Article

Coaching Games: Comparisons and

Contrasts

Price, Amy, Collins, David John, Stoszkowski, John Robert and Pill,
Shane

Available at http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/26071/

Price, Amy, Collins, David John ORCID: 0000-0002-7601-0454, Stoszkowski,

John Robert ORCID: 0000-0002-1968-5770 and Pill, Shane (2019) Coaching
Games: Comparisons and Contrasts. International Sport Coaching Journal, 6
(1). pp. 126-131. ISSN 2328-918X

It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2018-0015

For more information about UCLan’s research in this area go to

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/researchgroups/ and search for <name of research Group>.

For information about Research generally at UCLan please go to

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/research/

All outputs in CLoK are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including
Copyright law. Copyright, IPR and Moral Rights for the works on this site are retained
by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Terms and conditions for use
of this material are defined in the policies page.

CLoK
Central Lancashire online Knowledge
www.clok.uclan.ac.uk
Running Head: COACHING GAMES: COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS

Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Amy Price*, Dave Collins, John Stoszkowski and Shane Pill

*Corresponding author. Amy.Price@TheFA.com

Date of revised submission: 19th July 2018

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Human Kinetics in the

International Sport Coaching Journal, available online:

https://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/abs/10.1123/iscj.2018-0015
Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Abstract

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 summarize 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.

Keywords: deep understanding; digital video game design; meta-cognition;

pedagogy
Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Introduction

Coaching games players is a particularly challenging process given the dynamic

and complex nature of game play where interaction between players, skills, strategies,

space and rules (to name but a few) influence how individuals and the team respond to

any given situation (Grehaigne & Godbout, 2014). Considering these complex and

interactive variables, we would suggest that there is not one method (and nor should

there be) amongst current espoused coaching tools that can meet all the needs of games

players in the process of self and team development. Using Mosston and Ashworth’s

(2008, p.5) metaphor of tools as “invaluable to reaching the overall intended purpose,”

we take the outlook that coaching games requires purposeful adoption of a blended tool

kit in order to find appropriate and effective context-specific solutions that enhance

player learning and performance. In this paper, the term “approach” refers to the range

of potential tools available for a coach to use. We understand that a tool becomes a tool

(rather than a method) when coaches are aware of what it seeks to do, and how to use

its principles appropriately. When discussing the notion of games, we refer to Almond’s

(1986) categorization of games that share similar tactical principles (net/wall,

striking/fielding, target and invasion) because it summarizes the broad range of game

types that occur in coaching.

Therefore, reflecting consideration of Mosston and Ashworth’s (2008)

metaphor of tools as a means to achieving an outcome, this paper sets out the coaching

conundrum of selecting which approaches to use for developing games players, and

why (Abraham & Collins, 2011). Importantly, we provide critical consideration of

conceptual, theoretical and practical characteristics inherent to three contrasting

coaching approaches; Directed Approach (DA), Constraints-led Approach (CLA) and

Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Game Centered Approach (GCA) (cf. Metzler, 2011) before introducing a

Metacognitive Approach (MA) via “Digital Video Games” (DVG) (Price, Collins,

Stoszkowski, & Pill, 2017) as a necessary addition to games coaching toolbox.

The Conundrum of Coaching

Dating back to the early sports coaching literature of Wade (1967), Wein (1973)

and Worthington (1974), practitioners have utilized a range of approaches to develop

player learning and performance in sport. It is logical to claim that there is no one “best

way” to develop games players and there is an argument that the decision of “what”

and “how” to support player learning is a matter of Professional Judgment and Decision

Making (PJDM: Abraham & Collins, 2011), dependent upon what is needed, for whom,

and in what context (Abraham & Collins, 2011). As a key focus of this paper, and one

of the difficulties with this decision-making process for neophyte coaches, is the need

to understand “why” a particular approach should be used over others so that the

players’ needs remain at the heart of coaching practice.

