Invasion Games & Net Games in Physical Education

MQF Level: 7

ECTS Value: 4 ECTS

Self Study Hours: 48

Contact Hours: 20

Assessment Hours: 32


Overall Objectives and Outcomes

This module aims to empower course participants to consider games through a more tactical approach. Within this module, two pedagogical models namely Sport Education (SE) and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) will be used as backdrops for the teaching of both invasion and net games.  The module will emphasise the concept of skill being a consequence of the tactical aim as it is listed in the Learning Outcomes Framework (LOF) which should not reside in highly contextualized settings. The SE will also allow the possibility of course participants having the possibility to experience other roles such as coach, fitness coach, kit manager, timekeeper … apart from playing and so it will develop the whole personality of each student. 

This module will focus on football in IG and volleyball in NG to provide a deep understanding in one team game from each game category. However, the course participants will learn to sample this game upon other IG such as basketball, handball and rugby and upon other NG such as tennis and badminton. This module will also consider authentic assessment strategies as the course participants  are taught and assessed in and through the game itself. They will be assessed in relation to LOF in highly contextualised settings

By the end of this programme, participants should be able to:


a. Devise lesson plans for the attacking and defence parts of IG and NG using a tactical approach model;

b. Conduct a PE lesson using small-sided games and draw out the technical component from the tactical one;

c. Assess the learners’ progress using authentic tasks and relevant rubrics.

d. Employ and appropriate assessment model for authentic assessment in games.


a. Systematically understand the main strategies, tactics and techniques required for both attack and defence in specific invasion and net games;

b. Systematically refer to ecological theories such as constrained based theory to stimulate learning conditions which are applicable to all students.

c. Elicit the best situational decision through questioning whenever learners have difficulty in showing progress or demonstrate if and when required.


a. Devise exercises to achieve the expected outcomes indicated in the learning outcomes framework.

b. Create situations which are age and level appropriate and provide support to the learners.

c. Determine progressions with relative differentiating situations such as 2v2 or 1v1+2 for beginners, who will work on the inherent numerical advantage (IG) and various sizes of pitches and nets (NG) to allow each learner to cope with space and time;

d. Manage physical activities in relation to each subject area.

Assessment Methods

This module will be assessed through: Assignment.

Suggested Readings

Core Reading List
  1. Balakrishnan, Malathi & Rengasamy, S & Aman, Mohd S. (2011). Effect of teaching games for understanding approach on students’ cognitive learning outcome. World Acad Sci Eng Technol. 77. 961-963.
  2. Cuevas, R., Garcia-Lopez, L.M., Serra-Olivares, J. (2016) Sport education model and self-determination theory: an intervention in secondary schools. Kinesiology 48 (1).
  3. Mandigo, J. & Butler, J. (2007) What is teaching games for understanding? A Canadian perspective. Physical & Health Education.
  4. Pearson, P. (2008) Developing Effective Questioning in teaching games for understanding. A paper presented at the 1st Asia Pacific Sport in Education conference, Adelaide.
  5. Penney, D. (2003) Sport education and situated learning: problematising the potential. EPER, 9(3).
  6. Pereira, J., Hastie, P., Araújo, R., Farias, C., Rolim, R. & Mesquita, I. (2015) A Comparative Study of Students’ Track and Field Technical Performance in Sport Education and in a Direct Instruction Approach. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 14, (1), 118-127.
  7. Pill, S. (2018) The Game Sense Approach: Developing Thinking Players. Runner: The Journal of the Health & Physical Education Council of the Alberta Teachers’ Association. 49 (1).
  8. Schwamberger, B. & Sinelnikov, O. (2015). Connecting Physical Education to Out-of-school Physical Activity through Sport Education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 86. 39-44. 10.1080/07303084.2015.1085344.
  9. Sport education model soccer unit plan to Finnish PE teachers using sport education model
  10. Stolz, S. & Pill, S. (2014) Teaching Games and Sport for Understanding: Exploring and considering its relevance in physical education. EPER 20 (1).
  11. Webb, P, Pearson, P & Forrest, G, (2006) Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) in primary and secondary physical education, ICHPER-SD International Conference for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance, 1st Oceanic Congress, Wellington, New Zealand, 1-4 October 2006.
  12. Williams, A. & Hodges, N. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of sports sciences. (23) 637-50.
  13. Koekeok, J., Dokman, I., Walinga, W., Game-based Pedagogy in Physical Education and Sports. (2023)
Supplementary Reading List
  1. Harvey, S. & Hughes, C (2009). Teaching & Assessing Tag Rugby Made simple. In Strategies, Vol 22(4), pp. 17-28.
  2. Launder A.G. (2001). Play Practice – The Games Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sports. Human Kinetics
  3. McKninght, D & Pletka R. (2008). Soccer is a Thinking Game – A simple approach to coaching youth soccer (ages 5-12). iUniverse, Inc.
  4. Zuccolo, A., Spittle, M., & Pill, S. (2013). Twenty years of Game Sense sport coaching in Australia: 1993-2013 – where are we now? Edited Proceedings of the 28th ACHPER International Conference, 27-29 November, Melbourne
Skip to content