Developing Meaningful Understanding of Games and Sport using a Game-Based Approach

 

Game-based approaches (GBAs) locate the concept of meaning in the conceptualisation of games as decision-laden, problem-solving contexts. GBAs provide an alternative to the technical orientated ‘behavourist’ teaching and sport coaching which is based on a dominance of direct instruction for replication of prescribed movement models (Pill & Hyndman, 2018): what Tinning (2010) described as demonstrate-explain-practice. In physical education, this has been called the historically common ‘PE Method’ (Metzler, 2011) which in the physical education focus area of games and sport looks like sport taught as sport techniques (Kirk, 2010). When a teacher or sport coach uses a GBA, facilitating conversation with players purposeful reflection on game experiences is a major pedagogy focus (Light, Curry, & Mooney, 2014: Pill & Hyndman, 2018).

The following key pedagogical concepts identify a GBA:

1. The game as a "whole" becomes the starting point of practical sessions, therefore, ‘skills’ are initially practised within the realistic context of the game  (here, "whole' refers to a game form, not necessarily 'full rules' and 'full sided', to differentiate from 'part practice' which is commonly a 'drill' or 'practice form' task);

2. The approach is ‘learner-oriented’ because games are: a) modified to suit the ability of the group; b) presented flexibly to cater for individual differences within groups; and c) players are encouraged to take responsibility during play and discussions with teachers/coaches as guides to the process; and

3. Games can be understood through common principles of play, which enables games to be categorised as target, net/wall or court, fielding/striking, and invasion sports. Principles of play as common movement patterns may frame a tactical understanding of attack, defence, and transition play (Worthington, 1974). The identification of common principles of play can be used to encourage the transfer of knowledge, skills and concepts between games in a category (Piggott, 1992).

The teaching of the GBA process is loosely ‘game-question-game’ (den Duyn, 1996, 1997). Technique practice is not ignored and is addressed when it is appropriate (Thorpe, 1997), usually building upon and reflecting upon prior game experiences of skill execution. In previous work (2007a, 2011a, 2011b) I have attempted to aligned the two central distinguishing pedagogical concepts of a GBA – make the overall game form the focus of sessions/lessons and foreground reflectivity through inquiry processes that make player learning visible - to a progression of skill as stages of learning consistent with the descriptions of learning progressions found in most PE curriculum frameworks and sport 'long term develop models'. This progression is: (a) small sided games for fundamental movement and sport skill development (see ASC, 1999); (b) modified and 'mid-sized' games for sport specific skill development (see ASC, 1996b); and (c) designer games (see Charlesworth, 1994) which are match simulations for more advanced sport skill development.

GBAs have been linked by education theorists to a constructivist understanding of learning (Light, 2008, 2013). Linking to a constructivist understanding of learning, the GBA practitioner will use game rules as environmental structures and game-play constraints to allow for: (a) the emergence of a cognising moment from the players’ experiences; (b) the capturing of the meaning that is generated from the moment during players’ experiences; and (c) insertion of that meaning back into the game play or a new game structure.

Informed by a constructivist perspective, the first game can be seen to serve two purposes. The first is to provide mental scaffolding using cognitive organisers and schematic alignment either to consolidate existing skills, knowledge and understanding or to prepare players for new learning challenges. Therefore, the game can be considered a form of ‘advanced organiser’ used by the PE or sport coach teacher deliberately to assist players to learn and retrieve information by making the information meaningful and familiar because it is presented ‘in context.’ Reflectivity and isolated practice are then used to develop the ‘parts’ or components of the game from those ‘initial experiences’, which are linked back into the totality by the next game engagement (Pill & Hyndman, 2018; Swanson & Law, 1993).

The second ‘whole’ episode is a major consideration in progressing player learning. The second game experience is where evidence of understanding occurs, as the individual part isolated for reflection and possibly practice is put back together with the game, creating a relationship between the part/s isolated for discussion and practice and the game. In theory, the parts ‘practiced’ take on meaning within the whole. If mastery of the part has not occurred, then effective performance in the second game will not occur and a lack of progression from knowledge familiarity to understanding will likely be evident in the reflective ‘questioning’ moments and observation of play.

In this context, ‘meaning’ exists in the context of a game in that a player is able to comprehend the logic of the game as a whole (Grehaigne, Richard & Griffin, 2005) and how that meaning functions as tactical possibilities. Participants must also be able to see possibilities within a game and make decisions based upon and building on their cognitive experiences that demonstrate to the observer ‘intelligent’ performance in a game.

GBAs also position differently from the idea that ‘skill’ is replication of a ‘textbook’ movement model (Pigott, 1982). Skill is understood as movement demonstration of tactical and technical interdependence (Light, 2006; Pigott, 1982; Pill & Hyndman, 2018). GBAs are presumed to bring a focus on game understanding and developing ‘thinking players’, and this is what is meant by meaningful game participation (Pill & Hyndman, 2018). Often lost in the GBA scholarship, however, is Almond (2010) suggestion that through ‘game sense’ GBAs should also enhance players ability to appreciate their potential to experience the ‘thrill’ of playing through the potential to be excited and challenged. This ‘affective’ domain is where I see Light and Harvey’s work on the Game Sense approach as a positive pedagogy as an exciting creative possibility for GBAs and individual development of a more ‘total’ sense of meaningful understanding.