Last week I read study titled "Motor Learning: Bridging the Gap Between Basic and Applied Approaches" which you can read by clicking on it there, not that I expect you to as they're pretty heavy reads with a lot of scienc-ey jargon in them so they don't make for easy reads at all.
Usually I dot point my way through them them post that but for this one I want to highlight some of the critical terms used in it because coaching is the teaching of different skills (motor learning) which is a huge part of any coaching job.
Sadly 99% of coaches teach how they were taught and not by following evidenced principles that are backed up by hundred's of study's = sometime's over decades.
Different methods become fashionable with others dropping out at various times - usually because someone has found a new name for it and redesign the wheel.
What it comes down to is that if you can't label it, you can't learn it and then you definitely can't teach it.
I've definitely used these terms on this website and should have done a terms-based post long before now but here we are.
Below are a bunch of terms/concepts used in this study that can get you started on becoming a far better coach in regards to teaching skill acquisition/motor learning, and not one that post video's on Instagram that look busy and achieving, but really aren't.
I'll keep this as basic as I can for you use a starting point - some of them have far more to them then what I'll post here now.
SCHEDULING
There are 2 basic approaches.
The first is block scheduling where you are learning to perfect the same technique of the same skill each and every time and is what 99% of coaches use.
The second is random scheduling which uses very slight variations of the same technique for the same skill (1 eye closed, on 1 foot, jump to the side etc) - also called differential learning.
The implications of block scheduling is that you can see very quick improvements in the actual training session itself giving the learner and coach the feeling of fast learning.
Unfortunately it is an illusion as the short term gains made actually result in low retention even 24 - 48hrs later.
Random scheduling on the other hand will result in far slower session-to-session improvement but with far better retention over the long term. The differential learning aspect also builds a more robust skill set that stands up better under pressure, as the learner has trained far more ways to display the same skill so can be more successful in more situations.
You'll never perform the same kick twice in a game of footy, so it's random scheduling for the win here but block scheduling does still have its place in the initial stages of early learning, yet the differential learning aspect should still apply and limited, if any, actual teaching is being used.
Let them try and let them explore.
EXPLICIT v IMPLICIT LEARNING
Explicit learning refers to teaching skill by engaging cognitive resources (attention, conscious control etc) that builds fatigue faster (cognitive load) during practice and games, and again it dominates early learning but decays rapidly.
Implicit learning involves teaching skill through the use of analogy's and focusing the learner's attention away from their body.
Instead of something like "kick with a straight foot" use something they can put meaning to like "kick like Wanganeen-Milera".
FOCUS OF ATTENTION
Explicit processes engage through the instruction of "hand this", "foot that" - directing the learner's attention to specific body parts while practicing the skill.
Implicit processes develop gradually and decays slowly as directing the learner's attention away from internal body movements reduces the increased mental load of explicit instruction.
In games where movements need to to be fluent and fast-acting, high cognitive load is the complete opposite of what you want.
Implicit instruction might sound like "make the ball spin backwards" or "kick so your teammate can try and mark it".
CHALLENGE POINT FRAMEWORK
Too many coaches will only let learner's progress in their skill progression once they master the previous aspect of it which leaves many learner's frustrated and stuck in their skill acquisition journey but it's the coaches' teaching practices that are doing the damage.
Using the lesser options from above feeds right into this progression model which is why most coaches really need to go right back and recalibrate their teaching habits.
The challenge point framework has coaches develop training activities around the current skill level of the learner.
It involves stretching the learner ever-so slightly out of their comfort zone bit it will take some tinkering as too easy will mean zero learning is taking place, only skill rehearsal, and too hard will only frustrate the learner and dent their confidence if they cannot be successful.
This will mean you'll go "up and down" in the level of the skill being practiced over a session, a week or even months.
Ultimately you're only looking at a 70% success rate of a higher level skill before you can stretch them again.
Stretching learner's can be as simple as shifting from block to random scheduling in the initial stages of learning to adding defenders and opposition pressure in later stages of learning.
FEEDBACK
Frequent feedback can enhance immediate performance but can also create a dependency on that same feedback that impairs performance when removed - games!
This can be a part of you nailing the challenge point as slowly reducing feedback to zero is an evidenced/based method to successful and long term skill acquisition.
Even in initial stages of learning should feedback be kept to "only as much as it needs to be" - that's not after every rep - while allowing room for the learner to explore around 1 piece of feedback before having to tackle another piece.
To much feedback feeds into the explicit instruction model and thus overloads cognitive processes, stifles exploration and freezes fluent movement.
I'll leave this for now but remember learning is a search process where learner's must explore to locate stable movement solutions using variable search strategies to explore the landscape of possible movement solutions through the manipulation of constraints.
Once coaches see themselves as facilitators rather then teacher's then this process becomes a lot more easier for them.
