DAVID RHODRI HOLLOWAY
ST08002632
SCHOOL OF SPORT
UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE CARDIFF
COACH PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE TGFU APPROACH IN JUNIOR RUGBY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
2
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
4
Background of Teaching Games in Physical Education
4
The TGFU Approach
5
Research Linked to TGFU
7
Adaptations of the TGFU Approach
9
Game Sense and Links with Coach Education
11
Justification for Research
12
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
15
Participants
15
Procedures
16
Structure of Interviews
19
Data Analysis
19
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
22
The Use of Game Play
22
Questioning
24
Positive Responses and Future Practice
27
Challenges Faced
28
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
31
Key Findings
31
Limitations
37
Areas for Future Research
38
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
40
REFERENCES
41
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Information Sheet
Appendix B – Consent Form
Appendix C – Pilot interview Guide
Appendix D – Interview Guide 1
Appendix E – Interview Guide 2
Appendix F – Interview Guide 3
Appendix G – Coach Information Literature
Appendix H – Reflective Diary Task
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and give gratitude to the work of Dr. Kevin Morgan for his
assistance and advice during the undertaking of this research paper. I would also like
to thank the Coaches involved in this study as without their opinions and input this
study would not have been possible.
i
ABSTRACT
Background: Previous researching surrounding the use of the Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGFU) approach in pedagogy and curricular activities is vast and
diverse suggesting the approach is useful in developing participant’s decision making
skills and tactical awareness in games. There has been limited research conducted
on the use of the TGFU approach outside of a physical education setting examining
the implementation of the approach in sport and specifically rugby union.
Aim: The aim of this paper is to identify coach perceptions of implementing the TGFU
approach over a period of four weeks.
Method: Two novice UKCC level 1 rugby union qualified coaches participated in the
study. Data was collected through the use of semi structured interviews to determine
the coaches’ previous experience of coaching and playing rugby union as well as
their perceptions of implementing the TGFU approach following exposure to relevant
literature and execution of two TGFU themed sessions.
Results & Discussion: Findings of the study highlight the coaches perceptions of
the benefits of implementing the approach in terms of the player’s development and
their understanding of the game as well as the perceived challenges faced with
implementing the approach.
Conclusion: The study found that coaches perceived the implementation of the
TGFU approach in junior rugby to be advantageous and beneficial to increasing
participant’s motivation, decision making as well as an increased awareness and
understanding of game play. The coaches in the study perceived the use of the
TGFU approach and game play in training to have a direct positive relationship with
improved performance in competitive games. The findings of this study are significant
in shaping future coaching methods and increasing rugby coaches knowledge of
implementing the approach at junior level.
ii
Keywords: TGFU, Coach Perceptions, UKCC Level 1, Rugby.
iii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The scale of research conducted in regards to the teaching games for understanding
(TGFU) approach in physical education over the past twenty years has been
extensive and substantial in increasing our understanding and utilization of the
approach. However there has been a substantially lower amount of interest paid to
the research of the TGFU approach outside of the physical education field and
particularly the field of sport’s participation. Recent studies by Roberts (2011), Light
and Robert (2010) and Harvey et al. (2010a) have investigated the use of TGFU to
participants of youth and adult ages in sports such as rugby and cricket, however
there has been insufficient research conducted on the use of the approach to
younger participants and specifically in the junior rugby sector. Researching this
subject may provide coaches and players in the junior sector with a greater
understanding and insight into the learning and teaching benefits supposed by the
approach as well as broadening the literature and advancing knowledge on the use of
the approach with younger participants.
The hypothesis of the study is that junior rugby coaches will perceive the use
of the TGFU approach as a useful style of teaching and coaching in aiming to
develop self sufficient, motivated and thinking players who understand the tactical
context of which games in practice influence real game scenarios. The study aims to
solve this premise through the use qualitative research and using a type of social
intervention procedure and reflective practice to guide the coaches’ actions and
persuading the participants to reflect and examine their perceptions and ideas of the
sessions prior to and after implementing a TGFU approach in junior rugby.
2
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature Review
Background of teaching games in physical education
Pedagogy is a term used to describe the way knowledge is conveyed, organised and
evaluated through a curriculum in an education setting (Nash 2003). It can therefore
be pronounced that the term pedagogy refers to the teaching methods and the
organised nature of these methods that are utilized by educators. Cassidy et al.
(2004) declared that there was a strong link between the implementation of teaching
and coaching of games, asserting that the link lay between the culture of physical
education and the underlining methods of coaching theory.
In previous years’ and still to this day teachers, coaches and educators have
adopted the traditional methods of teaching physical education and sport, relying on
drill based exercises and practices (Harvey et al. 2010a, Light 2004a). These training
methods operated on a technique and a skill based approach to teaching and
learning and from this many participants appeared to be lacking progression and
interest seemed to diminish (Thorpe et al. 1986). Teachers and Researchers (Bunker
and Thorpe 1982, Light 2008) found that the traditional approach to teaching
curriculum models of sport and physical education was unchallenging for participant’s
cognitive thinking and decision making abilities. Light (2008) argued that traditional
beliefs and attitudes of teaching and coaching had to be challenged and therefore a
modern, holistic approach should be adopted to consider the many relevant traits and
attributes linked with the development of intrinsically motivated and self sufficient
athletes and participants.
Harvey et al. (2010a) agreed with Light (2008) in the sense that traditional
approaches to coaching and teaching had to be challenged. This is significant as it
highlighted a desire for change and the continual professional development of
teachers and coaches therefore expanding the relevant pedagogical skills so that
4
progress is directed towards an expanse of current knowledge, ultimately benefiting
the teacher, coach and learner.
The TGFU approach
Due to the vast amount of time devoted to the teaching of games in curriculum
physical education, Thorpe et al. (1982, 1986) had previously established themes of
discontent with the pedagogical methods of teaching team games in the curriculum
similar to that of Light (2008) and Harvey et al. (2010a). The themes of discontent
being that too often the content of games lessons were focused on traditional based
teacher centred activities which consisted of technical and skill based actions (Thorpe
et al. 1986). Other themes of discontent included the authoritative nature of teachers
pedagogical practice and therefore eluding approaches which ultimately benefitted
the pupils to a greater extend. On continuing with this theme, research (Thorpe et al.
1986, Harvey et al. 2010a) suggested that teachers and coaches grew too
comfortable with the traditional approaches of teaching and therefore became
dismissive of new ideas and as a result lacked the desire to change their practice or
develop their knowledge of games teaching. This theme of teacher’s comfort of
employing teacher centred and traditional approaches of pedagogy also confirmed an
unexpected vacancy in the framework and principles of teaching games. This
vacancy ultimately being that a change in pedagogical approach of teaching games
was necessary away from a teacher centred didactic approach of skill related drills
and practices to a more student centred tactical approach to teaching games in
physical education.
Having identified this issue Bunker and Thorpe (1982) ultimately aimed to
resolve this vacancy and consequently conceptualised the Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGFU) model. Supporting research undertaken in future years (Light
and Butler 2005, Harvey et al. 2010a) confirmed that the model was developed as a
result of dissatisfaction with the formality of curriculum based models of learning,
which included technical based methods of games teaching. Therefore the TGFU
model is based around the pupil centred approach of the development of tactical
understanding and decision making skills of team games.
