Feedback allows an athlete to evaluate the effectiveness of a movement they have performed (Williams and Hodges 2004). Chiviacowsky (2007) suggests that the most effective form of feedback should be of good quality and promote absolute task orientation from the performer. Two forms of feedback have been identified by Weinberg and Gould (2007). The first, knowledge of results, is where the performer receives specific feedback regarding the correctness of their response. The second form, knowledge of performance, relates to how the performer undertook their response.
Positive feedback can act as both a reward for correct behaviour, and as a tool providing performance feedback (Starkes and Ericsson, 2003). When presented at a suitable time, feedback can assist drastically in improving performance (Weinberg and Gould 2007). The timing and the manner of delivery of the feedback is essential to its effects (Chivacowsky 2007).
Performance related feedback given by a coach can benefit participants in one of two ways - it can motivate or instruct (Kidman and Hanrahan 2004). Instructional feedback provides information about how the skill should be undertaken and how proficient the performer is at producing the skill (Weinberg and Gould 2007). Motivational feedback facilitates the growth of confidence and encourages greater effort (Weinberg and Gould 2007). Research has shown that learners prefer to receive feedback after they believe they had a "good" rather than "poor" trial (Chiviacowsky 2007).
The guidance hypothesis suggests that if the coach offers feedback to the performer too often, the individual will become over-dependant and will constantly seek guidance (Salmoni, Schmidt and Walter 1984). When providing technical support through feedback the coach should only correct one error at time to prevent overload, particularly in novice performers (Martens 2004). In terms of the quality of feedback offered, poor quality feedback can impair skill acquisition and damage long term performance enhancement (Buekers, Magill and Hall 1992). Supporting this theory, Martens (2004) believes that providing the wrong feedback or poor advice will harm the learning process more than providing no feedback at all. Conversely, Bilodeau and Bilodeau (1958) suggest that good quality feedback is essential for skill acquisition.
Feedback can be general (an example is praise such as ‘good’ or ‘well done’) or specific, which is more technical to the situation. Feedback can also be positive or negative – although it has been suggested that negative feedback can be debilitative to performance (Martens 2004). Feedback can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic feedback relates to the performer, and in particular, proprioception. Proprioception occurs when the performer ‘feels’ that the skill movement was correct, and because of this, usually only occurs within autonomous performers (Weinberg and Gould 2007). Extrinsic feedback is from an external source, such as the coach, crowd or knowledge of result (Whitmore 2003). Feedback can be verbal or non-verbal – examples of non-verbal feedback (from a coach) include clapping, punching the air and hanging their head.
Method
The futsal coach was chosen because he is a high level coach with experience in both a coaching and performance background. This level of expertise ensures the appropriateness of the feedback delivered is of a high level with the knowledge of prior experience as well as continued professional development in terms of improved coaching skills. In terms of observations this means that those skills demonstrated by the coach are inline with the present standards expected by the governing body.
Prior to the observation of any session a preliminary risk assessment was conducted to ensure the safety of the session. In total three sessions were observed which enabled me to observe a variety of different coaching sessions whilst providing diversity. During the observation sessions both qualitative and quantitative research data was collected. This allowed an analysis to be conducted in depth.
The collection of qualitative data involved the direct observation of the coach with key feedback points being recorded in note form. This was carried out for the entirety of the session and provided the back bone for analysis. This was conducted as it is an effective way to record large amounts of generalised information needed for analysis and provided an in depth form of feedback data in terms of quotations for example. Another form of qualitative feedback utilised was in the form of an interview. This is an additional form of qualitative analysis because they allow in depth personal data to be collected which quantitative analysis does not offer. An interview was provided for the coach and took place in the last week of observation and took approximately 10 minutes. The questions were open ended allowing a greater depth of understanding to be gained. The questions which were asked to the coach are displayed in appendix.
The collection of quantitative data involved systematic observation. This systematic observation was conducted to provide a measurable, numerical data form. Langsdorf (1979) suggests that this method provides a valid system whereby observer reliability is nearly guaranteed. This included a frequency count of three separate data sets (Darst 1989). These included: concurrent vs. terminal feedback, technical vs. general motivational feedback, single word vs. sentence feedback.
