Quest

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

Revisiting the Tactical-Decision Learning Model

Paul Godbout & Jean-Françis Gréhaigne

To cite this article: Paul Godbout & Jean-Françis Gréhaigne (2020): Revisiting the Tactical-
Decision Learning Model, Quest, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2020.1792953

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2020.1792953

Published online: 07 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 82

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uqst20
QUEST
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2020.1792953

Revisiting the Tactical-Decision Learning Model

a b
Paul Godbout and Jean-Françis Gréhaigne
a
Physical Education, Laval University, Neuville, Canada; bUniversité Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Izeure,
France

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The purpose of this article was to examine the potential contri­ Constructivism; nonlinear
bution of a particular student-oriented and socio-constructivist pedagogy; T-DLM;
teaching model, T-DLM, with respect to (a) constructivism and metacognition; self-
regulation of learning
nonlinear pedagogy and (b) the development of metacognitive
awareness and self-regulation of learning in students engaged in
a team-sport teaching/learning process. In the first section, we
describe the main features of nonlinear pedagogy and of con­
structivism and socio-constructivism in view of relating them to
T-DLM. Then, after a description of the context in which T-DLM
was developed, the components of the model are discussed in
relation to constructivism and nonlinear pedagogy. Several fea­
tures of the model, such as observing, experiencing tactical pro­
blems while engaged in adapted sport activities, debating, and
reflecting on prior game play, provide opportunities for the
development of students’ metacognitive awareness and self-
regulation of learning.

Although present in the literature since the late 1970s (see Flavell, 1979), the construct
of metacognition still seems to evoke, for many educators, something mysterious and
confined into one’s brain. With the growing interest in tactical learning in team sports,
student-centered teaching strategies in Physical Education (PE) have become a regular
topic in our literature. This is evidenced by the proposal of several game-based
approaches such as, among others, Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU)
(Bunker & Thorpe, 1982), Game Sense approach (Light, 2004), Tactical Game
approach (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997) and the tactical-decision learning model
(T-DLM) (Gréhaigne, Richard, & Griffin, 2005; Gréhaigne, Wallian, & Godbout, 2005)
(see Kinnerk, Harvey, MacDonncha, & Lyons, 2018, for additional models). Research
reports and practitioners’ testimonies have flourished in research journals and prac­
tice-oriented journals as well. Discussed in the next section of this article, nonlinear
pedagogy and constructivism have become more familiar terms. Likewise, although
with some delay, metacognition is tiptoeing into our pedagogical environment.
The purpose of this article was to examine the potential contribution of a particular
student-oriented and socio-constructivist teaching model, T-DLM, with respect to (a) con­
structivism and nonlinear pedagogy and (b) the development of metacognitive awareness and
self-regulation of learning in students engaged in a team-sport teaching/learning process.

CONTACT Paul Godbout paul.godbout@videotron.ca Physical Education, Laval University, Neuville, Quebec G0A
2R0, Canada.
© 2020 National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education (NAKHE)
2 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

Evolving landscape of pedagogy in physical and sport education

Nonlinear pedagogy (NP)
In the 1970s, most of if not all college textbooks on “motor learning and performance” or
“motor learning and control” presented various classifications for motor skills or move­
ments. Among them was the open/closed skill continuum. Briefly, a closed skill relates to
a performance in which one is faced with a clear-cut motor task with no possible inter­
ference from the environment. On the other hand, an open skill relates to performing an
activity in a variable environment requiring continuous decision-making on the part of the
performer. Throwing a dart repeatedly toward a fixed target on a wall, under the same
circumstances, would be representative of a closed task. At the other end of the continuum,
throwing a football toward a running playmate, while trying to avoid the defense’s rush, and
his target trying to set free of other defensive players would be representative, probably at its
best, of an open task. While the performing of a closed task, thus in a constant set-up, may
be looked at as being a linear achievement, the performing of an open task is subject to
numerous variable conditions that may influence the context and, potentially, the result
from one trial to another; thus, its nonlinear feature, meaning that the situation encountered
is by definition a variable one.
Whether it bears a direct or an analogic filiation with the open-ended task notion, it is
acknowledged that NP is related to the field of motor learning. Thus, it is no surprise that
the notion of nonlinearity would eventually percolate into the realm of school physical
education (PE). NP refers to pedagogical principles adapted to the teaching of, among
others, PE subject-matters that, by nature, confront students with learning to physically
perform in variable environments. Several components of a classic PE curriculum may fit
with that definition, but to a various extent. For instance, track and field activities like
throwing, jumping, or running are performed in relatively stable environments. Playing
single in Badminton involves playing without a partner and against only one opponent.
Team sports, involving several teammates and opponents, likely represent the most non­
linear subject-matter in the PE curriculum. While performing, each player has to deal with
several teammates, taking into account several opponents. That being said, whatever the
activity involved, either with reference to sport, dance, some fitness activity, recreational
activities, or something else, any variable condition likely to occur in the normal practice of
the activity may be felt as a constraint by the performer who needs to adapt to variations of
that constraint. It follows that a constraints-led approach is closely related to NP (see, for
instance, Chow et al., 2007; Tan, Chow, & Davids, 2012).
By the turn of the century, motor learning researchers associated task constraints with
changing demands of dynamic timing performances in sport (Davids, Kingsbury, Bennet, &
Handford, 2001). A few years later, the affiliation was made between task constraint and
nonlinear dynamics (Davids, Button, Araujo, Renshaw, & Hristovski, 2006) while research­
ers looked for movement models in sport and physical activity. As far as we can see, likely in
relation with the notions of task constraints and nonlinear dynamics, the construct of NP
appeared in the literature in the same period of time (early 2000s) in articles written by the
same group of researchers from the motor learning domain (Chow et al., 2007; Davids,
Chow, & Shuttleworth, 2005). Thereafter, publications dealing with NP in physical and
sport education appeared on a regular basis, a significant occurrence being the publication
of a special issue in the Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy journal (Renshaw & Chow,
 QUEST 3

2019b). Although somewhat difficult to decipher at times (Renshaw & Chow, 2019a), design
principles associated with NP may be drawn from Tan et al. (2012), and Chow (2013).
Among them, one finds:
a- ensuring representativeness and situated learning: selecting a team game or sport that bears
social significance (e.g., soccer in France or basketball in USA);

b- manipulating tasks constraints: adapting constraints (e.g., instruction, rules of activity, and
equipment and size of play) in order to make students explore and develop different tactical
behaviors;

c- facilitating information-tactics coupling and affordances: having students associate the

perception of specific game play occurrences with promising tactics, thus providing them
with opportunities for successful actions (affordances);

d- providing functional variability: providing students with opportunities for exploring various
ways to perform technically or tactically;

e- putting the accent on external attentional focus: having students focus on movement or
tactics outcome rather than the body movement or the tactical behavior as such (internal
focus);

f- sampling: drawn from TGFU principles, sampling refers to providing students with oppor­
tunities to explore various sport activities, generalizing over other sports tactical knowledge
developed with reference to one activity.

