Content uploaded by Stephen Harvey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen Harvey on Nov 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Stephen Harvey]
On: 06 March 2015, At: 11:33
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Sport, Education and Society
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cses20
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching
Richard L. Lighta & Stephen Harveyb
a Department of Sport and Physical Education, College of
Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
b College of Coaching and Teaching Studies, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV, USA
Published online: 04 Mar 2015.
To cite this article: Richard L. Light & Stephen Harvey (2015): Positive Pedagogy for sport
coaching, Sport, Education and Society, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2015.1015977
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1015977
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching
Richard L. Light
a
*and Stephen Harvey
b
a
Department of Sport and Physical Education, College of Education, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand;
b
College of Coaching and Teaching Studies,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA
The literature suggests that, despite some challenges in their implementation, player/athlete-
centred, inquiry-based approaches to teaching games and coaching team sport can improve game
playing ability, increase player/athlete motivation and provide positive affective experiences of
learning. A range of these approaches, including Teaching Games for Understanding, Game
Sense, Play Practice and the Tactical-Decision Learning Model vary in detail but share enough in
common to be referred as game-based or game-centred approaches. This includes the central
role that dialogue, reflection and purposeful social interaction play in facilitating learning and the
deep understanding that they can promote. While these approaches are widely referred to as
instructional models for teaching and coaching consideration of the common pedagogical features
they share offers an alternative conception that creates possibilities for promoting the same positive
learning outcomes in sports beyond team games. In this article, we examine the concept of Positive
Pedagogy as an extension of Game Sense pedagogy beyond games and team sports to explore what
it has to offer coaching across a range of sports.
Keywords: Positive Pedagogy; Game Sense; Athlete-centred coaching; Sport coaching;
Antonovsky; Positive Psychology
Introduction
Learner-centred (often referred to as athlete, player or student-centred), inquiry-
based approaches to teaching games and coaching team sport are effective for
improving game playing ability, increasing player/athlete motivation and providing
positive affective experiences of learning (see, for example, Cassidy & Kidman, 2010;
Kidman, 2005; Kirk, 2005; Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin, 1995; Pope, 2005). Here, we
adopt the term learner-centred coaching in reference to a focus on the learner and
the process of learning as opposed to on what the teacher or coach does in the
teacher or coach-centred approach (Weimer, 2002). This involves a shift from
transmitting knowledge to facilitating active learning (Light, 2014). Consistent with
social constructivist theories of learning (see, for example, Fosnot, 1996; Gréhaigne,
Richard, & Griffin 2005; Wallian & Chang, 2007), the central role that dialogue,
reflection and purposeful social interaction play in facilitating learning in these
approaches can promote deep understanding (Light, Curry, & Mooney, 2014) while
*Corresponding author. Department of Sport and Physical Education, College of Education,
University of Canterbury, Private bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: richard.light@
canterbury.ac.nz
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
Sport, Education and Society, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1015977
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
making learning authentic and meaningful (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). Through these
experiences, players/athletes not only learn the content of the practice session but
also ‘learn how to learn’through dialogue-oriented learning while building intellec-
tual self‐sufficiency (Poerksen, 2005).
There is a wide acceptance of seeing game-based approaches (GBA) as variations
of an instructional model for teaching and coaching (see, Kirk, 2005; Metzler, 2005),
but a focus on the core pedagogical features they share offers an alternative
perspective that creates possibilities for promoting the same positive learning
outcomes and experiences beyond team games. Indeed, the word ‘game’in Game
Sense and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) could be seen to be blocking
applications of this pedagogy to sports other than team sports. However, as Jones
(2006,2009) suggests expert coaches often look beyond these restrictions as they
consider their roles differently.
In her Positive Pedagogy approach to teaching piano, George (2006) suggests that it
provides positive learning experiences that can foster a love of learning, imagination
and problem solving skills while developing active, inquisitive learners instead of
passive receivers of knowledge. She argues that teaching focused on ‘fixing’mistakes
deprives learners of the joy of self-discovery that can build self-confidence and
autonomy and lead to a lack of learner focus, engagement and motivation, which are
significant problems associated with directive, coach-centred approaches that focus on
the technical mastery of sport skills approach (Kirk 2005,2010). Surely, these
attributes of Positive Pedagogy for learning music are as important for sport coaching
and particularly when coaching children and young people.
In this article, we examine the concept of Positive Pedagogy as an extension of
Game Sense pedagogy (Light, 2013a) beyond games and team sports to explore what
it has to offer coaching across a wide range of sports (see, Light, Curry, & Mooney,
2014; Light & Kentel, 2013). We avoid taking a ‘functional’view of coaching and
learning that does not engage with the human element of coaching as a complex
practice that might suggest taking up Positive Pedagogy would be a smooth and
unproblematic process. Instead, we merely offer Positive Pedagogy as a framework
for meeting the sometimes-confronting challenges involved in undertaking the
significant change in practice required by teachers and coaches wanting to take a
GBA approach.
Game-based pedagogy
The different approaches used in game-based teaching and coaching can provide
consistently positive learning experiences that enhance learning and promote both
the ability and motivation to learn. This is largely due to them being learner-centred,
inquiry-based approaches that emphasize reflection upon experience and social
interaction. The oldest and most established of these approaches is TGfU (Bunker &
Thorpe, 1982) with a later variation of this GBA developed for coaching in Australia
as Game Sense (den Duyn, 1997; Light, 2013a). Launder’s(2001) Play Practice
was not developed from TGfU but is informed by similar ideas about coaching.
