Session 1
Participant: Daniel Bageley
Session Aims:
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.
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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment