Game Sense coaching as deliberate practice

The Game Sense coaching approach emerged in Australia in the mid-1990's as a pedagogical response to an over-emphasis on "lines, laps and lectures" that did not prepare players adequately for the complexity of the dynamics of play. In a Game Sense approach, after a warm-up the game or a game-form "becomes the focus and starting-point of practical sessions" (Australian Sports Commission, 1996, p.1).

Initially, the Game Sense approach was explained as small sided games coached with an emphasis on the coach asking questions of players in preference to telling. This led to the development of the idea of 'game sense games' that could be used for sport development in any sport within a game category (Game categories = Net/Court, Invasion, Striking/Fielding, Target) in junior game development or 'fundamental' sport skill development (Australian Sports Commission, 1999). This focus continued with the release of the Playing for Life game cards (Australian Sports Commission, 2005). The Game Sense coaching idea remained undifferentiated from this small sided game concept across different stages of game development. In the scholarly work I have done with the Game Sense approach  (e.g. see here for the paper: The Game Sense Approach as Explicit and Deliberate Practice) I have attempted to show how the tenets of the Game Sense approach - modify games purposefully, ask questions, and deliberately shape play - develop from generic small sided games to purposeful game form practice, 'designer games', and match simulations with experienced players.

A Model of Skill Acquisition for the Game Sense Approach
A few years ago I attempted to represent a model for skill learning based on the complimentarity of cognition-tactical and action-technical behaviour as the understanding of skilled play to inform a Game Sense coaching approach. As the Game Sense approach is focused on developing "thinking players" (den Duyn, 1997), it seemed suitable to outline a 'cognitive' model of skilled performance to the approach, although I have explained in several scholarly papers how well aligned with an ecological dynamic systems perspective the Game Sense coaching approach is (see my Research Gate site for papers https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shane_Pill). The Game Sense approach was developed as a pedagogical model and as such, it is not a surprise that it can be described using more than one theory. 

The cognitive model I outlined blends concepts from Mahlo (1974), Hopper (2002), and Patterson and Lee (2013).

There is strong research support for the role of structured and directed instruction (that does not mean reproduction 'do what I tell you' style coaching) in developing the movement learning interaction between actual competence and perceived competence. While a minimally guided 'game as teacher' might be intuitively appealing to some and theoretically justifiable the idea that people learn with greater understanding from personal discovery rather than thoughtful processing is not substantiated. Further, time alone spent in physical activity accumulation is not of itself enough to promote advantageous learning. Displays of competence should not be confused with learning.

This blog is an extract from the paper The Game Sense Approach as Explicit and Deliberate Practice See here for the paper. If any of the ideas in this blog resonate with you and you are interesting in a research project, please get in touch.