2R. L. Light and S. Harvey
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
Athlete-centred coaching (Kidman, 2005) has also underpinned the development of
youth sport programmes and coaching and rugby in New Zealand (Cassidy &
Kidman, 2010; Evans, 2012; Smith, 2005).
Although these approaches focus on developing better players or athletes, the
process of learning involved can generate positive experiences that are enjoyable,
satisfying and facilitate learning how to learn (Light, 2003; Pope, 2005). The
learning experiences provided by this pedagogy can also contribute towards positive
social, moral and personal development as ‘secondary’learning (see, for example,
Dyson, 2005; Light, 2013b; Sheppard & Mandigo, 2009). However, this secondary
learning should not be seen as an automatic outcome of taking these approaches
because, as Harvey, Krik, and O’Donovan (2014) contend in relation to the sport
education model rather than being automatically ‘caught’it must be taught.
Challenging behaviourism through Positive Pedagogy
There are now a number of approaches that specifically focus on promoting positive
development for young people through sport and other physical activity such as
Positive Youth Development (Holt, Sehn, Spence, Newton, & Ball, 2012), Sport
Education (Siedentop, 1994) and Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility
(Hellison, 2003). At the same time, developments in coaching pedagogy that
emphasize learner-centred, inquiry-based coaching such as Game Sense have
prompted a re-examination of traditional ‘folk pedagogies’(Bruner, 1999) linked
to personal and professional practice histories in sport (Nelson, Cushion, Potrac, &
Groom, 2014). GBA have also been used successfully at the highest levels of sports
such as with the New Zealand national rugby team, the All Blacks, emphasizing an
holistic approach (Evans, 2012; Kitson, 2005; Light, Evans, Harvey, & Hassanin,
2015; Smith, 2005).
These holistic approaches lie in contrast to behaviouristic approaches in which
coaches provide large amounts of instruction, feedback and demonstrations based
upon the assumption that the greater the level of intervention the more learning will
occur (Douge & Hastie, 1993; Williams & Hodges, 2005). These are approaches that
have much to answer for in regard to the host of negative experiences that they can
produce for players/athletes due to a mismatch between their developmental needs
and coaches’behaviour (Partington, Cushion, & Harvey, 2014).
Even for confident and experienced player/athletes who have the necessary skills to
meet the expectations of performance in this approach, the learning involved is not
necessarily positive because this can lead to a fear of failure that limits players’capacity
to learn from mistakes (Partington et al., 2014). It may be enjoyable for them because it
allows them to demonstrate competency but it does not help them learn to learn or
foster the development of positive personal or psychological attributes. Indeed, it can
promote selfishness, egotism and a lack of empathy or compassion for other learners
(teammates) while also failing to teach real teamwork, which is a core focus of Game
Sense, as an example of Positive Pedagogy (Light, 2013a).
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching 3
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
Traditional sport skills approaches are based upon a narrow conception of player/
athlete development that is underpinned by the belief that learning to play team
games requires reaching a level of competence in performing techniques seen to be
fundamental to the game before playing it. Assuming that there is one ideal form of
technical execution that learners must strive to master, teaching in this approach
focuses upon reducing errors and moving the player/athlete closer to the ‘correct’
performance of the technique. While the extent to which this de-contextualized
practice can be applied in the dynamic context of games is questionable (Light,
Harvey, & Mouchet, 2014); this is not the focus of this article. Instead, the focus is
on the essentially negative nature of these learning experiences that too often
highlight what learners cannot do, sometimes exacerbated by attempting to perform
these skills in front of their peers and their coach(s) which is a particular problem
with children and young people. Of course, in game-based practice, players can still
evaluate each other as the coach can and typically does but it is far less explicit than
striving to perform an ideal version of technique as peers look on.
Renshaw, Oldham, and Bawden (2012) have suggested that GBA can develop the
three innate needs suggested in self-determination theory—those of autonomy,
competence and relatedness. They suggested that within GBAs such as Game Sense
mistakes provide opportunities to learn rather than being used as controlling devices
and to pressure players/athletes with others highlighting the essential role that
constructive errors play in learning (Light, 2013a; Light et al., 2015). Vickers,
Livingston, Umeris-Bohnert, and Holden (1999) argue that this positive view of
mistakes in the learning process actually emphasizes the long-term nature of player/
athlete development and their desire to remain in the sport when compared to a
short-term need for them to improve performance.
Making learning positive
The four pedagogical features of Game Sense proposed by Light (2013a) encourage
positive learning experiences but Positive Pedagogy for coaching also draws on
Antonovsky’s(1979,1987) salutogenic theory and Sense of Coherence (SoC) model
and the broad ideas of Positive Psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000)to
foster positive learning experiences.
Positive Psychology
Positive Psychology sets out to redress a preoccupation of psychology with
pathologies and repairing the ‘worst aspects’of life by promoting its positive qualities
(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). It focuses on well-being and satisfaction in the
past, on happiness and the experience of ‘flow’in the present and on hope and
optimism in the future (Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). It aims at building
‘thriving individuals, finding and nurturing talent and making, normal life more
fulfilling’, drawing on the concepts of flow and mindfulness as positive states that
generate learning (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 5). Flow has also been
4R. L. Light and S. Harvey
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
proffered to explain the possible experiences when learning through sport and
practice/modified games that provide appropriate levels of challenge (Harvey et al.,
2014; Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Kretchmar, 2005) and which can be
experienced through a GBA such as TGfU (Lloyd & Smith, 2010). It refers to a state
of being absorbed in the experience of action through intense concentration, as the
athlete is ‘lost’in the flow of experience. It provides a positive affective experience
through which deep learning occurs, especially when the coach ‘gets the game right’
(Thorpe & Bunker, 2008).
