Rethinking the classification of games and sports in physical education: a response to changes in sport and participation

ABSTRACT

Background:

Through changing the way games are represented, classification systems have increased possibilities for teaching game forms beyond structured adult and singular official versions of popular sports. At the time of inception, the four-game form approach to classification (target, net/wall, striking/fielding, and invasion games) enabled modified, small sided conditioned games to be adapted to suit individual attributes, whilst reinforcing a core set of tactical and technical elements for transfer. With global shifts in patterns of sport participation, it is timely to review this dominant classification frame and the role it plays within physical education (PE).

Purpose:

This paper proposes changes to classification boundaries around games and sports in PE to establish a classification system that is inclusive of a wider range of games and sports and growing forms of participation that we contend are important for PE. The paper also argues for a broader conceptualisation of tactics, with social, environmental and affective dimensions a focal point for a revised, contemporary classification framework.

Methods:

The paper draws on Bernstein’s notions of classification and frame to explore the pedagogical utility of the dominant games and sport classification used in PE and ways in which it could be revised. Each author independently undertook a structured mapping exercise designed to facilitate exploration and potential classification of a wide range of contemporary activities potentially relevant for physical education.

Results:

The paper proposes the addition of lap or circuit sports, route or journey sports, rush or action sports, stunts or tricking sports and rhythmic or aesthetic sports to broaden the learning and participation possibilities for young people and tune teachers into contemporary movement forms. The paper proposes sample questions that extend the tactical foci inherent in classification to encompass meaning, social, and ecological considerations for learning in PE.

KEYWORDS:

• Invasion games
• games-based
• TGFU
• informal sport
• action sports
• tactical

Introduction

Bernstein (2000) noted that ‘boundaries, whilst opening possibilities at the same time limit them’ and that ‘It is important to know when this limit is reached’ (xxii). We argue that the limits of current games classifications have been reached. We propose a reshaping of the classification boundaries around games to extend possibilities for teaching and learning in Physical Education (PE) in ways that better align with contemporary participation forms. Over time, there have been many attempts to classify games and sports with the intent of supporting transfer of learning (Mauldon and Redfern 1969), providing a bridge to a broader and more balanced range of game contexts (Almond 1982, 1989) and/or better representing popular games and sports (Ellis 1983). Since the 1990s, the dominant classification system used in PE associates specific games with one of four game forms (target, court or net/wall, field or striking/fielding, and invasion/territorial games). This four-game form classification frame has supported educators, coaches and learners to understand common elements that exist across otherwise dissimilar games. The classification served to weaken pedagogical boundaries around particular sporting forms through focusing on primary rules central to game play, removing prohibitive constraints (e.g. the use of a stipulated ball size) and allowing small-sided conditioned games to flourish (Harvey, Pill, and Almond 2018; Stolz and Pill 2013).

While recognising the pedagogical stimulus for PE provided by the dominant classification frame (Stolz and Pill 2013), we argue that it also poses a number of problems, not least a potential misalignment between the activities and foci for learning that are consequently privileged in PE and what young people may desire or need from a PE (Griggs and Fleet 2021; O'Connor and Penney 2019; Penney and Jess 2004; Rudd et al. 2021). Evolving forms of participation compel us to consider games and sports that currently sit outside the dominant classification as important contexts and foci for teaching and learning in PE. In this paper, we draw on the work of Bernstein (2000) to reshape the boundaries around the current four-game form classification in ways that both broaden its prospective reach and make it more permeable to new possibilities for PE.

As the following section illustrates, consideration of the nature of the activity and forms of participation in it, are invariably intertwined in commentaries about what legitimately constitute games and sport and what, therefore, falls within or outside of the classification being applied. We highlight how definitions of games and sports, and the frameworks stemming from them, encompass judgements relating to how and why individuals engage in an activity, not merely what the activity is. Bernstein (2000) helps us to engage with this dynamic in a critical and generative way. Specifically, games and sport classifications in PE are associated with social and symbolic points of division and connection (boundaries) that shape and ultimately limit the accepted structures of PE. Boundaries arise from, and are maintained by, interrelated systems of classification (relating to the structuring and organisation of knowledge) and framing (relating to the structuring of communication and pedagogic relations) (Bernstein 1990, 2000). Following Penney (2013), our concern is not only with how these systems combine to provide a recognisable ‘order and logic’ for thinking about the nature, place and purpose of games and sports in PE. Our prime interest is in exploring avenues via which the order and logic may be disrupted and openings created for legitimate engagement with new discourses that expand the pedagogic possibilities for PE. Our starting point is, therefore, to look more closely at understandings of ‘games and sports’.

