Applications now being accepted for Board of Directors and Committee Openings!
My Account Preferences
My Contact Information
My Contact Preferences
Update My Password
The SCJ is the professional
journal for strength coaches, personal trainers, physical therapists, athletic
trainers, and other health professionals working in the strength and conditioning
Earn CEUs. Browse the list of NSCA approved home study courses and live events.
Learn the benefits of completing the new CSPS certification.
January 9-11, 2014
Check out the newest offering in the NSCA's Sport Performance Series.
This is Part I of "What We Say Matters." Click here to continue reading Winkelman's two-part series!
IntroductionIf 10 identical twins were trained by 10 different coaches following the same training plan (methods) and all variables were controlled, would we see the same results? The simple answer would be “yes” and the assumption would be that training methods are the primary factor driving the trainee’s success. The difficult answer would be “no” and the assumption would be that training methods are limited by the person coaching them.
Answering "yes" would support the current emphasis across strength and conditioning literature on training methods and mechanisms, but answering "no" would expose a deficit in the literature pertaining to the applied coaching sciences directed at the strength and conditioning professional.
While this paper does not seek to provide a final answer to the posed question, it does seek to address a deficit within the strength and conditioning literature, and present a foundation for understanding the science of coaching.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to aspects of coaching science that will directly impact the effectiveness of strength and conditioning professionals. While coaching is multifaceted, the ability to teach is a “red thread” across great coaches.
John Wooden once said that “you haven’t taught until they have learned” (6), and through this quote we see that learning is a function of effective teaching. The science of coaching literature provides over 30 years of research pertaining to teaching practices and the optimal use of instruction and feedback.
The following sections will discuss the underlying mechanisms and recommended application across effective instruction and feedback. Within the paper the author presents the following arguments (Part I) instruction primes the motor system by providing contextual understanding of the movement skill and (Part II) feedback refines the motor system by guiding the athlete towards a movement pattern in a manner that promotes implicit (self-correcting) processes.
Science of InstructionInstructing athletes on how to perform on-field movement skills (e.g., sprinting) and primary strength movements (e.g., Olympic-style lifts) in the weight room are fundamental coaching responsibilities. Instruction can be considered information given prior to a skill in an effort to guide the athlete towards an efficient movement pattern.
The goal of instruction is to prime the motor system by providing contextual understanding of the movement skill being learned. It should be noted that contextual understanding refers to the athlete’s ability to understand how to perform and self-correct a movement skill without feedback from a coach.
Instruction can be broken into two primary components that include visual and verbal instruction (see Figure 1). Visual instruction or movement demonstration is further broken down into an athlete observing a novice or expert demonstration prior to performing the movement themselves.
Verbal instruction can be broken into internal versus external cues, which focus the athlete on different elements of the movement being learned. The following section will examine the effectiveness of visual and verbal instruction and their component parts.
Figure 1. Instruction Model
Visual Instruction (Demonstration)Coaches will make an effort to master movement skills for the purpose of expert demonstration or have an athlete demonstrate the movement if the coach is unable to. Research has shown there is a benefit from observing both novice and expert demonstration (1). Shoenfelder-Zhodi (9) showed that observing an expert model compared to verbal instruction resulted in earlier acquisition of a ski simulator task.
While observing expert demonstration improves learning, there is a vast amount of evidence supporting the observation of novice models for improved learning (2, 4, 5).
Observing a novice model may call attention to errors, promoting problem-solving and the discovery of appropriate movement patterns through implicit learning (1, 3). From a practical standpoint it can be recommended that a combination of expert and novice observation will allow for an enriched learning environment.
Expert models can be used in the initial instruction and novice models are used by calling athlete’s attention to one another during practice. The use of “waterfall starts” and “partner coaching” will allow for a balance of expert and novice observation. Below is an example of using waterfall starts and partner coaching:
Waterfall Starts (Harness Acceleration Sprints): 10 athletes in harnesses stand across a line with a partner athlete holding the harness leash allowing them to hold a 45º acceleration angle. Athletes are instructed to sprint (accelerate) over a 15-yard distance building intensity. The waterfall start dictates that the far athlete goes first and once they have passed 5 yards the next athlete will go with the pattern continuing until all 10 athletes have sprinted. This will allow athletes to observe a range of movement abilities and provides the coach with a more controlled environment to direct feedback (see next section).
Partner Coaching (Weightlifting): Athletes are partnered in groups of two to three per platform and instructed to watch one another during the training session. Athletes will naturally identify errors in their fellow athlete’s technique and start coaching one another. This drives group cohesiveness and partner coaching which scales the coach’s capabilities.