Although it does not specifically focus on developing well-being or happiness, all
five elements of Seligman’s(2012) PERMA (positive emotions, engagement,
relations, meaning and achievement) model are evident in Positive Pedagogy. The
pedagogy of approaches such as TGfU can generate positive emotions such as
enjoyment or delight (Kretchmar, 2005), engagement in learning, the building of
relationships and a sense of belonging (Light, 2008a), meaning, and opportunities
for achievement, both individually and collectively. Positive Pedagogy emphasizes
what the learner can do and how s/he can draw on existing individual and social
resources to meet learning challenges through reflection and dialogue.
Antonovsky’s salutogenic theory and SoC model
Antonovsky’s(1979,1987) salutogenic theory and SoC model focuses on the socially
constructed resources that allow people to achieve and maintain good health. In this
article, Antonovsky’s SoC is used to provide a framework for understanding what is
needed to make pedagogy positive. Antonovsky (1979) developed the concept of
‘salutogenesis’as a reference to the origins of health to take a positive, holistic
approach by emphasizing what supports health and well-being rather than what
causes disease or the ‘lifestyle’approach that focuses on identifying risk factors
(Antonovsky, 1996). His positive approach rejects the dichotomy of health and
disease with his SoC model offering a useful means of identifying the ways in which
coaching pedagogy can produce positive learning/development. He is primarily
concerned with the affective and social dimensions of life rather than with its
cognitive aspects and with a focus on experience. His model comprises three
elements necessary for good health: (1) comprehensibility, (2) manageability and (3)
meaningfulness that can also be used to identify conditions that promote positive
experiences of learning. In the following section, we briefly outline his use of each
concept and then suggest how it is applied in Positive Pedagogy for coaching.
Comprehensibility is developed through experience and refers to the extent to which
things make sense for the individual in that events and situations are ordered and
consistent. For learning to be comprehensible in sport, we draw on the TGfU and
Game Sense literature to suggest that it should help learners know, not only how to
do something but also when, where and why (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Light,
2013a). It should also foster deep learning that typically involves understanding the
concepts or ‘big ideas’(Fosnot, 1996) that underpin learning. Comprehensive
understanding involves not only rational, conscious and articulated knowing but also
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching 5
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
a practical understanding or sense (Bourdieu, 1986) developed through experience
and engagement in a process of learning as the unfolding of knowledge that includes
learning how to learn. This is evident in the emphasis placed on deep understanding
of the fundamental concepts of the manipulation of space and time in team sports
when using GBA such as Game Sense. This building upon deep understanding of
fundamental concepts is maintained when adopting Positive Pedagogy for individual
and more skill-intensive sports such as swimming or throwing events in athletics
(Light, 2014; Light & Kentel, 2013). For example, the fundamental concepts
underpinning swimming can be seen to be the maximization of propulsion (or thrust)
and the minimization of resistance, whether swimming, diving or turning and
streamlining off the wall (Light, 2014).
Manageability is the extent to which an individual feels s/he can manage stress and
challenge by having the resources at hand. Resources can be objects such as tools and
equipment, skills, intellectual ability, social and cultural capital and so on. In Positive
Pedagogy, this includes the resources available from interaction within groups and
teams and/or the whole team in dialogue and the ‘debate of ideas’(Gréhaigne et al.,
2005). In Positive Pedagogy, learning is manageable when the challenges set extend
the learner but can be met by drawing on individual resources (for example, skill,
physical capacity intelligence) and/or social resources such as social interaction with
peers and the teacher/coach. The provision of a supportive socio-cultural environ-
ment assists in making challenges manageable and rewarding. This means that in a
Positive Pedagogy practice session, the challenges set by the coach are seen to be
manageable when the player or athlete feels s/he has adequate skill and understand-
ing and has the support of teammates, and the coach in order to meet these
challenges. The collective, social element is of prime importance here.
Meaningfulness refers to how much the individual feels that life makes sense and
that its challenges are worthy of commitment. According to Antonovsky, mean-
ingfulness promotes a positive expectation of life and the future and encourages
people to see challenges as being interesting, relevant and worthy of emotional
commitment. When activities engage learners affectively and socially as well as
physically and intellectually, they are likely to be meaningful. Positive Pedagogy in
team sport is meaningful because learning is situated within the game or game
conditions and clearly related to the game. This provides the players/athletes with
engagement that gives meaning to tasks and experiences. A good example of how this
meaning can be provided is provided by designer games (Charlesworth, 2002) and
action fantasy games (Launder, 2001). Learning is meaningful in team and other
sports when its comprehensibility gives meaning to tasks and learning activities
because they make sense within the ‘big picture’. Coaching using Positive Pedagogy
can make learning meaningful by relating detailed foci on particular aspects of the
sport to its most fundamental concepts and to the end aims of the learning.
Explaining what each session involves and why would add to making it engaging and
meaningful. This does not only involve cognitive processes, but, from an holistic
perspective, also affective, emotional and corporeal learning that ensures long-term
engagement with the activity (Renshaw et al., 2012).
6R. L. Light and S. Harvey
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
Pedagogical features of Positive Pedagogy
This section examines the ways in which the four core features of Game Sense
pedagogy (Light, 2013a) can be applied beyond games to provide for consistently
positive learning experiences in practice. It also notes some of the significant
challenges facing coaches taking up authentic interpretations of Positive Pedagogy
that we discuss more fully later. They are that: (1) it emphasizes engagement with the
physical learning environment or experience, (2) the coach asks questions that
generate dialogue and thinking instead of telling player/athletes what to do, (3) it
provides opportunities for player/athletes to collectively formulate, test and evaluate
solutions to problems, (4) the coach provides a supportive socio-moral environment
in which making mistakes is accepted as an essential part of learning.
