Are You a Sage on the Stage or a Guide on the Side?

“Anyone can make a subject complicated, but only someone who understands can make it simple.” ~Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Physicist

Over my forty-plus years of coaching, I’ve made a concerted effort to stay abreast of current coaching trends. Keeping up with change is a non-negotiable component of the profession. There isn’t an excuse for not being up-to-date with the latest information, as accessibility is easier than ever via social media, videos, blogs, technology, statistical software, and clinics. I’ve explored ecological coaching methods, anticipated outcomes (statistics), constraint-led coaching, cognitive learning, linear vs. non-linear pedagogies, block vs. random activities, deliberate practice principles, and more.

As I’ve become familiar with these approaches to instruction and practice methods, it has become clear that these concepts are not revolutionary, and the game has not passed me by. Phew! Any coach “worth their salt” has incorporated similar methods into their coaching for many years. We didn’t attach a scientific name to what we did; it was coaching. I was somewhat pleased that much of my practice routine implemented, to varying degrees, the principles of all of these methods. It is concerning that those espousing a specific philosophy become siloed in their approach and don’t recognize that good coaches combine many approaches in teaching the game.

Several of the current approaches to coaching fall under the educational theory of “Constructivism,” which is prevalent in our country’s public school systems, with rather dubious results. In a Constructivist environment, the coach takes on the role of a facilitator of activities, providing minimal guidance, allowing the players to “construct” their learning based upon self-discovery and their ability to problem-solve and adapt to the events on the court. It sounds good in theory, but does it work?

In 2006, Dr. Paul Kirschner, Dr. Richard Clark, and Dr. John Sweller published impressive research demonstrating that for novices (which accounts for most players), direct explicit instruction is more effective and efficient, and in the long run, more enjoyable, than minimal guidance.

“Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal guidance” (Kirschner).

I use this quote from the study to underscore that coaches are essential in leading the athlete during the formative stages of skill and knowledge acquisition. At some point in the player’s development, a coach can take on a less active role as the players will be able to successfully handle the problem-solving and randomness presented in competition.

Does this mean that there isn’t a role for a practice environment based upon the concepts of Constructivism? Absolutely not! If I’m coaching a national team, where the players have a foundation of knowledge and skill enabling them to successfully adapt their skills, problem solve, and learn by experience, that is probably the best learning environment for them. However, what is good for a national team player doesn’t necessarily apply to a player on a 14-and-under team.

Regardless of the specific philosophy, the foundational building block for improvement for players is knowledge of the game and understanding the key aspects of skill execution. Asking a player to problem-solve or make specific adjustments in live game situations when lacking the knowledge or skill that might supply a correct response will prove to be frustrating to the player. From my perspective, the coach needs to lead the instruction and activities in a manner that allows the athletes to acquire a knowledge base that will facilitate on-court success. The coach must be a leader, not a facilitator. The coach takes responsibility for every aspect of the team and player development.

Both the player and coach must acquire foundational knowledge and skills for successful execution and adaptability to on-court situations. I’ve coached at all levels, from 15-year-olds to national team players. Here is how I organize my instruction for players and how I monitor my own development as a coach.

You will notice that the arrows will go in both directions. The arrows on the right represent knowledge and skill development building blocks that culminate in a player or coach possessing expertise. The arrows on the left signify that as one develops their skills and competes at a higher level, it may require additional and higher levels of information, knowledge, and on-court skills. It is a constant movement of adapting the knowledge and skills to the competitive level or skill level at which you compete. However, without the foundational knowledge, the player cannot adapt to the higher demands of high-level play.

On my first trip to the world championships with the USA U-18 team, we finished 14th out of 16 teams. Neither the players nor the coach were prepared for this level of competition. Even though I had a lot of coaching experience in the collegiate world, I was unprepared for how the game is played internationally. I had to go back to the bottom of the pyramid, gather additional information and knowledge, learn how to better teach the skills, and better prepare my team for this level of competition. In the next series of world championship events, we finished with two silver medals and a gold medal.

Information To Knowledge

When a coach attends a clinic and writes down a drill or listens to a lecture, that is information. When I look at match statistics, that is information. When my assistant coaches provide their assessment of a match, that is information. There must be a deeper understanding of the information to progress to knowledge. Think of information as the “what” and “when,” and knowledge as the “why” and “how.” To transition from information to knowledge, you need to study the material, implement tiny experiments in practice, record results, talk with other experts to gain their opinions, etc. With experience, the coach will see how the various bits of information link with other bits of information and combine to increase coaching knowledge.

Knowledge to Skill Enhancement to Expertise

Coaches need to supply their players with a roadmap for improvement. The coach offers the information/knowledge/activities to develop the roadmap. The player must know what they are trying to do, even though their execution may be lacking. Without the foundational knowledge and fundamental skills, the player will flounder blindly in the various scenarios they will face on the court. At the younger ages, the ball presents more of a challenge than the opponent. Just look at the number of points given to your opponent via ball control errors. However, as the player matriculates to expertise, and the level of competition is elevated, the ball presents less of a challenge, and the players must adapt to the opponent’s challenges. At this point, the ability to problem solve on the court is a priority. For example, if a left-side hitter faces a big RS block. The hitter must adapt their game to attack away from the big blocker. However, they must possess the knowledge to recognize the situation and the skill to make this adaptability possible. To recognize a problem but not have the skill or knowledge to solve the problem will frustrate the athlete. Again, they may not have immediate success hitting away from the big blocker, but they have a roadmap of what they are attempting to do.

How I incorporate a variety of teaching methodologies into my practices.

• Blocked Activities: A blocked activity is a single skill activity (coach on a box serving to passers). Some argue that blocked activities in practice do not transfer efficiently for long-term improvement. Research indicates this opinion is accurate. However, there is value to blocked activities, specifically with inexperienced players or when the coach is working on a specific skill aspect. However, as soon as you can, make the effort to move away from blocked activities to more game-related activities. You can always revisit a blocked activity as needed.
• Deliberate Practice: I’m sold on the principles of deliberate practice, which involve players focusing on specific aspects of a skill or system, being pushed to the edge of their current abilities, and the coach offering specific and timely feedback. These principles can be in place in the simplest of drills.
• Cognitive Learning Principles: I focus on 3-4 specific points of emphasis in an activity. A coach who bombards the player with excessive information risks the player’s inability to process the information.
• Linear vs. Non-Linear Activities: Coaches tend to operate in a linear fashion, where there is a sequential component to learning (A leads to B, which leads to C). However, the game is non-linear, as events occur randomly. As much as knowledge and skills allow, most activities should place the player in a non-linear environment.
• Constraint-Led Activities: I am a huge fan of this genre of practice activities. Simply put, the activity places constraints on the player (small court, fewer players, must hit a specific shot, must set a specific player, etc.) These activities allow the coach to emphasize a specific game aspect in a “live” environment.

There isn’t a need to operate in a philosophical silo with your coaching. The above examples show a crossover between various types of activities. You can implement cognitive learning concepts inside an activity with constraints. Coaches can incorporate many approaches into their training sessions. Lastly, I encourage coaches to take a leadership role in their practices and assume responsibility for the learning.