Get it now
Feedback as an Informational Constraint
One of the biggest misconceptions within the constraint-led approach (CLA) is that coaches cannot use feedback. Feedback is vitally important, but critically, through the CLA we view it as an informational constraint. As such, it is not the type of feedback we see traditionally used in basketball practices whereby the coach gives instant analysis and corrections based on how players should supposedly move, or what part of the set play they should have run. Within the CLA, feedback can be a lot more open, encouraging players to keep exploring the affordance landscape while finding functional solutions which suit each player.
Using Feedback More Effectively
The first step is asking if the feedback is even needed? Within the CLA, we can use interactions through the form of questioning to help aid with self-awareness and helping players place their attention on particular situations. However, many times the right task constraints could do the communicating for coaches. If players are consistently struggling with a concept in practice, manipulating the task or environmental constraints can more effectively shape new desired behaviors.
Common Pitfalls
Unfortunately, much of the feedback that is used in association with the traditional style of coaching is redundant and not even useful. Some of the most common pitfalls include:
Too much of a reliance on internal cues
Internal cues are related to body parts, positions, hand placement etc. A lot of research exists going back to the work done by Gabriele Wulf showing the benefits of using external cues that take the focus of attention away from players focusing on their body. While it is often easier to provide cues focusing on the internal, it can often result in “paralysis by analysis”. Players end up hyper-focused on the micro and unable to execute within the larger picture.
Shotgun vs Sniper
Many coaches employ a shotgun approach to giving feedback. They give scattered pellets of information on twenty different aspects which no players remember. Contrast this with the sniper approach – focusing on one or two key things which can be retained. This is extremely important for in-game coaching, as well as practices.
Coach-Led vs Player-Led
One of the biggest pitfalls is that so much communication in general comes directly from the head coach as opposed to player-to-player. Players often have a different perspective and feel then the coaches. This is simply because they are the ones immersed in the action. It should only be natural than to have players providing feedback for each other as a complement to coach information. One simple strategy is the frequent use of debriefs to get players reflecting and communicating with other.
Strategies for more Effective Feedback
Higher Order vs Lower Order Questioning
Lower-order questions assess knowledge or how well players comprehend a concept. Higher-order questions induce deeper thinking and greater understanding. Avoiding questions which give simple “yes/no” responses, or which are If asking a question, give time for the players to think and answer as opposed to filling the awkward silence or giving the answer before a player has a chance to speak.
Know Your Goal
Feedback should motivate and inspire players, as opposed to making them anxious or fearful. Doug Lemov’s positive framing concept applies nicely here. It suggests that feedback must express that the coach has confidence and faith in the player. At the same time, it must be focussed on solutions, not what the player is doing ‘incorrectly.’
Use Challenges and Aspirations
Challenge = “You’ve got that down now see if you can…” OR “Can you speed it up?
Aspiration = “Can you do it like Steph Curry would?” or “To become an effective NCAA player, this is something you might want to think about in this situation…”
Challenges and aspirations provide a sense of possibility for players. The positive framing offers confidence to try the next harder concept.
Remove Emotion
It can be common for coaches to get upset when their players perform poorly in practices (especially games) as they feel it reflects badly upon them. This is then seen in feedback, with general statements such as “what are you doing?” or “that’s not what we practiced!” Strong emotions make it harder to offer effective feedback.
Alignment
It can be confusing for players to have multiple coaches all sharing different snippets of feedback. Because they must sort through who to listen to and which information applies, the end result is often tuning it all out. Coaching best practices emphasize planning for feedback. This means anticipating some cues and feedback points for areas within practices and games with which players may struggle.
Simulate the Game
During games, it is distracting and not feasible to be giving constant and instant feedback. Therefore, to fully prepare players for games, it may be worthwhile to not allow instant feedback during sections of practice. Too much of the time, coaches use instant feedback where they stop practice activities to talk and give feedback. The game doesn’t work like this. Coaching in bursts – 30 seconds or less – of information is much more conducive to actual game environment.
Track it
Keep a clipboard with your players names and write down the feedback you are offering each player individually. This also ensures you can distribute feedback evenly instead of falling for the honeytrap of just offering the best players the most feedback. This also allows you to think of better cues and analogies as part of your practice planning and post-practice debriefs.
For more resources:
Responsible Coaching: Feedback and the Magic Ratio
MasterClass with Markus Klusemann on Feedback