5
The foundation of the model is also based around Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982)
view that the educator’s role is to create and utilize modified games in which
participants are capable of improving their skills through the development game
concepts and understanding. The game should be structured in which the rules and
equipment are modified to suit the learning needs of all participants to maximise
awareness and understanding (Werner et al. 1996).
The TGFU methodology is also based on the questioning employed by the
coach to challenge learner’s awareness of the essential components of game play
that require a focus for
improvement (Harvey et al. 2010a). Once the areas for
improvement have been identified it is then the role of the coach to introduce skill
related practices that are related to the game to further develop the knowledge of
participants. Bearing this in mind the TGFU approach is a player centred approach
which implies the practice is empowering for participants. According to Smith in
Kidman (2001) Empowerment is an approach which a coach uses to ensure that
participants take ownership of their own decision making abilities, therefore
developing knowledge and understanding through personal experiences while having
the opportunity to develop their character and performance qualities to ultimately
assist them in getting the most out of their own performance
Once the skill development practices have been undertaken and participants
have understood and addressed the tactical problems, the initial game form is reintroduced to test the capabilities of the participants learning. Throughout the entire
process questioning is used to check participants understanding and ensure they are
tactically aware and understand the concepts of the game or game situation in hand
(Wright and Forrest 2007).
In later years Thorpe et al. (1986) acknowledged that the TGFU approach was
developed and aimed at children and coaches understanding the underlying
principles of games and appreciating the game form before recognising the tactical
elements required to participate successfully and develop understanding (Kidman
2001). The term game appreciation is an acknowledgement of the understanding and
6
recognition of a game including a good knowledge of the rules, principles codes,
allowing the participant to recognise the value of what the game implies (Griffin &
Butler 2005).
Research linked to TGFU
More recently the TGFU model was marked as an innovative success for the
teaching and learning of games in physical education and sport. (Griffin et al. 2005).
This is justified by research by (Light 2004a) who clarified that the approach has
begun influencing the teaching of games in physical education through the national
curriculum in the United Kingdom. This statement reflects the optimism of the
approach in which some researchers have stated that TGFU is an ‘important vehicle
for changing practice’ (Harvey et al. 2010a, p362) and a model which drives the
means of educational reform (Light and Butler 2005).
Moreover TGFU is based on
student and participant led teaching where decision making is a key tool for learning
and development. According to Webb et al. (2006) the TGFU methodology utilizes
the active learning of students and participants to ensure that understanding
develops though games and competition. This enables games to be adapted and
modified to suit the learner’s needs enabling critical thinking, allowing the participant
to discover and develop an increased awareness and appreciation of the game while
improving individual skills and tactics.
Previous studies (Light & Butler 2005, Light 2002a, 2002b) into the TGFU
approach in games teaching have highlighted the effectiveness of the model. Light
(2002b) drew attention to the functionality of TGFU in regards of student learning and
understanding, arguing that questioning the student and incorporating active decision
making practices would provide a greater foundation for learning. Light (2002b)
examined teacher and learner responses to the TGFU teaching model during a four
week games teaching period in an Australian Secondary School. The study was
based on the thesis that the education of games students through the use of the
TGFU model would be effective in increasing participant engagement, cognitive
thinking and promote learning through discussing the process of learning. Through
7
semi structured interviews, conversations with participants, journal and diary entries
as well as participant questionnaires, Light (2002b) suggested that learners were
more engaged during games where decisions and thinking was left to the
participants. A strength of the study lay in the underlying theory and principles of the
TGFU model of which Light (2002b) had recognised previous research (Thorpe et al.
1982, 1986) to underpin his study. Light (2002b) recognised Thorpe et al.’s (1982,
1986) conclusion that the TGFU approach to games teaching influenced decision
making, tactical awareness and pupils motivation for participating in games.
Therefore by drawing upon this background knowledge Light (2002b) was able to
investigate similar characteristics and correlations to that of Thorpe et al. (1982,
1986), allowing similar conclusions to be drawn and to verify that the research was a
valid and reliable consideration of teacher and pupil responses of TGFU. A good
knowledge of previous research was therefore fundamental to Light’s (2002b) study
in quantifying teacher’s perceptions of implementing the TGFU approach to engage
participants and promote decision making to increase learning.
Further research by Light and Butler (2005) detected similar findings to Light
(2002b) and adopted similar methods of data collection. The data collected was of a
qualitative nature focusing on in-depth interviews, focus questions, and reflection of
the participant’s perceptions of TGFU. The results concluded that the TGFU
approach ‘gave children a higher level of responsibility and thus created a higher
level of enthusiasm’ (Light and Butler 2005 p247). The study also found that the
increased motivation of pupils to participate and be responsible for their own learning
gave teacher’s a greater sense of fulfilment as well as developing their pedagogical
knowledge, ultimately supporting and promoting the approach from educator’s point
of view. These finding’s supports the observations made by Thorpe et al. (1982,1986)
and Light (2002b) in stating that the use of TGFU teaching methods received positive
responses from the participants of the study in addition to the participants/ children
being educated and also demonstrates that the results seemed to be reliable and
authentic due to the honest and trusty relationship developed between participants
and researchers.
8
Adaptations of the TGFU approach
From the extensive interest shown in the TGFU approach, various articles (Light and
Robert 2010, Harvey et al. 2010a, Light 2006, 2005, 2004a, 2004b, Griffin & Butler
2005) have shown similar themes of increased motivation, increased tactical
understanding and increased decision making demonstrating optimism and potential
when implementing the approach. Similar optimism and outcomes have been
observed with a variation of the TGFU approach; Game Sense. According to Light
and Robert (2010), Game sense was developed in the 1990’s by Rod Thorpe, one of
the founding members of the TGFU approach and The Australian Sports Commission
including a group of Australian coaches. According to Light (2004a) Game Sense
places learning into perspective when game based scenarios and game situations
are undertaken to function as the stimulus of developing player knowledge and
understanding of the skills and tactics required to play the game. Similar to TGFU,
Game Sense develops players understanding and awareness of the game through
questioning to player responses to develop player independence (Light and Robert
2010) before technical and skill practices are introduced within the context of the
game (Light 2004b). Game Sense utilizes questioning to encourage participant
opinion and cognitive thinking through the dynamic and effective use of critical and
appropriate questioning the aim of the approach is to develop player’s tactical
understanding and the transference of this tactical understanding from practice to
game situations and open play.
Research conducted by Light and Robert (2010) recognised that the use of
game sense pedagogy in coaching environment’s led players and participants to
engage in activities with greater understanding of the game to make tactically
appropriate decisions that were adjustable to the various tactical restrictions imposed
by the coaches. However by articulating the term pedagogy Light and Robert (2010)
opinion differs from that of Nash (2003) by declaring that the term pedagogy is
beyond the ideology of the transference of knowledge through a curriculum, and
9
consequently the belief that it refers to purposeful actions that intend to improve
knowledge and learning in both curricular and non curricular settings. It can therefore
be said that game sense pedagogy is linked with the TGFU approach by
endeavouring to develop tactical understanding through the means of modified
games and game situations to make sport more applicable and related to participant’s
interests (Light 2004a, 2004b).
Light & Robert (2010a) and Light (2004a, 2004b) found various strengths to
the use of game sense pedagogy which is strongly linked with the TGFU approach.
