Football
Coaching Soccer for Understanding: Open or Closed? The importance of body shape when attacking in soccer.
Abstract
This paper offers an account of a practical coaching session presented to coaches at the Teaching Games for Understanding International Conference held at the University of British Columbia, May 2008. It aims to demonstrate how TGFU pedagogy can be used effectively to coach players at an advanced level. There is firstly an attempt to present a rationale for the coaching strategies used; linking theory to practice. Light (2006), quite rightly, warns against the polarization of TGFU as if in conflict with the technique-focused approach. He argues that all good coaches have worked with both approaches in their sessions. When coaching soccer, technique development must not be neglected but developed contextually. Games sense, as he refers to TGFU, has its roots in constructivist learning theories where the learner is being actively engaged in learning and drawing on existing knowledge to make sense of learning situations and construct understandings. This applies just as much to skill learning as it does to tactical appreciation. The pedagogy that TGFU exponents are advocating is one of multi-variate and dynamic human interaction and not the mere transmission of knowledge (Light 2006) with its roots in constructivist learning theories. According to Light (2006), ‘The focus on the players and not the coach, the encouragement of player autonomy and interaction and the central role that questioning plays’ (p.17) are what sets it apart from directive, coach-centred approaches.
Some of the potential difficulties facing coaches who are intending to adopt TGFU as an instructional model are identified in this paper. Despite these perceived challenges, a cogent rationale is presented which endorses a wider use of this model in games coaching at all levels, including elite athlete development., based upon both a sound constructivist teaching-learning
Abstract
This paper offers an account of a practical coaching session presented to coaches at the Teaching Games for Understanding International Conference held at the University of British Columbia, May 2008. It aims to demonstrate how TGFU pedagogy can be used effectively to coach players at an advanced level. There is firstly an attempt to present a rationale for the coaching strategies used; linking theory to practice. Light (2006), quite rightly, warns against the polarization of TGFU as if in conflict with the technique-focused approach. He argues that all good coaches have worked with both approaches in their sessions. When coaching soccer, technique development must not be neglected but developed contextually. Games sense, as he refers to TGFU, has its roots in constructivist learning theories where the learner is being actively engaged in learning and drawing on existing knowledge to make sense of learning situations and construct understandings. This applies just as much to skill learning as it does to tactical appreciation. The pedagogy that TGFU exponents are advocating is one of multi-variate and dynamic human interaction and not the mere transmission of knowledge (Light 2006) with its roots in constructivist learning theories. According to Light (2006), ‘The focus on the players and not the coach, the encouragement of player autonomy and interaction and the central role that questioning plays’ (p.17) are what sets it apart from directive, coach-centred approaches.
Some of the potential difficulties facing coaches who are intending to adopt TGFU as an instructional model are identified in this paper. Despite these perceived challenges, a cogent rationale is presented which endorses a wider use of this model in games coaching at all levels, including elite athlete development., based upon both a sound constructivist teaching-learning
References: Bate, R. (2005) Vision 2020. Insight. The Football Association Coaching Journal. Autumn edition. pp. 11-15 Claxton, G Hubball, H., Hayes, S. & Lambert, J. (2007) Theory to Practice: Using the Games for Understanding Approach in the Teaching of Invasion Games. Canadian Journal of Physical and Health Education. Vol 73 No.3, pp 14-20. Jones, R. (2001) Applying empowerment in coaching: some considerations. In Kidman, L. Developing decision makers: an empowerment approach to coaching. pp 83-94. Christchurch, NZ: Innovative Print Communications Kirk, D Light, R (2005) Making Sense of Chaos: Australian coaches talking about Games Sense. In Griffin, L. and Butler, J (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding: theory, research and practice. pp. 213-226. Windsor: Human Kinetics. Light, R. (2006) Game sense: innovation or just good coaching? Journal of Physical Education New Zealand. Vol 39, Issue 1, pp 8-19 Pill, S Richard, J-F and Wallian, N (2005) Emphasizing student engagement in the construction of game performance. In Griffin, L. and Butler, J (Eds.), Teaching games for understanding: theory, research and practice. pp. 213-226. Windsor: Human Kinetics. Slade, D. (2007) Making first coaching impressions count. Sports Coach. Vol 29, Issue 4, pp. 28-29 Smith, W Thorpe, R., and Bunker, D. (1989) A changing focus in games teaching. In L. Almond (Ed.) The place of physical education in schools (pp. 42-71) London: Kogan Page Thorpe, R (2005) Rod Thorpe on Teaching games for understanding: how skills Williams, A.M., and Hodges, N.J. (2005) Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences. 23, pp 637-50 [pic]