Although the topic of the article does not directly address nonlinear pedagogy, one can
establish elements of convergence with T-DLM as the reader will see later when we discuss
T-DLM and allude to some of the principles mentioned above.

Constructivism and socio-constructivism

Constructivism is a learning theory developed, among others, by Piaget (1936), an
answer to behaviorism that, for him, reduced too much learning to a stimulus-
response association, the subject being considered a black box. Constructivism assumes
that an individual’s knowledge is not a faithful copy of reality but a more or less
representative model self-constructed over time. Constructivism focuses on the study
of mechanisms and processes that allow the person’s construction of that model based
on elements previously integrated.
Understanding, constantly renewed, builds up from representations of past occur­
rences that a person restructures internally. Learning may be defined as a sense-
construction activity in which one reorganizes his/her expectation horizon. Learning
constructivist-theory (Piaget, 1969; Vygotski, 1934; Vygotsky, 1978) considers that it is
in interacting with the environment that one elaborates adaptation strategies. While
constructing knowledge, the student goes from one interpretative system to another. In
other words, the learner builds internal constructs of knowledge and skills from
previous experiences by testing and modifying previously established schemas (Butz,
2018). “In cognitive constructivism, learners pass through stages of cognitive develop­
ment at different rates and therefore allow a new means of processing information to
emerge. Once a developmental stage is entered, reverting to a previous stage of
development, or skipping a stage entirely, is not possible” (Butz, 2018, p. 14). If we
4 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

consider that a student, involved in a didactical situation, interacts with the teachers
and his/her peers, then we can say that he/she resorts to an authentic reflexive activity
that musters critical thinking, reflective practice and his/her interpretative capacities.
Knowledge is de-constructed and re-constructed on the basis of confrontations with
meanings extracted from action and interactions with the teacher and the peers.
“Social constructivism emphasizes the role that culture plays in cognitive development.
Knowledge is first constructed in a social context before being internalized by the
learner. Language serves as a means of developing cognition and critical thought”
(Butz, 2018, p. 14).
In this semio-constructivist perspective (Wallian & Gréhaigne, 2004), the problem consists
in (a) deciphering how students manage to learn each in their own way, and (b) under­
standing how their interchange between thought and action operates. In the “semio-
constructivist” expression, “semio” refers to language, semiotics being defined as the study
of the meaning of language, signs and symbols. The challenge, for researchers, is trying to
extract, from students’ wordings, indications of tactical behaviors generated during game play.
A social constructivist approach to teaching implies not only a profound commitment to
active learning on the part of the student but also a shared one, each student joining with
fellow students and the teacher in a learning community. While revisiting T-DLM later, we
will see that through game-play experiences, observers’ feedbacks, discussion among team­
mates, and planning of action projects for further game play, students confront their prior
representation of reality with dissonant inputs either from teammate-observers, reflection
on action, or exchanges with teammates. This triggers a restructuration of previous repre­
sentations, as mentioned earlier.

Similarities between NP and socio-constructivism

Constructivism-based pedagogy and nonlinear pedagogy were not developed in rela­
tion to the same premises. Nevertheless, some similarities between these two teaching/
learning models may be noted. Three common features come to mind. First, both
approaches promote embedded and situated learning: embedded in the sense that
learning, particularly tactical learning, can only occur if learners immerse themselves
in actual game play; situated in the sense that activities experienced by students
correspond to activities that are part of their cultural environment. A second common
feature is the student-centered characteristic of both approaches. Constructivism is, by
definition, student- or learner-centered, student learning being an individual experi­
ence even through shared understanding. “The focus of nonlinear pedagogy is on the
individual learner and, clearly, student-centric” (Chow, 2013, p. 473); although not
inherent to the intrinsic nature of NP, this leaning may be related to the influence of
pedagogical models such as TGFU (Chow, 2013). Finally, functional variability repre­
sents a third common characteristic of both approaches, but on different grounds.
From an NP viewpoint, letting students explore various ways of performing a given
motor or, for that matter, a tactical task is sound since it increases students’ flexibility
in terms of motor behavior. From a constructivist viewpoint, letting students explore is
less a matter of increasing flexibility of motor behavior than a matter of constructing,
over time, satisfactory individual motor solutions to technical or tactical problems
encountered during game play.
 QUEST 5

