Who's up for some JOLF?

In today's session, John had arranged for two ex-professional golfers and founders of JOLF, to come in and deliver a practical session for us.

The programme aims to develop junior players by providing them with opportunities to improve their mindset, movement skills, golf skills and passion. This is a fantastic example of a method that shows how children perception and enjoyment can be influenced through sport.

At the beginning of the session we were all given sheets, each sheet had a number and a letter on it (e.g. 6b). The numbers would represent the group of 4 were going to be for today's session, and the letters signified who your partner was in that group of 4. I found this method of organising groups effective for 2 reasons. The first is that when given a random number/letter, you don't know who you are going to get in your group/be partnered with. This allows for participants to develop social skills, with people they may not normally coach/participate with. This would be very effective method for groups where people are just getting to know each other. E.g first year college/university students, participating in practical sessions for the first time. The second reason I found this method effective was for the way in which it allowed everyone to group up and the session get started as quick as possible!

Neil and Jon gave very little in terms of input for the first part, they only instructed us to read the hand-out and answer the statements by either circling AGREE or DISAGREE. The task seemed ample enough, however the hand-out stated that we had to agree with the whole statement, not partially, for us to circle AGREE, or visa versa for DISAGREE. They asked how we would apply the statements in a golf session, by either agreeing/disagreeing. The statements were as follows;

When we are setting up golf games for children it is important that we set them up so that they can hit the target most of the time? A high success rate is important.

My initial thought towards this was to AGREE, this is because from a young age it's about enjoying sport and building confidence. By allowing a participant to hit the target most of the time, it's more enjoying than continuously missing. This then influences the participants confidence, with high success rates, they are more likely to feel confident. However one reason I thought to DISAGREE, was because over the past couple of years at Uni, in particular recent months, it has been brought to attention how sometimes, it's important to challenge yourself, even from a young age. With an increase of enjoyment from participation, this can lead to increased levels of motivation, in particular intrinsic motivation. Lai (2011), supports this in her work when she talks about intrinsic motivation is animated through personal enjoyment, interest or pleasure. With high success rates, becomes personal enjoyment, interest or pleasure in sport, and this can lead to children challenging themselves. As Deci et al. (1999) observed, intrinsic motivation energises and sustains activities and is manifested in behaviours such as play, exploration, and challenge seeking that people often do for external rewards. Despite the argument, I chose to AGREE with this statement, as a coach I feel children's enjoyment is vital, and if that is achieved through setting up to hit the target most of the time then so be it. I wouldn't then refuse to let a player challenge themselves if they wish to do so. By allowing them to decide how they want to challenge themselves would be a good way to develop their innovative thinking. AGREE!



2. At the beginning of a session the coach should demonstrate and explain the techniques that s/he would like the group to learn.

For this statement I was 50/50. Part of me wanted to agree with the element of demonstrating a technique before sessions. This is because this gives the children an incentive as to what the session is going to be about. I also feel that this can be useful, especially as some children learn better by seeing the technique (visual learning). On the flip side, I didn't really agree with the whole explanation of a technique before the session. I feel giving young children, lots of information, could have a hindrance on the actual technique and the outcome of the session. By giving a young, developing mind, too much information to remember, they could forget little things that could affect the outcome. However, in contrast to this, I feel sometimes demonstrating can kill coaching sessions. Sometimes just telling the players the technique they are going to be focusing on, without demonstrations, allows for children to freely experiment different ways to do the technique. This may seem unstructured but it allows children to make mistakes and looks to use a non-directive approach to coaching as opposed to direct. AGREE.

3. In group golf coaching, children should be put in groups according to how well they play golf; for example, beginners with beginners.

For this statement I had to completely disagree. I don't feel there is any need to separate the children in accordance to their ability. The only time I would expect this to happen is at the elite levels in sport, not at junior levels. If I put this into a perspective I'm familiar with (Football), I feel maybe having a couple of players who play better than most, I would use them as examples when delivering sessions, and I would set them tasks, using the better players to work with and help those who aren't as good. For me this has happened a few times in coaching sessions where I've used a player who is slightly better to help those who are struggling. By using players to help others with given tasks is a great example of using a reciprocal approach, with an element of tasks. DISAGREE.

