View the Powerpoint. - American Volleyball Coaches Association

Nels Rydberg, MS Assistant Coach University of Portland

 Background

Information

• Motor Behavior Research  Focus

of Attention

• Choose your words carefully  Observational

Learning

• Two for the price of one  Mindset

• What are they thinking?  Ideas

and Questions

 Motor

behavior research

• Learning vs performance  Retention test • Open vs closed skills  Generalizability  Transfer test  Volleyball skills

 Internal

focus: on body movements  External focus: on the movement effect • Not related to visual focus

Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77-104. Wulf, G. (2007). Attention and motor skill learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

 Initial

findings

Wulf, G., Höß, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 169-179. • Pressure exerted on platform vs feet exerting the

pressure • Markers on board horizontal rather than feet horizontal  Retention (and later, transfer) had no instructions, internal or external

 Movement

effectiveness

• Accuracy, consistency, balance  Movement

efficiency

• Muscular activity, force production,

cardiovascular responses  Higher skill level is achieved sooner  Benefits performance and learning

 Measurements

• Balance, accuracy, muscular activity, maximum

force production, speed and endurance, movement kinematics and kinetics (whole-body coordination patterns optimized)  Tasks

• Golf shots, volleyball serve, kicks, free throws,

weight lifting, throwing accuracy and form, jumping, sprinting, agility, swimming, rowing

 “…even

a single instructional cue can impact whole-body coordination” (Wulf, 2013, p. 78). • Why does this work?  “Self-invoking trigger”  Negative effects of self-consciousness  Mindset?

 In

your gym

• Serving  Target, point of impact on the ball • Passing  Target, trajectory • Blocking  Attacker’s shoulders, points to reach for • Reading and external focus

Beckmann, J., Gröpel, P., & Ehrlenspiel, F. (2013). Preventing motor skill failure through hemispherespecific priming: Cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 679-691.  In

short

• Right brain = automated behavior

• Squeeze left hand to activate right hemisphere

Shea, C. H., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (1999). Enhancing training efficiency and effectiveness through the use of dyad training. Journal of Motor Behavior, 31, 119-125. Shea, C. H., Wright, D. L., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (2000). Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(1), 27-36. • Form of mental training  Model does not have to be an expert

 Experiment

1

• Physical vs observational practice  Retention  physical > observational > control

 Transfer  physical = observational > control  Better able to apply parameters and strategies

 Experiment

2

• Dyads: “…participants develop some form of

interactive relationship during practice…” (Shea, et al., 2000, p. 34)

• Physical vs combined (physical and

observational) practice  Acquisition  Physical = combined

 Retention  Physical = combined > control

• Physical vs combined (cont.)  Transfer  Combined > physical > control  Physical deteriorated in transfer, combined did not

• Possible explanations  What worked vs what did not  Mental processing that cannot be done during physical practice  Social interactions including motivation and social comparison  Mindset?

 Benefits

and application

• Increased learning efficiency  Space, equipment, time • Decreased fatigue and chance of injury/overuse  Effective use of rest intervals • Teach your players to observe each other • Design drills that facilitate observational

learning

Granados, C., & Wulf, G. (2007). Enhancing motor learning through dyad practice: Contributions of observation and dialogue. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 78(3), 197-203. • Observational practice enhanced learning

regardless of dialogue

 More

specifically

• Enhanced expectancies • Conceptions of ability • Self-confidence • Social-cognitive • Positive affect • Intrinsic motivation

 Self-Determination Theory

(SDT)

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/ • Basic needs  Autonomy, competence, relatedness  Intrinsic motivation, positive affect

 Feedback

after successful trials

• Increased intrinsic motivation and self-

confidence  Catch someone doing something well and tell them about it  Trip on the curb, shank one pass

Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 408-415.

Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M. (2011). Feedback after good trials enhances intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 360-364. Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Namazizadeh, M., & Wulf, G. (2012). Feedback after good versus poor trials: Differential effects on self-confidence and activation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 196203.

 Acquirable

skill > inherent ability

• Incremental theorists > entity theorists Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2009). Conceptions of ability affect motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41(5), 461-467.  Normative

feedback

• “Above average” performance Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2010). Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 738-749.

 Performance

under pressure

• Throwing accuracy

McKay, B., Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve performance under pressure. Frontiers in Psychology, 3:8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00008

 Experienced, trained

athletes  Increased physiological efficiency Stoate, I., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(8), 815-823.

 Why?

• Automaticity vs conscious control processes  How?

• Instructions or feedback should focus on

learners’ improvements or effort invested in practice 

Ideas? • Feedback after good trials • Self-controlled feedback  Establish the proper mindset

 Background

Information

• Motor Behavior Research  Focus

of Attention

• Choose your words carefully  Observational

Learning

• Two for the price of one  Mindset

• What are they thinking?  Ideas

and Questions

 Sharing

of ideas

• Focus of attention • Observational practice • Mindset  Questions

Nels Rydberg [email protected]