What counts as games and sports?

Borge (2021) suggests games and sports are created and pursued for pleasure. Rules, according to Suits (1988, 5), are central to games as 'it is the rules of any particular game that generate the skills appropriate to that game'. Games include activities like chess, whereas sports are essentially games in which physicality is central (Borge 2021). Parry (2019) suggests sport comprises ‘institutionalised rule-governed contests of human physical skill’ (4), excluding physical activities such as jogging and mountaineering as sport. Borge (2021) further argues that sport is ‘an extra-ordinary, unnecessary, rule-based, competitive, skill-based physical activity or practice where there is cooperation to fulfil the prelusory goal of having a competition’ (309). Winning in competition, according to Borge (2021), is a key component in formally defining what constitutes a sport. Despite acknowledging a significant grey area, Borge (2021) and Parry (2019) contend that activities such as recreational parkour, surfing and skateboarding do not constitute sport. Further, Olympic sports such as gymnastics and diving are not considered games by some, but rather, performances (Suits 1988).

Other agencies and individuals propose much wider notions of sport. The Council of Europe, European Sports Charter (Council of Europe, 16 May 2001), for example, clarifies that ‘sport’ means ‘all forms of physical activity which, through casual participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels.’ This definition of sport stretches well beyond traditional team games and, according to Rowe, Adams, and Beasley (2004), incorporates ‘individual sports and fitness related activities such as aerobics and certain dance activities, as well as recreational activities such as long walks and cycling’ (6). Notions of expression, improvement (i.e. effort/practice) and recognition of the social dimension of sport are all evident.

Borge (2021) suggests that sport is a moving target and we affirm that prototypes of sport globally are shifting (Jeanes et al. 2019; O’Connor and Penney 2021; Tomlinson et al. 2005). Formal distinctions between what counts as sport and games have been made by observing prototypes that have occupied the centre of our ‘sporting attention’ (Borge 2021). As new and different sports migrate to this space (e.g. trail running, downhill cycling) and others slide to the periphery (e.g. squash, golf), what counts as ‘sport’ continues to change (Borge 2021). In light of this dynamism, how sport is framed in PE needs ongoing revision.

Shifts in our ‘sporting attention’

Pill (2021) has previously argued the need for a widening of the classification categories to account for sports such as athletics, swimming, rowing and other sports that currently have no place. Participation trends internationally lend additional support to such calls, affirming distinct shifts in relation to both the forms of sport and types of participation that are coming to occupy the centre of many people’s sporting attention. Within Australia, 68% of the top 50 participation ‘sports’ in 2020 were not represented by the dominant four-game form classification frame (SportAus 2020), countering any argument that this frame accounts for most games and sports. Three of the four established game forms (net/wall, target, striking, fielding) represent just 6 of the top 50 participation ‘sports’ in Australia (SportAus 2020). Invasion games are substantially more popular but reach peak participation in competitive club structures around 10–14 years of age before a rapid decline (Eime et al. 2021; SportAus 2020). All forms of cycling have almost more adult participants than football (soccer), tennis and basketball combined (SportAus 2020). In Scotland, from 2007 to 2016, running and cycling sports increased in popularity, while more traditional team and partner sports like golf, have been in decline (Rowe 2019; Shibli 2018). In the United States, the number of children aged 6–12 years who played a team sport on a regular basis (37%) declined 4.5% over a six-year period from 2011 to 2017 (Aspen Institute 2018). American children reported strong interest in strength training (35%), biking (24%), skateboarding (21%), yoga (21%) and climbing (20%) (Aspen Institute 2021). While activities such as parkour, skateboarding and social cycling struggle to fit with formal or conventional definitions of games and sport, we and others (Griggs and Fleet 2021) argue that activities like these should be considered within/by classifications that come to shape PE.

