consisting of 29 students (13 boys and 16 girls) and (ii) a control group of 42 students (19 boys and 23 girls). An experimental intervention study in basketball was conducted with pre-and post-tests. Teachers in the intervention classes applied the tactical-game approach (TgfU), while within the control group the skill-based approach was applied. Metacognition was assessed pre and post-intervention using questionnaires, and through observation of problem-solving situations. Repeated measures analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between groups. The results imply that the tactical-game approach is an effective way to improve metacognitive behavior in physical education classes.

Full text

American Journal of Educational Research
Vol. 1, No. 2, 2015, pp. 28-36
http://www.aiscience.org/journal/ajer
* Corresponding author
E-mail address: atchatzip@yahoo.gr (Chatzipanteli A.), athxatzipan@pe.uth.gr (Chatzipanteli A.)
Promoting Students’ Metacognitive Behavior in
Physical Education Through TGFU
Chatzipanteli A.
*
, Digelidis N., Karatzoglidis C., Dean R.
University of Thessaly, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Trikala, Greece
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding) model in promoting
metacognitive activity in physical education classes. TGfU is a tactical-game approach to teaching games which utilises
modified game forms (e.g., adapting equipment, playing areas, or rules) with the aim of reducing the demands of the game, and
by implication, the complexity of learning. Seventy-one students aged 11 and 12 years old were divided into two groups: (i) an
experimental group consisting of 29 students (13 boys and 16 girls) and (ii) a control group of 42 students (19 boys and 23
girls). An experimental intervention study in basketball was conducted with pre- and post-tests. Teachers in the intervention
classes applied the tactical-game approach (TgfU), while within the control group the skill-based approach was applied.
Metacognition was assessed pre and post-intervention using questionnaires, and through observation of problem-solving
situations. Repeated measures analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between groups. The results
imply that the tactical-game approach is an effective way to improve metacognitive behavior in physical education classes.
Keywords
Metacognitive Beahavior, Tactical-Game Approach, Basketball, Elementary School
Received: April 10, 2015 / Accepted: April 20, 2015 / Published online: May 27, 2015
@ 2015 The Authors. Published by American Institute of Science. This Open Access article is under the CC BY-NC license.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
1. Introduction
Several studies have established the importance of
metacognition upon the acquisition of learning skills and
knowledge transfer (Alexander, Fabricius, Fleming, Zwahr &
Brown, 2003; Hartman, 2002). Moreover, it has also been
posited that when students acquire more metacognitive
knowledge, they are able to transfer this newly acquired
knowledge into new areas of learning (Schraw, 2002).
Metacognition is defined as “thinking about thinking” and it
is classified by way of three components, which include
knowledge of cognition, regulation of cognition and
metacognitive experiences (Flavell, 1987; Schraw, 2002).
Knowledge of cognition incorporates declarative, procedural
and conditional knowledge (Schraw, 2002). Declarative
knowledge refers to knowledge about oneself as a learner and
the factors which influence individual performance.
Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of how to perform a
specific task, and conditional knowledge refers to knowing
when and why to use a procedure skill or strategy (Schraw,
2002). Regulation of cognition refers to how well students
can control their own learning and includes three essential
skills: (a) planning-which refers to the appropriate selection
of strategies for an effective performance, (b) monitoring-
which is about one's awareness of comprehension and task
performance, and (c) evaluating- which is about the product
appraisal of a student’s work and the efficiency of his/her
own learning (Schraw, 2002).
Studies have found that students who use metacognitive
strategies develop a greater tendency to learn, recall with
greater efficiency, and behave more strategically, flexibly,

American Journal of Educational Research Vol. 1, No. 2, 2015, pp. 28-36 29
and productively (Hartman, 2002; Schraw, 2002). There is a
notion that metacognition is teachable (Chatzipanteli,
Grammatikopoulos & Gregoriadis 2013) and within
academic subjects, researchers have said that it is productive
for students to be metacognitively trained (Lin, Schwartz &
Hatano, 2005). Student-activated teaching methods, where
students take an active role in their own learning process,
seem to be functional to the development of metacognition
(Chatzipanteli, 2015; Chatzipanteli, Digelidis &
Papaioannou, in press).
Developed within the area of physical education; “Teaching
Games for Understanding” is a constructivist teaching
approach, where teachers help students to learn under the
guidance of effective questioning, rather than direct delivery
of information (Light, 2002). This approach was introduced
by Bunker and Thorpe (Griffin & Butler, 2005) and is
compartmentalized into four game categories: invasion
games, net games, striking games and target games (Mitchell,
Oslin & Griffin, 2003). In this approach the teacher alters a
game by making teams smaller or modifying equipment, and
utilizes effective questioning to stimulate student's’ thinking
(Griffin & Butler, 2005). This approach provides teachers
with the opportunity to introduce higher order thinking, such
as problem solving (Howarth, 2000; Kirk & MacPhail, 2000;
Light, 2002) and tactical transfer across games - a key
element of learning in TGfU (Hopper, 2002; Oslin &
Mitchell, 1998).
