Task 1

Session 1Participant: Daniel BagleySessions Aim: Improve shooting technique, accuracy and percentage of shots scored. Action The session aim was to improve Daniel’s shooting technique, accuracy and the percentage of shots scored.  From previous performance analysis, it was found that Daniel scored 60% of the shots he took, and there are inconsistencies in his technique which hindered him from shooting accurately repeatedly.  The session took place at the tennis centre and Daniel was the only participant.  Even though I was coaching the session I sometimes took part when it was needed, for example to feed the ball to the player.  The session started with a one-on-one on the technique of shooting, which was followed by a practical session inside the goal circle practicing what Daniel had learnt, by shooting from different areas within the circle.  This exercise progressed with the introduction of an active defender, and then by performing court sprints and receiving the ball once in the circle and then shooting as he previously did.  Daniel then did a movement and awareness drill in the circle, which progressed with the receipt of a ball and him turning to shoot.
 Reflection The first exercise of the session was a one-on-one focussing on shooting technique.  Daniel picked up the technique quickly, and there was a noticeable difference in the accuracy and preciseness of his technique, which Woodlands believes are ‘key… to consistent, high percentage shooting’ (2006).   He quickly progressed onto further drills, implementing what he had learnt successfully, and moving onto a conditioned game situation.  Throughout the session there was an improvement in Daniel’s technique, but there are several key points that he needs to focus on in following sessions.  For example, something that Daniel wasn’t always doing during the exercises was extending his body and moving the ball upwards.  This is a key component of shooting as a low release of the ball is going to increase the chance of interception, which Daniel found when shooting from within the circle with an active defender.  Woodlands supports this by saying ‘the player should release the ball from the highest point’ and they should shift their ‘weight forward up onto the toes’ (2006). Although this point was highlighted to Daniel during the session, he didn’t always respond and could have taken more time when shooting to focus on that.  It is understandable however that Daniel may not realise the importance of extension until he plays in a pressurised game and there are obstacles in his way to shooting.  

The above video shows Daniel shooting at the beginning of the session.

This video shows Daniel shooting later on in the session and you can see that his knees are bent, he is holding the ball above his head, and his hand is underneath the ball supporting it.
Daniel may also need more experience of shooting from different distances and angles within the goal circle.  When shooting from an area that he was comfortable with he shot accurately, but found it difficult to grasp the power and angle of release needed to score goals from different areas.  This is something that can be rectified easily with practice and experience.  With more experience Daniel will learn where he can shoot from within the circle successfully, and with what angle of release and power he needs to use.  This information will be stored in the long term memory, and Daniel will recall it every time he is faced with the same situation, in order to shoot successfully (McMorris, 2004).  Daniel could also take more time to set up these shots, and talk himself through the process and the key points rather than rushing, as it’s important he understands how much power and at what angle these shots need to be taken from to score, as ultimately ‘their number one objective is to score as many shots as they can’ (Woodlands, 2006).
During the awareness drill, Daniel demonstrated that he understands how he should position his body towards and track other players.  When he was fed the ball he reacted quickly, pivoting to shoot and abiding by the footwork rule - rule 14 states ‘a player may… step with the other foot in any direction any number of times, pivoting on the landing foot' (Thomas, 2000).  However, he may have rushed the set-up of the shot and not given enough thought to the key factors.  At this stage it’s important that Daniel sets-up the shot accurately (which he may need to take more time to do) to eliminate any problems that may occur later on as he progresses through the stages of learning with incorrect technique.  As Daniel is currently at the cognitive stage of learning he may use trial and error to find the best way of reaching his end goal (scoring a goal), but any inconsistencies in his technique will become more difficult to change as he progresses to the autonomous stage of learning (Wulf, 2007).  Also, as with the previous drills, Daniel wasn’t extending his body upwards or holding the ball safely above his head.  This is something that can be worked on however, and after playing a game Daniel may begin to understand the importance of lifting the ball upwards (again through trial and error, Daniel will find that if he doesn’t lift the ball it will be intercepted).
 I think Daniel benefits most from having a one-on-one session, and it was during the one-on-one technique session that he showed the most development.  I think this may be because during the drills he wasn’t listening to the feedback and prompts I was giving because he was too focussed on the task.  Daniel is also easily distracted by things around him (see his learning style questionnaire).  Therefore, by doing a one-on-one where there was interaction between myself and Daniel he found it easier to remain focussed, as there were fewer distractions, and gained the most from the session this way. 

During the session I took on a democratic style of leadership.  I think this was most suitable for the session as Daniel was the only participant, so by making decisions with him I was able to make the session entirely athlete-centered and based upon Daniel’s needs (Martens, 2001).  As the group size was small, a democratic style of leadership was effective and it meant there was a friendly atmosphere during the session (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).  However at times (for example when giving Daniel prompts to which he didn’t respond) it would have been better to use a more autocratic style of leadership as it is considered to be more ‘task-orientated’ (Martens, 2001) which Daniel was having problems with. 
 