4. Children should learn a number of golf skills before they go on a golf course. Golf course play is difficult and we do not want to turn them off the game

I had to disagree again with this statement. I don't feel that children have to have number of skills required for a particular sport, before they play it competitively. Ill give a brilliant example of this; For my under 14's football, we had a new player who was looking to join. He had never played football in his life, although he understood what football was about through watching it on TV. He had been a Boxer from a very young age, but when he stepped on to the football field for the first time, you wouldn't of thought he'd never played before. He didn't have the perfect game, he was always going to make mistakes, but he played like everyone else. He had never had any coaching sessions in football, never kicked a ball before and never understood the correct technique needed but did just fine. I feel this relates and completely diminishes this statement. Maybe he did well because he had the physical fitness requirements to play competitively, but had no training/skills in football. I feel that if you sport requires you to have a number of skills before to participate competitively, it can have a severe hindrance on development of the player. DISAGREE.




5. It is important that children hold the club using the correct conventional grip right from the start. We do not want bad habits to develop.

From working in a Primary School on a number of occasions, it clear that at early stages (grassroots) in sport, it is very much about developing the children's enjoyment, confidence and fundamental skills. Golf itself is a very technically challenging as opposed to most sports, but being involved in activities will develop their knowledge of sport, regardless of using equipment correctly. A brilliant example of this can be seen by a video I saw on YouTube called "17 Month Old Golf Phenom" (2010). It's a video of a little boy nick-named Peanut, who is using the golf club wrong, but still manages to hit the ball perfectly. This a brilliant example of my reasoning behind disagreeing with this statement. DISAGREE.

6. Children should be encouraged to help each other, discuss their learning and give each other advice.

I had to agree with this statement 100%. Encouraging children to help each other and discuss learning is an element of the reciprocal coaching intervention. It allows for players to reflect on themselves more. The implantation of individual reflection at a young age can be crucial in developing how players think not just after they've completed tasks, but also during. They might start to question themselves throughout the session. They may begin to question mistakes; E.g. (Football) Why did the ball go wide when I took that shot? Was it because my technique is wrong? Was it because I was off balance?

7. Children should be given choices when taking part in coaching sessions. This could include choice of equipment (ball/club), choice in how to play the game and choice of target.

At first I thought to disagree with this statement. Sometimes having structured sessions, with participants having little choice for activities/equipment, allows greater progress to be made. However, if we think about how we look to develop the children not just for sport, but the "after sport" (real life), you'd understand how this statement can be seen as true. By having a less democratic approach to coaching, and allowing for participants to have significant involvement in relation to this statement, it can help develop a child's innovative thinking and can promote challenging behaviour. I had to remember, as a coach, we aren't just developing them as players but as people. When I thought about in this way, I agreed with this statement. However in light of all this, as sometimes structure is needed in sessions, I was left undecided with this statement.

Session

Once we had completed the first part of the hand out, it was time to get into our groups of four, and pairs for the session. One pair of the group participated while the other 2 observed. Neil took one session, whilst Jon took the other. Neil had a very enthusiastic approach to his session, which made it seem all the more interesting. In the initial instructions there was very little in discussion as what we were supposed to be doing, what the outcomes of the sessions were etc. Instead the observers' tasks were explained then we (participants) were sent on our way.

It wasn't until we got to some of the stations did people really begin to ask questions. No one really understood what we were supposed to be doing, what the outcomes were etc. as mentioned, they gave very little in terms of discussion. After hearing numerous discussions with other participants, it was clear that Neil and Jon wanted us innovative and creative with the equipment we had been given. They wanted us to create our own games, set our own targets, achieve the targets by any means possible. By doing this it encourages young players to be creative and emphasises challenging behaviour! Like I said they gave very much in terms of input in the session, instead I found their use of effective questioning brilliant as it engaged the thought process. They tended to answer our question with either a question or very little information, and also showed great enthusiasm towards ideas we came up with.

The tasks themselves were very good! They promoted creativity, innovative thinking, challenging behaviours and team work through the pairs we were put in. With our session done it was time to regroup, reflect and here what the observes had to feedback to the group. Throughout the session it was clear that Neil had a very distanced approach in regards to how much information he gave to participants, it was interesting to find out how many of the observers noticed.