In the traditional technique-based approach, teachers
emphasize the skills of a sport, out of the context of the game
and only a few of them require students to think beyond the
recall of information (Mawer, 1995). In contrast, in a tactical-
focus approach, such as TGfU, teachers use prompts and
questioning; in conjunction with modified game forms (e.g.,
adapting equipment, playing areas or rules) in order to reduce
the demands of a sport and its complexity (Chow, Davids,
Button, Shuttleworth, Renshaw & Araujo, 2007).
A typical lesson (within a generic structural framework),
begins with a modified game, and subsequent to this,
conversation is then guided by the teacher, with the aim of
developing a deeper understanding of the rules and the
strategic nature of the game. This conversation encourages
students to solve specific tactical problems. Finally, skill
execution and performance are assessed by observing the
outcomes of decisions during the game (Turner & Martinek,
1999). This approach is a method that reduces the skill
demands and highlights the intellectual dimensions of games,
such as decision-making (e.g. what, how and when to
perform certain skills, or how to create enough space to shoot
the ball) (Howarth, 2000; Kirk & MacPhail, 2000; Harvey &
Jarrett, 2013).
There are studies that have examined differences between
technical and tactical approaches to knowledge acquisition.
One fundamental outcome from such a study was that
metacognitive behavior was developed in students who were
taught with the TGfU approach in volleyball (Chatzipanteli,
Digelidis, Karatzoglidis & Dean, 2014). Other studies have
shown that the tactical approach has also been shown to be
an effective method for learning within soccer, particularly in
off-the-ball movement and decision-making (Mitchell,
Griffin & Oslin, 1995). Further work has demonstrated
improvements in declarative knowledge (what to do) in field
hockey (Turner, 1996) and volleyball (Griffin, Oslin &
Mitchell, 1995).
Harvey and Jarrett (2013), reported that a game-centered
approach, in contrast with a skill-focused approach provides
improvements in intellectual aspects of learning, game
concepts, declarative knowledge and decision making. Also,
performance enhancement was found in invasion games, in
terms of “off-the-ball” movement (Gray & Sproule, 2011;
Lee & Ward, 2009). Further endorsement for the TGfU
approach was also to found within (Turner, 2003), who
highlighted significant improvements of declarative
knowledge and improved decision making related to
performance in tennis.
In addition, Allison and Thorpe (1997) noticed a better
understanding of game concepts (offence-defence) in both
field hockey and basketball. In terms of the affective domain
involved in Physical Education, students found the TGfU
model to be more enjoyable, and as a result displayed higher
levels of motivation towards participation in physical
education classes (Griffin et al, 1995). Finally, improvements
in game-understanding, involvement and enjoyment have
been observed (McKeen, Webb & Pearson, 2005; MacPhail,
Kirk & Griffin, 2008).
On the other hand, other research did not find significant
differences in declarative and procedural knowledge between
technical and tactical-focus approach for field hockey
(Turner & Martinek, 1992) and badminton (Lawton, 1989)
although the TGfU group did display a better understanding
of game tactics and strategies.
To date, there is very limited research based on promoting
metacognitive behavior and developing game understanding
within elementary school settings (Chatzipanteli et al, 2014;
Mitchell, 2005). Arising from that dearth, the main aim of this
study was to examine the effectiveness of the TGfU model in
promoting metacognitive behavior in invasion games. The
more specific aim was to examine regulation of cognition and
the ability of the students to solve problems successfully
within an elementary school setting. It was hypothesized that
TGfU model could enhance metacognitive abilities.

30 Chatzipanteli A. et al.: Promoting Students’ Metacognitive Behavior in Physical Education Through TGFU
2. Method
2.1. Participants and Setting
Seventy-one students aged 11-12 years old (32 boys and 39
girls) participated in this study. The sample came from four
classes of two primary schools, both from the same rural
region of Central Greece. None of the students had any
previous direct exposure to basketball and hence could be
considered as novices.
The sample chosen was based on convenience criteria with
classes randomly divided into two groups of approximately
equal size. Two classes from one school served as the
experimental group while the other two classes from the
other school served as a control group. The experimental
group consisted of 29 students (13 boys and 16 girls) and the
control group of 42 students (19 boys and 23 girls).
Informed consent was obtained from all participants and their
parents.
