An ongoing debate on the
importance of form in coaching volleyball caught my attention. Form
is something that is emphasized by many coaches, most of them from the
traditional school of thought. Their reasoning for emphasizing form is
based on the belief that being able to unconsciously hold one’s form
will benefit the player while unconsciously performing the skill. The belief is
that the proper form is important because the form puts the body
in the best position to perform the skill.
Form came about in sports
through direct result feedback. People created the idea of form through
years of playing experience, mentally correlating the form with which
they performed the skills with the desired results. These forms were
amended and corrected over the years after the physiological and kinesthetics
sciences were used to debunk myths and create new forms. Obviously, we
are still in that process.
Those who do not believe in
form points to the fact that the perfect form does not exist, that
every single play is a new and different situation, so the practice of miming a
canonical form is not generally transferable to game action since the
practicing of form relies on repetitions without performing the entire skill
continuously. They also believe the teaching of form requires one to isolates discrete
snapshots of continuous sequences of movements that should be linked together;
another objection is that form will not help the player make decisions
during game play.
Both camps seem to agree that
repetitions are the key, but with one emphasizing static, predestined movements
and the other emphasizing dynamic, random movements as the means to accruing
repetitions. One thinks that many reps with the same form will translate
to dynamic and effective game play, while the other think that exposing the
player to as many different situations will translate to consistent game play.
I am not a neuroscientist, but I
am interested in exploring the literature on
effective learning as I am teaching on a collegiate level. I do have is
a background in research, so I dug into the existing literature meant for the
layman while also trying not to spiral into the abyss with the available overabundance
of references which may or may not be up to date.
I started by reading books written for the layman by specialists on
neurosciences. I wanted to know how decision making and problem solving are
done and how to teach people to learn. I was coming at it from both a teaching
and coaching perspective. Same but different.
One idea that was mentioned and
repeated is the idea of proprioception, sometimes referred to as the
sixth sense. From Physio-pedia:
Proprioception
(sense of proprioception) is an important bodily neuromuscular
sense. It falls under our "sixth sense", more commonly known as
somatosensation.
Proprioception
is critical for meaningful interactions with our surrounding environment.
Proprioception helps with the planning of movements, sport performance,
playing a musical instrument and ultimately helping us avoid an injury.
An
intact sense of proprioception is crucial to learning a new skill. During the
learning of any new skill, (sport performance or an artistic activity, for
example) it is usually necessary to become familiar with some proprioceptive
tasks specific to that activity… The bottom line remains that our sense of
proprioception is important to train and develop, as it allows us to
interact with our environments without the dependence on visual feedback
(for example, reaching for a cup on the top shelve, without looking at the
cup). (Physiopedia contributors 2020 )
Proprioception
seems akin to the System 1 response
that Kahneman wrote about in Thinking Fast and Slow. (Kahneman
2013).
It is the unconscious response by a
body to a situation, such as in playing a sport. The question that follows is:
how can a body’s neurological responses be trained to respond
effectively while using System 1?
Indeed, motor learning is
associated with systematic changes to proprioception, that is, proprioception
can be considered to be a part of motor learning, a part that is
essential in training sports skills.
The question then is: how does
the motor system work neurologically? What is the best way to train the
body to respond effectively in System 1? How do we teach the player to problem
solve in the System 2 way (slow, deliberate, and mentally loaded) and have it translated
in an accurate System 1 way (fast,
reactive, and automated)? The transition
from using System 2 to reactive decision making in System 1 is the mystery.
In Scott Grafton’s book, Physical
Intelligence (Grafton 2020) he provides an
answer. Scott Grafton is the Distinguished Professor of Psychological and Brain
Sciences at UCSB, his area of research is in Cognition, Perception, and
Cognitive Neuroscience. He is also the director of the UCSB Imaging Center. https://psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/scott-grafton
The book was written to explain
the neurological process that the body uses to respond when physically
challenged, Grafton goes into the neurological system based upon his own
research results that are in the literature, which saves me from digging into
the granularity and most importantly, interprets them as a neurological
researcher, thereby saving me from coming up with naïve and unreasonable
conclusions. In Chapter 5 : Pulling
Strings, Grafton describes the neurological processes employed to
make immediate decisions.