T-DLM features that enhance learning

Background of T-DLM development
The 1970s and 1980s were years of great changes in France with regard to the ways PE teaching
and learning used to be envisioned (Gréhaigne & Nadeau, 2015). Essentially, a student-centered
and constructivist approach was the order of the day. As to the teaching of team sport, the
emphasis was on tactical learning and the use of small-sided games (e.g., Marsenach & Druenne,
1974). Representing this progressive pedagogical shift, Bouthier (1984), with reference to
tactical-decision-models pedagogy, wrote “this approach assumes that the presentation of sig­
nificant perceptual clues and of rational tactical-choices principles plays a major role in the
enacting of action, including the quality of execution” (p. 85). This perspective first led French
physical educators to develop tactical-decision-models pedagogy in the context of extracurricular
activities in rugby, in a sport club environment. Eventually, PE teacher educators from Higher
Institutions and PE practitioners joined to develop a tactical-decision learning model (T-DLM)
(Gréhaigne, Billard, & Laroche, 1999) in a school PE context. A central feature of the model was
the provision, after a brief match in a small-sided game format, of a period of time during which
student-players received feedbacks from teammate-observers and debated, reflecting on prior
game play and “exploring various decisional alternatives”, in view of constructing new answers
to tactical problems they had experienced. A formal professional article intended for teacher
educators and practitioners was published by Deriaz, Poussin, and Gréhaigne (1998). The article
was entitled “Le débat d’idées”, meaning “the debate of ideas” (DoI) (see Harvey, Cope, & Jones,
2016, for a brief presentation of DoI).
An operational model for the student’s construction of knowledge in team sports was
discussed by Gréhaigne and Godbout (1998b) and by Gréhaigne, Godbout, and Bouthier
(2001). As far as we know, the full model English name “Tactical-decision learning model”
(T-DLM) was used for the first time by Gréhaigne, Richard, et al. (2005), and by Gréhaigne,
Wallian, et al. (2005). Figure 1 presents the elements of a revisited T-DLM in light of the
following sections where we discuss its significant features in connection with cognitive and
metacognitive processes at play.
As illustrated in Figure 1, T-DLM is made of five different components: (a) use of small-
sided games; (b) student observation of game play; (c) DoI; (d) planning of action projects
as a road map; (e) game-play/observation/debates/road-map iterations. While discussing
each component, we will, when appropriate, associate elements with relevant nonlinear
design principles listed and defined earlier.

The use of small-sided games

Small-sided games are no longer a novelty with regards to the teaching/learning of team
sports, whatever particular model is being used (Nadeau, Gréhaigne, & Godbout, 2017); in
fact, they rather represent the norm. Essentially, they consist, one way or the other, in an
adaptation of some sport activity regularly played in the students’ adult social environment, in
short, an activity they can identify with. Nonlinear researchers would consider these games as
being representative (see nonlinear design principles listed earlier). Despite adaptations for
didactical purposes, small-sided games may usually be related to situated learning, ensuring
a constructivist perspective. Making a connection with authentic activities may be a source of
motivation, an important factor for learning and access to metacognition.
6 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

Figure 1. Revisited tactical-decision learning model (adapted from Gréhaigne, Wallian, et al., 2005).

Teachers may choose to adapt some rules of a particular sided-game in order to increase
or reduce environment and/or task constraints, a flagship characteristic of nonlinear
pedagogy and a common feature of game-based approaches (Kinnerk et al., 2018). For
instance, the provision of support players (or jokers) responsible for specific facilitating or
impeding actions will modify significantly the task constraints students are faced with
(Nadeau et al., 2017). By the same token, a reduction in the number of players involved
in game play makes it easier for students to read the configurations of play that develop
 QUEST 7

during an attack driven by one’s team or by the opponents. The teacher’s incitements to take
note of prototypical configurations of play (PCP) provide tactical affordances (possibilities
for action) since students are better prepared to deal with these familiar organizations of
game play that tend to reproduce themselves. Taking notice of PCPs requires analogical
reasoning on the part of players (Gréhaigne & Godbout, 2014), a highly cognitive process.
Similarly, the teacher may familiarize students with the notions of offensive and defensive
matrices of play (Gréhaigne & Godbout, 2014), drawing players’ attention on these external
attentional foci. Each matrix of play may be considered as an advance organizer, “a frame of
reference that helps players organize perceived information in view of responding more
efficiently to problems brought about during game play” (p. 108). Familiarizing them with
these notions is also a source of tactical affordances for student-players since “they provide, for
the players’ benefit, a pre-existing frame of reference to which they can refer when time comes to
organize their response to game play” (Gréhaigne & Godbout, 2014, p. 108). Discussing T-DLM
in her Cagigal lecture in 2006, Ennis (2007) declared: “Certainly, implementing Gréhaigne’s play
configurations and modeling based on defensive and offensive matrices brings a welcome focus
on cognitive conceptualization as a prerequisite to tactical success” (p. 21).
Another aspect of game play that plays an important role in decision-making is the notion
of team competency network (Gréhaigne, Godbout, & Bouthier, 1999). This network is based
(a) on each player’s recognized tactical and skill strengths and weaknesses with reference to
the practice of the sport, and also (b) on the team’s dynamics. The competency network refers
to players’ game-play-related conducts and behaviors in connection with the rapport de forces
(opposition relationship) and with each player’s status within the team. During a match, one
may consider game play as the encounter of two dynamical competency networks. This has an
impact on tactical choices during game play but also, as we will see later, on strategic choices
made at the time of the debate and the planning of action projects.
While grouping students in view of playing small sided games, the teacher ensures the
equality of chances by opposing balanced teams. Grouping modes may usually be one of three
kinds: (a) homogeneous groups compared to one another, but heterogeneous in their respective
compositions; (b) homogeneous groups as to their composition (within and between), grouping
being done according to levels so that good players play against each other and likewise for
weaker players; and (c) groups mostly made of weaker players but with a good one who leads
game play. Depending upon the resulting particular competency network, performer con­
straints may differ from one student-player to the other within a given team.
Various aspects of game play experienced by players will have an impact on their
reflection on the action at the time of the ensuing debate; so will the concurrent teammates’
involvement in observation of game play.

Student observation of game play

A primary purpose of student observation during game play is to collect data that will
eventually be shared with teammates during the coming debate of ideas. It is not the purpose
of this article to discuss possible modalities for assessing student-players’ game-play perfor­
mance. Suffice to say that “simply analyzing the ratio between (a) the number of goals scored
(or points registered), (b) the number of shot-to-goal trials, and (c) the number of attacks
driven by the team (reflecting the number of possession of the ball), in matches of constant
duration, provides precious information” (Gréhaigne, Caty, & Marle, 2007, p. 57).
8 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

