Background: In recent years there has been a growing interest in potential pedagogical tools to be used in Physical Education (PE), and specifically in games. This has involved the exploration of both Gamification and Digital Video Games Approach (DVGA). Both are viable pedagogical tools for any teacher, and each have clearly different intentions for impacting student learning. Unfortunately, and despite several distinctions, they have been misinterpreted. Purposes:The first purpose of the study is to offer a clarification of how these tools have emerged in PE and their underpinning mechanisms. This clarification explains their conceptual differences and similarities, with pedagogical implications. The second purpose is to highlight how understanding of this clarification can develop teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and support more optimal usage and better impact positive student outcomes in PE.Key Arguments: PE teachers are responsible for delivering high quality teaching and learning experiences which are informed by well-reasoned decisions of which blend of pedagogical tools to use, when and why. Unless a clarification is provided concerning Gamification and DVGA, these tools will continue to be used sub optimally. In short, we clarify that Gamification is underpinned by increasing motivation in the short term, through improving the attention and engagement of students. In contrast, the underpinning of DVGA is metacognition, and this tool seeks to deepen student understanding; a distinct (we suggest) longer term agenda.Discussion: There is ongoing debate concerning the importance of a meaningful PE curriculum and how to engage students through games using a range of pedagogical tools. Gamification and DVGA are tools which share some commonalities (such as choice, challenge and 3 feedback), but they also have distinct differences (such as planning, assessment and progressions, differentiation and the teacher's role).Conclusions: By improving teachers' PCK about the purpose and underpinning mechanisms of Gamification and DVGA, they will be better equipped to decipher which pedagogical tool to use, when and why. As a result, teaching is more likely to deliver optimal impact for students to increase potential for developing a love for playing games.

No abstract

No abstract

Learning how to develop lesson and unit plans is recognised as a priority for teacher education programmes; however, recent empirical research on planning is scarce, particularly in physical education. The purpose of this research was to analyse how and why we teach physical education pre-service teachers (PSTs) to plan in the ways we do. A secondary purpose was to consider alternative approaches to teaching about planning based on this analysis. Over one academic term, we used collaborative self-study of teacher education practice methodology and gathered several forms of qualitative data, including reflective journal entries, recorded video conversations, and teaching artefacts. Through sharing and interrogating our assumptions about the nature of planning and how to teach PSTs about planning, we came to see several flaws in the approaches we had typically used, particularly in terms of the emphasis given to the products (i.e. developing and submitting complete lesson plans) over the processes of planning, and how this emphasis did not necessarily support PSTs’ learning. This was partially because we found it challenging to model our processes of planning for PSTs in authentic ways. We agree that planning is and should be a central part of learning to teach; however, this research suggests that the ‘typical’ actions in how we teach PSTs about planning may be ripe for disruption and redesign. This research provides a rationale for a better balance to be struck between teaching about planning-as-process and teaching about planning-as-product.