A Comprehensive Classification of Sports Initiation Models
1. Introduction
Various research fields have proposed classifications for sports initiation models using different criteria, leading to a confusing mix of terminology. Authors often develop methodologies tailored to specific sports, incorporating desirable aspects from various sports education models. While this eclectic approach can be effective for teaching and learning a particular sport, it makes it challenging to analyze and understand the underlying principles of different models. This paper aims to provide a clear and comprehensive classification of sports initiation models.
2. Blázquez’s Classification
Blázquez (1995) broadly categorizes sports teaching methods into two groups: traditional and active.
2.1. Traditional Methods
Traditional methods, as defined by Blázquez, include:
- Analytical method
- Passive method
- Mechanical method
- Direct method
- Intuitive method
- Associative method
These methods share a common foundation in anatomy and biomechanics, breaking down sports into individual skills and techniques taught progressively. Blázquez acknowledges the overlapping nature of these methods, as the analytical method influences practice strategy, the passive method views the learner as a recipient of knowledge, and the mechanistic method emphasizes structured drills and repetition. The direct method grants the teacher significant control over the teaching-learning process, while the intuitive method relies on the teacher’s experience.
2.2. Active Methods
Blázquez identifies the following as active methods:
- Global method
- Synthetic method
- Pedagogy of situations
- Pedagogy of discovery
- Exploratory pedagogy
- Structuralist method
Active methods view sports as interconnected systems rather than isolated techniques. Global and synthetic methods emphasize teaching comprehensive tasks without breaking them down, recognizing that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The pedagogy of situations emphasizes learning in a realistic game context, developing not only execution skills but also perceptual and decision-making abilities. Exploration and discovery pedagogies encourage active learner participation, guiding them to find their own solutions. The structuralist method focuses on the relationships between the game’s characteristics, the learner, and those assisting in the learning process.
3. Alternative Classification by Devis and Sánchez
Devis and Sánchez (1996) present three alternative models to traditional education:
3.1. Vertical Models Centered on Learning the Game
These models advocate for specialized sports education from the outset, prioritizing tactical and technical development. They progress from simple techniques like passing and dribbling to more complex game scenarios involving tactical elements like marking and spatial awareness.
3.2. Horizontal Structural Teaching Model
This model groups sports with similar technical or tactical elements, allowing for joint teaching. It emphasizes learning fundamental skills applicable across different sports before focusing on tactical aspects. This learning process maintains a focus on the technical role within the game.
3.3. Horizontal Model Centered on Understanding the Game
This model prioritizes tactical comprehension in the initial stage, teaching students about game rules and their implications, along with basic tactical principles.
3.3.1. Practical Application Example in Hockey
- Vertical model: Teaches techniques like starting and passing through games that combine technical execution with tactical concepts like creating space and making runs.
- Horizontal model: Begins with general tactical concepts applicable to various sports, using larger balls and hands before introducing hockey sticks and pucks.
- Horizontal structural model: Starts with manipulating mobile objects, gradually increasing complexity by introducing opponents, ultimately progressing to hockey-specific techniques and tactics.
4. Throat’s Methodological Approaches
Throat uses the term “methodological ways to address collective sports games” and identifies three distinct approaches:
- Focused on techniques: Aligns with the traditional model described by Blázquez and Devis and Sánchez.
- Formal focus on the game: Emphasizes formal game play, allowing technical skills to emerge spontaneously.
- Focusing on target games: Similar to Devis and Sánchez’s horizontal structural model, progressing through games of increasing complexity.
5. Towards a New Classification
A more precise terminology for active models is needed to better understand their contributions and limitations. This classification should consider:
- Vertical/Horizontal Approach: Whether the model focuses on specific sports (vertical) or shared principles across sports groups (horizontal).
- Content Reference: Whether the model emphasizes technique, tactics, or the structural and functional characteristics of the sport(s).
Based on these criteria, we propose the following classification:
- Horizontal structural-functional model
- Horizontal model with reference to tactical principles (or comprehensive)
- Vertical model with reference to technique
- Vertical structural-functional model
While the first three models have been previously discussed, the fourth model, the vertical structural-functional model, requires further elaboration. This model, similar to the horizontal structural model but with a vertical focus, was first proposed by Bayer (1987) for handball. Bayer provides a detailed functional analysis of player roles and sub-roles in various game situations. However, the model lacks specific guidelines for practical implementation, only suggesting task types like full games, reduced games, problem-solving situations, and analytical exercises. Other authors, such as Anton (1990), have expanded on this model, offering more detailed and applicable approaches.