Furthermore, while involved in the observation process, student-observers are not only data
collectors but remain learners as well. In a 15-year research program on student’s participation
to the formative assessment process in PE (Godbout & Desrosiers, 2005), self-assessment and
peer-assessment procedures were systematically experimented on several occasions, and data
were collected with reference to numerous dependent variables. Among them was the students’
reaction to their participation in the assessment process. Results showed that a majority of
students liked observing and assessing their peers, and appreciated being observed and assessed
by them. Students also found it useful to observe and to be observed because, one way or the
other, it helped them improve their own performance (seeing unsuccessful tactics; seeing good
decision-making; better understanding game play). The ensuing communication to teammates
of the results of their observation imposes on them, in a certain way, the desire to develop an
explicative approach that makes them more conscious of what is happening on the court or the
pitch. Also, having been sensitized, for instance, to notions of configurations of play, matrices of
play, competency network, action rules, play organization rules, etc., student-observers are more
likely to notice particular behaviors or particular occurrences besides taking notes of agreed-
upon criteria. This informed observational-process should eventually help student-observers
verbally provide information and express their thoughts at the time of the debate. For instance,
the following quotation provides a good example of the way players and observers may take
competency networks into account: “With two defenders against three offensive players, the
defenders use critical thinking to seek advantage. First, the defenders assess the opponents’ skills
and brainstorm ways to defend well . . . Being mindful of the particular skills of the offensive
players, the defense decides which strategy is most appropriate to use first” (Woods & Book,
1995, pp. 40–41).
Like for many other competencies, most students need to develop observation skills,
what to focus one’s attention on, how to apply the performance criteria, how to register the
information correctly. Some students simply need to be reassured that they are proceeding
correctly and with accuracy. On the basis of eight different accuracy studies conducted in
their research program or by related graduate students, Godbout and Desrosiers (2005)
concluded that “students are capable of making accurate observations and delivering
accurate feedback to their peers even at an age as young as 8 to 9 years old. The results of
these studies show that this is the case for learning objectives focused both on technical and
tactical skills” (p. 233). Data recorded by student observers in the context of T-DLM are
often those related to the Team Sport Assessment Procedure reported by Gréhaigne,
Godbout, and Bouthier (1997), and by Gréhaigne and Godbout (1998a). Several studies
have showed that students as young as 10–12 years of age can reliably record data associated
with that procedure (Gréhaigne et al., 1997; Nadeau, Richard, & Godbout, 2008; Richard,
Godbout, & Gréhaigne, 2000; Richard, Godbout, Tousignant, & Gréhaigne, 1999).
Observing teammates as they are engaged in game play is not a matter of passing time,
waiting to get back on the court. Despite benefiting themselves from game-play observation,
observers may have a significant impact on the quality of the coming debate, being expected
to provide augmented feedback to their teammates.

Debate of ideas
Given a well-designed small-sided-game set up and appropriate observational data, DoI
may be a powerful learning medium. In a nutshell, the debate is a learning set-up in which
 QUEST 9

students express themselves and exchanges facts, opinions, reflections, and hypotheses
concerning prior and coming game play. Once informed of their teammate’s observations
(augmented feedback), students undertake a discussion intended to elaborate strategies for
the coming play practice. The core of the debate may well be its student-centered and
semio-socio-constructivist nature. It is student-centered since the agenda is for each
student-participant to construct his/her competency and understand how this is being
done. It is semiotic since experience, knowledge, questions, and answers are exchanged
through verbalization. It is social because students constitute a learning community,
supporting each other, learning one from the other. It is finally constructivist because as
part of the game-play/observation/debate triad, it serves the purpose of, as mentioned
earlier, helping students build internal constructs of knowledge and skills from previous
experiences by interpreting results from tried out strategies and modifying previously
established schemas (Butz, 2018).
Of course, for student-players, referring to the immediate prior game play seems
a perfectly natural reaction to the probable classic question “how did it go?” how did
you do?”. Answers such as “we lost by so many goals or points” or “we won” bear
absolutely no interest from a learning point of view. Implicit to the question “how did
you do” is the full question “how did you do, given what you intended to do?” So, two
central questions to be answered from the start are “how did we do as a team?” and “how
did I do myself as part of the team?” To answer such questions, essential to the debate,
students can rely on reflection on their prior actions, on their teammates’ reflection on
action, or on information provided by the student-observer. While the teammate-
observer may provide factual data indicative of the team efficiency, it is only the reflection
on action that can provide answers as to “why did I?” or “why did we?” Teammate-
observer’s information, reflection on ones’ action, reflection on team action, and reflec­
tion on opponents’ action, given the team’s previous plan of action, make up the pool of
information from which debaters can draw conclusions, new offensive and/or defensive
strategic hypotheses, etc. In this maelstrom of information, the teammate-observer
provides factual data for the student-players to be interpreted in light of their learning
agenda, be it tactical centered or motor centered. Data provided by the observer, essential
given their objectivity, and students’ informed reflection on previous game play become,
in a sense, a starting point for the debate and a reference point for the next one.
This being said, the teacher’s contribution to the process remains critical. Discussing
teacher interactions with learners in the role of facilitator, Goodyear and Dudley (2015)
wrote: “The fundamental aim of [teacher] questioning is to engage students in critical
thinking, prompt students to interact with one another to solve problems, and to develop
students’ understandings to a point where they can complete the tasks without teacher
assistance” (p. 280). Although this may apply in the early stages of the use of the debate with
inexperienced students, teacher’s questioning should become the exception rather than the
rule as students’ self-regulation sets in. For them to be significant, students’ exchanges must
come to involve words, concepts or constructs related to team-sport-related terminology. It
is up to the teacher to help students master this declarative knowledge. In that respect,
Chandler (1996), discussing understanding for learning (UFL) in relation with TGFU,
wrote: “to provide better articulation between teaching and learning, UFL needs to be
paired with an approach to teaching which focuses on maximizing teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge and providing procedures and principles for promoting expertise in
10 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