Findings in the studies outlined the opportunities which coaches found beneficial
towards player development and decision making abilities. Light (2004a) found that
coaches experiences of adopting a game sense approach in their practice recognised
that players motivation was sustained throughout the session and that players
‘developed a real empathy with their sports and a real understanding’ (Light 2004a,
p124). This corresponds with research by Light and Butler (2005) who found that
coaches and teachers using the TGFU approach in schools identified that the
approach ‘gives children a higher level of responsibility and thus creates a higher
level of enthusiasm’ (Light and Butler 2005, p247). This statement suggests that
TGFU and Game Sense is perceived to be a means of providing children and
participants with the opportunity to promote confidence and foster personal and social
development, ultimately increasing intrinsic motivation and performance through the
use of games.
Further studies (Harvey et al. 2010b, Lee and Ward 2009) have centred attention
towards the use of the TGFU approach with children aged twelve to eighteen in high
school and middle school physical education. Lee and Ward (2009) focused their
study on the generalization of tactics in tag rugby (a modified game of rugby union
usually engaged by novice participants). The study drew participants of the equivalent
age of key stage 3 pupils in the UK and highlighted the significant progression of
pupil’s performance during tactical based instruction (measured through the learning
of tactical awareness, in this case supporting movements and behaviours when in
10
possession of the ball in tag rugby games and practices) and therefore increased the
‘quality of their participation in the game’ (Lee and Ward 2009 p205). This study is
informative in determining the suggested effectiveness of a tactical based approach
to teaching games and specifically tag rugby to children aged twelve and above. This
however does not signify or validate the specific use of the TGFU approach to
teaching or coaching rugby union outside of a physical education setting to children
under the age of twelve. Further research needs to examine the perceptions and
outcomes of using a TGFU/ Game Sense approach with younger participants and
coaches in fully understanding the benefits and/or limitations.
Game Sense and links with Coach Education
According to the UK Coaching Certificate (UKCC) in association with 1 st4sport
Qualification was created with the intention of providing vocational qualifications in
sport’s coaching granting the opportunity to study and be assessed for practical and
theoretical components of coaching rugby union (1st4sport qualifications L1CCRU
2007). The aim of the coaching certificate course according to the document is to
‘provide candidates with an introduction to offering the principles/ practices of safe,
ethical and effective management and coaching of rugby union to adults and young
people’ (p 31).
The Welsh Rugby Union in working alliance with the UKCC qualification
programme provide successful candidates with a coaching manual as reference
material to aid future practice. This manual provides coaches with nominal
information regarding the Game Sense approach to coaching (a variation of TGFU),
therefore although coaches are informed of the approach it is at the discretion of the
coach educator to expand and provide meaningful explanations and demonstrations
to the studying coaches. It can therefore be supposed that a newly qualified level 1
coach will have a varying degree of knowledge regarding pedagogical and coaching
approaches such as Game Sense and TGFU.
11
Justification for research
Through reviewing the literature there is an apparent theme of positive reflections
towards the TGFU and Game Sense approaches of teaching and coaching. The
scale of research towards the TGFU and Game sense approach in pedagogy and
physical education is vast with several studies examining the development of
personal experience, reflective practices and implementation of the model. These
studies over the last two decades have confirmed a change of emphasis on games
teaching from technique and skill orientated methods to a decision making and game
appreciation founded approach (Webb et al. 2005, Light and Butler 2005, Light
2002a, 2002b, and Warner et al. 1996). The research conducted emphasises the
functionality and beneficial nature that TGFU has towards developing participants
decision making, tactical awareness and motivation therefore acting as a catalyst for
the self discovery of game awareness and developing independent players.
There is sufficient and relevant research (Light 2010, 2006, 2005, 2004b,
Harvey et al. 2010a, Webb & Pearson 2008, Griffin & Butler 2005, Light & Butler
2005) to suggest that the TGFU teaching model is effective in a pedagogical
curriculum setting however, there is insufficient research to suggest that this is the
case for a coaching and sport specific environment. Light (2002b) found various
limitations with the effectiveness of the TGFU model in an education setting, those
limitations being that not all students found the experience worthwhile and certain
participants failed to appreciate the values of taking part and experienced a lack of
engagement in games. As previously said game appreciation is the understanding of
the inherent values, principles and rules of the game (Griffin & Butler 2005), therefore
the few participants who failed to engage and have a degree of game appreciation
were perhaps unconcerned with physical education in general, disliked the particular
game being undertaken or had never learned such values and appreciation for
games.
12
Such limitations could be resolved with future research into the implantation of
TGFU in a sport specific setting where researchers, coaches and participants are not
restricted by curriculum guidelines or parameters. The implementation of the TGFU
model could be examined with in a sport specific community club or team where
individuals and coaches participate through choice and participation is therefore not
compulsory.
From highlighting limitations from previous studies (Roberts 2011, Light 2004a,
2004b, Light 2002b), it is possible to develop a justification for a research problem;
therefore this paper aims to identify the practical outcomes of using the TGFU
approach and identifying the perceptions and experiences of two UKCC Level 1
qualified rugby coach’s implementing the approach in a junior age grade rugby union
team in South Wales, United Kingdom over a four week period.
13
14
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
Method
This paper aims to draw on coach perceptions and experiences of implementing the
TGFU approach in rugby union as well as identifying the practical outcomes of using
the approach and how this shapes coaching methods and the coaches positive and
negative experiences. Qualitative methods of research were chosen for this study as
they give the ability to obtain and understand others experiences as is a beneficial
method of gaining an insight into the thoughts and philosophies of the individuals in
the study. The use of qualitative research allowed the researcher to explore and enter
the world which they were investigating, and to immerse themselves into the
environment allowing a direct insight to the daily lives of the populations under
investigation (Patton 2002). This was a very useful method of research in this study
as it allowed the researcher to gain access and observe the coaches thoughts,
actions, perceptions and behaviours in the environment in which they practice. This
was crucial as the researchers close contact and relationship with the coaches and
allowed insightful and meaningful data to be collected that gave the study a sense of
significance (Patton 2002).
Participants
The participants used in this study were identified through previous experience of
working with the individuals at a rugby club in South Wales. The participants
comprised of two recently qualified UKCC Level 1 male coaches of which the
researcher had a positive working relationships with through previous coaching work
and association with the rugby club of which the coaches were members; this was
essential in gaining honest and trustworthy answers during interview and discussion
(Light 2002b). Prior to the study commencing the participants were provided with
information sheets and consent forms explaining the study (see appendix A, B) and
informed of the potential use of data and their answers in compiling the study. The
participants were informed that all answers and data was confidential and that the
names used in the study were pseudonyms to protect their identity as to ensure there
16
were no ethical issues arising from others reading the publication. These ethical
considerations were in line with the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff’s (UWIC)
ethical procedures.
Graham was 42 years old and had been playing rugby for over twenty years at
various performance levels including stints in the army and combined services.
Graham’s coaching engagement was an event undertaken in his spare time in
evenings and weekends and had spanned 6 years with experience in coaching adult
rugby at a local rugby club for 2 years and a further 4 years coaching junior rugby,
undertaking his UKCC Level 1 rugby union coaching qualification in 2010.
