A Constraint-Led Approach to Teaching and Coaching Games
This article is a 10-minute read and is rated Easy.
We sometimes come across a major misunderstanding in the sports pedagogy and Physical Education literature (articles, presentations and blogs) concerning the relationship between a Constraints-led Approach to teaching and coaching (CLA) and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). In this blog we take the opportunity to correct any misconceptions that the two approaches are one and the same. We then critique a recent article that considered how his School coach, Nick Buoy, designed CLA based games to help Marcus Smith, the new England Fly Half develop his creativity.
Background
In 2015, we published a paper entitled: “Why the Constraints-led Approach is not Teaching Games for Understanding: A clarification (Renshaw et al., 2015). This was needed in response to two questions raised in the peer-review process by a reviewer, who was actually referring to another paper we had written. The questions were: (1) the two approaches are the same thing, aren’t they?”, and (2), “The underlying basic principles [in the different approaches] are those of behaviourism/cognitivist (traditional approach) versus social-constructivism (CLA approach).” We fundamentally disagreed with the premise of both questions and, hence, we had to write the clarification. Writing a clarification in a follow-up commentary is a rare response during the peer-review process in journal article publishing, since simply correcting a reviewer’s misconception is usually enough. But this exchange occurs in the confidential correspondence between a journal reviewer, editor and writer……not in the public domain. From these questions we could see that we needed to write a commentary to clarify any misconceptions that may or may not have been circulating between practitioners, applied scientists and academics.
Dave Bunker and Rod Thorpe receiving well deserved awards for their life service to sport. We owe a lot to these two reluctant superstars of PE and coaching. I was always struck by their humility and particularly remember a comment of Dave’s after watching a particularly evangelical presentation eschewing the virtues of TGfU at a conference. He smiled and said “it was lovely…” but after a big sigh added "but it’s not a religion, its just a way of teaching games. A great reminder for us all when we are perhaps getting a bit over passionate :)
In this blog, we will mainly address the first issue, but our discussion will also shed light on the second question, given the importance of applying theoretical concepts to underpin the design of CLA based games. For those interested in a deeper dive into the background reading, the full pre-publication version of the paper can be accessed in the new “Theory to Practice” section on the website.
The belief that a CLA is ‘just another’ a games-based teaching approach (GBA) is a common misapprehension and, as we wrote in the paper, may be due to some readers having an early focus of CLA research and applications on team games (e.g., Chow et al., 2009; Renshaw et al, 2010). However, as we will demonstrate over time on TCC, a CLA is useful beyond the context of team games and can be used for learning design in many individual sports and other physical activities. In fact, as we will write in a future blog post, the theoretical ideas of ecological dynamics, which frame a CLA approach, are being applied by maths and science educators in the classroom, in commerce, business and management and even by evolutionary biologists exploring the vertebrate fossil record from bone fragments which are thousands of years old. However, that is not our focus here…….
But for now, back to the 2015 paper: In it we confirmed that, while there can appear some similarities between CLA and TGfU methods at an operational level (i.e., at the level of practice), there are major differences in theoretical principles that can guide pedagogical practice and learning design and indeed, some of the key principles of TGfU can be underpinned with the framework of pedagogical principles which overarches CLA. In a future post we will provide a brief historical overview of where the CLA to sport performance, learning and athlete development emerged from in the 1990s. It will clarify that the concept of constraints has a deep scientific background in theoretical physics, chemistry, biology going back over a hundred years or more. Again, look out for that sketch in the coming year.
We would also point out that, although we wrote the paper to show that a CLA and GBAs are not the same thing, we are very much in favour of GBAs (including TGfU!) as they are generally harmoniously aligned with many of the key practical ideas of a CLA. We also believe that adopting an approach based on playing games to get better at playing games is much more likely to meet the basic psychological AND skill learning needs of the players who signed up to play games (not just perform repetitive drills). In fact, here we want to discuss how adopting a CLA can enhance a GBA.
When reading the previous comment back, it might seem as though we are simply stating the obvious. Yet evidence collected from our students and from our own observations of many, many practice sessions over the years, tells us that most practice sessions have limited game play in them. When they do, the games are often unlike those we see in competition, so their value is somewhat limited in helping players prepare and learn how to play games. It would seem to us, that when training looks like this, the main time when the player learns is when playing the competitive game.
GBAs were developed to address this issue. As highlighted by Dave Bunker and Rod Thorpe, they went out to schools and saw more skilled play in the actual unguided play activities of a children’s playground than they did in highly structured PE lessons. Perhaps, a key feature of the success (i.e., kids chose to play them and did so at every opportunity) of playground games was that the children who played them, were intimately responsible for designing them! Children designed games for fun and enjoyment and to make sure that they were challenging at their level and that the games met the needs of everyone playing. Rod and Dave also reported that they often saw children demonstrating flair and creativity in the playground that then disappeared when the lessons started, as they were required to attempt to strictly comply with and reproduce a model movement as prescribed by the teacher.
