*Article* **E**ff**ects of Teaching Games on Decision Making and Skill Execution: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis**

**Manuel Tomás Abad Robles 1, Daniel Collado-Mateo 2, Carlos Fernández-Espínola 1, Estefanía Castillo Viera <sup>1</sup> and Francisco Javier Giménez Fuentes-Guerra 1,\***


Received: 20 December 2019; Accepted: 10 January 2020; Published: 13 January 2020

**Abstract:** The question of how games should be taught is still a controversial subject. There has been a growing number of studies on teaching games and coaching sports since the first publication of Bunker and Thorpe on Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). In this sense, the present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to systematically review the scientific literature about the effects of technical and tactical approach interventions on skill execution and decision making, and to examine the influence of the teacher/coach management style. A systematic literature search was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines in Web of Science (WOS), PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and SportDiscus electronic databases. A total of seven and six studies were deemed to meet the inclusion criteria for decision making and skill execution, respectively. Meta-analysis results showed that tactical interventions achieved significant improvements in decision making (effect size = 0.89 with 95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.12 to 1.65), but they did not show significant improvements in skill execution (effect size = 0.89 with 95% CI from −0.45 to 2.23) compared to technical approaches. However, the heterogeneity of interventions was large and the quality of evidence was low according to GRADE. In conclusion, tactical approaches are recommended to teach games and sports in order to develop technique, understanding, tactical knowledge, and decision making, which are demanded in game play. These findings could be useful for teachers and coaches to improve these aspects of their players and students.

**Keywords:** TGfU; sport pedagogy; technique-focused approaches; tactical approaches

### **1. Introduction**

The best way to teach games is still a controversial subject around the world [1]. Since the first publication of Bunker and Thorpe on Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) [2], many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of different types of models. Therefore, multiple approaches based on game teaching and coaching have emerged as an alternative to technique-focused approaches aimed at solving the potential problems related to the development of technique at the expense of tactical knowledge and decision making [3]. In technique-focused, traditional, or skill-based approaches, technical skill is pre-determined and based on a perfect model of execution where players execute the skill in a repeatable manner [4] in isolation from the game context and are trained until it is performed well enough to play the game [5]. Moreover, technique-based approaches "focus first on the teaching of the techniques of the game before going on introducing tactical knowledge, once a skilled background has been developed" [6] (p. 40).

This has led to the use of broad terms in tactical approaches or game-based approaches, which, in spite of some small differences, share some common main ideas (they focus on the game as a whole, where they place learning in modified games, and there is an emphasis on questioning to stimulate thinking and interaction) [7]. Some of the better known game-based approaches that follow TGfU are the Tactical Game Approach, Game Sense, Play Practice, Games Concept Approach, Tactical-Decision Learning Model, ball School model, and Invasion Games Competence Model. For these approaches, "the main element is that key learning occurs from the game itself and game-related activities, as opposed to drills completed in isolation then applied during a game" [8] (p. 65). However, tactical approaches underline the complementarity of technical and tactical dimensions of skilled performance [9] and they aim to not only teach the skills required to play a game, but also to allow one to develop the ability to understand the game's tactics and strategies [1]. As stated above, central to the criticisms of the technique-based model was the development of inflexible techniques that did not enable the student or player to resolve real game situations. Therefore, there may be a lack of transfer from practice to games [10]. On the other hand, in tactical approaches, "skill execution is not neglected but developed after understanding the game's strategies and tactics" [11] (p. 30). In this way, these approaches have been related to constructivist and situated learning theories [12], where the student's knowledge construction takes place in games, solving problems, and reflection [13]. Therefore, tactical approaches focus on student learning within a game context and permit people to develop a tactical understanding of the game, tactical awareness, decision making, and skill execution [13].

The research focused on comparing technique-focused and game-based approaches to teach games has increased in recent decades around the world [6,14]. In this way, there has been considerable discussion and research on the most effective method to teach games, and many studies have focused on comparisons of tactical and technical approaches [11].

In the scientific literature, the effects of both types of interventions on several variables have been studied, mainly skill execution and decision making, comparing the two pedagogical approaches (tactical and technical), in order to identify which one can achieve greater results [15]. In this regard, Rovegno et al. [16] highlighted the relationship between motor skill execution and decision making. Nevertheless, previous studies have provided controversial results on the development of skill execution and decision making when technical and tactical models of teaching games are used. Therefore, the up-to-date scientific literature does not provide clear guidelines about the most adequate or optimal approach. In this sense, the comparative approach has much to offer, and it seems clear that there is still a need to identify effective ways to teach students and players in order to develop both game play and participation [11].

To provide clarity on the topic, Oslin and Mitchell [17] published a review of studies evaluating game-centered approaches to teaching and coaching. They highlighted several core concepts to justify the use of this model, including the development of decision making skills and effective decision makers. The central findings section of their review provides an in-depth discussion of the studies comparing technical and tactical approaches. On the other hand, Harvey and Jarrett [14] published a review where they noted that several key challenges remain within game-centered approach research (in-depth inquiry on tactical approaches in coaching contexts, further assessment of tactical awareness development, and the use of longitudinal research designs, among others). These previous reviews have emphasized that results concerning the development of skill execution with tactical and technical approaches are equivocal. In this sense, it is important to emphasize that, in the implementation of technical and tactical approaches, the role of the teacher/coach is very relevant, given that physical education teachers and coaches do not present the same management style (e.g., teacher/coach's personality, communication skills, use of feedback, motivation, etc.). In this sense, there is a lack of information about coaches' behaviors in teaching games.

Therefore, given the interest and relevance of the topic, as well as the controversy about the best way to teach games and the importance of the teacher/coach behavior style, a systematic review and meta-analysis is necessary. Based on previous reviews [6,14,15,17], it can be hypothesized that a tactical approach will result in better learning outcomes than a technical approach in teaching games. However, the magnitude of those differences must be quantified and proper analyses must be conducted to accept or reject that hypothesis. To the best of our knowledge, no meta-analysis of studies comparing skills-based and tactics-based approaches to teaching games has been performed before the current one. In this regard, the purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to systematically review the scientific literature about the effects of technical and tactical approach interventions on skill execution and decision making, and to examine the influence of the teacher/coach management style.

### **2. Methods**

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) guidelines have been followed to conduct the current review [18].

### *2.1. Inclusion Criteria*

The manuscripts were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) the intervention was based on a comparison of the technical and tactical models in sports education; (2) players or students' decision making and/or skill execution were measured; (3) articles were written in English or Spanish; (4) manuscripts were published in the XXI century; and (5) articles were original research (not a systematic review or literature analysis). To reduce selection bias, each study was independently reviewed by two of the authors (C.F.-E. and M.T.A.R.), who mutually determined whether or not they met basic inclusion criteria. If a consensus could not be reached on inclusion of a study, the matter was settled by consultation with a third author (F.J.G.F.-G.).