Designing and managing the learning environment/experience
When coaching team sports Game Sense (as an example of Positive Pedagogy)
focuses on the game as a whole rather than on discrete components of it such as
technique (den Duyn, 1997). The game is seen as a complex phenomenon within
which learning to play well involves adapting to its dynamics with tactical knowledge,
skill execution and decision-making all interconnected as knowledge-in-action
(Light, 2013a). Learning is located within modified games or game-like activities
based on the assumption that learning occurs through engagement with the learning
environment and not through direct instruction (Dewey, 1916/97). This is also
initially learning that largely takes place as a process of adaptation at a non-conscious
level to form the basis of ensuing learning experiences as attempts are made to bring
it to consciousness through language. This means that ‘getting the game right’
(Thorpe & Bunker, 2008) and the ability of the coach to manage the activities or a
game to establish and retain the appropriate level of challenge is of pivotal
importance. Indeed, designing practice activities and managing them through the
analysis of performance is probably the biggest challenge facing coaches in
implementing a Positive Pedagogy approach with some recent attention paid to this
(Turner, 2014).
Adopting a Positive Pedagogy approach for more individual sports such as running
and swimming typically involves learning experiences that place constraints on the
athlete to create problems to be solved and processes of non-conscious thinking and
conscious thinking (see, Light, 2014) that can lead to the joy of discovery (George,
2006) and which often involve a guided discovery coaching style (Mosston &
Ashworth, 1986).
As players/athletes adapt to Positive Pedagogy, they take on more autonomy and
ownership to participate in modification of learning games/activities (Almond, 1983)
as well as the formulation, testing and evaluation of tactical solutions. This leads to
the empowerment of the players (as learners) achieved through a growing under-
standing in and about games and of how to learn. As player/athletes learn how to
learn, and become more prepared to engage in purposeful social interaction they
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching 7
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
tend to rely less upon the coach to take more responsibility for their own learning
which is an important and positive learning experience. This typically involves a
coach–athlete relationship that is more equitable in the repositioning of the coach
and the empowerment of the athlete(s).
Learning through a physical learning activity occurs at a non-conscious level as a
process of adaptation as emphasized by Piaget, enactivism (Varela, Thompson, &
Rosch, 1991) and in complex learning theory (Davis & Sumara, 2003). The use of
practice games designed to achieve particular outcomes suggests that they improve
player motivation in a range of team sports (see, for example, Light, 2004; Harvey,
2009). Alan Launder’s notion of Action Fantasy games (Launder, 2001) and the use
of ‘designer games’(Charlesworth, 2002) also suggest the efficacy of authentic game-
based coaching. While some practice games can be, and are, designed to focus on
particular aspects of the full game, they additionally provide a holistic experience that
typically includes developing awareness and decision-making. They are also social in
nature, even when there is no verbal interaction (see Tan, Chow, & Davids, 2011;
Turner, 2014 for an overview of learning design using GBAs).
Ask questions to generate dialogue and thinking
Questioning is one of the central mechanisms employed for promoting player/
athlete-centred learning in Game Sense (Forrest, 2014; Wright & Forrest, 2007). It
aims to stimulate dialogue, reflection and the conscious processing of ideas about
playing the game as the ‘debate of ideas’(Gréhaigne et al., 2005) but typically
presents a significant challenge for coaches (see Roberts, 2011). This is not to say
that other types of questions are not used but that a Positive Pedagogy approach
emphasizes open-ended questions aimed at stimulating dialogue, thinking and
reflection. In Positive Pedagogy, questions are employed to promote thinking and
dialogue but it takes time for coaches to become skilful enough with questioning to
achieve these aims. In Positive Pedagogy, questions should create a range of possible
answers or solutions rather than lead to predetermined answers that are deemed to
be either correct or incorrect. Wright and Forrest (2007) identify the problems
involved with questioning in GBA through their criticism of the sequencing of
questions suggested in some TGfU texts and the ways in which it limits the possible
responses instead of expanding them. This is the problem with the Initiation,
Response, Evaluation method of questioning because this shuts down interaction
between the coach and the learners and between the learners themselves (Forrest,
2014; Wright & Forrest, 2007). Instead, Forrest (2014) recommends the reflective
toss methodology of van Zee and Minstrell (1997) in which the coach prompts and
probes different learners’perspectives of game play. This discussion draws on the
learners prior experiences by enabling reflection on this experience and promote
the development of an agreed action plan for the next bout of game play where the
learners experiment with their agreed strategy.
8R. L. Light and S. Harvey
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
In addition to questioning, Positive Pedagogy encourages the coach to avoid being
critical or telling learners they are wrong as a means of further promoting divergent
thinking, creativity and enjoyment of meeting challenges and of discovery (George,
2006). As positive as this can be for learning, coaches accustomed to directing and
attempting to determine learning would likely find this difficult to do (Harvey,
Cushion, & Massa-Gonzalez, 2010). To make learning as positive as possible we
suggest that, when an individual, or groups of learners find that a solution does not
work they should be asked to reflect upon why it did not work and then modify it or
seek a different solution. This does not mean that coaches cannot correct mistakes.
Nor that it means that corrections cannot be done in a reasonable positive way.
Instead, it encourages coaches to emphasize the promotion of learner-centred, active
learning through collaborative problem solving.