My paraphrase of the chapter is
as follows:
A key idea is the “Motor equivalence problem”. There
are an infinite number of combinations of different neurons firing in the brain
to enable the same movement; that is, there are no unique computational
methods to solve the motor equivalency problem: the brain does not generate a
unique set of commands to move the muscles in a desired action without other
rules or guidelines. So how does the
body make decision on a neuron firing level to execute the commands to make the
body not only move, but move in a coordinated and effective way?
The answer is that
nature solves the motor equivalency problem by designing the motor
system to generates the actions that are needed to accomplish these
movements, the motor system does this without consciously using
the brain. The brain uses the active short-term memory to process all the
different options it is presented by the senses, but the short-term memory
capacity of the brain is limited. If we present the brain with too many
distinct options of movement patterns, the short-term memory becomes overloaded
and the resulting response time would be too slow; having limited number of
distinct movement patterns helps the execution, while too many distinct options
which uses the brain slows down the
execution.
The question then
becomes: how does the motor system operate without using short-term
memory? The answer is that the motor system actuates the movement by
creating a “basis set”, a neuron firing template for movements so that
the motor system does not need to call up distinct patterns for each motor
neuron firing actuation through the brain — having a one-to-one mapping between
distinct patterns for each action would overwhelm the short-term memory. The motor
system uses the basis set to create all the original and complicated
firing patterns for the affected neurons. Each member of the basis set is called
“muscle synergy”. Each time a muscle synergy is created based on
the basis set ; it too becomes a part of the basis set. This is
the design principle used to simplify the task of the complex control of the muscles.
In simple terms,
new movements can be built from referencing the basis sets of old
movements and reusing them to create new neuron firing patterns which creates and
actuates new movements. This explains why experts are better at using existing muscle
synergies for new purposes than non-experts, because they have more
established muscle synergies to use and they are more adept at managing
their existing synergies.
The motor cortex
manages all the muscle synergies,
and the organizing principle is a clean one-to-one mapping between cortical map
of the body and the nerves connected to each muscle, these cortical maps do
not exist in the brain, they exist in the nervous system. The motor cortex
is optimized to make all muscle movements, whether they are built from existing
muscle synergies or by creating new patterns. Other brain areas are also
recruited to give instructions to motor cortex.
The basis sets give the motor system
a formidable database to call upon when needed and are placed in long-term
memory through repetition, and since long-term memory is limitless as compared
to short-term memory, it poses no loading stress to the decision-making
process.
The question then becomes: how do
we gain those basis sets? How do we create both more as well as more
sophisticated muscle synergies to be placed in long-term memory? Indeed,
does training form help create effective basis sets?
To look for an answer, I
consulted one of the best books I have read on learning. Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel’s seminal book Make it
Stick (Brown
2014).
Make
It Stick lays out some foundational beliefs, again, paraphrasing the
original source:
·
Foundation of
prior knowledge-In order to learn, one needs to have prior knowledge, i.e. a basis
set.
·
Learning is
deeper if it is effortful.
·
We are poor
judges of when we are learning and when we are not.
·
Retrieval practices—recalling
from memory— is more effective for learning long term.
·
Spacing or
interleaving practices produces longer lasting learning and enables more
versatile application. Interleaving means practicing many different
skills repeatedly in short intervals while layering different skill practices in
repeaedt practice sessions.
·
Elaboration-process
of giving new material meaning by expressing it in your own words and
connecting with what you already know.
These beliefs align very closely
with the neurological model from Grafton. The best way to build the basis
sets and create muscle synergies is to maximize the opportunities
for the players to retrieve the basis sets and giving them more chances
to create muscle synergies. But
the most effective way of learning is to make the retrieval practice effortful
by challenging the player in real time; interleave the practice sessions by
practicing different skills alternately rather than in one continuous session;
and giving the players opportunities to elaborate so that they can connect the
new skills with what they already know.
The following questions then
arises:
·
How do we start? Where does the initial basis
set come from?
