tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87225994459214982252024-03-13T10:30:41.999-06:00Eduardo CoachesLearning, growing, teaching, coaching, playing, and helping others to do the same.
<br>Data Volley and statistics nerd. Training others to be the same.
<br>he/him/el
<br>@eduardocoaches on Twitter
<br><a href="https://www.buymeacoffee.com/X6ah19iBl"><img src="https://www.buymeacoffee.com/assets/img/custom_images/white_img.png" alt="Buy Me A Coffee"></a>EFhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08224192992023351819noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-40302422164101569942023-05-27T08:09:00.000-06:002023-07-23T15:26:34.888-06:00Road Trips (and Development) Aren't All About the Destination<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><img border="0" data-original-height="930" data-original-width="2430" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfGmqm5TkZeXRDGhVluVwB1Uvndfc90bniR2d55d32OKb83oVwYVPR8yEstB6N2mHbEDbWq2LeFfexYZspD8GrpVMECrYI0qylRZmSyBv0CXEOsywLlNbyUfzLg0sKdv0Oul4S_TuDnTXKBCTxDLrYG0BoFgb55BQJ1zDpBkxArOg5xZEGz--_VANg/w640-h245/map.png" width="640" /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Let's say you and I lived in Omaha, Nebraska and one day I woke up and wanted to go on a road trip. "Let's go west!" I cry and start packing my bag. "You want to be a little more specific?" you ask. "I want to jump in the Pacific!" I reply. "It's a <i>big</i> ocean," you muse. "Then it will be hard to miss!" I retort as I go on packing. After more witty repartee, we look at the map together. "Decision time," you mutter, "which way do you want to go?" "That way," I reply, well aware of how unhelpful I am and also aware of how little I care. "We've got <i>hours</i> before it's even <i>close</i> to decision time," I say, somewhat cryptically. "Do you even know how road trips <i>work</i>?!?" we both exclaim simultaneously.<br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Here's what I've come to accept about road trips: they don't care about the plans we make. That goes double if you're in the passenger seat. Here's something else I've learned about road trips: the journey and the destination are separate experiences. The trip can be brutal and the destination can be beautiful but the opposite is just as likely to be true. It can all be dead medium, despite our best efforts to make it special or we can find little joys sprinkled throughout. Not only is it all possible, you've probably experienced a few of the combinations yourself.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />Another thing about road trips is that they can become something completely different after we start them. What if we had set out for L.A. only to decide in Denver that San Francisco was more our style? Would our trip now be a failure? Would we have to go home and start all over again? Or could we just take a right turn and head for a new destination? What if we saw the purple mountains' majesty of the Rockies and decided to stop there? Would none of it be worthwhile because I originally set our sights on the shining sea? Are we quitters? Sure we are, by some definitions. But it's also perfectly fine to say that what we experienced was valuable and beautiful in its own right. Our choice doesn't lessen the beauty of the ocean and maybe we'll even go there another time. It's okay to have another road trip. All this is to explain that, despite our best efforts (or lack thereof), the trip will have its say and we are all along for the ride.<br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">As coaches, teachers, and mentors, we can learn a lot from road trips.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />First, let's consider what we can learn about our own development. We can have well-laid plans about how we're going to advance but learning and development are almost never linear and aren't interested in our timetables. Sometimes we don't see the lessons we have to learn and sometimes we think we can get away with skipping crucial learning. Sometimes skipping stuff works out and sometimes we have to pay the piper. Regardless of how our journey unfolds, we want to believe that we have more control over it than we really do. We'll pat ourselves on the back harder than we should when we succeed and we'll kick ourselves harder than we deserve when we fail because we think that it was all about our choices and skill and nothing to do with luck and happenstance. This is to say that we won't, we can't, stay true to the road trip plan that we laid out for ourselves because sometimes there's construction and traffic jams along the route. <i>And that's all okay if we let it be.</i> We don't have to be on a schedule to learn and grow. We can still be committed to getting better and learning more, despite not knowing exactly what that will look like or when it will happen. It doesn't matter if we were trying to get to San Francisco or Los Angeles and it doesn't matter how long it takes us to get there (wherever "there" becomes). The more specific our plans for growth are, the less likely we are to follow them exactly. This is not to say that we are less likely to achieve our goals, just less likely to check all the boxes along the way. Not all of our goals need to be S.M.A.R.T. to work or to be motivating.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />The comparisons between road trips and our own development hold true for the development of the learners and athletes in our care as well. The first crucial difference is that now <i>we're passengers, not drivers</i>. The second difference is that we're not along for the whole trip. The result of these differences is that we have <i>even less control</i> than we would if it was <i>our</i> trip. Imagine that we are hired guides for a small portion of a much larger journey. We are experts on our little stretch of road and our suggestions for navigating that section may be well-received. We know where the potholes and the speed traps are, we know where the restaurants and the gas stations are. We can suggest whatever we'd like when we're in the passenger seat, but we shouldn't be surprised or offended if and when our advice isn't taken. Much as we may care what happens after we step out of the car <i>that's not part of our journey together</i>. Our planning and coaching can become more fluid and free when we allow for the end result to be relative to the time we spend together instead of relative to an imagined distant goal. We overstep our bounds when we extrapolate out beyond our stretch of road and start handing out advice about the stretch of road up ahead because of our concern for what happens outside of our time together. We will often ask ourselves if we have prepared athletes in our care for "the next level" and I think that if their minds and eyes are open and their bodies are healthy then we can say that we have prepared them sufficiently. Our practices and training plans don't have to be made with some far-off destination in mind, they can embrace a much more proximal version of progress. I can rest easy knowing that there will be other guides that will accompany them in the future, I don't have to do all the work myself.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />When we coach, we're riding in a car that isn't ours and we would do well to remind ourselves of that from time to time. All we can do is strive to give the drivers our most accurate view of the road they're on <i>now</i> and let them decide if they want to keep going and how. It's okay if the athletes in our care don't make it to where we thought they should, and that may not be because of how we planned and coached. They don't have to make progress according to our timetable. Our challenge is not to get them somewhere or even to make sure they keep moving, it is to help them create their road trip memories. Maybe they keep their intended destination throughout their time with us and maybe they don't. When they change their minds, we don't have to convince them that they're making a mistake. It helps to remember that some of the beauty of road trips is in their <i>in</i>efficiency. If they decide to take a detour, we can point them down new roads. If they choose to stop, we can help them find a place to stay. Maybe they'll change their minds again further on down the road. Maybe they'll even choose to readopt their original destination. It's not for us to say that they're road tripping wrong or that they have wasted time and energy. The ocean will still be there, and they will still be happy to jump in it if that's where they choose to go. They'll have had a few more experiences and have made a few more stories to tell. That's how road trips work.</span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-30610597885183031322022-02-10T07:24:00.001-07:002023-07-23T15:26:34.477-06:00Getting Better at Getting Better: Thoughts on How We Approach Professional Development<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This post is a reflection on my recent efforts to be part of building a learning community in my network of Coach/Performance Analyst friends.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">If you have a car and you drive places in it, then you've likely felt the frustration of being stuck in traffic. When you're stuck in traffic, have you ever noticed how everyone around you looks like they're in the same situation? One person sitting in one car, simultaneously lost and trapped in one tiny world. And yet, alternatives exist. Carpools and public transit exist. But, the alternatives feel like they're not meant for us, that they don't fit who we are and where we're going. They feel inconvenient. They feel like they take too much time, which we already feel like we don't have enough of.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Work can feel like that. We all have moments when we feel alone in our work, like no one else is working on the same thing we are. We compound that when we feel both stuck <i>and</i> alone, when we feel uncertain of what we're doing <i>and</i> that we're the only one working on <i>this exact thing</i>. One person sitting in one work-shaped car. And yet, alternatives exist. But, even before I describe those alternatives, our first instincts are the same. We have difficulty believing that the alternatives will feel anything other than incongruent and inconvenient.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">As coaches, teachers, mentors, team members, and learners, we know that's usually where the good stuff is, somewhere in the discomfort. I want to complicate our understanding of that discomfort. America holds <i>rugged individualism</i> as one of its core characteristics. Americans are immersed in a sense of <i>needing</i> to go it alone, no matter what it is that we're giving a go. We drive that way and we work that way, even when we work "together". You have your car and I have mine; you have your toolbox and I have mine. We default to "I'll meet you there" rather than "I'll pick you up". If I have to ask you if I can borrow a tool, it means that I'm not adequately prepared to do my job. This is to say that we're <i>comfortable</i> doing it all by ourselves. If we aren't sure of how to do it, we will try to figure it out alone rather than discomfit ourselves to learn with and from another. We even explain that choice by saying that we don't want to inconvenience others, "I don't want to bother them." (There is the exception of just offloading a task altogether, when we ask another to do it <i>for</i> us so we can each stay in our comfort zones.) We've developed a very narrow concept of discomfort and we've grown very comfortable with it.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">We think, then, that getting "comfortable being uncomfortable" is an individual endeavor. We view being uncomfortable as another thing to do alone. I want to challenge that. We can make our own learning and, by extension, the learning of those we work with, better if we change what it means to be uncomfortable. Let's be uncomfortable <i>together</i> instead of alone. Let's talk about discomfort as a shared experience because we're uncomfortable together instead of just empathizing with another's discomfort.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is not to say that empathy isn't necessary or important but, in the context of what I'm proposing, it is only a beginning. Sharing travails is a valuable experience, for both sharer and listener. Sharing progress brings joy to both sharer and listener. I'll use the words of Pema Chödrön, a Buddhist nun and author.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana;">"And the third [jewel of the Buddha] is the <i>sangha</i>, the community of people who are also committed to awakening...Sangha is...a place where we refrain from competition and one-upping each other...[People] are helping each other with kindness and compassion...By sharing your experiences on the path, you might be helping another person - not from an up-down position, but from friend to friend. And sangha members do not have to live in the same place. You can pen pal with a fellow practitioner or you talk on the phone. It is hard to go at this practice alone. And participating in a community of practitioners can make a big difference, especially when we hit those bumps in the road when our practice isn't smooth sailing." </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: verdana;">Chödrön, Pema (2008). How to Meditate: A Practical Guide to Making Friends with Your Mind.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But being in a community of coaches or teachers is hard. It's hard because of the structure of our professions. We work in our own classrooms, within our own teams. We work alone, even when we are in plain sight of others in our community. We are caught up in our own things to such an extent that we struggle to find time and bandwidth to share our experiences with others. And then there's that rugged individualism that tells us that we shouldn't want to share. Rugged individualism also goes together with imposter syndrome to make us even more hesitant to work together. We all have our private battles with imposter syndrome and yet we have difficulty accepting that others really do feel that same weight. So we often learn and work alone, from a place of fear. We believe that we aren't enough so we drive ourselves in isolation in hopes that eventually we'll close that imagined gap. Chödrön reminds us that sharing is an act of compassion, in which we struggle together. She reminds us that sharing and compassion put us on equal footing, that being in community doesn't have to include titles and ranks and doesn't have to make us feel <i>less than</i>. When each of us is striving to be our best, we appreciate the commitment present in each person. This is what that trendy <i>namaste</i> word we've seen everywhere should really be about. We believe in one another, acknowledge one another, and support one another. We honor one another’s struggles by showing our own.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">But, I challenge, being in community with others requires more than just cheering from the sidelines. When I say this, I use "community" in a slightly different way than we might be used to. In the literature on learning theory, we find the concept of <i>situated learning</i> which holds that learning is a feature of people, activities, and the communities in which they are found. Being in community means interacting with others and learning is part of those interactions. This is different from our usual views of learning via transmission and acquisition, which allow for passive engagement. According to situated learning, people change by changing how they participate in their communities, not by simply <i>knowing</i> something. Think of how we contrast learning in a classroom versus learning in sport. In a classroom, we assume that after teachers speak and write and students hear and write, that learning has taken place. But in sport, we are more likely to look for <i>changes in participation</i>. In sport, we tend to value <i>doing</i> over <i>knowing what to do</i>. This is situated learning, changing participation in changing communities. In this view of community, the only way to be part of it is to participate, there is no passive engagement. There is also no working alone because what we do relies on interactions. Our participation is always shared, as is our learning. We don't so much learn <i>from</i> others as we learn <i>with</i> others. It can be said that we learn from others by watching what they do or hearing them explain their actions, but, ultimately, our learning comes when we have the opportunities to act as we have seen and change our participation when those opportunities arise.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">How, then, do we learn <i>with</i> others in a community? This has two parts, opportunities for changing participation and actual participation. While opportunities regularly appear, if we don't know how to act when they do, then those opportunities come and go without any change, without any learning. To avoid missing these opportunities, we would benefit from the presence of mentors and companions. We are familiar with mentorship as being a relationship in which a mentor gives advice when the need or moment arises. But what if we realized that needs and moments can be <i>created</i> as well as just arising? We can work together to shape the activities in our communities so those activities better fit the learning we wish to do. This is something that we do every day as coaches and teachers, we scaffold opportunities for learners. We plan activities that give learners chances to change how they participate, that give them chances to do things that they have not done before. And yet we fail to do the same in our own learning.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">We can and should create opportunities to foster our own changing participation in our communities. To paraphrase Jean Lave, a principal researcher in situated learning, we are already apprentices to ourselves, always trying to learn what we are already doing. We are reflecting on our practices and, occasionally, trying to change as a result. What if we gave ourselves the scaffolding that we offer to our learners? How much richer could our own learning be? This is where our community plays a vital role. Both formal education and organized sport are built on the principle that having help in structuring learning is better than going it alone. Engaging others in learning gives us access to learning that isn't available to us when we work alone because our learning is situated in the interactions between us.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Getting better at our jobs, then, should be something that we plan to do and that we do with others. While it can be done alone, it is far better when done together. It is better because of the community, the <i>sangha</i>, we create. It is better because of how important interaction is to learning and changing. Getting better doesn't have to be the lonely grind that we're comfortable with. It can, and should, be an adventure that we share.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Time constraints and social standing are real and consequential factors that make it feel harder for us to work together. It is challenging to overcome them but we don't have to slay these giants in a single battle. We can create opportunities to be just a <i>little</i> different, we can take smaller steps if we recognize that those steps are available to us. This is something that James Clear gets at in "Atomic Habits" and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein take advantage of in "Nudge". Setting aside time for a regular phone call might feel like an imposition but, what if that phone call meant moving a little bit towards being better? Not to mention that we get to share with another person... It's a small shift to make time for conversation and another small shift to make that conversation about helping one another <i>do</i> and <i>be</i> different instead of only catching up with a friend. A Zoom call is no longer just another Zoom call when the purpose of the call is to make some progress on a shared project or to explore ways to improve. These are the interactions that nourish us as well as improve us.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">This is how we get out of our cars and get out of traffic. So let's explore how we might take some small steps that might eventually lead to big things.</span></p>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-88858830392265337852022-01-31T15:40:00.001-07:002023-07-23T15:26:38.178-06:00Statistics for Decision Makers: 2021 AVCA Convention Presentation<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I presented at the 2021 American Volleyball Coaches Association convention on December 16, 2021. Thanks to all who attended and to my friends that gave me valuable feedback as I prepared. Thanks also to the AVCA for selecting me to present.</span></p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">This presentation changed a great deal from when it was conceived until it was presented. As a result, the description in the program wasn't exactly what was on display. While that discrepancy does bother me, I am much happier with the presentation that I ultimately gave. Looking back, here's how I would summarize it now:</span><br /><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><i>As coaches, we are always engaged in a Search: to be better than our opponents and to be better than our previous selves. We would like to think that we our Searches would be better if they were data-driven but the truth is that we can't let the data do the driving. Our worlds are more complex than we think and we can be easily fooled if we're not careful. If we are to use statistical analysis in our decision making, then we need to better understand not only how statistics work but how our brains and contexts influence which statistics matter.</i></span><br /><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Here's my video from the seminar:</span><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SA62Y3rdS7k" width="320" youtube-src-id="SA62Y3rdS7k"></iframe><br /></div></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"> </span><br />You can access the AVCA's recordings as well:</span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://avca-audio.s3.amazonaws.com/2021+Convention/15+Statistics+for+Decision+Makers+-+Fiallos.MP3" target="_blank">Audio-only version</a> (Someone even took the time to edit out the discussion times when I wasn't speaking)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://vimeo.com/662690356/fc30a7f01d" target="_blank">Video version</a><br /><br /><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Here are my slides:</span><br /><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RbjVWtZMIcnjA8Vct1vEPCDBdxKeeWku/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">PDF Version</a></span><br /><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xoVRGUurqYAGf1GB6xk6dNe2HltFaNVh/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109717638347710936031&rtpof=true&sd=true" target="_blank">Power Point Version</a></span><br /><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Here are links for the recommended reading:</span></span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Duke, A. (2019). <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35957157-thinking-in-bets" target="_blank">Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts.</a> Penguin.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><div>Galef, J. (2021). <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42041926-the-scout-mindset" target="_blank">The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t.</a> Penguin.</div><div>Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55339408-noise" target="_blank">Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment.</a> Little, Brown.</div><div>Kozyrkov, C. <a href="https://kozyrkov.medium.com/" target="_blank">https://kozyrkov.medium.com/</a></div><div>Mlodinow, L. (2009). <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2272880.The_Drunkard_s_Walk" target="_blank">The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.</a> Pantheon Books.</div><div>Schulz, K. (2010). <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7811050-being-wrong" target="_blank">Being Wrong: Adventures in the margin of error.</a> HarperCollins.</div><div>Wheelan, C. (2013). <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17986418-naked-statistics" target="_blank">Naked Statistics: Stripping the Dread from the Data.</a> W. W. Norton & Company.</div></span></span></div></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-41072265830996210372021-05-09T17:33:00.003-06:002023-07-23T15:26:35.093-06:00My Coaching Framework - Time for an Update<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">In February 2018, I wrote the first version of my personal coaching framework. At that time I was beginning my graduate studies in education, specifically learning science and human development. Now that I have earned my degree, it is time to reflect on what I have learned in my studies and apply those lessons to my coaching framework.</span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">One important lesson I learned reinforced my commitment to "inspiration". In 2003, Cushion and colleagues wrote that "professional development is not something that can be delivered" but should be a joint effort of the teachers and the learners (<a href="http://shapeamerica.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800" target="_blank">Cushion, <i>et al</i>., 2003</a>, p. 222). I am more confident in my belief that teaching is a collaborative effort so I choose to foster a desire to learn and improve in those I work with.</span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Another important lesson for me has been researching some theoretical underpinnings for my belief in the importance of developing a personal framework. Grecic and Collins have written about the "epistemological chain" as a means by which coaches can develop their coaching philosophies (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.773525" target="_blank">Grecic & Collins, 2013</a>). I <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2020/02/taking-stand-building-other-half-of.html">presented a webinar</a> through the AVCA related to this subject and I am in the process of reworking it to focus more on epistemology and how it affects our coaching. I wrote a <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2021/05/academic-quick-hit-epistemological.html">short blog post</a> about that journal article too.</span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">To sum up, there are three main factors that drive this reformulation of my coaching framework.</span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">It is important to teach and coach with <i>authenticity</i>, coaching in a way that is true to <i>who I believe I am</i>.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">What and how I teach should reflect what I believe about learning, knowledge, and those whom I teach.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">Who I am as a teacher, what I teach, and how I teach should all continue to evolve as I continue to learn and grow.</span></li></ol><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><b><i>With that, here is the first part of that 2018 post.<span style="font-size: small;"> I have added a few references in bold (except for the opening sentence, which is bold in the original post).</span></i></b><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><i> </i><br /></span></span></span></p></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"> </span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">I
want to inspire coaches to become mindful, purposeful, and proactive in
their coaching and help them create and develop the tools to do so.</span></span></b></div>
<br /><div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">That's
a mission statement and while it can look good as a tagline, I believe
that much more needs to be explained and, more importantly, <i>done</i> in order to give it life. There is a framework that gives this statement meaning and purpose. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">The
three key words in that statement are mindful, purposeful, and
proactive. Those words can be interpreted in different ways and can have
different inferences attached. This is what those three words mean to
me in the context of coaching and learning. </span></span><br />
<ul><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Mindful: engaged with and aware of self, surroundings, and situation (without judgement to gain wisdom)</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Purposeful: possessing clear goals, meanings, and intentions</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Proactive: creating situations that move towards goals and anticipate future needs and changes </span></span></li></ul>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">A
brief addendum to the idea of mindfulness is that being "engaged with
and aware of" should come without judgement as often as possible. The
less time we spend getting caught up in good/bad/right/wrong
terminology, the easier it becomes to gain understanding and wisdom. <span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>(While I am still a fan of <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2018/03/mind-your-mindfulness-applying-gallweys.html">teaching mindfulness</a>, I also think we need to <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2021/03/were-ruining-mindfulness-with-how-we-do.html">put it within a larger framework</a>.)</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Helping
others to be purposeful requires that I be purposeful myself. To that
end, I want to illustrate the framework that I am using to exist and
function in a teaching/learning environment. I recognize that there are
different frameworks that can be constructed and I encourage you to
create your own after engaging in research and introspection. A deep
knowledge and incorporation of this framework allows all that I do in
teaching and learning to flow from it and retain coherency. I believe
that this coherency is perhaps the most important manifestation of
purposefulness.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">I
believe that being purposeful and proactive go hand in hand. The work
of creating a rich and coherent framework must come before I apply it to
my coaching. I think that I must then help the athletes to understand
the framework I am creating around and with them. The other end of the
spectrum is what I think of as "Titanic coaching", where coach and
athlete don't know what they are trying to sail around until after they
run into it. (This is a form of reactive coaching, which I'll have more
to say about in the future.) While the path of learning may not be
straight, we can still define that path clearly, which will help us be
more efficient and successful in our coaching and learning.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">So
the most engaging, meaningful, and productive coaching and learning I
can do is a product of the deliberate creation of a framework and the
sharing of that framework with those I teach and learn with. By sharing
and modeling this work, we encourage those around us to adopt similar
efforts. <span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>(The <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2020/02/taking-stand-building-other-half-of.html">deliberate creation of a framework</a> may be the most important preparation we do for coaching and teaching.)</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><i><b><span style="font-family: verdana;">Here is the second half of my original post. Parts that I am changing are stricken through or in italics. My comments and additions appear below.</span></b><br /></i></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"> </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Here are the pillars of my personal coaching framework:</span></span><br />
<ul><li><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Growth
Mindset: Almost everything we do is a skill or is composed of skills
rather than fixed talents or abilities. We can improve our skills
through deliberate practice.</span></span></i></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Proactive
Thinking/Focus Cycle: Our typical thought process is reactive, which
leaves us feeling as though we do not have as much control over our
thoughts and actions as we really do. Shifting to a proactive thinking
cycle frees us to perform closer to our current potential.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Mindfulness
and Single Item Focus: <strike>Being aware of the skills we are performing as
well as how we would like to perform them, often to the exclusion of
other things, helps us to clarify our performance as well as to shape
how we want to perform in the future.</strike></span></span></li><li><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Shared
Language and Vision: As coaches, we are at our best when we fully
engage our athletes. To fully engage an athlete, we must deliberately
work on building a language that is understood by both. Further, we must
use that language to articulate what we want to accomplish together.</span></span></i></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Coherency
and Consistency: <strike>We are more likely to understand and trust people who
are clear and consistent in their intentions and actions. To more
effectively teach, I must always work to keep an athlete's trust by
being constant in a sea of change.</strike></span></span></li></ul>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Over
the years that I have taught, coached, and learned I have read plenty
about each of those subjects. So far, these are the books that I
consider to be foundational to what I believe and seek to put into
practice. While there are many excellent books that also explore the
same topics, the books below represent either the closest to source
materials or have been the most impactful that I have encountered to
date.</span></span><br />
<ul><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40745.Mindset" target="_blank">Mindset: The New Psychology of Success</a> by Carol S. Dweck</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114120-thanks-for-the-feedback" target="_blank">Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well</a> by Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen</span></span></li><li><strike><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10079481-motor-control-and-learning" target="_blank">Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis</a> by Richard A. Schmidt, Tim Lee</span></span></strike></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30652098-self-determination-theory" target="_blank">Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness</a> by Richard M. Ryan, Edward L. Deci</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/905.The_Inner_Game_of_Tennis" target="_blank">The Inner Game of Tennis: The Classic Guide to the Mental Side of Peak Performance</a> by W. Timothy Gallwey</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97059.The_Courage_to_Teach" target="_blank">The Courage to Teach</a> by Parker J. Palmer </span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27036528-ego-is-the-enemy" target="_blank">Ego Is the Enemy</a> by Ryan Holiday</span></span></li><li><strike><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/AthleteDevelopment/Athlete-Development-Model/USOC-ADM-Brochure-2016.pdf" target="_blank">American Development Model</a> by the US Olympic Committee</span></span></strike></li><li><strike><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><a href="https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/AthleteDevelopment/Coaching-Education/Quality-Coaching-Framework/USOC-Quality-Coaching-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">USOC Quality Coaching Framework</a> by the US Olympic Committee</span></span></strike></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><i>Now for the fun part, expressing how my thinking has changed in the last three years.</i></span></span></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"> </span></span></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><b><i>First, responding to the pillars above:</i></b> <br /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">I am uncomfortable with my reliance on growth mindset. While how I teach still relies on considering most traits to be changeable, I don't regularly use the term "growth mindset" as I teach. The state of the research on growth mindset is a bit mixed at this point. Some researchers, particularly Dweck, Yeager, Paunesku, and Walton, find growth mindset interventions to be successful in many classroom settings. Some researchers, like Li and Bates and Sisk, <i>et al</i>., question some of the findings of the growth mindset researchers. My relatively uninformed opinion is that the research will eventually come down in favor of growth mindset but I also think that we will learn a great deal about how to effectively implement it on both large and small scales.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">I still support a proactive thinking cycle for athletes and coaches but my implementation of it is changing as a result of my move towards an <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2020/07/the-game-may-teach-game-but-it-could.html">ecological dynamics</a>-based approach to skill acquisition.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">My approach to mindfulness is shifting for a few reasons. As I <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2021/03/were-ruining-mindfulness-with-how-we-do.html">referenced above</a>, mindfulness means something different to me now than it did three years ago. I do still find simple mindfulness to be valuable but I no longer agree with how I framed it above. First, there is a great deal of research about <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2020/08/academic-quick-hit-optimal-theory-by.html">external versus internal focus of attention</a> in motor learning. In my original post, I framed mindfulness as focusing on internal states and I would rather have athletes focused externally instead. There is a <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2020/08/academic-quick-hit-metacognition-in.html">metacognitive aspect to mindfulness</a> that I think is important because I think that we need to be aware of our thoughts and emotions since these can affect our physical performance. The most important shift for me is from internal to external focus of attention.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">I still believe that shared understanding is vital to communication between teachers and learners. I overlooked an important aspect of this shared understanding though. If we are to truly <i>share</i> understanding, then the teacher must be open to not only listening to their learners but to incorporating some of their perspectives into the shared environment. There must be a collaborative relationship rather than a top-down flow in which the learner and teacher share understanding because the teacher establishes what is to be understood and how it is to be understood. This is based primarily on my reading of self determination theory as well as other learning theories that incorporate aspects of autonomy.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">As I emphasized in the opening of this post, I believe that my best teaching comes when I am more <i>authentic</i> than <i>consistent</i>. I think that is a better way of framing the consistency that I wrote about as a pillar. I think that learners <i>can</i> trust teachers that are consistent because the learners come to know what to expect from their teachers. I think that this is better than being inconsistent, but I think that being authentic is more enabling and supportive to learners than just being consistent. I should be consistent in my commitment to their learning and development and showing them that is what makes me <i>authentic</i>.</span></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>Second, responding to the books listed above.</i></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i> </i>I crossed out the motor learning text because my thinking has been greatly complicated by <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2020/08/academic-quick-hit-acquiring-skill-in.html">ecological dynamics</a> and the <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2020/07/the-game-may-teach-game-but-it-could.html">constraints-led approach</a> to coaching. I think that it is still important to learn about the information processing approach to skill acquisition (which is what most would consider to be "classic" motor learning) but there is much more out there for us to consider.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">To that end, I want to add <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Constraints_Led_Approach/PceHDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0" target="_blank">The Constraints-Led Approach: Principles for Sports Coaching and Practice Design</a> by Ian Renshaw, Keith Davids, Daniel Newcombe, and Will Roberts</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">I crossed out the two USOC papers, even though I see value in them, because I see some problems with each. After reflecting on it further, I think that the ADM does not do enough to actively discourage an emphasis on competing at younger ages. This is something that is much clearer in Istvan Balyi's Long Term Athlete Development model upon which the ADM is based. The ADM doesn't address competing at the younger ages, allowing for American coaches to continue to stress winning, even at youth and grassroots levels. The Quality Coaching Framework places an emphasis on "procedural knowledge, the skills, technique, and tactics of the game" (<a href="http://shapeamerica.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800" target="_blank">Cushion, <i>et al.</i>, 2013</a>, p. 220). As I wrote in the opening to this post, I think that a complete framework needs to include views on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.773525" target="_blank">epistemology</a> and <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2019/06/we-teach-who-we-are-review-of-parker-j.html">what one believes about oneself</a> and not just what one believes about the game.</span></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>Third, I want to add two more books.</i></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2018/09/alison-gopniks-gardener-and-carpenter.html" target="">The Gardner and the Carpenter</a> by Alison Gopnik for its explanations of exploration over exploitation and "parenting"</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2019/01/brown-roediger-and-mcdaniels-make-it.html" target="">Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning</a> by Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel because, even though I question how some of their ideas apply to motor learning, they still have much to offer us about how we plan and structure learning opportunities<br /></span></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>Last, I want to add new pillars.</i></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ecological dynamics and CLA may not yet be the complete answer but they are valuable, athlete-centered ways to coach. These frameworks invite coaches to become designers of learning environments instead of communicators of knowledge.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">Learning, especially in team sports, is situated. It happens in the context of athletes, activities, and the world. It is not a matter of what we <i>know</i> but of what we <i>do</i>. Coaching means creating opportunities for athletes to demonstrate their learning through actions rather than words.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: verdana;">Less telling, more asking. I need to stop assuming I know what an athlete is seeing, feeling, and thinking. Also, because of the embodied nature of learning, I need to understand that athletes might not be able to tell me what they just did. But I can ask them questions that require actions instead of words, e.g. "can you do that again?"</span><br /></li></ul></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-74876145073851504452021-05-02T17:49:00.002-06:002023-07-23T15:26:37.461-06:00Academic Quick Hit: The Epistemological Chain: Practical Applications in Sports - Grecic and Collins 2013<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Where I attempt to give a quick summary and opinion on an academic paper that connects to teaching, learning, and/or sport.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Why I think this paper matters:</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">The authors encourage coaches to explore their personal beliefs about knowing and learning in order to know themselves and their craft better and, therefore, teach others more effectively. This exploration results in a knowledge of one's own epistemological chain (EC) that gives a coach a framework upon which to build a coaching philosophy. This framework is necessary for coaches to conscientiously and consistently practice their craft.<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation:<br /></span>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Grecic, D., & Collins, D. (2013). The Epistemological Chain: Practical Applications in Sports. <i>Quest</i>, <i>65</i>(2), 151–168. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.773525">https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.773525</a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />Type of Paper:<br />I don't have a clean category for this paper. It definitely is not an empirical study and, even though it relies on a great deal of previous work, it is not a critical literature review either. To quote from the abstract, "This article highlights the role of personal epistemology in decision-making and proposes the construct of an epistemological chain (EC) to support this process in the domain of sports coaching."<br /> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights:<br />- Epistemology refers to what knowledge is and how one acquires it. This paper focused on personal epistemological beliefs, which the authors describe as "beliefs about knowing and learning that reflect views on what knowledge is, how it is gained, and the limits and criteria for determining knowledge" (p. 152).<br />- In this framework, epistemological beliefs vary along a continuum, from naïve to sophisticated. A naïve coach sees knowledge as simple, clear, specific, unchanging, and handed down rather than developed from reason. A sophisticated coach sees knowledge as complex, uncertain, able to be learned gradually, and able to be self-constructed by the learner (p. 152)<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "For the purposes of this article we define the EC as the interrelated/connected decisions made that are derived from high-level personal beliefs about knowledge and learning. <i>As such, the EC should be apparent through the coach’s planning processes adopted, the creation of the learning environment, the operational actions taken, and the coach’s review and assessment of performance</i>" (p. 153, emphasis added).</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The authors distinguish between instruction (transmission of knowledge and information) and education (facilitation of learning) and point out that this distinction is consistent with a coach-centered/athlete-centered dichotomy of coaching (p. 154).</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">- They go on to describe how an EC operates in sport coaching in the specific areas of planning, decision making, and critical reflection (pp. 156-159). These descriptions serve to show how viewing these areas through a lens of beliefs about knowledge and learning can have profound impacts on how coaches plan, make decisions, and reflect.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "If coaches were made aware of the foundations on which their own personal epistemology was based, they would be able to make more conscious selections of their knowledge sources" (p. 160). This is to say that knowing what one <i>currently</i> believes about learning<i> </i>has an impact on how one seeks out new sources from which to learn in the future. Coaches would better recognize which sources of information would be more or less beneficial to them.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The authors discuss how an EC can serve as an analytical tool to stimulate dialogue and further understanding between coaches. This would benefit coaches by moving discussions away from being "based on the drills used and on the successfulness of their athletes’ performance of such drills" and, instead, focus on analyzing philosophies and how those influence long-term coach and athlete development (p. 161).<br /><br />What I'm left wondering:<br />- I felt like the description of a naïve coach (Figure 1, p. 155) creates a straw man that no coach would see themself as. What are the nuances of the "continuum" the authors mention? Rather than only describe the two extremes of the continuum, how might a real, complex, and complicated coach embody their EC? (I am pretty sure that the answer lies in two other papers written by Grecic, Collins and another author around the same time.)</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The descriptions of interactions with athletes suggest work in individual sports. How might the ECs of team sport coaches differ from those of individual sport coaches?<br />- Given the strong history of coaching knowledge being handed down as the authors describe, it would seem that most coaches would have a more naïve EC. Since this affects how coaches learn and what they see as sources of learning, how do naïve coaches move towards sophistication?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">- How might coach education and development programs encourage the discussion and development of personal epistemological beliefs?<br /></span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-8457426562819368092021-03-08T11:44:00.001-07:002023-07-23T15:26:33.558-06:00We're Ruining Mindfulness with How We Do It: Ronald Purser's McMindfulness - A Short Review<p><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44795391-mcmindfulness" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="254" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhst4Q7Xed8sCg92FRQTGPMtoBB4p1gca37eMb00CGXfrp7iHz-s0rTD1_yPLUqc2mpt2qXQkckyn1XeFUxXQFgOnNXI39prGCujdE1107S3yWgBId8YpGratuBPlpLGpxVfKhKgANMM1E/s320/McMindfulness.jpg" /></a></p><span style="font-family: verdana;">We have a mindfulness problem. But it isn't the one you would think of, or that popular culture and media would have you think of. We have the most ironic of mindfulness problems. We think we know what it means to be mindful: to be aware, to be present, to be <i>in the moment</i>. We've listened to countless soothing voices remind us to bring our attention back to our breath. But for what, exactly?</span><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I certainly don't take the position that mindfulness serves no purpose or that it doesn't have any benefits. But I do agree with Ronald Purser's main claim, that mindfulness is supposed to be rooted in something larger than ourselves. I think that having clarity and focus is important but why should we seek to be clear and focused? Purser shows how mainstream mindfulness has incorporated the Puritan work ethic to its detriment. That work ethic tells us that we can achieve anything if we work hard enough but when we apply that to mindfulness, we drive ourselves to be mindful only of ourselves. We learn that controlling ourselves is all we need to do. But that, says Purser, is not what mindfulness is.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The author makes many incisive observations about how McMindfulness has neutered what mindfulness is meant to be and about how mindfulness has become a tool of corporate interests. And while I agree with his arguments, I can't provide more or better insight about those areas. What I want to share are my thoughts on how McMindfulness has influenced how we function as coaches and how we interact with others, especially athletes in our care. As coaches are wont to do, we have taken a complex framework and turned it into a drill that we do in practice. We have flattened the contours and nuances of mindfulness into a thing that we can plug into our practice plans rather than keep the complexity and have it change how we view coaching.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">To be clear, I think that a simplified version of mindfulness is beneficial in sports and performance. While my interest in ecological dynamics and related theories of skill acquisition may lead to differing opinions of <i>what</i> we should be mindful of, I still think that coaches and athletes alike can free themselves to perform better by applying ideas of mindfulness. The issue is that mindfulness means <i>so much more</i> and I can't turn away from that. It is meant to have us better understand our place in the world, not just our place on the court. It is meant to position us to <i>do something</i> about the conditions we see in the world. When we use self-awareness mindfulness techniques divorced from their roots in social and community awareness, we miss the point of mindfulness. We use these techniques to slow our thoughts but we do so to make space for small actions like jumping higher and moving quicker or "better". Purser is reminding us that the purpose of stillness of mind is to give us more clarity on what exists around us and how we are perceiving and interacting with everything <i>outside</i> of us but we can only do that by first making space <i>within</i> us. We can then use that space to be part of <i>big</i> actions too.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">So are we using mindfulness in teams to help us do something <i>to</i> something like a ball? Or are we using it to do something <i>with</i> those around us? Are we using it to be better athletes or better teammates and better humans? I don't think we should just do a minute of focused breathing so that we are better at ignoring external "distractions". I think we should use the breath as a way to see our team and our place in it more clearly. I won't mistake a feeling of stillness for a feeling of peace. To me, the peace comes not from a quiet mind but from right living. The breathing gives me a chance to reflect on how I am living. I can see if I am working together with my teammates in meaningful and positive ways. Part of that reflection may be that I need to do my job better but I think that should come after the reflection on how I am integrating with my team. If I can't or won't be mindful of my part in the larger whole then I am putting my ego before all else, which is antithetical to a mindfulness practice.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I also think that using mindfulness practice is an opportunity to create awareness of things that exist outside of our teams as well. I think that we should be asking ourselves how our coaching and playing sports makes an impact on the larger community and the world. How can we use who we are and what we do to be meaningful parts of our community? If creating stillness and peace within ourselves and our teams means that we must do work outside of sport then I think we have taken Purser's words to heart. I am not saying that sport should be only an avenue to social justice but I do want to say that mindfulness in the Buddhist tradition means that all of these lie along the same path.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I have been thinking lately about the communities in which we practice: our teams, our opponents, our spectators, our histories, our futures, and ourselves. I have been wondering what it is that we are creating, recreating, reproducing, passing on, and adding to. When we say we want athletes in our care to grow and develop, what do we want them to grow and develop towards? How do our daily choices and actions contribute to that? How can mindfulness be part of that vision? Let us meditate on that.<br /></span></p>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-1963975144342891472020-12-19T19:02:00.000-07:002023-07-23T15:26:32.983-06:00Academic Quick Hit: Ventral and Dorsal Contribution to Visual Anticipation in Fast Ball Sports - Simon Bennett, ed 2008<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Where I attempt to give a quick summary and opinion on an academic paper that connects to teaching, learning, and/or sport.<br /></span>
</p>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Why I think this paper matters:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Information Processing and Ecological Dynamics are two separate schools of thought in motor learning and their proponents are well-entrenched in their positions. The two-stream system may well be an opportunity for each side to compromise a little in the name of more accurately describing how skilled movement happens.</span></div><div style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>"In the course of action the activity of the ventral and the dorsal systems must be synchronized in a meaningful way such that they can work together. The interaction is reciprocal in that the ventral system<span> constrains the contributions of the dorsal system, and the dorsal system may also affect the workings of the ventral system" (p. 120).</span></i><br /></span></div><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation: <br />Bennett, S. (2008). Special Issue: Ventral and dorsal contribution to visual anticipation in fast ball sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 39(2), 97–177.</span><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Type of Paper: Special Issue with target article and six commentaries<br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Occasionally, a journal will focus on a specific topic for an entire issue and sometimes that topic is a specific article that all the other articles in the issue respond to. In this case, the target article is "</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">Ventral and dorsal contribution to visual anticipation in fast ball sports" by John van der Kamp, Fernando Rivas, Hemke van Doorn, and Geert Savelsbergh.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights (target article):</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- The authors of the target article are building on the work of Milner and Goodale, who have written books and articles about the "two visual stream system". There is a great deal of neurological evidence that visual information enters our eyes and then goes in two different "directions", ventrally and dorsally, once it hits our brains. Each stream specializes in different kinds of information.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "The ventral system is involved in perception of objects, events, and places. As the ventral system gains knowledge about what the environment offers for action, it can also contribute to action" (p. 102).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "The dorsal system is designed to visually guide movement execution" (p.102).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The authors' use of the term "knowledge about" is important because it contrasts with "knowledge of" the environment. They intend to show that each system is better at managing certain kinds of information. I think this is an opportunity recognize that each system needs the other in order for an athlete to perform many skills, especially in ball sports.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The ventral system is allocentric, or world-centered, while the dorsal system is egocentric, or body-centered. These terms further reinforce the distinction between "knowledge about" and "knowledge of" the environment.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- For me, the most important part of the target article is figure 3 (p. 109) in which the authors propose that "in the course of action the ventral and dorsal systems show parallel engagement". So the two systems work alongside one another.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The authors show that many experimental results that are intended to support the information processing point of view are likely incomplete because they only allow the implementation of the ventral system.</span></div><div><br /><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights (Abernathy and Mann article):</span>
</div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- The fact that many experimental results don't engage the dorsal system has been "largely a consequence of methodological constraints rather than necessarily a strong, conscious commitment by researchers" to uphold a particular philosophical view (p. 137).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- A main difference between experts and novices is probably that the expert's dorsal system is better attuned to their environment (p. 138).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- We must be careful to recognize the difference between errors of "poor pick-up of advance information" and errors of "poor response selection strategy" (p. 140). Did two athletes see and interpret something differently or did they see the same thing but selected different solution strategies?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">While there were plenty of ideas I took away from the other commentaries, I think they are more specific to my personal learning so I won't take anyone else into the weeds with me. <br /></span></div><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">What I'm left wondering:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- The commentaries are written from an Ecological Dynamics viewpoint. What would Information Processing commentaries look like?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- In volleyball, we often talk about defenders needing to be stopped/balanced when the opponent attack happens. I find information in the target article that suggests that movement during opponent contact could be either helpful or hurtful. How can I better understand when movement at opponent contact is useful?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Araújo and Kirlik's article draws a distinction between "representative design" and "ecological validity", writing that many researchers use the latter term when they are really talking about the former (p. 163). I still don't think I understand the distinction.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Probably the largest question I am left with is if the two motor learning camps have made any movement towards each other and if the two stream system is part of such compromise. As primarily a practitioner, I tend to be more pragmatic in my approach to these theories. I want to use what gets results, meaning the best learning and skill performance. I don't know how to do that in a way that doesn't run afoul of one of the two world views. A coherent, consistent framework is very important to me as a coach so I find this dissonance difficult to reconcile within the realm of my practice.<br /></span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-49244832983527764712020-12-05T18:21:00.000-07:002023-07-23T15:26:35.813-06:00Academic Quick Hit: Wayfinding - Woods, Rudd, Robinson, and Davids, 2020<p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Where I attempt to give a quick summary and opinion on an academic paper that connects to teaching, learning, and/or sport.<br /></span>
</p>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Why I think this paper matters:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- Using the metaphor of wayfinding for skill adaptation can be a very helpful tool for translating from formal academic language to something easier for practitioners (coaches, teachers, learners) to absorb, understand, and apply.<br /></span></div><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Woods, C. T., Rudd, J., Robertson, S., & Davids, K. (2020). Wayfinding: How Ecological Perspectives of Navigating Dynamic Environments Can Enrich Our Understanding of the Learner and the Learning Process in Sport. <i>Sports Medicine - Open</i>, <i>6</i>(1), 51. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00280-9">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00280-9</a></span></div><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Type of Paper: Review/Opinion<br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">The authors give readers a new way to think about the process of skill adaptation</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">. They build out the wayfinding metaphor and how it can be used to think about learning movement and, more importantly for coaches, how it can be used to approach teaching movement.<br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- A definition of wayfinding: "...wayfinding is an activity that confronts us with the marvellous fact of being in the world, requiring us to look up and take notice, to cognitively and emotionally interact with our surroundings" – M.R. O’Connor (p. 1)<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Wayfinding is contrasted with transport, "where an individual is more interested in reaching a pre-planned destination by transiting 'across' a landscape, as opposed to moving 'through' a landscape" (p. 3). It is more important to <i>experience</i> the landscape.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The idea of <i>knowledge of</i> is contrasted with <i>knowledge about</i> the landscape in which the wayfinder moves. (To be clear, the "landscape", in this case, is metaphorical, like a "solution space" or a realm of possibilities. This is not talking about how the learner actually moves through physical space.)<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The role of the teacher as landscape designer, in which they create opportunities for learners to "learn to learn how to move" rather than problem-solvers for the learners.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The role of the teacher as asker of questions rather than explainer of answers to the learners.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "...wayfinding isn’t knowing <i>before</i> we go, but, knowing <i>as</i> we go" (p. 10)<br /></span></div><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">What I'm left wondering:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- How do I know if the landscape I design is working? If learning is nonlinear and questions should have physical answers instead of verbal ones (p. 8), how do I assess that the learners are seeing what they need to see? What if they are focusing on useful sources of information in the environment but moving in ways that don't get them closer to their goals? How do I get at that discrepancy?<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- How does this metaphor fit in with tasks that are less physical (more cognitive) in nature, like remembering an opponent's tendencies?<br /></span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-58237127217216095832020-10-31T18:00:00.000-06:002023-07-23T15:26:36.777-06:00The Same, Only Different: Reclassifying Serve Reception in Volleyball<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I wrote about serve reception in a post a couple of years ago (<a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2018/06/thoughts-on-evaluating-passing-in.html">read it here</a>) and my thoughts there were a bit more philosophical than technical. I want to build on some of the ideas in that post and add some data before giving some ways to integrate the ideas I present. So here goes...</span></p><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I have been thinking a lot about how we evaluate serve reception since at least when I wrote that previous post and this spring and summer finally yielded some productive ideas that I am looking forward to integrating into my team's training and competition. I'm not changing how I grade receptions but I am expanding how I think about serve reception to include its contribution to scoring points. This expansion is a product of treating all non-terminal skills (receiving, setting, digging) not as isolated skills but as opportunities to either make it harder or easier for our team to score on the next attack. In the case of serve reception, pass average and in system percentage both treat passing as an isolated skill so how can we incorporate scoring into our passing evaluation?</span></p><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Before I get into that, I think it is important to quickly look at how I grade passing. To be clear, I don't think that my way of grading is better than other ways, it is just an expression of what I think is important and that can vary from one program or scout to another. I think it is important to explain my grading because it influences the data that underlies everything else I'm writing about. First, I grade on a four-point scale so a "four" is a ball passed within a step or so of the setter's "perfect" location while also allowing the setter to be in a desirable posture. Threes, twos, and ones are basically determined by how many options I think the setter reasonably <i>can</i> set on the pass (there's a difference between <i>can</i> and <i>should</i>, which I wrote about <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2018/06/thoughts-on-evaluating-passing-in.html">here</a>). I use Data Volley's R/ grade for "one-half" receptions, which are passes that are kept in play but the receiving team cannot take a swing. This grade is useful to make "one" grades more connected to scoring points without being affected by the noise of shanks and overpasses that aren't aces.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The data set that I'm using is the last three years of Pac-12 matches for the University of Colorado, where I am the Technical Coordinator. While the data visualization below contains the data for Colorado's opponents as well, I am going to focus on my team. The graph is built in <a href="https://www.tableau.com/" target="_blank">Tableau</a>, which is a really fun and powerful data visualization tool. It is highly interactive, so click around and enjoy.</span></p><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Let's remember that I said scoring is what drives my work here. Reception is a step towards scoring, which is what really matters. Passing well is nice but good passes are ultimately useful because they make scoring easier. So let's approximate how well my team scores after different reception grades. The graph below is built on reception grades (x axis) and <i>expected first ball efficiency</i> (y axis). To find expected first ball efficiency (xFB), we'll need the number of times each attack outcome (K, 0, E/B) occurs following a particular reception grade and the number of times that reception grade occurs. xFB