Unfortunately, however, literature pertaining to practice structures and coach

behaviors in games often evidences evangelical “pushes” toward one particular

approach (Ford, Yates, & Williams, 2010; Harvey, Cushion, & Massa-Gonzalez, 2010),

as opposed to outlining critical choices, grounded in context specific frameworks of

pedagogy, motor behavior and/or social and cognitive psychology (Cushion, Ford, &

Williams, 2012). For example, a historically common youth soccer training session

begins with “training forms” (drills) and ends with “playing forms” (games), with

explicit coach feedback a dominant behavior (e.g., using “stop standstill”) to support

learning (O’Connor, Larkin, & Williams, 2018). Furthermore, within training forms,

the coach typically uses demonstration followed with verbal instruction in the quest to

perfect execution of a technique (Williams & Hodges, 2005), which is vastly different
Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

to engaging the player in a perception discovery process (Masters, 1992) to facilitate

the process of skill execution. As such, with so many decisions for coaches when

pursuing their goal of impacting players’ learning and performance, the coaching

conundrum is one of determining what is needed, for whom, in what context and why

(Abraham & Collins, 2011).

Coaching Games

Gameplay - the additional challenge for coaches

The uniqueness of coaching games presents an additional layer of complexity

when deciding how to impact player learning, primarily due to games being open and

complex systems that involve constant re-organization between players. Organization

in an open system may be influenced by constraints (Newell, 1986) designed to achieve

a desired outcome (Renshaw et al., 2016), or experiencing progressively (tactically)

complex (Bunker, Thorpe, & Almond, 1986) game forms to guide the process of

organization (Bruner, 1960). Compared to a closed or predictable system, open systems

in the case of games provide infinite opportunities for player-decision making under

pressurized playing conditions (Masters, 2000). The essence of gameplay is to outwit

your opponent through a process of puzzle solving (Almond, 2015), a term used to

contextualize how problems emerge within an open system. The solutions (techniques,

skills, tactics and strategies) that players use in these open systems can be considered

as probabilities but cannot be pre-determined by the coach (Storey & Butler, 2013).

Underpinning these solutions is the internal logic of the game itself (Grehaigne,

Godbout, & Bothier, 1999; Grehaigne, Richard, & Griffin, 2005). In defining the

internal logic of any game category, Grehaigne, et al. (p. 8) explain that central to the

notion of problem solving in games is interaction between “opposition to opponents,

cooperation with partners, attack on the adverse camp, and defence of one's own camp.”
Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Considering the internal logic of games, the most effective players resolve problems

in-action and with intent to outwit the opponent, driven by an understanding of how the

game is designed (Almond, 1986).

Games coaching toolbox – is there a space for a different tool?

Unsurprisingly, there are a wide range of tools that can support players’ in their

endeavor to outwit the opponent. The epistemological differences in how skill is

learned for net/wall, striking/fielding, target and invasion games, and thus performed

or transferred in the context of competition are contrasted in Table 1.

As discussed earlier, the difficulty for coaches lies in discerning between each

approach. For the purposes of this paper, we have intentionally selected four contrasting

approaches for developing games players. All four approaches can be considered

alongside the notion of outwitting the opposition, the essence of any game (Almond,

2015), and the underpinning of all problem-solving activities in games. With this view,

we recognize a space in the coaching toolbox for a tool that supports players’

metacognitive game skills (i.e., the “know-how-to-learn” dimensions of gameplay;

Price, Collins, Stoszkowski, & Pill, 2017, p. 2). Price et al. (2017) provide theory and

practice examples of a MA, seeking to translate and transfer Gee’s (2007; 2013) “Good

Digital Game Design” features (see Gee, 2013 for a detailed summary) into a sport

coaching and teaching tool, known as a “Digital Video Games Approach” (DVG) (see

Table 2). Prior to DVG as a coaching tool, the coaching literature did not present a

solution for coaches to primarily focus on developing their players’ metacognitive

skills, as explained and distinguished in comparison to other approaches in Price et al.

(2017).