Peter was 37 years old and had played rugby during his primitive years in
primary and secondary school. Peter was undertaking coach education training at the
time of the study and in the process of gaining his UKCC Level 1 coaching
qualification. As a rugby coach Peter had no experience of working with any age
groups or abilities but was enthusiastic to learn and develop, although did have a
modest background in teaching health and safety education in the fire service.
In accordance with the Welsh Rugby Union’s guidelines of child protection
and qualification the researcher was a UKCC Level 2 qualified rugby union coach and
possessed a full enhanced CRB disclosure document and was authorized to work
with participants under the age of eighteen.
Procedures
A Pilot Interview was conducted prior to data collection (see appendix C) to develop
the researcher’s style of interview to determine the functionality and effectiveness of
questioning techniques and the interpretation of the participant’s responses. The pilot
interview according to Gillham (2000) is beneficial to a study as it can determine the
themes and topic’s of questions and correspond these to the initial aims of the study.
A well structured pilot interview that is prepared and tested in advance can assist the
interviewer in gaining a sense control over the interview and can give the interviewee
a sense of direction in the answers and comments they provide permitting organised
and easily categorical answers (Gillham 2000).
17
Stage one of the data collection procedures was to conduct initial interviews to
gain an understanding of the coaches playing and coaching backgrounds. These
interviews were structured similarly to that of Light’s (2004b) study where initial
interviews were designed around a framework of nine focus questions and the
coaches were informed that they were free to expand and develop their answers as
they felt appropriate (see interview guide in appendix D). Coaches were also asked
to elaborate on their knowledge and understanding of certain coaching methods such
as the TGFU and Game Sense approaches and whether they were open to new
ideas and coaching methods. The initial interviews were conducted by the researcher
at the rugby clubs facilities and were approximately 15 minutes in duration.
Stage two of the data collection procedure was to carry out further semi
structured conversational interviews (see appendix E) and diary entries from the
observation of coaching sessions. These conversational interviews were aimed at
gaining an understanding of the coaches’ perceptions of how to implement the TGFU
approach after reading material was given to the coaches (see appendix G) and were
asked to review the literature and interpret it as they saw it. This interview was based
on an intervention strategy where the TGFU approach was discussed by the coaches
and the researcher and aimed at exposing the coaches to the new methodology and
influencing them to implement the approach in their coaching practice. The aim of this
interview was different from stage one and stage three of the data collection as it was
largely based around the researcher supplying the coaches with theory from the
literature and therefore intervening with the coaches’ practice rather than gathering
reactions and perceptions about the approach. Immediately following this interview
the coaches were asked to implement the approach to their best abilities during a
training session and observational field notes were taken by the researcher during
this time.
18
Following this training session a reflective diary task was given to the coaches
to carry out (see appendix H) and coaches were asked to comment on their thoughts,
feelings and perceptions following their attempt to implement the TGFU approach in
their coaching practice. A further training session was organised later that week in
order for the coaches to practice further and implement the approach following time to
reflect on their previous experience of applying a different coaching method.
Observational field notes of this session were also undertaken by the researcher with
emphasis on the session content and key aspects of the session. Subsequent to this
training session further reflective diary tasks were given to the participants to obtain
their thoughts and perceptions.
Observation of coaching sessions included noting the key aspects of the
session such questioning, the use of games as well as the drills and activities carried
out and whether they were categorised under the traditional technique focused
approach or a more student centred tactical approach to teaching games. Light
(2002b) and Harvey et al. (2010a) used similar methods of data collection in their
study of individual’s first experiences of using the TGFU approach and found that
journal notes and observations were key in gaining an insight into the participant’s
thoughts, behaviours and perceptions towards the approach.
The third stage of data collection consisted of a third semi structured interview
(see appendix F) after both practical sessions of implementing the TGFU approach
had been completed. The aim of this interview was to gain further insight of the
coaches thoughts, feelings and perceptions after implementing the approach and
after having sufficient time to reflect on the nature and occurrences of the session.
This method of data collected as used by Harvey et al. (2010b) proved efficient in
gaining a general perception of the sessions undertaken, investigating their
impressions and the impact the approach had on their sessions.
19
Structure of interviews
Using semi structured conversational interviews as used by Light (2004a, 2002b) and
Roberts (2011) was a valid method of understanding and enquiring on the
participant’s opinions and perceptions of using the TGFU approach during their
coaching sessions. The trustworthy and positive rapport between researcher, coach
and participants enabled data to be gathered without difficulty and was a resourceful
method of understanding the coaches’ feelings and beliefs which may have been
difficult to observe during coaching sessions. Interviews and conversations were
structured with the goal of distinguishing familiar themes and were intended to
enquire on valid, reliable answers, reflections and perceptions of coach’s (Light and
Butler 2005). Question design was based on similar queries adopted by Harvey et al.
(2010a) study on coaches learning a new method and the perceptions of coaches in
adopting the TGFU approach.
The structure of the conversational interviews was informal and relaxed as the
use of open ended questions as used by Harvey et al. (2010a) was vital in gaining
honest and reliable answers. Questions were asked and discussions developed on
the participant’s reflections of their own coaching methods and the perceptions they
possessed of implementing the TGFU approach. Advice and support was given to the
coach’s on implementing the TGFU to solve the difficulties encountered during
training sessions.
Data Analysis
From the data collected, the interviews were transcribed and analysed using a
constant comparative approach (Glaser & Strauss 1967). The transcribed interviews
were read through three times to validate the data and then coded and categorized
using a highlighter pen and themed notes. The coded data was then placed into
themes that had emerged from the data and placed into a table of raw data. Themes
were established through the notation of certain key words and expressions that were
repeated by the coaches in the interviews. This method of analysis was used to
compare and contrast the themes developed from the interviews and then regularly
20
contrasted these themes against pre-existing themes from the literature. This enabled
the researcher to refine the findings and highlight the similarities and differences that
existed between the coaches perceptions of implementing the TGFU approach
(Denscombe 2007). This method of data analysis was justifiable as it had been
previously used Light and Robert (2010) and was deemed a reliable method of
analysing the data for common themes and categories.
21
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Results
The following section provides an insight to the coach’s perceptions of the
implementation of the TGFU approach in junior rugby over a four week period. The
names of all coaches used in this study are pseudonyms as to protect their identity
and opinions. Several subthemes of coach perception were identified in the data and
were as follows: (a) the use of game play (b) questioning (c) positive responses and
future practice (d) challenges faced.
The use of game play
The coaches in this study felt strongly that the use of game play in training sessions
impacted the performance of the players in competitive game play in matches.
Graham felt that placing players in game situations exposed players to real game
conditions and actions that regularly occurred in match play. For example, Graham
felt that a game scenario in training using rucks, mauls and tackles increased the
player’s appreciation of the game and the realistic scenario would therefore enable
the players to make their own decisions. Graham recognised the importance of game
play in both player and coach in identifying weaknesses in performance:
‘Well I think the game situation does help because as I say if you’re doing the drill part of it
all the time it just gets boring. The actually game is the end product isn’t it, it’s what you
want them to do and I think putting it into a game situation and putting them in game
situations, playing a game does help because you get them doing that. You pick up aspects
of it and pick up the points that their doing wrong and stop them explain, talk, get them to
say what they’re doing wrong, and then say right let’s get back and see if we can do it. I
think as they do that they improve their all round game.’ (Graham interview 3, February 23rd
2011).
