Effects of season period, team quality, and playing time on basketball players' game-related statistics

The aim of this study was to identify within-season differences in basketball players' game-related statistics according to team quality and playing time. The sample comprised 5309 records from 198 players in the Spanish professional basketball league (2007-2008). Factor analysis with principal components was applied to the game-related statistics gathered from the official box-scores, which limited the analysis to five factors (free-throws, 2-point field-goals, 3-point field-goals, passes, and errors) and two variables (defensive and offensive rebounds). A two-step cluster analysis classified the teams as stronger (69 ± 8 winning percentage), intermediate (43 ± 5 winning percentage), and weaker teams (32 ± 5 winning percentage); individual players were classified based on playing time as important players (28 ± 4 min) or less important players (16 ± 4 min). Seasonal variation was analysed monthly in eight periods. A mixed linear model was applied to identify the effects of team quality and playing time within the months of the season on the previously identified factors and game-related statistics. No significant effect of season period was observed. A team quality effect was identified, with stronger teams being superior in terms of 2-point field-goals and passes. The weaker teams were the worst at defensive rebounding (stronger teams: 0.17 ± 0.05; intermediate teams: 0.17 ± 0.06; weaker teams: 0.15 ± 0.03; P = 0.001). While playing time was significant in almost all variables, errors were the most important factor when contrasting important and less important players, with fewer errors being made by important players. The trends identified can help coaches and players to create performance profiles according to team quality and playing time. However, these performance profiles appear to be independent of season period.

A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006

Background: In 2006, Oslin and Mitchell published a review of the game-centred approaches (GCAs) to teaching and coaching literature highlighting a number of core concepts thought to provide justification for the use of GCAs including (a) its potential to enhance participant motivation, (b) potential for tactical transfer, and (c) development of decision-making skills and effective decision-makers. Oslin and Mitchell also suggested recommendations for future GCA research.Purpose: The purpose of this paper was threefold: (a) to present a review of Anglophone research into GCAs building on the previous review of Oslin and Mitchell published in 2006; (b) to identify new trends in research since 2006; and (c) to investigate the extent to which the initial suggestions and future research directions suggested by Oslin and Mitchell have been addressed.Data collection: GCA literature since 2006 was searched systematically using a three-phase approach. Phase 1 included initial searches of the EBSCO database using terms associated with GCAs and their acronyms (e.g. TGfU (teaching games for understanding), GS (Game Sense), etc.). Phase 2 expanded the search adopting more generic terms from keywords located in the recent literature (e.g. teaching games, tactical development, game performance, etc.). Multiple searches through the EBSCO database were conducted, whereby key terms were cross-referenced until a saturation point was reached. Phase 3 involved removing those publications that were not empirical, peer reviewed, intervention studies or published in English.Findings: Forty-four studies on GCA implementation were identified and the methodological and substantive nature of these studies was examined. The review noted two positive trends: (a) the expansion of research which included the growth of research on GCAs in Europe and Southeast Asia and (b) an increased amount of research in the affective domain. The review found, however, that a number of key challenges remain within GCA research, which include (a) the need for improved articulation of GCA verification procedures; (b) further assessment of tactical awareness development; (c) extended inquiry about GCAs in coaching contexts; (d) more research into ‘newer’ GCAs (i.e. PP (play practice), IGCM (invasion game competence model) and TDLM (tactical decision learning model)); (e) use of longitudinal research designs; (f) inadequate length of GCA induction and training for teachers and coaches, and (g) examination of GCAs in terms of fitness and special populations.Conclusions: GCA pedagogies are of significant importance as they have the potential to promote change within current adult-centric cultures of youth sport and encourage engagement in physical activity over the life course. To meet these needs, it is recommended that GCA research undergo continued expansion with the use of research designs and data collection techniques that aid the examination of different philosophical understandings of GCAs (e.g. ethnographic, phenomenological and psycho-phenomenological). These are paramount to the exploration of ‘who the individual is’ and ‘how the learner is motivated to continue to participate’ and further permit the in-depth, contextual and ecological analysis of GCA interventions that Oslin and Mitchell recommended in their previous review.

A model for critical games literacy

This article outlines a model for teaching both computer games and videogames in the classroom for teachers. The model illustrates the connections between in-game actions and youth gaming culture. The article explains how the out-of-school knowledge building, creation and collaboration that occurs in gaming and gaming culture has an impact on students' understanding of their own lifeworlds. The authors demonstrate how the development of curricula around and with games and gaming cultures can incorporate and capitalise on approaches to learning and collaboration, design and identity that students have developed in their own gaming practices.

Similar, but not the same: comparing the game based approaches of TGfU and game sense

The development and use of game based approaches (GBAs) across a range of global teaching and coaching settings has expanded significantly over the last two decades. And with each GBA underpinned by similar theories of learning, distinctions between each approach can often be blurred. Arguably, this can lead to teachers' and coaches' blended conceptualisations of different pedagogical approaches. Thus, although similar there is a need for teachers and coaches to recognise that not all GBAs are the same with each model or approach chosen impacting significantly upon learner experiences. Through analysis of literature and presentation of teaching/coaching lesson/session outlines, this paper presents similarities and differences of two game based instructional pedagogies - TGfU and Game Sense - and discusses the need for teachers and coaches to recognise and respond to the contextual differences of each when considering their use.