TGFU AND ITS GOVERNANCE: FROM CONCEPTION TO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) has emerged over the past thirty years as one of the leading instructional models for sports coaches and physical education teachers. From its initial beginning as a set of theoretical and practical initiatives on how to teach games, TGfU has evolved to become one of the most readily identifiable pedagogical movements within the sports and physical education field. In this paper we aim to document and study this development in a way that acknowledges the complexity and collectivity involved. At one level, it is easy to see that there is a broad mix of people who value this model and want to work in a collaborative way to promote, research and advance it. At another level, however, the problem becomes one of resisting the urge to simply tell the history without acknowledging the methodological issues involved. As historians would remind us, it is important that we never take history as fixed and linear. Instead, we must interrogate the popular construction of history and seek alternative perspectives in order to escape the confines of biography and experience. By reflecting on the dominant narratives, as well as a few counter narratives, we have a means to engage with and understand how key pedagogical initiatives, like TGfU, are supported and sustained in educational contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".