will be calculated in the same way we calculate attack efficiency with one crucial difference. I am using reception attempts as the denominator rather than attack attempts because this calculation is about the passer rather than the attacker so I want to include receptions that don't have an attack that follows. Each reception grade has its own calculation so each team has five points on the graph and these points correspond to the xFB for that reception grade for that team. I then asked Tableau to show curves to relate each team's data points to one another so each team has one curve that roughly links their five points together, giving us a sense of how the values change as we move from grade to grade. The xFB changes from grade to grade are what triggered
my thinking around reception evaluation.<br /></span></p><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><div class="tableauPlaceholder" id="viz1604023729746" style="position: relative; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><noscript><a href='#'><img alt=' ' src='https://public.tableau.com/static/images/xF/xFBv1/P12xFBTrendlines-nozero/1_rss.png' style='border: none' /></a></noscript><object class="tableauViz" style="display: none;"><param name="host_url" value="https%3A%2F%2Fpublic.tableau.com%2F" /> <param name="embed_code_version" value="3" /> <param name="site_root" value="" /><param name="name" value="xFBv1/P12xFBTrendlines-nozero" /><param name="tabs" value="yes" /><param name="toolbar" value="yes" /><param name="static_image" value="https://public.tableau.com/static/images/xF/xFBv1/P12xFBTrendlines-nozero/1.png" /> <param name="animate_transition" value="yes" /><param name="display_static_image" value="yes" /><param name="display_spinner" value="yes" /><param name="display_overlay" value="yes" /><param name="display_count" value="yes" /><param name="language" value="en" /><param name="filter" value="publish=yes" /></object></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
<script type="text/javascript"> var divElement = document.getElementById('viz1604023729746'); var vizElement = divElement.getElementsByTagName('object')[0]; vizElement.style.width='100%';vizElement.style.height=(divElement.offsetWidth*0.75)+'px'; var scriptElement = document.createElement('script'); scriptElement.src = 'https://public.tableau.com/javascripts/api/viz_v1.js'; vizElement.parentNode.insertBefore(scriptElement, vizElement);</script>
</span><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">The conclusions I draw from this visualization are not exactly universal but I think that they are similar enough that my conclusions about my team can be useful for many other teams. Let's start at the top end of the grade scale, fours and threes. Better than almost any other team in the conference, Colorado shows that there is little difference between these two kinds of receptions in terms of how well we attack after such a reception. That makes sense because there is probably less difference between what fours and threes look like than the difference between any two other grades. (This could be an argument against scoring on a four-point scale but that's not what I want to focus on here.) We see a big gap between xFB on threes/fours and xFB on twos, which is important because that means twos are clearly different than threes and fours in terms of our ability to score. We score less on our first swings when we pass twos than if we pass better. Just like with threes and fours, this makes sense but it is important to see how large a difference in xFB there is (almost 100 points). It is worth noting that, even though there is a drop in xFB, we can still be reasonably successful hitting .250 in our first ball offense but we start to put more pressure on other aspects of our game. There is an even larger drop between twos and ones (from .250 to .104) and now we have entered dangerous territory, it will be really hard to win if we are only hitting .100 in first ball. Not every team in the graph shows the same grouping of xFB values but there is almost always some kind of grouping that is apparent. I think that if I used more than 5-6 matches of data for the non-Colorado teams, the groupings would be more clear but I'm focusing on my team and extrapolating out from there. The important thing to take away from this is that there are reasonable ways that I can group reception grades together when I consider how well teams attack after those reception types.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I see three groups of receptions for CU: ones after which we hit well over .300, ones after which we hit mid-.200s, and ones after which we hit .100 or worse. I see these three groups as being either favorable for, slightly below average for, or poor for scoring. I could easily stop here and just assign new number values to my reception grades but that doesn't connect the skill to scoring in any meaningful way. Why not just use In System Percentage (IS%) to express the same idea? I think there are two reasons, IS% doesn't connect to scoring and IS% ignores that we can still win passing twos. IS% is certainly useful but it doesn't accomplish what I'm looking for. After thinking about alternative scales, I arrived at Green-Yellow-Red (G-Y-R). This scale separates us from reception average-type numbers and gives us a sense of the situations that attackers find themselves in after a reception: favorable, questionable, and difficult. G-Y-R
allows me to continue grading serve reception in the same way I have been, as an expression of the number of front row attacking options that are available, but now I have a way to talk about how reception affects scoring.</span></p><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Here are two different visualizations that are showing almost the same thing, G-Y-R reception frequencies for opponent passers. Each bar in these stacked bar charts represents a different passer and the colors represent how often that type of reception occurred for that passer. The numbers at the top of each bar are numerical expressions of each passer's G-Y-R. The difference between the two graphs is that the first shows gross counts so we can see which passers received the most serves while the second shows receptions as a percentage so that each passer's performance can be easily compared to that of another passer. I show both because I think it is interesting to see if there are particular passers that are above/below average in terms of their number of attempts and I also think it is important to be able to make comparisons regardless of usage rates. I created these plots in R and I am happy to share the code with anyone interested.<br /></span></p><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRRhSwlqy0x28GDiO8bG8u_Vg0KEuHkXM0hp5-nuDtTI23GwuqEYcW0LTpZxA6AlQJJaoiInb208JwoJo420VEm2ftKEDn61OXi7bfAdXXkr4tzzCkExT_WK0yfm5y9g81ELd2_qR5SWE/s1941/Opponent+Reception+GYR+-+anon.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1941" data-original-width="1795" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRRhSwlqy0x28GDiO8bG8u_Vg0KEuHkXM0hp5-nuDtTI23GwuqEYcW0LTpZxA6AlQJJaoiInb208JwoJo420VEm2ftKEDn61OXi7bfAdXXkr4tzzCkExT_WK0yfm5y9g81ELd2_qR5SWE/w592-h640/Opponent+Reception+GYR+-+anon.png" width="592" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinmHrRCK346-xYJpoNrU6MOOsiH-8LJH2boO_Uba5eaTZz7cISOdJKtD2kPVi3LPhsoJHQ4tNnkKkep01tddllb8AQaZF9cdMs6qYIvC1G7yJVeMgVvM8G-SoDmP6o24Kiyrv0i02wTew/s1941/Opponent+Reception+GYR+pct+-+anon.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1941" data-original-width="1795" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinmHrRCK346-xYJpoNrU6MOOsiH-8LJH2boO_Uba5eaTZz7cISOdJKtD2kPVi3LPhsoJHQ4tNnkKkep01tddllb8AQaZF9cdMs6qYIvC1G7yJVeMgVvM8G-SoDmP6o24Kiyrv0i02wTew/w592-h640/Opponent+Reception+GYR+pct+-+anon.png" width="592" /></a></span></div><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">So what does a good passer look like in G-Y-R? The obvious answer is that more green is better, as is less red. But that generalization, like IS%, ignores the yellow, the in-between cases, that can make or break teams' first ball success. Compare Player 13 and Player 80. They have almost identical G% but Player 13 has 10% more Y than Player 80. That means that Player 80's team is going to be hitting around .100 10% more often than Player 13's team when each of them passes. That's a difference in siding out that I want to be aware of and I wouldn't see it if I only looked at IS%. But that comparison doesn't answer the basic question of what a good passer looks like in terms of G-Y-R. I think that 50-30-20 would be the sign of an elite passer. In the sample above, Player 41 and Player 89 are, in my opinion, the best of the bunch. There were passers in my sample that met my criteria of 50-30-20 but they had fewer than 40 receptions, likely because we thought they were good passers and tried not to serve them much.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbIB8rxuGwqD5G6KuVbHynRu0UqhxHkQNHSwJt8HwWuMUoXsLX96TToUDFsw-tS134NYn2JLLkMWEMSDA5yuXDWioePl9Yr5WEKttoia8CNVpyj3pFyRSQhtTGlYOHtQCS6jU1n6zRhm8/s396/G-Y-R+sheet.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="396" data-original-width="186" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbIB8rxuGwqD5G6KuVbHynRu0UqhxHkQNHSwJt8HwWuMUoXsLX96TToUDFsw-tS134NYn2JLLkMWEMSDA5yuXDWioePl9Yr5WEKttoia8CNVpyj3pFyRSQhtTGlYOHtQCS6jU1n6zRhm8/w188-h400/G-Y-R+sheet.png" width="188" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Let's look at data from a single match to see what G-Y-R can look like. The image at right is of a simple Data Volley worksheet I built to compare reception average, xFB, and G-Y-R. The data make it pretty clear that all three are pretty tightly related. The upper team in the worksheet passed 50% of their receptions at a grade of one or lower and that distribution was reflected in the low xFB and reception average values. Meanwhile, the lower team had 50% G and had xFB and reception average values that were in line with that. If the numbers are all so closely aligned, then aren't xFB and G-Y-R superfluous? I don't think so because I don't think that reception average gives us a clear indication of how a team should score. I don't like relying on xFB because it is too easy to conflate its value with reception averages. (Look at how closely the values of the two measures can seem.) Both xFB and reception average boil a passer's performance down to a single number which removes valuable context. Passers are not going to pass every ball the same but xFB and reception average give us the sense that every ball <i>will</i> be the same because they each give a single value. G-Y-R helps us very quickly understand that passes will be different and gives us a sense of how the passes will be distributed. Compare two passers on the upper team, one at 1.97 and the other at 2.00. If I was deciding who to serve at based only on those reception averages, I might be inclined to pick the lower average but the G-Y-R gives me an interesting insight. The 2.00 passer passes 5% more R than the other so I can give my team a <i>much</i> better chance to earn a point 5% more often if I concentrate my serves on that player instead of on the 1.97 passer. Compare that player to the 2.00 player on the lower team whose G-Y-R is 20-60-20. The dramatic differences in Y% and R% are reflected in a 30 point difference in xFB. These are important differences that affect a team's ability to win points in first ball.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I think G-Y-R can also have an impact on how we coach our athletes. I don't think that it changes how we want our athletes to look and move but I do think G-Y-R should shift our interest and energy when working on reception. Knowing that there isn't much difference between a three and a four in terms of scoring, how much energy should we put into improving a pass' location from 6-7 feet off the net to 1-2 feet off? But what about improving pass location from 11-12 feet off to 6-7 feet off? That's a potential difference of 100 points in hitting efficiency. How important is the height of a pass? A low pass to the center of the court may not prevent our setter from getting to it but it may prevent her from setting it with her hands. Passing a ball to that same location but higher can therefore mean a 150 point increase in xFB. To me, this is a different perspective on improvement. Improvement can mean raising the ceiling on our performances, that our average performance improves because our top scores consistently become a little better. G-Y-R gives us a way to quantify the benefit of raising the floor, making our lowest performances better. G-Y-R suggests that raising the floor would have a much bigger effect on our ability to side out than just seeking general improvement that is reflected in reception average.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">G-Y-R also give me an alternative way to think about scoring reception games in practice. We play a serve receive offense game at Colorado where points are awarded based on the quality of our pass and the outcome of the first ball attack. We have been using traditional reception grades for scoring but that's going to change so that our team can more clearly see the effect that reception quality has on side out offense.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I am looking forward to exploring G-Y-R with my team in the coming season. It could be the beginning of an important shift in our thinking towards valuing non-terminal skills in relation to scoring. </span></p>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-40190159002349605562020-08-23T17:44:00.000-06:002023-07-23T15:26:34.786-06:00Kathryn Schulz' Being Wrong - A Short Review<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSj3Pb1RkghF8jxoDVZhwpJOZwdDx-MiM9u2zdaFG869YgoCZf8zAngar-O5P-8p05Pp3JsOIM1_aPsJacPhCdsXvYNp_NC_rZ3B9zo57uBmk9LvJpAxsxNfHOqOOuiv0ri5noU8hbygg/s350/errant+def.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="246" data-original-width="350" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSj3Pb1RkghF8jxoDVZhwpJOZwdDx-MiM9u2zdaFG869YgoCZf8zAngar-O5P-8p05Pp3JsOIM1_aPsJacPhCdsXvYNp_NC_rZ3B9zo57uBmk9LvJpAxsxNfHOqOOuiv0ri5noU8hbygg/w350-h246/errant+def.png" width="350" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"> "To f*ck up is to find adventure."</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">I wasn't sure if I wanted to keep reading <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8667187-being-wrong" target="_blank"><i>Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error</i></a> until Schulz made this point at the end of chapter two. I thought all of chapter one and most of chapter two were too abstract and philosophical for my taste. But then, in the last pages of chapter two, she set the hook and both my highlighter and I were in. That's when she wrote about the medieval knight errant and reminded readers that the Latin word <i>errare</i>, meaning "to roam", gave rise to the English words "error" and "errand". The English word "errant" can be used to express either idea. But enough about etymology. To be errant is to be wrong but also to be on an adventure.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">In this spirit, Schulz gives us the 'Cuz It's True Constraint: we believe what we believe because our convictions (we believe) are based on facts. We're willing to accept the general notion that our beliefs may be biased, but if we pick a particular belief, we'll probably say, "but not that one". We don't believe things because it makes us feel better, smarter, or more in control. That's what other people do. Wrong is something that other people do and they do it for the wrong reasons. Schulz points out that even when we do admit we were wrong, it immediately becomes past tense because we no longer believe the same thing. We <i>were</i> wrong.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSw9IWF-pt11eSSRoovnl6onroZrNfhmEyiN6650tfTQO0mIHrbv4clIQxXtrBEIDL95DcjCCFXxxZH-oXmVYKLhqHcz0uOVyESEyiRh8k2r4ex1eygh68VZMjDRF9QzZJ2_A5lsh3xls/s400/Being+Wrong.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSw9IWF-pt11eSSRoovnl6onroZrNfhmEyiN6650tfTQO0mIHrbv4clIQxXtrBEIDL95DcjCCFXxxZH-oXmVYKLhqHcz0uOVyESEyiRh8k2r4ex1eygh68VZMjDRF9QzZJ2_A5lsh3xls/s0/Being+Wrong.jpg" /></a></span></div><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">So why do we make errors? Because our brains are really good at inductive reasoning. We learn language by hearing others conjugate a verb a few times then we go out and conjugate it the exact same way in all situations until someone points out that we say "took" instead of "taked". We are all built to work on assumptions and we don't realize when that gets us into trouble. As Schulz phrased it, "every one of us confuses our models of the world with the world itself" (p. 107).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">We silently substitute how we think the world works for how it actually works and then quickly convince ourselves of the certainty of our model. So if my model is how the world works and I see that your model is different, then your model and, therefore, your world is wrong. I can see all the ways that your world is wrong but I can't see how mine is. I see your certainty as laughable but my own as righteous. (It is worth remembering that this book was published in 2010 and written earlier than that so we now have a decade of social media to show just how right Schulz is about how we treat being wrong.)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">To me, the beauty of the book is that Schulz doesn't turn it into a how-to on not being wrong, nor does she pontificate. She writes an ode to and explanation of "wrongology". The closest Schulz gets to telling readers what to do about being wrong is suggesting that it is about far more than getting our facts straight.</span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;">But facing up to the true scope and nature of our errors is also (and more self-evidently) psychologically demanding. Crucially, these two challenges are inseparable: if we can't do the emotional work of fully accepting our mistakes, we can't do the conceptual work of figuring out where, how, and why we made them. (p. 207)</span><br /></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">There is a vulnerability in being wrong and it scares the crap out of us. So fixing our mistakes means fixing ourselves as well as our facts. But Schulz describes an "optimistic model of wrongness" in which error is a force that "imperceptibly helps...us human beings - to grow up" (p. 289).</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana;">So what does this have to do with coaching? Nothing. Everything. I take this book as an invitation to admit to and talk about being wrong. How does my wrongness affect my decisions? How does it affect how I treat those I see as wrong? How do I deal with my mistakes when they are made apparent? How do I treat those that show me my errors? As coaches, our relationships with our athletes (and so many others) are built on trust <i>and</i> a power imbalance. Our positions of power can raise the stakes on the errors we make. Do we rely on our power to make things "right"? Do we rely on some version of "because I'm the grown up and I know better" to paper over our misjudgements? When we rely on our power to manage our mistakes, we do so at the expense of the trust placed in us. Our models of the world encourage us to be certain we have done the right thing so we don't understand why faith in us erodes. That's not the place I want to find myself anymore. I'd rather be wrong. After all, that's where the adventure is.<br /></span></p>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-26526008052954197862020-08-21T15:24:00.000-06:002023-07-23T15:26:34.273-06:00When You Realize You're Not Even Close - Volleyball in Light of Skinner and Goldman's Optimal Strategy in Basketball<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation:</span><br /><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