Participation statistics presented in Table 1 highlight the importance of considering where and how games and sport are being played. People enjoy a variety of ways to engage in traditional games and sports (3v3 basketball, park soccer, park cricket and social netball), as different sporting forms emerge from the fringes to become more significant (parkour, fitness/strength sports, lifesaving, tricking, climbing and skating). In Australia, 48.7% of soccer players did not play soccer as part of a sports club or association (SportAus 2020, see Table 1). In the state of Victoria (Australia), 71% of health-enhancing physical activity and 56% of health-enhancing leisure-time spent as sport were non-organised and female participation in organised and club-based settings sits around 37% and 20%, respectively (Eime 2016). As we discuss further below, such data prompts consideration of the learning and participation interests that are privileged or in contrast, marginalised by the pedagogical foci ‘set’ by the four game-form classification. In turn, it leads us to explore how the pedagogical strength and reach of classification can prospectively be extended.

Table 1. Sport participation statistics outside of formal sporting clubs or associations in Australia.

Sport	Age of peak participation in a club (years of age)	% participants not part of a sporting club or association^a	% of adult population participating	% of children population (0–14 years)
Running/athletics	9–11	96.1	15.6	5.2
Soccer/football	9–11	48.7	5.4	14.7
Cycling	45–54	96.6	11.5	1.1
Tennis	5–8	54.1	4.5	6.1
Basketball	12–14	56.3	3.5	7.2
Golf	65+	30.2	4.8	0.6
Netball	12–14	56.7	3.0	7.0
Australian rules	5–8	34.2	2.6	8.5
Cricket	9–11	40.7	2.7	5.4
Touch football	12–14	41.4	1.8	2.0
Rugby League	9–11	31.3	0.9	2.6
Rugby Union	9–11	31.1	0.7	1.6

^aNon-organised; school (i.e. PE or school sport); rec club; fitness/leisure centre; community run programme; community ovals/parks; events; other.

Game classification systems in PE

As previously mentioned, there is a long history of classification in PE. Mauldon and Redfern (1969) presented a ‘new approach’ to teaching games that marked a move from a focus on skill development through drill execution towards an educative focus on key features that sit across a group of ‘common’ games (Stolz and Pill 2013). Mauldon and Redfern (1969) presented three categories of games – net, batting and running games – that featured the manoeuvring of ‘an object of some kind’ ‘with an implement or part of the body’ (29). They noted that games comprised the elements of possession of, travelling with, or sending an object away. In considering a rationale for game classifications, Mauldon and Redfern (1969) felt that PE teachers could more readily support learners if there was an appreciation of the common features across a group of games. The underpinning assumption was that common features were transferable across game contexts (e.g. player structures in ‘running games’ determine the places where an object can be directed).

Len Almond, who contributed much to our thinking around games classification and teaching, offered a taxonomy comprising four categories of games – invasion, net/wall, striking/run scoring and target games (Almond 1982, 1989; Harvey, Pill, and Almond 2018). Grouping games around a common set of primary rules enabled learners to distinguish between different types of games (Almond 2015) and supported teachers in creating PE that provided a broader and more balanced approach (Méndez Giménez, Fernández Río, and Casey 2012). At a similar time, Ellis (1983) proposed four game categories and eight sub-categories that represented many of the popular games and sports at that time (see Table 2).

Table 2. Game categories as proposed by Ellis (1983).

Territory games	Goal (i.e. Football) Line (i.e. Rugby Union)
Target games	Opposed (lawn bowls) Unopposed (golf)
Court games	Net (tennis) Shared (squash)
Field games	Fan (baseball) Oval (cricket)

Adapted from: Ellis (1983); Almond (1982).

Almond (1989) subsequently presented another classification system, grounded upon the play-game-sport continuum, that again reshaped the boundaries of classification by proposing three forms of physical activities that should be the focus of PE: (i) sports; (ii) dance and (iii) adventure activities. For Almond (1989, 21), each form held three key aspects:

• • Discipline – required dedication, acquisition of ‘complex skills and movement patterns’.

• • Health and Wellbeing – facilitated ‘healthy growth and development’ and ‘feeling good about oneself’.

• • Alternative activity curriculum – ‘purposeful physical activity where the tensions of preparation and the need to acquire difficult competencies are more relaxed’.

According to Werner and Almond (1990) and Bell and Hopper (2000), the essence of game classification systems developed in/for PE had some focus on skill and specifically, the body-management (locomotive, non-locomotive), and equipment handling (manipulative) motor skills needed to play games. The central importance, however, sat with developing a strategic understanding that led to tactical awareness (Werner and Almond 1990) in and through students’ engagement with the various game forms, with a view to this transferring to the range of sports within a category. The games classification was considered helpful for game selection so that children could ‘understand similarities between apparently dissimilar games within a game form’ (Werner, Thorpe, and Bunker 1996, 30). The extent to which this transfer of strategic and tactical awareness occurs remains unclear (e.g. between the target games of golf and billiards or invasion games of rugby and lacrosse). Transfer in procedural knowledge has been found within game categories but remains inconclusive in relation to decision-making and where specific technical skills are needed (García López et al. 2009). Equally, the tactical question of ‘how well can you spin the ball and control placement?’ (Hopper and Bell 2001, 7) could be reasonably asked across categories of volleyball, soccer and ten-pin-bowling. Werner, Thorpe, and Bunker (1996) suggested that classification systems helped teachers prioritise the order in which particular game forms should be introduced to children on a premise that target games are less complex in nature than invasion games. It is worth nothing that complexity is readily shaped by constraints. Méndez Giménez, Fernández Río, and Casey (2012) argued for an expansion of the target games category to include moving target games, noting their developmentally appropriate place in this tactical/developmental hierarchy (see Table 3).

Table 3. Hierarchical classification based upon tactical complexity.

High tactical Complexity	Invasion games
	Wall games
	Fielding and run-scoring games
	Divided court games
	Moving target games
Low tactical Complexity	Target games (opposed)
	Target games (unopposed)

Adapted from: Méndez Giménez, A., Fernández Río, F. J., & Casey, A. (2012). Using the TGFU tactical hierarchy to enhance student understanding of game play. Expanding the Target Games category. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 8 (7), (138).

Returning to Bernstein’s (2000) concepts of classification and framing, the above commentary highlights agendas for PE curriculum structures and for the structuring of pedagogy arising from the changing nature of classification systems. The role of classification systems as developed and applied in PE appears to be to help teachers and students to make sense of the (sporting) world through representing a balanced range of popular game contexts in PE curricula, while also directing attention to common elements and associated learning that are emphasised as potentially transferable amongst those games and sports associated with a grouping. The application of the four game-form classification system provides an alternative to highly sport-specific, rule ladened PE programmes while accompanying pedagogies represent a weakening of classification and framing (Bernstein 1990, 2000). Nevertheless, the classification system, and particularly, the way in which tactics have been conceptualised and positioned within it, means that PE has been shaped and bounded by discourses that are also inherently limiting. The following section explores the nature and pedagogical significance of tactics within the four-game form classification system. It also begins the process that Bernstein’s (2000) work points us towards, exploring the spaces inherent in the established classification system that provide avenues for new discourses to be brought into play that may ultimately enable the system itself to be re-shaped.

Tactics to achieve different ends

Tactics can be defined as ‘a specific action’ or ‘a planned method’ for achieving a ‘particular result’ (Cambridge University Press, Accessed 2021). In this section, we examine the specific ends that these tactics are frequently associated with and the discourses that are consequently generated and privileged as prime foci for teaching and learning. We suggest that currently, these discourses relate primarily to scoring or preventing scoring against an opposition to gain a competitive advantage – with the end goal of ‘outwitting your opponent’ (Almond 2015, 19). Our intention is not to discount what we have come to know and do in the name of tactics. We instead consider what might be missing when tactical ends get narrowed to only a focus on scoring in opposition. Consequently, we look to expand the relevance of 'tactics' for a broader range of sports and participation ends that may or may not centre on always outwitting or out-scoring an opponent.

Terms such as invade, attack, defend, oppose, shoot, score, target, fake and threat represent a versus orientation, focused on defeating an opponent. These terms are frequently used to unpack strategy within the four-game form classification frame, and within game play itself. It is important to recognise that young people participate in games and sports for a range of reasons that go beyond a desire to outwit an opponent through an early recognition of their weaknesses (Almond 2015; Bunker and Thorpe 1986). Whilst 59% of American school students enjoyed competing and testing themselves against others, 32% said they did not enjoy sports and 29% did not try out because they did not think they were good enough (Aspen Institute 2021). Evolving sporting forms and participation trends point to the importance and popularity of alternatives to the often-hyper-competitive environment of club-based competition (Jeanes et al. 2019; Tomlinson et al. 2005). This presents an opportunity to open up new discourses around ‘tactics’. We contend that tactics take on different notions when a wider range of ends are considered.

