Effects of Teaching Games on Decision Making and Skill Execution: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

Full text

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Effects 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 1and Francisco Javier Giménez Fuentes-Guerra 1,*
1Faculty of Education, Psychology and Sport Sciences, University of Huelva, 21071 Huelva, Spain;
manuel.abad@dempc.uhu.es (M.T.A.R.); carlos.fernandez@ddi.uhu.es (C.F.-E.);
estefania.castillo@dempc.uhu.es (E.C.V.)
2Centre for Sport Studies, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28943 Madrid, Spain; danicolladom@gmail.com
*Correspondence: jfuentes@uhu.es
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).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505; doi:10.3390/ijerph17020505 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 2 of 13
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

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 3 of 13
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.).
2.2. Search Strategy
A systematic literature search was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines [
18
] in Web
of Science (WOS), PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and SportDiscus electronic databases. The search was
conducted from the year 2000 to May 2019. The following syntax was used for the search process:
(“TGFU” OR “teaching games for understanding” OR “tactical games approach” OR “tactical approach”
OR “tactical games model” OR “game centred approach” OR “game sense approach” OR “game
based approach” OR “games teaching” OR “constructivis*”) AND (“sport” OR “physical education”
OR “training”) AND (“techniques” OR “technical skills” OR “traditional Model” OR “technical
approach” OR “skill-centred approach” OR “instructional model*” OR “instructional method*” OR
“instructional coaching”) AND (“decision making”) AND (“intervention” OR “experimental” Or
“quasi-experimental” OR “randomized controlled trial”).
2.3. Assessment of Risk of Bias
To evaluate the risk of bias, the PEDro scale [
19
] was used. This scale was developed to assess the
quality of intervention studies, especially randomized controlled trials. The GRADE approach, which
involves a four-point scale (“very low”, “low”, “moderate”, and “high”), was used to assess the quality
of evidence [
20
]. In this approach, the quality of the evidence is downgraded when inconsistency,
indirectness, imprecision, or publication bias are present. Table 1shows the risk of bias results of
included articles. To evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, each study was independently
reviewed by two of the authors (C.F.-E. and M.T.A.R.). If a consensus could not be reached, the matter
was settled by consultation with a third author (F.J.G.F.-G.).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 4 of 13
Table 1. Risk of bias according to the PEDro Scale.
Response to Each Item Level of Evidence
Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Score
Guijarro-Romero et al., 2018 Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 7
Ashraf 2017 N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 8
Morales-Belando and
Arias-Estero 2017 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 8
Nathan 2016 N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 8
Gray and Sproule 2011 N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 6
Psotta and Martin 2011 Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 6
Chatzopoulos et al., 2006 N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 8
Y: criterion fulfilled; N: criterion not fulfilled; 1: eligibility criteria were defined; 2: the participants were randomly
distributed to groups; 3: the assignment was concealed; 4: the groups were similar before the intervention
(at baseline); 5: all participants were blinded; 6: therapists (teachers) who conducted the intervention were blinded;
7: there was blinding of all evaluators; 8: the measures of at least one of the fundamental outcomes were attained
from more than 85% of the participants initially; 9: “intention to treat” analysis was conducted for all participants
who received the control condition or treatment as assigned; 10: the findings of statistical comparisons between
groups were reported for at least one fundamental outcome; 11: the study gives variability and punctual measures
for at least one fundamental outcome; total score: each satisfied item (except the first) adds 1 point to the total score.
2.4. Data Collection
Firstly, two authors extracted data from the included articles. Subsequently, the gathered
information was checked by another author. Following the recommendations from PRISMA guidelines,
relevant information included participants, intervention, comparisons, results, and study design
(PICOS) [
21
]. Table 2shows the main characteristics of the different protocols of intervention and the
essential participants’ characteristics (sex, age, sample size, level of education or setting, and treatment).
Concerning interventions, we summarized the following details: duration, number of lessons,
type of intervention program (tactical or technical), and teacher/coach management style analysis.
In the study by Guijarro-Romero et al. [
22
], students received a 5 weeks of learning program, consisting
of 10 lessons and 1 h per lesson. Students consecutively performed two teaching units (indoor football
and basketball) based on a traditional technical-tactical approach. The tasks administered were more
instructive and focused on learning isolated and without connection from one sport to another. Students
received fully instructive feedback during the different sessions. With regard to the tactical approach,
students carried out an intervention program using alternate teaching units of indoor football and
basketball based on a tactical approach. The intervention consisted of carrying out a session of indoor
football followed by another of basketball, focusing on establishing a connection in the learning of
both sports. The teacher/coach management style was not analyzed.
In the study by Ashraf [
23
], students received a 2 months of learning program, but the number of
lessons was not reported. The technical approach used was the traditional method, and Teaching Games
for Understanding was used, although the authors do not describe its characteristics. The teacher/coach
management style was not analyzed. On the other hand, the Morales-Belando and Arias-Estero’s
study [
24
] lasted 2 weeks, with 11 lessons of 80 min. “Technical group’s lessons followed the traditional
segments in sailing: (a) The coach taught the knowledge out of the water; (b) the sailors then applied
such knowledge to a situation in which they sought to improve skill execution; and (c) finally, the
participants practiced in a race” [
24
] (p. 4). The traditional approach only focused on how to act, so
the technical content was taught first and the tasks were stripped of a real race context and the coach
told the sailors what they must do. Moreover, the learners had a passive role, carried out the coach’s
orders, and tried to imitate a perfect technical approach, whereas the coach told them and showed
them what and how to do the tasks, while using technically perfect actions [
24
]. On the other hand,
“the TRfU group’s lessons were created following the lesson segments: (a) The teacher set up the “race
form” so that participants would work on the tactical aspect similar to a real race; (b) the teacher
conducted “teaching for understanding” so that the children could reflect on what they had to do and
why; (c) the teacher conducted “drills for skill” development so that participants could improve their
skill execution; (d) the class returned to the “race form” so that the participants could perform a lesson

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 5 of 13
segment very similar to the initial lesson segment; and (e) the teacher conducted a “review and closure”
so that participants could reflect on the integration and understanding of skill execution and decision
making” [24] (p. 4). The teacher/coach management style was not analyzed.
Table 2. Characteristics of the participants and the protocol.
Characteristics of the Sample Protocol
Study Country Sample Size of Groups and Sex
Age (SD) and
Education
Level/Setting
Tactical Group
Treatment
Technical
Group
Treatment
Guijarro-Romero
et al., 2018 Spain
TEG *: 42 (16 males and 26 females)
TAGLIL ***: 23 (7 males and 16 female)
In meta-analyses, it only used data from
this group
TAGHIL: 20 (16 males and 4 females)
10–12 years
Primary school
Tactical
approach
Technical
approach
Ashraf 2017 Romania TEG: 21 (NR ****)
TAG **: 24 (NR)
20 (1.2)
20 (1.9)
College
students
Teaching
Games for
Understanding
(TGfU)
Traditional
method
Morales-Belando
and Arias-Estero
2017
South of
Europe
TEG: 27 (NR)
TAG: 40 (NR)
45 males and 22 females (global data)
9.32 (2.60)
(global data)
Sailing school
Teaching Races
for
Understanding
(TRfU)
Traditional
teaching mode
Nathan 2016 Malaysia TEG: 16 (8 females and 8 males)
TAG: 16 (8 females and 8 males)
15.50 (1.00)
(global data)
Badminton
school
TGfU revised Skill Drill
Technical
Gray and Sproule
2011 Scotland
TEG: 25 (12 females and 13 males)
TAG: 27 (11 females and 16 males) *
In meta-analyses, it used data
on-the-ball “good” for decision making
and data “successful” for skill execution
12.50 (0.20)
12.50 (0.30)
Secondary
school
Game-based
approach
Skill-focused
approach
Psotta and
Martin 2011
Czech Republic
TEG: 12 (females)
TAG: 12 (females)
21.00 (0.70)
20.70 (0.80)
College
students
Technical-tactical
model with an
emphasis on
orientation to
tactical
Technical-tactical
model with an
emphasis on
orientation to
technical skills
Chatzopoulos
et al., (2006) Greece TEG: 37 (females)
TAG: 35 (females)
12–13 years
Middle school
Games
approach
Technique
approach
* TEG: Technical group; ** TAG: tactical group; *** TAGLIL: tactical group with a low initial tactical level; TAGHIL:
tactical group with a high initial tactical level; **** NR: not reported.
In addition, in Nathan’s research [
25
], the students received two lessons per week comprising
40 min per lesson for 5 weeks. In this study, Skill Technical was used, which is a teacher-centered
approach based on the practice of skill drill activities of movement skills in an isolated way. This
conceptual framework emphasizes the importance of teaching and learning skills prior to game play
through skill drill practice [
26
]. On the other hand, Teaching Games for Understanding was used:
Including the performer, environments, and task, where decision making and skill execution are
derived from the game concept and thinking strategically. Moreover, Nathan [
25
] investigated the
teachers’ reflections and experiences about questioning. In relation to Gray and Sproule’s study [
27
],
this research lasted 5 weeks, with five lessons and 60 min per lesson. In this study, the skill-focused
approach followed the physical education department’s program for teaching basketball. The teacher’s
overall aim was to develop the pupils’ performance in 4v4 games following “his own knowledge and
beliefs about teaching to deliver the program set out by the physical education department” [
27
] (p. 19).
The tactical approach used “emphasizes tactical understanding and the development of motor skills as
a means of solving tactical problems within a game-practice-game format. The teacher decides on the
tactical problem that has to be addressed and presents games and practices that both emphasize the
specific tactical problem” [27] (p. 19). The teacher/coach management style was not analyzed.
On the other hand, in the study by Psotta and Martin [
28
], the students received a 5 weeks of
learning program, consisting of 10 lessons and 90 min per lesson. In this study, a technical-tactical

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 6 of 13
model with an emphasis on orientation to tactical skills was used: “the technical skills are taught
under controlled conditions in a predictable learning environment, and the tactical skills are taught
using an unpredictable environment” [
28
] (p. 8). On the contrary, in the technical-tactical model
with an emphasis on orientation to technical skills, the technical skills are taught in an unpredictable
environment, and the tactical skills are taught using a match, with a teacher’s verbal instructions being
related to tactics [
28
]. The teacher/coach management style was not analyzed. Finally, the research
by Chatzopoulos et al. [
29
] lasted 5 weeks, and consisted of 15 lessons and 45 min per lesson. In this
study, the technique group began the lesson with a demonstration of a specific technique, followed by
practice of the technique in a series of drills. Following this, a tactic was taught for 5 min. The teacher
introduced a tactical element on a blackboard and then on the game field. On the other hand, the
games group began with a modified game designed to stimulate tactical thinking [
29
]. Next, technique
(through drills) and tactical instruction were allocated. The teacher/coach management style was
not analyzed.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
In these meta-analyses, a random-effects model was used to measure the effect of interventions
based on technical and tactical approaches on decision making and skill execution. Figures 2 and 3
show the results of each study on these variables. The effect size was calculated using means and
standard deviations before and after treatment [
30
]. For these meta-analyses, the magnitude of Cohen
0
s
d was specified as follows: (a) “large”, for values greater than 0.8; (b) “moderate”, when it was between
0.5 and 0.8; (c) and “small”, for values between 0 and 0.5. Heterogeneity was evaluated by calculating
the following statistics: (a) p-value of Cochran
0
sQ-test and (b) I
2
, which is a transformation of the H
statistic used to determine the percentage of variation which is caused by heterogeneity. The most
common classification of I
2
considers values higher than 50% as large heterogeneity, values between
25% and 50% as average, and lower than 25% as small [
31
]. The tool Review Manager 5.3 was used to
conduct all analyses [32].
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
Figure 1(PRISMA flow diagram) shows the complete process followed in the current systematic
review. The original search identified a total of 51 manuscripts from the electronic databases: WOS
(11), PubMed (4), Scopus (28), SportDiscus (7), and additional records identified through other sources
(1). Five of them were removed because they were duplicated. Subsequently, to find any additional
articles that met the inclusion criteria [
33
], the reference lists of articles retrieved and other sources
were screened as part of a complementary search. One additional manuscript was found. Of the
remaining 46 articles, 30 were removed because they were not connected with the study theme, five
because the intervention programs did not have a technical group or only an experimental group, one
because it did not conduct baseline evaluations, and three because they were systematic reviews or
literature analyses. Therefore, the final number of studies included for meta-analyses was seven and
six for decision making and skill execution, respectively (Figure 1).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 7 of 13
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
or literature analyses. Therefore, the final number of studies included for meta-analyses was seven
and six for decision making and skill execution, respectively (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Flow diagram for the systematic review process according to Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) statements.
