By Christopher Pahl
PhD Student at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-pahl-9a4874194
PhD Student at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-pahl-9a4874194
When teaching games to build UNDERSTANDING, how can we be confident that players are engaging in the types of thinking known to build understanding, and how can we make that thinking visible to players and coaches so that it can be recognised, interrogated, and extended?
Game-Based Approaches and the Importance of Inquiry
Game-based approaches (GBAs) are commonly associated with learner-centred coaching and teaching philosophies grounded in social and cognitive constructivist perspectives, which emphasise inquiry, problem-based learning, and the active role of the learner (Harvey & Light, 2015; Light & Harvey, 2017; Richardson et al., 2023). From this perspective, learning is not transmitted from coach to player but is constructed through interaction, dialogue, and engagement with meaningful problems.
A defining feature of GBAs is their emphasis on inquiry. Coaches are encouraged to design learning experiences that invite players to engage with the game in meaningful ways by making decisions, exploring tactical problems, and reflecting on the outcomes of their actions (Kidman & Penney, 2014; Kinnerk et al., 2018; Oslin & Mitchell, 2006). Games are therefore positioned not simply as activities, but as carefully designed learning environments.
This approach is believed to support deeper learning and skill development because players are required to actively engage with game problems and develop their own solutions rather than reproduce prescribed techniques (Kinnerk et al., 2018). Important within this framing is the idea that players are empowered as decision-makers, with their individual needs, interpretations, and understandings valued as part of the learning process.
The emphasis on collaboration, dialogue, and shared meaning-making aligns closely with social constructivist learning theory, where understanding is viewed as emerging through social interaction and participation in authentic contexts (Light & Harvey, 2017). However, while these theoretical foundations are well established, translating them into practice through enquiry and questioning can be challenging.
Why Enquiry Is Harder Than It Sounds
Although questioning is widely recognised as a central pedagogical tool in GBAs, research consistently suggests that coaches find it more difficult to implement effectively than direct instruction (Grehaigne & Godbout, 2020; Kinnerk et al., 2018; Roberts, 2011). This difficulty is often magnified in time-pressured training environments, where performance expectations and habitual coaching practices dominate.
Earlier observational research has shown that coaches tend to ask relatively few questions during sessions, relying instead on instruction and feedback (Cushion & Jones, 2001; Potrac, Jones, & Cushion, 2007). When questions are used, they are often employed to manage participation or select turn-takers rather than to deliberately facilitate learning (Groom, Cushion, & Nelson, 2012).
While questioning and reflection are widely acknowledged as important components of learning, there remains a need for practical strategies that help coaches integrate enquiry in ways that are purposeful and sustainable. Encouraging coaches to “ask more questions” is unlikely to be effective unless those questions are engaging for, and responsive to, all learners.
As an emerging teacher and coach, I recall pre-planning questions prior to lessons and training sessions to make the most of enquiry episodes before, in-between and after game-based activities. Some challenges that I encountered were:
I came to appreciate that game-based teaching and coaching did not automatically produce understanding. Understanding reliably emerged when I deliberately designed environments and interactions that elicited, guided, and made players' thinking visible for reflection and further development.
The Kind of Thinking That Builds Understanding
So what kinds of thinking actually build understanding? Work from the Cultures of Thinking project at Harvard Graduate School of Education provides a useful framework by identifying specific forms of thinking that support deep learning and understanding. Rather than treating thinking as an implicit by-product of activity, these processes are viewed as central to learning.
Eight thinking moves, including carefully observing and describing what is happening, asking meaningful questions, considering different perspectives, reasoning with evidence, recognising complexity, making connections, constructing explanations, and synthesising ideas to form conclusions, are identified (Ritchhart & Church, 2020). It is not necessary for each of these types of thinking to occur within a single lesson or training session; understanding develops over time through repeated opportunities to engage in different kinds of thinking across a unit of instruction or training block.
