5 minute read
Sport Science
The Athlete’s Navigation Device
BY GARRETT LUCASH
Advertisement
Does anyone remember what it feels like to get lost when driving to a new destination? Not long ago, this was a common reality. Drivers studied physical maps to determine which roads to take then sketch out important details on paper. We sought advice on which landmarks to look out for and how many lights to go through before making a turn.
Modern technology bestowed us with navigation devices that literally transmit exactly where to go, when to turn, and how far to drive before the next turn. However, we no longer need to observe landmarks, learn street names, or other details that used to inform our journey in the days of the past.
When drivers used to make an errant turn, we experienced varying levels of frustration for sure. However, we also used the error information as feedback to change our general method and pattern of performance. An errant turn, thus, informed our learning. Therefore, for a driver to avoid building a dependence on a navigation device they must connect with the information provided by the environment.
The notion that making errors inform our learning is acknowledged in the skill acquisition research literature (Schmidt et al. 2018, Chow et al. 2015, Davids, Button, and Bennett 2008) and some experts even argue that those who make the most mistakes learn the most . If we think of the typical exchange between a coach and skater, we witness a navigation device in full effect. Consider a program run-through when the coach follows a skater and calls out feedback as they move from skill to skill. “Keep your head up… arms here… get your shoulder back on this next jump… push harder… hold this spin… one, two, three, change… smile!”
In fact, the run-through scenario is not an exchange at all because the athlete plays a passive role. They develop a dependence on a coach to problem solve for them and when the coach’s feedback is not there, athletes are at risk of getting lost just like drivers when their navigation device is turned off. This does not mean the coach should never provide feedback. They just need to observe when those teachable moments occur and this is a coaching skill that takes time to develop.
Navigation device feedback also interferes with athletes’ self-motivation because they tend to rely on the coach to provide the ‘spark’ to make them push harder, count their spin rotations, and perform their movements more expressively. What does this mean? It means that if the coach provides the athletes with constant encouragement, no matter how positive their intentions, then athletes might not develop their own intrinsic drive to push harder without it. The external source—the coach—becomes the driver of the athlete’s motivation.
Unfortunately, navigation device feedback deceptively influences learning. One of the greatest misconceptions of practitioners is the emphasis on how much an athlete seems to improve within a single practice session with the coach. In the research literature, this is referred to as ‘within-session improvements’ and decades ago there was an assumption that when learners are provided more feedback they learn more too (Schmidt et al. 2018). However, the true test of learning is to see how the athlete performs after the effects of practice—the coach’s feedback, the pole harness and other performance aids— have diminished. True learning involves lots of wrong turns. Athletes must struggle, make mistakes, explore new solutions, and seek guidance only when they truly need it. This represents the transformation from coach centered to athlete centered training.
The reality is that athletes and coaches tend to perceive feedback differently where coaches assume their feedback is effective and athletes feel it is not (Stein, Bloom, and Sabiston 2012). Effective feedback is not transmissive like a navigation device. Effective feedback is transactive; it is an active exchange of information, a dialogue between individuals that positions the athlete as an active agent- the driver- of their own learning.
One approach coaches can take to transform feedback into a dialogue is to ask the athlete questions that guide them to the answers without directly providing the answer for them. This holds athletes accountable to think for themselves and allows them to connect with their environment and take ownership of their learning. As they develop this learning skill, coaches can adjust the complexity and number of questions. Young children and athletes unaccustomed to dialogic feedback, for example, may require simpler, yet more direct, questions. Below is an example:
The athlete lands a Lutz jump but had an edge change on the takeoff.
Coach: “What did you think of your Lutz jump?”
Athlete: “I liked it.”
Coach: “What did you like about it?”
Athlete: “It felt big and I landed it.”
Coach: “It was a big jump! What makes a Lutz jump different from a flip jump?”
Athlete: “A Lutz jump takes off from an outside edge.”
Coach: “Yes, it does! Did your Lutz takeoff from an outside edge?”
Athlete: “I don’t know.”
Coach: “Can you do another Lutz jump for me and let me know what you think?”
The athlete performs another Lutz jump and changes edge again…
In this exchange, the coach noticed right away that the athlete did not acknowledge the edge issue. This is a teachable moment: to help the athlete understand the importance of an outside edge. Next, the coach supported the athlete’s intuition that the jump was big. Then, the coach triggered the athlete’s thinking. The athlete knew a Lutz jump takes off from an outside edge but forgot to pay attention to this detail on their own jump. After observing the athlete perform another Lutz jump the coach then observes that the athlete has not learned how to do a Lutz from the correct edge (or perhaps what it should feel like). The coach learns what the athlete knows and thinks and this allows the coach to modify the lesson plan accordingly.
REFERENCES
Chow, Jia Yi, Keith Davids, Chris Button, and Ian Renshaw. 2015. Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction: Routledge.
Davids, Keith W, Chris Button, and Simon J Bennett. 2008. Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach: Human Kinetics.
Schmidt, Richard A, Timothy D Lee, Carolee Winstein, Gabriele Wulf, and Howard N Zelaznik. 2018. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis: Human kinetics.
Stein, Jonathan, Gordon A Bloom, and Catherine M Sabiston. 2012. "Influence of perceived and preferred coach feedback on youth athletes' perceptions of team motivational climate." Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (4):484-490.