Daniel suffers from state anxiety (as was found during his initial psychological assessment), however during this session he didn’t display any symptoms of anxiety (such as loss of concentration, nervousness and fear) nor was his performance hindered in any way.  This may be because when the initial assessments were conducted, Daniel was new to the sport and didn’t have much understanding meaning he viewed it as potentially threatening – state anxiety is defined by Adams as ‘an emotional response to any situation considered to be threatening’ (2007).  He now appears to be much more confident and comfortable when playing.  This may be because the session was predominantly one-on-one with me, and as Daniel and I have a good relationship he didn’t view the situation as threatening, or feel nervous or embarrassed. 

As well as technical and psychological development, Daniel began to show a tactical development.  The three second and footwork rule were introduced during the conditioned game and Daniel was able to see how they were used during a game environment.  It’s important that Daniel understands and plays by the rules, as breaking the footwork rule or keeping possession of the ball for more than 3 seconds will result in a free pass (Thomas, 2000).  Even though there wasn’t much emphasis on this during the session, there was still a substantial improvement from his initial tactical and technical assessment results.  The tactical progression Daniel has shown is pleasing, but there is still work to be done, however this will come with practice and will be the focus of specific training sessions.

The feedback Daniel received during the session was mainly formative, in that it was given to him continuously throughout the session with the aim of improving his performance (BTEC Sport, 2013).   The amount of feedback was ideal because it wasn’t too much that Daniel lost concentration or became confused, but the prompts were relative and necessary to improving Daniel’s performance.  There wasn’t however any summative feedback given at the end of the session, nor did I tell Daniel this review of the session would be available for him to read.  Summative feedback is important as it tells the learner whether they have reached the outcome indicated at the beginning of the session, it gives an overall summary of the whole session, and positive feedback gives the performer more confidence (Evaluation Focus, n.d.).  As the sessions had been recorded Daniel could have been shown this footage, which is an effective form of feedback as he could see the errors for himself, and how what he thought was the correct way of executing a skill could be amended.

Planning Overall there was an improvement in Daniel’s basic shooting technique, meeting the aims of the session.  During the next shooting session however, he needs to slow down the set-up of the shot and really consider the key points of the technique rather than becoming over confident and rushing it, because he doesn’t yet have a 100% success rate of shooting.  It’s important that he does this so his body knows how it should feel when shooting from different distances and angles, and he will begin to receive internal feedback from his body knowing whether it’s going to be a successful shot, which he currently isn’t aware of.  Daniel may also benefit from more challenging exercises so that the importance of the key technique points are highlighted, and he will understand why they’re necessary.  It will also be more realistic to a game situation because shooting won’t be as easy for him in a game as it was during the session.
 During the next session we will focus on extension of the body as this is currently one of Daniel’s biggest barriers to shooting successfully in a game situation.  We will also look at the variations of shooting technique but this will become more prevalent in more challenging situations.  For example, stepping backwards before shooting if a defensive player is blocking you.  Another thing which Daniel needs to improve is his cardiovascular fitness because he became tired very easily during the session indicating that he would struggle to play a full netball game as the demand on the cardiovascular system is high (HPathletes.com, n.d.). Daniel may also find the accuracy of his shooting is effected when he becomes fatigued.  Although there is already a focus on this in his programme by building it into all of his sessions, especially shooting, it will both improve his stamina quicker and be more realistic to a game situation.  What Daniel has learnt is integral to a game of netball because it is the team with the most goals that wins, and there are only two team members allowed to shoot so Daniel must be able to act at every opportunity.
 Session 2Participant: Stuart MarriottSession Aims: Improve Stuarts speed and agility and transfer it to a game situation. Action The aim of the session was to improve the performers speed and agility which could then be implemented into a game situation.  The session was completed on a squash court (due to the desired facilities being unavailable) with Stuart being the only participant.   Even though I was leading the session I participated in activities where there was a need for another participant (for example, wall work).  The first activity was rack sprints over a distance of 5m, 10m, 15m, and 20m, which then progressed by receiving and passing a ball.  This was followed by a wall drill focussing on movement and agility.  The session concluded with Stuart doing high intensity fartlek training and then cooling down.
  Reflection The first exercise was a sprinting drill over distances which may be covered in a game of netball.  Initially, I felt that Stuart didn’t give all of his effort to completing the drill, but once I motivated and encouraged him he did try much harder.  Weinberg and Gould state that intrinsically motivated individuals ‘strive inwardly to become competent’ and ‘want to learn skills to the best of their ability’ (2011).  Stuart initially wasn’t very motivated, which is concerning considering the above, but with verbal praise he became more motivated.  Verbal praise is an effective form of increasing intrinsic motivation as it is positive feedback encouraging the learner to further strive for improvement (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).   It’s important that Stuart gets used to giving his sprints 100% because if he doesn’t his speed training won’t be effective in increasing the explosive power in his legs.  This is important for mamy aspects of the game, such as jumping, sprinting, changing direction quickly and stopping immediately having caught the ball ((Livestrong.com, 2011).  Aside from that Stuart’s sprinting technique did develop during the session.  He used his knees to drive forwards, increased his stride length, stayed on the balls of his feet and kept his elbows at a 90◦ angle also using his arms to drive his movement (Mackenzie, 2001).  As the sprints were over such a short distance it is difficult to truly assess technique because as Stuart is getting into his stride he has to stop again.  Also, there was no definite measure of success during this exercise.  Even though there is an end measure (decrease the time taken in a sprint test) in place, this can’t be used at the end of every session as it’s impractical, however the improvements I saw during the session were promising.

