Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

in International Sport Coaching Journal
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD $41.00

1 year subscription

USD $54.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD $77.00

2 year subscription

USD $101.00

A key feature of any coach’s role is to decide on the most appropriate approach to develop player learning and performance at any given time. When coaching games, these decisions are even more challenging due to the interactive nature of games themselves and, in team games, this interactivity is heightened. Therefore, proponents of various approaches to coaching games could do well to demonstrate how different approaches may compliment rather than oppose each other, to avoid a one-size-fits-all process of coaching. In this insights paper, we summarise some of the fundamental approaches used for coaching games, whilst clarifying and contrasting their theoretical and practical differences. In doing so, we propose that there is a space in the coach’s toolbox for a games approach that hones the metacognitive skills of players. We also suggest reasons why coaches might use metacognitive game design as a tool to develop players’ deep understanding of game play to support player learning and performance.

Amy Price is with the School of Education, Theology & Leadership, St Mary’s University, Twickenham, United Kingdom. Dave Collins and John Stoszkowski are with the Institute of Coaching and Performance, School of Sport, Tourism and The Outdoors, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom. Shane Pill is with the School of Education, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Address author correspondence to Amy Price at Amy.Price@TheFA.com.
International Sport Coaching Journal
Article Sections
References
  • AbrahamA. & CollinsD. (2011). Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching science. Quest 63(4) 366384. doi:10.1080/00336297.2011.10483687

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AlmondL. (1986). Games making. In R. ThorpeD. Bunker & L. Almond (Eds.) In rethinking games teaching (pp. 3544). Loughborough, UK: University of Technology Loughborough.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AlmondL. (2015). Rethinking teaching games for understanding. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 17(1) 1525.

  • AlmondL. & AyresM. (2013). Taking the first steps: An exploration of the meaning of understanding in physical education. Physical Education Matters 8(3) 6770.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AyresM. & AlmondL. (2014). Understanding in the teaching of games and its significance for physical education. Physical Education Matters 9(1) 1517.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BrownG. (1984). Metacognition: New insights into old problems? British Journal of Educational Studies 32(3) 213219. doi:10.1080/00071005.1984.9973688

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BrunerJ.S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

  • BunkerD.J. & ThorpeR.D. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. The Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1) 914.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CushionC.FordP.R. & WilliamsM. (2012). Coach behaviours and practice structures in youth soccer: Implications for talent development. Journal of Sports Sciences 30(15) 16311641. PubMed ID: 23016800 doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.721930

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FlavellJ.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist 34(10) 906911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

  • FordP.R.YatesI. & WilliamsA.M. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the link between science and application. Journal of Sports Sciences 28(5) 483495. PubMed ID: 20419591 doi:10.1080/02640410903582750

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GeeJ.P. (2007). Good video games and good learning (New literacies and digital epistemologies). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

  • GeeJ.P. (2013). Good video games and learning. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

  • GrehaigneJ.F. & GodboutP. (2014). Dynamic systems theory and team sport coaching. Quest 66(1) 96116. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.814577

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GrehaigneJ.F.GodboutP. & BouthierD. (1999). The foundations of tactics and strategy in team sport. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 18(2) 159174. doi:10.1123/jtpe.18.2.159

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GrehaigneJ.F.RichardJ.F. & GriffinL. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

  • HarveyS.CushionC. & Massa-GonzalezA.N. (2010). Learning a new method: Teaching games for understanding in the coaches’ eyes. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 15(4) 361382. doi:10.1080/17408980903535818

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MannionJ. & MercerN. (2016). Learning to learn: Improving attainment, closing the gap at Key Stage 3. The Curriculum Journal 27(2) 246271.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MastersR.S.W. (1992). Knowledge, nerves and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology 83343358.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MastersR.S.W. (2000). Theoretical aspects of implicit learning in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology 31530541.

  • McPhersonS. & ThomasJ. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys’ tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 48190211. PubMed ID: 2794853 doi:10.1016/0022-0965(89)90002-7

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MetzlerM.W. (2011). Instructional models for physical education (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

  • MosstonM. & AshworthS. (2008). Teaching physical education: First online edition. Jupiter, FL: The Spectrum Institute for Teaching and Learning.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NevettM. & FrenchK. (1997). The development of sport-specific planning, rehearsal, and updating of plans during defensive youth baseball game performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 68(3) 203214. PubMed ID: 9294874 doi:10.1080/02701367.1997.10607999

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NewellK.M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M.G. Wade & H.T.A. Whiting (Eds.) Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341360). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’ConnorD.LarkinP. & WilliamsM.A. (2018). Observations of youth football training: How do coaches structure training sessions for player development? Journal of Sports Sciences 36(1) 3947. PubMed ID: 28065123 doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1277034

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PerryJ.LundieD. & GolderG. (2018). Metacognition in schools: What does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review70218. doi:10.1080/00131911.2018.1441127

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PriceA.CollinsD.StoszkowskiJ. & PillS. (2017). Learning to play soccer: Lessons on meta-cognition from video game design. Quest 70(3) 321333. doi:10.1080/00336297.2017.1386574

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RenshawI.AraujoD.ButtonC.ChowJ.Y.DavidsK. & MoyB. (2016). Why the constraints-led approach is not teaching games for understanding: A clarification. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21459480. doi:10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RobinsonE. (1983). Metacognitive development. In S. Meadows (Ed.) Developing thinking (pp. 106141). London, UK: Methuen.

  • StoreyB. & ButlerJ. (2013). Complexity thinking in PE: Game centred approaches, games as complex adaptive systems, and ecological values. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 18(2) 133149. doi:10.1080/17408989.2011.649721

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ThorpeR.D.BunkerD.J. & AlmondL. (1986). Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University of Technology.

  • WadeA. (1967). The F.A. guide to training and coaching. London, UK: Heinemann.

  • WeinH. (1973). The science of hockey (1st ed.). London, UK: Pelham.

  • WilliamsA.M. & HodgesN.J. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences 23(6) 637650. PubMed ID: 16195012 doi:10.1080/02640410400021328

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WorthingtonE. (1974). Teaching soccer skill (1st ed.). London, UK: Lepus.

Article Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 196 196 67
Full Text Views 7 7 3
PDF Downloads 4 4 3
Altmetric Badge
PubMed
Google Scholar