Surrogacy and transnational adoption are very honorable and noble .docx

Surrogacy and transnational adoption are very honorable and
noble choices to help those who cannot have children or are
incapable of doing so. According to the Vice video, surrogacy
has become a global spread in many countries and often not
done ethically due to different countries laws. This is especially
apparent in India where it is much cheaper to get a surrogate
than paying for one in the U.S.
Prospective parents put off by the rigor of traditional adoptions
are bypassing that system by producing babies of their own-
often using an egg donor from one country, a sperm donor from
another, and a surrogate who will deliver in a third country to
make what some industry participants call a World Baby.
Because this is a global business, laws are vague and can
conflict from country to country. Communication between all
three parties of the business can be very difficult at times
because everyone might live in a different country. This makes
it hard to make sure the if parents or the surrogate is
responsible since there is little information exchanged. A
background check would provide valuable information about
everyone to know that they are not dangerous. I think one
potential solution to this business so that it isn’t as sketchy, is
to shift our areas of interest to countries that have background
checks available while staggering the impregnant dates to
minimize abortions. Having background checks also would
provide valuable information about everyone to know that they
are not dangerous.
International adoption can be challenging at times, but very
rewarding. It can be useful for people who cannot have a child
or want to give a child a better life. It can also be much cheaper
and faster to adopt one from another country because there are
less regulations and specific laws in other countries. I think
adoption in general is an important thought to consider for

potential future parents. There are thousands of children who
grow up in a foster home who don’t get the help and resources
they need. I have a friend who was adopted by parents in the
U.S., but she was originally from Vietnam. They were able to
give her a better life and the resources she needed to grow.
However, while adopting internationally has it’s pros, its cons
would be that after taking them away from their own country,
they might take away the child’s sense of identity or the culture
they came from. This can potentially affect a child’s future self
identity and make them feel out of place being in a different
country with a different race of people.
Whether it’s adoption or surrogacy, people need to be aware of
the the risky business behind it. Since most of these cases are
done internationally, a background check is one of the most
important things to do. Without a proper background check, it
could increase the chance of a child being raised by
irresponsible parents and continue to throw away another human
life. Surrogacy is a sensitive and risky business that needs to be
handled more responsibly because it involves life or death.
More people should know more about the varying laws in
different countries when doing business with these companies.
Sports Injury Prevention
Part 2: Strength, or length?
Part 1 was published in Modern Athlete and Coach January
2015 Dr Mark Brown
Mark Brown B.App.Sc(Phty); MHSc(Sports Physio); MBA;
FASMF; FAIM
Mark Brown is an Australian Physiotherapy Association (APA)
titled Sport Physiotherapist with over 30 years’ experience in

sports medicine. Currently he holds positions as the Executive
Officer o f Sports Medicine Australia’s Queensland Branch,
adjunct
Associate Professor in the Griffith University Centre of
Musculoskeletal Research and as a Member of the Oceania
National
Olympic Committees Medical Commission. He is a Fellow o f
both the Australian Sports Medicine Federation and the
Australian
Institute o f Management and was the Director of Physiotherapy
for the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Mark's main clinical and research interest areas relate primarily
to improving safety in sport and physical activity and he has
published and presented internationally in particular on:
• improving the prevention and management o f medical
emergencies in sport
• the use of neuromuscular training programs for sports injury
prevention and performance enhancement
• the use of taping techniques for the prevention and treatment
o f musculoskeletal conditions.
In the previous article I outlined some of the main components
of an evidence informed approach to sports injury prevention,
especially including the proven effectiveness of multi-
component neuromuscular training programs to both reduce
the number and severity of lower limb injuries in athletes, and
also improve sporting performance. Neuromuscular training
programs aim to improve strength and control during sports
specific movements and this article will briefly examine
the sometimes controversial topic of the role of flexibility
training as a component of sports injury prevention programs,
and whether muscle length or muscle strength are most
associated with reduced sports related injuries.
Until relatively recent times the conventional wisdom amongst
athletes, coaches and health professionals was that stretching

exercises to increase muscle length and joint range of motion
were an essential component of injury prevention programs
for athletes. But a number of research studies conducted in
the late 1990’s and early 2000’s produced results that caused
a rethink of this concept. In particular a landmark large scale
study conducted in Australia by Pope et al (1998) found there
was no meaningful difference in the number of lower limb
injuries in army recruits who used static stretching exercises
in their warm up program compared to those whose warm up
program did not include stretching.
Subseguent studies by other researchers produced similar
conclusions with respect to injury prevention, while others
also found that stretching before or after exercise did not
reduce delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), or other types
of exercise related pain, or measures of recovery. Around the
same time other researchers found that stretching, especially
static stretching, temporarily decreases muscle power which
is obviously not a desirable outcome for optimal performance
in most sports, especially those requiring explosive power.
But other studies looking at risk factors for sports injuries have
shown that reduced flexibility or range of motion (ROM) are
associated with some types of sports injuries. For example,
reduced hamstring extensibility was found to be associated
with an increased predisposition to hamstring strains, and
reduced ankle dorsiflexion range of motion is a risk factor
for ankle injuries. But even these findings are complicated by
yet other studies that show that an even greater risk factor
for injury for most muscle injuries is not muscle length, but
muscle strength. For example, for thigh adductor muscle
strains (groin strains) adductor length or extensibility has
been found to not be a risk factor for injury, however reduced
adductor strength as measured on the adductor squeeze test
is. Similarly, the biggest risk factor for a hamstring strain injury

according to current evidence is reduced hamstring eccentric
strength rather than decreased hamstring extensibility, and
eccentric strengthening of the hamstring muscles in the
eccentric hamstring lower exercise (often commonly referred
to as “ Nordic hamstrings” ) has been found to be protective for
hamstring strains.
This particular exercise has become an im portant component
of many sports injury prevention programs including the FIFA
11 + injury prevention program. While this particular program
is mostly orientated to injury prevention in Football many of
the exercises can be readily adapted by athletics coaches
and is worth a look at as the videos and other resources on
the FIFA website clearly outline the exercises (http://f-m arc.
com /11plus/hom e/). Currently researchers are attempting to
establish minimum benchmark strength measures or strength
ratios for exercises such as the Nordic hamstring curl which
eventually will assist coaches and the athlete’s attending
health professionals when screening athletes for injury risk
factors, but at present normative data is limited.
Other research studies support the notion that strength is
more im portant than length for injury prevention. Recently
Lauersen et al published an article in the British Journal of
Sports Medicine in 2014 that examined the effectiveness of
exercise interventions to prevent sports injuries. The authors
41
http://f-marc
conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 25
randomised controlled clinical trials (26,610 total participants)
to determine which physical activity interventions were most
effective for sports injury prevention. The analysis determined