The video shows Stuart's improved sprinting technique and him putting in more effort.

During the second activity, the wall work drill, there was a noticeable development in Stuart’s agility and footwork.  Again, this exercise is hard to measure, and it was especially hard as I was taking part in the activity myself.  However, as I was taking part in the activity I noticed that it was flowing better and fewer mistakes were being made.  Stuart became very light on his feet, with his knees bent, remaining on his toes and changing direction quickly.  Most importantly Stuart remained balanced and kept his speed under control meaning he could stop and change direction immediately, because if he didn’t in a game situation he may be penalised for footwork (Woodlands, 2006).  He was always in the correct place to catch the ball and threw it accurately so that I, the other player, could catch it - a skill which must not be ‘underestimated’ in such a fast paced game (Woodlands, 2006).  When we completed the exercise in reverse order Stuart picked it up quickly, and had no difficulty with the change of direction.  Again, he was on his toes and able to move in a different direction with speed.  Feedback for this drill at the time was limited, and this is not Stuart’s fault, but mine for not having enough participants to enable me to step back and watch the drill.

The video above shows the wall work drill.

During the fartlek training Stuart gave a lot more effort than he had in the first sprint drill, which I was pleased with, especially as I think he struggled with the intensity of the exercise.  Fartlek training is ideal for netball as the athlete must switch between the anaerobic and aerobic energy systems (as would happen during a netball game) leading to an ‘improvement in aerobic endurance’ (BTEC, 2007).  Other benefits of fartlek training are that it reduces boredom in comparison to other aerobic training, and the pace can be set by the athlete (BTEC, 2007) which is beneficial for Stuart as he sometimes loses motivation.  Again, as this is a fitness building exercise it’s difficult to measure the success of it.  At the end of the training programme Stuart will do tests that will measure his progress.  Currently however, I am pleased with the amount of effort that Stuart gave, and if he continues he should definitely see an improvement.

The aim of the session was to improve speed and agility and transfer it into a game situation.  As of yet it can’t be measured with Stuart’s speed and agility has improved, as this will be measured at the end of the programme, and unfortunately there weren’t enough participants to play a netball game.  This means he was unable to meet that session outcome, but that was not Stuart’s fault but was my planning of the session.  The speed and agility that Stuart is developing will make him quicker in games, meaning he can get into spaces quicker, change direction quickly to dodge other players and the strength in his legs mean he’ll be able to jump higher, which is all necessary for a competitive player (Woodlands, 2006).

A concern is that with both the first and second drills, I had to stop the session and explain them again because Stuart didn’t understand.  If Stuart doesn’t understand an explanation or demonstration of a drill he needs to communicate this with me so I am aware and I can change the way I approach to situations with him to something more suitable.  There is also little point in starting a drill and having to stop again, as it wastes time and can make both the participant and coach agitated to do repeatedly.  During the session I took on an autocratic style of leadership and that may be the reason Stuart didn’t feel comfortable telling me he didn’t understand the drill.  An autocratic leader dictates to the participants and is task focussed, whereas a democratic style of leadership is more cooperative and athlete focussed (Martens, 2001).  Had I taken on this style of leadership Stuart may have felt more confident and discussed any problems he was having.

As well as improving physiologically, Stuart’s technical and tactical awareness also developed.  During the wall work rotations exercise Stuart wasn’t allowed to make contact with the other player (as the defender must always be 0.9m away from the ball (Thomas, 2000)) so his spatial awareness increased by working in such close proximity to another player.  He also had to catch the ball whilst sprinting so the footwork rule became increasingly important as he had to control his speed in order to stop immediately (Woodlands, 2006).  Even though it’s limited, Stuart has still shown a tactical development since his initial analysis.  The extent of Stuart’s technical and tactical development cannot be fully assessed because he didn’t play a game.  Playing a game is the most effective way of learning tactical skills and for the athlete to realise the importance, so Stuart will definitely do this during the next session.

During the session Stuart was quiet, and didn’t appear confident when performing the drills, occasionally looking to me for confirmation.   This indicates that his anxiety which was identified in his initial assessments has not yet reduced, and his confidence is still quite low.  This may have been because I stopped both rack sprints and the wall work drill, which may have been quite disheartening for Stuart.  Before taking part in the next training sessions Stuart should complete a psychology questionnaire so his psychological development can be assessed.  Over the following session there will be an emphasis on building Stuart’s self confidence, because without it he won’t take the risks he needs to in order to improve (France, 2009).  One of the most effective ways of improving Stuart’s self-confidence would be to set achievable and measurable goals, so that he can see the improvement in his performance (France, 2009).  As stated above, the activities completed during this session were not measurable to be able to assess whether they had been successful.  However, as leader of the session I could see that Stuart had shown technical and physiological developments and so I should have given him more praise.
 The feedback Stuart received during the session was mainly formative, but this was limited especially when I was taking part in the drills.   Formative feedback is ‘communicated to the learner… intended to modify the learners thinking or behaviour… for the purpose of improving learning’ (Shute, 2007).  The benefits of it are that it allows Stuart the opportunity to change his behaviour before the end of the session enabling him to still meet the session outcome.  The amount of feedback I gave could be increased, and it could have been more positive.  The Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) states that positive feedback makes the learner feel rewarded and often increases intrinsic motivation, something which Stuart is lacking (Gadsdon, 2001).  Alongside this, there wasn’t any summative feedback given at the end of the session, nor did I tell Stuart this review of the session would be available for him to read.  Summative feedback is important because it informs the learner whether they have reached the outcome indicated at the beginning of the session, giving an overall summary of the whole session, and any positive feedback increases the athlete’s confidence (Evaluation Focus, n.d.).    Feedback is especially important for Stuart as his confidence is low, so any information which may modify his behaviour and make him more successful, is likely to increase his confidence.  As the sessions had been recorded Stuart could have been shown this footage, which is an effective form of feedback as he could see the errors for himself, and how what he thought was the correct way of executing a skill could be amended.

Stuart showed the most development during drills when he got stuck in and found what was best through trial and error (in this case this occurred during wall work rotations).  From his learning styles questionnaire, it can be seen that Stuart is a kinaesthetic learner – someone who remembers ‘what they do and what they experience with their hands or bodies’ (Hayes, 2010) – meaning Stuart learns best from doing.  During trial and error learning ‘a person tries a variety of approaches to learning a motor skill and evaluates their successfulness (Fairbrother, 2010).  Wall work rotations are repetitive meaning it allowed Stuart to alter his movement having seen the result of the previous movement.  A disadvantage of trial and error learning is that the learner may pick up bad habits, but as Stuart was supervised by a coach, and as a kinaesthetic learner, this is the most effective way of him learning.  Stuart learns the least when he is being talked to, as this isn’t his preferred style of learning and he only takes in a limited amount of information as he is unable to take in that information in the same way he could if he physically did it.

Planning During the next session there will be more emphasis on game situations as this is ultimately what matters.  There should also be more communication between Stuart and me, as the coach, so that I am aware if he doesn’t understand something, and so he feels comfortable to tell me if he has any problems.  Alongside this, I need to give Stuart more feedback so that he can continue to succeed, and more praise, to help build Stuarts self-confidence.  This should also increase Stuart’s intrinsic motivation, so that he gives more to the sessions.  I would like to see Stuart begin the session with as much effort as he ended this one, so that the results of his end fitness tests reflect the maximum he is capable of achieving.  It would be beneficial for Stuart to work with a sprints coach, as they will have a better understanding of speed training and Stuart will be able to achieve his potential. 
The above session reflections are based upon Swailes and Senior’s (1999) adaptation of Kolb’s Learning Cycle (Jones, 2006).
Image from Jones, 2006.

ReferencesAdams (ed.) (2007) BTEC National Sport, Book 1. Heinemann: Oxford.

BTECSport.com (2013) The importance of feedback [online] Available from: http://www.btecsport.co.uk/?p=33 [Accessed 15^th June 2013]

Bush, A., Brierley, J., Carr, S., Gledhill, A., Mackay, N., Manley, A., Morgan, H., Roberts, W. and Willsmer, N. (2012) Foundations in Sports Coaching. Pearson Education: Essex

EvaluationFocus.com (n.d.) Formative and Summative Assessment: An Explanation [online] Available from: http://evaluationfocus.com/formative-summative-assessment-an-explanation/ [Accessed 15^th June 2013]

Fairbrother, J. (2010) Fundamentals of Motor Behaviour. Human Kinetics: Leeds.

France, R. (2009) Introduction to Physical Education and Sports Science. Delmar Cengage Learning: New York.

Gadsdon, S. (2001) Psychology and Sport. Heinemann: Oxford.

Hayes, D. (2010) Encyclopaedia of Primary Education. Routledge: Oxon.

HPAthletes.com (n.d.) Fitness Training for Netball [online] Available from:  http://www.hpathletes.com/netball/ [Accessed 8^th April 2013]

Livestrong.com (2011) Netball Power Exercises [online] Available from: http://www.livestrong.com/article/462628-netball-power-exercises/ [Accessed 13^th April 2013]

Martens, R.(2001) Directing Youth Sports Programs. Human Kinetics: Leeds.

Jones, R. (ed) (2006) The Sports Coach as Educator: Re-conceptualising Sports Coaching. Routledge: Oxon.

Mackenzie, B. (2001) Sprinting [online] Available from: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/sprints/index.htm [Accessed 27th May 2013]
 McMorris, T. (2004) Acquisition and Performance of Sports Skills. Wiley: Chichester.

Shute, V. (2007) Focus on Formative Feedback [online] Available from: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-07-11.pdf [Accessed 15th June 2013]

Thomas, M. (2000) Know The Game: Netball (3^rd Edition) A & C Black: London.

Weinberg, R. & Gould, D. (2011) Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology (5^th Ed.) Human Kinetics: Leeds.

Woodlands, J. (2006) The Netball Handbook. Human Kinetics: Leeds.