While it has been well-established that an external focus of attention is superior to an internal focus there is less known about the underlying mechanisms. The constrained action hypothesis (CAH) has been suggested as a theoretical explanation for the benefits of adopting an external focus of attention (11, 17, 18).
Wulf et al. (17) defined the hypothesis, stating that focusing on body movements (i.e. internal) increases consciousness and “constrains the motor system by interfering with automatic motor control process that would ‘normally’ regulate the movement,” and therefore by focusing on the movement outcome (i.e., external) allows the “motor system to more naturally self-organize, unconstrained by the interference caused by conscious control attempts.”
To test this hypothesis, research was done to evaluate if an external focus of attention actually increases automatic processing during a task. Wulf et al. (17) looked at reaction time during a balance task and found that an external focus decreased balance error and reaction time compared to an internal focus during a retention test.
This further supports the notion that adopting an external focus can improve learning and performance as a function of automatic processes. In sum, an external focus compared to internal focus reduces consciousness and therefore the amount of attention needed to perform a given task. This frees up attentional resources that can be used to further the efficiency and automaticity of a movement skill.
From an applied standpoint, the use of visual and verbal instruction can be recommended. Visual instruction creates an image in the athlete’s mind and the verbal instruction drives the outcome of what the image represents. Instruction will continue to be important as new and more complex skills are taught, but can be minimized as previously learned skills are repeated.
The amount of information should be kept at a minimum within an external focus and prioritized towards critical elements of the movement skill being taught.
Part II of this article will discuss the underlying mechanisms and application of feedback. Final conclusions are also presented in Part II, discussing the application of instruction and feedback across the learning continuum.
Continue with Part II of "What We Say Matters" ...
Nick Winkelman is the Director of Training Systems and Education for Athletes’ Performance. He oversees their NFL Combine development program in addition to directing the education department. He has a MSc through Edith Cowan University and is currently completing his doctorate through Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions with an emphasis in coaching science.
Hodges, N.J., and I.M. Franks. Modelling coaching practice: the role of instruction and demonstration. J Sports Sci. 20:793-811, 2002. Lee, T.D., and M.A. White. Influence of an unskilled model's practice schedule on observational motor learning. Human Movement Science. 9:349-367, 1990. Magill, R.A. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2011. McCullagh, P., and K.N. Meyer. Learning versus correct models: Influence of model type. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport. 68:56, 1997. McCullagh, P., and K.N. Meyer. Learning versus correct models: influence of model type on the learning of a free-weight squat lift. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport. 68:56-61, 1997. Nater, S. You haven't taught until they have learned: John Wooden's teaching principles and practices. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2005. Porter, J.M., R.P. Nolan, E.J. Ostrowski, and G. Wulf. Directing attention externally enhances agility performance: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the efficacy of using verbal instructions to focus attention. Front Psychol. 1:216, 2010. Porter, J.M., E.J. Ostrowski, R.P. Nolan, and W.F. Wu. Standing long-jump performance is enhanced when using an external focus of attention. J Strength Cond Res. 24:1746-1750, 2010. Schoenfelder-Zhodi, B. Investigating the informational nature of a modeled visual demonstration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1992. Wulf, G. Attentional focus effects in balance acrobats. Manuscript submitted for publication, 2006. Wulf, G. Attention and motor skill learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007. Wulf, G., and J.S. Dufek. Increased jump height with an external focus due to enhanced lower extremity joint kinetics. J Mot Behav. 41:401-409, 2009. Wulf, G., J.S. Dufek, L. Lozano, and C. Pettigrew. Increased jump height and reduced EMG activity with an external focus. Hum Mov Sci. 29:440-448, 2010. Wulf, G., M. Hoss, and W. Prinz. Instructions for Motor Learning: Differential Effects of Internal Versus External Focus of Attention. J Mot Behav. 30:169-179, 1998. Wulf, G., B. Lauterbach, and T. Toole. The learning advantages of an external focus of attention in golf. Res Q Exerc Sport. 70:120-126, 1999. Wulf, G., N. McConnel, M. Gartner, and A. Schwarz. Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback. J Mot Behav. 34:171-182, 2002. Wulf, G., N. McNevin, and C.H. Shea. The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Q J Exp Psychol A. 54:1143-1154, 2001. Wulf, G., C. Shea, and J.H. Park. Attention and motor performance: preferences for and advantages of an external focus. Res Q Exerc Sport. 72:335-344, 2001 Wulf, G., and J. Su. An external focus of attention enhances golf shot accuracy in beginners and experts. Res Q Exerc Sport. 78:384-389, 2007.