TGfU – Would you know it if you saw it? Benchmarks from the tacit knowledge of the founders
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper explores the tacit expert knowledge and understanding about games curriculum and pedagogy of three men, Len Almond, David Bunker, and Rod Thorpe, credited as the founders of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model. The model emerged from teacher practice in the late 1970s and was little theorized at the time, apart from a handful of articles written by the founders. This paper attempts to retrospectively theorize and represent the founders’ ideas in terms of the beliefs, intentions, and actions they believed to be fundamental to TGfU. From here, some benchmarks are proposed so that TGfU can be more easily recognized when it is being practised and researched. Data were collected through two online sequential questionnaires, informal personal telephone interviews, and emails. All data were member checked throughout the two-year study. Both of the questionnaires were completed by the three founders in the persona of their ‘ideal’ TGfU teacher, in the hope that this would lead to greater clarity of response. The first questionnaire, called the Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI), was developed by Daniel Pratt and builds a profile of teacher beliefs, intentions, and actions, which are then grouped into five perspectives and ranked by personal bias. Questions posed on SurveyGizmo formed the second questionnaire, which helped the founders reflect further about their ideal teacher’s beliefs, intentions, and actions, as they became apparent in the dominant and recessive perspectives identified in the TPI profiles. The findings were grouped into the founders’ beliefs and intentions about: (1) learners and learning; (2) content; and (3) teachers’ role and responsibilities. The data forming what the founders’ considered to be best pedagogical practice formed eight areas for consideration to include: (1) preparation; (2) management; (3) starting a TGfU lesson; (4) continuing a TGfU lesson; (5) teacher behaviours; teacher focus during a game; (7) teacher expectations; and (8) learning environment. This paper aims to provide a starting point for further research, debate, and reflection as we engage with the founders’ intentions – to provide students with teaching that is an overt social, cultural, and relational activity, as well as a set of plans, practices, and actions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle