Games Coaching: Do Children Learn by Listening - or Doing?

Most teachers and coaches faced with the question of whether children best learn games by listening or doing, would have little difficulty in opting for the latter. Faced with this fairly unanimous conclusion, it would not be unreasonable to expect to find school games coaching dominated by high levels of pupil activity, and relatively rare bouts of teacher interruption. And to find Directors of Sport obsessed with driving up coaching standards, and seeking ever higher levels of pupil activity within sessions. At the very least, the measurement of activity levels, and contrast of talk levels, would seem fundamental to the issue of developing coaching quality. And yet this assumption would be contrary to the way in which the great majority of schools - despite claiming to embrace modern trends of pedagogy – deliver compulsory games teaching to their pupils.

 The average level of games based pupil activity within a 75 minute session is 18 minutes. The single greatest time occupier is teacher talk, at an average 41 minutes. If you believe that children learn by listening, do it like that. If you believe that they learn by doing – then maybe this isn't the best way. Perhaps the most revealing research statistic is that all teachers in these sessions believed that more than 50% of the session had been spent on pupil activity, and less than 25% on teacher talk. The contrast between perception and reality is huge.

What causes this?

The first factor appears to be obsession with technical content. Drills and practices are dominated by frequent and lengthy stoppages for the dispensing of technical wisdom by the teacher. And the arrangement of cones. This is despite the fact that pupil attention during these interludes varies, and evidence of the application of technical input to create performance improvement is mixed. Most of these practices are based on queuing for attempts, which further increases pupil redundancy and depresses activity levels. The only criteria for the effectiveness of coaching is behaviour change by the performer. There is only patchy evidence that skills acquired through drill type activity survive the transition into game play. Is that a failure of the players? Or of the coaching? Research into games coaching clearly identifies learner engagement as a principal factor in determining whether there is performance improvement, and persistence with practice.

 It also suggests that early learning should be dominated by "deliberate play" rather than "deliberate practice". The latter is seen as appropriate for enhancing higher level performance in mid to late teenage years. Yet there is little evidence of the application of this research to inform coaching - or that schools concern themselves with the wider issue of how games coaching can be made optimally effective. Sessions for all age groups, including the youngest, are dominated by skills based instruction. And cone distribution. The timeless schoolboy question, "Can we have a game, Sir?" still has a poor record of attracting a positive response.

How might it be different? Can learning be a pleasure, rather than a duty?

Little is likely to change until schools accept that the quality of coaching hugely influences pupil enthusiasm and progress. And that current standards are extremely variable. Schools devote considerable time, energy and resources to the organisation and administration of games. And to ensuring that participants, and facilities, are of impeccable appearance. Perversely, this is seldom matched by thought and attention applied to the identification of best coaching practice and the application of this across all sports within a school. Unlike other subjects, an "every man for himself" approach still prevails, which means that much coaching activity is poor, and out of date. Systems of quality control are absent or rudimentary. Meetings of coaches and games departments are dominated by organisational questions - rarely does coaching find its way onto the agenda at all.

So, the starting point for progress is probably an acceptance that things could be better, and an elevation of coaching development up the agenda. Next would be a measurement of current practice, and the establishment of figures of which sessions had the highest levels of activity, and which the lowest level of teacher talk. Most schools are equipped to easily measure this, with a stop watch and a pupil who is off games. Comparisons, targets, and consideration of the impact of various approaches are the essence of professional development in coaching. Many teachers are proud of the competitive record of their teams in school matches. A similar pride in coaching quality, pupil activity and engagement would not be inappropriate. An increased proportion of games in Games would help promote activity and engagement. A radical target of 50% of Games lessons being active in games activity (excluding running round the field), would be a starting point.

Maybe the most fundamental impact that a Director of Sport could have would be to control and develop the quality of coaching across the whole school; finding the best way of doing it, and then applying it consistently. It would be unlikely that this method would be dominated by teacher talk.