The data suggested that the coaches reinforced this belief by highlighting the fact that
the use of game play during training sessions had a connection with the performance
of players in competitive match play. The coaches seemed positive that the TGFU
approach and the use of game play was influential in improving players ability to
23
replicate the skills needed to execute situations that arose in match play as well as
providing the players with the understanding of the game to perform to the best of
their ability as Peter explains:
‘As a coach when a match day comes and something (a game scenario) that you’ve
introduced in a training session comes out right for them, then it’s almost as if to say there’s
a little pat on the back’. (Peter, interview 3, 22nd February 2011).
Graham agreed with Peter in recognising that realistic game play in training
produced improved performances during match play, citing the development of
players replicating and interpreting the situations and that occur in actual game play
that he witnessed during the sessions as a result of the TGFU intervention procedure:
‘We’ve found in the last couple of training sessions the difference with them in the actual
game situation, its improved them tremendous with the players we’ve actually worked with.
So I think yea, it’s definitely improved the way they’ve played over the past couple of
weeks’. (Graham Interview 3, February 23rd 2011).
The coaches engagement with the implementation of the TGFU approach impacted
on the process in which they observed and analysed the performance of players
during training. Prior to the TGFU approach being implemented in training sessions it
appeared that the coaches justification for using skill development practices was a
result of the identification of the weaknesses they had observed in performance
during the previous competitive match. It seemed apparent that the coaches had the
final say and did not validate any reasoning or disclosure to the players:
‘Graham has stopped the game and has immediately told the players that they are going to
progress into ball and skill handling drills straight away. So effectively what he could have
done, what would have been a better option would be to use questioning to draw the
weaknesses out of the players, what the weaknesses were from the game and to hand
power over to the players in the sense that they could identify what was going wrong and
how can they fix it. This would be heading towards the learner centred approach in which
the TGFU approach is based. At the moment Graham is using a very commanding and
authoritative style of coaching where upon he does not ask the players if they have
identified or understood the weaknesses they have demonstrated.’ (Field notes, 26th
January 2011)
24
Subsequent to the implementation of the TGFU approach the data in this study
suggested that the coaches highlighted that the use of games in training was
effective in drawing the player’s attention to specific areas and skills that needed
improvement. Graham emphasized the straightforward nature in his opinion that the
TGFU approach had in identifying areas of performance in game play to develop in
skill specific practices:
‘Their practicing all the aspects of the game (in training), rather than just that one particular
drill that you want them to do. So I think it’s very easy because you can pick out specifics
(areas from previous games and training) on what you want to do the drills on that day.’
(Graham, Interview 3, 23rd February 2011).
Peter’s perceptions of this subject corresponded with that of Grahams as he
highlighted his appeal to using game situations in training to recognise limitations in
performance whilst also aiming to develop the player’s ability to recognise and
understand the errors made during game play. This suggests that Peter’s
understanding and coaching ability was also developing through implementing the
principles of the TGFU approach.
‘So I like the way in which you can use a touch game then you can develop any skill from
that. So you can look at loads of scenarios in which you say this is a scenario I want out of
you, let’s bring it to a game play’. (Peter, interview 2, 16th February 2011).
Questioning
The coaches in this study both suggested that they perceived the use of questioning
as an important feature in the implementation of the TGFU approach. Both coaches
implied that the use of questioning increased the confidence of both players and
coaches during the training sessions. As a novice coach Peter reflected on the fact
that he felt that his questioning to the players was beneficial not only to the player’s
confidence but also increased his confidence during training. The more exposure to
coaching he had during training sessions and the more questions he asked, the
greater his confidence grew:
25
‘I’ll just stand there and I’ll ask the kid’s right ok where is the gate? And why do we need to
close the gate up? So you’re asking specific questions about specific task. Their then
thinking oh I know that’s a gate and they’re now becoming more confident, their more
confident to give you an answer. That all comes with me doing it more and more and getting more
confidence in rugby and the training itself’. (Peter, Interview 3, 22nd February 2011)
Graham’s opinions reflected Peter’s suggestion that the use of questioning increased
the player’s confidence and also found a positive response from the use of specific
questioning during training. Graham felt strongly that the use of questioning was
beneficial to improving the understanding of the players and was a significant factor
of the TGFU approach:
‘I’ve found that they’ve actually started answering questions themselves and getting, giving
us the right answers as well so the answers have been coming from them and its helped us
tremendously because if they, if they can answer it themselves then they’re half way there
knowing what they’re doing. So I think the question and answering is the big winner in this
because it does help them improve tremendously, and I think that’s the biggest part’.
(Graham, Interview 3, 23rd February 2011).
Questioning was also seen by the coaches as an integral factor to develop and
assess the players understanding of game play and particular aspects of game play
such as moving into space or defending. Graham suggested that questioning was
important to make sure that the participants understood by urging the players to give
detailed responses in their answers. He felt that this conveyed the player’s knowledge
across to the coach and expressed that this was how he assessed the players
understanding:
‘You’ve got to make sure that they do understand and you can do that by asking them, say
what did I just mean or what did I just say, do you understand what I just said, but do it
verbally rather than watching them nod their heads. You get them to actually answer the
question rather than just saying yeah, yeah.. I understand.’ (Graham, Interview 2, 16 th
February 2011)
26
Peter expressed similar thoughts of this method of assessing a players understanding
of both task and question in hand. He believed that two players would have a diverse
understanding of the same question and therefore answer it differently. With this in
mind he attempted to gain detailed responses from the participants, as Peter
explains:
‘Because if you ask them a question the responses they give you will be able to tell you
what their understanding is of what you’ve asked them to do. By asking them questions
about what you’ve just done and asking them to give you their understanding of it, you have
two kids who give you completely different understandings of that question’. (Peter,
Interview 2, 16th February 2011)
This diverse responses and questioning from the coaches was initially a concern,
however both coaches questioning style and use of open ended questions took time
to develop. At the instigation of the implementation of the TGFU approach, both
coaches’ questions to the players were basic and lacked structure although these did
develop with practice over the duration of the two TGFU themed sessions:
‘The coaches identify areas of weakness and limitations in performance during the game
however questioning of the players is rather closed and sometimes the coaches tell the
players where they’re going wrong rather than asking and attempting to draw the
knowledge out of them. As the session develops the coaches questioning seems to be
improving as they begin to ask more open ended, structured questions. It seems that the
coaches have thought about their previous questions and upon discussion have reflected,
questions are now more open minded and organised’. (Field notes, 16th February 2011)
The coaches level and depth of questioning could be seen as a barrier in the
effectiveness of the implementation of the TGFU approach, however both coaches
perceived the use of questioning as a strength of the approach and considered their
questioning to be of reasonable value in the ultimate aim of developing the players
understanding as Peter summarized:
27
‘I’ve got a good way of asking questions, putting questions across to the kids. I think I do
okay with it’. (Peter, Interview 3 22nd February 2011).
Positive responses and future practice
The data in the study suggested that both coaches perceived TGFU to be a
suitable approach for coaching young individuals in junior rugby. The coaches
highlighted their positive reactions after attempting to implement the approach
and were pleased with the end result. This suggests that the approach had a
positive impact on the coaches’ practice and that the coaches were optimistic
after observing the players increase in responsiveness to this method of
coaching. Graham stated in his third interview:
‘Definitely, it is a good approach, it is a good way of coaching the kids, the kids enjoy it,
their more receptive to it. I think it’s, far easier to get the kids in to a session, their more
receptive to what we’re trying to teach them. The basic principles of TGFU are really good
for coaching its very good, I quite enjoy it’. (Graham, interview 3, 23rd February 2011).