Discussion of the Session


Neil brought us in and had the observers’ feedback to the rest of their group. They had been given a sheet specifying areas to focus on which included:

The coach demonstrates and/or explains a technical aspect  of golf to the whole group
The coach demonstrates and/or explains the rules of the games to the whole group
The coach demonstrates and/or explains a technical aspect of golf to an individual
The coach demonstrates and/or explains the rules of a game for an individual:

Each one of these points had been rated

Never
Once
Twice
3+ times

It was clear to some of the observers, how much Input Neil actually had, where as to some observers it wasn't. Through discussion, Neil highlighted the aspects of the session and explained the reasoning behind it.

The next task was for the participants and observers to swap roles. Observing it was interesting to see whether Neil and Jon continued to give very little to the participants. With an up-beat approach from Neil, which influenced players interest in activities, Jon had a slightly milder approach, still giving very little information. I think as a coach when working with children your approach to coaching is important and can have significant impact on the way the children approach tasks. Having a milder approach can allow for a more relaxed atmosphere.

Final Discussion

At the end of the session, Neil and Jon brought the group back together to discuss the session. They allowed to analyse and apply our own theory to the activities. They reiterated at the end how some of the stations within the session were not primarily leading towards golf, in fact were completely pointless towards golf, but worked on other skills and were interesting and fun.
Neil and Jon explained the basis that they constructed the programme on in four stages:

Differentiation
Activities that can be changed = Differentiation by outcome

Decision Making
“Is this the right way to play the game?”

Growth Mind-set
Praising effort and hard work = Thinking about how often you praise

"Praise for working hard not for being good"

Co-Operation
Not getting children to do activities alone promotes teamwork and can also influence the individual’s perceptions of their ability and skill level.

One phrase that was brought up in the end discussion was the "Praise for working hard not for being good". By this what it means, is that as coaches, we have a tendency to praise those with good skill level, because we see the outcome as positive. What this looked to suggest is that we praise the work that goes into the outcome, rather than the outcome itself. It was suggested that we also encourage peer feedback into our sessions and highlight ways that we can praise individuals who may struggle on technique (e.g. “brilliant concentration through the session").

My thoughts on the session as a whole was fantastic! Their whole approach to the way they coached was something that I found particularly interesting, how the different attitude effected the players interest at stations. I found how they used effective questioning rather than feeding us with information at each station. And what struck me as the best part was how with very little information given, we were allowed to experiment, allowed to try different things without somebody stepping in every two minutes telling you've done something wrong. It's effective, especially with younger children, as it gives them a sense of freedom and choice in their participation. For the vast majority of the group, the aim was discovery through experimenting, enjoyment through freedom to chose how you tackled each station. I've come away today with a much more open mind when coaching to younger children. I've realised sometimes you have to break activities down so that they aren't sport specific. Allow children the choice of equipment and how they take on the session. Children thrive off freedom and choice, and this promotes enjoyment. Overall, a brilliant session, with some brilliant ideas for future reference.

References

Dhanjal, J., (2010). 17 Month Old Golf Phenom. [Video online], Available at <http://youtu.be/ywIFwc_mPkQ> [Accessed at: 28th February, 2013]

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.

Lai, E. R., (2011) Motivation: A Literature Review. Research Report.

Intervention Methods - Practical and Workshop review (2 Lessons)

Today our practical session was based around using different coaching intervention methods. Cliff was stating the importance to us about developing and using different interventions, rather than just one. This was followed by a workshop the week after looking into further detail around different intervention methods.

Practical
In the groups that we are going to be in for our assessed coaching session, we were to devise a small game, which looked to develop a skill or aspect of sport, and to try using different intervention methods. It was important to achieve the outcomes of the lesson we weren't direct in our methods of coaching, although at times direct coaching is needed. Between myself, Ryan and Sam we tried to implement different interventions such as Tasks, Reciprocal and Guided Discovery. We used these methods in a session devised from Thorpe and Bunkers idea of TGfU.

It was stated by Tinning (1993), that "Methods can be viewed not as a set of strategies which can be successfully or unsuccessfully implemented by a coach, they are more like a set of beliefs about the way certain types of learning can be best achieved. They are about valued forms of knowledge as they are about procedures for action."