that stretching did not reduce injuries, but strengthening and
proprioceptive exercises did. Strength training was the most
effective intervention and reduced sports injuries to less than
one third (Relative risk ratio 0.315). Proprioceptive training
was also found to be effective though less so than strength
training (Relative risk ratio 0.550).
So based on some of the research findings it’s tempting to say
that on the whole muscle strength is more im portant for injury
prevention than muscle length. However, this view is overly
sim plistic and ignores the fact that in some sports a certain
degree of flexibility is necessary to effectively execute some of
the required techniques, especially sports such as gymnastics,
dance, and some martial arts disciplines but also in some
track and field disciplines so a “ one size fits all” approach
with regards to what sort of flexibility training is required is
not appropriate. It also doesn’t take into consideration that
stretching programs don’t just alter muscle length, they also
have an effect on tendon elasticity which is also relevant
to sports performance. It is often forgotten that the muscle
should be more accurately described as a muscle tendon unit
with the contractile component of the MT unit (the muscle
fibres) applying a force to the boney attachments via the
non-contractile components (the tendon and fascial tissue) so
what sort of exercise interventions most effect tendon and
muscle tissue also needs to be considered.
So how do we put all of this together? At the moment
according to current research evidence it’s not a matter of
“ stretching: yes or no?” but rather that stretching can be a
useful part of programs if the type and tim ing of stretching
programs is contextualised to the sport, and also customised
to the individual differences in morphology, risk factors as
identified in the screening process, and the sporting tasks
required for each athlete. But, some of the factors that could
be taken into consideration include:

• On the basis that the muscle tendon (MT) unit needs to be
compliant enough to store and release energy effectively
in the Stretch Shortening Cycle (SSC) this would suggest
that more compliance in the MT unit would decrease
muscle and tendon injury because the load on these
tissues would be reduced. However, static and dynamic
stretching immediately before activity have been found
to be counter-productive to force generation, possibly
through overstimulation of the stretch receptors.
• According to Kubo et al 2000 moderate or low SSC demand
sports like running or cycling do not benefit from making
the MT unit more compliant.
• However, sports with jumping or bouncing activities with
a high intensity of SSCs require a MTU compliant enough
to store and release the high amount of elastic energy
required in such sports.
• Dynamic stretching produces no or little effect on muscle
length but has a significant influence on tendon stiffness,
which in turn increases storage and release of elastic
energy in tendons which is useful in high SSC sports like
jumping. But dynamic stretching is not the best technique
to increase range. Kubo et al (2001) found that dynamic
stretching does decrease tendon stiffness using a protocol
of 2 sessions of dynamic stretching per day for 8 weeks.
However, this benefit was soon lost if the stretching
exercises were not maintained.
• Witvrouw et al (2007) compared dynamic stretching and
static stretching and concluded that static stretching
is a better technique for increasing ROM and dynamic
stretching is better for increasing tendon elasticity. In their
view if ROM alone is the goal or is critical to success in a

particular sport or activity then static stretching as part of
an overall program is indicated, though not as part of the
warm up due to the temporary muscle force reduction.
• To increase muscle range of motion a large volume
of static stretching is required. Marshall et al (2011)
demonstrated a 20.9% increase in hamstring extensibility,
but the program involved 4 different hamstring stretches,
each performed 5 times a week for 4 weeks, (including
1 supervised session per week), with each stretching
exercise held for 30 seconds with 3 repetitions of each.
• Konrad and Tilp (2014) concluded that static stretching
did not produce a change in muscle length or structure,
however people who stretch often increase range of
motion due to an increased tolerance to stretch, and /or
increased pain tolerance.
• Warm-up before sport also increases the visco-elasticity
of the muscle tendon unit and therefore may be more
appropriate than stretching immediately before sport. But
as individual variation do occur different approaches to
stretching and warm up for each athlete should be tested
outside of competition using sports specific measures of
performance.
So which stretching technique you would use and when
depends on sports specific goals. Also, you need to do a lot of
stretching (which costs a lot of time) to get measurable results.
While that is getting complicated enough, none of the above
takes into consideration the possible additional confounding
variables associated with variations in joint hypo / hyper-
mobility, or the effects of age, metabolic and genetic factors on
tendon tissue. But, overall for athletes with reduced flexibility
there is still an argument in favour of incorporating flexibility
training into their programs, but probably not immediately

before sporting performance. The type of stretching and what
areas should be focused on will depend on the findings by
the Physiotherapist in a comprehensive musculoskeletal
screening in conjunction with the coaches identification of
each athlete’s training goals and sports specific role.
What is clearer is that increasing muscular power and control
are important and effective in reducing injury and increasing
42
performance, but gaining strength must as always take
into consideration careful monitoring of the athlete’s total
training load.
References:
Arnason A, Andersen T, Holme I, Engebretsen L and Bahr R.
Prevention of hamstring strains in elite soccer: an intervention
study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in
Sports, 2007
Konrad, A. and Tilp, M. (2014) Increased range of motion after
static stretching is not due to changes in muscle and tendon
structures. Clin. Biomech. 2014; 29(6):636-42.
Kubo K., Kanehisa H., Kawakami Y. and Fukunaga T. Effects
of repeated muscle contractions on the tendon structures in
humans. Eur. J Appl. Physiol. 2 0 0 1 ,8 4 ,1 6 2 -1 6 6 .
Kubo K., Kanehisa H., Kawakami Y. and Fukunaga T Influence
of static stretching on viscoelastic properties of human tendon
structures in vivo J App Physiol. 2001 90 (2), 520-527

Jamtvedt G, Herbert RD, Flottorp S, et al. A pragmatic
randomised trial of stretching before and after physical
activity to prevent injury and soreness. Br J Sports Med
2010;44:1002-9.
Lauersen JB, Bertelsen DM, Andersen LB. The effectiveness of
exercise interventions to prevent sports injuries: a systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J
Sports Med 2014:48:871-7.
Marshall, R, Cashman A, Cheema, B. A randomized controlled
trial for the effect of passive stretching on measures of
hamstring extensibility, passive stiffness, strength, and stretch
tolerance. J Sc. Med. Sp. 2011 14 (6) 535-540
Pope R, Herbert R, Kirwan J. Effects of ankle dorsiflexion
range
and pre-exercise calf muscle stretching on injury risk in Army
recruits. Aust J Physiother 1998;44:65-72.
Pope RP, Herbert RD, Kirwan JD, et al. A randomized trial of
preexercise stretching for prevention of lower-limb injury. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:271-7.
Witvrouw E, Mahieu N, Roosen P and McNair P. The role of
stretching in tendon injuries Br J Sports Med. 2007 Apr; 41 (4):
224-226.
Copyright of Modern Athlete & Coach is the property of
Australian Track & Field Coaches
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print,

download, or email articles for individual use.
The impact of Game Sense pedagogy on Australian rugby
coaches’
practice: a question of pedagogy
Richard Lawrence Lighta� and John Evans Robertb
aCarnegie Research Institute, Leeds Metropolitan University,
Leeds, UK; bFaculty of Education
and Social Work, University of Sydney, NSW, Sydney,
Australia
(Received 11 December 2007; final version received 23
December 2008)
Background: Recent developments in games and sport teaching
such as that of Teaching
Games for Understanding, Play Practice and Game Sense
suggest that they can make
a significant contribution toward the development of tactical
understanding, ability
to read the game, decision-making and a general ‘sense of the
game’, yet empirical
research conducted on their application in sport coaching lags
behind research on
their application in physical education. This article redresses
this oversight by drawing
on a study that inquired into the impact that Game Sense has
had on elite-level rugby
coaches in Australia.
Aims: The purpose of the study was to inquire into the ways in
which elite-level rugby

coaches interpret and used the Game Sense approach to
coaching and to explore the
reasons for this.
Method: This study comprises four case studies on Australian
rugby coaches who were
working, or had worked at, provincial and/or national levels.
Data were generated
through noted observations and a series of extended, semi-
structured interviews
conducted over a four-month period. A constant-comparative
approach used in
grounded theory was employed to analyse the data from the
interviews. The analysis
involved identification of themes and ideas and the development
of substantive theory
that was tested in subsequent interviews and connected to
formal theory later in the
analytic process.
Results: The coaches in this study value games-based training
using them to: (1) test skills
in game-like situations; (2) develop decision-making and
aspects of a ‘sense of the game’
through implicit learning that cannot be directly taught to
players; and (3) develop match-
specific fitness. However, Games Sense pedagogy has had a
relatively limited influence
on their coaching, with none of them familiar with either Game
Sense pedagogy or the
concept of pedagogy in general.
Conclusion: This study suggests that while elite-level rugby
coaches in Australia value
games as part of their training, the distinctive, player-centred,
Game Sense pedagogy
has had little impact upon rugby coaching. This suggests that
implementing significant
change in coaches’ pedagogical practice, such as that required

for implementing a
Game Sense approach, is not an easy task. A lack of attention to
pedagogy in
Australian rugby coach education programmes seems to have
limited the impact of
Game Sense on rugby coaching in Australia and is an area in
need of attention in both
coach education and the coaching literature.
Keywords: Game Sense; rugby; coaches; Australia
ISSN 1740-8989 print/ISSN 1742-5786 online
# 2010 Association for Physical Education
DOI: 10.1080/17408980902729388
http://www.informaworld.com
�Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
Vol. 15, No. 2, April 2010, 103–115
Introduction
The past 6–7 years have seen the emergence of writing that
challenges a view of coaching
as a simple process of knowledge transmission from coach to
players (Cassidy, Jones, and
Potrac 2004; Jones 2006; Kidman 2005; Light 2004). This
developing perspective on
coaching draws on developments in pedagogy and learning
theory in education and
physical education to argue for a view of coaching as a
complex, situated social process

(Cassidy, Jones, and Potrac 2004; Jones 2006). As part of this
emergent perspective on
coaching, researchers have suggested the application of student-
centred approaches.
Approaches such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU),
Play Practice and
Game Sense can make a significant contribution toward the
development of specific
areas of play such as tactical understanding, reading the game,
decision-making, player
independence and a general ‘sense of the game’ (see, for
example, Launder and Piltz
(2006) and Light (2004)). This development offers an
‘extremely powerful point of connec-
tion between teaching and coaching and, physical education and
sport’ (Penney 2006, 34).
The research that has been conducted on athlete/player-centred
approaches to coaching
suggests that it provides a range of opportunities for coaching,
yet, as is the case with
research on physical education teachers, there are a number of
problems involved with
its implementation (Kidman 2001; Light 2004). A number of
studies conducted over the
past decade in physical education have focused on teachers’ and
pre-service teachers’
responses to TGfU and its variations, and their experiences of
implementing them across
a range of cultural settings (Butler 1996; Light 2002; Liu 2004;
Tan et al. 2002), yet
little empirical research has been conducted on the application
of these approaches to
sport coaching in either youth sport or elite sport settings.
To redress this oversight in the literature this paper draws on a
close-focus study con-

ducted on the impact of Game Sense on the practices of four
Australian rugby coaches.
The study inquired into the extent to which Game Sense had
impacted upon practice in
elite-level rugby coaching by focusing on four rugby coaches
working at elite levels in
the provinces of New South Wales (NSW) and the Australian
Capital Territory (ACT),
Australia over a four-month period from July to October 2005.
New perspectives on coaching
Traditional views of coaching as being focused on the
development of athlete competence
and skill reflect an overly simple conception of learning as the
transmission of objectified
knowledge from coach to player/athlete that places limits on
athlete and coach interaction
(Cassidy, Jones, and Potrac 2004; Culver and Trudel 2008).
This promotes the idea of a
monologue from coach to players instead of the interaction and
dialogue that athlete-
centred approaches such as Game Sense advocate (Light and
Wallian 2008). Indeed, inter-
action between players and between players and the coach is
central to Game Sense and
other similar approaches that have been explained from a
constructivist perspective on
learning (Light and Fawns 2003; Wright and Forrest 2007).
Athlete-centred approaches
to coaching such as Game Sense are based on the assumption
that rather than being a
passive sponge soaking up knowledge, the athlete is a thinking,
feeling and physical
being that interprets and makes sense of learning experiences
shaped by the knowledge