Wulf, G. (2007) Attention and Motor Skill Learning. Human Kinetics: Leeds 

Learning Styles Questionnaire's

The following learning style questionnaires were completed by both Daniel and Stuart before partaking in the sessions.

Stuart

Daniel

Development Plan

Having completed two coaching sessions and reflected upon them, I have produced a development plan with four target areas which may enable me to improve my coaching and leadership.

Target Area	Goal	Developmental Activities
Learning Styles	Improve my knowledge relating to learning styles and be able to implement it in coaching.	Do some wider research surrounding learning styles and the importance of delivering a session appropriate to the athletes needs. Experiment when leading sessions to find what works best for different learning styles, and for me. Shadow a more experienced netball coach (Sarah Haslam) at Queens Park Sports Centre, Saturday's 11a.m, to see how they teach according to the individual.
Technical Knowledge	Improve my technical knowledge of the skills involved in netball.	Attend a netball coaching course.UKCC Level 1 Course in Eccles. Manchester on the 21st and 22nd September, and 12th October 2013.  Cost: £200.  Shadow a more experienced netball coach (Sarah Haslam) at Queens Park Sports Centre, Saturday's 11a.m. Watch a qualified netball coach through pre-season training, and watch how they progress skills.  Also listen to the key teaching points of certain skills, e.g. passing, shooting, footwork.  (Ripley Netball Club, Genesis Social Enterprise Centre - Alfreton). Attend 'Sharp Shooting Workshop' run by East Midlands Netball (Derby, 20th June).
Game Experience	Gain more game experience to widen my knowledge which I can transfer into coaching.	Train with a netball team with the possibility of playing games if good enough.  GK Netball Team trains at Sharley Park Leisure Centre, Clay Cross, on Wednesdays at 7pm.
Game Rules	Develop my understanding of the game rules so that I have a comprehensive understanding and can referee a game comfortably.	Complete the England Netball Beginner Umpiring Award.  Complete the application form and send it to East Midlands umpiring secretary. Volunteer to umpire any GK Netball matches that I'm not playing in.

Task 2

Session 1

Participant: Daniel Bageley

Session Aims: Improve shooting technique, accuracy and percentage of shots scored

The Session

The aim of the session was time to improve Daniel’s shooting technique, accuracy and percentage of shots scored.  The session took place at the tennis centre and Daniel was the only participant.  Even though I was coaching the session I sometimes took part when it was needed, for example to feed the ball to the player.  The session started with a one-on-one on the technique of shooting, which was followed by a practical session inside the goal circle practicing what Daniel had learnt, by shooting from different areas within the circle.  This exercise progressed with the introduction of an active defender, and then by performing court sprints and receiving the ball once in the circle and then shooting as he previously did.  Daniel then did a movement and awareness drill in the circle, which progressed with the receipt of a ball and him turning to shoot. 

Reflection

Skill Acquisition and Progression

I felt Daniel picked up the technique quickly and he had a good understanding of why it was important the technique was that way.  I progressed the drills quickly to keep his skill progressing and to challenge Dan.  I hadn’t planned a progression for the movement and awareness drill, but because he picked it up quickly I progressed the drill and it became a conditioned game. During the session I felt I had given too much time to some of the drills, for example 15 minutes may have been too long for a technique one-on-one.  However, in hindsight I think I moved on from some of the drills too quickly.  Whilst at the time I believed Daniel had developed a comprehensive understanding relatively quickly there was one key point that Daniel appeared to struggle with (extending upwards and holding the ball in a safe position above his head) and it would have been beneficial to stop the drills and regress to focus on that part of the technique.  I could have had more interaction with Daniel and asked him open questions to check his understanding, but I think he did understand the technique and thought he was throwing that way.  Therefore, I should have demonstrated how he was throwing and manually guided him into the right position to create muscle memory (Newell, 1991).  This means that in future Daniel will be able to detect that his body is positioned incorrectly and he’ll be able to adjust it - a form of internal feedback (Wrisberg, 2007). 

Leadership Style

Throughout the session I spoke clearly to Daniel and presented the information in a clear and logical way so that it was understandable.  I spoke concisely not giving more information than was necessary, and made sure the information I gave was correct (Mackenzie, 1997).  I also gave demonstrations so that Daniel could see how the skill should be performed before he did it himself, and prompted him with key coaching points throughout the session.  I was a participative (or democratic leader) allowing ‘athletes to participate in decisions about the groups goals, practice methods, and game tactics and strategies’ (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).  As the session was one-on-one I was able to become more involved practically (partly because it necessary and partly because I knew Daniel’s learning experience wouldn’t suffer as a result), rather than taking the sole role of leader, and involved Daniel in decision making, moving on not according to my session plan but according to when Daniel was ready. 

As a democratic leader I should have spoken more with Daniel about the outcome of the session and what he was hoping to achieve.  I could also have moved away from my session plan slightly, to do drills that worked on what Daniel may have felt were his weaknesses in shooting.

From Daniel’s learning style questionnaire I found that he is a tactile learner, but my style of delivery didn’t match that.  When I was demonstrating the skill and talking through it, he was doing the movement himself.  This means that he wouldn’t have been taking everything that I was saying and doing in, but this is something I should have considered before delivering the session, or I should have adapted my leadership style at the time rather than continuing.  Daniel finds it difficult to concentrate for long periods of time and would rather learn something himself through trial and error (see his learning styles questionnaire), so I should have given more time for Daniel to work through the technique in a way that suited him.