3.2. Risk of Bias
Table 1 shows the risk of bias of the six selected articles according to the PEDro scale. Scores
varied from six to seven [22,27,28] and to eight [23–25,29]. Regarding the quality of evidence, the
GRADE guidelines have been followed. In this sense, the quality of evidence was downgraded twice:
firstly, due to the high degree of heterogeneity, and secondly, because of the relatively low number
of participants in the studies. However, it was upgraded because the total effect size was 1.78 and
1.86 for decision making and skill execution, respectively. Therefore, the quality of evidence
according to the GRADE guidelines was “low”, which was defined as “Our confidence in the effect
estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect” [20]
(p.404).
3.3. Study Characteristics
Table 2 shows a summary of the characteristics of the study. There was a total of 357 participants.
Of these, 180 were distributed in the technical group (TEG) and 177 were allocated the tactical group
Figure 1.
Flow diagram for the systematic review process according to Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) statements.
3.2. Risk of Bias
Table 1shows the risk of bias of the six selected articles according to the PEDro scale. Scores
varied from six to seven [
22
,
27
,
28
] and to eight [
23
–
25
,
29
]. Regarding the quality of evidence, the
GRADE guidelines have been followed. In this sense, the quality of evidence was downgraded twice:
firstly, due to the high degree of heterogeneity, and secondly, because of the relatively low number of
participants in the studies. However, it was upgraded because the total effect size was 1.78 and 1.86 for
decision making and skill execution, respectively. Therefore, the quality of evidence according to the
GRADE guidelines was “low”, which was defined as “Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited:
The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect” [20] (p.404).
3.3. Study Characteristics
Table 2shows a summary of the characteristics of the study. There was a total of 357 participants.
Of these, 180 were distributed in the technical group (TEG) and 177 were allocated the tactical group
(TAG). Two studies were conducted in primary school, one in middle school, one in secondary school,
two in a university, one in a sailing school, and one in a badminton school.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 8 of 13
3.4. Interventions
The tactical approaches used were the tactical approach, TGfU, Teaching Races for Understanding
(TRfU), TGfU revised, game-based approach, and technical-tactical model with an emphasis on
orientation to tactical skills. Regarding the technical models, these were as follows: Technical approach,
traditional method, traditional teaching mode, Skill Drill Technical, skill-focused approach, and
technical-tactical model with an emphasis on orientation to technical skills.
The intervention duration varied between 2 and 5 weeks. The number of lessons ranged between
5 and 15. The study conducted by Ashraf [
23
] did not specify the number of lessons, and only specified
the intervention duration (2 months). Only one study [
25
] investigated the teachers’ reflections on and
experiences of questioning.
3.5. Outcome Measures
Figures 2and 3show the effects of technical and tactical approach interventions on participants’
skill execution and decision making. To evaluate the skill execution and decision making, two articles
used the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI), and another developed an adapted
instrument from this: the Race Performance Assessment Instrument (RPAI). Another manuscript used
the Game Performance Evaluation Tool (G-PET), only to assess decision making; another used an
adaptation of the Game Play Observational Instrument (GPOI); another used a coding instrument (CI);
and another used the Soccer Performance Observation System (SPOS) based on GPAI.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the meta-analysis results showed that tactical intervention resulted in
improvement compared with the comparison groups in almost every article (see Figure 2) and was
significant in five studies [
22
–
24
,
27
,
29
]. However, the study by Nathan [
25
] reported no significant
difference between TEG and TAG models in terms of skill execution or decision making. The overall
effect size for decision making was 0.89, with a 95% CI from 0.12 to 1.65. Following the proposed
classification, this effect size was large. The heterogeneity level was large (I
2
=99%) and the P-value of
the Cochran Q-test was <0.01.
Figure 3shows that two of the six articles reported significant improvements in skill execution
relative to the baseline, caused by the tactical intervention [
24
,
27
]. One article was removed because
it did not evaluate the skill execution [
23
]. Moreover, no studies reported significant improvements
in skill execution because of technical treatment. The overall effect size for skill execution was 0.89,
with a 95% CI from
−
0.45 to 2.23 (see Figure 3). In accordance with the proposed classification, this
effect size was large. The heterogeneity level was large (I
2
=100%) and the p-value of the Cochran
Q-test was <0.01. The effects of tactical or technical treatment on participants’ decision making and
skill execution are shown in Figures 2and 3.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 9 of 13
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
Figure 2. Meta-analysis results of the effects of TEG and TAG on decision making.
Figure 3. Meta-analysis results of the effects of TEG and TAG on skill execution.