Research has shown that when learners are regularly supported to engage in these kinds of thinking through consistent prompts and routines, learning outcomes improve (Arévalo Balboa & Briesmaster, 2018; Ritchhart & Church, 2020; Sepulveda Larraguibel & Venegas‐Muggli, 2019; Williams & Moore, 2022). This suggests that the challenge for game-based coaching is not simply to include inquiry, but to do so in structured and intentional ways.
Visible Thinking as a Theoretical Lens
Visible Thinking offers language and structure for something TGfU and other GBAs have always valued - making learning public, social, and open to reflection. While a GBA aims to ensure that thinking is required implicitly through game play, Visible Thinking foregrounds the importance of externalising and sharing thinking so it can be examined and developed.
There is strong alignment between the goals of GBAs and the principles of Visible Thinking. GBAs aim to develop thinking players who can adapt their decisions and actions across contexts (Pill, 2016), supporting learning transfer and retention (Oslin & Mitchell, 2006). Questioning and dialogue are central to both approaches, as is the belief that learning is enhanced when players explain, justify, and reflect on their decisions (Harvey & Jarrett, 2014; Ritchhart, 2015).
Visible Thinking contributes practical ways of achieving these goals by encouraging environments where thinking is explicitly valued and routinely surfaced. It also supports ongoing formative assessment by helping coaches better understand what players know, how they are reasoning, and where misconceptions may exist. In this way, Visible Thinking strengthens rather than replaces the pedagogical intent of GBAs.
Making Thinking Visible in Game-Based Coaching
One practical way to make players’ thinking more visible during enquiry episodes is through the regular use of visible thinking routines, such as Think-Pair-Share, See-Think-Wonder or Claim-Support-Question. For coaches, this provides valuable insight into players’ cognitive processes that are otherwise difficult to observe during live play (Harvey & Light, 2015).
This form of formative assessment aligns closely with the goals of game-based coaching, where understanding players’ decision-making is crucial for shaping instruction and feedback. Rather than relying solely on observable performance outcomes, coaches gain access to the reasoning, understanding or misunderstanding that underpins those performances.
From my own experience as both a coach and teacher, this shift has been transformative. Increased visibility of players’ thinking has revealed their curiosities, emerging ideas, and misconceptions. These regularly prompt adjustments to training design that better align with players’ current levels of understanding and learning needs.
Through my work with coaches in professional learning contexts, I have found similar patterns emerge. When coaches attend more deliberately to players’ thinking, they report greater confidence in adapting tasks/activities, asking more purposeful questions, and resisting the urge to provide immediate solutions.
Implications for Coaches and Coach Educators
For coaches and coach educators, making thinking visible invites a shift in emphasis toward the kinds of thinking that learning environments are likely to elicit and how that thinking can be surfaced through dialogue, reflection, and shared representations.
It also requires challenging the assumption that understanding naturally emerges from game play alone. While games provide rich learning contexts, understanding is more likely to develop when coaches intentionally support enquiry and reflection within those contexts.
Finally, making thinking visible encourages coaches to reflect on their questioning practices—when questions are asked, what they are designed to reveal, and how they support learning.
If understanding is truly the goal of TGfU and other GBAs, then thinking must be central to coaching practice. And if thinking matters, it must be made visible. By deliberately designing environments and interactions that surface players’ thinking, coaches can better support learning that is meaningful, adaptable, and enduring.
Game-Based Approaches and the Importance of Inquiry
Game-based approaches (GBAs) are commonly associated with learner-centred coaching and teaching philosophies grounded in social and cognitive constructivist perspectives, which emphasise inquiry, problem-based learning, and the active role of the learner (Harvey & Light, 2015; Light & Harvey, 2017; Richardson et al., 2023). From this perspective, learning is not transmitted from coach to player but is constructed through interaction, dialogue, and engagement with meaningful problems.
A defining feature of GBAs is their emphasis on inquiry. Coaches are encouraged to design learning experiences that invite players to engage with the game in meaningful ways by making decisions, exploring tactical problems, and reflecting on the outcomes of their actions (Kidman & Penney, 2014; Kinnerk et al., 2018; Oslin & Mitchell, 2006). Games are therefore positioned not simply as activities, but as carefully designed learning environments.
This approach is believed to support deeper learning and skill development because players are required to actively engage with game problems and develop their own solutions rather than reproduce prescribed techniques (Kinnerk et al., 2018). Important within this framing is the idea that players are empowered as decision-makers, with their individual needs, interpretations, and understandings valued as part of the learning process.
The emphasis on collaboration, dialogue, and shared meaning-making aligns closely with social constructivist learning theory, where understanding is viewed as emerging through social interaction and participation in authentic contexts (Light & Harvey, 2017). However, while these theoretical foundations are well established, translating them into practice through enquiry and questioning can be challenging.
Why Enquiry Is Harder Than It Sounds
Although questioning is widely recognised as a central pedagogical tool in GBAs, research consistently suggests that coaches find it more difficult to implement effectively than direct instruction (Grehaigne & Godbout, 2020; Kinnerk et al., 2018; Roberts, 2011). This difficulty is often magnified in time-pressured training environments, where performance expectations and habitual coaching practices dominate.
Earlier observational research has shown that coaches tend to ask relatively few questions during sessions, relying instead on instruction and feedback (Cushion & Jones, 2001; Potrac, Jones, & Cushion, 2007). When questions are used, they are often employed to manage participation or select turn-takers rather than to deliberately facilitate learning (Groom, Cushion, & Nelson, 2012).
While questioning and reflection are widely acknowledged as important components of learning, there remains a need for practical strategies that help coaches integrate enquiry in ways that are purposeful and sustainable. Encouraging coaches to “ask more questions” is unlikely to be effective unless those questions are engaging for, and responsive to, all learners.
As an emerging teacher and coach, I recall pre-planning questions prior to lessons and training sessions to make the most of enquiry episodes before, in-between and after game-based activities. Some challenges that I encountered were:
- Uncertainty whether the responses that I received were representative of the entire group (despite subsequent players regularly asserting that they agreed with the first response!)
- Engaging all learners with the question/provocation
- Eliciting depth in responses
- Providing opportunities for players to connect and transfer, rather than doing that for them
- Time
- Generating authentic questions and wonder from the players, rather than only having them respond to my questions
I came to appreciate that game-based teaching and coaching did not automatically produce understanding. Understanding reliably emerged when I deliberately designed environments and interactions that elicited, guided, and made players' thinking visible for reflection and further development.
The Kind of Thinking That Builds Understanding
So what kinds of thinking actually build understanding? Work from the Cultures of Thinking project at Harvard Graduate School of Education provides a useful framework by identifying specific forms of thinking that support deep learning and understanding. Rather than treating thinking as an implicit by-product of activity, these processes are viewed as central to learning.
Eight thinking moves, including carefully observing and describing what is happening, asking meaningful questions, considering different perspectives, reasoning with evidence, recognising complexity, making connections, constructing explanations, and synthesising ideas to form conclusions, are identified (Ritchhart & Church, 2020). It is not necessary for each of these types of thinking to occur within a single lesson or training session; understanding develops over time through repeated opportunities to engage in different kinds of thinking across a unit of instruction or training block.
Research has shown that when learners are regularly supported to engage in these kinds of thinking through consistent prompts and routines, learning outcomes improve (Arévalo Balboa & Briesmaster, 2018; Ritchhart & Church, 2020; Sepulveda Larraguibel & Venegas‐Muggli, 2019; Williams & Moore, 2022). This suggests that the challenge for game-based coaching is not simply to include inquiry, but to do so in structured and intentional ways.
Visible Thinking as a Theoretical Lens
Visible Thinking offers language and structure for something TGfU and other GBAs have always valued - making learning public, social, and open to reflection. While a GBA aims to ensure that thinking is required implicitly through game play, Visible Thinking foregrounds the importance of externalising and sharing thinking so it can be examined and developed.
