Using the teaching games for understanding model (TGfU) as an intervention strategy, this study intended to establish whether it could affect the moral disengagement (MD) levels of students / participants with special educational needs and disabilities; (SEND) by enhancing their positive behaviours in physical education (PE). The study focused on male students (n = 12) aged 13-14 years old who all had a range of different SEND conditions and they were taught within a special school setting in the UK. The intervention activity focussed on the sport of Indoor Hockey and this was taught by an experienced Teacher of PE over a period of six-weeks. The study used several qualitative approaches to collect and analyse the data. For example, the students completed two questionnaires and the teacher-researcher gathered field notes over the course of the intervention period. The data collection methods which were used to triangulate the results were an adapted qualitative ‘Physical Education Classroom Instrument’, an instrument called the ‘Moral Disengagement tool in Physical Education’ (MDPE), which was specifically designed for the use within a physical education setting and the teacher-researcher field notes. In conclusion the results from study show that by implementing MD minimisation strategies such as the TGfU model, can reduce students’ misbehaviours in PE lessons focussed on games such as Indoor Hockey and also moral disengagment minimisation strategies can help reduce the misbehaviours of students in PE with SEND.


Students, Special needs, Teaching, Misbehaviour,


  1. Azzarito, L., & Ennis, C. D. (2003). A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 8(2), 179-198.
  2. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In: Handbook of moral behaviour and development: Theory, research, and applications. Eds: Kurtines W. M., Gewirtz J. L. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 71-129.
  3. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3, 193-209.
  4. Boardley, I. D., Grix, J. (2014). Doping in bodybuilders: A qualitative investigation of facilitative psychosocial processes. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, and Health. 6 (3), 422-439.
  5. Boardley, I. D., Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development and validation of the moral disengagement in sport scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 29, 608-628.
  6. Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1986). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school. Bulletin of Physical Education. 10, 9-16.
  7. Butler, J. (2006a). TGfU pedagogy: Old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 225-240.
  8. 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(3), 251-278.
  9. Dyson, B., Howley, D., & Wright, P. M. (2021). A scoping review critically examining research connecting social and emotional learning with three model-based practices in physical education: Have we been doing this all along? European Physical Education Review, 27(1), 76–95.
  10. Ennis, C. (2000). Canaries in the coal mine: Responding to disengaged students using theme-based curricula. Quest, 52(2), 119-130.
  11. Ennis, C., Cothran, D., Davidson, K., Loftus, S., Owens, L., Swanson, L. & Hopsicker, P. (1997). Implementing curriculum within a context of fear and disengagement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 52-71.
  12. Hellison, D. (2011). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Human Kinetics.
  13. Hinrichs, K. T., Wang, L., Hinrichs, A. T., Romero, E. J. (2012). Moral disengagement through displacement of responsibility: The role of leadership beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42, 62-80.
  14. Hodge, K., Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behaviour in Sport: The role of coaching style, autonomous vs. controlled motivation, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 33, 527-547.
  15. Kavussanu, M. (2008) Moral behaviour in sport: a critical review of the literature. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1, 124-138.
  16. Krech P. R., Kulinna P. H., Cothran D. (2010). Development of a short-form version of the physical education classroom instrument: Measuring secondary pupils’ disruptive behaviours. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(3), 209–225.
  17. Lloyd, R.J. & Smith, S. (2010). Feeling flow motion in games and sports. In J.I. Butler & L.L. Griffin (Eds.), More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally (89-104). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  18. Mandigo, J. & Corlett, J. (2010). Teaching games for an understanding of what? TGfU’s role in the development of physical literacy. In J.I. Butler & L.L. Griffin (Eds.), More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally (69-88). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  19. Pan, M., Chen, C., Hsu, W. (2019). Measuring students’ moral disengagement in physical education. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 50(3), 272-293.
  20. Pan, Y. H., Hsu, W.T. (2018). Moral disengagement and student misbehaviour in physical education. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 17(3), 437–444.
  21. Renshaw, I., Araujo, D., Button, C., Chow, J., Davids, K & Moy, B. (2016). Why the Constraints-Led Approach is not Teaching Games for Understanding: a clarification. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 21(5), pp. 459-480.
  22. Sandelowski, M. (1995). Focus on qualitative methods: Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health. 18, 179-183.
  23. Singleton, E. (2009). From command to constructivism: Canadian secondary school physical education curriculum and teaching games for understanding. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(2), 321-342.
  24. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: CA, Sage.
  25. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluative data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
  26. 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.
  27. UK SEND Code of Practice (2015). Accessed on January 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25
  28. Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 294-318.
  29. Wu L., Hsu W., Chen I., Shang I. (2016). Verification of reliability and validity of the Chinese version physical education classroom instrument in junior high schools. Journal of Taiwan Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 1–14.