2.2. Design and Instruments
Metacognition was quantitatively assessed in both groups,
before and after the basketball session. Additionally, within
the experimental sample only, qualitative data were collected.
This data was collected to assess metacognitive behaviour,
and the aim of the data collection was to find out how
students thought, planned and evaluated their actions during
a tactical problem situation in invasion games, after the
support of a tactical approach. Think-aloud protocols about
students’ metacognitive behavior in problem solving
situations, were used in order to meet the research
requirement for multi-method approaches when assessing
metacognition (Veenman, 2005, as cited in De Backer, Van
Keer, & Valcke, 2012).
Metacognitive Process in Physical Education Questionnaire
(MPIPEQ)
The Metacognitive Process in Physical Education
Questionnaire (short version) was used in order to assess
students’ metacognition. This instrument; developed by
Theodosiou and Papaioannou (2006), is based on Brown’s
(1987) framework. While the initial form of the questionnaire
had 9 scales and 52 items (Theodosiou & Papaioannou,
2006), its short form has been abbreviated to include 9 items
and is uni-dimensional. The construct validity and reliability
of the instrument has been tested in previous studies
(Theodosiou, Mantis & Papaioannou, 2008; Papaioannou,
Theodosiou, Pashali & Digelidis, 2012). Responses are
recorded on a five-point Likert-type scale grading from
strongly agree = 5 to strongly disagree =1 (see, Table 1).
Qualitative assessment of metacognitive behaviour
“Think-aloud” protocols during the problem-solving
situations were used in order to assess students’
metacognitive behaviour, and were coded according to the
five-phase metacognitive model (Maykut & Morehouse,
1994). This model (see, Table 2) has been used to assess
metacognitive behavior in mathematics (Yimer & Ellerton,
2010) for the reason that metacognitive processes such as
students’ ability to monitor and regulate, are at work to a
greater degree when problem-solving. (Schoenfeld, 1992).
According to this model, five groupings were designated as
the five phases: engagement, formulation, implementation,
evaluation and internalization. Each phase included sub-
categories which were observed within the solution processes
of at least one student (e.g., engagement: initial engagement,
restating the problem). And, researchers have suggested that
the engagement in these phases is the result of metacogntitive
behaviors (Yimer & Ellerton, 2010).
2.3. Intervention Characteristics
During the four weeks of the study, the students in each
group received eight 45 minutes lessons of basketball. The
intervention program was planned according to lesson plans
for elementary invasion games teaching (Mitchell et al, 2003)
and was taught from the regular teacher who had experience
in the TGfU model. In order to facilitate the teacher’s work
and to check if lesson-plans were being effectively
implemented; the investigator was also present during the
implementation of the eight lessons
The focus of each lesson plan was on tactical aspects,
together with decision making components of basketball
game-play. Whilst motor skills were practiced when required,
a tactical problem within a game situation was the starting
point and fulcrum of each lesson. Examples of tactical
problems that were posed include: “creating space to attack”,
“playing a 2v1 game without dribbling”, and “making two
consecutive passes and bringing the ball back to the target
player”. The latter was introduced in order to understand
students how to apply the “give-and-go” cue in a game that
leads to the creation of space. Knowledge items that were
introduced were basic fundamentals of basketball- such as
maintaining possession of ball, obtaining possession, score,
preventing scoring etc.
During each lesson, the teacher stopped the games at various
points in order to question students (e.g. how can you quickly
pass the ball to your teammate?). The teacher
encouraged the
students to think about the variables that they had to
examine, and questioning rotated around the goals of the
game or the appropriate skill for each phase. Below is a brief
description of the approach used in this study.
Structure of TGfU lesson plans:

American Journal of Educational Research Vol. 1, No. 2, 2015, pp. 28-36 31
(a) A tactical problem (keeping possession, keeping the ball
and attacking etc) was the starting point for each lesson.
(b) Motor skills (e.g. passing, catching, dribbling, shooting)
were introduced and practiced when the teacher clarified
exactly students understood what to do and they had to learn
how to perform it.
(c) The teacher stopped the game at appropriate points in
order to set questions to the children.
Metacognitive cue structure of TGfU lessons:
(a) Knowledge items were introduced (e.g. moving into
space, closing down space, supporting for possession) in
order to expand knowledge of cognition.
(b) Questions were put to the children during lessons. Via
this questioning the learners were asked think about the
variables they had to examine, the aim of the game and the
appropriate skill for each phase. Specifically they were asked
to monitor, evaluate and reflect on their ideas. All of these
are factors which trigger regulation of cognition.
2.4. Procedures and Design
There were two phases of measurement:
(a) Before the start of the intervention and
(b) At the end of the 4-weeks period of the intervention.