and inclinations that he/she brings to the learning experience.
Drawing on Mosston and Ashworth’s (1986) idea of a spectrum
of teaching styles,
Cassidy, Jones, and Potrac (2004) draw overdue attention to
pedagogy in coaching by
suggesting that the five teaching styles of Command, Task,
Reciprocal, Guided Discovery
104 R.L. Light and J.E. Robert
and Problem Solving can be applied to coaching. They suggest
that coaching should seek to
do more than just transmit knowledge, arguing that it should
seek to develop athletes as
independent problem solvers, making them less reliant upon the
coach. The stress on
problem solving in Game Sense would certainly place its
‘teaching style’ at the student-
centred end of Mosston and Ashworth’s spectrum. The Game
Sense coach designs the
learning environment within which the players will learn
through interaction and experience
within activities designed to provide opportunities for specific
learning. Whether the focus is
on skill development, tactical learning, reading the games or
decision-making the coach
focuses on designing the environment and facilitating players’
learning through player-
centred, problem-solving pedagogy.
Game sense
The Game Sense approach was developed in Australia during

the 1990s through collabor-
ation between Rod Thorpe, the Australian Sports Commission
(ASC) and Australian
coaches (Light 2004). In Game Sense coaching learners are seen
as beings with previous
knowledge and experiences that shape how and what they learn.
Viewing Game Sense
from a social constructivist perspective emphasises the central
role of social interaction
in learning to highlight it as a social process (Gréhaigne,
Richard, and Griffin 2005;
Light and Fawns 2003; Wallian and Chang 2007; Wright and
Forrest 2007). This means
that coaches, like teachers, need to understand, or at least
consider, the experiences of
the player/athlete, the knowledge he/she brings to training, and
the physical and social
environment to accommodate meaningful change (learning). As
Dewey (1916/1997)
suggests, rather than direct instruction the teacher’s job is to
facilitate learning by designing
the learning environment, using questioning and providing
opportunities for interaction.
Most of the work on coaching as a social process has been done
by researchers who
have drawn on recent developments in education and physical
education pedagogy that
apply contemporary learning theory to teaching. This work
suggests that learning to play
sport involves far more than the refinement of de-contextualised
technique and the intern-
alisation of objective knowledge. It suggests that learning to
play sport (and learning to
coach) is essentially a social activity and a far more complex
process than traditional direc-
tive approaches seem to assume. Dominant approaches to

coaching and teaching are based
upon a belief in learning as a linear process in which players
learn by adding on knowledge
or skills (Light 2008). Such assumptions about learning are not
necessarily articulated, but
instead operate at a powerful non-conscious level where they
are rarely questioned, yet
structure coaches’ and teachers’ actions (Davis and Sumara
2003). Contemporary learning
theory sees learning as a transformative process that actively
engages the learner as an
active participant in the process. While not always stated as
such, this conception of
learning is evident in some of the more recent coaching
literature that has picked up on
player-centred coaching (for example, see Kidman 2001, 2005;
Light 2004).
Coaching and pedagogy
There has been considerable interest shown in TGfU and
variations such as Game Sense
and Play Practice from practitioners in the sport-coaching field
(Light 2004). The New
Zealand national rugby team, the All Blacks, successfully
adopted a game-based approach
informed by Game Sense (Kidman 2001). Many sports
organisations in Australia also lay
claim to the use of Game Sense, yet a cursory examination of
websites suggests that what is
labelled as Game Sense typically varies significantly from the
systematic approach
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 105

developed by Rod Thorpe and the ASC during the mid-1990s
(den Duyn 1997). For
example, clicking on the heading ‘Game Sense’ on the website
of the NSW rugby team,
the Waratahs, reveals only descriptions of a range of games
with no indication of how
they might be used and no mention of pedagogy. Light (2006a)
argues that while the use
of games for training is nothing new for many coaches, Game
Sense pedagogy, although
innovative, receives little attention from coaches or coach
educators. Indeed, with the
exception of some recent attention (Jones 2006; Cassidy, Jones,
and Potrac 2004), this
lack of interest in pedagogy is evident across the coaching field
where the process of learn-
ing is typically seen as being linear and non-problematic.
As Woodman (1993) suggests, sport coaching tends to
concentrate on athletic achieve-
ment at the expense of pedagogy in coach education
programmes where the process of
learning seems to be seen as a simple process of knowledge
transmission. Recent research
and writing on coaching from a socio-cultural perspective has,
however, begun to challenge
a dominant view of learning as a simple linear process and of
coaching as scientific process
(for example, see Cassidy, Jones, and Potrac 2004). Very
recently, writing in the physical
education field has begun to draw on contemporary thinking
about learning to highlight
the complex nature of learning and the need for pedagogical
approaches to recognise
and account for this (see, for example, Light 2008) and this is

equally relevant for sport
coaching as for physical education. By pedagogy we refer to
more than the limiting
ideas of a science or art of teaching to adopt a more inclusive
notion of pedagogy as
being: ‘any conscious activity by one person designed to
enhance learning in another’
(Watkins and Mortimer 1999, 3). While in this paper we are
concerned with this intended
learning, we recognise the range of unintended, implicit
learning that occurs as part of
day-to-day social life as identified in the learning theory of
Lave and Wenger (1991) and
the social theory of Bourdieu (1986).
Research methodology
This paper draws on four case studies on Australian rugby
coaches conducted in 2005. The
participants in the study were purposefully sampled and all were
employed as professional
rugby coaches who were working, or had worked at, provincial
or national levels. The study
inquired into the extent to which Game Sense had impacted
upon practice in elite-level rugby
coaching. It focused on four rugby coaches working at elite
levels in the provinces of NSW
and the ACT, Australia. The four case studies used a series of
interviews conducted over a
four-month period from July to October 2005 by the second
author. An interpretive method-
ology was adopted to provide insight and make sense of
coaching as a social process and the
ways in which the coaches involved interpreted and used Game
Sense. In an attempt to
situate the findings within the socio-cultural context within

which coaches work, it
locates their use of Game Sense within the high-pressure
environment of elite-level
coaching.
Data generation
Data were generated through a series of one on one, semi-
structured interviews guided by
the following core research question: To what extent has Game
Sense influenced the
practices of elite-level rugby coaches and how is this shaped by
the socio-cultural environ-
ment of elite rugby coaching? The interviews were conducted
by the second author with
initial interviews of 1 hour’s duration followed up with two
subsequent interviews of
approximately 40 minutes duration each.
Analysis
The themes were coded manually from the transcribed
interviews. A constant-comparative
approach used in grounded theory as outlined by Glaser and
Strauss (1967) was employed
to analyse the data from the interviews. The analysis involved
identification of themes and
ideas that emerged from each of the three rounds of interviews
and related observations
leading to the development of substantive theories that were
tested in subsequent rounds
of interviews and connected to formal theory in the later stages

