AFM RSS Feed Follow Us on Twitter       
AMERICAN FOOTBALL MONTHLY THE #1 RESOURCE FOR FOOTBALL COACHES
ABOUT |  CONTACT |  ADVERTISE |  HELP  



   User Name    Password 
      Password Help





Article Categories


AFM Magazine

AFM Magazine


Student of the Game: Using Academic Resources to Enhance Your Program Part II The Guidance Hypothesis and Overtime Wednesday

© More from this issue

Click for Printer Friendly Version          

By Jack Byrne • Defensive Coordinator • Windham High School (NH)

The purpose of this series of articles is to provide ideas for improving various aspects of your football program using academic resources and studies. If you are anything like me, you are the type of coach that wants a reason and a purpose behind everything you do for your program. Anecdotal evidence can be useful, but is often unreliable and even harmful (if you don’t believe me, think about what would happen if we took everything from an internet forum, Wikipedia, or a TV infomercial as absolute fact!). Using reliable sources and learning about key concepts in the academic world of sports will help guide and justify your decisions as a coach.

 

In my last article, I spoke about the Tactical Games Approach, a way to create repetitions and help athletes learn skills in a way that is enjoyable, efficient, and effective. This installment will continue the themes of practice efficiency and enjoyment, as well as the concept of “athlete-centered learning”, which gives athletes a chance to learn by physically performing a skill rather than listening to endless coaching cues or watching too many demonstrations. At Windham High School (NH) we value a fast-paced, repetition-heavy approach. We try to coach by providing important feedback when needed while also realizing that athletes often learn kinesthetically through repetitions in a game-like environment.

 

 

 

The Guidance Hypothesis and Overtime Wednesdays

What is it?

The guidance hypothesis states that high levels of feedback during the performance of a skill can be beneficial during those particular trials when feedback is provided, but it is common for participants to become dependent on that external feedback. This dependence leads to poor performance in retention testing and long-term learning when the feedback is taken away. 

In football, other sports, and in any learning environment, we have all seen the overzealous coach, parent, or teacher who micromanages the learning of those they care about. They coach EVERY repetition, giving cues and saying “here, let me show you” while providing a long-winded explanation and demonstration. While the intent is positive, the results can be the opposite of what is desired. The coach, parent, or teacher has created an unrealistic environment compared to what the learner will see in the real world, whether it be a game or a final exam. Coaches and parents cannot be on the field helping a player during a game, and teachers cannot help during an exam, so those who get too much help and support during practice have a higher chance of failure when that support is taken away. 

What are the findings?

The guidance hypothesis is supported by many studies focusing on a wide range of motor skills. Park, Shea, and Wright (2000) found that the guidance hypothesis was significantly supported in an exercise where participants were required to reproduce a specific arm movement pattern, and Pringle (2004) found similar results when testing motor skills used in chiropractic assessments. In both cases, consistent feedback during skill practice helps during that particular practice, but is actually detrimental to the learner in retention testing when the feedback is not available. 

An excellent resource for coaches is Schmidt and Wrisberg’s (2008) Motor Learning and Performance: A Situation-Based Learning Approach. Although this serves as a textbook for many kinesiology classes, it touches on all details of how athletes learn best, and ways to effectively teach and/or coach someone to perform a physical skill. In the case of the guidance hypothesis, this text discusses in detail the concepts of closed/isolated skills (e.g., bowling, darts, and golf) and open/dynamic skills (e.g.,. football, wrestling, basketball), in which athletes must prepare for unpredictable, changing situations throughout a game. 

How do we apply it to our practices?

The Guidance Hypothesis makes sense on a practical level. It is obvious to me that if an athlete is “coddled” with feedback after almost every trial during practice, it provides an unrealistic environment for game day. With all the hurry-up no-huddle spread offenses in the game today, kids hardly have time to get the defensive play call, never mind reassurance or technique tips from coaches. We would prefer the kid with good/decent technique who is comfortable and cocky in a game situation over the kid who has perfect technique but locks up in games when he is alone and uncomfortable.  

We believe strongly that coaching is giving athletes the best opportunities to learn, rather than giving constant feedback and showing athletes how smart we are. That is not to say that feedback isn’t necessary and that knowledgeable coaches aren’t valuable, but we really try to make sure that the quantity and quality of our feedback is going to help our athletes win on game day. After all, what is the use of all the improvement shown at practice if an athlete is going to freeze up during competition when coaches can’t give the same level of feedback? By providing situations where athletes are “on their own”, we feel that we build a confidence and comfort level that lets our athletes feel familiar with a tough situation on Friday nights. 

One example that we have used in the past, and will definitely use more this year with a more experienced team, is ‘Overtime Wednesdays.’ This is a short period of about 10 minutes at the end of Wednesday practice. The coaches choose predetermined offensive and defensive rosters, with multiple substitutes ready to jump in for reps. We play 10 straight minutes of college overtime rules - start at the 25, advance for first downs, score as many touchdowns as possible in 10 minutes. The catch is that coaches are not allowed to coach.  Coaches can serve as referees, fans, waterboys, etc., but they cannot coach any scheme, play, or technique. Those decisions are left up to the players. The players call their own plays, make their own substitutions, and deal with success and failure all by themselves. After the period is over, coaches may ask some of our leaders about their reasoning for some decisions, and may give quick pointers to an athlete who played with poor technique, but overall it is a way to cut down on over-coaching and let the kids be in a tough, fun, competitive situation without any help. And just like in the Tactical Games Approach, as coaches we can evaluate to see who sinks and who floats when the pressure is on. ‘Overtime Wednesday’ is a great way to infuse fun into practice because to some kids it feels like backyard football with organized play calls.  However, the benefits of strategically cutting down on feedback and understanding the guidance hypothesis are even greater because they will give your kids the chance to be alone in tough situations, just as they will be on game day. 

 

 

image

 

References

 

Park, J., Shea, C.H., & Wright, D.L. (2000).  Reduced-Frequency Concurrent and

 

Terminal Feedback: A Test of the Guidance Hypothesis.  Journal of Motor

 

Behavior 32 (3), 287-296. 

 

Pringle, R.K. (2004). Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.

 

January 2004 (Vol. 27, Issue 1, Pages 36-42).

 

Schmidt, R.A. & Wrisberg, C.A (2008). Motor Learning and Performance: A Situation-

Based Learning Approach (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

 

 







NEW BOOK!

AFM Videos Streaming Memberships Now Available Digital Download - 304 Pages of Football Forms for the Winning Coach



















HOME
MAGAZINE
SUBSCRIBE ONLINE COLUMNISTS COACHING VIDEOS


Copyright 2024, AmericanFootballMonthly.com
All Rights Reserved