Consequently, we suggest tactics, as a specific action or a planned method for achieving a particular result, can also be deployed to match a task to the ability of participants, to enhance social connection, to perform in a manner that is safe for all, to focus on mastery over performance, to access a location for play and to enhance a shared experience (O’Connor and Penney 2021). Obtaining a competitive tactical advantage to win might be less of a concern where overt competition plays a less prominent role. A pacing strategy to beat others across the line (surging, sprinting past at the end) could be a highly valued tactic in somebody’s weekend parkrun, but many other elements may sit more centrally in that experience (e.g. pace your run to enable conversation). Globally, parkrun has exemplified an environment being created to enable participants to match their engagement to their abilities and interests. Parkrun organisers tactically consider their audience, the topography, land user/owner groups including traditional owners, pre/post-event facilities and access when selecting courses likely to retain the interest of users. In other settings, surfers tactically assess environmental conditions that will allow full expression and optimal challenge of their capabilities. Skaters tactically consider space and time when selecting terrain that affords an expression of tricks at the boundaries of possibility, knowing that the chance of failure adds to the joy of success. Seeing that ‘what is tactically desirable must be technically possible’ takes on important meaning here (Launder and Piltz 2013, 59). Park cricketers may employ tactics that maximise active game time with limited player numbers by bowling from one end to a particular field set up. Park soccer players similarly set pitch sizes that maximise player engagement and adjust their approach to cater for players of different abilities. Rudd et al. (2021) describe pick-up style basketball where participants forgo a ‘tactically’ correct passing game in order to express themselves and ‘make it happen’ (302).

Describing the broad category of lifestyle sports, Tomlinson et al. (2005) emphasised a performativity that centred on creativity and expression tuned into the environment. Actors in challenge-based activities, such as BMX tricking, pursue skill development because they enjoy ‘exercising that skill and also, perhaps, because [they enjoy] displaying that skill to others’ (Suits 1988, 4). Smith (2007) notes how the subtle glance of the other, gives authority and justification to the work participants have put in and, in this case, serves as a different form of competition. When and how one should exhibit newly progressed skills is, therefore, a tactical exercise of expression. Thorpe (2016) evidenced this in the form of young action sports participants in Gaza sharing their exploits on YouTube.

Literature lends support to thinking more broadly about tactics and the participation and performance ends that they can lead to. Obtaining a tactical advantage to score did not figure in O’Connor and Penney’s (2021) analysis of a range of informal sports and activities. Rather, O’Connor and Penney’s (2021) review affirmed the importance that participants place on social ends, prompting consideration of what tactics they may need to employ to achieve those. PE scholars acknowledge the contemporary importance of the affective domain where social interaction, sensation and task mastery play substantive roles in sustaining game play for young people (Beni, Fletcher, and Ní Chróinín 2017; Braithwaite, Spray, and Warburton 2011; Brown 2008; Kirk, 2020; O’Connor 2018; Werner, Thorpe, and Bunker 1996). Memmert et al. (2015) have further asked how cognitive, affective/social, and cultural development can be fostered in approaches that utilise game classifications. Light and Fawns (2003 p. 161) suggest that when games are taught as a form of educational conversation, cognitive, affective, social and physical learning can happen, embodying a more ideal holistic learning experience. To achieve this orientation, we see a need to expand the focus from obtaining a tactical scoring advantage and consider tactics for affective, social and performative ends. We now turn to how this shift can be reflected in an expanded classification system for games and sports in PE.

Re-framing and renewing classification systems for PE

Preceding sections have drawn attention to the limited reach of the four-game form classification system when contemporary participation trends and popular sporting forms are considered. With Bernstein’s conceptualisation of boundaries informing our thinking, we have pointed to a need for the structural and pedagogic boundaries of the established classification system to be problematised and explored in generative ways. Participation statistics and research have been introduced that bring to the fore practices and discourses that present both challenges and possibilities for the application of classification systems in PE. The remainder of the paper presents our efforts to engage with both. In doing so, we have remained cautious not to dismiss the fruitful work that the established four-game form classification system has facilitated within PE. Indeed, in our own practice we continue to use game categories with pre-service teachers and teachers. There are risks in reshaping old boundaries to fit new ideas. In choosing to reshape old boundaries, we hope to bring with us those who are comfortable with existing frames and who may also be encouraged to work with and within them in new ways. We make no grand claims about our initial attempts to re-shape boundaries and affirm that all classification systems carry and convey particular pedagogic meanings and possibilities. As we discuss later, we recognise the limitations of our work and the need for further research and refinement.