of the research.
The coaches
Pseudonyms have been used for each of the participants in the
study to protect their anon-
ymity and each of them is briefly described below.
Barry was 65 at the time of the study and was a previous
national, state and first-
division rugby coach. He had been a participant in the national
coach education programme
and was a level-3 coach with the Australian Rugby Union
(ARU). He had a background in
engineering and had in recent times been responsible for a state
rugby academy. He had a
passion for the game and was very enthusiastic about
participating in the study. In 2005
Barry was a coaching consultant to one of the major rugby
provinces in Australia and
had coached professionally for over 10 years.
Billy was 42 at the time of the study, had been a school teacher
and after retiring from
playing rugby five years prior to the study, moved into
coaching. He had been a participant
in the national coach education programme and was a level-3
coach with the ARU. He had
moved into a position with the NSW rugby team after being an
academy coach and after a
successful career coaching first division rugby. In 2005 he had
been coaching professionally
for five years.
Jack was 36 and had a career as a tradesman with a successful
building business before

completing a sports coaching qualification at a tertiary level and
moving into coaching. He
had been a participant in the national coach education
programme and was a level-3 coach
with the ARU. He played rugby at state and national levels
before moving into coaching.
Jack coached a first division team before taking up an
appointment with a state-based
academy and had coached professionally for five years at the
time of the study.
Simon was 30 at the time of the study with a degree in human
movement and held a
coaching position with the national team. He achieved this after
a long playing career at
club level and coaching stints overseas in Japan and France. He
was a successful Australian
Institute of Sport Scholarship coach while still playing rugby
and had coached profession-
ally for six years.
Results
The following section presents and discusses the ways in which
the coaches used games and
Game Sense in their coaching and the influence that their
coaching environment had on this.
The four coaches tended to use games in three main ways: (a) to
test skills and set plays;
(b) to develop independence, perception and decision-making
ability; and (c) to develop
game-specific fitness.
Testing skills

While the Game Sense approach is underpinned by a conception
of skills and understanding
developing at the same time the coaches in this study tended to
see modified games as a
means of testing skill after it had been practised and refined to
an appropriate level. They
tended to follow a progression that involved them identifying a
technique that needed
working on and beginning by having the players work on it in
isolation from the game.
They would then have players practise technique under
increasing pressure in an open
environment. This was typically followed by the skill, technique
or structured play being
tested in a modified game and in conditions that were similar to
a match. Simon explained
his use of games in training to develop and test skills:
We use games – games are probably the litmus test of their (the
players) transition between
block skills into whether they can actually apply those block
skills (in the real game). I
think it means that players have to read cues. So, they start to
become programmed to cues
that you can’t actually teach inside a block or a blocked drill.
(Interview 2, 24 August 2005)
Simon recognised the capacity of games to help players learn to
read cues through having
them engage with the physical learning environment and sought
to place players progress-

ively in a more game-like environment, but felt that learning
needed to begin with direct
instruction outside a game situation. Billy, Jack and Simon all
made a clear distinction
between the ideas of structured and unstructured play in rugby
matches and the need to
tailor training accordingly, with training divided into structured
and unstructured activities.
For these three coaches game-based training was best used for
those activities where
coaches thought players had already developed their skill level
to a point where it could
be used in aspects of rugby play that were unstructured, as Jack
explained:
It depends on the level of the player. For a player with a poor
skill level it (the use of games)
would be more structured and a player with an independent skill
level which – he’s got good
high quality skills you’re looking at more decision based
training, in which case you would
have less structured training. (Interview 2, 2 September 2005)
While set plays (first phase) such as scrums and lineouts are
typically very structured in
rugby the second phase of play (referred to by the four coaches
as ‘phase play’) is less pre-
dictable, more fluid and more dynamic. In this environment it is
more important for players
to be adaptable and be able to make tactically appropriate
decisions. However, even in
second-phase play, the coaches in this study sought to provide
as much structure as poss-
ible, reducing options and the need for player decision-making.
Simon recognised the need
for player decision-making during phase play, yet suggested the

extent to which he felt it
needed to be structured:
So, another really good example is phase play options, you
know, that’s a very open skill to be
able to call a phase play option on the run and then execute that
play with the correct running
lines, with the correct ball transfer, all those types of things.
So, obviously you’ve got to have
some structure to that so you actually get the play down pat and
you know what’s expected and
then you have to apply it in an unstructured situation.
Such responses indicate particular interpretations of Game
Sense and the place of games in
training shaped by a highly structured view of coaching and a
focus on the development of
high levels of skill performance. In general, Billy, Jack and
Simon sought to reduce the need
for players to anticipate, make decisions and be creative by
designing and having the
players learn structures to be implemented within the less
predictable aspects of games.
Developing independence, perception and decision-making
Some of the strengths of Game Sense identified in research
include the ways in which it can
develop player independence on the field, perceptual powers
and decision-making ability
(Kidman 2001; Light 2004). The coaches in this study

recognised the extent to which
game-based training can develop these qualities to different
degrees, but Barry stressed
the need for these qualities more than the others. His approach
to coaching aligned better
with Game Sense pedagogy. His frequent references to intuition
and the need to develop
embodied responses to cues in games suggested that he had a
view of coaching and learning
that was different to the others, who favoured more structure in
their coaching and in the
game style of the teams they coached. He bemoaned the
reduction of opportunities for
young players to learn through ‘knock up’, informal games and
hinted at the non-conscious
learning that takes place through playing games. He felt that
players needed to develop a
sense of the game by playing games to develop an
understanding that bypassed conscious
thinking. In terms of the role Game Sense plays in this learning,
Barry saw this as a way to
improve what he referred to as players’ reactions or instincts:
So, by playing games, especially training games, where the
result is not terribly important,
people can play with an open mind and I think that’s a really
important thing. I think that –
I don’t know if everyone understands the same thing I’m
thinking of when I say open mind,
but you have to play with your mind vacant. You have to play
with your conscious mind
vacant to enable information to rocket through it quickly and
transfer to action. (Interview
1, 28 July 2005)
In this quote Barry seemed to refer to the implicit, embodied