The results suggested a consistency in opinions as Peter tended to agree with
Grahams optimism for implementing the approach to young individuals in junior
rugby. After also witnessing positive outcomes in both his coaching methods
and the players development after the implementation of the TGFU approach
Peter concluded:
‘I think for teaching youngsters like we are I think it’s a very good approach.’ (Peter,
interview 3, 22nd February 2011).
Both coaches agreed that it was a good approach for developing the
understanding of young players, they also agreed that they would be keen in
continuing to implement the approach in their future practice. However one
coach was able to give a more comprehensive account of his perceptions of
continuing the approach in future:
28
‘I for one am definitely interest in keeping it going because it’s the way I’ve just learned to
do it because we know at this age particularly kids want to play. All they want to do is play a
game. I’m hoping that it’s something that I’ll just keep on going with to be honest with you
because I do feel positive about this way of teaching. For me I get a lot more satisfaction
out of running it this way’. (Peter, interview 3, 22 nd February 2011).
This account suggests that Peter acquired a great amount of contentment and
gratification from implementing this approach in his coaching, and therefore was
enthusiastic in persisting in developing his knowledge and continuing to implement
the approach in his forthcoming coaching practice.
Challenges faced
As with most coaching styles and methods, the implementation of the TGFU
approach according to one of the coach’s perceptions posed particular challenges to
their coaching practice. On reflection one of the coaches expressed his perceived
difficulty in varying his approach to coaching and implement the principles of the
TGFU approach, in particular his questioning style and content. Graham suggested
that he found that implementing the approach was challenging at first:
‘I mean the biggest challenge was changing the way that I would go into a training session.
I mean it’s only a challenge in the way that the first couple of sessions was thinking of how
to implement it and how to get the boys to answer questions, and just sort of change the
way I coach’. (Graham, Interview 3, 23rd February 2011).
This statement was backed by further comments by Graham suggesting that upon
reflection on implementing the approach the challenges encountered at first seemed
to diminish over time and with experience of putting the approach into practice:
‘As I say the biggest challenge was changing my outlook on what it was needed in it. I
mean yeah it sort of got easier from my point of view in that respect because the kids where
enjoying it more and to be honest so did I. It’s not a very hard thing to pick up its quite an
easy thing to pick up because it flows quite well’. (Graham, interview 3, 23 rd February 2011)
29
However these views were not shared by both coaches as Peter possessed different
opinions on the challenges faced when implementing the TGFU approach. Peter’s
inexperience as a coach could have reflected his thoughts and opinions on the lack of
challenges he faced as a coach implementing a new approach. Peter found little or
no challenges while implementing the approach therefore showing inconsistency in
the coaches’ perceptions as he explained:
‘From my experience of the two we’ve done so far I wouldn’t say that we’ve had any
challenges at all, or any difficulties mainly because a lot of the kids have got good, and they
want to learn and they want to play hard’. (Peter, Interview 3, 22nd February 2011).
30
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
Discussion
The purpose of the research was to determine coach’s perceptions of the
implementation of the TGFU approach in junior rugby. This was significant as to
compare the findings against existing literature and to establish any innovative theory
that is linked to the TGFU approach. This chapter is organised through the
presentation of the researcher’s opinion of the analysis, interpretation and synthesis
of the critical findings of the study highlighting the contribution and impact the findings
pose to coaches current practice and knowledge. The key findings of the research
were that coaches perceived the use of questioning and games in training to play a
functional significance in the implementation of the TGFU approach as well as
highlighting the perceived positive responses and challenges in employing the
approach in junior rugby. The latter sector of this chapter draws attention to the
perceived limitations of the study and the recommendations for future research while
finally drawing the chapter to a close with a conclusion of the researcher’s
assumptions of the critical findings and a summary of their implications for coaches
and coaching practice.
Key Findings
The use of game play in training as perceived by the coaches seemed to have a
positive impact on their opinions of the implementation of the TGFU approach. The
coaches indicated their belief that the use of game play in training had a positive
correlation with the improved performance of the players during competitive matches.
This may be due to the games for understanding nature of which the TGFU approach
is based on, by means of encouraging the coach to initiate and replicate scenarios
which are a reflection of the competitive game. This exposes players as Light (2002b)
suggests to the cognitive elements of actual game play that incorporate decision
making opportunities and occasions that demand a tactical understanding of
variables of play such as passing strategy, the use of space, and movement off the
ball. The player’s exposure to these cognitive elements of game play in training may
32
therefore have an effect on the way in which knowledge is retained and transferred
from training to competitive game play (Light 2004a). These findings are consistent
with the literature as Light’s (2004a) study continues to suggest that the relevance of
the transference of information from training to actual game play lies with the
requirement for players to continually extend their knowledge and understanding of
the nature of the game and its characteristics in order to successfully improve and
implement the skills required within games and game-like scenarios. This finding is
useful in contributing to coaches practice as the implementation of game-like
scenarios in training not only develops the players knowledge and understanding but
might also impact on the coaches reflections and consideration of the means in which
players and specifically junior players interpret the information with which they are
presented. This therefore impacts the process in which children learn through taking
part and engaging in games and may ultimately impact on the coaches practice and
the process in which they transfer their own knowledge through the use of games in
training to reflect actual competitive game play.
As knowledge is transferred through the use of game play in training it is also vital to
interpret and verify the players understanding of this knowledge through the use of
questions in the session. Both coaches in the study perceived the use of questioning
as a coherent factor in the successful implementation of the TGFU approach. The
coaches expressed their opinions that questioning was vital in clarifying the players
understanding of the game itself as well as their tactical awareness of particular
aspects of the game, for example moving into space or defending. The coaches
gave the impression that questioning was imperative to learning as it conveyed the
player’s knowledge across to the coach and therefore informing the coach of the level
of understanding present in the players. This insight into the coaches perceptions of
the importance of the use of questioning to check understanding is significant as it
corresponds with Wright and Forrest’s (2007) suggestion that the intention of
questioning in the TGFU approach is to interpret the players capability of orally
expressing the information presented as well as their understanding of the game they
have been exposed to. This therefore highlights the impact of questioning in the
33
TGFU approach in which the role of the coach is to create an environment for players
to learn in where problem based scenarios are established while questioning and
discussions are formed between coach and players. The reason being, to assess a
player’s ability to reproduce information, understand it and utilize it to enhance their
cognitive learning and understanding of games (Light 2006, Wright and Forrest 2007,
Harvey et al. 2010b).
At first glance it might appear that the coaches perceived the use of questioning to
convey a players knowledge and understanding to the coach however on closer
inspection of the findings in this study, one of the coaches indicated that the use of
questioning in his coaches methods unearthed varying answers from the different
players. Conversely the coach was unconcerned with the differentiation in responses
by the players and therefore perceiving his questioning technique as satisfactory.
This may perhaps be due to that individuals minimal playing and coaching experience
and therefore conceivably the inadequate knowledge of the game and the lacking
ability to pose meaningful, specific and practical questions to the players. The work of
Webb and Pearson (2008) may draw some assumption as to why this may be as they
illustrate that a profound understanding by the coach of the game (being taught) is
critical in coaches and teachers professional development and is linked with the
utilization of effective questioning. As an individual’s knowledge of the game is
developed over years of participating and engaging in the sport they base their
understanding around the previous experiences in which they were guided by
previous coaches. The work of Jones et al. (2003) supports this supposition as they
suggest that coaching behaviours are inherent in individuals with previous experience
as competitors and players in their sport. They are therefore inducted and exposed to
coaching habits, behaviours and conducts prior to coach education and certification
taking place. As a result it may be suggested that a lack of previous playing
experience, exposure to game knowledge and coaching behaviours might be an
influential factor in the coach in this study perceiving their style of questioning to the
players as being of a satisfactory nature as it was not fashioned by tangible first hand
practical experiences.
34
In further consideration of coaching perceptions of the TGFU approach, the findings
of this study appeared to indicate the positive responses and reactions of coaches
post TGFU intervention. The coaches specified that they believed as a result of
implementing the approach, player and coach motivation and coach satisfaction had
increased during training sessions and competitive games. Both coaches commented
that they observed that distinct benefits of implementing the approach to young
players as it facilitated both the coach and player enjoyment.
The likely explanation for this may be the idea that TGFU facilitates the
interaction between players and players and coaches through the increased social
features that game scenarios present. The increased interaction between players,
and players and coaches could be linked with enjoyment and therefore the
demonstration of enhanced motivation. This is supported by research by Light
(2004a, 2002b) who suggests that the foundation of the TGFU approach is based
around the increased social and cognitive engagement of players working together,
engaging in problem solving game scenarios and the tactical elements of games that
TGFU encourages. This therefore facilitates an increased physical interaction
between participants, and participants and coaches and for that reason may suggest
that the promotion of socialisation and engagement that TGFU is based around
enhances player motivation through the increased enjoyment that is stimulated
through the use of games and is therefore particularly useful for motivating children
and young players (Light 2004a, 2002b).
This research corresponds to the work of Light and Butler (2005) which ties in
with the belief that the TGFU approach brings about the promotion of shared and
collective experiences in which participants, and participants and coaches engage
and come together to develop learning and cognitive thinking through the use of the
motivational tool, being modified games and scenarios. From the viewpoint of the
literature the perceived benefit that TGFU poses in increasing player and coach
interaction and motivation is significant for developing coaching practice. As it is
suggested by Light (2004a, 2002b), the use of games in training and perhaps
35
specifically the TGFU approach may certainly operate as a motivational tool for
players as it supposedly increases intrinsic motivation, enjoyment and enthusiasm to
participate in sport and specifically in this study, junior rugby. As a result, the use of
games in coaching practice seems to be advantageous and should therefore
influence future practice through the implementation of game based scenarios that
motivate players.
In light of the positive responses perceived by the coaches in this study, challenges of
implementing the approach were also highlighted as a perceived outcome of the
study. Graham perceived that the greatest challenge of implementing the TGFU
approach was changing the way in which he coached from a didactic and instructive
approach (such as a commanding style of teaching) to a learner centred approach
(such as a guided discovery approach) as can be seen in the work of Mosston &
Ashworth’s (2002) spectrum of teaching styles. The TGFU approach is a learner
centred approach which has its roots in constructivist learning theory in which
Roberts (2011) suggested the principles of a constructivist approach are complicated
to understand and adopt into teaching and coaching practice, especially for
inexperienced coaches (such as the individuals in this study). This may be due to
varying factors as the research suggests that it is difficult for coaches and teachers to
accomplish, as previously mentioned that coaches are usually influenced to coach
the way they were educated from previous experiences and exposure to playing and
participating in the sport (Jones et al. 2003). This is supported by Light (2004a) who
suggests that TGFU challenges coaches personal values and ideas that act as
recognition of correct practice. Light (2004a) goes on to advocate that a change of
pedagogical and coaching approach can be problematic for individuals to adopt, as
perceived by the coach in this study.
36
However there was a level of inconsistency in the coaches perceptions of the
challenges faced during the implementation of the TGFU approach. Peter highlighted
his belief of the lack of challenges faced while implementing the approach. Peter
perceived his experience of implementing the approach to be solely positive, perhaps
due to the positive responses from the players and satisfaction he gained from
coaching this way. This finding appears to be dissimilar in comparison to recent
literature as Roberts (2011), Light and Robert (2010) and Light (2004a, 2004b)
highlight the definitive challenges perceived by experienced and elite level coaches in
implementing the approach. The findings suggest that with greater experience in
coaching at elite and professional level coaches develop enhanced reflection skills
and therefore may interpret the outcomes of practice differently to inexperienced
coaches and therefore experienced coaches may accurately perceive the realistic
challenges faced while implementing the TGFU approach.
However there is a contradicting argument by the researcher that suggests
that the lower experience level of amateur coaches may facilitate the implementation
and education process of the TGFU approach and benefit the coach. Should the
TGFU approach be educated to inexperienced coaches such as the individuals in this
study as they are more likely to see the benefits of the approach and perhaps more
prone to implement it without perceiving considerable barriers or limitations? The
researcher’s argument is based on the suggestion that the less experience and
influence from previous coaches the coach has the easier the process of facilitation
and implementation of the TGFU approach. This is significant as the coach is
incapable of comparing the approach to previous didactic, traditional based methods,
where as coaches with more experience and exposure to traditional based
approaches and coaching behaviours may have an increased scepticism about
implementing the approach. This may reflect the issues and challenges perceived in
coaching practice as highlighted in the literature (Roberts 20011, Light and Robert
2010, Light 2004a, 2004b).
37
This argument may form the basis for discussion of when is the optimal
timeframe in a coach’s tuition for the introduction of the TGFU/ Game Sense
approach be introduced through coach education? This also poses the question: is
there sufficient and relevant information surrounding the TGFU/ Game Sense
approach in the coaching literature and coach education available for rugby union
coaches to consider and utilize in their practice? This point will be discussed further
under the subheading of areas for future research.
Limitations of the study
The major limitation of the study found was that the researcher’s opinion, comments
and advice during the intervention process of the implementation of the TGFU
approach appeared biased and influential on the participants opinions and
perceptions. This can be viewed as a limitation as it therefore in later interviews
promoted the opinionated and subjective reflections that the researcher held of the
TGFU approach and as a result was likely to manipulate the participant’s opinions
and perceptions of the approach. This may have produced answers and comments
that were influenced by the researcher during interview and may therefore have
generated less sufficient results. Research by Gratton and Jones (2004) verified this
view by suggesting that a disadvantage of qualitative research is the possibility of the
researcher unconsciously demonstrating a bias through the use of vocal and non
vocal responses. This may therefore influence the participant’s responses and
leading the interviewee to give the desired answer instead of their honest thoughts
and opinions.
This shortcoming may also be linked with a further limitation of the study
based upon the inexperience of the researcher in conducting empirical qualitative
research. The undertaking of participant interviews and data collection was a new
occurrence for the researcher and therefore lacking the knowledge and experience.
Gratton and Jones (2004) also supported this suggestion by arguing that conducting
interviews requires a skilful approach by the researcher and that the results can
depend on the expertise and skilfulness of the interviewer. This may be improved in
38
future studies through continuous exposure and training in the methods of qualitative
research such as interviewing, data collection and investigation.