In terms of ensuring validity and reliability the following measures were taken. Prior to any observations the coach was informed about the reasoning behind our presence, no detail was however released about the main focus of the study.
Because it was just me observing I was unable to obtain averages and therefore this lacks validity.
Quantitative Results
Table 1. Overview of the recorded and mean data collected regarding concurrent and terminal feedback used by the coach.
Figure 1. A graph showing a weekly break down of the use of concurrent and terminal feedback by the coach.
The graph above demonstrates that there is no consistency of the breakdown of concurrent and terminal feedback with neither being the preference. Week one shows no real preference. Week two however sees a clear preference to concurrent feedback whereas shows theres a smaller preference to terminal feedback.
Figure 2. A comparison between the levels of terminal and concurrent feedback across the three observational sessions.
This shows support for the fact that there is little difference between the two types of feedback given out by the coach during the three observational sessions. This indicates that the coach has no preference towards either of the two feedback styles.
Table 2. Overview of the recorded and mean data collected regarding Technical and General feedback given out by the coach.
Figure 3: A graph to show the comparison between the amounts of general and technical feedback delivered to the club performers.
It is clear from figure three that there are larger quantities of general feedback given than technical. This contrasts the amount of technical feedback given by the coach during the course of the session. Week 1 shows the smallest amount of feedback delivered with weeks two and three showing similar levels of feedback being used.
Figure 4: A comparison across the three observational sessions between technical and general feedback.
Table 3. Overview of the recorded and mean data collected regarding delivery styles.
Figure 5: A weekly breakdown of the comparison of delivery styles, one word or sentences.
The graph above basically shows that the coach much prefers given detailed feeedback rather than just singular words such as 'good' in all 3 sessions.
Figure 6: The average use of both one word and sentence derived feedback across all three observational sessions.
This graph is more evidence that the coach prefers sentence delivered feedback.
Qualitative Results
From my overall observations I was able to pick up on Coach Cruz's coaching philosophy. He told me at the start that he doesn't mind conceding goals as long as they score more. This obviously reflects an attacking mentality, so therefore my first impressions were that his feedback was going to be quite straightforward and to the point with each player. When I arrived at the first practice I observed Coach Cruz talking to the team at the beginning of the practice, he was going over what they should focus on during this session, which was mostly technical such as shooting and set pieces. His positive attitude stood out the most, however he put his emphasis on the fact they need to work hard; "Work hard and the results will come".
For all sessions I attended, the athletes started off with a controlled warm-up led by the captain of the team. The coach only had to tell them to warm up, didn't have to lead it, each warm-up was the same every week, but seemed very effective warming up and stretching most gross muscles. One thing I did notice was strong team cohesion despite the fact most of the team are from different areas of Europe to each other. The coach then gathers the team up after setting out a shooting drill. Gives a brief instruction and patiently answers a question from one of the team regarding the drill. This seemed to be the routine in all sessions I attended, but varying the drills he used. One particular session stood out for me and this was the last one I observed. It was the day after the team had just lost to Middlesbrough 5-3. Knowing this I was expecting it to be a hard fitness session. Instead Coach Cruz ran quite a fun session to lift morale of the team. It still involved fitness work but it was games such as wheelbarrow races and piggy back racing etc. They then ended with a half hour game which Coach Cruz joined in with. I could see everyone was enjoying it as they all had smiles on their faces.
After this session I spoke to a couple of the players about the coach, not as an interview just as a general chat. The general consensus was that they have a lot of respect for him, not only as a coach but as a player also. One player quoted "I look up to him".
Looking at the quantitative results Coach Cruz prefers a general concurrent feedback using sentenced delivery and therefore can see that Coach Cruz gives out a lot of motivational feedback. Motivational feedback facilitates the growth of confidence and encourages greater effort (Weinberg and Gould 2007). More of Coach Cruz's philosophy that I observed also was that basic methods of coaching such as good communication, people skills and teaching methods are essential, punishment and harassment of the players is not desirable or effective, goals are achieved by logical sequence of events, for example he once quoted "one game at a time".