learning that Light and Fawns
(2003) suggest occurs through TGfU. His notion of playing with
an open mind implies a lack
of structure and a degree of trust in the players’ ability to
respond to cues and the dynamics of
games appropriately. It also brings to mind the trust placed in
players by the new national
coach, Robby Deans, and his stress on having them play what is
in front of them.
Barry suggested that players’ independence on the field is an
essential quality for
performance at elite levels and that they should train in ways
that allow them to develop
this independence:
We must have player independence, the player must be able to
apply his skill in reading
designs, being aware of the spaces, being aware of the
opportunities and people must be
able to take advantage of that. (Interview 2, 25 August 2005)
He emphasised player autonomy, risk-taking and the need for
players to think and make
instant decisions within a constantly changing physical
environment. Players in any team
sport constantly have to: ‘make sense of the chaotic, ebb and
flow of display action that
unfolds during the game’ (Piltz 2004, 79) by reading the game
as the pages turn and
Barry seemed attuned to this requirement for rugby players. He
identified games-based
training as the best way to develop this on the field:
You can certainly develop independence through the use of
games which is what I would do –

is make them aware of that through a structured mock game or
structured game and then say,
righto, this is our play from here. (Interview 2, 25 August 2005)
Billy also saw the importance of implicit learning through
games for improving decision-
making and perception but conceived of this more in the vein of
embedding pre-determined
responses and patterns within dynamic physical contexts: ‘It’s
repetitious practice that
becomes embedded in their subconscious and then they become
subconsciously competent
without fear’. Although the others identified the need for
players to respond to cues in
games they were less inclined than Barry to hand over decision-
making responsibility to
the players. Simon suggested that the learning environment of
games-based training pro-
vides opportunities or stimuli that are not present in other forms
of training but was less
inclined to identify games-based training as a way of
developing player independence
than Barry: ‘I think it means that players have to read cues. So,
they start to become pro-
grammed to cues that you can’t actually teach inside a block or
a blocked drill’. Here Simon
identified the opportunities that Game Sense offers for players
to develop perception and
respond to cues in ways that can’t be directly taught but was
still reluctant to let go of
a tightly structured approach to coaching. On the other hand,

Barry encouraged player
risk-taking, creativity and responsibility in responding to game
cues, while the others
wanted to programme players in their responses to cues.
Simon recognised the importance of perception in picking up
cues and the ways in
which the training environment needs to be close to that of the
match and suggested
how aspects of rugby cannot be ‘taught’ but, instead, need to be
learnt through games.
Although his primary use of games and game-like contexts was
to test skills or predeter-
mined plays, interviews suggested an awareness of the need to
adapt to the dynamic and
fluid context of games by picking up cues. He also recognised
the value of the implicit
learning that occurs through playing games and the use of
games to develop aspects of
play that cannot be directly ‘taught’:
The other one (use of games training) is for implicit learning.
So, rather than being told the
whole time they actually – with implicit learning they actually
work things out for themselves
and they work that out through best performance. (Interview 2,
24 August 2005)
Questioning is seen as a central part of the Game Sense as a
player-centred approach and is a
key strategy for developing player independence (Light 2004),
but all four of the coaches in
this study felt that questioning was something that was done at
the completion of the task or
game and not part of the learning process. They did, however,
see questioning as a positive

approach, an opportunity for developing clarity and a chance to
discuss options. Billy’s
response was typical of the coaches’ positions on questioning:
Probably if they make a mistake, rather than tell them what the
mistake is generally to go
through a questioning type situation to see if they can actually
come up with the answer
without belittling them. (Interview 2, 25 August 2005)
Here Billy’s response suggested some support for the use of
questioning in Game Sense but
he did not see it as an important part of his coaching practice.
Developing match-specific fitness
All four of the coaches in this study also used game-based
coaching to develop game-
specific fitness because they felt that games replicated the
physiological demands of
matches. They saw the development of match-specific fitness as
one of the benefits of
games-based training as Barry made clear:
I think there has to be a connection between practice and
fitness. If there’s not we’ve got to
devote more time. Now, for the best use and the most efficient
use of time, we should do it,
and I know we can do it; from experience; therefore you must
do it. Now, I find that game
playing is a fantastic way to get fitness if you ensure that the

rules of the game command it.
In his second interview Simon made a similar statement
regarding the contribution that
games training could make toward fitness. In response to a
question asking whether or
not he felt games were useful for developing fitness he said:
‘Yes, definitely because you
get an over compensation effect, as long as you’re playing
faster than the actual game is
usually played’.
The coaching environment
As one of the last major team sports to abandon the ideal of
amateurism, rugby has under-
gone profound change over the past decade or so since
embracing of professionalism from
1995 (Ryan 2008). It is now a professional sport in which
coaches are paid full-time pro-
fessionals who can aspire to financially rewarding careers.
There are also enormous finan-
cial consequences hinging upon the results of many matches and
resultant expectations on
elite-level coaches to win (Kayes 2007; Jenkins 2006). As Light
(2004) suggests, this can
operate to discourage coaches from experimenting with
innovation such as Game Sense.
Billy said that there was no place for the luxury of having a
coaching ‘philosophy’ in an
environment where there is no guarantee of tenure and coaches
have to be pragmatic. He
felt it was important to work with the players that are available
for the coach and adapt coach-
ing to suit their particular capacities rather than have a pre-

determined ‘philosophy’ such as
that which he saw as underpinning Game Sense. This approach
seems to be common in
professional rugby where, as Billy explained, there is an
emphasis on performance and
limited time to develop players:
To me you coach the people. You don’t plant yourself up there
and say this is the way I play
football. I mean, in some situations you can then contract
players who will play that way or you
can develop players over time and that’s obviously – in a long
term situation you can do that,
but most coaching jobs these days aren’t long term enough to
just have a philosophy and say
you’ll fit it all, bad luck, you must be adaptive. (Interview 1, 30
June 2005)
While a coach in an Australian Institute of Sport development
team might have time
to develop players, any national team is under pressure for
results. The views of
the coaches in this study suggest that such an environment
might not be conducive to
the more holistic and humanistic nature of Game Sense. As
research on TGfU and Game
Sense suggests, it takes time to develop understanding as
knowledge-in-action and is not
easy to quantify. There is a problem with such approaches not
fitting in with clear percep-
tions created by the new professionalism of rugby of players as
a human resource that
needs to be cultivated and ‘maximised’ where time is precious.
This can operate against
the adoption of a Game Sense approach as Jack suggested:

