The effects of using command, practice, and guided discovery teaching styles in the instruction of a basketball teaching unit

Background: Teaching styles in Physical Education influence technical and tactical skill development. Within Mosston and Ashworth’s Spectrum, reproduction cluster styles (e.g. Command/Practice) prioritize replicating teacher-set responses, whereas production cluster styles (e.g. Guided Discovery) encourage problem solving and decision making to support tactical understanding. However, school-based comparisons between Guided Discovery and Command/Practice remain limited, especially in basketball. Evaluating learning and retention after instruction-free periods is essential to inform evidence-based pedagogy in Physical Education.Purpose: This study compared the effects of Command/Practice (CPG) and Guided Discovery (GDG) on students’ game performance in basketball, considering short-term learning and retention after detraining.Methods: Twenty-five 10th-grade students (15.5 ± 0.5 years) were divided into two groups (CPG: n = 12; GDG: n = 13). 24 didactic lessons were taught over 8-weeks. Performance was assessed 3vs3 game situations using the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI) at three moments: Initial Assessment (IA), Final Assessment (FA), and Detraining (DT; after an 8-week no-intervention period). Variables analyzed included decision-making, technical execution, support actions, marking/defending, involvement, and game performance. Analyses used t-tests or Mann–Whitney/Wilcoxon tests, reporting effect sizes.Findings: Intergroup analysis showed no baseline differences between CPG and GDG. At post-test, the GDG outperformed the CPG across all variables with very large effect sizes (p < 0.001). At detraining, differences remained in favor of GDG for decision-making, support actions, marking/guarding, and game performance (p < 0.001), with no between-group differences in technical execution or game involvement. Intragroup analysis indicated that both groups achieved significant improvements (p < 0.05) from pre- to post-test, although gains were larger in GDG (Cohen’s d > 4). From post-test to detraining, CPG showed regressions in tactical dimensions and in game performance (p < 0.001), while maintaining technical execution; in GDG, declines were confined to technical execution and game involvement (p < 0.001), with stability in tactical actions and game performance. From pre-test to detraining, CPG retained gains in technical execution, whereas in GDG gains remained evident in tactical-cognitive dimensions and game performance.Conclusions: GDG proved more effective over time in promoting tactical-cognitive learning and retaining competencies after detraining, while CPG was useful for technical acquisition but less sustainable over time. These findings reinforce the relevance of adopting student-centered methodologies in team sports, highlighting the complementarity of both approaches depending on instructional goals.Impact Statement: This study shows student-centered teaching leads to stronger, more durable tactical game performance, including retention after detraining. It strengthens Spectrum evidence and supports outcome-driven pedagogy: sequence Command/Practice for technique and Guided Discovery for decision-making and game understanding.