Before the start of the intervention program, all participants
completed the “Metacognitive Process in Physical Education
Questionnaire,” (a mechanism used to measure
metacognitive activity). This questionnaire was administered
during regular school hours under the supervision of one of
the researchers. This portion of the lesson lasted
approximately 20 minutes.
The Experimental group then faced a problem-solving
situation: ‘how to effectively act in order to score a basket in
a game form (two versus one)’. Prior to presenting this
tactical problem, the researcher asked ten students (5 boys
and 5 girls) to participate in this procedure- (to "think aloud"
while working on the task), in order to be able to identify
their metacognitive behaviour. The researcher then gave
didactic instructions and provided a short demonstration of
how to verbalize. Following from this, the students engaged
in a sample exercise to practice verbalizing their thoughts.
They practiced until they could think aloud clearly, and
following successful practice; were given instructions on the
research protocol.
Students were not prompted in any way with guiding
questions, i.e. they expressed their thoughts, feelings,
difficulties independently, and it was during periods of
silence that the investigator began to intervene, with simple
questions such as ‘‘Could you tell me what are you
thinking?’’.
At the end of the intervention program, all participants
completed the same questionnaires. However, students from
the experimental group had to solve a more difficult tactical
scenario (two versus two) than the previous occasion (two
versus one). The researcher asked the same ten students to
"think aloud" while solving the scenario. Students were
thinking aloud alone, and each individual needed
approximately 20 minutes to express their thoughts. Ten tape
recordings were taken in order to record each student
individually, and the audiotapes were then transcribed
verbatim. Afterwards, students checked their responses in
order to make sure that they were accurate.
In the control group, there was no intervention, and the
teaching approach directly focused upon motor-skill
acquisition, which is already included as part of the school
curriculum. Each lesson consisted of an introductory activity
and a skills’ practice and then the lesson concluded with a 10
minute period of game. The 5v5 game-play at the end of the
lesson was played in a half-court, in order to facilitate
simultaneous participation for every student. Students from
the control group were introduced to four lessons focal upon
passing and catching, one for dribbling, two for shooting and
the last lesson was a combination of all these skills.
2.5. Coding Scheme and Procedure
The think-aloud protocols were transcribed verbatim and ten
of them coded by two trained coders, working in accordance
with the five-phase metacognitive model (Maykut &
Morehouse, 1994). According to this model, the
metacognitive behaviors identified in one student’s problem-
solving efforts (of one specific problem), were compared
with the same student’s work on different problems. In
addition, other comparisons were made with other students’
metacognitive behaviors; displayed during their problem-
solving efforts with the same problem.
Firstly, the two investigators coded a sample of transcripts
independently, writing down metacognitive behaviors as they
occurred. They then met again to compare the results and to
resolve any differences. Finally, they coded all of them and
the inter-rater agreement was calculated. Cohen’s kappa (κ
= .86) indicated high overall reliability for each category (κ
engagement = .88, κ formulation = .85, κ implementation
= .86, κ evaluation = .85 and κ internalization = .87).
3. Results
The internal consistency of the MPIPEQ was of an
acceptable level in accordance with Moss et al. (1998) who
have supported that Cronbach alpha value above 0.6 is

32 Chatzipanteli A. et al.: Promoting Students’ Metacognitive Behavior in Physical Education Through TGFU
acceptable. So, in the first wave an α equal with .66 was
gained; in the second an α equal with .79.
Repeated measures analysis was conducted in order to
examine the differences between the initial and final
measurement. The data analysis indicated that the
experimental group showed significantly higher scores than
control group. Descriptive statistics from the two
measurements are presented in Table 3.
Table 1. Metacognitive Process in Physical Education Questionnaire (Papaioannou, Theodosiou, Pashali, and Digelidis, 2012)
Metacognitive activities Items
1. Declarative knowledge “…I realized which exercises I could perform right”
2. Procedural knowledge “… I had a clear view of how to put in practice a learning method that I have been taught”
3. Conditional knowledge “… when I wanted to grow better in a game, I put into practice a learning strategy”
4. Information management “… I thought if the games I played were similar to others”
5. Planning “…it is clear for me what I want to learn”
6. Self-monitoring “…the moment I perform an exercise, I check if I actually learn it right”
7. Problem solving strategies “… when I got confused I stopped to see the whole thing from the beginning”
8. Evaluation “… since I have learned an exercise I compared the way I had learned it with other ways”
9. Imagery “… before I perform an exercise I imagined myself to perform it”
Table 2. Metacognitive model used in the qualitative analysis of data (Adapted from Yimer & Emmerson, 2010).
