Developing Better Players – Switching Teaching to Learning

[andrew crollard]

Phenomenal post. It really has me thinking and reflecting upon my own practices and how I might approach some of the topics you are thinking about.

As I was reading through your thoughts, my mind kept returning to the fact that a lot of your ideas seem binary when the reality is there is a definite sliding scale. The whole idea of knowledge is a spectrum of self-perceived understanding, as well as true and actual understanding. Your series of numbered questions doesn’t really seem to allow for any level of the process of understanding aside from “yes” or “no”. Though, simply posing the questions of 6, 8, and 9 in particular are going to have me thinking all night.

Kinda of running through this exercise to reflect on my U10-12 coed sessions from Wednesday with a bunch of kids I don’t regularly coach is interesting. Our warmup was a bunch of coerver stuff like ball rolls, so I’ll use that as my primary case. Did the players already know what a ball roll is? about 75% yes. Did they understand how to physically do it? about 66% yes. Could they do it at speed? about 25% yes. Did they understand the timing of it relative to defender closing? 1 kid out of 50.

So my point is that a kid’s answer of “yes” could be drastically different to the reality of the situation because they don’t know what they don’t know. It’s an interesting concept to include the players’ self-reported level of knowledge in our planning, I’m just not sure how reliable and accurate it might be.

Great post, and I’m sure I’ll be returning to re-read it and think on it some more after pickup tonight.

[James Brodie]

David,

You are sounding a lot like a teacher; something a good coach should be!  I appreciate how you devote thought to this area.  I notice you are squaring your focus on concern for really reaching your target audience – the player.  It is evidenced in your selected quotes: “…until they learned it” and “…it’s what they hear. ”  In the educational field, this is something we call differentiated instructional practice.  At the heart of differentiated instruction is the learner.

For example, let’s say I seek to coach a group of kids I do not know on how to dribble, pass, or shoot.  I can find sessions and bring them to use at the practice.  As a result, the kids will have to modify themselves at the mercy of my design, which was devoid of my knowledge of the kids’ present levels of performance  in relation to my intended outcomes –  assuming I really had any at all.  Sure, I can make adjustments live during the session, which is fine.  However, what predetermined knowledge did I have of my audience prior to conducting the session?    Continuing with the aforementioned example, say I arrive at the field on Monday with my lesson on how to dribble, pass, or shoot, and my audience is a group of U9 boys who have never touched a ball.  On Tuesday I arrive with my same lesson and my audience is now a group of U9 boys who have been heavily involved in soccer since the age of 5?  I metaphorically just walked around with a size 6 shoe and tried to make each member of my audience fit into it, regardless of his or her shoe size.  For some kids, my instruction may have accidentally fit just fine, some may have outgrown it a long time ago, and some are yet to grow into it at all.

Which brings us to the question of what they already know about that which we want them to learn.

• Begin with the end in mind.  What is it that your players will be doing effectively (goal)?  What does it look like and sound like?  Task analyze the components that comprise the whole.  Knowing the components helps to diagnose later on in future sessions.
• Craft  and conduct a pre-assessment setting up the exact conditions that would elicit the application of learning you seek to have your players demonstrate. Prepare to take some data on what you see in reference to each of your players gaps’ in their present levels relative to your learning goal.   Your players will naturally demonstrate what they know instead of having to articulate it devoid of context because your pre-assessment should elicit the behavior right in front of your eyes. Video tape it if you feel the need to look at it more carefully.  I would conduct this pre-assessment Thursday prior to the week in which I would initiate informed instruction, which would occur on the following Tuesday.
• Armed with this knowledge, I would suggest you analyze the information and come up with adequate entry sessions knowing what you saw your players do.  Were they far more prerequisite in their knowledge than you initially thought regarding the components that comprise the whole?  Did they surpass your learning goal as written?  Now you have a working baseline with your players in mind.
• Design your sessions, and about midway through the series of sessions, implement the pre-assessment again to see where they are as a result of your instruction. Are they getting it any better now that you have been able to coach/teach them?  Yes or No.  If no, what can you coach differently in respect to the components.  They may need to learn something a different way.  The onus lies not in our ability to place fault on the learner for not responding, but in our ability to recognize a lack of responding due to our instructional misfire and creating another method by which to seek a response.  If we are relentless in the pursuit of always seeking a positive response and re-teaching/re-coaching in a different way, great things happen.
• Upon completion of all the sessions, conduct the post-assessment, which can be the same authentic pre-assessment you created that matched perfectly to the application of learning you wanted to see and hear from your kids.
• Review the data for pre and post.  How did your players rate regarding the learning behavior necessary to carry out your intended learning goal?

Now during the instructional phase (between the pre and post assessment).  It is perfectly permissible to always check for understanding.  Get overt responses from your kids, be it verbal explanation or physical demonstration.  Have a coach/parent walk around and occasionally ask a random kid here or there this open-ended question:  “What are you learning right now?”  When you want kids to process something, it is a fantastic idea to have them briefly articulate their understanding to a teammate and then have the teammate return the favor.  At this point you can navigate and listen to what you hear.  Upon completion of any session, it is advisable to create what is called an “exit ticket.”  Basically, it is a player’s way to exit a practice by briefly sharing what they learned (which can be verbal) with a coach prior to them leaving.   The aforementioned strategies are all forms of informal on-the-spot assessment, which allow you to make real-time incremental changes should you see or hear something that is not matching your learning goal(s).

Lastly, if some players demonstrate more proficiency than others as evidenced in the pre-assessment, you can now use them strategically by purposefully placing them into various groupings during your sessions.  They now serve as demonstrators/models to those around them who can pick up on their talent.  This is where peer learning/coaching comes into play!  Kids learn best from one another.

Take care,

James Brodie

[Joel Lorah]

Mr. Brodie.

This is so obvious as to be brilliant. Yes and Yes I find myself saying. Thank you.

[Author]

Posts