Process

Each author independently undertook a structured mapping exercise designed to facilitate exploration and potential classification of a wider range of contemporary activities potentially relevant for PE. The mapping process sought to align with the pedagogical orientation of the four game-form classification, while seeking to expand its boundaries and reach. Current classification frameworks were used to inform a set of issues that we were challenged to consider in relation to any prospective grouping of activities. The mapping process invited us each to answer these questions:

• (1) In proposing any classification or sub-classification, what activities do we have in mind?

• (2) What is the basis of the classification or sub-classification – or its point of distinctiveness from others?

• (3) More specifically, in activities within the classification or sub-classification,

  • (a) how might comparisons in performance be made?

  • (b) what is the nature (or ‘level’) of competition inherent in/associated with the activity?

  • (c) what is the structure of play in the activity?

Points 3a and 3b acknowledged that games and sports are typically defined by some form of competition or ranking (Borge 2021). Consequently, we considered how comparisons are (and might be) made in different activity and participation contexts – and how prominent these comparisons typically are in those activities and contexts. Generally, when you play a game where the goal is to score points, competition (winning and losing) is self-evident. In quite informal social sport contexts, a level of competition, comparison and ranking is nearly always present, even if not overt. Scoreboards may not be present at many park soccer or cricket games, but goals, runs and wickets invariably remain part of the players’ focus. Yet more subtle forms of competition might include privately looking up where one sits by age category on a Strava segment (Barratt 2017), or getting more ‘likes’ on a YouTube post.

Point 3c above considered the structure of play, as this has a bearing on the nature of engagement in an activity and also the level of perceived competition/opposition. We felt oppositional play represented games where there were clearly two or more individuals/teams versing each other (offence/defence, batting/fielding, serving/receiving). Turn-based play was where players take turns to perform (i.e. one at a time on the equipment/obstacle or target sports like golf and bowls). Side-by-side play was where players are facing and moving in the same direction (i.e. bunch cycling/running), allowing opportunities for socialisation and even working together cooperatively (say against the wind, or to achieve a time). The latter can create a feeling of a shared collective experience, often with people next to, in-front and behind at any one time. Parallel play recognised instances in which participants are in a similar space, but frequently focused on their own thing (e.g. in a skate park). Within this context and form of play, people may monitor and rate each other’s efforts but not always in overt ‘opposition’. Finally, we identified a synchronised structure where people coordinate to perform the same action at the same time (e.g. sport Aerobics).

A further step in mapping, challenged us to consider (and generate) the types of tactical questions that we regarded as relevant to activities within each classification/sub-classification. Games-centred approaches, like teaching games for understanding, have constructivist foundations, whereby learners are asked scaffolded questions that aim to unpack the strategic intent of their participation (Harvey, Pill, and Almond 2018). Current classification frameworks privilege the framing of questions in terms of tactics that lead to scoring/winning. We challenged ourselves to consider the questions teachers and students might ask in connecting with different ends pursued by participants (see Table 5). We noted for many of the activities, like street skateboarding, movements are self-organised and may not require explicit cognitive representation in the form of answers to questions about how to move (Davids et al. 2013; Rudd et al. 2021). Accordingly, we brought a different lens to the consideration of tactics and questioning in PE.

Discussion of the results arising from the mapping provides further detail about the intent behind each element in the mapping structure. The authors met on-line to share and discuss their respective responses. This process identified points of similarity and difference in proposed classifications and sub-classifications, the identification and placement of activities and/or forms of engagement in them, and a variety of tactical questions tied to a wider range of outcomes. Each author had time to talk to their responses, pose and respond to questions. The lead author documented all agreed resolutions of points of difference and all authors checked the final synthesis of ideas as presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4. An expanded classification for games and sports in PE.