Phases Sub-categories
1. Engagement Initial engagement, restating the problem, assessing familiarity
(e.g., understanding the tactical scenario )
2. Formulation Analysis of information, identifying patterns
(e.g., making connections based on previous experiences)
3. Implementation Exploring the essence of the plan, performing the plan, monitoring the performance on the plan
4. Evaluation Reflecting on the solutions, monitoring and
justifying the solution (e.g., checking for errors)
5. Internalization Assessing difficulty, confidence in finding the solution
(e.g., finding different ways of solving it)
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the two measurements
Experimental group Control group
Pre-test Post- test Pre-test Post-test
M SD M SD M SD M SD F η2
Metacognitive activity 3.67 .76 4.12 .72 3.57 .58 3.38 .42 24,65** .03
Note: ** = p < .001.
According to think-aloud protocols, students from the
experimental group, showed different orientations and
solution processes before and after the intervention program.
They showed different degrees of understanding, better depth
of analysis, and greater control in solving the tactical
problem after the program. Examples of a student’s actual
responses during the “think aloud” procedure are presented in
tables 4 and 5.
Table 4. John’s actual responses during “think aloud” procedures before the intervention and its categorization based on the model
Metacognitive behaviour Metacognitive behaviour Sub-categories Actual student’s responses before the intervention
Engagement
- Initial engagement
- Restating the problem
-Assessing familiarity
-Reads the problem. “into a 2vs1 game what are the most appropriate
movements .....”
-“The most appropriate movements?”
-“Wow! I know only one”
Formulation - -
Implementation -Find a solution - “ He has to dribble the ball to move closer to the basket and shoot”
Evaluation - Assessing reasonableness
of the solution - “I think this is the most appropriate movement”
Internalization - -
At the first tactical problem all the students from the
experimental group, read the problem and restated it. Three
of the ten re-read the problem, observed the positions of the
players, and found a solution. The other four concluded that
they had reached a solution and finally the remaining three
found two solutions.
Regarding the second problem, students showed regulatory
behavior by considering more cases, meaning that they
checked more factors; such as the position of their opponents
and teammates, the open space, the distance from the basket
etc. Four of them began engaging with the task by reading
the problem and restating. This demonstrated an

American Journal of Educational Research Vol. 1, No. 2, 2015, pp. 28-36 33
understanding of the problem. They noted that they had to
face similar problems in their class, and they created a pencil
drawing to understand the problem in order to find more than
one solution. The drawings facilitated better analysis of the
information and enabled creation of new observations. Every
new observation led them to assess the monitoring of their
moves, and the formulation of solutions was accompanied by
with excitement. (e.g., “What should I do now? “I need to
re-read the scenario... Oh, okay. I get it”). Every time a
solution was found they assessed their own success and noted
their satisfaction (e.g., “..Yeah..I found it!”). A curiosity was
developed as to whether the problem had different solutions
(e,g., “…“I’m wondering ... is there another way to score?).
Three of the students found three solutions and only one
found two solutions.
Table 5. John’s actual responses during “think aloud” procedures after the intervention and its categorization based on the model
Metacognitive behaviour Metacognitive behaviour
Sub-categories Actual student’s responses after the intervention
Engagement
- Initial engagement
- Restating the problem
- Assessing familiarity
-Reads the problem.“ what are the most appropriate movements .....”
-“Which way is better to score?”
-“Wow! I have confronted such problems before but this is more difficult”
Formulation
-Analysis of information
- New observation
- Identifying a pattern
- Reflecting on assumptions
- Considering more cases
- “I see that there are 2x2 players”
-“ It looks like man-to man defence”
- “I see that is difficult for play-maker to pass the ball to his team-mate”
- “So his fellow has to go to an open space”
- “Maybe not”
- “Maybe it is better for play-maker to dribble and then to score by himself”
Implementation
- Exploring the essence of the plan.
- Assessing the plan with
specific cases
- Performing the plan
- Monitoring the
performance on the plan
- Excitement
-Find a solution
- “I need to justify it. No I think that it isn’t so good idea”
- “Let me try something else. May be the play-maker has to dribble and then
pass the ball to his fellow”
- “I see this is a more quick way to score, if his team-mate is going near to the
basket”
-“Yes!! That’s it”
- “His team-mate must go first in an open space in order to catch the ball”
Evaluation
- Assessing reasonableness
of the solution
- Mental activity
- Reflecting on the solutions
- Monitoring and
Justifying the solution
- “Let me see what I did”
- (No verbal communication)
-“Yes!”
- “ Think that there are more than one solution”
- “but the most quick movement is for play-maker to pass the ball to his team-
mate who has to be near the basket"
Internalization
- Assessing difficulty
- Confidence in finding the solution
-Reflecting
-“Wow! That is challenging. But I am really happy that I found a solution to this
problem”
- “I’m wondering ... Is there a better way to score?”