·
How often must we retrieve the basis set from
long term memory to “imprint” the basis set?
·
How do we make each retrieval practice more
effortful as the players begin to accrue useful and meaningful basis sets
from muscle synergies?
·
How long should the interleaved practice sessions last? How much time do we
leave between the interleaved sessions?
Most of these questions are
subjective, but the key question is the first one because I believe that
form
is key to creating an
initial basis set.
As I started to think about how
the practices will look as the players progress through the skill levels, or as
their basis sets increase through creating more synergies, I
begin to segregate the practices into different levels.
The first level is the beginner’s
level, where we need to establish some base fundamental basis set. The
assumption is that there are no previous basis sets to call upon and
that any repetition is a new repetition. This is the level where the
importance of form becomes evident. Until the player can establish a
fundamental database of basis sets, there needs to be feedback to the player
about the skill that they are acquiring, i.e., whether what they are learning
is useful as an initial basis set for future use.
Canonical forms are part
of the toolbox that can be used to create good initial basis sets
for a beginner. It is a good place to start. The teaching of form as
practiced by most coaches involve block training. Getting the players constant
and consistent repetitions of the same motions. The question is then: how many
repetitions does it take to imprint a basis set on the long-term memory?
20 repetitions? 100 repetitions? 10,000 repetitions? Or is the answer dependent
on the person doing the repetitions, subject to their prior knowledge, their
prior experience with their ability to control their bodies, and their experience
with athletics? This question lingers over the entire process of learning a new
skill and the training regimen applied to the player and the team. I will
return to this later.
Once the player has acquired a
good initial basis set, the challenge is to make the player go through the
effortful retrieval process so that they can continue to build their basis
sets through creating new muscle synergies by continuously
recruiting the existing but growing basis sets.
The critical part that form plays in this context is
that creativity and the ability to improvise can only exist if and only if the
person trying to be creative or improvise has existing knowledge; there is no
sense in trying to create and improvise if there is no baseline knowledge. In
other words, creativity, and the ability to improvise can only happen IF the
player has the basis sets and muscle synergies to call upon to
allow their motor system to react effectively.
How do we answer the third
question above: how do we put the players through effortful practices? In accordance with Make It Stick, we
must use spacing and interleaving practices to add effort and retrieval
opportunities. This seems like what people would call random practice, but it
is not completely random. There are still elements of controlled repetitions
built into the practice.
According to Doug Lemov, this is
what he calls serial practice. Doug Lemov is well
known as a teaching guru, having started the Teach Like a Champion website https://teachlikeachampion.com/ which emphasizes intentional curriculum creation, a
systematic pedagogy, and specific goals to help
teacher teach. He is also a soccer dad and coach, so he became interested in
the overlap between teaching and coaching, which is where his book on teaching
for coaches: Coaches Guide to Teaching (Lemov 2020) came from. https://www.coachsguidetoteaching.com/
Lemov prefers this sequence:
Blocked→Serial→Random.
Starting the teaching of the initial basis sets with blocked training,
progressing through serial, and then moving on to random as a part of creating
effortful retrieval practices for the player. There must be a progression to
initiating the beginning mind, those without any basis sets in their
long-term memory, and allowing their beginner’s neurological system to evolve
into the experienced neurological system.
The blocked versus random debate
has gone on for a long time, with the adherents to only random practices often
citing the motto: let the game teach the game or the game is the best
teacher. Lemov’s response to that is on pages 42-43 of Chapter 1 of the
book:
·
The game is excellent for setting the stage for
teaching and giving players experience in a perception rich environment.
·
The game gives players constant varying context.
·
The game builds engagement, focus, and
competitive spirit.
·
The game allows the players make decisions and
learn on the fly.
But letting the game teach the
game does not mean:
·
Letting the players learn only by accruing
experience without context; that is, coaches must always guide, instruct, or
explain.
·
That the game is the only way to learn, and
training can be conducted in an environment that is devoid of an intentional curriculum, a
systematic pedagogy, and specific goals.
Lemov’s sequence coalesces well
with my own experience in teaching beginners, a well-structured progression is
optimal for teaching the basic skills. The problem arises when a coach adheres
to only block practices—it abandons the effortful retrieval belief; and the
completely random practice abandons the belief that the person trying to be
creative or improvise must have existing knowledge. A natural evolution
of practice design must be instituted to
gain optimal learning results.
To answer the second question
above: How often must we retrieve the
basis set memories to “imprint” the basis set in our long-term memory? Do
we completely abandon the block training after we have established a baseline
set of skills? Do we assume that the initial set of retrieval practice is
sufficient to “imprint” the skill in long-term memory? I believe that it is
player dependent, as such, I do also believe that returning to block training,
particularly regarding form. Some may need it, some may not, but we must
serve the needs to all the players. The key is not to over rely upon the initial
retrieval imprinting as sufficient.
There are several very successful
programs in volleyball history that are built on pure block training. Many
coaches who believe in only block training cite those programs as proof that
block training is the “right” way to
train. I believe that it is not so much the long duration block drilling that
consistently built the basis set, I believe that it is the consistent
and repeated retrieval which comes from practicing the forms in every practice
that trained the motor system; it was maximum basis set retrieval
opportunities rather than the sheer number of repetitions that created the deep
basis set: it isn’t about the repetitions, it is about the
retrieval.
An interesting chart from Prof.
Damian Farrow’s presentation on YouTube piqued my interest and resolved the
discussion on the dichotomy of Blocked versus Random in my mind. (Figure 1
below). I apologize for the resolution of the figure as it is a screen capture.
Dr. Damian Farrow currently holds a
joint appointment as Professor of Sport Science within the Victoria University Institute
of Sport, Exercise, and Active Living (ISEAL), and the Australian Institute of
Sport (AIS). In his talk titled: Lecture
5: Not All Practice is the Same, Prof. Farrow shows a continuum of
skill practice approaches, (second row of the chart).
Figure 1 Chart of
evolution of practices modes. Used with Permission from Prof. Damian Farrow. (Farrow n.d.)
·
Constant practice: Repeat the same skill in the
same manner on each repetition.
·
Blocked practice: 2 or more skills practiced in
blocks.
·
Variable practice: Vary the one skill.
·
Random practice: 2 or more skills randomly
interspersed across practice.
·
Differential practice: Varying one skill every
practice repetition.
While his definition does not fall strictly within the
categories that we define as block or random, the chart demonstrates once again
that defining practice approaches in a binary manner severely restricts the way
we train players, and it also limits the opportunities to give players exposure
to the variations that are essential in game situations.
In summary, form is a necessary tool to create the initial
basis set to initiate the player om acquiring the skills required for
the game of volleyball. These basis sets will be recruited to create muscle
synergies for System 1 responses; these muscle synergies are then made a part of the basis set. The extensive basis set creates a rich
sense of proprioception for the athlete to call upon, which allows them
to react unconsciously to the speed and action of the game. The act of retrieval is the key to imprinting
the basis sets into the limitless long-term memory in order to avoid overloading
the short-term memory during the critical decision-making points during game
play. Rapid progressive transitions between different training modes are used to
give players effortful retrieval opportunities, which serves to both imprint
the basis sets in the motor system and help create more and better
muscle synergies in response varying situations and conditions.
So that is my belief until someone can convince me
otherwise. These readings came about as I was following Coach Vern Gambetta and
his recommended list of readings. Every book that I read and cited here came
from his lists.
References
Brown, Peter C. ,Roediger III, Henry L. ,
McDaniel,Mark A. Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Canbridge
MA: Belknap Press, 2014.
Farrow, Damian. "Lecture 5: Not All Practice is
the Same 1." Sydney, n.d.
Grafton, Scott. Physical Intelligence. New
York: Pantheon Books, 2020.
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow.
NYC: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013.
Lemov, Doug. The Coaches Guide to Teaching.
Clearwater, FL: John Catt Educational Ltd., 2020.
Physiopedia contributors. Proprioception. May
6, 2020 .
https://www.physio-pedia.com/index.php?title=Proprioception&oldid=236870
(accessed September 23, 2021).