This ‘solution-focused’approach focuses the players/athletes attention on what the
goals of the activity are and what they need to do in order to achieve these goals
(Clarke & Dembowski, 2006; Grant, 2011). This way, the players/athletes formulate
solutions to overcome the problems they are faced with, whether tactical or technical,
by drawing on the resources they have available and within the constraints of the
games rules. This approach ensures that discussions are future-paced and focus
directly on solutions rather than problems that may result in players/athletes
disengaging from the practice session (Grant, 2011). It also aligns with Antonovsky’s
notion of manageability. This approach also encourages coaches and their athletes to
work collaboratively to solve the problems that arise in practice and in competi-
tion. This typically involves a change in power relations between coach and
athletes to operate on a more equal level in which the coach not only facilitates
learning but also learns him or herself as a co-participant in learning (Davis &
Sumara, 1997).
Within this ‘debate of ideas’, whether between two swimmers discussing how to
compensate for the reduction in thrust when doing one-arm butterfly or in teams
playing small-side games, there will be some disagreement because this is the nature
of debate (Gréhaigne et al., 2005; Light, 2014). Athletes unused to this empower-
ment and responsibility may also take some time to adapt and respond to the
opportunities offered (Roberts, 2011). This aspect of Positive Pedagogy can also be
demanding for the coach because it requires skill in shaping and facilitating
productive interaction to foster players’/athletes’abilities to negotiate, compromise
and arrive at outcomes without making any participants feel ‘wrong’or excluded and
disengaging them. This is not an easy task for coaches used to telling players/athletes
what to do. The coach’s contribution here is to promote a positive enjoyment of
inquiry and ask questions about what options or strategies might be appropriate to
guide inquiry. This solutions-focused approach should help player/athletes learn that
making mistakes is an essential part of learning with these learning experiences
promoting resiliency, creativity, social learning, collective effort and an enjoyment of
inquiry and discovery (Forrest, 2014).
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching 9
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
Provide opportunities for formulating, testing and evaluating solutions
In the practice games used in Game Sense, the teams are given opportunities to have
‘team talks’at appropriate times (Light, 2013a)asgame appreciation (Bunker &
Thorpe, 1982) develops. In these talks, the player/athletes collectively formulate
strategies that they test whether in may be two relay runners testing ideas for
improving their change-overs or groups in small-sided games. After this, they gather
again to critically reflect upon how the strategy worked. If it did not work, they are
asked to identify why it did not work and formulate a new strategy or plan and test
it (Light).
While the more confident and experienced players/athletes may initially dominate
discussion, the less experienced can make valuable contributions when encouraged
by the coach. Player/athletes improve while developing confidence in their ability to
become independent learners and problem solvers and so remain motivated to
participate in the activity for the longer term (Renshaw et al., 2012). The productive
social interaction involved in this process can also lead to player/athletes under-
standing each other as more than objects on the field or court. It encourages
empathy, compassion, meaningful relationships, a sense of connection and care for
each other as well, both on and off the field. This includes a range of levels of sport
from primary school cricket (Light, 2008a) to rugby played at the highest level by the
New Zealand All Blacks (Evans, 2012).
Develop a supportive environment
To get player/athletes to speak up, take risks and be creative, coaches have to build a
supportive environment where they feel secure enough to do so. This must involve
coaches making it clear that mistakes are not necessarily negative but, instead, are
essential for learning and can be seen to provide opportunities for learning (Renshaw
et al., 2012). In Positive Pedagogy, mistakes are seen as constructive errors that are
made into positive learning experiences with the provision of opportunities for
adequate reflection and analysis. This is facilitated though a focus on the longer term
of the season or the development trajectories of teams or athletes so that players/
athletes do not feel immediate pressure to succeed. As Rach, Ufer, and Heinze
(2013, p. 22) suggest, the idea that ‘mistakes are often the best teachers’is widely
accepted. This helps develop an awareness of the process of learning and can make it
meaningful enough to make it worthy of emotional commitment (Anto-
novsky, 1979).
Discussion
In this article, we are not proposing a specific model for coaching practice but,
instead, making broader suggestions about a pedagogical approach that coaches
could draw on to make their coaching more positive. In doing so, we recognize the
challenges that coaches working across a range of sports in a range of settings face.
10 R. L. Light and S. Harvey
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
As we noted earlier, research on GBA such as Game Sense identifies the
difficulties in taking up what would essentially be a radical change for many coaches.
Designing and managing practice games or learning experiences requires the ability
to analyse performance in practice and adjust the activity to get the best results and to
maintain the optimum level of challenge for learning which is a demanding task
(Light, 2013a). The effective use of questioning to stimulate thinking and interaction
is also a substantial challenge and particularly for coaches who have relied upon
directive approaches underpinned by epistemological assumptions about knowledge
being an object that is transmitted from coach to athlete/learner (see Light, 2008b;
Roberts, 2011). Indeed, the different sets of assumptions that Positive Pedagogy
and more ‘traditional’coaching sit upon create a significant challenge for individual
coaches interested in taking it up and for organizations intending to change practice
on a large scale (Light et al., 2015). The Positive Pedagogy approach sits upon
constructivist epistemology and assumptions about what knowledge is and how it is
acquired which can cause tension with coaches’beliefs about good coaching and
learning (Light, 2008b).
Research on Game Sense (as an example of Positive Pedagogy) in coaching
identifies how coaches can struggle with the different relationships with players that it
requires (Evans, 2014). The ways in which the sometimes-chaotic appearance of
GBA sessions contrasts with common conceptions of good practice session looking
ordered, precise and running smoothly can also present problems for coaches taking
up GBA (Light, 2004). This repositioning of the coach and changes in coach–player
relationships is tied into issues of power in coaching that have received some
attention (Jones, 2007,2009; Taylor & Garrett, 2010).
