Theory and Application of Coaching Games (CO213) | Assessment 2 – Coach Education Resource | Due Date: Friday Exam Week

Submitted for Assessment to Mr Ben Harris (Unit Coordinator) at The Australian College of Physical Education

• What is games sense?

• Similarities and differences between direct instruction and games sense

• Methodology

• Examples

• Recommendations for football

• Summary

• Games sense is based on a number of developmentally appropriate game and game-like learning activities that focus on tactical problems for students to solve (Metzler, 2000).

• Bunker & Thorpe (1982) conceptual model of teaching games for understanding; developed for students to understand each game‟s structure and tactics along with performance skills and/or technique (Griffin & Butler, 2005; Metzler, 2000).

• “Students like to play games; they like to practice game skills in repetitive drills much less, and will often show great resistance when directed to work on discrete skills that they perceive as having little to do with game performance” (Metzler, 2000, p.340).

Figure 1. The Teaching Games for Understanding Model

Note. From Instructional Models for Physical Education (p. 342), by M.W. Metzler, 2000, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Copyright 2000 by Michael W. Metzler. Reprinted with permission.

• It is of fundamental importance to understand how children feel and what they perceive to be important when participating, as identified below:

1. Children are listened to

2. Children are supported in expressing their views

3. Children‟s views are taken into account

4. Children are involved in the decision-making process

5. Children share power and responsibility for decision-making

(Shier, 2001, as cited in Brackenridge, Pitchford, Russell & Nutt, 2007).

• The major requirements for the games model are to have the appropriate equipment and enough space to allow participants to play without having to wait for a turn

• Using tactical games requires both the coach and participants to be involved (Metzler, 2000).

Figure 2. Operation or Responsibility in the Tactical Games Model

Note. From Instructional Models for Physical Education (p. 359), by M.W. Metzler, 2000, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Copyright 2000 by Michael W. Metzler. Adapted with permission.

• Coach-centred decision-making (you “tell” them)

• Regimented time blocks

• Repetition of desired movement, skill or concept

• High rates of feedback (too much information)

• Highly structured, small steps at a rapid pace

• Overly detailed and unnecessary instructions

• Provide feedback and make corrections early on

• Used by PD/H/PE teachers for students in large groups to divide tasks into smaller groups

• Traditional (old school) system of coaching in Australia and the UK (Metzler, 2000).

• Providing feedback and correctives is important in both direct instruction and games sense models

• Structuring sessions to allow participants to acquire skill; set rules and guidelines

• Providing reinforcement when participants listen, display good effort, stay on task, follow guidelines and pay attention

• Increase difficulty when competency is reached

• Promote learning at all times (Metzler, 2000).

• Less structure (not no structure) through the use of games allows participants to experience trial-and-error and learn how to play the game

• Emphasis on participants making decisions rather than being directed or “told” what to do by the coach

• Problem-based learning model

• Open ended questions used during coaching instead of closed (Kidman, 2001).

• Much more fun; a better response in return

• The use of games can incorporate technique, training and tactics

• Most of all, the games approach promotes decision-making

• “Decision-making abilities are constantly tested as players must respond to rapidly changing situations during play. A thorough understanding of tactics and strategies is essential” (Luxbacher, 2003, p.x).

• Need to explain this rationale to parent(s)

• “An old adage among coaches says that „the game is the best teacher‟…” (Luxbacher, 2003, p.x).

• Games keep participants active, motivated and involved

• They are competitive and fun

• Promotes teamwork and sharing

• They can be adapted, modified and tailored to all ages and capabilities

• There is no skill requirement or experience needed to get involved (Luxbacher, 2003).

Direct instruction Games Sense approach

“Spread out!” “Where could you move to create space?”

“Mark a man!” “Should you mark a person or a zone?”

“Give him/her someone to pass it to!” “Where should you move?” or“How can you provide support to the player with the ball?”

“Get it up the park!” “Who can you pass the ball to in order to reach the attacking third?”

“Talk to each other!” “How can you make sure the players around you know what you‟re doing?”

“Move up to halfway!” “Why should we push-up the field?”

“Show him/her the line!” “Where do you want them to go and why?”

Table 1. Asking Meaningful Questions

Note. From Developing decision makers: An empowerment approach to coaching (pp. 118-130), by L. Kidman, 2001, Christchurch: Innovative Print Communications Ltd. Copyright 2001 by Innovative Print Communications Ltd. Adapted with permission.

• Modify small-sided games to focus on the technical and tactical elements you have chosen for your session– “These games are the preferred method of training by

professional players and are the most appropriate way of acquiring skills and developing young players” (FFA, 2007, p.8).

• Be inclusive; games are about enjoyment, more playing time, more repeated touches of the ball, more shots on goal, and more involvement

• Aimed at young people of all abilities

• Promotes tactical awareness and understanding of how to play the game (FFA, 2007).

• Focus on enjoyment and freedom of expression; let them work the game out

• Structure your sessions to promote both a fun learning environment and skill acquisition

• Define the rules and guidelines for your games. What are the intended outcomes, skills required and do‟s and don‟ts?

• Ask open ended questions, empower your participants and coach what you see (not what you don‟t see)

• Once competency is reached, increase intensity of games and speed of decision-making

• Understand the difference between telling and coaching; your job is about them not you

(FFA, 2007; Griffin & Butler, 2005; Kidman, 2001; Luxbacher, 2003; Metzler, 2000).

• Games sense focuses on tactical awareness and understanding of the game

• Games sense is fun and gets people involved

• Games sense does not discriminate

• Games sense empowers participants to problem-solve

• Games sense promotes decision-making

• Games sense puts the emphasis more on the participants and less on the coach

• Games sense is about thinking and doing

Brackenridge, C., Pitchford, A., Russell, K., & Nutt, G. (2007). Child welfare in football: An exploration of children’s welfare in the modern game. New York, NY: Routledge.

Football Federation Australia. (2007). Optus small-sided football handbook. Sydney, NSW: Author. Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.a-league.com.au/site/_content/document/00001000-source.pdf

Griffin, L.L., & Butler, J.I. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research, and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kidman, L. (2001). Developing decision makers: An empowerment approach to coaching. Christchurch: Innovative Print Communications Ltd.

Luxbacher, J.A. (2003). Soccer practice games: 125 games for technique, training, and tactics(2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Metzler, M.W. (2000). Instructional models for physical education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.