In short, DVG for sport coaching focuses on practices that help players to

become good learners, not just good players, by developing players’ knowledge about
Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

their understanding, as well as what they do to monitor and control their learning.

Metacognitive game skills occur during game play itself and are classed as

metacognitive (and not cognitive) “if they have a conscious impact” (Brown, 1984,

p.215). In the case of games, impact is considered to be when a skill is intended to

consciously outwit the opponent. Examples of metacognitive game skills that relate to

all four games categories include (but are not limited to): planning and re-planning

strategy, replying to a problem by setting opponent a problem, and identifying what

information is needed (from the game or game players) and setting out to find it.

Importantly, the process of using metacognitive game skills involves the

player(s) (or team) consciously thinking about when and why to combine knowledge

of playing the game (e.g., knowledge of the strategic-tactical-skill-technical elements

of the game, score line, time remaining, rules) with knowledge of the opponent and/or

team mates (e.g., knowledge of players’ strengths, weaknesses, behaviors and

characteristics), in order to have an impact. Previous work in sports coaching that has

tested knowledge structures in games includes the extensive work of McPherson and

Thomas (1989) and Nevett and French (1997), in which high level performers show

greater flexibility in their sport specific tactical knowledge, and are therefore more

capable of planning for, and then adapting tactics.

This notion of being flexible with tactics is also prominent in the work of

Grehagine et al. (1999) within a team sport context, although in their case, tactics are

specifically contrasted to strategy. Notably, strategic knowledge is described by these

authors as cognitive processes that are influenced by reflecting without time constraints

(i.e., devising a game plan in advance). Building from this empirical and conceptual

body of research in sport coaching, however, we would tentatively hypothesize that a

MA can purposefully develop players’ metacognitive game skills, to cultivate players

Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

flexible application of strategic, tactical, skill and technical knowledge, even under

strong time constraints (e.g., during game play).

The principal objective for using a MA such as DVG is nested in the concept of

“deep understanding” as a blanket learning principle (Gee, 2007; 2013). Although there

have been various attempts to unravel the concept of understanding itself within game

categories (e.g., Almond & Ayres, 2013; Ayres & Almond, 2014) to help coaches

facilitate effective learning and assessment of players, a distinction in the present paper

is to propose how metacognitive game design has the potential to improve players’ deep

understanding. We propose the notion of deep understanding for playing games (in

comparison to understanding) is defined by adopting metacognitive game skills to

outwit the opponent. In contrast to a player without deep understanding, who does not

join together their thoughts about the game and the players playing the game, to

consciously intend on outwitting the opponent.

Using Digital Video Games for Deep Understanding

It is important to highlight that none of Gee’s work in digital game design makes

explicit links to work on metacognition. Initial links between Gee’s notion of deep

understanding and metacognition, specifically Flavell’s (1979) seminal work, was

made by Price et al. (2017), who originally introduced DVG. Therefore, it is timely to

explain the relevance of Flavell’s (1979) work for games coaching. Writing from the

perspective of education, Flavell (1979) proposes four classes of metacognition

(knowledge, experience, goals and strategies), which Robinson (1983) later suggests

act as a taxonomy for future research in this area. However, definitions of

metacognition remain “fuzzy” (Perry, Lunder, & Golder, 2018), despite recent

empirical studies indicating positive effects on pupil outcomes for metacognitive

strategies used in school, and across curriculum (Mannion & Mercer, 2016). Cross-
Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

curricular evidence is significant given that sport and games operate within distinctly

different boundaries to typical classroom subjects, such as math and science. Games as

open and complex systems require players to use both declarative (know-about) and

procedural knowledge (know-how) in dynamic contexts where no conditions are ever

the same, it is therefore appropriate to focus on Flavell’s (1979) definition of

metacognitive knowledge. In this definition, metacognitive knowledge concerns;

person (declarative knowledge; knowledge of people playing in the game), task

(procedural knowledge; knowledge of playing the game) and strategy (conditional

knowledge; combining procedural and declarative knowledge to outwit the opponent).