Classification	Sub-classification	Examples	How might comparisons be made?	Level of competition	Structure of Play
Invasion/territory games	Goal or line	Ultimate, park soccer, 3v3 basketball, touch rugby, etc.	Points scored (goal)	Overt	Oppositional
Court or net/wall games	Divided or wall	Pickleball, park volleyball, 4-square, spikeball, etc.	Points scored	Overt	Oppositional
Striking and fielding games		Wana^a, park cricket, softball, rounders, etc...	Runs scored	Overt	Oppositional
Target games	Moving, opposed and unopposed	Tag-it, bocce, kolap^a, finska, cornhole, etc.	Points scored	Overt	Oppositional, Turn-based
Travel sports	Lap or circuit sports	Lap swimming, pump track, thurnda-gu^a, track running, parkrun, cyclocross, etc.	Timed	Overt – subtle	Side-by side, parallel
	Route or journey sports	Road/gravel/XC cycling, trail/fun/ event/obstacle running, OW swimming, SUPping, paddling, orienteering, etc.	Timed, digital segments	Overt – subtle	Side by side, parallel
Action or trick sports	Rush or action sports	DH MTB, surfing, BMX (track), skateboarding (park), speed climbing, etc.	Timed, judged, likes, shares	Subtle – overt^b	Turn-based or parallel
	Stunts or tricking sports	Skateboarding (street), cycling (jumps/stunts), parkour, pirrha^a, freestyle gymnastics (tricking), trampolining, etc.	Judged, likes, shares	Subtle – overt^b	Turn-based or parallel
Rhythmic or aesthetic sports		Rhythmic gymnastics, sport aerobics, dance, hip/hop, a TikTok, etc.	Judged, likes, shares	Subtle – overt	Parallel, synchronised

^aTraditional Indigenous game played by the First Peoples of Australia (see Yulunga Games).

^b Not everyone will likely witness all performances.

Table 5. Example questions that extend beyond the attainment of a competitive advantage.

Classification	Examples of tactical questions to prompt outcomes	Tactical ends that achieve outcomes in
Invasion/territory games	In what ways are on-field leaders supporting the team? What could we do to make this competition more equal/fair? What features of effective communication are you showcasing? What could I do to make this more personally challenging?	Social/personal development (leadership) Optimising challenge, motivation Social/personal development (communication) Optimising challenge, motivation
Court or net/wall games	Is the equipment/setup appropriately modified to have our ‘best game’? What could we do to get more ‘touches’ in game play? What are the histories and stories of this game? What personal skill or creativity challenges can you set?	Optimising challenge, motivation Motivation, practice opportunities Motivation, game appreciation Social/personal development (communication)
Striking and fielding games	What strengths do you want to showcase as assessment? What field positions encourage riskier but more exciting shots? What pre/post game rituals can we establish to build a sense of team? What features of this game make it fun? How do we get more of this?	Motivation, practice opportunities Competitive advantage Motivation, inclusion Motivation, inclusion
Target games	Where can we play this game in our community? How can you use changes of speed/direction in moving target games? How could we find, make or borrow equipment to play this game? How does varying height, spin, speed change the outcome?	Connecting to community Competitive advantage Connecting to community Competitive advantage, skill development
Lap or circuit sports	How might we divide up the session so it is personally challenging for all? What pace will you need to work at to be able to finish all the efforts? What tools can you use to monitor your progress? What do you feel/sense during a lap?	Motivation, optimising challenge Optimising challenge Motivation Meaning, embodiment
Route or journey sports	What is the best route and pace for this group's fitness and skills? What are the environmental conditions and considerations needed to make this enjoyable (i.e. clothing, topography, terrain)? What resources/tools help with route planning? How will we periodically re-group and support each other? What words adequately describe how this activity made you feel (start, mid, end)?	Optimising challenge Motivation Optimising challenge, connecting to community Inclusion Meaning
Rush or action sports	What are the risks and how do we manage them? How should we moderate our speed through the turn? What different choices are there for different levels of ability on this run (obstacles, challenges, options)? How do we progressively and safely build up to this obstacle? What do we need to do to care for the environment here?	Safety Skill development Optimising challenge, motivation Practice opportunities Connecting to community
Stunts or tricking sports	What medium best captures, showcases and celebrates achievements safely? What elements make a trick exciting to perform and exciting to watch? How might you support others to learn this trick? How could you use this obstacle as an object for action?	Motivation, safety Optimal challenge, aesthetics Social/personal development (leadership) Motivation, optimal challenge
Rhythmic or aesthetic	What makes this a good beat/song choice for this sequence? What move could you master to make this pop? What story are you telling with these moves? How do your strengths complement others?	Motivation, aesthetics Optimal challenge Expression, meaning Motivation, inclusion

Conceptual contribution

Table 4 presents an agreed summary of our mapping, with columns representing the questions that we each addressed in completing the mapping exercise outlined above. We considered the addition of five more sporting types: lap or circuit sports, route or journey sports, rush or action sports, stunts or tricking sports and rhythmic or aesthetic sports. Through each of the foci incorporated in the mapping exercise, we explored avenues to extend the overall reach of the classification system. At one level, the identification or generation of new classifications and sub-classifications can be seen as creating new boundaries. This might even be taken to represent a strengthening of classification in Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) terms, with new distinctions legitimating new specialisms within the specialist discourse. Yet our intent speaks to a weakening of classification and our desire to see the basis and pedagogical significance of classification further explored. We have presented an expanded system of classification, designed to offer increased reach and enhanced pedagogical potential and value, for teachers and learners.

