A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006

Abstract

Background: In 2006, Oslin and Mitchell published a review of the game-centred approaches (GCAs) to teaching and coaching literature highlighting a number of core concepts thought to provide justification for the use of GCAs including (a) its potential to enhance participant motivation, (b) potential for tactical transfer, and (c) development of decision-making skills and effective decision-makers. Oslin and Mitchell also suggested recommendations for future GCA research.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper was threefold: (a) to present a review of Anglophone research into GCAs building on the previous review of Oslin and Mitchell published in 2006; (b) to identify new trends in research since 2006; and (c) to investigate the extent to which the initial suggestions and future research directions suggested by Oslin and Mitchell have been addressed.

Data collection: GCA literature since 2006 was searched systematically using a three-phase approach. Phase 1 included initial searches of the EBSCO database using terms associated with GCAs and their acronyms (e.g. TGfU (teaching games for understanding), GS (Game Sense), etc.). Phase 2 expanded the search adopting more generic terms from keywords located in the recent literature (e.g. teaching games, tactical development, game performance, etc.). Multiple searches through the EBSCO database were conducted, whereby key terms were cross-referenced until a saturation point was reached. Phase 3 involved removing those publications that were not empirical, peer reviewed, intervention studies or published in English.

Findings: Forty-four studies on GCA implementation were identified and the methodological and substantive nature of these studies was examined. The review noted two positive trends: (a) the expansion of research which included the growth of research on GCAs in Europe and Southeast Asia and (b) an increased amount of research in the affective domain. The review found, however, that a number of key challenges remain within GCA research, which include (a) the need for improved articulation of GCA verification procedures; (b) further assessment of tactical awareness development; (c) extended inquiry about GCAs in coaching contexts; (d) more research into ‘newer’ GCAs (i.e. PP (play practice), IGCM (invasion game competence model) and TDLM (tactical decision learning model)); (e) use of longitudinal research designs; (f) inadequate length of GCA induction and training for teachers and coaches, and (g) examination of GCAs in terms of fitness and special populations.

Conclusions: GCA pedagogies are of significant importance as they have the potential to promote change within current adult-centric cultures of youth sport and encourage engagement in physical activity over the life course. To meet these needs, it is recommended that GCA research undergo continued expansion with the use of research designs and data collection techniques that aid the examination of different philosophical understandings of GCAs (e.g. ethnographic, phenomenological and psycho-phenomenological). These are paramount to the exploration of ‘who the individual is’ and ‘how the learner is motivated to continue to participate’ and further permit the in-depth, contextual and ecological analysis of GCA interventions that Oslin and Mitchell recommended in their previous review.

• game-centred approaches
• teaching
• coaching
• review

Notes

1. These approaches include TGfU (Bunker and Thorpe 1982), the TGM (Mitchell, Oslin, and Griffin 2006), PP (Launder 2001), GS (Light, 2004), the TDLM (Gréhaigne, Wallian and Godbout 2005), the Ball School model (Memmert, and Roth, 2007), the GConA (McNeill et al. 2008) and the IGCM (Tallir et al. 2007).

2. The inclusion/exclusion criterion of ‘intervention’ refers to research data generated as a direct result of a GCA to teaching or coaching being utilised as part of a research design. The use of ‘GCA intervention’ as an inclusion/exclusion criterion acknowledges discussion in Oslin and Mitchell's (2006) review which centres on the desire to ‘explore the potential of GCAs to impact learning and performance’ (630). The authors believe that this necessitated a focus on research specific to the use and analysis of GCA intervention practices.

3. This term has been used to explain the authors' surprise at the disproportionate relationship that exists between the relative growth in practitioner-based research dedicated to the GPAI and the lack of research conducted with it as a means of assessing game performance development. The authors also recognise that the limited number of identified studies that focus on the use of a GPAI could be related to set inclusion/exclusion criteria, that is, exclusion of dissertations.

4. Slade's (2011) study was not an empirical one, thus is not included in the list of reviewed papers.

5. Although not an empirical study, King and Ho's (2009) study provides a historical and cultural commentary on the relationship between Western philosophy and Eastern practice with respect to the use of a TGfU approach in Sydney and Hong Kong.

6. The authors note, however, that this could be related to set inclusion/exclusion criteria.