This particular framework of person, task and strategy for metacognitive knowledge is

relevant for playing games due to the strategic, tactical, skill and technical elements,

which invariably occur within an open and complex system.

The following section is organized into three elements that explain deep

understanding in the context of playing games. For each element we provide a principle

relevant to learning in games (in the form of a player’s thought process), and a

suggestion in regard to game design (to support coaches with practical application). We

finish with potential implications of the principle for player learning and performance.

Information is arranged in such a way so as to distinguish conceptually and practically

between understanding (cognitive) and deep understanding (metacognitive). Herein the

key difference being deep understanding refers to a metacognitive awareness of when

and why to use knowledge of the game, and knowledge of players playing the game, in

order to outwit the opponent.

Deliberate thinking and action (planning and re-planning strategy)

Principle. “The plan is to use this strategy, though we might need to re-plan depending

on what happens in the game.”

Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Game design. Designing a game that uses an overarching goal (mission), avoiding

allusion to any kind of skill specific or tactic driven learning outcomes or processes has

the potential to engage players in a method of strategic planning.

Effects for player learning and performance. Proposing a broad “mission” (Price et al.,

2017, p.7) rather than specific processes or outcomes creates opportunity for players to

strategize by consciously selecting the appropriate tactics and skills and then

deliberately practicing these strategies in order to get closer to achieving the mission.

When designing a mission, the coach is encouraged to begin the mission with a verb

that does not directly link to any kind of sport specific skill. For example, the mission

is to unlock players from zones (invasion games), or the mission is to collect more

points that your opponent (net/wall games), or the mission is to build new areas of the

pitch (striking/fielding), or the mission is to stay on the green (target games) (for

comprehensive examples of how coaches can design games that use missions, see Price

et al., 2017, p 7-8). Given the dynamic complexities of physical games themselves

(layers of actions designed to outwit opponents), players may need to alter their strategy

in-action, and therefore change what tactics and skills they plan on using (deliberately

practicing) in the game. Importantly, the coach will accept any strategies, tactics and

skills decided on by the players, and appreciates that these choices will (and should)

change.

In game play, players will. Think strategically and develop a capacity to adapt strategy

based upon the state of the game, to achieve the game’s mission, as opposed to

practicing specific attributes of the game decided on by the coach.

Meta-level problem solving (replying to a problem by setting the opponent a problem)

Principle. “This is how to solve the problem we face, and we’re using this solution so

that the game poses problem X to the opponent.”

Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Game design. Integrating a mechanism into game design to provide teaching for players

should they decide. This will extend players’ awareness of their own problem-solving

capabilities, an awareness of other players’ game capabilities, and an awareness of how

the game design affords opportunities for teammates and/or opposition to find success.

Effects for player learning & performance. Applying the “4 C’s” idea by “using the

pause button” (Price et al., 2017, p. 8) in game design facilitates player led pauses for

players to select from different types of support (e.g., cheat, change, clue, challenge).

In effect, offering opportunities for players to use declarative knowledge to decide on

new ways to interact with the game, and thus encourages development of procedural

and conditional knowledge in game to re-think and re-plan (for comprehensive

examples of how coaches can design games that use player led pauses, see Price et al.,

2017, p. 7-8). Thus, by offering opportunities for players to decide what support they

require, to solve a problem develops players’ appreciation of interdependence between

teammates, opponents and the game design. Importantly, players seek to make

conscious decisions for action based upon the game mechanisms and other players’

actions in order to find appropriate solutions to outwit the opponent. The focus here is

to problem solve by thinking like a player (the opponent is doing X, so I/we need to do

Y), and to problem set by thinking like a game designer (if I/we do Y, then the opponent

will find Z difficult).

In game play, players will. Identify when, how and with what they require support with

a view to set a problem for the opponent, rather than the coach initiating (and leading)

the support process based upon observations of game play.