Figure 2. Meta-analysis results of the effects of TEG and TAG on decision making.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
Figure 2. Meta-analysis results of the effects of TEG and TAG on decision making.
Figure 3. Meta-analysis results of the effects of TEG and TAG on skill execution.
Figure 3. Meta-analysis results of the effects of TEG and TAG on skill execution.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 10 of 13
4. Discussion
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 study of the influence of the teacher/coach management style.
The first main result showed that the tactical approach resulted in a significant improvement in decision
making compared to the technical approach. This significant enhancement was observed in five of the
seven analyzed studies and can be considered as large, according to the overall effect size (total effect
size of 0.89, with a 95% CI from 0.12 to 1.65 and p-value =0.02). In this regard, researchers consider
that a tactical approach can make a significant contribution to the development of several areas of
play such as tactical understanding and decision making [
34
]. However, there is still limited research
about whether coaches are aware of the methodologies which may improve tactical understanding
and decision making [35].
Another main finding was that the tactical interventions also achieved significant benefits in skill
execution. In this regard, the overall effect size for skill execution was 0.89, with a 95% CI from—0.45
to 2.23 and p-value =0.19. The technical approach did not result in a significant improvement in skill
execution in any studies evaluated, but the tactical model resulted in a significant improvement in
skill execution in two of six studies. In this respect, Bunker and Thorpe [
2
] proposed the integration
of skills into contextualized situations in an attempt to link tactics and skills within a game context.
Therefore, the tactical approach has the potential to facilitate the development of technical skills and
tactical knowledge [
36
]. Therefore, this model may be more adequate to improve not only decision
making, but also the skill execution, compared to the technical approach. Accordingly, findings from
the current meta-analysis could be useful for teachers and coaches to improve skill execution and
decision making among players and students. Nevertheless, due to the large heterogeneity and the
low quality of the evidence, interpretation of this meta-analysis must be conducted with caution. In
this sense, “more work needs to be undertaken to reinforce and further demonstrate the relationship
between game centred training and skill development” [8] (p. 68).
One of the included articles showed very outstanding results in favor of the tactical group in
decision making using TGfU [
23
]. In addition, another study [
27
] showed outstanding results in skill
execution favor of the tactical group. This research, with five lessons of 60 min of duration during five
weeks, focused on “tactical understanding and the development of motor skills as a means of solving
tactical problems within a game-practice-game format” [
27
] (p. 19). Given the great effect observed in
these studies, future research may focus on corroboration of the benefits of these protocols. In this
sense, according to Forrest [
13
], the actual meaning of employing tactical approaches (and technical
approaches) has been little explored and more research is needed to clarify what we really do when we
implement these models.
Regarding the characteristics of the successful tactical interventions, the duration of the
interventions varied between 2 and 5 weeks, between 5 and 15 lessons, and between 40 and 90 min per
lesson. Therefore, according to these results, the benefits of tactical interventions could not be linked to
the treatment length. With regards to this point, it is important to note that the implementation of
technical and tactical approaches can be problematic, given that it depends on the teacher who is in
charge, rather than just the model used [
13
]. This is more complicated when teachers and coaches
think they use an alternative approach and are actually using a traditional method [37].
As can be seen in Table 2and Figure 2, significant improvements in decision making from tactical
models are not related to participants’ age or education level/setting. On the other hand, the results
showed significant improvements in skill execution using tactical models among secondary students
and school sports players (see Table 2and Figure 3). Therefore, these results showed that tactical
approaches can be used to improve skill execution. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the development
of tactical and technical approaches is profoundly related to the environment and the fact that each
context is different [
7
]. In this sense, physical education teachers and coaches do not present the same

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 11 of 13
pedagogical characteristics (e.g., use of knowledge in practice and differences in training times) [
38
].
Moreover, transitioning to tactical approach pedagogy is challenging and can lead to frustration [38].
Concerning the type of sport, there were significant improvements in decision making using tactical
approaches in all of them, except badminton [
25
] and soccer [
28
]. Regarding skill execution, there
were significant improvements in the tactical group for basketball [
27
] and sailing [
24
]. It is important
to note that the study focused on sailing that achieved significant between-group improvements in
decision making and execution in favor of the tactical approach.
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the
effects of technical and tactical approaches in decision making and skill execution, using a strong and
widely-accepted methodology (PRISMA) and providing conclusions based on the existing evidence.