students” (p. 51). The same approach applies with regard to T-DLM. Many elements of
pedagogical content knowledge related to team sports have been discussed by Gréhaigne
and Godbout (1995).
Also, without imposing his/her views, the teacher may at times take part in the debate to
redirect the exchanges if the debate has gone haywire or to involve a set-aside or bystander
student, etc. In other words, the role of the teacher becomes one of facilitation. Far from
being a brainstorm or a verbal dogfight, the debate is an organized respectful discussion,
a confrontation of opinions relating to prior game play and/or observational data provided,
and taking place in a determined frame. Many students may be tense with regards to
communicating with their peers. Learning to communicate, in a socio-constructivist-
oriented environment, is not only important; it is essential. Thus, the teacher must take
steps to help students communicate with their peers. This may involve mastery of termi­
nology, focus of attention on a person speaking, empathy for expressed feelings, curiosity
toward other’s opinions, conviction and easiness when presenting or defending one’s
opinion, etc. In the debate, the quality of communication helps ensuring cooperative critical
thinking, “that aims to reconcile one’s own position and that of the other party; it seeks to
build on one another’s ideas so that everyone can benefit from the engagement” (Tan, 2017,
p. 990). For the student, becoming aware of a fact, a functioning, a feeling is a process that
shifts these elements from a non-conscious, perhaps automatic activity to a conscious one.
This requires distancing oneself, something rendered possible through the debate. By
stepping back from the immediacy and intimacy of their game play experience, student-
players get access to a higher level of conceptualization, leading to the development or
construction of new tactical or motor answers. The debate, because of the intense cognitive
activity it creates and builds on, truly is mediator of progressive, rather than sudden
understanding. Its purpose, with regards to participants, is learning through understanding.
As expressed by the National Research Council (NRC) (2000), “one of the hallmarks of the
new science of learning is its emphasis on learning with understanding” (p. 8).
Ultimately, one central objective of DoI is to bring students to develop strategies and put
together action plans to be tested during coming game play situations.

Planning the journey: The road map

A road map is a phrase commonly used to designate the outline of a strategy or an action plan.
With reference to the debate and T-DLM in general, it does in no way refer to a Program
Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) chart, a schematic tracking sheet that identifies
systematically the various steps to be achieved in order to reach a definite goal or complete
a specific task in a given period of time. The PERT concept does not apply to student learning
which remains an ongoing process; throughout these students’ journey, one cannot, at one
point, declare that the development is complete. The purpose of the road map is to describe
the strategy selected by the team in order to reach the objectives delimited during the debate.
More specifically, it means (a) identifying tactical problems encountered, (b) reaching
a consensus on plausible causes, (c) identifying possible solutions that could be tried out,
(d) selecting strategies to be applied, and (e) planning the observation scheme. With reference
to subject-matter knowledge, the road map puts forward a list of motor competencies to be
used, play actions to be conducted, and action rules and play organization rules to be applied
in order to achieve performance standards collectively envisioned by the team.
 QUEST 11

At the time of the pause, following a sequence of game play, each student observer, as we
have mentioned before, relays information to his/her teammates as to their performance
and that of the opponents. The team registers the information, works on it, takes decisions
for the coming sequence of play and registers them in the road map. These decisions must
be expressed or operationalized in observable quantitative data so that the results of the
selected strategy be objectified and measurable. The teacher should insist that the team
register all items discussed and the decisions taken to be put down by writing in the
document. This way, at the time of the next debate after another sequence of game play,
students will benefit from this information to appreciate whether progress has been made or
not. The elements written down may differ based on two criteria: the vocabulary mastered
by the students concerned, but also, if not mainly, what one might call their “level of tactical
thinking”.
So far, we have seen that game play, student observation, DoI, and road map planning
contribute to tactical learning. A last feature of T-DLM must be acknowledged, that of
process iterations.

Game-play/observation/debate/road-map iterations
As the teaching-learning unit proceeds and on several occasions during each lesson,
students experience the game-play/observation/debate/road-map adjustment cycle, each
cycle representing one iteration of the process. There cannot be formative assessment and
regulation of learning without some form of iteration; otherwise, that would mean that
students succeed on their first trial, a rare occurrence. Iterations are not to be interpreted as
a trial and error process, students (a) receiving feedback both from observers and from
reflection on action, and (b) considering success-oriented action projects. Iterations are
therefore the backbone of learning regulation.
Once learning is observed, there remains the matter of ensuring that successful trials are
not random occurrences and that tactical learning may be applied to other team games or
sports.

Stabilization and generalization

Players’ progress implies not only the appearance of new answers to a given problem but
also a stabilization of such answers. This process requires pondering and deliberations on
the part of students during a period of time that may vary depending upon students’
intellectual capacities and sports background. With high school students (13–14 years of
age), Nachon and Chang (2004) reported increases in student learning after a 10-hour
teaching unit. With younger students (fifth grade), Chang (2009) reported an increase in
volume of play and of tactical knowledge after a 12-hour teaching unit. Gréhaigne, Caty,
and Godbout (2010) consider as “beginners” students that have not cumulated at least
10 hours of practice, and as “coping” players those who have cumulated at least 30 hours of
practice, all them still being novice players as opposed to expert players. Twelve to 15-hour
long teaching units should be considered as desirable for stabilizing learning with a given
activity. Any constructed learning requires time and, in school as well, one must “give time
to Time” if one wants students to learn something and stabilize that learning rather than
losing or forgetting everything once a particular learning unit is completed. One should also
12 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

be aware that there are two facets to the stabilization process: repetitive situations in which
one looks for stabilizing new answers, given the same conditions, and obtaining stable
answers whatever the play conditions.
As learning sets in over successive iterations, the time comes for the teacher to bring
students further and have them pursue other objectives. Students having stabilized new
tactical resources, it becomes then possible to consider tackling more complex situation
through manipulation of task constraints (modifications of the rules of game play, or
bringing support players [jokers], for instance). Learning components may be made more
complex or may be re-utilized with another team sport in order for students to engage in
a generalization process associated with the sampling principle alluded to earlier.
With respect to generalization, teachers should encourage students to look for simila­
rities between, for instance, invasion team sports in terms of tactics, action rules, matrices of
play, PCPs, etc. Analogical reasoning is considered to be part of higher order thinking
(Richland & Begolli, 2016); it is “a cognitive skill that underpins the conceptual process of
recognizing commonalities between systems of relationships” (p. 161). “ . . . experts are
characterized by representing large bodies of knowledge as connected relational systems
that can be manipulated according to situational goals. This frame for knowledge repre­
sentations then has implications for organizing future learning, and provides an aim for
disciplinary growth and learning” (Richland & Simms, 2015, p. 180). Zerai, Gréhaigne, and
Godbout (2013) have discussed the use of analogies to interpret and understand game play.
They have written, “cognitive scientists recognize that there are relations and interactions
between analogy making and various cognitive processes such as visual perception, logical
reasoning, learning and reutilizing, and critical thinking” (p.26).
True students’ construction of tactical learning may be ensured by facilitating the activation
of their metacognitive awareness and self-regulation of learning discussed hereafter.