So, what are the consequences of the virtual removal of playing games in practice on performance? When in New Zealand, we wanted to get an overall picture of what coaching in schools looked like and what the coaches saw when they watched their children play games. Working with one of my students (we, well actually she) interviewed coaches at a big netball school (there were often over 20 teams per year group!!!) to find out what they thought of the skills of their players. The key finding was that they could not read the game (poor perceptual skills) and made poor decisions (their actions were often sub-optimal in the goal of stopping or scoring goals). My student then observed the coaching sessions. Guess what she saw? Players were required to do lots and lots of drills but were never put in situations where they had to read the play and make decisions! Additionally, it was noted that the “skills” or techniques rehearsed in training drills often did not hold up or were ineffective in game situations. It seemed that “learning the basics” by repetitively drilling them, didn’t lead to being good at the basics during competitive play! Below is an example of the typical passing drills we see in junior coaching to develop “the basics”.
Given the above comment it might not surprise you to learn that one of the constant refrains from coaches and teachers that we work with is that children “today” lack the ability to solve problems and be good decision makers in games. The same reasons that underpinned the reasons for Rod Thorpe and Dave Bunker to develop teaching Games for Understanding still stand almost 50 years later when they began to develop the ideas of TGfU. The links between traditional practice designs and learner outcomes is clear, they fail to adequately prepare players to play intelligently in messy, dynamic game scenarios.
What can be done then? We believe that a fusion between a CLA and GBAs can help us create the practice tasks and learning environments that can lead to the emergence of more examples of intelligent play by players being put in situations where they are invited to solve problems in practice games, and where innovation and creativity is encouraged not squashed.
Fortunately, there are several coaches already working in this space that we can point to, to illustrate that it is possible. One such example was recently captured in an article entitled ‘The making of a magician” by Will Kelleher on Wednesday 2nd February 2022 in an article in The Times of London. Kelleher wanted to help us understand how the new England Rugby Union No 10, Marcus Smith had developed to become one of the most exciting young players in the game and is renowned for showing flair and creativity in his game. Kelleher went to Brighton College and took part in a coaching session led by Smith’s former coach, Nick Buoy, who is still the Director of Rugby at the College. Watching the session revealed how Marcus was “made”. Notably, from our observations, Buoy combined the key ideas of a Games Based Approach with a CLA.
Marcus Smith. England No 10.
If you can access The Times article (it is behind a paywall) you can find it here.
So, what did Smith’s training look like? Let’s take a look.
Marcus Smith: Magic man
Buoy’s training was based on playing adapted games that were very much in line with the Four Environmental Design Principles that we proposed as a way of building a bridge between the theoretical concepts of ecological dynamics and practice (Renshaw et al, 2019). These are:
· Intentions
· Representative Learning Design
· Constraint to Afford
· Variability
Let’s unpack each idea in turn.
Intentions
Buoy designed his games so they had a clear purpose and consequences, namely scoring or stopping tries...the essentials of the game. What he did not do was prescribe how the teams should solve the problems presented to them but worked with them to “co-create” ways to “beat” the game. It could also be argued that Buoy intentionally designed games to let the players have fun by creating immersive tasks that led to high levels of engagement. Remember, players are there because they love playing games and solving problems during practice and performance. It is challenging, motivating and engaging all at the same time. Buoy simply tapped into this effect in his session design.
Representative Learning Design
Games were created that were “match, pace, fluid and were representative of match scenarios. This approach ensured that the key information sources that are present in matches were also available to be ‘picked-up’ in the training games. Players were challenged to scan the opposition player’s positions ‘before’ they received the ball, since waiting until after they had received it would mean they didn’t have enough time to get a pass away. Perceptual awareness is a skill that can be greatly enhanced by the game designs experienced.
Transitions were built into the game and emphasised. Invasion games like rugby involve a cyclical turnover of possession so players are constantly having to transition between attacking and defending. Clearly, the goals of each ‘phase’ are the opposite of each other and players must become very adept at rapidly managing this switch. For example, generally, when attacking players are further apart as they seek to create space and hence when they lose possession can be highly vulnerable to counter-attack. Players, therefore, need to be mentally switched on and learn to react quickly to the information that suddenly emerges in the game context and exploit a ‘new’ possession or to shut down an opposition attack when losing possession. Buoy was very aware of the importance of transitions and emphasised them in games. Quick thinking about what to do ‘off the ball’ can be encouraged and developed by game designs that afford rapid transitions.