The other three appeared to display a degree of discomfort;
demonstrating through language that it was difficult to find
three solutions to the problem (e.g., “…I don’t know what
else to do…I’m confused”). They re-read the problem and
continued to try to find patterns, and from those patterns
make estimations in order to find the second or third solution
(e.g., “…let’s see what I’m going to do now”). They
expressed their feeling about the difficulty they faced and
continued to refer to their pencil drawing for information
about player positions etc. From these events, metacognitive
behaviors were in evidence during their assessment and also
during the monitoring of their solution process (e.g., “...Let
me see what I did”). Finally, two found three solutions and
only one learner found two solutions.
The remaining three students found correct solutions to the
problem-solving situations. They read the problem; created a
diagram and stated a solution. They then reflected upon the
accuracy of this solution. Following this, they followed the
same procedure to find the other two solutions.
4. Discussion
This study investigated the effect of the TGfU approach upon
metacognition, and specifically on regulation of cognition in
invasion games, in physical education classes. The results
from data analysis revealed that the experimental group,
compared with the control group, possessed higher scores in
metacognition. The findings are consistent with findings
from other researchers who claim that declarative knowledge
(what to do) and procedural knowledge (how to do it) were
higher for students who experienced the TGfU approach in

34 Chatzipanteli A. et al.: Promoting Students’ Metacognitive Behavior in Physical Education Through TGFU
volleyball and field hockey (Griffin et al, 1995; Turner,
1996). Moreover, the results from the tactical problem
assessment revealed that post- intervention; students from the
experimental group improved their metacognitive behavior.
That means students improved not only the knowledge of
cognition but regulation of cognition, which supports their
ability to plan, monitor, evaluate and reflect on their actions.
Within the first phase, answers were quick and poorly
conceived; however that may be due to the students’
perception regarding their own lack of ability to find
solutions, in addition to an absence of metacognitive abilities.
Students did not show evidence of each of the sub-
components in every phase, and no single student was found
to exhibit all of the phases. After the intervention, students
became consciously aware of constructing and analysing
their own thoughts and ideas. Attempts to explore the
scenario’s in greater depth were evidenced, through
observing students reading the scenario to find the most
effective solutions. And as learners analyzed and reflected on
the degree of familiarity or difficulty, they were triggered to
evaluate their cognitive background. They paid more
attention to the goals of the tactical scenario; activating prior
knowledge in order to solve it successfully. In relation to
formulation and implementation, students became more
sensitive to the deeper processing of information and it
should be noted, that this was a common practice for all
participants at the second phase.
After the intervention, a clear majority of students tried to
solve the tactical scenario by attempting to gain answers to
their own critical, thought-provoking questions. These
findings are consistent with the notion that learning-by-
discovery and ‘learning-by-doing’ encourages students to
activate metacognitive processes (Veenman & Beishuizen,
2004). They made judgements about their solution, and
developed a tendency to 'step back' and re-interpret the
scenario, with due consideration of the symbiosis between
task objectives and their own orientations and solutions. The
significant increase in metacognitive internalisation is
noteworthy. Students were searching for more effective
solutions, and expressing enthusiastic levels of satisfaction
about what they had achieved. It has been said that evidence
of internalization phases by problem-solvers can be
interpreted as metacognitive maturity (Yimer & Ellerton,
2010). So, although in the first phase, learners didn’t go
through all the five stages of problem solving situations, in
the second phase, such metacognitive elements as monitoring
while planning for a solution, executing a plan and checking
solutions were evidenced.
The tactical approach, aligned with the task constraints
outlined within this work, created an environment for
students to learn in sequential fashion; from the simple to
more complex. Every time students faced a different
constraint (modified rules, potent offence), they had the
opportunity to plan actions from the beginning and in doing
so, developed a repertoire of strategies to utilize
appropriately. Modified equipment combined with the
limited number of teaching cues during motor skill
acquisition, enabled students to play the game more
effectively, and consequentially pay more attention to tactics.
Learning strategies in less complex environments (fewer
players, reduced space, etc.) and the reduction of skill
requirements gave students the opportunity to enhance their
procedural knowledge about how to react. Moreover,
conditional knowledge was developed, which Luke and
Hardy (1999) suggest, is necessary in order to perform
effective movements.
So to underline; after the intervention program, students had
acquired a fund of cognitive strategies and skills, which must
be present when metacognitive strategies are used in
problem-solving situations (Rosenzweig, Krawec &
Montague, 2011). Additionally, the forms of questioning (e.g.