Although relevant results were observed and a tactical approach can be strongly recommended based
on the findings, further studies are needed to increase the quality of the evidence and to clarify what
teachers and coaches do when they implement these models. In this sense, in relation to analysis of
the influence of the teacher/coach management style, only one study [
25
] investigated the teachers’
reflections on and experiences of questioning. Future research could also examine the teaching and
learning processes involved when adopting different approaches to teaching in order to know the
effect that teachers’ personalities may have on students’ learning [29].
Nevertheless, the present systematic review with a meta-analysis has some limitations. First, four
studies used the same instrument (GPAI) or an adapted version of it, but the other two–three studies
were carried out with other instruments to assess skill execution and decision making (respectively).
Second, the literature search was limited to two languages: Spanish and English. Therefore, the risk of
the exclusion of manuscripts written in other languages was high. Finally, the meta-analysis showed a
high level of heterogeneity, which means that the interpretation of the results of this study must be
considered with caution.
5. Conclusions
Tactical approaches can be strongly recommended to teach games and sports in order to better
improve skill execution and decision making, which are demanded in game play. In this regard, tactical
approach interventions are useful for improving the players’ and students’ decision making, while
technical models may be inadequate. On the other hand, tactical models could have positive effects on
skill execution. Nevertheless, there is a lack of information about teacher/coach management style.
These findings could be useful for teachers and coaches, but must be considered with caution given
the heterogeneity and the low quality of the evidence.
Author Contributions:
F.J.G.F.-G. and M.T.A.R. designed and supervised the study; D.C.-M. analysed the data;
M.T.A.R. and C.F.-E. wrote the manuscript and interpreted the findings; E.C.V. reviewed the paper. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Singleton, E. More than ‘just a game’: History, pedagogy, and games in physical education. Phys. Health
Educ. J. 2010,76, 22–27.
2.
Bunker, D.; Thorpe, R. A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school. Bull. Phys. Educ.
1982
,10,
9–16.
3.
Light, R.; Tan, S. Culture, embodied experience and teachers’ development of TGfU in Australia and
Singapore. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2006,12, 99–117. [CrossRef]
4. Weadon, D. Drills & skills in Australian Football; Australian Football League: Melbourne, Australia, 2008.
5.
Blomquist, M.; Luhtanen, P.; Laakso, L. Comparison between two types of instruction in badminton. Eur. J.
Phys. Educ. 2001,6, 139–156. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 12 of 13
6.
M
é
ndez, A.; Valero, A.; Casey, A. What are we being told about how to teach games? A three-dimensional
analysis of comparative research into different instructional studies in Physical Education and School Sports.
Rev. Int. Med. Cienc. Ac. 2010,6, 37–56.
7.
Aguiar, B.C.; Light, R.L. A challenge to the idea of an authentic version of a Game Based Approach. In 2015
Game Sense for Teachers and Coaches Conference Proceedings; Bruce, J., North, C., Eds.; University of Canterbury
College of Education, Health and Human Development: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2016; pp. 15–27.
8.
Jones, M. Game centred training and learning in Australia Rules football: Progressions and challenges.
In 2015 Game Sense for Teachers and Coaches Conference Proceedings; Bruce, J., North, C., Eds.; University of
Canterbury College of Education, Health and Human Development: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2016;
pp. 64–73.
9.
Pill, S. Informing Game Sense pedagogy with dynamic systems theory for coaching Volleyball. In 2015
Game Sense for Teachers and Coaches Conference Proceedings; Bruce, J., North, C., Eds.; University of Canterbury
College of Education, Health and Human Development: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2016; pp. 127–142.
10.
Holt, J.E.; Ward, P.; Wallhead, T.L. The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young adult
soccer players. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 2006,11, 101–118. [CrossRef]
11.
Harvey, S.; Cushion, C.J.; Wegis, H.M.; Massa-Gonzalez, A.N. Teaching games for understanding in American
high-school soccer: A quantitative data analysis using the game performance assessment instrument.
Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 2010,15, 29–54. [CrossRef]
12.
Kirk, D.; MacPhail, A. Teaching Games for Understanding and Situated learning: Rethinking the
Bunker-Thorpe Model. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2002,21, 177–192. [CrossRef]
13.
Forrest, G. Systematic assessment of game-centred approach practices—the game-centred approach
Assessment Scaffold. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 2015,20, 144–158. [CrossRef]
14.
Harvey, S.; Jarrett, K. A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since
2006. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 2014,19, 278–300. [CrossRef]
15.