Good learners and teachers (players identify what they need to find out, and set out

to find it)
Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Principle. “I’ve realized that we are finding X situation difficult in this game; I’m going

to find new knowledge of the game to alter how I deal with this situation in the future.”

Game design. Facilitating opportunities in the game for players to earn “super powers”

(Price et al., 2017, p. 9) so that players become more effective in short periods will

provide further sources of knowledge for players to evaluate how to deal with new or

difficult circumstances.

Effects for player learning & performance. Players can see that the game has the

potential to alter its design depending on how super powers can be earned and then

used. This encourages players to deliberately seek out and persist in locating specific

pieces of information believed to be required for a given situation (for comprehensive

examples of how coaches can design games that use super powers, see Price et al.,

2017, p. 7-8). Through experiencing a co-designed approach to learning, players

identify what they can do, and what they can’t do, and are encouraged to recognize their

(individual or team) progress in the game. Of particular relevance is the notion that

players are not dependent on a significant other (i.e., coach) to control the challenge of

the game; instead they are able to use the game’s design to pick out “nuggets” of

information that will help them to progress. Importantly, super powers that are carefully

woven into game design develop players’ metacognitive evaluation of their

performance in the game, and thus players act as their own teachers.

In game play, players will. Self-direct their own learning by being “deliberate learners,”

who are pro-active in teaching themselves in any game context, rather than relying on

the coach to simplify or deconstruct the game form when a situation is new or difficult.

We have set out some items for a MA via DVG that may contribute towards the

makeup of a coach’s toolbox, should the coach be aiming to enhance players’ deep

understanding of the game.

Coaching Games: Comparisons and Contrasts

Conclusion

We hope to have summarized some of the fundamental approaches used for

coaching games, whilst clarifying and contrasting their theoretical and practical

differences. It is our intention that clarifying the processes for each approach will

support coaches in their endeavor to effectively develop players and ultimately help

coaches to make and justify professional judgments on the use of specific tools in

specific contexts (Abraham & Collins, 2011). With this in mind, we propose that there

is a space in the coach’s toolbox for a method that hones the metacognitive skills of

players, which are important for games players because the process of consciously

outwitting an opponent requires interacting knowledge of not just the game but also of

the people playing it. Using the theoretical work of Flavell (1979) and conceptual work

of Gee (2007; 2013) and Price et al. (2017) we propose three metacognitive game skills,

and their effects on player learning and performance. These skills occur during game

play, and consist of planning and re-planning strategy, replying to a problem by setting

the opponent a problem, and identifying what they need to find out and setting out to

find it. Of course, it should be noted that these are currently propositions, and there is

imminent need for ongoing empirical investigation.

In concluding our overview of contrasting approaches for coaching games, we

should make clear that we are not suggesting that a MA is superior to any other. Instead,

we have identified a need for the processes of contrasting approaches to be clarified,

and in doing so, detailed a tool that coaches might deploy should they wish to enhance

their players’ metacognitive skills and knowledge for games. In summary, we refer to

Abraham and Collins’ (2011) work on PJDM to empower coaches to make evidence-

informed decisions (rather than evangelical choices) and present the comparative

insights to support coaches in their ongoing player development dilemmas.

 References

Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011) Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching

science, Quest, 63(4), 366-384.

Almond, L. (1986). Games making. In . Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (Eds.),

In Rethinking Games Teaching (pp. 35-44). Loughborough: University of

Technology Loughborough.

Almond, L. (2015). Rethinking teaching games for understanding. Ágora para la

Educación Física y el Deporte, 17(1), 15-25.

Almond, L., & Ayres, M. (2013). Taking the first steps: An exploration of the meaning

of understanding in physical education. Physical Education Matters, 8(3), 67-

70.

Ayres, M., & Almond, L. (2014). Understanding in the teaching of games and its

significance for physical education. Physical Education Matters 9(1), 15-17.

Brown, G. (1984). Metacognition: New insights into old problems? British Journal of

Educational Studies, 32(3), 213-219.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Bunker, D. J., & Thorpe, R. D. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary

schools. The Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 9-14.