The video above shows Daniel going through the movement and technique as I was explaining it to him.

Feedback

Throughout the session I regularly gave feedback to Daniel, highlighting what he was doing well, where he had shown developments, and what key points he needed to focus on.  I didn’t give too much feedback but prompted him on the key teaching points.  The benefits of giving him concurrent feedback are that it either reinforces the movement and he carries on doing it that way or he is able to change it in order to continue to develop through the rest of the session. It is thought that concurrent feedback is a necessary component of motor learning as the performer uses feedback to repeatedly perform the skill accurately (Williams & Hodges, 2004). 

Even though the amount of feedback I gave him was sufficient, I think I could have given him more, especially at the end of the session (known as terminal feedback).  It would have been better if I’d bought the session to a close by having a conversation with Daniel in which I highlighted what he had done well and improved through the session, what he hadn’t done so well, what he would need to focus on next session, and allowed him to tell me how he felt about his performance during the session.  I should have also told him that a written reflection of the session would be available for him to view online.

As the session was based upon shooting, seeing the ball going through the hoop is a form of positive feedback as it affirms that the skill was executed correctly. It was very difficult for Daniel to determine whether his shots had been successful, as there wasn’t a goal post, and even  though during the session we made a substitute for scoring a goal (hitting the top of the hoop) it is difficult to tell when that happened.  Based upon Thorndike’s second law (the law of effect) seeing a goal being scored is a positive reinforcement which strengthens the stimulus response bond, making Daniel more likely to repeat that action (Nevid, 2013), but in this case Daniel wasn’t always aware of the outcome (positive or negative).

Planning & Adaptation

With regards to the flow of the session and practical issues, I think it could have been planned better.  My knowledge of shooting technique is limited, and this is reflected in Daniel’s shooting.  There are many courses of action I can take to improve this, but to have been more prepared for the session I should have done more research beforehand and included this on ‘key teaching points’ of the session plan.  This would mean I could give more feedback to Daniel and improve his shooting technique further.

The facilities that I needed for the session (a netball court) were not available, but I did adapt the session to the space and equipment that was available.  Instead of a netball court, I set out a goal circle using cones, and a hung hoop as a goal post.  I think I adapted well and the session ran smoothly, although having a goal post would have been beneficial, for the reasons stated above, and so Daniel could grasp the height and diameter of a hoop.  

During one of the drills, when performing court sprints, I asked Daniel to run to the other side of the tennis court where there was a net divider.  This caused a health and safety issue as Dan got his foot caught and almost fell during the session.  Even though there would not be nets around the perimeter of a netball court, this is still something that could have been prevented by the use of a cone or telling Daniel not to run to the net as he may trip.

In the video above you can see Daniel getting his foot caught in the netting.

I was not able to complete all the planned activities because I didn’t have enough participants (the game of three v. three netball). Next time I do a session I need to ensure that I have any extra participants who may be needed as this is important for Daniel’s learning experience, as ultimately he is training to improve his game play.  A difficulty that I may have had if I had had all 6 participants is that the other activities only needed one participant. 

Finally, whilst I did set up some of the activities beforehand there was no reason I couldn’t set up all of the activities which would have saved time during the session that I should have spent with Dan.  It meant he was standing around waiting for me to set things up when he should have remained active, and the focus should have remained on the participants, and ultimately it disrupted the flow of the session.

The above video shows me setting up a drill which should have been done at the beginning of the session.

Planning

Overall the session did go well as Daniel did meet the planned outcome, but there are areas which could be improved.  Next time I do a coaching session with Daniel I need to give more thought to his learning style, and not be scared to stop the session and try and different style of delivery if I don’t think Daniel is taking in all the information that I’d like him to do.  Before the beginning of the session I should run through it in my head ensuring everything is set up and ready as it should be (for example, cones are set up for drills), and in order to prevent any problems from arising (for example, Daniel tripping on the net could have been prevented if I’d considered it before giving him instructions for the exercise).  It may also be beneficial to communicate more with Daniel, both during and after the session, to find out how Daniel’s feeling and solve any problems which may arise.  Finally, I could go on a netball specific coaching course to develop my own technical knowledge, or play more games myself to develop my experience which I will be able to transfer into my coaching sessions.

The above session reflection is based upon Swailes and Senior’s (1999) adaptation of Kolb’s Learning Cycle (Jones, 2006).

Image from Jones, 2006.

Session 2

Participant: Stuart Marriott

Session Aims: Improve Stuarts speed and agility and transfer it to a game situation.

The Session

The aim of the session was to improve the performers speed and agility which could then be implemented into a game situation.  The session was completed on a squash court (due to the desired facilities being unavailable) with Stuart being the only participant.   Even though I was leading the session I participated in activities where there was a need for another participant (for example, wall work).  The first activity was rack sprints over a distance of 5m, 10m, 15m, and 20m, which then progressed by receiving and passing a ball.  This was followed by a wall drill focussing on movement and agility.  The session concluded with Stuart doing high intensity fartlek training and then cooling down. 