Skinner, B., & Goldman, M. (2015). Optimal Strategy in Basketball. <i>ArXiv:1512.05652 [Physics]</i>. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05652">http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05652</a></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">You know the feeling when you taste a new dish that is so good that you keep repeating to your friends how good it is after each bite?</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">You know the feeling when someone shows you the difference between what you've been doing and the way it <i>should be done</i>?</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Have you ever felt both of those at the same time? </span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">That weird mish-mash of thoughts and feelings is the result of reading Skinner and Goldman's "Optimal Strategy in Basketball". Add to that the dismay of knowing that they wrote it five years ago and I just discovered it now. The only thing that eases that dismay is the knowledge that I wasn't anywhere near prepared enough then to do anything about what I read. While I still may not be prepared enough now, I can at least see how to get there from where I currently am.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">So what was so good about the paper that I couldn't stop telling my friends? The introduction was all it took. The authors clearly summarized what my friends and I have been fumbling around for months, if not years.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- The score difference fluctuates somewhat randomly throughout play.<br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- That net score difference is determined by the skill levels of the teams and the scoring strategies they use during play.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- There are three main principles that go into determining what the optimal use of scoring strategies should be.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Those ideas may not seem so earth-shattering but that is the amazing part. If those ideas are so plain to see, why hadn't I seen anyone else nail these down in some formal, empirical way until this paper? It's not until you try to explain something complex to others that you realize just how little you <i>truly</i> understand it.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">That's where math starts to come in. The first of the three principles to consider is "allocative efficiency", or determining the frequencies at which certain players/plays should be used in order to maximize scoring. The authors demonstrate that the answers are not as simple as we think they are. It isn't as simple as using the <i>average</i> points scored by each player/play. We need to understand the <i>marginal</i> points scored. Marginal rates are <i>derivatives</i>. They explain how large the changes are between data points. The question shouldn't be "how many points do we expect to score running this play?" The question should be "how many <i>more</i> points would we expect to score if we ran that play <i>one more time</i>?"</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">The second principle is "dynamic efficiency", which the authors explain as an "optimal stopping problem". To maximize dynamic efficiency, teams must choose which shots to take and which ones to pass up within a given possession. Teams should shoot when they reach a point at which the expected value of the current shot is greater than the average expected value of continuing the possession. The expected value of a possession keeps going down as the shot clock keeps winding down so earlier shots are typically better than shots in identical circumstances later in the possession.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">The third principle is "risk and reward". We can easily understand that there is a trade off between these two but the authors quantify this trade off in an insightful way. Increasing "risk" means that we decrease our chances of scoring our "average" number of points in order to increase the chances that we score a number of points that is much higher than our average. The downside of increased risk is not only the decreased chances of scoring our average but also an increase in the chances of scoring <i>far less</i> than our average number of points. So why would we risk, given how it negatively impacts our scoring? If we remember back to the introduction of the paper, we should care about the <i>difference in scores</i> more than how many points we score. If our opponents are likely, based roughly on average scoring, to outscore us then we have to take some chances to possibly increase our scoring. In statistics-speak, we are trying to fatten the tails of our scoring distribution. In COVID-speak, we are trying to flatten the curve.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><b>So how do I think we can apply these ideas to volleyball?</b></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">I'm very early on in developing my thoughts on this but I view this post as a chance to sort of think out loud, which I find helpful.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">When it comes to "allocative efficiency", I think that this encompasses both offensive play selection as well as setter choice. While there may be some play selection in transition offense, I think that, just by sheer volume of opportunities, we're mainly considering side out offense. Setter choice is always going to be constrained to some extent by reception/dig quality, which is only the beginning of the deep complexity involved in figuring this out. Let's start by considering a given play in a three-hitter rotation. We shouldn't just consider the attack efficiencies of the three front row attackers when running that play, we should compare how efficient they are as they are set more and more in that situation. We're looking to determine how to get the most expected scoring by leveraging each attacker as much as possible before their skill curve deteriorates too much. The better the individual attacker, the more the distribution will skew towards them. To some extent, we set different options to "keep our opponents honest" but mathematically, we are trying to maximize expected scoring. This is also an example of how the score fluctuations in a match are somewhat random. There are many factors that contribute to these situations and who the setter chooses to set can vary randomly within our maximal scoring scenario. We can achieve our allocative goals without strictly scripting what happens on every play. I think that allocative efficiency can also influence setter choice on less-than-perfect passes. To further complicate our thinking, this would mean not just knowing how to maximize scoring on a certain play with certain attackers but also how that efficiency may change as reception quality deteriorates. The abilities of the attackers determine this to some extent but there is always an element of allocation to consider.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">I think that we need to understand how marginal scoring rates change in all of these situations before we can understand how to allocate most efficiently. I suspect that we currently only truly understand average scoring so when we start considering complicated situations, our thinking reverts to "set the attacker who is most efficient <i>on average</i>" which will not result in the best allocative strategy.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">I think making direct "dynamic efficiency" comparisons between basketball and volleyball is a bit tougher mainly because our time constraints are much different than theirs. The rules of volleyball prevent lengthening possessions. With that said, I think that there are some interesting comparisons to be made. First, there is a constraint in terms of how close teams are to the end of a set. I have seen this referred to as the "red zone", or after 20 points. I have also seen research suggesting that 18-15 is a kind of point of no return, in that the trailing team is very unlikely to win the set under normal circumstances. We can study dynamic efficiency as a principle that governs decision-making as teams approach the end of sets. How should decision-making change as teams near 25 points? Does attack efficiency change in some important way as teams near 25 the way that expected points change as the shot clock or game clock nears zero? What impact is there on dynamic efficiency when a team is leading versus trailing? (Is that question really more about risk and reward?)</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">What about considering rotations as part of dynamic efficiency? Should teams be weighing how to shorten time spent in weaker rotations and lengthen time in stronger ones? Is this a different question from allocative efficiency? Is attack choice (line/angle, hit/tip, etc.) a dynamic choice, allocative choice, or both?</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">"Risk and reward" is probably the most straightforward because it is a meta-strategy so it isn't tied to how the game is played. Risk and reward is about choosing strategies and about appetite for risk. There are plenty of stories in the sports canon about underdogs adopting radical strategies to overcome heavy odds. I don't think that volleyball coaches consider themselves separate from such ideas. In discussions that I have had with friends about this subject, I have framed this in terms of women's collegiate programs. How does a college coach think about risk and reward? How willing is any given coach to gamble on less-certain strategies? It's not that the strategies <i>don't</i> work (we need to be wary of dualistic thinking and resulting), it's that the strategies are much more variable. Do coaches who are willing to risk have any data to support how much variance accompanies a given strategy? How frequently can a coach utilize such strategies and keep their job? Variance means getting a much wider variety of results (in terms of scoring, not necessarily outcomes) and that means living with much less certainty, which can be exhausting.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">But what if you coach a college team that can usually make it to a postseason tournament but has <i>very</i> little chance of advancing far? Would you consider risking more, especially given that there may be little chance of overcoming the gap between you and your opponent? What if you coach a team that makes the tournament every year, advances a round or two and then needs some luck? How many years would you be conservative and hope that the stars align to make it to the finals?</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">And then there's the question of <i>how</i> do we risk? What strategies are available to our teams that we aren't currently employing to score? Aren't we trying to practice those things that we can't control well enough yet so that we can control them better? Is risking all about tailoring strategies to fit certain opponents beyond the small tweaks that we usually make? Is it about putting more eggs into a single basket than we feel comfortable doing? Do we have to risk in all facets of the game (serving, attacking, blocking, etc.) or is deploying a large change in one area enough? Can we risk with certain personnel decisions rather than team strategies?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">And how would we measure the risks we would take? We need to employ strategies that we trust either fatten tails or shift curves in a favorable direction. Blindly risking is still risking but we can do better than that. We should gather some kind of data on the potential strategies, whether those come from other teams or our own team in situations where we are favored enough to experiment. It is a lack of rigor that can give risk a bad name.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">There's a lot of research to be done, data to be gathered, and numbers to be crunched to get a handle on these ideas. But before we do the math, we still need to decide how to translate between what we know about volleyball and what Skinner and Goldman have taught us about basketball. Are there areas unique to volleyball that the authors didn't have to account for? Are there arguments they made that won't hold up in our game? We have some substantial (but manageable) theoretical work to do before the applied work. Skinner and Goldman did the theoretical work and began the applied work but then ended their paper with this massive caveat:</span>
</div>
<div><blockquote>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: small;">At a practical level, the biggest hindrance to quantitative basketball strategy is usually the difficulty of accurately estimating the efficiency of different offensive options. The usage curves f(p) are particularly difficult to estimate from easily-measurable statistics, and are necessary for a quantitative determination of optimal allocation. What’s more, the usage curves are really only robustly defined relative to a particular defense, and can vary strongly depending on the quality of the team’s opponent. A major advance in their determination may therefore provide the most important step toward enabling quantitative optimization of basketball strategy. (p. 14)</span></span>
<br />
</blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">So it's going to be a long haul. We're not even close. But we can get there from here.</span>
</div></div></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-46156710541772490572020-08-17T15:20:00.003-06:002023-07-23T15:26:35.404-06:00Academic Quick Hit - Acquiring Skill in Sport: A Constraints-Led Perspective - Davids, Araujo, Shuttleworth, and Button, 2003<p>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Where I attempt to give a quick summary and opinion on an academic paper that connects to teaching, learning, and/or sport.<br /></span>
</p>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Why I think this paper matters:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- The authors, leaders in the field of ecological dynamics, give a brief summary of the constraints-led approach (CLA) framework of skill acquisition.<br /></span></div><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Davids, K., Araujo, D., Shuttleworth, R., & Button, C. (2003). Acquiring skill in sport: A constraints led perspective. <i>International Journal of Computer Science in Sport</i>, <i>2</i>(2), 31–39.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Type of Paper: Review/Opinion<br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">The authors weave a short literature review </span><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">together </span>with their views on how to best structure learning environments for skill acquisition.<br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">- Active participation and concentration on exploring the solution space by the learner is better for skill acquisition than satisfying task demands prescribed by a coach. (This can be loosely thought of as discovery learning.)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- There are three main task constraints that coaches can manipulate: equipment, practice structure, and augmented feedback (p. 33) (Augmented feedback usually refers to feedback from a coach rather than from performing the skill alone.)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "practice structure should emphasize 'task simplification' rather than the more traditional technique of task decomposition" (p. 34) (Simplifying the whole skill rather than teaching "whole-part-whole")</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Feedback from coaches should use external focus of attention (from <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2020/08/academic-quick-hit-optimal-theory-by.html">Wulf's OPTIMAL theory</a>) and should be used more infrequently.<br /></span></div><div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">What I'm left wondering:</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;">-How effective is external cuing as compared to internal cuing? Are there differences in the rates of improvement?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- How would I work with a novice athlete learning to serve? How would I use external cuing and different constraints to develop the skill? I know how I <i>used to</i> do it but incorporating a CLA means coaching <i>very</i> differently.<br /></span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-56453302551671394992020-08-15T14:43:00.000-06:002023-07-23T15:26:36.123-06:00Academic Quick Hit - Metacognition in Motor Learning - Simon and Bjork, 2001<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Where I attempt to give a quick summary and opinion on an academic paper that connects to teaching, learning, and/or sport.<br /></span></p><div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Why I think this paper matters:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- It shows that random practice can be better than blocked practice for motor learning tasks. Most blocked/random research at the time was limited to cognitive tasks.<br /></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- It highlights how "illusions of competence" may influence current learning efforts. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "One important speculation that arises from the present results is that learners who train under [random] conditions would be less likely to terminate practice before achieving the level of learning that is the goal of such practice and less prone to attempt a task for which they are unprepared" (p. 912).<br /></span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation:</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in motor learning. <i>Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition</i>, <i>27</i>(4), 907–912. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.4.907">https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.4.907</a></span>
<div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Type of Paper: Empirical Research<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">The
authors studied college students, having them learn a task, predict how well they would complete the task in future trials, then tested them the next day.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "Confidence was positively correlated with the amount of practice at the task, but confidence did not correlate with performance" (p. 908). Learners tend to overestimate how well they have learned a task when they learn in blocked practice.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- As practice trials went on, the difference in skill execution between blocked and random practice structure decreased. Any short-term advantages in learning from blocked practice were lost as more learning opportunities occurred.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Learners in random practice were much more accurate in their estimates of their future performance.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">What I'm left wondering:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- How well does this work predict learning/prediction/execution of more complex motor skills?<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- At what point is a task considered "learned"? Is that when there is no significant decrease in performance between trials?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- If a task has been "learned", how often must it be practiced in order to maintain that status?</span></div></div></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-64317422841700327072020-08-13T17:19:00.002-06:002023-07-23T15:26:37.147-06:00Academic Quick Hit - Van Raalte, et al.'s Relationship Between Observable Self-Talk and Competitive Junior Tennis Players' Match Performances<p><span style="font-family: verdana;">Where I attempt to give a quick summary and opinion on an academic paper that connects to teaching, learning, and/or sport.<br /></span></p><div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Why I think this paper matters:</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- It suggests a connection between our self-talk and our performances</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- It reminds us that self-talk may be a lot more than what we can see<br /></span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Raalte, J. L. V., Brewer, B. W., Rivera, P. M., & Petitpas, A. J. (1994). The Relationship between Observable Self-Talk and Competitive Junior Tennis Players’ Match Performances. <i>Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology</i>, <i>16</i>(4), 400–415. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.16.4.400">https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.16.4.400</a></span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Type of Paper: Empirical Research<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">The
authors studied junior tennis players at a pair of tournaments, recorded their observable self-talk and had them complete a survey about their self-talk.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">-Players who used more positive self-talk won more sets than those that used more negative self-talk (the authors make it clear that this is merely correlation and not causation)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Players categorized self-instruction as positive, negative, and "other", which suggests that they view self-instruction differently depending on the circumstances<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">What I'm left wondering:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">-
How can we as coaches learn more about the unobservable self-talk?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- How can we help athletes move from negative to "other" or positive self-talk?</span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-75559075171885025142020-08-07T15:47:00.001-06:002023-07-23T15:26:37.563-06:00Academic Quick Hit - Gallimore and Tharp's What a Coach Can Teach a Teacher, 1975-2004<div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Where I attempt to give a quick summary and opinion on an academic paper that connects to teaching, learning, and/or sport.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Why I think this paper matters:</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The authors show the value of revisiting previous work and applying a different lens to learn new lessons.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- We see that great coaching is far more than what happens during practice and competition. We don't just show up and do our best work.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- We see great coaching isn't just about how good your practice plan is. <i>Who we are during practice matters</i>.<br /></span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (2004). What a Coach Can Teach a Teacher, 1975-2004: Reflections and Reanalysis of John Wooden’s Teaching Practices. The Sport Psychologist, 18(2), 119–137. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.18.2.119">https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.18.2.119</a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">(fun volleyball reference: this paper cites Marv Dunphy's unpublished doctoral thesis on Wooden.)<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Type of Paper: Review (sorta)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">The authors wrote a famous empirical research article in the 70s that quantified Wooden's coaching. In 2004 they revisited their work, critiqued it, and applied a more qualitative lens.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Researchers, like coaches and most humans, often find themselves looking back on their previous work and wondering what they could have done better.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "Had qualitative methods been used to obtain a richer account of the context of his practices, including his pedagogical philosophy, the 1974-1975 quantitative data would have been more fully mined and interpreted" (p. 119). <b>Coaching, at its best, is an exercise in mixed methods research.</b> The best research around it must account for both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of coaching.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "It is now clear Coach Wooden’s economical teaching that we observed was the product of extensive, detailed, and daily planning based on continuous evaluation of individual and team development and performance" (p. 124). Wooden's seemingly effortless coaching was the product of massive amounts of care and attention in the gym and work and reflection outside of it. <b>Just like great athletes, great coaches are working long before and long after practice and competition.</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Coach Wooden's work on his craft was so much more than finding the perfect drill. He dedicated himself to being more efficient but also to learning his athletes. He saw the importance of affirming each one of the athletes in his care and connecting with them in ways tailored to their individual personalities and needs.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">What I'm left wondering:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- How can I learn more about pedagogy, particularly as it applies to sport coaching? There's a great deal of work in this area (some of which I have read) and I think that this article, along with its predecessor, should encourage coaches to learn more about coaching from the research and not just from the coach on the court next to them.<br /></span>
</div></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-82293534951313542882020-08-01T15:01:00.003-06:002023-07-23T15:26:37.768-06:00Academic Quick Hit - OPTIMAL Theory by Wulf and Lewthwaite, 2016<div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Where I attempt to give a quick summary and opinion on an academic paper that connects to teaching, learning, and/or sport.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Why I think this paper matters:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">There are two important ideas that I took away from this paper.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- If we want to maximize the
motor learning and execution of the athletes in our care, then we should
incorporate support for athlete autonomy into how we teach and coach.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">-
If we want to maximize the motor learning and execution of the athletes
in our care, then we should use external foci of attention in our
instruction and feedback.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Citation:<br />Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1382–1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Type of Paper:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Theoretical Review</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Highlights:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- OPTIMAL is a backronym for Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Intrinsic Motivation refers mainly to supporting autonomy in the participants (read more by Bandura or Deci and Ryan in particular) to positively influence learning. What do the authors think autonomy is? They quote Eitam, Kennedy, and Higgins (2013): "(the perception of) one’s actions having effects on the environment" (p. 1392)<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Attention for Learning refers mainly to using external focus of attention cues (as opposed to internal) to enhance motor performance and learning.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- Given that these two areas are in the title of the theory, the authors think that "motor learning cannot be understood without considering" intrinsic motivation and external focus of attention (p. 1384).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- There is a good amount of nuance and references to other work in the field, but the arguments for intrinsic motivation center on things that increase a participant's expectancies (their belief about their chances of successful achievement of a movement goal).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "Importantly, rewards appear to exert their effects via expectation rather than receipt." (p, 1389) While the authors do point out that intrinsic rewards are better than extrinsic ones, they also point out that extrinsic rewards <i>can</i> increase expectancies if we believe that we can complete the movement goal. It's the <i>thought</i> of getting ice cream after a win that motivates <i>if</i> we think we have a chance of winning. This is a separate argument from rewards vs. punishments.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- "control over an assistive device can have a beneficial effect on learning, even if that device in and of itself is relatively ineffective" (p. 1393). Think of Dumbo's magic feather. The authors also comment that superstition and similar factors can also influence performance expectancies (p. 1387).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The language we use in our instructions (to say nothing of our actual feedback) influences motor learning. (p. 1393)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- External focus of attention increases motor performance because it lessens thoughts of self. Lessening the engagement of "self" allows the body to use faster reflex loops in movement rather than slower conscious loops.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">What I am left wondering:</span><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- While the authors point out that autonomy-supporting behaviors and external focus of attention are beneficial to motor learning, all I have to reference are more research articles. This is the nature of the divide between researchers and practitioners, it isn't the job of researchers to provide ways to implement these ideas but I, as a practitioner, typically can't use the research to learn how to implement their ideas. I have to hope that the research closely resembles my setting or I have to hope that the principle they reveal transfers clearly to my setting.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- The article cites research in which expectancies are increased by giving participants misleading feedback and by lowering the difficulty level of trials. I don't deny that these methods can work, but I am left questioning if these are methods that coaches should use or use regularly. I feel uncomfortable with doing something that I perceive as being close to lying or with regularly lowering expectations versus supporting athletes differently when they perceive that they are failing.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- If you've read <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2018/03/mind-your-mindfulness-applying-gallweys.html" target="">my post about Gallwey's <u>Inner Game of Tennis</u></a>, then you'll know that I like engaging the self but as an observer to actions rather than the initiator of those actions. Does the "self-as-observer" focus lessen thoughts of self in the sense that Wulf and Lewthwaite mean when discussing internal focus of attention? Is this mode of thought somewhere on the continuum between external and internal focus of attention? Has any research been done to test these ideas?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">- My primary sport (volleyball) and most other sports have some object that athletes need to control or manipulate and that object lends itself to external focus of attention. What if you are a dancer or a gymnast and <i>you are the object</i>? How do we facilitate motor learning when external focus of attention is almost non-existent?<br /></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
</span>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-10212517269141186552020-07-28T16:02:00.002-06:002023-07-23T15:26:33.660-06:00...If it ain't sayin' nothin'. - Searching for My Voice and Meaning<div><span style="font-family: verdana;">I first learned about <a href="https://www.vollequality.org/" target="_blank">Vollequality</a> last night when a few coaches I follow on Twitter posted about it. Reading and understanding their mission doesn't take long. But understanding my own mission has not been as straightforward. To be clear, this post is not about their mission. I support them completely. I have signed their pledge. This post is about my relationship with social justice, commitment, and meaning.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">The title of this post is part of a line from a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FmPskTljo0" target="_blank">Public Enemy song</a> called "He Got Game" (from the 1998 <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124718/" target="_blank">Spike Lee movie</a> of the same name). The full (NSFW) line is "It might feel good, it might sound a little somethin' But f*ck the game if it ain't sayin' nothin'". I have recalled that line often over the past few of months as I have looked for a place in the larger social struggles that are being highlighted by the nightly news. What good have I achieved by yelling at my television? My game ain't sayin' nothin'. I have to do better than that. But what is the next step?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://thisisindexed.com/2020/07/good-trouble/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="768" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicl_7srXwGQMOMmPP6B7Cbn9Vp8Qc6PVsAh09fFS5tWPjmA1V3n1KTN7s5UKStBW5bnVRHciRWc6-F6hTJBuG_rqrAzTy38Gfv7z-SMoA3_yexrcx7pkiqkevt3CAnRAHGoEyAsuWIAiI/s320/good+trouble.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">Vollequality is asking me to sign a pledge and get the word out. It's a positive step, right? You bet it is. So why does taking that step bother me? I don't think it is a discomfort with what they ask me to represent. If anything, it is a discomfort with the idea that I may let myself off the social justice hook after telling my social media followers that I "did" something. Hashtag activism like that bothers me. It can be long on chatter and short on change. It's not the movement's fault if I post something on Instagram and call it good. <i>That's all my fault.</i> It's about where I set my own standards for caring about something. It's about moving up the "change" axis however I can. I decide what it means to be committed to a cause. I am free to choose if and how I talk about the things I care about. I choose to interpret the discomfort I feel to mean that my commitment must go beyond a tweet. But that's not the end of my introspection. (The drawing comes from <a href="https://thisisindexed.com/2020/07/good-trouble/" target="_blank">Jessica Hagy's Indexed</a>, which is awesome.)<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">If I want to care more deeply, then what does that look like for me? Whether I am completely happy about it or not, the first step for me is just to talk about it. Talking about equality, equity, racism, sexism, ableism, etc. is uncomfortable already and that is an important obstacle to overcome. But then there is the personal obstacle of discussing matters that are personal and/or private. These two obstacles, though separate, are regularly intertwined in my life. I don't like to talk about much of anything on social media so what do I do when it's time to talk about how I feel about social justice? I don't know how to do it but I have to commit to doing it. And screwing it up. And working it out. And trying again. But, like I have told many an athlete in my care, we're not going to get better at it by <i>not</i> doing it.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaSyL5QnNYSZJoctK_FMk4Pwg6g6hELxn-wY1d9wt1khv8YTQ18p6Gh6CqlY-5opunv7DuaGMFchbJzQGjaOefhp1_1n3RrGNZJQBKxw12odwqhrvHpFcsqz9dHszZT0E7cVORLhleJlI/s760/black.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="760" data-original-width="382" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaSyL5QnNYSZJoctK_FMk4Pwg6g6hELxn-wY1d9wt1khv8YTQ18p6Gh6CqlY-5opunv7DuaGMFchbJzQGjaOefhp1_1n3RrGNZJQBKxw12odwqhrvHpFcsqz9dHszZT0E7cVORLhleJlI/s320/black.png" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">So what good is just talking about it? By itself, it doesn't feel like much to me but I can contribute to making social justice something that gets talked about by <i>just talking about it</i>. Inspiring others is one of my core beliefs so I view this as a chance to inspire others to care a little more about what matters to them. Maybe, as we talk more about social justice we can begin to understand it, and by extension, each other a little more.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />And what about my need to feel like I'm <i>doing</i> something? I have found little things to begin stretching myself out. Sometimes it is consumerism disguised as activism. I've ordered stuff from <a href="https://freehugsproject.com/" target="_blank">Free Hugs Project</a> (which may be the saddest shirt to wear during a pandemic), <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/" target="_blank">Black Lives Matter</a>, and a brewery participating in the <a href="https://blackisbeautiful.beer/" target="_blank">Black is Beautiful</a> collaboration. (For an interview with the brewer who started this, check out the excellent <a href="https://youtu.be/L0oGSCH4EmI" target="_blank">Share a Pint podcast</a>.) I have added my pronouns to my email signatures as well as to any presentations I make. I try to ask good questions and then <i>listen</i> to what people want to tell me. And then I've been donating to different causes.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSLoweNHbtsvpHAoq5p10G9SvHhNNDWaZfHyiAN0f_iHCEBTy-AXdexHEi38iXmiNLRWnaYYfbgtB1YmRtHZGCrH6MqPMTMhSwOkWcabpfmUKGLNEtMAvTNsBNTfA4XACE7xW0kCioSek/s2048/BLM.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1637" height="131" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSLoweNHbtsvpHAoq5p10G9SvHhNNDWaZfHyiAN0f_iHCEBTy-AXdexHEi38iXmiNLRWnaYYfbgtB1YmRtHZGCrH6MqPMTMhSwOkWcabpfmUKGLNEtMAvTNsBNTfA4XACE7xW0kCioSek/w105-h131/BLM.jpg" width="105" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">For me, this started around Ahmaud Arbery's murder. Reading about him helped me realize how much I take running, which I do often, for granted. So decided to take a thing that is comfortable for me and make it uncomfortable. I decided to donate a dollar to BIPOC causes for every mile I run this year. I also added BLM to the visor I wear when I run. Now I am invited to think about how others view me while I am out there. I wonder if they think positively or negatively of me. In my mind, I beg them to think about it. This is nowhere near what it's like to be Black and I have to think about that out there too.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">It's never going to be enough. The work is never done. But that also means that I can spend every day doing a little more work. Maybe I'll raise a little hell before I'm finished. Maybe we can do it together.<br /></span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-6353876038641669292020-07-22T19:14:00.001-06:002023-07-23T15:26:33.355-06:00The Game May Teach the Game But It Could Use My Help - A Short Review of The Constraints-Led Approach<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39793526-the-constraints-led-approach" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="1400" data-original-width="880" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtHqyIE1zB8jYvc4meF0C2Q8vLdIF3LpeGSmGBnq9QvASs1Sn4sVuzAe2afJi3IJJh-IZaWNFS3G0hmli2o49E13Fma5xrMJ88oC1IGaEqS0hyphenhyphen1pR80uaneK0jBp_CKUJMD3LxnSATR1Q/s320/CLA.tif" /></a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">If you have heard coaches talk about motor learning then you have almost certainly heard coaches utter the phrase, "the game teaches the game". This adage is usually meant to point out that the best learning occurs when learners are immersed in the most game-like environments possible as opposed to repetition-heavy drills. But the phrase has also been used as an excuse for coaches to be too passive in their practice design and execution. The authors of <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39793526-the-constraints-led-approach" target="_blank"><u>The Constraints-Led Approach: Principles for Sports Coaching and Practice Design</u></a> use their book to show coaches how to walk the tightrope between doing too much coaching and too little and why that balance matters.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">This book is written by four authors who are considered to be leaders in the relatively young field of ecological dynamics. The constraints-led approach (CLA) is a methodology that is built on the principles of ecological dynamics and non-linear pedagogy. <i>And this is just the beginning of the list of technical terms to be learned in this field</i>. The authors are well aware that there is a sizable divide between researchers and practitioners (coaches) and that divide is filled with jargon that the researchers are familiar with but that coaches are not. A main goal of the book is to bridge that divide by describing the existing research as clearly as possible. Another goal is to give coaches practical tools and processes to facilitate the application of CLA in practice design. It is a testament to the difficulty of these tasks that the book is still jargon-laden but it is also testament to the authors' skill that the book is still very readable. Part one contains the heaviest mental lifting, as it lays the foundation for parts two and three. Having read many scholarly articles, some of them in this field, I can say that the authors have done well in making their principles accessible but I still had to work for it. The ensuing parts read much faster and made much more sense as a result of the efforts put into part one (by both readers and authors). So what do the authors say?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">While I do want to share some of the ideas of CLA, I don't want to spend the rest of this post trying to teach you CLA. After all, that's what the book is for. Motor learning, ecological dynamics, and CLA are all deep, complex areas that are worth study and I don't pretend to think that I can sum it all up here. I want to spend more space talking about how my exposure to CLA has affected my thinking.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">Perhaps the heart of ecological dynamics is the idea that skill acquisition revolves around the relationship between the performer and their environment. This relationship includes the coupling of perception and action. The best learning is a product of tight perception-action coupling. Factors that affect that coupling, and therefore learning, are <i>constraints</i> and fall into three categories: task constraints, individual constraints, and environmental constraints. These constraints create <i>affordances</i>, which can be thought of as possibilities for the relationship between performers and their environments, and these affordances change as time and constraints change. Performers then <i>self-organize</i> actions in response to these affordances. Coaches, then, are tasked with manipulating constraints in ways that afford actions and/or decisions that encourage learners to self-organize productive movement solutions.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">The main question I keep asking myself now is, "where does this leave me?" which is really a proxy for "what does this mean for my coaching style?" I have learned a great deal from reading this book and I also have a great deal to think about relative to my role as a teacher. As a methodology for learning, I see CLA as somewhere between the cliché motor learning, "the game teaches the game" and drill-based instruction. CLA appears to say that <i>representative practice design</i> (make it game-like) is crucial <i>but</i> that coaches can improve learning by manipulating constraints to accent certain aspects of the game at certain times. The authors put knowledge of the learner at the center of how and why coaches shape training. Coaches must know what their learners need to work on (often by consulting with them) so that they can maximize training sessions. This idea is very meaningful to me because I, like the authors, do not think that a "one-size-fits-all" method of coaching is best. Coaching requires <i>work</i> and, to me, that work means engaging often with the learners in my care and shaping our training with what I learn from them. The authors give me permission to do things that may not be completely "game-like" if I can create constraints that afford an aspect of the game that I have found to be important. This is hardly carte blanche to do whatever I want, but it is a degree of freedom (yes, I deliberately use this term) that strict motor learning proponents might not allow. But, with that freedom comes responsibility. If I am going to depart from complete representativeness then I better have not only good reason for doing it but I better also have a detailed plan for how I am going to do it. Like any other methodology, CLA can be done well or poorly. The authors are giving me the tools and exhorting me to do it well. I think that the authors view intervening in or manipulating the performer/environment dynamic as a weighty choice that should not be undertaken lightly. If I am going to alter the way an athlete can view the environment then I need to fully consider how perception and action will be affected. I think that the tools that the authors give me are meant to, at least in part, ensure that I have thoroughly considered my interference.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">Saint Augustine wrote that, "complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation" and this may be what looms largest in my mind after reading this book. It would be easier, as a coach, to sit back and let the game teach the game or to control every aspect of practice through stringent drills. It is more challenging to walk the thin space in between the two extremes. But the point is that the challenging space between is where the best learning can happen.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><span style="font-family: "times";"><font size="2">n.b.: While I believe that this is an important book and have learned a great deal from it, I also believe that it is in bad need of a second edition. It is my impression that the editing of the text was either hastily or poorly done. I noticed numerous instances where good ideas were clouded and where language usage was inconsistent. Given the importance of terminology and ideas to this book, it seems unfair to me that the authors should be subject to and judged by poor editing. I look forward to an updated edition of this book that may benefit from better editing.</font></span><br /></span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-19583898649104537452020-07-19T14:13:00.003-06:002023-07-23T15:26:33.967-06:00"All I Know Is That I Know Nothing" - A Short Review of The Drunkard's Walk<div class="separator"><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6314671-the-drunkard-s-walk" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="293" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQM6u-_TsxIDHAJC1hRR0z_lJI9GIODEIupZ_Q4l7BD_9_Hpr2M-Jbdpktr1hh2e7fLvU29Av9dJM0YOfQ_e00ZHnRJJWLyBC2cfxYJ-HF40IUoHngAtc2Pzm55CZGVbgq7miHPBXhcv8/s320/Drunkards+Walk.jpg" /></a></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">Socrates is credited as saying that, "all I know is that I know nothing" and, after reading Leonard Mlodinow's <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6314671-the-drunkard-s-walk">The Drunkard's Walk</a>, I feel like I should probably have that tattooed on my arm as a constant reminder. Mlodinow's thesis was certainly not to make readers feel like the world is unknowable so my assertion needs a great deal of context.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">The author, a Caltech physicist, strives to give readers access to several of the statistical concepts that underpin our modern lives. Along the way, he also dispels many of our illusions about how well we think we understand the world around us. It isn't that the world is too complex, nor is it that it is completely random. When complexity and randomness are coupled, which is more often than we care to accept, then we need to admit that all we know is that we know nothing.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">Mlodinow makes a convincing argument when he writes about stock market investors and prognosticators (chapter 9). We <i>want</i> to believe that it is possible to strategize our way into large returns on our investments. "Research has shown that the illusion of control over chance events is enhanced in financial, sports, and, especially business situations when the outcome of a chance task is preceded by a period of strategizing, when performance of the task requires active involvement, or when competition is present" (p. 188). We tend to fall victim to the <a href="https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09/11/the-texas-sharpshooter-fallacy/" target="_blank">Texas sharpshooter fallacy</a> but how we do so isn't always clear to us. If we view an investor's run of good results as improbable, that may be, to some extent, accurate but we need to recognize what is actually improbable. If we had, prior to the run of success, asked "what is the probability that <i>this exact</i> investor has <i>this much</i> success in <i>this exact</i> time frame?" then the chances are small. The problem is that we have ignored a great deal of randomness to anoint this one person. When we view the results after the fact, the correct question to calculate the probability of that success would actually be, "how likely is it that <i>any</i> investor has <i>that much</i> success in <i>any period of similar length</i>?" Viewed in this way, I feel like the only appropriate reaction is to say, "it was only a matter of time".</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">Another important lesson for me in this book is about what it means to say that an outcome is out of the ordinary. This is particularly hard for me to comprehend because of how commonly we talk about "statistical significance" and calculate p-values to show that things we have observed are far enough from the average to be interesting. Mlodinow wasn't trying to tear all of that down but he did succeed in changing the way I frame such calculations and discussions. When I calculate that something is statistically significant, I have not determined that the outcome was nonrandom. I have calculated that the outcome is <i>very unlikely to happen</i>. We then tend to infer from that calculation that the outcome was nonrandom rather than just rare. This, to me, is an expression the "illusion of control" I mentioned above. For example, I have a solitaire game I like to play on both my phone and tablet. On the tablet, I have won 46% of the games I have played while I have won 50% of the games I have played on my phone. It's the same game and the same player so shouldn't the percentages be about the same? Only if I have more control over the outcomes than I really do. Maybe I screwed up some chances to win but it is much more likely that I just didn't get as many deals that were winnable and <i>that's random</i>. If I reset the stats on both devices and started over, it is likely that the percentages would still be different but it's hard to say just <i>how</i> different they would be.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><a href="https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-07-18" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="280" data-original-width="900" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqtElxquwh2_0l_K32oj5k984KMxgz4PXN4PMPywUsv6CjMjAkbrk-BoD4Q8aCcu5AZsBFq8Bp-AoDakczBvR_Igg_YJyi9GxAnYfLXp82evQsSGK4hesHYb_qqoH5VzOi8TaeMBfVruY/w490-h153/Dilbert200719.png" width="490" /></a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "verdana";">In my job as a Technical Coordinator, I work with athlete performance statistics and one could argue that my job is to draw conclusions with certainty because those decisions are based on statistics and math. As I have sometimes put it, "I'm right because I have a pile of numbers". Mlodinow helps me keep myself intellectually honest when he quotes Jakob Bernoulli: "one should not appraise human action on the basis of its results" (p. 100). It's not that I <i>can't</i> or <i>shouldn't</i> do my job, it's that I need to include the appropriate caveats when I do. It's important that I provide context about how rare or random an outcome may be. It's important that I can give nuance to the balance between what is chaotic and what is controlled.<br /></span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-19001206841375792652020-07-13T14:30:00.001-06:002023-07-23T15:26:33.866-06:00It's a Jungle Out There - A Short Review of Statistical Analysis with R for Dummies<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1aVsJlwInI7eJQnxywA9aExPZ8zJkeJQgCw5cNG9HRDf1XLg9acrvKTg2pR_GfOi_pNfMdkQ7pobiu7A1LbJzBTYHSZAg7VU5deize1tb6w35qoj_cHfw6PoT5hOwxy05lSmFL9Ld1S4/s399/Stats+for+Dummies.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="318" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1aVsJlwInI7eJQnxywA9aExPZ8zJkeJQgCw5cNG9HRDf1XLg9acrvKTg2pR_GfOi_pNfMdkQ7pobiu7A1LbJzBTYHSZAg7VU5deize1tb6w35qoj_cHfw6PoT5hOwxy05lSmFL9Ld1S4/s320/Stats+for+Dummies.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">I have learned that my professional life as a volleyball technical coordinator means different things to different people. To coaches and athletes, I can often be seen as "the numbers guy" and perceived as an expert in the area of "statistics" as it is commonly understood in the sport. That is to say that I can collect data well and I can create tables and graphs of simple data like reception averages and attack efficiencies. Being able to do that well is enough to help my team function well and for my coaching staff to make informed decisions.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">But to a statistician or a data scientist, that level of understanding and performance is below average. There is so much more to know and understand so that someone in my position can ask more and better questions of the data and present more and better answers to those questions. I don't mean to say that my job should be filled by someone with a background in such fields as data science or statistics instead of by me but I think it is important to recognize that there is far more to the world of statistical analysis than what most in our sport consider.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">As I have grown and learned as a professional, I have found it important to expand my view of our world. And I have learned that our world is full of jungles, seas, deserts, and other wild, if not unexplored, territory. Our maps are full of cities and roads and other ordered, well-understood areas too and that's where we domesticated animals spend most of our time. But do the well-mapped areas provide the adventure that some of us are looking for or do we need to go out where "there be dragons"?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">I have spent some time over the past couple of years beginning to explore the periphery of our known world. I have taken (and hope to take more) statistics classes at my university. I have learned R (a statistical programming language/tool) at least well enough to begin creating interesting code on my own. Joseph Schmuller's book, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31626827-statistical-analysis-with-r-for-dummies" target="_blank">Statistical Analysis with R for Dummies</a>, is another foray to the edges of my map and another logical step in my professional development. The book isn't meant to drop the reader in the middle of a jungle and force them to hack their way out. If you have a great deal of knowledge and experience in both R and statistics, this book is more like a tour of a local garden than any kind of jungle. But for people like me, with enough knowledge to hurt themselves out there, this book is a way to take day trips into areas that feel wild to us.<br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">The author lays out his hopes for the book in the introduction, it's not just a statistics text or a detailed R text or a cookbook that provides code to solve specific problems. Schmuller wanted to blend all three and, I think, he has done so admirably and accessibly. With a small background in both stats and R, I was able to skate through most of the first two parts ("Getting Started with Statistical Analysis in R" and "Describing Data") as well as Part Five ("The Part of Tens", a tradition in "for Dummies" books) without too much trouble. Parts Three ("Drawing Conclusions from Data") and Four ("Working with Probability) and the online appendices were far more engaging and challenging given my starting point. I found myself not getting hung up on the numerous detailed equations because I knew that R would take care of the math for me. But the equations and the explanations that preceded the R code gave me the confidence that I could conceptualize or construct my own cases where the mathematical tools and tests would be useful. Schmuller has given me a trail I can walk in the jungle while guaranteeing safe exit. It is up to me find the trails that branch off deeper into the thickets and then go exploring.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: verdana;">For me, then, this book acts as a way to comfortably see more of what our world has to offer while also inviting me to take off on my own. It serves as a way to acknowledge that there is a wild world out there that I don't yet understand. It makes me see that the comfort of treading the streets and avenues is a false security because the important stuff is <i>out there</i> where I run the risk of getting lost or hurt. But I also run the risk of <i>not finding anything</i>. There may be dragons or there may be just my mind playing tricks on me. Either way, there is <i>adventure</i>.<br /></span></div>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-23999742058057808262020-02-27T17:12:00.001-07:002023-07-23T15:26:34.171-06:00Taking a Stand: Building the Other Half of Your Coaching Philosophy<span style="font-family: verdana;">If you were unable to watch my recent AVCA webinar, here it is!<br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyIhoaQnI7oqiAxQ9bifeeTf76_91nPPE9pAVXKCGm1-48R08XZwsCUOLHyTubOM4t3sTDUXO6bCt53q6Su7A' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
<br />
And here's a <a href="https://vimeo.com/393946945/c4cf794b27" target="_blank">link to the video on Vimeo</a> (thanks for posting it, AVCA).<br />
<br />
And <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_KNr34yHaMeRQM8efW5OmMpvcbnBH0Np/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here's a PDF of my slides</a>. <br />
<br /></span>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-4826628626198598222020-01-11T14:38:00.001-07:002023-07-23T15:26:33.252-06:00Questioning Assumptions or Why I Read a Motor Learning Textbook<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXX47zOks1STjx3_X6ccdXi-7nHX4tzET3sV6qQObHZofW9fZA-1j0QKQRnTiecZm3iSCovPwceC7ZSU3MfGQM3JHVIeQQ8YbO92YddI8ND_8uqB8KtAJqDmKrhHMkExXVQREjubWI3A8/s1600/Motor+Learning.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="296" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXX47zOks1STjx3_X6ccdXi-7nHX4tzET3sV6qQObHZofW9fZA-1j0QKQRnTiecZm3iSCovPwceC7ZSU3MfGQM3JHVIeQQ8YbO92YddI8ND_8uqB8KtAJqDmKrhHMkExXVQREjubWI3A8/s320/Motor+Learning.jpg" width="236" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">In volleyball coaching circles, there may be nothing as polarizing as talking about <a href="https://www.goldmedalsquared.com/" target="_blank">Gold Medal Squared</a> and their philosophies. Many coaches swear by their methods, many coaches just swear when the group is mentioned. It is difficult to know what principles the group espouses without going to a clinic and yet most coaches are happy to give a summary of what GMS is all about even while lacking that direct knowledge. I think that this behavior appears regularly in many facets of our lives and we usually commit varying degrees of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" target="_blank">straw man fallacy</a> in those moments. I am not writing to take a stand for or against GMS. I'm more interested in our behavior around discussions like those between pro- and anti-GMS folks.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">"The science" is a commonly-used term in presentations from GMS staff that I have attended. That term tends to represent two ideas, motor learning and scientific research. I have learned a fair bit about scientific research through my academic career but I haven't had the same kind of exposure to the field of motor learning. My memories of motor learning were all of hearing coaching clinicians talk about motor learning in much the same way as I have mentioned, as "the science". And what was the clinician's level of expertise in motor learning? I have no idea now and I likely didn't know at the time either. It likely was not made explicit since it was not the main focus of what the clinic or presentation was about. <b>This is the point: non-experts taking the words of possible non-experts and giving them the same weight as the actual "science".</b> I don't know how well the speakers actually know "the science" but the words sound good to me and, therefore, carry more weight in my mind. It doesn't matter if I am agreeing or disagreeing with what the speaker has said, what I have overlooked is their role as an interpreter. They are sharing either a portion of the body of research or, more accurately, their perception of that portion. I, like most people, will unintentionally conflate the speaker's words with the words of the original idea that the speaker describes.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">This conflation becomes very obvious if we use an opinion instead of a fact. I will tell you that, based on my experience, the Grand Canyon is grander than the Great Wall is great. As you evaluate my statement you are likely to understand that it is an opinion. If I tell you instead that the Grand Canyon is longer than the Great Wall, it is much more likely that you will evaluate the statement as a fact (true or not) rather than an opinion. If you have no previous experience with either of these wonders, you may not be able to evaluate the truth of my statement, which leaves you in a precarious place. If we are friends and you trust me because I happen to be really good at trivia games, you may readily accept what I say. If we are friends and I am really good at trivia games and I like to pull the occasional prank, you may not trust me. But what if I am a speaker at a conference and I make the same conjecture? What if that conjecture is embedded in the presentation I give and it is part of a chain of evidence that I use to reach an important conclusion? If you're not a connoisseur of wonders of the world, you may not even notice because both of us are paying more attention to conclusion that I reach. You trust me not to lead you astray as I build my argument and I do my best to earn that trust.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">To be clear, I am not saying that conference speakers are trying to lead us astray nor am I saying that we need to check the credentials of every speaker we listen to. I prefer to work from the assumption that presenters are earnestly doing their best to give us a concise and coherent story without getting bogged down in nuance any more than is necessary. So what does that have to do with motor learning?</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">When I hear people (from either side of the GMS fence) tell me what GMS believes or what "the science" says, I want to know more. I want to investigate the claims, not out of mistrust but out of fascination with learning. I want to root intellectual laziness out of me and that means reading "the science". That means asking questions. Often. That means digging deeper instead of just digging in my heels. I don't want my initial response to be "they don't know what they're talking about". I want it to be "I don't know what I am listening to". That curiosity can help me see what I need to wrap my head around. In the case of GMS, it meant learning more about motor learning.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">I read <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10079481-motor-control-and-learning" target="_blank">Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis</a> by Richard A. Schmidt and Timothy D. Lee this winter break with the intent of learning what everybody meant by "the science". I found it to be boring at moments and exhilarating at others. Above all, I found it thought-provoking. I highlighted stuff, I downloaded research papers to read. I talked with friends that know more about this topic than I do. I talked with friends that rely on motor learning but in different contexts. I dug deeper. I learned. I came away with as many questions as answers. I'd tell you what I learned but that would defeat the whole point of this exercise.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<b><span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought." - Matsuo Bashō</span></b><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">As for the Great-Grand comparison, go look it up. Or, even better if you're able, go look for yourself.</span></span></span>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-46460343715891279172019-08-12T09:29:00.003-06:002023-07-23T15:26:35.507-06:00What I Did on My Summer (and Spring) "Vacation"<span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">I noticed recently that I had not posted much in the past few months. There is a part of me that feels bad about that but I also realize that I have to keep seeking out new knowledge and experiences if I want to keep having things to think and write about. I have a couple of <a href="https://ryanholiday.net/how-and-why-to-keep-a-commonplace-book/" target="_blank">commonplace books</a> in which I record ideas and I definitely filled plenty of pages this Spring and Summer. With that in mind, here's what I have been up to lately.</span><br />
<br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">First, I was fortunate to appear on The Decoding Excellence Show podcast for a second time. <a href="https://adamringler.com/042/" target="_blank">You can listen to it here</a>. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><b>Education</b></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">I am nearing the midway point of my Master's program and the class I took this Spring, Adolescent Psychology and Development for Teachers, was very engaging. It moved me to add some important ideas to my personal coaching and teaching framework and philosophy.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><b>Reading</b></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">My Spring class allowed me to dive deeply into some education research and literature. I spent hours with my nose buried in journals and books without a hint of resentment at the amount of time required. I was able to revisit <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8076902-mindset" target="_blank">Carol Dweck's Mindset</a> as well as read her latest paper (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30707853" target="_blank">Mindsets: A View from Two Eras</a> with David Yeager, another leader in mindset research). She just published a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1466-y" target="_blank">new paper</a> that is expected to open new horizons in the field based on what has been learned since she first introduced the concept. I was exposed to the works of <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/56940.Robert_Kegan" target="_blank">Robert Kegan</a>, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/595607.Robert_C_Pianta" target="_blank">Robert Pianta</a>, and <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/17970.Nel_Noddings" target="_blank">Nel Noddings</a> and I am working to incorporate ideas of theirs into how I interact with learners and how I structure learning environments. Most pivotal was reading <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2019/06/we-teach-who-we-are-review-of-parker-j.html" target="_blank">Parker J. Palmer's The Courage to Teach</a>, which I reviewed <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2019/06/we-teach-who-we-are-review-of-parker-j.html" target="_blank">here</a>. I have noticed a shift in how I talk to coaches and teachers about what I think is most important and how I think those concepts should be communicated to learners.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">I reread <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2019/02/annie-dukes-thinking-in-bets-short.html" target="_blank">Annie Duke's Thinking in Bets</a> because I thought that I should refresh my understanding of her ideas.I think that putting her ideas into daily practice is challenging and I want to give myself the best chance possible to keep them in my conscious mind. I read <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17986418-naked-statistics" target="_blank">Charles Wheelan's Naked Statistics</a>, which was a good reminder of how to think about the numbers that I am gathering and thinking about in the course of my job.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">I read <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/862365.Change_Leadership" target="_blank">Tony Wagner, et al.'s Change Leadership</a>, which was a challenging book in terms of the thought and dedication required to read it. It's not that the language was dense or challenging from the standpoint of comprehension. It's that the book is a "practical guide" so it asks that we think deeply about the systems we are part of and how they impact learning and learners. There are exercises to complete and they are worth doing to get the full effect of the book's message. I hope to write a post soon that contains some of the things that I learned about myself and how I view teaching and coaching. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><b>Coding and Statistics</b></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">I attended several seminars and completed several Lynda.com courses on coding in R as well as finished <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23504168-r-for-dummies" target="_blank">R for Dummies</a> and all of these were very helpful in deepening my understanding of the language. I think it will be another year before I am coding anything fun and useful but I at least feel like I <i>can</i> code. I feel that I have much to learn about statistics to start answering the questions I have about aspects of volleyball that are interesting to me and it is likely that I will be able to tie together some of that with my Master's program. It strikes me that we seem to be rather cavalier with the data we collect in volleyball and I want to build on more rigorous foundations.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><b>Volleyball Thoughts</b></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">I spent some time this spring exploring an idea I see in baseball, the longer a pitcher remains in the game, the less effective he tends to become. I wanted to see if serving effectiveness decreased as a match went on. After discussing this idea with a friend, I also looked at reception effectiveness as a match went on. While there is still room to refine the way I looked at the data (I looked at entire sets rather than each consecutive reception), I didn't see any clear trends that indicate that either servers or passers change in any significant way as matches go on. This seems to go against the idea that we can "wear down" a player by serving them as frequently as possible. Maybe serving them every ball has an effect on their attack efficiency (I didn't study that) but it doesn't have a meaningful effect on their passing. (With that said, there may be evidence to support the idea that teams become very risk averse in terms on serving in fifth sets.)</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Each Spring I take all the data I have accumulated from the previous season and add them to the pile of numbers from earlier seasons and make adjustments to expected side out, expected hitter efficiency, and expected block efficiency. I first learned these calculations from the legendary Joe Trinsey, who originally calculated these based on top-level international play. I think I now have a decent data set to have a better idea of how top-level collegiate play differs so I have adjusted Joe's coefficients accordingly. From the data I have, it appears that, in general, hitters are more efficient internationally (shocking, right?). But that doesn't hold true in all cases. Top college attackers are more efficient in certain situations. NCAA attackers tend to do better than international attackers when sets are wide/high and when sets are tight. This might say more about the skill level and aggressiveness of NCAA blockers than it does about the attackers, but still. It is interesting to note that the largest difference in expected efficiency relative to set location is between perfect sets and low/flat sets. While missing wide, off, or tight definitely have negative impacts on attack efficiency, missing low and/or flat in a tempo offense is likely the largest factor that impacts a team's ability to get a kill mainly because that situation happens <i>far</i> more frequently than the other misses.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><b>Random Thoughts</b></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Here are a couple of elegantly simple ideas that come from soccer that I want to apply to my thinking about offense in volleyball:</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">"It's not the ball that moves, you want to move the opponent." - <a href="https://twitter.com/jwall81?lang=en" target="_blank">John Wall</a></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">"The ball is the present, the space is the future." - <a href="https://calbears.com/coaches.aspx?rc=2977&path=msoc" target="_blank">Kevin Grimes</a></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">How do we attempt to create, manipulate, and exploit space in our offense? How does thinking in terms of space differ from thinking in terms of match ups? How might we benefit from thinking about space instead of match ups?</span></span>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-29276400196349869372019-06-08T16:49:00.003-06:002023-07-23T15:26:34.376-06:00We Teach Who We Are - a Review of Parker J. Palmer's The Courage to Teach<span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFIgHnmHarQD1-1rkKKLGzews5Wv6ntTojhCw3WKbakhuKG_mCABYa5sj8qIDJeQ45Y0_qG-qGsKSEXQQzrP71W-nV_-Ie2tuGRKtLX3OMSWFkbt_7m3biDPS3zFaaoBhmZp4mEGMo85A/s1010/Courage+to+Teach.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1010" data-original-width="670" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFIgHnmHarQD1-1rkKKLGzews5Wv6ntTojhCw3WKbakhuKG_mCABYa5sj8qIDJeQ45Y0_qG-qGsKSEXQQzrP71W-nV_-Ie2tuGRKtLX3OMSWFkbt_7m3biDPS3zFaaoBhmZp4mEGMo85A/s320/Courage+to+Teach.jpg" /></a></div>"We teach who we are" - Parker J. Palmer opens the introduction with these words and then reminds us that we typically only ask what and how we teach. Sometimes we dig deeper and ask why we teach but Palmer points out that we almost never ask <i>who is the self that teaches</i>? He then gives us his reasoning for asking <i>who</i>: "this book is built on a simple premise: <i>good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher</i>." The teachers and coaches whose memories we cherish most are those that taught us from the core of who they were. Who they were and what they taught were indivisible to us. It is the courage to know and express ourselves through teaching that lights the fire that we share.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Palmer introduces a phrase that beautifully sums up a phenomenon I have seen everywhere I turn in coaching and teaching, "technique is what teachers use until the real teacher arrives." It is cliché that clinicians are most commonly asked by coaches "what drill/game should I use to get better at X?" Earlier in my coaching career, I was intent on getting the technique of coaching right. If I used the right drills in the right order and I taught the right footwork then I could be a great coach. With one pithy sentence, Palmer crystallized for me what it took years of stumbling and fumbling to learn, "as we learn more about who we are, we can learn techniques that reveal rather than conceal the personhood from which good teaching comes." Being good at teaching is about knowing who I am and what I believe about those would learn from me.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">In chapter two, Palmer discusses the role of fear in education. As educators we deal with many fears within ourselves, from the fear of silence in response to our questions to the fear of loss of control of the learning environment. We must also take into account the fears that our learners face every day as well. They fear looking ignorant or foolish, the power that they imagine we hold over them, as well as <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2018/02/learning-about-failing.html">fearing failure</a>. Palmer warns us that "when my students' fears mix with mine, fear multiplies geometrically - and education is paralyzed." Our fears lead to a separation of teaching from learning. "Result: teachers who talk but do not listen and students who listen but do not talk." When we think of moments when our lessons broke down, we start looking for "fixes" of technique and "practical solutions" and Palmer warns us against such methods. "Eventually, the how-to question is worth asking. But understanding my identity is the first and crucial step in finding new ways to teach: nothing I do differently as a teacher will make any difference to anyone if it is not rooted in my nature."</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">What, then, should actual teaching look like if it is not a series of formulaic moves and techniques? Palmer tells us that "to teach is to create a space in which the community of truth is practiced". The most important aspects of this for me are creating space and the structure of the community. As educators we tend to fill space rather than create it. We believe ourselves to be experts that are needed for our learners to make sense of our discipline. We say, in Palmer's words, "but my field is full of factual information that students must possess before they can continue". In the case of sport, this factual information is the way our sport is played, both technically and tactically. We must find a way to honor "both the stuff that must be learned and the space that learning requires." We must refuse to "merely send 'bites' down the intellectual food chain" and help our learners "understand where the information comes from and what it means. We honor both the discipline and our students by teaching them how to think like historians or biologists or literary critics rather than merely how to lip-sync the conclusions others have reached." In sport, we do this by creating settings where athletes are able to make and reflect on decisions and actions within the game. Palmer goes on to remind us that creating space requires more skill and more authority than filling space up and that we will sometimes fail in the effort but such failures should not prevent us from doing the work of being "more engaging than engorging".</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Teaching should be less of this:</span><br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNBHZvHh5LivyQeQxxWFiA97aQk_B_XoQ7o9rOqUKmDaYn7iWiWGB7-jJhAB8BBm91pfHl5M8ha6Ejhw7BVLoA87HiIcGtzxorFqdM7Gjydnj5v0-BZ7h_7kM9phLixHd_K2UAMH36AFg/s1600/Palmer+1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1252" data-original-width="1520" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNBHZvHh5LivyQeQxxWFiA97aQk_B_XoQ7o9rOqUKmDaYn7iWiWGB7-jJhAB8BBm91pfHl5M8ha6Ejhw7BVLoA87HiIcGtzxorFqdM7Gjydnj5v0-BZ7h_7kM9phLixHd_K2UAMH36AFg/s320/Palmer+1.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Teaching should be more of this:</span><br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCVS_FkZMV8zOWUMIXQqDSPisH99laEiunbLrfoQ14W4gYNP53V92ye_eVHZcOutFrwFZhKao_gU4euXbZwMFesbkPIQws-SacRZynDFZeZYdaIB9mIAw-sKBNzxtgLnP2vGofJvXQ9ms/s1600/Palmer+2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="450" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCVS_FkZMV8zOWUMIXQqDSPisH99laEiunbLrfoQ14W4gYNP53V92ye_eVHZcOutFrwFZhKao_gU4euXbZwMFesbkPIQws-SacRZynDFZeZYdaIB9mIAw-sKBNzxtgLnP2vGofJvXQ9ms/s320/Palmer+2.jpg" width="301" /></a></span></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
<b><span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">How does this book change the way I teach and relate to my learners?</span></b><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">I want to honor who I am by recognizing what I believe about myself and about my learners. Using those beliefs as guides, I will find methods and techniques to use that reflect those beliefs. I want to honor the subject or sport that I teach by giving it, rather than me, the central role in our learning community. I want to honor the space required for learning and exploration because, by doing so, I honor the learners, their needs, and their efforts. When I know myself, I can see my place in relationships with my discipline and with my learners.</span><br />
<br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Both figures are taken from <i>The Courage to Teach</i></span> </span></span>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8722599445921498225.post-41134424242923556102019-02-03T20:59:00.003-07:002023-07-23T15:26:35.199-06:00Annie Duke's Thinking In Bets - A Short Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdLs5a1FPboxn6jdyKdkRizHRgCnIwahwQFNFBInwJ149weEudC2y9vm1f1uSDnE3qIJIYMno-qsrt8Og9VGKo2ri2TeQhUPV4E5CBvctoG6uuI_afsIf7bB9y0TRuZdtKan7wd5i3qeA/s1600/Thinking+in+Bets+cover.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="265" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdLs5a1FPboxn6jdyKdkRizHRgCnIwahwQFNFBInwJ149weEudC2y9vm1f1uSDnE3qIJIYMno-qsrt8Og9VGKo2ri2TeQhUPV4E5CBvctoG6uuI_afsIf7bB9y0TRuZdtKan7wd5i3qeA/s320/Thinking+in+Bets+cover.jpg" width="212" /></a></span></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;">
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">To say that the best of this book comes at the end is to imply that the rest isn't nearly as good. That would be wildly off base. I started highlighting in the introduction and didn't let up until the last page. From "resulting" (page 7) to "backcasting" and "premortem" (page 221), this book is full of ideas that Duke implements to get us thinking about how we view the world. For me, the ideas kept building on one another until reaching a crescendo in the last chapter. I went from thinking "I'd like to work on this" at the beginning to "How can I <i>not</i> act on this?" Over the course of six chapters, Duke carefully layers concepts so that we reach the end of the book feeling like we are equipped with the tools we need to meet an uncertain world. Don't want to read the details? Just looking for a TL;DR? <a href="https://www.eduardocoaches.com/2019/02/annie-dukes-thinking-in-bets-short.html#tldr">Skip to here</a>.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Chapter one lays the foundation, that the world is not certain and we are ill-equipped to see how this fact affects us. Duke was just short of defending her doctoral dissertation in psychology when she went on hiatus and started playing poker professionally. This background leads to her observation that life is not a game of chess, but rather a game of poker. The difference lies in what we know about the game we're playing. Chess is a game of perfect information, meaning that all observers have access to <i>all</i> information. Poker, however, is a game of <i>incomplete</i> information, meaning that no observer has access to all information. It is theoretically possible to work out the best way to play any scenario in a game of chess but that can't be done in a game of poker. That idea is easy enough to absorb but the consequences of it are much more complicated and far-reaching. Life is messy and hard to comprehend. Unlike in chess, the quality of the decisions we make in life are not strongly correlated to the quality of the outcomes. Once an outcome is known, we forget the work that went into making the decision. We deal with that by extrapolating back from what we can observe, results. Poker players call this "resulting", evaluating a decision based solely on its outcome. Duke stresses that we shouldn't feel bad about outcomes that didn't go our way nor should we feel good about the outcomes that favored us. The main point that I took away from this chapter was that we should avoid thinking of alternatives as right or wrong but as varying degrees on a spectrum of possibilities.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Chapter two expands on this idea by framing decisions as bets about an uncertain future. We are usually betting that a potential future is one in which we are happier or better off in some way because of the decision we are about to make. Unfortunately, we have many things that cloud our judgement of these potential futures, things like biases and motivated reasoning. Duke espouses "truthseeking" as a way of mitigating those obstacles. Rather than seek "right" or "wrong" for a given situation, we should seek to describe the situation as accurately as possible. This leads us to then assess decisions in terms of the likelihood of different outcomes rather than things going right or wrong. There's a great deal of similarity in the main points of the first two chapters and I think that this says something about Duke's diligence in creating a sound framework to build on for the remainder of the book.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Chapter three is an introduction to probabilistic decision making. If we view decision alternatives in terms of how likely they are to happen then we position ourselves to recognize that outcomes are not as surprising as we might have once thought. This sets us up to treat outcomes as learning opportunities, places where we can tweak the accuracy of how we view that decision space. "Updating our priors", as it is referred to in Bayesian-speak, is how we strive to make ourselves better decision-makers, one decision at a time. Duke recommends re-framing the rewards we give ourselves to accentuate "being a good credit-giver, a good mistake-admitter, a good finder-of-mistakes-in-good-outcomes, a good learner, and (as a result) a good decision-maker." As we improve at these skills, we also improve at assessing the risk of a situation, which allows us to make better bets. Confidence in our decisions becomes less of an expression of ego and more of an expression of our internal calculus.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Chapters four and five remind us of the importance of having help in our truthseeking journey. Knowing that we are susceptible to blind spots, biases, and prejudices, Duke recommends that we find like-minded people to accompany us on the journey. Duke also warns us of "Lettermanning", which is attempting to engage in truthseeking with someone that doesn't join us on the journey. We have to look for company for our journey and that means recognizing when others aren't interested in that journey. When we do find others to join us we need establish ground rules that will allow the group to avoid emotion and engage in deliberative discussions. Together we are asking questions that set us up to make smarter bets/decisions. When the goal is to win a bet, we are more likely to speak truthfully than when we are intent on making good impressions on others in the group. Again, Duke is impressing on us the importance of seeking truth above feeling good.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Chapter six contains what I think are the most interesting assertions in the entire book. Duke spent the first five chapters of the book preparing us by getting us to believe in the value of truth and giving us tactics to work around biases to better reveal truth. Now Duke pushes us in a direction that we can only see once we have left behind the security of ego; she invites us to step into a time machine. We are now in a position to accept than we aren't reliable, so we are asked to accept that we are not reliable in the present because of how emotional and reactive we can be. If we can move ourselves into the future, we give ourselves a better chance to recognize how far is too far or how much is too much in our decisions. When we take the time to imagine possible futures through our new truthseeking lens, we can make decisions while the stakes, pressure, and stress are low and our self control is high. When we know that we have to answer to our truthseeking friends if we go back on those pre-made decisions, we are more likely to stick to those decisions when the high stakes moment comes. The better we get at time travel, the further into the future we can reliably plan. Now that we are in the future, it's time to look back on our present situation.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">Duke recommends two tools for looking back from the future, "backcasting" and "premortems". The two terms are complementary, one looking back from a positive future, the other from a negative one. The goals of both are the same, to do our best to reconstruct how we got from now to then. We are forced to ask ourselves which decisions we made, which obstacles we overcame, or which obstacles tripped us up. The "past" spreads out behind us, full of so many options and opportunities. Once the hypothetical past becomes an actual past, we are likely to quickly forget all of the options and opportunities that were once so clear to us. This leads us right back into the trap of resulting from chapter one. I look at backcasting and premortems as tools that I should add to my decision-making toolbox as quickly as possible.</span><br />
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""Trebuchet MS", sans-serif">In order to be a better decision-maker, I need to first learn to separate my decisions from my ego and all its dangers. Next, I need learn to look at decisions in terms of probabilities instead of dichotomies. Then I need to learn to seek truth and seek others to join me in that search. Once I have begun this search, I can start using my time machine to continue to expand my decision-making skills by looking back from my hypothetical futures. Annie Duke has laid out a thorough and achievable plan for getting better at making decisions and I can't wait to get started.</span></span>Eduardo Coacheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11571959040180895348noreply@blogger.com0