What Tinning says in his works relates to how these methods can be successfully or unsuccessfully implemented by a coach. This is more for the inexperienced coaches, a bit like myself, who are learning and experimenting new coaching ideas. These coaches could try use different methods, but may either be using the wrong method or maybe using the right method at the wrong time. As the coaches gain experience, we begin to become aware of which methods are the most beneficial but also when it is the right time to step in and use them.

There are many different types of interventions, which vary from direct methods to more problem solving methods (Non-Direct). It's important as coaches that we try to implement as many different methods as can. These are shown in the image below. The picture shows an adapted continuum of Mosston's work (1966).

The adapted model grouped the teaching styles into five methods. These were Direct, Task Reciprocal, Guided Discovery and Problem Serving. Before we discuss the contribution of methods we need to ensure we appreciate the characteristics of each method.

Directive
- Providing and controlling the flow of information
- Privileging the information
- Giving little recognition to the needs of learners
- Organisational skills and management of the group become the focus
- Specific goals become the criteria to judge success or failure

Task
- Designing the learning environment to include several different tasks.
- Organising the tasks to the needs of the performers
- Designing the session so the performer can sometimes work independently form the coach

Reciprocal
- Has some of the characteristics of the previous methods and in addition;
- The sessions are designed to the needs of the athletes
- Requires athletes to work and support each other
- Athletes demonstrate and feedback to each other.

Guided Discovery
- Athletes are encouraged to become more independent from the coach.
- Requires the athlete to move through a set of tasks to identify possible solution.
- The coach set tasks and asks questions to develop an understanding of the problem

Problem Solving
- Establish the problem
- Outcomes may be varied
- Accepting there may be more than one solution
- Encouraging the athletes to be responsible for finding the solution ( cognitive effort)
- Proving individual and group development
- Differentiated learning needs
- Debrief players
- Driver for technical development
- Risk Taking ( try it……nothing is ever lost)

We also touched on a problem solving strategy known as S.T.E.P. STEP stands for;
- Space
- Task
- Equipment
- Participants.

The aim of using this method is manipulate one or more of the 4, to adapt the session in order to make the session easier or harder, but mainly to meet the benefits/needs of the learners.

The final aspect to consider when using different coaching intervention methods, are the characteristics that will define which methods you decide to use. Many characteristics include;

- Ability of the group
- Age of the group
- Size of the group
- Learning stage of the group
- Motivation of the group
- Objectives of the session
- Facilities available
- Time available

When using different methods of interventions, to become a more effective coach. It's always good to reflect on methods used. This can done by something as simple as asking yourself why you used that particular method? Or why did you step in when you did, not before or not another minute? It's self questioning that will make for a more effective coach.

References

Tinning, R., Kirk, D. & Evans, J. R. (1993). Learning to Teach Physical Education. New York, Prentice Hall.

Mosston, M. (1966). Teaching Physical Education. Columbus, OH:. Merrill

October 18th 2012 - Lesson Review

A small review of today's lesson.

The most interesting part of the lesson today was when we discussed the Teaching Games For Understanding (TGfU). The reason I found this particular part interesting was because it taught me about using a different approach to coaching with children. Instead of using the traditional approach;

- Warm Up
- Technique Drills
- Game
- Cool Down.

The TGfU approach was a proposed way of putting the WHY of a game before the HOW. (Hopper and Kruisselbrink, 2002). The TGfU approach uses the game to teach rather than using technique drills. Along with this structure we can stop the game to ask questions and provide teams or individuals with challenges/tasks. By using this approach it helps to keep learning/participation fun and enjoyable for all players of all abilities. I am looking forward to using this approach instead of the traditional approach.

In my opinion, using this approach would be very beneficial because by using the game to teach, it will help the participants see mistakes evolve throughout the game and also gives them the opportunity to tackle mistakes themselves, this is known as an intervention known as problem-solving. This approach also helps to enhance skill and technique whilst transferring the practice into match-like situations.

I would find this tool very useful in my future coaching sessions as it something new to try and would be very useful in ensuring sessions are fun but the players still learn from it.

References
Hopper, T and Kruisselbrink, D. 2002. Teaching Games for Understanding: What does it look like and how does it influence student skill learning and game performance?

 

Teaching Games For Understanding (TGfU) Resource. Available online at <http://www.sportnz.org.nz/Documents/Communities%20and%20Clubs/Coaching/TGfU_Resource.doc>