There is strong alignment between the goals of GBAs and the principles of Visible Thinking. GBAs aim to develop thinking players who can adapt their decisions and actions across contexts (Pill, 2016), supporting learning transfer and retention (Oslin & Mitchell, 2006). Questioning and dialogue are central to both approaches, as is the belief that learning is enhanced when players explain, justify, and reflect on their decisions (Harvey & Jarrett, 2014; Ritchhart, 2015).
Visible Thinking contributes practical ways of achieving these goals by encouraging environments where thinking is explicitly valued and routinely surfaced. It also supports ongoing formative assessment by helping coaches better understand what players know, how they are reasoning, and where misconceptions may exist. In this way, Visible Thinking strengthens rather than replaces the pedagogical intent of GBAs.
Making Thinking Visible in Game-Based Coaching
One practical way to make players’ thinking more visible during enquiry episodes is through the regular use of visible thinking routines, such as Think-Pair-Share, See-Think-Wonder or Claim-Support-Question. For coaches, this provides valuable insight into players’ cognitive processes that are otherwise difficult to observe during live play (Harvey & Light, 2015).
This form of formative assessment aligns closely with the goals of game-based coaching, where understanding players’ decision-making is crucial for shaping instruction and feedback. Rather than relying solely on observable performance outcomes, coaches gain access to the reasoning, understanding or misunderstanding that underpins those performances.
From my own experience as both a coach and teacher, this shift has been transformative. Increased visibility of players’ thinking has revealed their curiosities, emerging ideas, and misconceptions. These regularly prompt adjustments to training design that better align with players’ current levels of understanding and learning needs.
Through my work with coaches in professional learning contexts, I have found similar patterns emerge. When coaches attend more deliberately to players’ thinking, they report greater confidence in adapting tasks/activities, asking more purposeful questions, and resisting the urge to provide immediate solutions.
Implications for Coaches and Coach Educators
For coaches and coach educators, making thinking visible invites a shift in emphasis toward the kinds of thinking that learning environments are likely to elicit and how that thinking can be surfaced through dialogue, reflection, and shared representations.
It also requires challenging the assumption that understanding naturally emerges from game play alone. While games provide rich learning contexts, understanding is more likely to develop when coaches intentionally support enquiry and reflection within those contexts.
Finally, making thinking visible encourages coaches to reflect on their questioning practices—when questions are asked, what they are designed to reveal, and how they support learning.
If understanding is truly the goal of TGfU and other GBAs, then thinking must be central to coaching practice. And if thinking matters, it must be made visible. By deliberately designing environments and interactions that surface players’ thinking, coaches can better support learning that is meaningful, adaptable, and enduring.
References
Arévalo Balboa, F., & Briesmaster, M. (2018). “Claim-Support-Question” Routine to Foster Coherence Within Interactive Oral Communication Among EFL Students. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, 20(2), 143-160.
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2001). A systematic observation of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of sport behavior, 24(4).
Grehaigne, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (2020). Debate of Ideas and Understanding With Regard to Tactical Learning in Team Sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2019-0269
Groom, R., Cushion, C. J., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Analysing coach–athlete ‘talk in interaction’within the delivery of video-based performance feedback in elite youth soccer. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 4(3), 439-458.
Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.754005
Harvey, S., & Light, R. L. (2015). Questioning for learning in game-based approaches to teaching and coaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(2), 175-190.
Kidman, L., & Penney, D. (2014). Promoting and supporting coaches’ professional learning: Developing a community of practice. Journal of athlete centred coaching, 1(1), 6-13.
Kinnerk, P., Harvey, S., MacDonncha, C., & Lyons, M. (2018). A Review of the Game-Based Approaches to Coaching Literature in Competitive Team Sport Settings. Quest, 70(4), 401-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2018.1439390
Light, R. L., & Harvey, S. (2017). Positive pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 271-287.