Skill Acquisition, Progression & Performance

Reflection

Rack Sprints

During the first drill Stuart sprinted five metres, jogged the remaining distance of fifteen metres and walked twenty metres.  He then sprinted ten metres, jogged the remaining ten metres and walked twenty metres.  The drill progressed accordingly until Stuart had sprinted fifteen and twenty metres, then completed the drill in reverse order.  To progress the drill we repeated at as set out, but I fed a ball to him once he had sprinted which he passed back to me.

After having explained the drill to Stuart I thought he understood it and was ready to begin, but when we began the drill Stuart wasn’t completing it as I had intended.  At the time I thought Stuart hadn’t been listening to me when I was explaining the drill because I thought I had explained it clearly.  Looking back on the situation, the adaptations that I made to the drill because of the change of facilities did make the drill more complicated, and I assumed that because it was clear to me it was clear to Stuart once I’d explained it.  I also felt that during the drill Stuart didn’t try as hard as he could have done, and continued to perform the drill incorrectly even though I had stopped the drill and explained it again, and continued to give him prompts throughout.  The facilities that we used did make it difficult to complete the drill, especially as it was sprinting, because Stuart had to slow down before reaching the wall and turn around so it didn’t have the full effect that it should have done and may be the reason Stuart didn’t give 100% to the sprints.  Even though he didn’t give everything to the sprints Stuart was still tired at the end of the session so he did still work hard and the drill worked. 

Wall work rotations

The second exercise was a ball drill focussing on agility, footwork and movement.  The drill was done in a pairs, starting one behind the other, with the first player throwing the ball against the wall then side-steeping left once and taking two back steps diagonally to the right, whilst the second players steps forward to catch the ball.  The first player then steps forward to catch the ball and repeats the drill.  Even though I was session leader I participated I this drill as it needed two players.  The drill was then performed in reverse order. 

I explained the drill to Stuart by demonstrating it and giving a verbal explanation.  I was concerned about the drill because I knew Stuart found it difficult to absorb all the information in the first exercise, and this one was much more technical.  Initially the drill was slow as Stuart tried to master the footwork, but he did then speed it up a little.    However, when the game sped up Stuart wasn’t performing the footwork as he should have been, so I stopped the drill to show him what he was doing and to explain again what he should have been doing.  Stuart then had a couple of practice runs and he felt more comfortable with it.  When we continued the drill his footwork had improved, although he did occasionally divert from it.  He kept his knees bent and remained on the balls of his feet to change direction quickly, and when we did it in reverse order he managed it with ease not having to think about it. 

During the wall work rotations, I became too concerned about Stuart learning how to do the drill correctly rather than focussing on the skills it was developing.  I stopped the drill because Stuart wasn’t doing the footwork as I’d asked, but in hindsight, I think I was being too fussy and shouldn’t have been concerned whether he was following the set out footwork exactly because his movement was still good. 

Leadership Style

Before the beginning of the rack sprints drill, I gave a verbal explanation, and pointed to the cones that Stuart had to run to, but once the drill began I could see that Stuart had not understood.  Before the session Stuart completed a learning style questionnaire from which I found he is a kinaesthetic learner.  The combination of my choice of delivery and Stuart’s style of learning could have contributed to Stuart not understanding the drill, and so I should have explained it in a way that would have worked best for him (already knowing his learning style).  At this point, I stopped the drill and explained it again; giving consideration to the way I explained the first time being ineffective.  I did continue to give verbal guidance but moved to the cones rather than pointing, and when checking Stuarts understanding I asked open questions and he explained the drill to me so I knew he understood.  I should have given a full demonstration of the drill and talked Stuart through it whilst be actually did a practice run, as this may have been more effective for his style of learning.  

The video above shows me explaining rack sprints to Stuart.

Having felt at the beginning of the second drill (wall work rotations) that Stuart may not have grasped the movement pattern straight away, I should have taken longer to go over it and done more to check his understanding before beginning the drill, then I may not have needed to stop the exercise and explain it again.  Even though I did give a practical demonstration, I also asked Stuart to join in.  At the time I believed this would help his understanding as he would see how the whole drill came together and he would know what everybody was doing when.  Looking back at this, and how I was aware that Stuart may find it difficult to grasp, I should have explained it step-by-step as Stuart would not be able to focus on anything in particular as I was asking him to do so much.  As a beginner this amount of information was likely to confuse him (Beashel et al, 2001). 

The video shows me explaining the wall work drill to Stuart, asking him to take part in the demonstration with me.

During the session I took on an autocratic style of leadership (Weinberg & Gould, 2011).  Whilst this may not initially have been my intention when Stuart didn’t understand the drills I became much authoritative and didn’t invite any contribution from him, I simply wanted him to perform the drill correctly.  If I had been more relaxed during the session and made decisions with Stuart he might have understood it from the beginning and the session could have progressed in a way that was more suited to him, therefore it may have been more successful.