“IF the open space is in front of you THEN what might the
next course of action be?” ) which the teacher applied during
the sessions, promoted an 'opening up' of higher order
thinking skills, in order to accomplish the goal of a modified
game. And this is the difference between the traditional
method where teachers ask for students only to recall
information and perform skills correctly, rather than learning
how to play effectively.
In TGfU approach teachers utilized guiding questioning
methods regarding variables like offense/defence or the goals
of the game. As a corollary, this helped students to think
more globally, and by implication improved knowledge of
how to react, how to look for open space, and determine
where other players were positioned. This is perhaps the
central reason students wrote out better solutions to a more
difficult scenario (2v2) after the intervention program;
because they learnt to think and act appropriately in varied
game situations. These findings are consistent with the notion
that such activities encourage the development of adaptive
performers, who are more equipped to discover the best
solution at any one moment in time (Button, Chow & Rein
2008, as cited in Renshaw, Chow, Davids & Hammond,
2010).
Both quantitative and qualitative assessments produced a
positive influence of TGfU on students’ metacognitive
activity and behavior. Researchers claim that it’s the tactical
approach which encourages students to engage in self-
discovery; and it is that which could lead to greater
engagement in sport and physical activity (Renshaw et al,
2010). The very positive likelihood of increasing adherence
to life-long physical activities, seconded by giving learners a

American Journal of Educational Research Vol. 1, No. 2, 2015, pp. 28-36 35
greater capacity to apply their knowledge to other school
subjects, is truly reinforcing the popular “sport as a metaphor
for life” apothegm.
This research solely examined how students think and plan
their actions after receiving basketball tuition, within the
framework of a tactical-focus approach. A future study could
investigate the differences in students’ thinking after
consuming a traditional approach, as opposed to a tactical-
game approach.
References
[1] Alexander, J., Fabricius, W., Fleming, V., Zwahr, M., &
Brown, S. (2003). The development of metacognitive causal
explanations. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 227-
238.
[2] Allison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the
effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within
physical education. A skills approach versus games for
understanding approach. British Journal of Physical
Education, 28, 9-13.
[3] Chatzipanteli, A. (2015). Student-centered teaching styles and
metacognition in early childhood physical education. In K.
Vann (Ed.), Early Childhood Education: Teachers'
Perspectives, Effective Programs and Impacts on Cognitive
Development (pp. 93-109). New York: Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. ISBN: 978-1-63463-996-5 (eBook).
[4] Chatzipanteli, A., Digelidis, N., Karatzoglidis, C., & Dean, R.
(2014). Α tactical-game approach and enhancement of
metacognitive behaviour in elementary school students.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. doi:
10.1080/17408989.2014.931366.
[5] Chatzipanteli, Α., Digelidis, Ν, & Papaioannou, G.Α. (in
press). Self-regulation, motivation and teaching styles in
physical education classes: An intervention study. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education.
[6] Chatzipanteli, A., Grammatikopoulos, V., & Gregoriadis, A.
(2013). Development and evaluation of metacognition in early
childhood education. Early Child Development and Care.
Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.861456.
[7] Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R.,
Renshaw, I., & Araujo, D. (2007). The Role of Nonlinear
Pedagogy in Physical Education. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 251-278. doi: 10.3102/003465430305615.
[8] De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke. M. (2012). Exploring
the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher
education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation,
Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9190-5.
[9] Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and
development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe
(Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp.21 -
29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[10] Gray, S., & Sproule, J. (2011). Developing Pupils’
Performance in Team Invasion Games. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy, 16, 15–32.
[11] Griffin, L. L., & Butler J. I. (2005). Teaching games for
understanding. Theory, Research and Practice. Illinois: Human
Kinetics.
[12] Griffin, L. L., Oslin, J. L., & Mitchell, S. A. (1995). An
analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching net games
[abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
66(suppl.), A-64.
[13] Hartman, H. (2002). Metacognition in Learning and
Instruction. USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[14] Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2013). A review of the game-centred
approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.
doi:10.1080/17408989.2012.754005.
[15] Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The
importance of student emphasis over content emphasis.
Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 73, 44–
48.
[16] Howarth, K. (2000). Context as a Factor in Teachers’
Perceptions of the Teaching of Thinking Skills in Physical
Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19,
270-286.
[17] Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2000). Teaching games for
understanding and situated learning: Re-thinking the Bunker-
Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21,
177-192.
[18] Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in
games. Bulletin of Physical Education, 25, 35-38.
[19] Lee, M.H., & Ward, P. (2009). Generalization of Tactics in
Tag Rugby from Practice to Games in Middle School Physical
Education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14, 189–
207.
[20] Light, R. (2002). Engaging the body in learning: promoting
cognition in games through TgfU. ACHPER Healthy
Lifestyles Journal, 49, 2326.
