|
|
|
|||||||
Feedback
during Competition:
|
||||||||
| Why do we do it? |
Coach
behaviour research, investigating game behaviours, remains relatively
under-developed. Generally speaking however, findings do demonstrate
a difference in coach behaviour between training sessions and games.
In particular, findings suggest that coaches engage in comparatively
less instruction and overall coach-athlete interaction during competition
(Salmela, Draper, & La Plante, 1993). Intuitively perhaps this comes
as no surprise, but why is this so?
A number
of reasons have been proposed for these differences, and these are generally
contextual in nature. Competition is clearly different from practice.
In many sports competition is continuous with random stoppages and only
set periods, such as time outs and half-times, that give an opportunity
for the coach to give feedback to players.
Consequently, the frequency of coach feedback will be affected, yet
the research demonstrates differences in the content of coach behaviour.
One reason for this could be that competition often results in a hardening
of the emotional climate resulting in these marked differences in coach
behaviour (Liukkonen, Laasko, & Telama, 1996). Another reason could
be a consequence of a 'coach-centred' and task dependent coaching environment
(Terry & Howe, 1984; Cross, 1995; Lyle, 1999). This is where giving
instruction becomes a 'self-fulfilling prophecy', resulting in players
who prefer a coach who gives instruction and direction. Indeed, research
from a range of top-level sports in the United States suggests that
this type of environment
results in player's attitudes being related to coaches 'instructiveness'
(Bloom, Crumpton & Anderson, 1999).
A further reason also related to the coaching environment is the nature of power in the coach-athlete relationship (Borrie, 1996; Potrac, Jones & Armour, 2002). Essentially, a coach centred environment, arguably views coach success as being directly related to the success of the team, with the coach having direct control over the player's environment (Potrac et al., 2002). Consequently, feedback and instruction become a function of, and reflect, the power structure representing coach control.
Whether
in practice situations or games instruction remains a significant aspect
of the coach's role. With research suggesting that effective coaching
is linked more to the quality rather than the quantity of instruction
given to players (Cushion & Jones, 2001).
| Feedback: A double edge sword |
Feedback is a necessary and fundamental part of coaching with the impact and benefits of certain types of feedback well documented. These include, for example, motivational and energising powers, the reinforcement of certain actions, and giving information and instruction.
When considering feedback in competition, the amount as well as the type of feedback is also an important consideration. There is some evidence to suggest that players may become dependent on their coaches feedback, using it as a 'crutch', depending on the feedback to make decisions and maintain there level of performance. Constant feedback may also detract from the player's own intrinsic feedback, with players waiting for the coach to say something, rather than attending to their own rich sources of intrinsic feedback. Indeed, unless players produce the desired action on their own, their performance will suffer markedly when the coaches' feedback is removed.
Too much
feedback in a game situation may be problematic bearing in mind that
we have limited attention, children even less. Not only is attentional
capacity limited, but also it is also serial in nature that is, we focus
on one thing, then another, then another, making it hard to focus on
several things at once. So in a competition situation some degree of
interference is likely when we ask players to perform two actions
that require mental operations, such as selecting a pass, or deciding
whether to pass or dribble and simultaneously deal with the coach's
comments. Processing activities such as these require what is known
as controlled processing, this is slow and attentionally demanding because
it requires the involvement of several conscious information-processing
activities at once. Consequently performance is disrupted by information
overload.
| Coaching Behaviour in Games: A Strategy Grounded in Practice |
In his excellent study looking at top-level youth coaches game behaviour
Smith (2002) discovered a player-centred environment that, through positive
and supportive behaviour, was dedicated to player improvement. A pattern
of behaviour emerged which consisted of long periods of silence interspersed
with judicious feedback in the form of verbal cues, short reminders
and specific commands or correction.
An important feedback strategy during games then is silence! This approach
would positively impact coach effectiveness for a number of reasons.
It enables the coach to monitor play, producing insightful analysis,
enabling appropriate intervention. Silence also plays and important
part in the delivery of information. Instruction delivered in careful
and measured fashion, as was the case in Smith's (2002) study, ensures
that its effect is not diluted by continuous interaction. This is important
for players, as they can engage in their own sensory feedback. Furthermore,
such an approach can facilitate 'discovery learning' in which players
are allowed to search for and discover relatively unique solutions without
intervention from the coach. Playing without the tension of the coach's
remarks ensures that players benefit fully from discovery learning,
such benefits include increased motivation and resistant learning.
Ideally,
feedback should be given when the player is free from the immediate
demands of performance. However, game situations frequently do not allow
this. Therefore, adopting a strategy of short informative phrases, cue
or 'buzzwords' would seem appropriate in directing players' attention
to specific aspects of performance, while not overloading players with
information while they attend to that performance.
In
developing a positive and supportive learning environment, positive
interactions will accomplish more. Praise plays an important part in
this. However, general praise overused, can be interpreted as non-specific,
which will dilute its effects, and it will subsequently become meaningless
and even annoying to players. As with instruction, the efficacy of praise
is a function of its appropriateness and specificity.
General Guidelines for Game Behaviour (Smith, 2002)
- Silent Observation, to analyse the game, reflect on what to say and allow players to play.
- Feedback, appropriately timed, specific, containing task relevant cues that do not overload.
- Support and encouragement, specific praise for performance outcome, effort and demonstrated improvement.
- Personalise
and relate to performance.
| References |
Bloom, G.A., Crumpton, R., & Anderson, J.E. (1999). A systematic
observation study of the teaching behaviours of an expert basketball
coach. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 157-170.
Borrie, A. (1996). Coaching Science. In T. Reilly, (Ed.), Science
and Soccer (pp. 243- 258). E & F.N Spon.
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2001) A systematic observation of
professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behaviour,
24, 354-376.
Cross, N. (1995). Coaching effectiveness and the coaching process. Swimming
Times, LXXII(2), 23-25.
Liukkonen,
J., Laasko, L. & Telama, R. (1996). Educational perspectives of
youth sport coaches: Analysis of observed coaching behaviours. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 439-453. .
Lyle, J. W. B. (1999). Coaching philosophy and coaching behavior. In
N.Cross & J. Lyle (Eds.), The coaching process: Principles and
practice for sport. (pp. 25-46). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Potrac, P, Jones, R.L., Armour, K. (2002) 'Its all about getting respect':
The coaching behaviours of an expert English soccer coach. Sport,
Education & Society, 7(2), pp. 183-202.
Salmela, J. H.,Draper, S. P. & La Plante, D. (1993). Development
of expert coaches of team sports. In S.Serpa, J. Alves, V. Ferreira,
& A. Paulo-Brito (Eds.), Proceedings of the VIII World Congress
of Sport Psychology (pp. 296-300). Lisbon: FMH.
Smith,
M. (2002). An investigation of the youth coaching behaviours of professional
youth football coaches during games. Unpublished Masters Dissertation,
Brunel University, UK.
Terry, P,C.,
& Howe, B.L. (1984). Coaching preference of athletes. Canadian
Journal of Applied Sport Science, 9, 188-193.
| Start the discussion: |
1. Do you know your behaviour/ feedback patterns during competition?
2. What are the effects of giving different feedback to different players?
3. How might
you differ in giving feedback when your team/athlete is winning or losing,
playing well or badly?
| How to get involved in the discussion ? |
First copy the above questions ( you'll paste them into the reply form of the discussion forum) and then ...
Just click onto this link
November 2003 - Dr. Jonathan
Doherty will start with a new article.
Have a good discussion,
co-ordinator
Guy Van Damme