- This topic has 11 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Great question Ryan.
There is definitely a progression involved here. Here’s what I recommend:
- Circle keepaway (aka the classic rondo), 4 v 0 rondo, 4 v 1 rondo.
- Playing out of the back.
- Offensive pressure (start building that work ethic / identity)
That’s the beginning. That’s the foundation of everything else to come. Try to get that solidified first.
Of course it’s always your judgement when you can progress to the next key lessons. (If you can manage getting some match video taken over time, we might be able to help with this).
After the above 3, comes teaching them to “lose your man”.
Then you layer in attacking patterns. It’s really your judgement and depends on many things. But for sure the technique of receiving across you body is #1, then building out of the back.
Makes sense, so for a young group just learning to play out of the back and before losing your man has been introduced, do you just tell the midfielders or wingers to find open space since they haven’t ben explicitly taught losing their man yet?
Pretty much Ryan.
- The midfielders told to find space while ball is circulating with back 5; and provide passing lanes/windows with simple 2 to 8 meter movements (much like they’re being accustomed to in 4v0 / 4v1 / 3v1 Rondo).
- The wingers are told the same, but to stay wide.
If you’ll notice on the first ever video (the U11 video), take a look at the wingers. They aren’t “losing their man” as rehearsed.
I think the more I hear about your approach, the respect I have for it. As a special education teacher, you have to use a significant amount of repetition, frequent assessment to measure progress (match play in soccer), and thoughtful approach and understanding of how the skills and content you introduce builds and reinforces previously learned content. In addition, the idea of frequently reviewing learned content (such as playing out of the back or pressing choreography, etc.) is vital. I see many best practices in your approach that are present in the classroom as well. For example, the idea of hour one showing the kids what you want before asking them to perform and putting more of onus of learning on the players to put it into action are identical to the principles of explicit instruction, “I do, we do, you do.”
Ryan, is what you refer to as explicit instruction the same as direct instruction? My understanding is that research is continuing to show that this is the best means of instruction despite the popularity and emphasis on guided discovery or other child-centered instructional methods.
Paul,
I agree that you must move beyond the traditional model of teaching of just unloading information on students without meaningful chances to interact with the material. Explicit instruction is still the most effective way to introduce new material. The teacher demonstrates a skill or concept, gives examples and non examples, puts it in kid friendly definition or context, etc. The guided instruction (we do) is where students practice with a partner and where the cooperative learning strategies can come and ask students to use higher order thinking. It allows them to make sense of the material with guidance from the teacher or peer. The last part is independent practice (you do) when the student performs a skill on their own.
For soccer, I see it as showing the kids what is expected and the level at which you want them to execute by demonstration (visual and verbal) at the initial stage. Then, they attempt the skill or concept with guidance from the coach using guided discovery questioning. The independent practice is the game where you see if the player(s) have taken their learning to actual game. You assess and see where the breakdowns occur and start the cycle again. It’s a constant cycle of teaching and formative assessment.
To go further, there are proponents of “discovery learning” where children simply learn by doing without the need for much teacher guidance, which is very different than explicit instruction. While I think kids do need to learn by doing, I think the teacher/coach must first introduce the concept or skill to provide relevance and context within the game. In my opinion, two 90 minute sessions using discovery learning (which seems to me to be a lot like hiding behind “letting the game teach the players” and hands off from coaches) is not efficient or effective.
I agree that discovery learning is a huge waste of instructional time on the field or in the classroom. Looking at the big picture, I see educational theory and philosophy as a huge issue in the coaching situation in this country. Coaches don’t take seriously that they need to know (have mastery of) content themselves, and/or that children aren’t just going to magically become world class players if they do a little coerver work and are told to “express” themselves.
Paul,
I think its great that you are looking into education research and theory. I think its something that most coaches don’t do or know they should be doing on their own. I see lots of coaches go to courses, regurgitate the 4-step training process by putting activities that seem interesting or that they’ve picked up the week before and think they are doing a great job.
If you (or anyone else) is interested, here is an excerpt from one of the best books I’ve found on explicit instruction. I literally use this on a weekly basis to inform and improve my teaching:
http://explicitinstruction.org/download/sample-chapter.pdf
I think you’ll find that many of the aspects we find critical for soccer are in the 16 elements of explicit instruction. However, it isn’t until you’ve establishing a coaching philosophy and style of play that you can really start to provide organized, sequential lessons that you can actually put in content and communicate clearly to players (“We are learning X, because it will help us achieve Y in the game”).
Hope you find this helpful!
Ryan-
Thanks for the link. I am going to request the book through our local library and check it out. I can already see that it is focused on many of the themes I’ve tried to apply. I’ve been teaching off and on for the past 13 years as part of various coaching positions, and grew up in a family of teachers. I like that the 3four3 curriculum is unapologetically inline with more proven methods of instruction.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