Even though we have professional players we only have a
limited time to coach them. The
game is very technical now and to ask questions (of players) all
the time may reduce the
real time we can coach. (Interview 3, 21 October 2005)
While this quote confirms the perceived lack of time available
for these coaches it also
reflects Jack’s view that the core concern of coaching at elite
levels is with teaching
players the technical aspects of rugby and that, even though
questioning has something
to offer, this is done more efficiently with direct instruction.
Although he agreed that
coaches were under great pressure to achieve results, Barry was
more positively disposed
toward indirect coaching through games. Indeed, he was openly
critical of what he saw as
an overemphasis on direct instruction:
I think one of the giant mistakes about coaching is that we have
to teach people how to play
rugby and I’m sure that people teach themselves how to play
rugby. I’m sure that you learn
how to play rugby by playing and you make mistakes and you
recognise the mistakes and
you get better at it and the general feel for the game is
developed by actually playing. (Interview
1, 28 July 2005)
With the national team, the Wallabies, having an exceptionally

poor year in 2005 similar
criticisms emerged in the print media (Kimber 2005). In a media
interview with Sydney
Premiership-winning Sydney University’s coach, Steven
Surridge, he hinted at a de-
humanisation of elite training while suggesting its limitation in
the preparation of complete,
thinking athletes:
Basically the obsession with training squads and academies is, I
think, actually weakening
Australian Rugby, Surridge said. ‘One of the main problems
with Australian rugby is that
they believe the training can improve player’s performance on
field’, and that is true to a
certain extent, but there’s nothing that will ever replace a game
situation. (Kimber 2005)
Discussion
The coaches in this study used games and valued them as an
important aspect of their train-
ing. They also recognised the ways in which games can develop
aspects of a ‘sense of the
game’ through implicit learning that cannot be directly taught to
players. In these ways they
were using game-based coaching as a significant part of their
training programmes, but
Games Sense pedagogy seems to have had a relatively limited
influence on their coaching.
Instead they tended to adopt directive teaching approaches.
Furthermore, none of them were
familiar with either this specific pedagogy or the concept of
pedagogy in general.
The resources for Game Sense developed and disseminated by

the ASC are all under-
pinned by a pedagogical approach that involves the use of
modified games to achieve
specific learning outcomes and the employment of questioning
instead of direct instruction
(den Duyn 1997). It involves a distinctive, player-centred
pedagogy. However, when the
coaches used the term Game Sense they were more often than
not referring to the idea
of having some sense of the game in a very broad way and not
to its specific, player-
centred pedagogy.
Of the four coaches in this study Barry’s ideas and beliefs about
coaching aligned best
with Game Sense pedagogy and the constructivist perspectives
on learning that have been
used to theorise it (Light 2004). He was easily the strongest
proponent of games-based
coaching and of players learning through, and within, games. He
was also considerably
older then the other coaches, who had developed their ideas
about coaching during a
period over which sport science knowledge had a strong
influence on coaching practice
and rugby coaching was already emerging as a professional
career. He felt that he had
learnt to play rugby through ‘knock up’ games and not through
the influence of coaches:
. . . as young Australian boys we learnt our sport by playing our
sport and we really didn’t have
any such thing as coaches. We didn’t have any such thing as a
field; we didn’t have a marked out
field. We didn’t have any such things as sidelines or for the
most part goal posts. We certainly

didn’t have a referee and at times we didn’t even have a ball.
(Interview 1, 28 July 2005)
The others saw the value of games but tended to adopt a more
directive and structured
approach to coaching that suggested a view of it as a process of
knowledge transmission.
These three coaches used games as a significant part of their
training regimes but did not use
Game Sense pedagogy. Given the lack of attention paid to
pedagogy in coach education
programmes and by the major sport organisations in Australia
this is not surprising
(Dickson 2001).
Game Sense pedagogy repositions the coach and requires and
develops more equal
power relationships between coach and players than the
directive approach. It involves
the coach handing over responsibility and decision-making to
the players in training and
on the field, which is something that Billy, Jack and Simon
were reluctant to do. They
recognised the ways in which games-based training offered
opportunities for developing
perceptual powers, picking up cues and decision-making, but
restricted player autonomy
and choices by having players make responses that involved
choosing from a finite set
of options set by the coach. We suggest that this limiting of
choice and reluctance to ‘let
go’ is a case of not being willing to hand over decision-making

power to the players.
The repositioning of the coach or teacher taking up a Game
Sense approach is one
problem consistently identified in research in schools (Butler
1996). It has also been ident-
ified as a challenge in coaching (Light 2004). Considering the
pressure operating on these
coaches for results in terms of their win/loss ratio this can also
be seen as reluctance to shift
the responsibility for results from the coach to the players.
The coaches’ reluctance to ‘let go’ must be considered within
the context of the
enormous pressures placed on elite-level coaches for week-by-
week results. Few other
professions place people under such intense, constant and public
scrutiny. One has only
to look at the history of coaches who have been in charge of
losing All Blacks sides at
the Rugby World Cup (up until Graham Henry’s re-appointment
in 2007) to realise the
lack of security of coaching at the top and the extent of
relentless scrutiny that elite-level
rugby coaches are subject to. Coaches are thus, understandably,
reluctant to take risks or
depart too far from the status quo of accepted coaching practice.
They are also anxious
about relinquishing control over the players and the structures
they develop to limit
players’ capacities to improvise and experiment. Over the
course of this study the
coaches made comments that suggested a considerable degree of
agreement with the
principles and methods of Game Sense but only Barry was
explicit in his support for
the pedagogical ideas underpinning Game Sense and the idea of

handing over some
power to the players. Barry’s ideas on coaching were very well
aligned with the Game
Sense approach but his lack of familiarity with its player-
centred pedagogy limited his
ability to realise its aims fully.
Conclusion
Although the development of Game Sense a decade ago drew on
existing coaching prac-
tices, its pedagogy made it an innovative approach (Light
2006a) that has since generated
significant interest from researchers in the physical education
and coaching fields. It has had
an influence on coaching in Australia, helped by its initial
promotion by the ASC and the
resources supporting it (den Duyn 1997; Light 2004) but the
study drawn on in this paper
suggests that it’s most distinctive feature – its player-centred
pedagogy – has had far less
impact than its emphasis on the use of modified games. While it
is difficult to generalise
from a close focus study on only four coaches this study does
suggest that, at least at the
elite levels of rugby coaching in Australia, the player-centred
pedagogy of Game Sense
has had minimal impact upon pedagogy in coaching. In doing so
it draws attention to
the issue of pedagogy in coaching. Despite some recent
attention (see, for example, Jones

