Story telling is powerful. We are all aware of this. We are surrounded by forms of storytelling in our everyday lives. It has been used to hand down knowledge, punch home a point or purely for entertainment purposes. There are many strong reasons for this.
“Storytelling links potential future states to the actors within them. Once this link is made, problems that will exist, and potential solutions, become much clearer.” (Petrick 2014)
In the manner of Kitrina’s First Tea story in Carless and Douglas’ Stories as Personal Coaching Philosophy I will attempt to examine how my relationship with a particular group of players developed and settled upon a method of pedagogy that suited their context.
This particular group have now been coached by me for three years. I first met them in year 3 where they were very much in the sampling stage. Their context has altered as they have developed. During year 3 some started to edge towards a performance context as they became involved with development centres. As they moved through year 4 and into year 5 (their current school year) they have definitely moved past the sampling stage and sit somewhere between participation and performance. With the context being that of an after school football club on Friday this must be viewed as predominantly a participation session. After all, how much learning do children want to do at that stage of the week? How much should they do?
The session has always been 45 to 50 minutes (after they have changed). I worked within my beliefs and ideologies, doing lots of ball related work, progressing into 1v1s, 2v2s and 3v3s, before moving into matches. The group was generally 12-16 boys, so I would set up two games of 3v3 or 4v4. These slowly developed into games that would challenge them mentally.
At times it was difficult to keep them under control. The group contained certain characters who played “on the edge” (even in year 3) and others who were very sensitive to a challenge or even a missed chance. These children were young and it was their times. I had to keep them interested and let learning happen in an environment that forced it to happen (in the kindest possible way).
Year 5 began with me being under prepared for the Friday session. An important aspect here is that a major change occurs when the group reach year 5 at this session. They graduate to the pitch with goals. They also move onto a larger format of matches at school and with their clubs. The STEP principle changes accordingly, we had more space and different attractors. I could have decided that we were going to just play one big game for 45 minutes, as they are not at the session for learning or development purposes. At least not explicit learning. The learning has been far more tacit with the game set up the teacher. I chose to go with a tried and tested set up that develops;
“the “5Cs” of football: commitment, communication, concentration, control, and confidence (Harwood, 2005; please refer to Higham, Harwood, and Cale [2005] for more details on the 5Cs or contact the first author for log-book advice.) These terms served to reflect the key motivational, self-regulatory, and interpersonal attributes that typically form the spine of educational interventions.” (Harwood 2008)
Through the medium of play players were facing differing scenarios but they had the ability to insert and switch players around for tactical purposes. Which some comprehended and others did not, they allowed themselves to be led by their team mates who they perceived to be more experienced.
“In the case of games, players are capable of learning during play and, either spontaneously or in a delayed manner, of integrating that learning into subsequent play; therefore, no two games can ever be identical. It stands to reason that if no two games can be alike, then learning within games is also variable.” (B. Storey and J. Butler 2013)
They lapped it up. There was quality too. They enjoyed it so much that they asked to do it again the next week. So we did. At the end of the session we had a discussion about what to do next. The boys wanted their “big game”. So I gave it to them but with a constrained scoring system. We played a version of football bingo. The two teams had a number of different types of goals to score, the team that scored the most of these type of goal won the game. The players had the opportunity to choose the goals (checking understanding and ownership). Certain players were able to display an understanding of the different actions required to score the goals. Crosses for headers or volleys, cut backs for “sweaties”, bold and brave individual runs in order to score solo goals and so on. The constraints warped the realism of the match they did encourage and create certain actions (affordances).
Once more a conversation was had about what would follow. Everyone wanted to stick to playing matches but with different ways of scoring. The conversation turned to game actions and giving them a points value. At the beginning of the session the two teams discussed what those might be. The below are what they came up with in 30 seconds.