Miller, A. Games Centered Approaches in Teaching Children & Adolescents: Systematic Review of Associated
Student Outcomes. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2015,14, 36–58. [CrossRef]
16.
Rovegno, I.; Nevett, M.; Brock, S.; Babiarz, M. Teaching and Learning Basic Invasion-Game Tactics in 4th
Grade: A Descriptive Study from Situated and Constraints Theoretical Perspectives. J. Teach. Phys. Educ.
2001,20, 370–388. [CrossRef]
17.
Oslin, J.; Mitchell, S. Game-Centred Approaches to Teaching Physical Education. In The Handbook of Physical
Education; Kirk, D., MacDonald, D., O’Sullivan, M., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2006; pp. 627–651.
18.
Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelles, P.; Stewart, L.A.;
PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P)
2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015,4, 1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19.
Maher, C.G.; Sherrington, C.; Herbert, R.D.; Moseley, A.M.; Elkins, M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for
rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys. Ther. 2003,83, 713–721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Balshem, H.; Helfand, M.; Schünemann, H.J.; Oxman, A.D.; Kunz, R.; Brozek, J.; Vist, G.E.; Falck-Ytter, Y.;
Meerpohl, J.; Norris, S.; et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol.
2011
,
64, 401–406. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21.
Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA. Int. J. Surg. 2009,8, 336–341. [CrossRef]
22.
Guijarro-Romero, S.; Mayorga-Vega, D.; Viciana, J. Aprendizaje t
á
ctico en deportes de invasi
ó
n en la
educación física: Influencia del nivel inicial de los estudiantes. Movimento 2018,24, 889–902. [CrossRef]
23.
Ashraf, O. Effects of teaching games for understanding on tactical awareness and decision making in soccer
for college students. Sci. Mov. Health 2017,17, 170–176.
24.
Morales-Belando, M.T.; Arias-Estero, J.L. Effect of Teaching Races for Understanding in Youth Sailing on
Performance, Knowledge, and Adherence. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2017,88, 513–523. [CrossRef]
25.
Nathan, S. Badminton instructional in Malaysian schools: A comparative analysis of TGfU and SDT
pedagogical models. SpringerPlus 2016,5, 1215. [CrossRef]
26.
French, K.E.; Werner, P.H.; Taylor, K.; Hussey, K.; Jones, J. The effects of a 6 week unit of tactical, skill, or
combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. J. Teach. Phys.
Educ. 1996,15, 439–463. [CrossRef]

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 505 13 of 13
27.
Gray, S.; Sproule, J. Developing pupils’ performance in team invasion games. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag.
2011
,
16, 15–32. [CrossRef]
28.
Psotta, R.; Martin, A. Changes in decision making skill and skill execution in soccer performance:
The intervention study. Acta Gymn. 2011,41, 7–15. [CrossRef]
29.
Chatzopoulos, D.; Drakou, A.; Kotzamanidou, M.; Tsorbatzoudis, H. Girls’ soccer performance and
motivation: Games vs technique approach. Percept. Motor Skills 2006,103, 463–470. [CrossRef]
30.
Morris, S.B.; DeShon, R.P. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and
independent-groups designs. Psychol. Methods 2002,7, 105. [CrossRef]
31.
Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med.
2002
,21, 1539–1558.
[CrossRef]
32.
Nordic Cochrane Centre The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer Program], version
5.3; Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014.
33.
Greenhalgh, T.; Peacock, R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex
evidence: Audit of primary sources. BMJ 2005,331, 1064–1065. [CrossRef]
34.
Light, R. Coaches’ experience of Game Sense: Opportunities and challenges. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag.
2004
,9,
115–132. [CrossRef]
35.
O’Connor, D.; Larkin, P.L.; Williams, A.M. What learning environments help improve decision-making?
Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 2017,22, 647–660. [CrossRef]
36.
Griffin, L.L.; Mitchell, S.A.; Oslin, J.L. Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach; Human
Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 1997.
37.
Davis, B.; Sumara, D. Why aren’t they getting this? Working through the regressive myths of constructivist
pedagogy. Teach. Educ. 2003,14, 123–140. [CrossRef]
38.
Harvey, S.; Cushion, C.J.; Massa-Gonzalez, A.N. Learning a new method: Teaching Games for Understanding
in the coaches’ eyes. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 2010,15, 361–382. [CrossRef]
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).