The main limitation of this study is that I was on my own when observing therefore leaving me at a great disadvantage, because I was unable to use inter observer accounts, and could not get means so only had my score to use. Therefore this may lack ecological validity, however if I was to do this analysis again I would make sure there is not just me observing. However the methods used are very reliable, if this method was to be repeated by another person, they may not get the same results due to human error and also each session is different so therefore the coach has to adjust to each session, which also effects this observation.
Conclusion
Reflecting on my interview with Coach Cruz and comparing and contrasting his stated philosophy on coaching and what I have observed from practices and meets I saw that his goals as a coach are being met at practices and his interactions with his team. He knows what he wants to get out of his coaching experience and he achieves that by working hard at demanding respect and hard work from his team while still ensuring that they have fun. He seems to know so much about performance strategies as well as player motivation techniques and coach and players issues, such as respect, safety and man management. Overall I was very impressed with Coach Cruz and his strategies.
The main limitation of this observation was the fact that I was doing it individually and therefore was unable to use inter observer analysis and was unable to get means for the scores. Therefore this lacks ecological validity. If I was to repeat this study again then I would make sure there is more than one observing. The method is still reliable, however if it was to be repeated I can't say there would be similar results because of human error and the fact that each training session is different and therefore the scores will also vary.
References
BEASHEL, Paul and TAYLOR, John (1996) Advanced studies in PE and sport. Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham.
BILODEAU, E.A and BILODEAU I.M (1958). Variable frequency of knowledge of results and the learning of a simple skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55 (4), 379-383.
BUEKERS, Martinus, MAGILL, Richard and HALL, Kellie (1999). The Effect of Erroneous Knowledge of Results on Skill Acquisition when Augmented Information is Redundant. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44 (1), 105-117.
CHIVIACOWSKY, Suzete and WULF, Gabriele. (2007). Feedback After Good Trials Enhances Learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport. 78 (2) 40-47
CUTTON, David and LANDIN, Dennis. (2007). The Effects of Self-Talk and Augmented Feedback on Learning the Tennis Forehand. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 19 (3) 288-299.
DARST, Paul (1989). Analyzing Physical Education and Sport Instruction. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL
STARKES, Janet and ERICSSON, Anders (2003). Expert performance in sports. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
GUMMERSON, T. (2005). Coaching Champions: Developing Young Sportspeople. A & C Black Publishers, London.
JONES, Robyn. HUGHES, Mike and KINGSTON, Kieran (2008) An Introduction to Sports Coaching from Science and Theory to Practice. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group: London and New York.
KIDMAN, L and HANRAHAN S. (2004). The Coaching Process: A Practical Guide to Improving your Effectiveness (2nd ed.). New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
LANCASTER, GA, DODD, S & WILLIAMSON, PR (2004) Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 10 (2): 307-12.
MARTENS, Rainer (2004). Successful coaching. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
THOMAS, Jerry, NELSON, Jack and SILVERMAN, Stephen (2005). Research methods in physical activity. Human Kinetics, Illinois.
PARK, Jin-Hoon, SHEA, Charles and WRIGHT, David (2000). Reduced-frequency concurrent and terminal feedback: a test of the guidance hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 38 (3), 287-296.
PYKE, Frank (2001). Better Coaching Advanced Coaches Manual. 2nd edition, Human Kinetics, Ausport.
SALMONI, A.W., SCHMIDT, R.A. and WALTER, C.B (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical appraisal. Psychology Bulletin, 95 (3) 355-386.
WEINBERG, Robert and GOULD, Daniel. (2007). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology. (4th ed.). Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
WHITMORE (2003).
WILLIAMS, Mark and HODGES, Nicola (2004). Skill acquisition in sport: research theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Sport Studies Programme Faculty of Health and Wellbeing
Sheffield Hallam University
Page