Cushion, C., Ford, P. R., & Williams, M. (2012). Coach behaviours and practice

structures in youth soccer: Implications for talent development, Journal of

Sports Sciences, 30(15), 1631-1641.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist,

34(10), 906–911.

Ford, P. R., Yates, I., & Williams, A. 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), 483–495.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning (New literacies and digital

epistemologies). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

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

Publishing Inc.

Grehaigne, J. F., Richard, J. F., & Griffin, L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports

and games. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Grehaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1999). The foundations of tactics and

strategy in team sport. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18(2), 159-

174.

Grehaigne, J.F., & Godbout, P. (2014). Dynamic Systems Theory and Team Sport

Coaching. Quest, 66(1), 96-116.

Harvey, S., Cushion, C., & Massa-Gonzalez, A. N. (2010). Learning a new method:

Teaching games for understanding in the coaches’ eyes. Physical Education and

Sport Pedagogy, 15(4), 361-382.

Mannion, J., & Mercer, N. (2016). Learning to learn: Improving attainment, closing the

gap at Key Stage 3. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 246-271.

Masters, R. 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, 83, 343-358.

Masters, R. S. W. (2000). Theoretical aspects of implicit learning in sport. International

Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 530-541.

McPherson, S., & Thomas, J. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys’

tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 190-

211.

Metzler, M. W. (2011). Instructional models for physical education (3rd ed.).

Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2008). Teaching physical education: First online edition.

Jupiter, FL: The Spectrum Institute for Teaching and Learning.

Nevett, M., & French, K. (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), 203-214.

Newell, K. 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. 341–360). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

O’Connor, D., Larkin, P., & Williams, M. A. (2018). Observations of youth football

training: How do coaches structure training sessions for player development?

Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(1), 39-47.

Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2018). Metacognition in schools: What does the

literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools?

Educational Review. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1441127

Price, A., Collins, D., Stoszkowski, J., & Pill, S. (2017). Learning to play soccer:

Lessons on meta-cognition from video game design. Quest. doi:

10.1080/00336297.2017.1386574

Renshaw, I., Araujo, D., Button, C., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Moy, B. (2016). Why

the constraints-led approach is not teaching games for understanding: A

 clarification. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21, 459–480.

doi:10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870

Robinson, E. (1983). Metacognitive development. In S. Meadows (ed.), Developing

thinking (pp.106 – 141). London: Methuen.

Storey, B., & Butler, J. (2013). Complexity thinking in PE: Game centred approaches,

games as complex adaptive systems, and ecological values. Physical Education

and Sport Pedagogy, 18(2), 133-149.

Thorpe, R. D., Bunker, D. J., & Almond, L. (1986). Rethinking games teaching.

Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology.

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

Wein, H. (1973). The Science of Hockey. 1st ed. London: Pelham.

Williams, A. M., & Hodges, N. J. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in

soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(6), 637-650.

Worthington, E. (1974). Teaching soccer skill. 1st ed. London: Lepus Books.
Table 1