Feedback

I repeatedly gave feedback and encouragement throughout the drill, but limited the amount of feedback so he was able to absorb it.  For example, to begin with Stuart wasn’t sprinting at 100% so I gave prompts to extend his stride length and encouraged him; I also praised him when he began to do this.  This is known as prescriptive feedback because it gives movement cues telling the performer how to improve the movement (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2008).  As a result of this Stuart did give more effort and his sprinting improved.  In the later drill however I became too worried about him performing the drill precisely and didn’t praise him for what he was doing well.  I also found it difficult to give feedback because I was taking part in the drill myself, and so wasn’t focussed on Stuart which I should have been.

Alongside this I should have given him feedback at the end of the session as well as during.  This would have been an ideal time to talk about the whole session in detail, and to get Stuart’s point of view, so that we can both make changes for the next session. 

Another negative relating to feedback is that the drills weren’t measurable, and therefore the session couldn’t necessarily be deemed successful.  By the nature of the session target however (speed), it’s impractical to attempt to measure this after every session.  This may cause a problem as Stuart may become disheartened if he doesn’t begin to see the results of his work.  Because of this I should have given Stuart more knowledge of performance (because knowledge of results is unknown) so he knows if his movement and performance was correct. 

Whilst I am happy with my communication with Stuart during the session I think it would have been better to give him feedback at the end of the session as well, as this would have been time to talk about the whole session and to get Stuart’s point of view in order to make it more effective next time. 

. 

Planning and Adaptations

One of the main problems I faced was not having enough participants and having to take part in the drill myself.  This meant I was focussed on performance, but I should have been watching Stuart so I could give him feedback.  Nor was I motivating Stuart during the drill because I was concentrating on being able to throw and catch the ball myself, meaning he may have lost motivation towards the end of the drill.  Next time I perform this drill, I need to be sure that I have enough participants because Stuart’s learning experience suffered as a result, because I wasn’t able to focus my attention on him.

Not having enough participants also meant that Stuart wasn’t able to play a game.  It is necessary that Stuart takes part in games as he needs the experience in order to progress, nor will he understand how what he is learning will benefit his game play.

As I didn’t have access to the desired facilities I used a squash court instead.  I adapted the drills to be performed in these facilities, and this mostly ran well.  The only drill that suffered were the rack sprints because Stuart wasn’t able to sprint the whole distance, he had to stop to turn around.  This meant he wasn’t able to pick up much speed, and there could have been health and safety issue with him picking up so much speed before turning at a wall.  That said, there wasn’t really any other way the speed work could have been carried out in these facilities.

In the video above you can see how the wall is making it difficult for Stuart to sprint efficiently.   

On my session plans I should have used more teaching points for sprinting so that I was able to work on Stuart’s technique, which at the time I didn’t know much about.  I didn’t give much consideration to this when planning the sessions and thought speed is something quite simple to work on, but there is a lot of skill involved. 

Conclusion

Even though the activities of the session weren’t measurable Stuart did give a lot of effort to them, and there was a noticeable improvement as the drills progressed.  Speed and agility are important for Netball, as Stuart will be able to dodge other players and move into open space more quickly.  He was also be able to move down court quicker to support his team. Stuart however didn’t get the opportunity to play a game, and so he couldn’t transfer what he had learnt into a game or see the benefits of it.

 

Action Plan

If I was deliver this session again there would be definite changes that I would make.  Firstly, my style of delivery and explanations need to be matched to Stuart’s style of learning.  Even though I moved towards a kinaesthetic approach as the session progressed, I knew Stuart’s style of learning before the session began so I should have implemented the correct approach from the beginning.  Secondly, I would take more time in explaining the exercises and speaking with Stuart in an open conversation to check his understanding before beginning the drills.  I would interact more with Stuart throughout the session giving him feedback more often, and also encouraging and praising him more.  I need to have everything which is necessary for the session (such as facilities and people) as ultimately Stuart’s learning suffered as a result of this.  Finally, if I don’t feel able to deliver a speed session I should refer Stuart to a speed coach so he will improve as much as is possible.

The session reflection above is based upon Gibbs reflective cycle.  The cycle has six stages:

1. Description

2. Feelings

3. Evaluation

4. Description

5. Conclusion

6. Analysis                                                                                             (Jasper, 2003)

References

Beashel, P., Sibson, A. & Taylor, J. (2001) The World of Sport Examined (2nd ed.) Nelson Thornes: Cheltenham.

Jasper, M. (2003) Beginning Reflective Practice - Foundations in Nursing and Health Care. Nelson Thornes: Cheltenham.

Mackenzie, B. (1997) Communication Skills [online] Available from: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/commun.htm [Accessed 27th May 2013]

Nevid, J. (2013) Psychology: Concepts and Applications (4th ed.) Wadsworth: Belmont.

Newell, K, (1991) Motor Skill Acquisition [online]  Available from:  http://e.guigon.free.fr/rsc/article/Newell91.pdf [Accessed 27th May 2013]

Schmidt, R. & Wrisberg, C. (2008) Motor Learning and Performance: A Situation Based Learning Approach (4th ed.) Human Kinetics: Leeds.

Williams, A. & Hodges, N. (ed.) (2004) Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice. Routledge, Oxon. 

Wrisberg, C. (2007) Sport Skill Instruction for Coaches. Human Kinetics: Leeds.