According to Foucault (1977,1979), knowledge is always a form of power and used
to establish control. He does not see power as an object that is explicitly wielded but,
instead, as something pervasive that is internalized through more subtle strategies such
as surveillance. In his highly influential book, Pedagogy of the oppressed,Friere(1993)
contrasts a ‘banking’approach, in which the teacher deposits information in the
students heads using a narrative with a ‘problem posing’approach to education. He
focuses on the importance of genuine dialogue, social justice and informal adult
education to argue that the teacher’s role should be one of negotiating, mediating
between learners personal meanings and established cultural meanings of the wider
community. He also argues that pedagogy should have emancipatory potential, which
we suggest Positive Pedagogy has.
Taking up Positive Pedagogy is also often hindered by adequate understanding of
the approach that can lead to the implementation of inauthentic versions of it as is
the case with GBA (see Harvey & Jarrett, 2014). For example, rugby coaches in Light
and Evans’(2010) study on Game Sense used training games but none of the Game
Sense pedagogy. On a larger scale, the Rugby Football Union in England chose to
use Game Sense to guide the on-going development of its coaching programmes but
research suggests that the dilution of an authentic approach as it passes down to
coach educators delivering at the coal face is limiting its potential to make a
significant contribution to improving coaching at a national level (Light et al., 2015).
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching 11
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
From a practical perspective, there are also issues in regard to the relationship
between Positive Pedagogy and coaches’levels of planning. This is related to the
degree to which they want to draw on Positive Pedagogy and the extent to which
they see their role as being a trainer or educator (Jones, 2006). The training
perspective would typically focus more on short-term results on a weekly and
seasonal basis while the coach as educator (Jones) would typically be guided by long-
term planning and objectives that could even go beyond the sport to include what
Dewey (1916/97) refers to as the ‘human development’of the players. Given the time
it takes for athletes to adapt to Positive Pedagogy and how it can contribute to long-
term player development (Light, 2004), it likely needs to be part of longer term
development aims.
Despite the challenges involved for coaches to take up Positive Pedagogy and the
need to account for them, we suggest that the framework provided in this article can
provide a means of making learning more positive across a wide range of sports
settings. This approach emphasizes learning through the social interaction that has
been strongly linked to joyful experiences (see, for example, Harvey, 2009; Renshaw
et al., 2012). Large-scale research in psychology also suggests strong links between
happiness, social interaction and social networks (Fowler & Christakis, 2008). The
social nature of learning emphasized in Positive Pedagogy and its inclusive nature can
also facilitate a sense of belonging and self-esteem (see, for example, Light, 2002).
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) suggests that, along with autonomy and
competence, the similar notion of relatedness is a psychological requirement for human
growth and the promotion of well-being (Renshaw et al., 2012). This is further
emphasized in Seligman’s Positive Psychology model as ‘relationships’, which is a
reference to the importance of supportive personal connections for well-being, which
are critical factors in learning through Positive Pedagogy.
Conclusion
Positive Pedagogy maintains a focus on the core aim of most coaching, which is the
improvement of performance. It can also foster an enjoyment of learning and
learning how to learn that can include (but not always) the secondary learning of
many of the same positive personal traits that Positive Psychology aims to develop
such as compassion, resilience, self-confidence, creativity, or the competence, coping
ability, health, resilience, and the well-being that Positive Youth Development
through Sport aims at promoting (Holt et al., 2012). It can also facilitate the positive
social learning and social skills that participation in sport and physical activity is
commonly assumed to deliver but which merely playing games will not necessarily
teach (De Martelaer, De Bouw, & Struyven, 2012; Light, 2013b). Although not
specifically aimed at developing positive personal and social learning and social skills,
the nature of Positive Pedagogy can encourage this development. For children’s and
youth sport coaches who value this secondary learning, it can be enhanced by an
explicit focus on it (Harvey et al., 2014).
12 R. L. Light and S. Harvey
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
Positive Pedagogy emphasizes the holistic, social nature of learning, and the role of
experience, the body and its senses in it. It encourages the development of the social
skills involved in engaging in purposeful dialogue, a willingness and ability to
negotiate and compromise and the understanding of democratic processes involved
in making and enacting collective decision-making while making learning enjoyable.
Learning to learn and the positive inclinations towards learning it can generate, and
some of the social learning that can accompany it, is more likely to transfer into life
off the court or sports field than improved sport technique and fitness are. The way
in which it can develop a positive inclination towards learning, and the contribution
it can make towards well-being would clearly be beneficial for children and young
people participating in sport. It would be of benefit for improving performance at any
level and could make a contribution towards helping elite-level, professional athletes
meet the challenges of developing post-playing careers and enhance their well-being.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Almond, L. (1983). Games making. Bulletin of Physical Education,19(1), 32–35.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health
Promotion International,11(1), 11–18. doi:10.1093/heapro/11.1.11
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bruner, J. (1999). Folk pedagogies. In B. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy (pp. 4–20).
London: Open University Press.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for teaching games in secondary school. Bulletin of
Physical Education,10,9–16.
Cassidy, T., & Kidman, L. (2010). Initiating a national coaching curriculum - a paradigmatic shift?
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,15, 307–322. doi:10.1080/17408980903409907
Charlesworth, R. (2002). Staying at the top. Sydney: Pan MacMillan.