Areas for future research
This study has offered endorsement to the existing body of literature on TGFU by
suggesting that coaches have both consistent and inconsistent perceptions of the
implementation of the TGFU approach in junior rugby. Through interpreting the
existing literature there were also diverse opinions and perception of the
implementation of the approach in professional and elite environments in comparison
to an amateur junior rugby setting. This therefore suggests that there is a
differentiation in opinion between elite coaches and amateur junior coaches of the
TGFU approach which may be a result of the coach education programme currently
in place to educate coaches in the sport. Supporting research is required to
determine the extent of relevant literature available to coaches regarding the TGFU
and Game Sense approach.
Currently in the United Kingdom the majority of coach education courses are
regulated by the UKCC agenda of which rugby union is a popular programme. The
body of coach education literature surrounding the use of pedagogical approaches
(such as TGFU and Game Sense) in rugby coaching is suggested to be limited at
best (Light and Robert 2010). Therefore future research should highlight the use of
TGFU in coach education settings such as the UKCC Rugby Union Level 1 certificate
that is the basis of education and introduction to coaching knowledge for many
amateur inexperienced coaches.
It is the researcher’s opinion that future research into the use of the TGFU and Game
Sense approaches in coach education and specifically in rugby union will influence
coach education and highlight to coaches the benefits of contemporary, holistic
pedagogical approaches to coaching rugby union. The earlier the inexperienced
coaches are introduced to approaches such as TGFU and Game Sense the greater
the perceived benefits may be.
39
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
Conclusion
The major aim of the study was to investigate coaching perceptions of the
implementation of the TGFU approach in junior rugby. Through investigating this
subject the researcher was able to draw comparisons and conclusions from the
existing body of literature.
The results of the study found that coaches perceived the implementation of
the TGFU approach in junior rugby to be advantageous and beneficial in increasing
participant’s motivation, decision making skills as well as an increased awareness
and understanding of game play. The coaches in the study perceived the use of the
TGFU approach and game play in training to have a direct positive relationship with
improved performance in competitive games. However there were also perceived
challenged faced when implementing the approach and was therefore not entirely
straightforward. The findings in this study generally supported previous conclusions
from the literature with the exception of the coaches perception of the difficulties
encountered while implementing the approach.
The findings of this study are significant in shaping future coaching methods and
increasing coaches knowledge of implementing the approach at junior level rugby.
Additional research is required in the form of examining the use of the TGFU
approach in coach education settings such as the UKCC Rugby Union Level 1
certificate that is the basis of education and knowledge for many inexperienced
amateur coaches.
In conclusion it may be suggested that the findings of this paper along with previous
research may form the basis of the development knowledge and understanding of
individuals experiences of implementing the TGFU approach that can then impact on
coaching practice and education.
41
REFERENCES
1st4sport qualifications L1CCRU in Henderson, G., Pearson, A. (2008) RFU Level 1
Coaching Rugby Union Handbook. London: The Bridge.
Bunker. D., Thorpe. R. (1982) A model for the Teaching of games in the Secondary
School, Bulletin of Physical Education, vol.18. 1, 5-8
Cassidy. T., Jones. R., Potrac. P (2004) Understanding Sports Coaching – The
social, cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice. Abingdon:
Oxon. Routledge
Denscomb, M. (2007) The good research guide for small-scale social research
projects. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Gillham, B. (2000) The Research Interview. London. Continuum
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago. Aldine Publishing Company
Gratton, C., Jones, I. (2004) Research methods for sport studies. Abingdon: Oxon.
Routledge
Griffin, L.L., Butler, J.I (2005) Teaching games for understanding: Theory, Research
and Practice. Champaign. IL: Human Kinetics
Griffin. L.L., Brooker. R., Patton. K. (2005) Working towards legitimacy: Two decades
of Teaching Games for Understanding. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy. Vol.10. 3. 213-223
Harvey. S., Cushion. C.J., Wegis. H.M., Massa-Gonzalez. A.N. (2010a) Learning a
new method: Teaching Games for Understanding in the Coaches Eyes.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Vol 15. 4. 361-382
42
Harvey. S., Cushion. C.J., Wegis. H.M., Massa-Gonzalez. A.N. (2010b) Teaching
games for understanding in American high-school soccer: a quantitative data
analysis using the game performance assessment instrument. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy. Vol 15. 1. 29-54
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., Potrac, P. (2003) Constructing Expert Knowledge: A
Case Study of a Top-level Professional Soccer Coach. Sport, Education and
Society, Vol. 8, 2, 213–229.
Kidman, L (2001) Developing Decision Makers: An Empowerment approach to
Coaching. IPC Print Resources: Worcester, UK.
Lee. M-A., Ward. P. (2009) Generalization of tactics in tag rugby from practice to
games in middle school physical education. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy. Vol 14. 2. 189-207
Light. R. (2002a) Engaging the body in learning: promoting cognition in games
through TgfU. The Australian Council for Physical Education and Recreation
Healthy Lifestyle Journal. Vol.49. 2. 23-26
Light. R. (2002b) The Social Nature of Games: Australian Preservice Primary
Teachers first Experiences of Teaching Games for Understanding. European
Physical Education Review; Vol.8; 286-304.
Light. R. (2004a) Coaches’ experiences of Game Sense: Opportunities and
challenges. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Vol 9. 2. 116-131
Light. R. (2004b) Implementing a Game Sense approach in youth sport coaching:
Challenges, change and resistance. Waikato Journal of Education. Vol.10.
169- 180
Light, R. (2006) Game Sense: Innovation or just good coaching? Journal of Physical
Education New Zealand. Vol.39. 1. 8-19.
43
Light, R. (2008). Complex Learning Theory - Its epistemology and its assumptions
about learning: Implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, Vol.27, 21 – 37.
Light. R., Butler. J. (2005) A personal journal: TGFU teacher development in Australia
and the USA. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Vol 10. 3. 241-254
Light. R., Robert. J.E. (2010) The impact of Game Sense Pedagogy on Australian
rugby coaches’ practice: a question of pedagogy. Physical Education and
Sport Pedagogy. Vol 15. 2. 103-115.
Mosston, M., Ashworth, S. (2002) Teaching Physical Education. San Francisco: CA.
Benjamin Cummings.
Nash, R. (2003) Progress at school: pedagogy and the care for knowledge. Teaching
and Teacher Education. Vol.19, 7, 755-767.
Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. California: CA.
Sage Publications.
Roberts. S.J. (2011) Teaching Games for Understanding: the difficulties and
challenges experienced by participation cricket coaches. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy. Vol 16. 1. 33-48
Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. & Almond, L. (1986).
Rethinking games teaching.
Loughborough: University of Technology. Loughborough Press.
Webb, P., Pearson, P. (2008) An Integrated Approach to Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGFU). http://ro.edu.au/edupapers/52
Webb, P., Pearson, P., McKeen, K. (2005). A model for professional development of
teaching games for understanding (TGFU) for teachers in Australia. Paper
presented at
the 3 rd
Teaching
Games for
Conference, Hong Kong, December, 2005.
44
Understanding International
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. (1986) Teaching Games for Understanding:
Evolution of a model. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Vol 7. 1. 28-33.
Wright, J., Forrest, G. (2007) A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction
and games centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy. Vol.12. 3. 273-287.
45
APPENDICES