Oslin, J., & Mitchell, S. (2006). Handbook of Physical Education. In. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608009
Pill, S. (2016). Making learning visible-The pedagogy of questioning in a Game Sense approach. 2015 Game Sense for Teaching and Coaching Conference,
Potrac, P., Jones, R., & Cushion, C. (2007). Understanding power and the coach’s role in professional English soccer: A preliminary investigation of coach behaviour. Soccer & Society, 8(1), 33-49.
Richardson, S. J., McRobert, A. P., Vinson, D., Cronin, C. J., Lee, C., & Roberts, S. J. (2023). Systematic Review of Sport Coaches’ and Teachers’ Perceptions and Application of Game-Based and Constraints-Led Pedagogy: A Qualitative Meta-Study. Quest, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2023.2257343
Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. John Wiley & Sons.
Ritchhart, R., & Church, M. (2020). The power of making thinking visible: Practices to engage and empower all learners. John Wiley & Sons.
Roberts, S. J. (2011). Teaching Games for Understanding: the difficulties and challenges experienced by participation cricket coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980903273824
Sepulveda Larraguibel, Y., & Venegas‐Muggli, J. I. (2019). Effects of Using Thinking Routines on the Academic Results of Business Students at a Chilean Tertiary Education Institution. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 17(4), 405-417.
Williams, N., & Moore, S. (2022). The Role of a Selected Thinking Routine in the Development of Critical Thinking Skills in Preschool Students. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46425/c034302b9859
Arévalo Balboa, F., & Briesmaster, M. (2018). “Claim-Support-Question” Routine to Foster Coherence Within Interactive Oral Communication Among EFL Students. Profile Issues in TeachersProfessional Development, 20(2), 143-160.
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2001). A systematic observation of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of sport behavior, 24(4).
Grehaigne, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (2020). Debate of Ideas and Understanding With Regard to Tactical Learning in Team Sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2019-0269
Groom, R., Cushion, C. J., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Analysing coach–athlete ‘talk in interaction’within the delivery of video-based performance feedback in elite youth soccer. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 4(3), 439-458.
Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.754005
Harvey, S., & Light, R. L. (2015). Questioning for learning in game-based approaches to teaching and coaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(2), 175-190.
Kidman, L., & Penney, D. (2014). Promoting and supporting coaches’ professional learning: Developing a community of practice. Journal of athlete centred coaching, 1(1), 6-13.
Kinnerk, P., Harvey, S., MacDonncha, C., & Lyons, M. (2018). A Review of the Game-Based Approaches to Coaching Literature in Competitive Team Sport Settings. Quest, 70(4), 401-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2018.1439390
Light, R. L., & Harvey, S. (2017). Positive pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 271-287.
Oslin, J., & Mitchell, S. (2006). Handbook of Physical Education. In. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608009
Pill, S. (2016). Making learning visible-The pedagogy of questioning in a Game Sense approach. 2015 Game Sense for Teaching and Coaching Conference,
Potrac, P., Jones, R., & Cushion, C. (2007). Understanding power and the coach’s role in professional English soccer: A preliminary investigation of coach behaviour. Soccer & Society, 8(1), 33-49.
Richardson, S. J., McRobert, A. P., Vinson, D., Cronin, C. J., Lee, C., & Roberts, S. J. (2023). Systematic Review of Sport Coaches’ and Teachers’ Perceptions and Application of Game-Based and Constraints-Led Pedagogy: A Qualitative Meta-Study. Quest, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2023.2257343
Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. John Wiley & Sons.
Ritchhart, R., & Church, M. (2020). The power of making thinking visible: Practices to engage and empower all learners. John Wiley & Sons.
Roberts, S. J. (2011). Teaching Games for Understanding: the difficulties and challenges experienced by participation cricket coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(1), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980903273824
Sepulveda Larraguibel, Y., & Venegas‐Muggli, J. I. (2019). Effects of Using Thinking Routines on the Academic Results of Business Students at a Chilean Tertiary Education Institution. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 17(4), 405-417.
Williams, N., & Moore, S. (2022). The Role of a Selected Thinking Routine in the Development of Critical Thinking Skills in Preschool Students. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46425/c034302b9859