Constrain to Afford
Rules were progressively adapted to emphasise specific affordances. You can think of affordances as invitations for learners to respond in specific ways that are useful for them in the game. For example, the two offside game invited players to look for the space and then pass the ball to the two offside players. In line with TGfU principles, these added task constraints were specifically designed to exaggerate the affordances for ball carriers. By placing players in “off-side” positions to begin with in a game, it enabled them to see where the space would be for chip kicks or kick passes to players (or themselves (see the video below for an example from Smith) running into those spaces. While we don’t know the specifics of the rules around where the two offside players could go, for us, it ‘not too far beyond the offside line’ would make sense. This constraint manipulation would only allow them to go as far as they could run while a kick was in the air when running from an onside position.
With respect to the adapted rule constraints, it was interesting that initially the players were allowed to hand pass the ball forward (hence breaking the fundamental law in rugby). Whilst, this might be thought to violate the basic principles of representative learning design, Buoy was using task simplification (hand passing into tight spaces behind the first tackle line is easier than kick passing), he was setting this task up so players could first learn to recognise the opportunity the spaces offered. In other words, he was guiding attention of the players to help them become better attuned to the spaces that invited their runs. Once they could ‘see’ these opportunities to run, he then required passes to be with kicks. Manipulating constraints by a coach needs nuanced thinking.
We have used similar ideas with junior players to take away the ‘technical’ limitation when we are trying to develop tactical awareness (underpinned by perceptual skill and thinking) to ‘find’ and ‘use’ space with beginners in cricket as well as net/court games. Of course, this is a fundamental strategy used by teachers in TGfU games, emphasizing where the two approaches can sometimes be aligned.
Variability
Each and every ball possession was variable: no “you must” rules were used to over-constrain the learners’ actions.
Each game created the same intent for the attacking side in ball possession: to score tries. But the way that could be achieved on each ball possession was different as the opposition players were allowed to behave how they wanted to and were not constrained in pre-determined ways. This meant, that for every possession (repetition) there was no repetition in the way they attempted to solve the problem. (Of course, unless they had found a weakness in the opposition that they could exploit repeatedly).
Conversely, during Nick Buoy’s practice tasks, defenders had to work hard to stop the attackers as they prodded and probed for weaknesses, resulting in defenders having to constantly read what their opponents were attempting to do so they could counter it. The information needed to take part in a game does not need to be ‘shared’ across the whole group (apart from essential intentions). Coaches can give changing information implicitly to different players, sub-groups and teams during a practice task. This approach keeps the learners in a constant state of having to work out what to do….without it being broadcast to them. Exactly like match day!
Other key points:
Players need to work together to solve problems and were given ‘time-outs’ to ‘co-create’ solutions. The coaches’ role here is to ‘nudge’ players to solve problems, not tell them the answers before they have a go at problem solving.
Players would explore how they could solve the problem and then exploit affordances (opportunities and invitations for actions that they perceive during play) when they had become attuned to them.
Players would bend, break and, or exploit rules. For us, this is intelligent play and should be always encouraged. If the rule creates ‘unfairness’ then adapt the rule.
An errorless game where success is expected and given would be deemed a failed game by Buoy. He wanted to see mistakes being made by players. But he also wanted to ensure that they were pushed to learn, be more inventive, more skillful, more adventurous at the right times and more connected to each other.
The numbers in teams were often reduced. This manipulation meant that each player had more chance to be part of each ball possession, providing more opportunities to engage with the game, potentially increasing the rate of learning.
The coach and the players constantly evolved games to push players to constantly develop their perception and actions skills. Hence, tasks that led to too much stability and certainty were frowned upon. More on the relationship between stability and instability and certainty and uncertainty in games design in a later blog.
Children are never too young to play adapted games to learn perception and actions skills. Brighton College introduced these games to 11 year olds; effectively when they start “secondary” education. We have used similar games with children as young as 7 and 8.
A final point: Buoys did NOT use drills that prescribed solutions.
Summary
If you want players in any sport to become better at making decisions and develop more options to solve problems, you need to provide opportunities for them to do that. You need to work out what aspects of performance you want to work on and design games that replicate those scenarios. You need to understand what constraints you can manipulate to make the affordances more obvious or inviting to exploit. A good rule of thumb is that it you want to work on attack, constrain the defence. If you want to work on attacking, then constrain the defence. Be careful not to over-constrain though. Learning emerges in some messy, noisy, dirty contexts, not necessarily in ‘manicured calmness’. Finally, ensure that you keep adjusting rules and scenarios when the players solve them. Keep stretching and challenging them in learning.
We hope you have enjoyed this article and if you have any questions, feel free to get in touch.