Making Learning Happen in Teaching Games for Understanding with Cognitive Load Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The critique of social constructivism is useful but sometimes reads as a polemic. A more balanced tone acknowledging where constructivist TGfU has worked effectively (e.g., student-centered questioning, guided discovery) would add credibility.

The paper would benefit from an explicit framework or model showing how CLT strategies (e.g., scaffolding, spacing, schema acquisition) map to TGfU stages. This would help readers understand the pedagogical implications beyond theoretical alignment.

The suggestion of “pluralism” in pedagogical theory is compelling, but the authors should define how coaches/educators decide which lens to apply and when. Otherwise, pluralism risks becoming vague or overly permissive.

Phrases like “constructivism has narrowed the field” or “coaching behaviors have been dismissed” need to be softened or backed by stronger evidence. These statements are interesting but sweeping.

More vivid, domain-specific case examples—e.g., how a coach would reduce extraneous load in a netball vs. a soccer session—would enhance pedagogical clarity.

Some terms like “germane load” or “expertise reversal effect” are introduced late. Consider placing a glossary or early explanation for readers unfamiliar with CLT jargon

While the manuscript presents strong originality and theoretical contribution, there are substantial improvements needed before it is publishable. Specifically:

1. Conceptual clarity needs to be improved — particularly in how CLT is applied to TGfU.

   While the manuscript introduces Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) as a theoretical lens to reframe and possibly enhance Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), the articulation of how CLT operationally maps onto TGfU remains underdeveloped. Several concepts — such as intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load, as well as schema automation — are mentioned in a theoretical capacity, but the manuscript falls short in showing how these are functionally applied across the TGfU stages (game form, tactical awareness, decision making, skill execution, and performance).

   For example:

   • Scaffolding and worked examples are referenced as CLT strategies, but it’s unclear how these would manifest differently in a modified invasion game scenario versus a technical drill. Is the coach adjusting task constraints to reduce extraneous load or adjusting game complexity to manage intrinsic load? This distinction matters and should be more explicitly defined.

   • The authors mention the expertise reversal effect, but do not clarify how TGfU coaches would recognize when learners have outgrown exploratory approaches and require more direct instruction. This is central to the paper’s argument but remains implied rather than argued through evidence or modeling.

   • Additionally, the authors assume that CLT can easily complement or extend TGfU without addressing potential tensions or incompatibilities between a cognitively efficient instructional model and the more open-ended, exploratory nature of constructivist TGfU approaches. This conceptual juxtaposition needs to be addressed, not just suggested.

   To strengthen conceptual clarity:

   • The authors should consider including a visual framework or table that maps CLT principles (e.g., spacing, chunking, automation, modality) to TGfU instructional stages.

   • Clarify terminology early on: concepts such as schema acquisition or split-attention effect are introduced late, which could disorient readers unfamiliar with cognitive science.

   • Engage with more recent literature on neuroeducation in sport pedagogy to substantiate the cognitive science claims and avoid over-reliance on foundational but outdated CLT references.

   In its current form, the manuscript outlines a promising interdisciplinary alignment but needs greater specificity in defining what that alignment looks like in both pedagogical terms and practical classroom implementation.

2. Balance of argumentation — the tone is occasionally dismissive of constructivism and needs more nuanced framing.

3. Lack of practical integration strategy — readers (especially educators and practitioners) need clearer guidance on implementation.

4. Redundancy — several arguments are repeated and would benefit from tighter editing.

5. Conclusion needs more concrete direction — actionable insights for educators and clearer takeaways are missing.

 

Author Response

See attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article offers a conceptually valuable contribution by introducing Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) as a complementary framework to the TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding) model. This perspective enriches the theoretical discussion in physical education, especially by challenging the traditional alignment of TGfU with purely social constructivist interpretations.

However, to enhance the article’s impact and clarity, several areas would benefit from further development—particularly the explicit integration of CLT principles with TGfU's pedagogical foundations, as well as the translation of theory into concrete instructional strategies.

The following summary outlines specific recommendations aligned with key sections of the manuscript:

(1) Theoretical Framework (CLT & TGfU):
Clarify how the types of cognitive load (intrinsic, extraneous, and germane) align with the pedagogical principles of TGfU (e.g., sampling, representation, exaggeration, and tactical complexity). This alignment should be made explicit and well-developed in the theoretical discussion.

(2) Conceptual Development:
Include a diagram or explanatory table that systematically links each type of cognitive load to specific TGfU principles, supported by practical and illustrative examples. This visual synthesis would significantly enhance both clarity and instructional relevance.

(3) Practical Application:
Organize the current examples into structured and transferable pedagogical strategies. Instead of isolated descriptions, present them as clear recommendations applicable in educational or coaching contexts.

(4) Pedagogical Differentiation:
Add specific guidance for adapting instructional strategies based on the learner’s level of experience (e.g., novice vs. expert). This dimension is mentioned in the manuscript but not fully developed; operationalizing it would add depth and usability.

(5) Implications for Practice:
Translate theoretical contributions into accessible tools or resources—such as practical guides, reflective checklists, or session planning templates—that support educators and coaches in real-world implementation.

(6) Conclusions:
Expand the conclusion section to include:
• A concise synthesis of the article’s main findings
• Clear, practical recommendations for educators and coaches
• A forward-looking proposal for future research directions

Author Response

See attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions address the concerns. However, I am concerned about the lack of recent studies included. Very limited recent research has been included. Research in this field is evolving, hence, you need to include and revise your material to assess the advancement in this field to be able to draw appropriate conclusions.

Author Response

Reviewer comment: The revisions address the concerns. However, I am concerned about the lack of recent studies included. Very limited recent research has been included. Research in this field is evolving, hence, you need to include and revise your material to assess the advancement in this field to be able to draw appropriate conclusions.

Response: Based on the reviewer comments to add updated references, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. We added five new references to recent papers about Cognitive Load Theory to support our assertions. Additions (and any other minor changes we noticed when revising) are highlighted in green.