2006), pedagogy is neglected in coach education programmes
and is underdone in the
coaching literature (Woodman 1993; Dickson 2001). It is only
over the past 4–5 years
that pedagogy has been considered to challenge a dominant
view of coaching as a non-pro-
blematic linear process of knowledge transmission and a non-
critical acceptance of one way
to teach. This is a promising start but this study justifies
concern with the neglect of peda-
gogy in coach education and development programmes.
While coaching has profited from knowledge in the sports
sciences it seems to have
been impervious to the development of knowledge on learning
and teaching. Jones’
(2006) examination of what educational research and
developments have to offer coaching
provides much needed encouragement for coaching research and
education programmes to
recognise that the relationship between coaching and learning is
complex, social in nature
and deserving of more attention than it currently receives.
Recent writing on coaching from
a socio-cultural perspective and research on the development
and application of innovative
pedagogy in coaching that draws on education research provides
great promise for the
development of coaching at all levels (Cassidy, Jones, and
Potrac 2004; Jones 2006;
Kidman 2001, 2005; Light 2006b; Penney 2006). However, this
study suggests that imple-
menting such change in practice is not an easy task. Further
research is needed on coaching
and coach education that challenges its comfortable assumptions
about learning being a

straightforward process of knowledge transmission for good
ideas like Game Sense to
make a significant impact upon rugby coaching at elite levels.
References
Bourdieu, P. 1986. Distinction: A social critique of the
judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. 1996. Teacher responses to Teaching Games for
Understanding. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance 67: 28–33.
Cassidy, T., R. Jones, and P. Potrac. 2004. Understanding sports
coaching: The social, cultural and
pedagogical foundations of coaching practice. London:
Routledge.
Culver, D., and P. Trudel. 2008. Clarifying the concept of
Communities of Practice in sport.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching 39, no. 1:
1–10.
Davis, B., and D. Sumara. 2003. Why aren’t they getting this?
Working through the regressive myths
of constructivist pedagogy. Teaching Education 14, no. 2: 123–
40.
Den Duyn, N. 1997. Game Sense: Developing thinking players.
Canberra, Australia: Australian
Sports Commission.
Dewey, J. 1916/1997. Democracy and education: An
introduction to the philosophy of education.
Repr. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Dickson, S. 2001. A preliminary investigation into the
effectiveness of the national coaching accred-

itation scheme. Canberra, Australia: Australian Sports
Commission.
Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Gréhaigne, J.F., J.F. Richard, and L.L. Griffin. 2005. Teaching
and learning team sports and games.
New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Jenkins, P. 2006. Secret plan to bring back O’Neill. The Daily
Telegraph, December 10, 50–51.
Jones, R.L. 2006. How can educational concepts inform sports
coaching? In, The sports coach as
educator. ed. R.L. Jones, 3–13. London and New York:
Routledge.
Kayes, J. 2007. No excuses for Henry’s men. The Press,
September 6, 3.
Kidman, L. 2001. Developing decision makers: An
empowerment approach to coaching.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Innovative Print Communications.
Kidman, L. 2005. Athlete-centred coaching: Developing
inspired and inspiring people. Christchurch,
New Zealand: Innovative Print Communications.
Kimber, B. 2005. Students’ coach signs off with caning for
powerbrokers. Sydney Morning Herald,
October 9, 68.

Launder, A., and W. Piltz. 2006. Beyond ‘understanding’ to
skilful play in games through Play
Practice. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand 39, no. 1:
47–57.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Light, R. 2002. The social nature of games: Australian pre-
service primary teachers’ experiences of
TGfU. European Physical Education Review 8, no. 2: 291–310.
Light, R. 2004. Coaches’ experience of Game Sense:
Opportunities and challenges. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy 9, no. 2: 115–32.
Light, R. 2005. Introduction: An international perspective on
Teaching Games for Understanding.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10, no. 3: 211–12.
Light, R. 2006a. Game Sense: Innovation or just good coaching?
Journal of Physical Education New
Zealand 39, no. 1: 8–19.
Light, R. ed. 2006b. The games approach to coaching. Special
issue. Journal of Physical Education
New Zealand 39, no. 1.
Light, R. 2008. An examination of complex learning theory, its
epistemology, its assumptions about
how we learn and implications for physical education. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education
27, no. 1: 21–37.

Light, R., and R. Fawns. 2003. Knowing the game: Integrating
speech and action in games teaching
through TGfU. Quest 55: 161–77.
Light, R., and N. Wallian. 2008. A constructivist-informed
approach to teaching swimming. Quest 60:
387–404.
Liu, R. 2004. Teaching Games for Understanding:
Implementation in Hong Kong. In Proceedings for
the second international conference: Teaching sport and
physical education for understanding,
ed. R. Light, K. Swabey and R. Brooker, 53–61. Melbourne,
Australia: University of Melbourne.
Mosston, M., and S. Ashworth. 1986. Teaching physical
education. 3rd ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill
Pub Co.
Penney, D. 2006. Coaching as teaching. In The sports coach as
educator. ed. R.L. Jones, 25–36.
London: Routledge.
Piltz, W. 2004. Reading the game: A key component of
effective instruction in eaching and coaching.
In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on teaching
sport and physical education for
understanding, ed. R. Light, K. Swabey and R. Brooker, 79–89.
Melbourne, Australia:
University of Melbourne.
Ryan, G., ed. 2008. The changing face of rugby: The union
games and professionalism since 1995.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Tan, S., S. Wright, M. McNeill, J. Fry, and C. Tan. 2002.

Implementation of the Games Concept
approach in Singapore schools: A preliminary report. Review of
Educational Research and
Advances for Classroom Teachers 21, no. 1: 77–84.
Wallian, N., and C.-W. Chang. 2007. Language, thinking and
action: Towards a semio-constructivist
approach in physical education. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy 12, no. 3: 289–311.
Watkins, C., and P. Mortimer. 1999. Pedagogy: What do we
know? Understanding pedagogy and its
impact on learning. ed. P. Mortimore, 1–19. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Woodman, L. 1993. Coaching: A science, an art, an emerging
profession. Sports Science Review 2,
no. 2: 1–13.
Wright, J., and G. Forrest. 2007. A social semiotic analysis of
knowledge construction and games
centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy 12, no. 3: 273–87.
Copyright of Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy is the
property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Surrogacy and transnational adoption are very honorable and noble .docx

Surrogacy and transnational adoption are very honorable and noble .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from mabelf3

More from mabelf3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Surrogacy and transnational adoption are very honorable and noble .docx