- Scoring a goal
- A rabona
- Switching play
- A sequence of passes
- First time finishes
- Nutmeg
In the beginning everything was given a 1 point value. They were picking up rabonas for fun so everything else was given a 2 point value. A time out was then taken. I checked their understanding of what switching play was. They all understood the idea, but had been unable to demonstrate it in action. I asked them about their passing sequences, had they got anywhere close? The answer was no. Did they have any idea why that might be? Several responses came around trying to play forward too quickly. They went back out there but the passes did not really improve. I changed the reward for the passes. It was now ten points for five passes. The emphasis of their play quickly changed and one team achieved the goal. As soon as they made the sequence they stopped and cheered! The other team promptly took the ball and scored! They didn’t care, an 8 point swing and the game had changed. The team who were behind now started to work harder for their sequence. Late in the game they got it! Now they led by one. I took the ten points out out of the equation and we had frantic five minutes of attacks. The switch had not been achieved but I was not worried. The boys had been deep inside the practice. Approaching a state of flow.
“Flow theory represents the person as a system that acts according to three integrated “teleonotnies” or motivational systems: the genetic teleonomy, the cultural teleonomy, and the teleonomy of the self. The genetic teleonomy corresponds to seeking pleasures and goals that are genetically programmed in the person’s organism, such as eating and being healthy or sexually satisfied. The cultural teleonomy consists of seeking and maintaining social and economical success. The teleonomy of the self leads to reorganization and growth in the order and complexity of consciousness, which the person experiences as enjoyable and rewarding even in the absence of concomitant genetic and cultural prompt or reinforcement. The flow theory postulates that the optimal conditions for subjective experience (flow in consciousness) occur when the person is primarily driven by the teleonomy of the self.” (Giovanni B. Moneta and Mihaly Csiksientmihalyi 1996)
A debate could be had with regards to realism around the affordances created in this game. Is it realistic to focus on making five passes rather than going for goal? In certain circumstances it may be, but generally it is not. However, within a game the constraint placed upon them encouraged them to work on passing and movement. This was not as forced as it might be in other circumstances, the situation of the match (being behind) and having a large reward (ten points compared to two) meant that the participants made the choice of taking up the challenge. Their openness to this approach allows us to explore a greater number of possibilities that are close to the game itself. I have no doubt that the session will flit between CLA and TGFU, just as I am sure that there will be instances where elements of both are used at the same time.
“CLA and TGfU are one and the same thing. They are not. We also seek to demonstrate that while TGfU is essentially a games-based model, the CLA has the capacity to be more than ‘just’ a games-based model.” (Ian Renshaw, Duarte Araújo, Chris Button, Jia Yi Chow, Keith Davids & Brendan Moy 2016)
Every story has some sort of arch that builds to denouement. In entertainment these are usually dramatic or have a good moral. In this case our arch is that of recognition. The recognition of the changing context of the players and the recognition of the actions of the coach. In this context play was of vital importance, but the players also needed some mechanism for learning. The current development has started to push towards the CLA environment. The context may change, but the key will always be that this is an after school club and participation rules.
The story continues… What will happen when we get to year 6?
The Power Of Storytelling – Irene Petrick (2014) The Power of Storytelling, Research-Technology Management, 57:2, 54-55
Stories as Personal Coaching Philosophy – David Carless and Kitrina Douglas. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 6 · Number 1 · 2011
Developmental Consulting in a Professional Football Academy: The 5Cs Coaching Efficacy Program – Chris Harwood Loughborough University – The Sport Psychologist, 2008, 22, 109-133 © 2008 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Brian Storey & Joy Butler (2013) Complexity thinking in PE: game-centred approaches, games as complex adaptive systems, and ecological values, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18:2, 133-149, DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2011.649721
Journal of Personality – June 1, 1996 Effect of Perceived Challenges and Skills on the Quality of Subjective Experience – Giovanni B. Moneta and Mihaly Csiksientmihalyi
Ian Renshaw, Duarte Araújo, Chris Button, Jia Yi Chow, Keith Davids & Brendan Moy (2016) Why the Constraints-Led Approach is not Teaching Games for Understanding: a clarification, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21:5, 459-480, DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870