Clarke, J., & Dembowski, S. (2006). The art of asking great questions. The International Journal of
Mentoring and Coaching,4(2), 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.solutionsurfers.com/pdf/
TheArtOfAskingGreatQs.pdf
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2003). Why aren’t they getting this? Working through the regressive
myths of constructivist pedagogy. Teaching Education,14(2), 123–140. doi:10.1080/1047
621032000092922
Davis, A., & Sumara, J. (1997). Cognition, complexity and teacher education. Harvard Educational
Review,67(1), 105–125.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what”and “why”of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Enquiry,11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S1532
7965PLI1104_01
De Martelaer, K., De Bouw, J., & Struyven, K. (2012). Youth sport ethics: Teaching pro-social
behaviour. In S. Harvey & R. Light (Eds.), Ethics in youth sport: Policy and pedagogical
applications (pp. 55–73). London: Routledge.
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching 13
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
den Duyn, N. (1997). Game Sense: Developing thinking players. Canberra: Australian Sports
Commission.
Dewey, J. (1916/97). Democracy in education. New York: Free Press.
Douge, B., & Hastie, P. (1993). Coach effectiveness. Sport Science Review,2(2), 14–29.
Dyson, B. (2005). Integrating cooperative learning and tactical games models: Focusing on social
interactions and decision-making. In L. L. Griffin & J. I. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for
understanding: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 149–168). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Evans, J. R. (2012). Elite rugby union coaches’interpretation and use of Game Sense in New
Zealand. Asian Journal of Exercise and Sport Science,9(1), 85–97.
Evans, J. R. (2014). The nature and importance of coach-player relationships in the uptake of
game sense by Elite Rugby Coaches in Australia and New Zealand. In R. Light, J. Quay,
S. Harvey, & A. Mooney (Eds.), Contemporary developments in games teaching (pp. 133–146).
London & New York: Routledge.
Forrest, G. (2014). Questions and answers: Understanding the connection between questioning
and knowledge in game-centred approaches. In R. Light, J. Quay, S. Harvey, & A. Mooney
(Eds.), Contemporary developments in games teaching (pp. 167–177). London: Routledge.
Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality, Volume I. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network:
Longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham heart study. British Medical Journal,
337, a2338. PMC 2600606. PMID 19056788. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338
Friere, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Books.
George, M. G. (2006). The power of positive pedagogy. Retrieved from http://www.musiclearning
community.com/NewsletterArchive/2006October.The%20Power%20of%20Positive%20Peda
gogy.htm
Grant, A. M. (2011). The solution-focused inventory: A tripartite taxonomy for teaching,
measuring and conceptualising solution focused approaches to coaching. The Coach
Psychologist,7(2), 98–105.
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Richard, J.-F., & Griffin, L. L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and
games. London: Routledge.
Harvey, S. (2009). A study of interscholastic soccer players’perceptions of learning with Game
Sense. Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Science,6(1), 29–38.
Harvey, S., Cushion, C. J., & Massa-Gonzalez, A. N. (2010). Learning a new method: Teaching
games for understanding in the coaches’eyes. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,15,
361–382. doi:10.1080/17408980903535818
Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). Recent trends in research literature on game-based approaches to
teaching and coaching games. In R. L. Light, J. Quay, S. Harvey, & A. Mooney (Eds.),
Contemporary developments ion games teaching (pp. 87–102). London: Routledge.
Harvey, S., Kirk, D., & O’Donovan, T. M. (2014). Sport education as a pedagogical application
for ethical development in physical education and youth sport. Sport,Education and Society,
19(1), 41–62.
Hellison, D. R. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Holt, N. L., Sehn, Z. L., Spence, J. C., Newton, A. S., & Ball, G. D. C. (2012). Physical education
and sport programs at an inner city school: Exploring possibilities for positive youth
development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,17(1), 97–113. doi:10.1080/17408989.
2010.548062
14 R. L. Light and S. Harvey
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jones, R. (Ed.). (2006). The sports coach as educator: Reconceptualizing sports coaching. London:
Routledge.
Jones, R. (2007). Coaching redefined: An everyday pedagogical endeavour. Sport,Education and
Society,12(2), 159–173.
Jones, R. L. (2009). Coaching as caring (the smiling gallery): Accessing hidden knowledge. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy,14, 377–390. doi:10.1080/17408980801976551
Kidman, L. (Ed.). (2005). Athlete centered coaching: Developing inspired and inspiring people.
Christchurch: Innovative Print Communications.
Kirk, D. (2005). Future prospects for teaching games for understanding. In L. Griffin & J. Butler
(Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory research and practice (pp. 213–226).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kirk, D. (2010). Towards a socio-pedagogy of sports coaching. In J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.),
Sport coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 165–176). Edinburgh: Elsevier.
Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Re-
thinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,21, 177–192.
Kitson, R. (2005, July 2). How all blacks went back to their roots.The Guardian (pp. 8, 9). Retrieved
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/jul/02/lions2005.rugbyunion2
Kretchmar, S. (2005). Understanding and the delights of human activity. In L. Griffin & J. Butler
(Eds.), Teaching games for understanding: Theory research and practice (pp. 199–212).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Launder, A. G. (2001). Play practice: The games approach to teaching and coaching sports. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Light, R. (2002). The social nature of games: Pre-service primary teachers’first experiences of
TGfU. European Physical Education Review,8, 286–304. doi:10.1177/1356336X020083007
Light, R. (2003). The joy of learning: Emotion, cognition and learning in games through TGfU.
New Zealand Journal of Physical Education,36(1), 94–108.
Light, R. (2004). Australian coaches’experiences of Game Sense: Opportunities and challenges.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,9(2), 115–131. doi:10.1080/1740898042000294949
Light, R. (2008a). Sport in the lives of young Australians. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Light, R. (2008b). ‘Complex’learning theory in physical education: An examination of its
epistemology and assumptions about how we learn. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
27(1), 21–37.
