Volleyball Coaching Life-On Form

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).