Metacognitive awareness, self-regulation of learning, and T-DLM

Student metacognitive awareness and self-regulation of learning
For students, experiencing metacognitive awareness means knowing about their own
thinking. Knowledge of cognition concerns an awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses,
knowledge about strategies, and why and when to use those strategies. Regulation of
cognition is about planning, implementing monitoring, and evaluating strategy use
(Schraw & Dennison, 1994). However, becoming conscious, for instance, of the conditions
that made him/her construct new tactical knowledge is not to be considered a black or white
incidence, a Eureka moment, for most if not all students. The level of awareness may vary
from one student to another. Perkins (1992) suggested considering four levels of metacog­
nitive learners as a useful framework for teachers: tacit, aware, strategic, and reflective
learners. Tacit learners, unaware of their metacognitive knowledge, do not think about any
particular strategies for learning. Aware learners know about some of the thinking that they
do like generating ideas, finding evidence, etc., although thinking is not necessarily delib­
erate or planned. Strategic learners organize their thinking by using problem-solving,
grouping and classifying, seeking evidence, and making decisions. They know and apply
strategies that help them learn. Finally, reflective learners, beyond being strategic about their
 QUEST 13

thinking, also reflect upon their learning while it is happening, considering the success or
not of any strategy tried out and then revising it accordingly.
Based on three pools developed by searching PsychInfo, using specific criteria and the
keywords metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning in separate searches,
Dinsmore, Alexander, and Loughlin (2008) retained 255 studies and surveyed references to
the three constructs mentioned above. They concluded that “ . . . these data might suggest
that SRL may be a special case of self-regulation (i.e., self-regulation in an academic
context). Nesting of metacognition with self-regulation and self-regulated learning might
also be inferred from these data” (p. 400). According to Welch, Young, Johnson, and
Lindsay (2018), “Metacognitive awareness is a component of self-regulated learning and
helps us to understand and control our thinking and learning” (p. 11). It follows that
metacognitive awareness may be seen as a prerequisite to student self-regulation of learning;
without being aware of the degree of their success or failure, and without being able to
develop strategic choices compatible with their unknown level of competence, students
remain incapable of self-regulating their tactical learning.
In the context of T-DLM, the interactive nature of the debate and of the related
development of a road map brings to light the social aspect of the learning process.
“More recently, situated perspectives of learning have extended theories and models of self-
regulation to highly interactive and dynamic learning situations where shared knowledge
construction and collaboration emerge. Self-regulated learning became a cornerstone for
exploring more social forms of regulation such as co-regulation and shared regulation”
(Hadwin, Järvelä, & Miller, 2017, p. 83). Our view of the regulation of tactical learning as
discussed with regards to T-DLM matches the way Järvelä, Järvenoja, Malmberg, and
Hadwin (2013) see it: “ . . . socially shared regulation of learning refers to processes by
which group members regulate their collective activity” (p. 269). In a socio-constructive
learning environment, it makes sense that regulation of learning should be socially shared,
which fits neatly with most if not all features of T-DLM discussed earlier.
In the following section, we will examine how teachers can make use of T-DLM features
to induce the triggering of metacognitive awareness in their students.

T-DLM-related keys to metacognitive awareness

What makes one tick when learning? What draws one’s attention? What does one tend
to focus on? Since ways of learning vary among students, one of many efficiency-
foundations in team sports consists of allowing all teammates the full deployment of
their individual initiative, based on each student’s rhythm within a well-organized group.
It is likely that keys to metacognitive awareness differ from one student to another. Thus,
the biggest challenge for the teacher probably is to find appropriate ways and moments
to provide metacognitive knowledge and help students experience personal metacogni­
tive awareness. “Teaching practices congruent with a metacognitive approach to learning
include those that focus on sense-making, self-assessment, and reflection on what
worked and what needs improving” (NRC, 2000, p. 12). The diversity of learning set-
ups, and of cognitive processes related to T-DLM make this model a significant peda­
gogical tool not only for tactical learning but for metacognitive learning as well. In
addition, as stated by the NRC (2000), “the teaching of metacognitive activities must be
incorporated into the subject matter that students are learning” (p.19). In relation to
14 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

T-DLM, keys to potential metacognitive awareness may pertain to three categories of

student experiences.
- Tasks-related experiences: among the main tasks students take charge, one finds observing
game play, debating, writing up the road map. DoI, in itself, requires from students that they
carry several subtasks such as describing, explaining, listening, arguing, etc. How much or what
does one learn from each task-related experience? Is there one or many tasks that the student
learn more from?

- Team sport content-related experiences: during game play, students may take notice of various
characteristics of the game (such as PCPs, strategy-wise expected or unexpected evolutions of
play) that bear particular significance for him/her; they may also keep in mind, as advance
organizers, the notions of offensive and defensive matrices of play, and their educated assess­
ment of both competency networks involved into game play.

- Cognitive process-related experiences: does reflection on observation, on game play, on the

debate, and/or on the road map triggers a particular understanding? (When I think back, what
do I tend to focus on?). Does the student tend to use (a) analogical reasoning (easy recognition
of PCPs, search for familiar or comparable situations), (b) cooperative and/or individual
critical thinking, (c) advance organizers (offensive and/or defensive matrix of play, strategy
collectively agreed upon, advance knowledge on competency networks), etc.?

These three categories encompass a variety of happenings students may encounter during
one phase of T-DLM or another. Without metacognitive awareness, they may not realize, as
tacit learners, that something they say, see, or think influences their thinking and/or their
decisions. It is up to the teacher to draw, at times, the students’ attention on the meaning of
such a self-reflection on their part. Drawing students’ attention does not mean flooding
them with information concerning metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive skills, or some
other specific construct. It could be a matter of mentioning, from time to time, these
potential keys at the end of a PE lesson or a matter of having this information written on
a wall for the students to consult them, etc. Knowledge about oneself, in terms of metacog­
nitive learning, develops over time and takes years, not weeks nor even months. Although
some initiation to metacognitive learning may be envisioned at the Junior high school level,
we submit that full metacognitive awareness is rather to be expected at Senior high school
and Higher Education levels. In this regard, each teacher member of the student’s learning
community may play an important role.
Finally, with respect to the implementation of metacognition-related teaching practices, the
introduction of metacognitive knowledge and strategies in the PE teacher education curricu­
lum should be considered. Forty years ago, student- and tactics-centered approaches to the
teaching/learning of team sports were almost unheard of and are now the norm. As men­
tioned in our introduction, metacognition is tiptoeing into our pedagogical environment and
has been there even before the turn of the century. Probabilities are that 20 years from now,
student metacognitive awareness will be referred to matter-of-factly, a possibility that should
be taken into account in PE teacher education curricula in Higher Education Institutions.