Approaches for Coaching Games and their Levels of Epistemological Understanding

Approach Knowledge Assertions In Practice

Directed Shaping Constant conditions with Practice is decontextualized

Approach action few player decision-making from the game, or modified
(DA) opportunities result in better game forms (limited
(know-about) technical performance, variations in conditions).
compared to practices with
greater player decision- Focus on repetition of
making opportunities which technique, rather than skill
result in greater tactical (action is not attached to a
learning retention and tactical problem).
transfer (Williams &
Hodges, 2005). Linear approach to learning,
where complexity of the game
Explicit direction and is removed.
feedback in reference to an
optimal technical model of Technical model to inform
performance result in better process of action, rather than
technical performance discovery of process to
during constant conditions, achieve outcome.
compared to implicit
instruction which supports
skill from breaking down
under stress (Masters,
2000).
Constraints Shaping action Games that set players with Setting an outcome or goal
Led Approach in context a goal or outcome result in where players perceive
(CLA) an individualized movement opportunities for action, in a
(know-how) solution, compared with situated game context.
representative game forms
that focus on process rather Newell (1986) constraints
than outcome (Renshaw et framework to explain
al., 2016). interactions that lead to
process that causes outcome
Implicit guidance such as or goal to be met.
metaphors, analogies, cues
and perception-discovery Self-organization guided by
result in player perception constraints, for players (not
skills that can cope in coach) to apply structure to
pressured conditions, the process.
compared to practice that
use explicit direction and
feedback (Masters, 1992).
Game Centred Shaping action Representative game forms Focus on process of
Approach & that ask players to learn skill developing a skill to solve a
(GCA) understanding before technique results in tactical problem.
in context understanding of when and
Teaching why to apply a particular Driven by Bruner’s (1960)
Games for (know-how skill to solve a specific guided discovery learning
Understanding because…) tactical problem within a within a situated game context
(Bunker & game category (Thorpe, to inform process of skill.
Thorpe, 1982) Bunker, & Almond, 1986).
Using Bruner’s (1960) spiral
Coach reflective deductive curriculum to shape modified
questioning guides player game forms that are
declarative knowledge of developmentally appropriate
how the skill being learned (adjusting tactical
solves the game’s tactical complexity).
problem, compared to
games that use implicit
discovery via perception
rather than strongly guided
discovery via cognition.
 Metacognitive Shaping action Games that are not designed Game design that focuses on
Approach & using a predetermined strategy before skill, causing
(MA) understanding outcome or process lead to a multiple possible processes
in context & greater appreciation of and outcomes.
Digital Video across context strategy.
Games Opportunities for players to
(Price, Collins, (know-how- Games that use level ups decide when and how they’d
Stoszkowski, to- learn with simple to complex like support, guided by
& Pill, 2017) because…) problem cycles provide Flavell’s (1979) notion of
explicit feedback on metacognitive knowledge.
progress, so that players
develop their ability to Process of simple-complex
recognize when and what problem cycles where
they need to be more problem-solutions are
effective, in comparison to guaranteed to apply to the rest
practice that relies on coach of the game.
interventions.
Option for players to earn
Games that are designed on super powers to make them
a meta-level develop temporarily more effective,
deliberate learners who can consequently effecting
produce new knowledge by strategy.
being pro-active in teaching
themselves, or able to seek Game design promotes
teaching from the game mastery of learning where
(Gee, 2007), leading to progress can be saved so the
transfer of learning in new game can be played until
contexts. mission is complete.

Table 2

Principle Characteristics

What’s the Mission? • No technical/skill/tactical focus

• Emphasis on players’ strategizing and re-strategizing
• Coach mindset shifts from “this is what we will we be
learning today” to “this is today’s mission”

Using the Pause Button • Integrating varying degrees of support for players via the
“4 C’s” - Cheat, Change, Clue, Challenge
• Players decide when, how and with what they’d like
support via the “4 C’s”
• Coach mindset shifts from “how can I help or challenge the
players” to “how are players responding to the mission”
 Level-Up! • Complexity (variations of time and space) moves from
simple to complex levels, where players can be on different
levels within the same game
• Initial assessment of players occurs via their meta-
cognitive skills
• Coach mindset shifts from “what’s my next progression for
this practice” to “who’s likely to level-up next”?
Earning a Super Power • Providing players with the opportunity to be more effective
for a short period of time
• Players decide when and why they need the power, and
how best to use it
• Coach mindset shifts from “how do I adjust the task to
meet the ability of all players” to “what super power might
be helpful for players to earn”
Saving Progress • Individual players/teams end and re-start the game at
different points and therefore with a challenge point that is
relevant
• Players are inclined to take risks in game play because the
game won’t allow for regression
• Coach mindset shifts from “we need to cover all of this
technical or tactical content” to “let’s allow the players to
spend time mastering this game”
Pedagogical principles for a Digital Video Games Approach