Light, R. L. (2013a). Game Sense: Pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. London:
Routledge.
Light, R. L. (2013b). Game Sense pedagogy in youth sport: An applied ethics perspective.
In S. Harvey & R. L. Light (Eds.), Ethics in youth sport: Policy and pedagogical applications
(pp. 92–106). London: Routledge.
Light, R. L. (2014). Learner-centred pedagogy for swim coaching: A complex learning theory
informed approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health,Sport and Physical Education,5(2),
167–180.
Light, R. L., Curry, C., & Mooney, A. (2014). Game Sense as a model for delivering quality teaching
in physical education. Asia-pacific Journal of Health,Sport and Physical Education,5(1), 67–81.
Light, R. L., & Evans, J. R. (2010). The impact of Game Sense pedagogy on elite level Australian
rugby coaches’practice: A question of pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
15(2), 103–115. doi:10.1080/17408980902729388
Light, R. L., Evans, J. R., Harvey, S., & Hassanin, R. (2015). Advances in rugby coaching: An holistic
approach. London: Routledge.
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching 15
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
Light, R. L., Harvey, S., & Mouchet, A. (2014). Improving ‘at-action’decision-making in team
sports through a holistic coaching approach. Sport,Education and Society,19, 258–275.
Light, R. L., & Kentel, J. A. (2013). Mushin: Learning in technique-intensive sport as uniting mind
and body through complex learning theory. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1080/17408989.2013.868873
Lloyd, R. J., & Smith, S. S. (2010). Feeling flow motion in games and sports. In J. I. Butler & L. L.
Griffin (Eds.), More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally (pp. 89–104).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Metzler, M. W. (2005). Implications of models-based instruction for research on teaching: A focus
on teaching games for understanding. In L. L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching games for
understanding: Theory, research & practice (pp. 193–198). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (1995). The effects of two instructional approaches on
game performance. Pedagogy in Practice –Teaching and Coaching in Physical Education and
Sports,1,36–48.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Columbus: Merrill.
Nelson, L., Cushion, C. J., Potrac, P., & Groom, R. (2014). Carl Rogers, learning and educational
practice: Critical considerations and applications in sports coaching. Sport,Education and
Society,19, 513–531.
Partington, M., Cushion, C., & Harvey, S. (2014). An investigation of the effect of athletes’age on
the coaching behaviours of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sport
Sciences,32, 403–414. doi:10.1080/02640414.2013.835063
Poerksen, B. (2005). Learning how to learn. Kybernetes,34, 471–484. doi:10.1108/0368492
0510581657
Pope, C. C. (2005). Once more with feeling: Affect and playing with the TGfU model. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy,10, 271–286. doi:10.1080/17408980500340885
Rach, S., Ufer, S., & Heinze, A. (2013). Learning from errors: Effects of teachers’training on
students’attitudes towards and their individual use of errors. PNA,8(1), 21–30.
Renshaw, I., Oldham, A. R., & Bawden, M. (2012). Nonlinear pedagogy underpins intrinsic
motivation in sports coaching. The Open Sports Sciences Journal,5(1), 88–99. doi:10.2174/
1875399X01205010088
Roberts, S. J. (2011). Teaching games for understanding: The difficulties and challenges
experienced by participation cricket coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,16(1),
33–48. doi:10.1080/17408980903273824
Seligman, M. E. P. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and wellbeing.
Sydney: Random House.
Seligman, M. E. P. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist,55(1), 5–14. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1
Sheppard, J., & Mandigo, J. (2009). ‘PlaySport: Teaching life skills for understanding through
games. In T. Hopper, J. L. Butler, & B. Storey (Eds.), TGfU …Simply good pedagogy:
Understanding a complex challenge (pp. 73–86). Toronto: HPE Canada.
Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Smith, W. (2005). Wayne Smith international rugby coach. In L. Kidman (Ed.), Athlete centered
coaching: Developing inspired and inspiring people (pp. 187–207). Christchurch: Innovative
Print Communications.
Tan, C. W. K., Chow, J. Y., & Davids, K. (2011). How does TGfU work?’: Examining the
relationship between learning design in TGfU and a nonlinear pedagogy. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy,17, 331–348. doi:10.1080/17408989.2011.582486
16 R. L. Light and S. Harvey
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
Taylor, B., & Garrett, D. (2010). The professionalization of sport coaching: Relations of power,
resistance and compliance. Sport,Education and Society,15(1), 121–139.
Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (2008). Teaching games for understanding –Do current developments reflect
original intentions? Paper presented at the fourth Teaching Games for Understanding
conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, May 14–17.
Turner, A. (2014). Learning games concepts by design. In R. L. Light, J. Quay, S. Harvey, & A.
Mooney (Eds.), Contemporary developments in games teaching (pp. 193–206). London:
Routledge.
Van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences,6, 227–269.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human
experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vickers, J. N., Livingston, L. F., Umeris-Bohnert, S., & Holden, D. (1999). Decision training: The
effects of complex instruction, variable practice and reduced delayed feedback on the
acquisition and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Sport Sciences,17, 357–367. doi:10.1080/
026404199365876
Wallian, N., & Chang, C.-W. (2007). Language, thinking and action: Towards a semio-constructivist
approach in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,12,289–311. doi:10.1080/
17408980701610219
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Williams, A. M., & Hodges, N. J. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer:
Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences,23, 637–650. doi:10.1080/026404104
00021328
Wright, J., & Forrest, G. (2007). A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and games
centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,12, 273–287. doi:10.
1080/17408980701610201
Positive Pedagogy for sport coaching 17
Downloaded by [Stephen Harvey] at 11:33 06 March 2015