Conclusion
In the impetus of a constructivist pedagogical movement that has influenced physical and
sports education, among other subject-matters, in France, T-DLM has been developed to
ensure better practices in the teaching of team sports at school. Its roots may be found in
 QUEST 15

field experimentation conducted as early as the 1960s and 1970s. Without having any
historical connection with nonlinear pedagogy, the model offers several features that meet
the criteria of this more recently developed approach. Considering the team functioning of
the model and the central role of a debate of ideas sustained by observations from
teammates, the model is considered to be a semio-socio-constructivist one. In addition to
allowing student construction of tactical knowledge related to team sports, the model
provides many opportunities for the development of students’ metacognitive strategies
and self-regulation of learning. In particular, the inclusion of observation, debate, and
reflection-on-action episodes associated with the systematic production of a road map is
conducive to metacognitive awareness, provided that the teacher draws students’ attention
on this inner-experienced reality and provided that the teacher himself/herself has devel­
oped appropriate metacognition-related knowledge and skills.

ORCID
Paul Godbout http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6576-216X
Jean-Françis Gréhaigne http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2609-4661

References
Bouthier, D. (1984). Sports collectifs: Contribution à l’analyse de l’activité et éléments pour une
formation tactique essentielle. L’exemple du rugby [Team sports: Contribution to the analysis of
activity and elements for an essential tactical education] (Unpublished Master’s thesis). INSEP,
Paris (France).
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of
Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8.
Butz, J. V. (2018). Applications for constructivist teaching in physical education. Strategies, 31(4),
12–18. doi:10.1080/08924562.2018.1465868
Chandler, T. (1996). Teaching games for understanding—Reflections and further questions. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(4), 49–51. doi:10.1080/07303084.1996.10607375
Chang, C.-W. (2009). Langage, pensée et action: approche sémio-constructiviste des apprentissages du
jeu en basket-ball chez l’élève de CM2 (5ième grade) [Language, thought and action: Semio-
constructivist approach to basketball game-play learning with 5th grade pupils] (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Franche-Comté, Besançon (France).
Chow, J. Y. (2013). Nonlinear learning underpinning pedagogy: Evidence, challenges, and
implications. Quest, 65(4), 469–484. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.807746
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araujo, D. (2007). The role of
nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251–278.
doi:10.3102/003465430305615
Davids, K., Button, C., Araujo, D., Renshaw, I., & Hristovski, R. (2006). Movement models from
sports provide representative task constraints for studying adaptive behavior in human movement
systems. Adaptive Behavior, 14(1), 75–95. doi:10.1177/105971230601400103
Davids, K., Chow, J.-Y., & Shuttleworth, R. (2005). A constraints-led framework for nonlinear
pedagogy in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, New Zealand, 38(1), 17–29.
Davids, K., Kingsbury, D., Bennet, S. J., & Handford, C. (2001). Information-movement coupling:
Implications for the organization of research and practice during acquisition of self-paced extrinsic
timing skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(2), 117–127. doi:10.1080/026404101300036316
Deriaz, D., Poussin, B., & Gréhaigne, J.-F. (1998). Le débat d’idées [The debate of ideas]. Éducation
Physique et Sport, n273, 80–82.
16 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on
metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4),
391–409. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
Ennis, C. D. (2007). Curricular coherence: A key to effective physical activity programs. In
P. Heikinaro-Johansson, R. Telama, & E. McEvoy (Eds.), AIESEP World Congress 2006 proceed­
ings: The role of physical education in promoting physical activity and health (pp. 10–25). Jyväskylä,
Finland: University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Sport Sciences Research Report No. 4.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental
inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Godbout, P., & Desrosiers, P. (2005). Students’ participation to the assessment process in physical
education. In F. Carreiro da Costa, M. Cloes, & M. Gonzalez Valeiro (Eds.), The art and science of
teaching in physical education and sport (pp. 227–248). Lisbon, Portugal: Faculdade de Motricidade
Humana, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.
Goodyear, V., & Dudley, D. (2015). “I’m a facilitator of learning!” Understanding what teachers and
students do within student-centered physical education models. Quest, 67(3), 274–289.
doi:10.1080/00336297.2015.1051236
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Billard, M., & Laroche, J. Y. (1999). L’enseignement des jeux sportifs collectifs à l’école.
Conception, construction, évaluation [The teaching of team sports at school. Conception, construc­
tion, assessment]. Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck. (Collection Sciences et Pratiques du Sport).
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Caty, D., & Godbout, P. (2010). Modelling ball circulation in invasion team sports:
A way to promote learning games through understanding. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
15(3), 257–270. doi:10.1080/17408980903273139
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Caty, D., & Marle, P. (2007). Étude systématique de différentes configurations du jeu
dans les jeux réduits [Systematic study of various configurations of play in small-sided games]. In
J.-F. Gréhaigne (Ed.), Configuration du jeu. Débats d’idées & apprentissage du football et des sports
collectifs [Configuration of play. Debate of ideas & soccer and team-sports learning] (pp. 43–60).
Besançon, France: Presses de l’Université de Franche-Comté.
Gréhaigne, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and
cognitivist perspective. Quest, 47(4), 490–505. doi:10.1080/00336297.1995.10484171
Gréhaigne, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (1998a). Formative assessment in a tactical approach context. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(1), 46–51. doi:10.1080/07303084.1998.10605048
Gréhaigne, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (1998b). Observation, critical thinking and transformation: Three key
elements for a constructivist perspective of the learning process in team sports. In R. Feingold,
R. Rees, G. Barrette, L. Fiorentino, S. Virgilio, & E. Kowalski (Eds.), Education for life (pp.
109–118). New-York, NY: Adelphi University.
Gréhaigne, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (2014). Dynamic systems theory and team sport coaching. Quest, 66
(1), 96–116. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.814577
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1997). Performance assessment in team sports. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(4), 500–516. doi:10.1123/jtpe.16.4.500
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (1999). The foundations of tactics and strategy in team
sports. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18(2), 159–174. doi:10.1123/jtpe.18.2.159
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in
team sports. Quest, 53(1), 59–76. doi:10.1080/00336297.2001.10491730
Gréhaigne, J.-F., & Nadeau, L. (2015). L’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la tactique en sports
collectifs: Des précurseurs oubliés aux perspectives actuelles [The teaching and learning of tactics
in team sports: From forgotten precursors to current perspectives]. eJournal de la Recherche sur
l’Intervention en Éducation Physique et Sport, n35, 106–140. doi:10.4000/ejrieps.1660
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Richard, J.-F., & Griffin, L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games.
New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Gréhaigne, J.-F., Wallian, N., & Godbout, P. (2005). Tactical-decision learning model and students’
practices. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 255–269. doi:10.1080/17408980500340869
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games
approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
 QUEST 17

Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in
collaborative learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Educational psychol­
ogy handbook series. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed., pp. 83–106).
London, UK: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Harvey, S., Cope, E., & Jones, R. (2016). Developing questioning in game-centered approaches. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 87(3), 28–35. doi:10.1080/07303084.2015.1131212
Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). Exploring socially shared regulation
in the context of collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(3), 267–286.
doi:10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.267
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.
doi:10.1080/00336297.2018.1439390
Light, R. (2004). Coaches’ experiences of Game Sense: Opportunities and challenges. Physical
Education & Sport Pedagogy, 9(2), 115–132. doi:10.1080/1740898042000294949
Marsenach, J., & Druenne, F. (1974). Volley-ball. Mémento CPS FSGT. Paris, France: Armand Colin-
Bourrelier.
Nachon, M., & Chang, C.-W. (2004). Interactions verbales entre les élèves et projet d’action en
Basket-ball en classe de troisième [Student verbal interactions and action project in Basket-ball
with high school students]. eJournal de la Recherche sur l’Intervention en Éducation Physique et
Sport, n5, 15–36.
Nadeau, L., Gréhaigne, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (2017). Developing tactical knowledge with the help of
support players: An illustration in ice hockey. International Journal of Physical Education, 54(1),
22–33.
Nadeau, L., Richard, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (2008). The validity and reliability of a performance
assessment procedure in ice hockey. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 65–83.
doi:10.1080/17408980701444718
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded
edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Piaget, J. (1936). La genèse des principes de conservation dans la physique de l’enfant [Genesis of the
child conservation-principle]. Annuaire de l’Instruction Publique en Suisse, n27, 31–44.
Piaget, J. (1969). Psychologie et pédagogie [Psychology and pedagogy]. Paris, France: Denoël.
Renshaw, I., & Chow, J.-Y. (2019a). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 103–116. doi:10.1080/17408989.2018.1552676
Renshaw, I., & Chow, J.-Y. (Guest Eds.). (2019b). Research in constraints special issue. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2).
Richard, J.-F., Godbout, P., & Gréhaigne, J.-F. (2000). Students’ precision and inter-observer relia­
bility of performance assessment in team sports. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(1),
85–91. doi:10.1080/02701367.2000.10608885
Richard, J.-F., Godbout, P., Tousignant, M., & Gréhaigne, J.-F. (1999). The try-out of a team sport
performance assessment procedure in elementary and junior high school physical education
classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18(3), 336–356. doi:10.1123/jtpe.18.3.336
Richland, L. E., & Begolli, K. N. (2016). Analogy and higher order thinking: Learning mathematics as
an example. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 160–168. doi:10.1177/2372732216629795
Richland, L. E., & Simms, N. (2015). Analogy, higher order thinking, and education. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 6(2), 177–192. doi:10.1002/wcs.1336
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Tan, C. (2017). Teaching critical thinking: Cultural challenges and strategies in Singapore. British
Educational Research Journal, 43(5), 988–1002. doi:10.1002/berj.3295
Tan, C. W. K., Chow, J. Y., & Davids, K. (2012). ‘How does TGfU work?’: Examining the relationship
between learning design in TGfU and a nonlinear pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 17(4), 331–348. doi:10.1080/17408989.2011.582486
18 P. GODBOUT AND J.-F. GRÉHAIGNE

Vygotski, L. S. (1934). Pensée et langage (traduction de Françoise Sève et avant-propos de Lucien

Sève), suivi de “Commentaires sur les remarques critiques de Vygotski” de Jean Piaget [Thought
and language (translation by Françoise Sève and foreword by Lucien Sève), followed with
Comments on Vygotski’s critical remarks by Jean Piaget]. Collection “Terrains”, Paris, France:
Éditions Sociales, 1985; Réédition, Paris, France: La Dispute, 1997.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of the higher psychological processes.
(Originally published 1930, New York: Oxford University Press.). Cambridge, MA: The Harvard
University Press.
Wallian, N., & Gréhaigne, J.-F. (2004). Vers une approche sémio-constructiviste des apprentissages
moteurs [Toward a semio-constructivist approach to motor learning]. In G. Carlier (Ed.), Si l’on
parlait du plaisir d’enseigner l’éducation physique [If we talked about the fun of teaching physical
education] (pp. 167–179). Montpellier, France: AFRAPS.
Welch, P., Young, L., Johnson, P., & Lindsay, D. (2018). Metacognitive awareness and the link with
undergraduate examination performance and clinical reasoning. MedEdPublish, 7(2): article No
32. Retrieved from doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000100.1
Woods, A. M., & Book, C. (1995). Critical thinking in middle school physical education. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 66(6), 39–43. doi:10.1080/07303084.1995.10607096
Zerai, Z., Gréhaigne, J.-F., & Godbout, P. (2013). Configurations of play in invasion team sports and
learning by analogy. International Journal of Physical Education, 50(1), 18–28.