[21] Lin, X. D., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Towards
teacher’s adaptive metacognition. Educational Psychologist,
40, 245-256.
[22] Luke, I., & Hardy, C. (1999). Pupil’s metacognition and
Learning. In: C., Hardy and M. Mawer (Eds). Learning and
Teaching in Physical Education, (pp 38-58). N.Y: Routledge.
[23] McKeen, K., Webb, P., & Pearson, P. (2005). Promoting
physical activity through teaching games for understanding in
undergraduate teacher education. AISEP, 2005 World
Congress Proceedings. Active Lifestyles. The Impact of
Education and Sport, Lisbon, 251258.
[24] McNeill, M. C., Fry, J. M. & Hairil, B. J. (2011). Motivational
Climate in Games Concept Lessons. Journal of Research in
Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 6, 34
-39.
[25] McPhail, A., Kirk, D., & Griffin, L. (2008). Throwing and
Catching as Relational Skills in Game Play: Situated Learning
in a Modified Game Unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 27, 100–115.
[26] Mawer, M., (1995). The Effective Teaching of Physical
Education. London: Longman.

36 Chatzipanteli A. et al.: Promoting Students’ Metacognitive Behavior in Physical Education Through TGFU
[27] Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative
research: A philosophic and practical guide. London: The
Falmer Press.
[28] Mitchell, S. (2005). Teaching and Learning Games Using
TGFU at the Elementary Level. In L.Griffin & J Butler (Eds.)
Examining a Teaching Games for Understanding Model.
Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
[29] Mitchell, S, A., Griffin, L, L., & Oslin, J. L. (1995). An
analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching invasion
games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 66
(Suppl.), A-65.
[30] Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2003). Sport
Foundations for Elementary Physical Education: A Tactical
Games Approach. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
[31] Moss, S. C., Prosser, H., Costello, H., Simpson, N., Patel, P.,
Rowe, S., et al. (1998). Reliability and validity of the PAS-
ADD checklist for detecting psychiatric disorders in adults
with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, 42, 173-183.
[32] Oslin, J. L., & Mitchell, S, A. (1998). An investigation of
tactical transfer in net games. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport. (Suppl.), A-98.
[33] Papaioannou, A., Theodosiou, A., Pashali, M., & Digelidis, N.
(2012). Advancing Task Involvement, Intrinsic Motivation
and Metacognitive Regulation in Physical Education Classes:
The Self-Check Style of Teaching Makes a Difference.
Advances in Physical Education, 2, 110-118. doi:
10.4236/ape.2012.23020.
[34] Renshaw, I., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010).
A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill
acquisition and game play: a basis for integration of motor
learning theory and physical education praxis? Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15, 1 - 21.
[35] Rosenzweig, C., Krawec, J., & Montague, M. (2011).
Metacognitive Strategy Use of Eighth-Grade Students with
and Without Learning Disabilities During Mathematical
Problem Solving: A Think-Aloud Analysis. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 44, 508-520. doi:
10.1177/0022219410378445.
[36] Schoenfeld, A.H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about
metacognition?. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science
and mathematics education (pp. 189-215). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
[37] Schraw, G. (2002). Promoting general metacognitive
awareness. In H. Hartman (Ed.) Metacognition in Learning
and Instruction (pp. 3-16). USA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
[38] Theodosiou, A., Mantis, K., & Papaioannou, A. (2008).
Student self-reports of metacognitive activity in physical
education classes: Age-group differences and the effect of
goal orientations and perceived motivational climate.
Educational Research and Reviews, 3, 353-364.
[39] Theodosiou, A., & Papaioannou, A. (2006). Motivational
climate, achievement goals and metacognitive activity in
physical education and exercise involvement in out-of-school
settings. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 361-380.
[40] Turner, A. (1996). Myth or reality? Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, 67, 46–49.
[41] Turner, A. (2003). A comparative analysis of two approaches
for teaching tennis: Game based Approach versus Technique
Approach. Paper presented at the 2nd ITF Tennis science and
technology Congress. London.
[42] Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1992). A Comparative
Analysis of Two Models for Teaching Games: Technique
Approach and Game-Centered (Tactical Focus) Approach.
International Journal of Physical Education, 29, 15–31.
[43] Turner, A.P., & Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into
teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge
and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70,
286-296.
[44] Veenman, M. V. J., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and
metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under
conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and
Instruction, 14, 619–638.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.09.004.
[45] Yimer, A., & Ellerton, N. (2010). A five-phase model for
mathematical problem solving: Identifying synergies in pre-
service-teachers’ metacognitive and cognitive actions. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 42, 245–261.