BackgroundThe foundational nature of the 'Teaching Games for Understanding' (TGfU) approach [Thorpe, R., D. Bunker, and L. Almond. 1986. Rethinking games teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology.] has led to considerable interest from researchers and practitioners since its inception [Stolz, S., and S. Pill. 2014. "Teaching Games and Sport for Understanding." European Physical Education Review 20 (1): 36-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X13496001]. Consequently, many variations of TGfU have come to the fore [Mitchell, S., J. Oslin, and L. Griffin. 2020. Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.]. Despite the considerable interest from physical education related researchers, those in sports coaching have been slower to embrace the TGfU approach, particularly in competitive adult settings [Kinnerk, S., S. Harvey, C. MacDonncha, and M. Lyons. 2018. "A Review of the Game-Based Approaches to Coaching Literature in Competitive Team Sport Settings." Quest.]. Indeed, there is a lack of consensus about the TGfU's efficiency and studies have shown that practitioners lack knowledge on how to implement it in their own context [Karagiannis, K., and S. Pill. 2017. "A Case Study Exploring Coaching Practice and Coaching Perspectives at One Soccer (Football) Club." Scientific Journal of Education, Sports, and Health 18 (1): 140-150.].PurposeTherefore, the aim of this study was to critically explore the utility of TGfU as a pedagogical approach within a competitive sports coaching setting, whilst considering its impact on the coach and players' learning.MethodologyAn Action Research (AR) methodology involving progressive cycles of practice over the course of a full eight-month volleyball season. The participants of the study were the players (n = 13) and the first author as the coach. Data were drawn from focus groups and reflective field notes. Data collection proceeded in tandem with a combination of inductive and deductive analysis.FindingsResults indicated the need to adapt the approach to the context critically rather than safely, which demands a well-developed knowledge of the field and engagement with reflection. This suggests a close consideration of the coaching context and the interpretation of TGfU as a flexible approach rather than a rigid model, which has been widely understood to evolve based on contextual needs [Casey, A., MacPhail, A., Larsson, H. & Quennerstedt, M. (2021). Between hope and happening: Problematizing the M and the P in models-based practice. Physical education and sport pedagogy, 26(2), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1789576]. Findings suggest a reconceptualisation of the well-established notion of 'player-centred' [Metzler, M. 2011. Instructional Models for Physical Education. 3rd ed. Scottsdale, Arizona: Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers, Inc.] to that of 'interaction-centred' (between the coach and the players) as crucial to effective practice. Here, the use of questioning played a key role in mediating the interaction between the coach and the players. Finally, the current study demonstrated that, despite not being a linear process, the players' game understanding and overall performance improved throughout the season. Such improvement was instigated by facilitating the players' ability to reflect, progressing to being able to reflect on themselves, the team, and to some extent on the opposition.