In this, as any reshaping, we also open ourselves up for critique. We acknowledge that some groupings in Table 4 do not fit well with formal definitions of games and sports (competition and ranking are not as evident). It may be a stretch to include, for example, rhythmic and tricking classifications as sports or games, whilst excluding other potentially obvious possibilities such as combat, surf-sports and even fitness-related pursuits. We recognise that what the framework includes, should be culturally, socially and environmentally considered. Hence, in some contexts, other sports, like combat sports, may be deemed legitimate and/or important to include. We are also aware that teachers and school administrators may baulk at some of the activities that present logistical challenges including cost, group size and fears around risk (Robinson et al. 2021). Suffice to say cycling, swimming and gymnastics programmes are already embedded in many schools, and whilst contain risk, can atually contribute to student safety. Stronger links to outdoor education might also be leveraged to help. Our intent was not to provide a definitive list, as what counts here should always be contested and contextualised. Further, we suggest that examining what characterises evolving or popular sporting and participation forms and exploring the challenges and possibilities that they raise for PE are ongoing tasks. Classifications like those proposed, should not stay stable for too long.

Table 5 presents a summary of our attempt to progress broader meanings associated with the notion of tactics. This generated questions (and pedagogical challenges) that we readily acknowledge are relevant to more than one grouping (for example, questions about risk) – and in some instances applicable to all. In this sense, our extended frames do not create highly functional boundaries around, for example, a homogenous set of questions that transfer within a particular classified grouping. Yet we anticipate a similarity in responses that are nuanced within categories. What is risky in tricking will be different from what is risky in route or journey sports. We also identify that several of these lines of questions speak to shifts in the structuring of pedagogical relations and communication in PE and more specifically weaker framing in Bernstein’s terms.

We suggest that the new discourses that we have brought into play in the classification system, enable fresh thinking about matters such as space, time and sequencing of learning in PE. At the same time, they challenge teachers to develop greater connectivity between young people’s learning in school and beyond it. In looking towards deployment of this classification frame, we support Rudd et al. (2021) and O’Connor and Penney’s (2021) suggestion that activities introduced in PE should be connected meaningfully to the everyday lives of learners. Consequently, the selection of specific activities in PE should reflect the student’s socio-ecological context and their access to particular play spaces (i.e. garden, street, park or sports club), rather than selected according to a games' relative position in a pecking order of tactical complexity (Table 3) (García López et al. 2009; Méndez Giménez, Fernández Río, and Casey 2012). Complexity afterall can be regulated through the manipulation of constraints. Further, the pedagogical relations that are reflected in and fostered by PE need to align with students’ participation in their socio-ecological contexts.

Conclusion

For some time, PE scholars have shaped and re-shaped the classification of games and sports to guide the field. This paper contributes to that history in calling for a reconsideration of the current four-game form classification frame that define games and sports for many in PE. The re-configuration we propose is timely, given the rise in popularity of route, rush, action, and rhythmic sports and the rate at which pre-teens and adults alike, are rejecting highly competitive forms of oppositional sport. The extended classification system we share is accompanied by an extension of what we mean by and do in the name of tactics. Our hope is that the reshaping and extension of the classification system and of tactics, provides a stimulus for generative planning, research and advocacy in PE, centring on sporting and participation forms relevant/accessible to young people within their communities.

Whilst acknowledging the limitations of this work, we present it as providing a stimulus for critique, discussion and further research that engages with matters of sport selection and the teaching and learning opportunities that particular activities and different forms of participation ‘open up’ for PE. In particular, we recognise a need for research that can explore the application of the proposed classification in PE programmes that feature various curriculum models and that can also unpack in more detail the common elements that sit within, for example, ‘tricking’ sports, or ‘route’ sports, to better inform the kinds of questions educators and learners might want to be asking – and that therefore need to be central to pedagogy.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).