In the 21st
century you wouldn't dream of arriving for a regatta with
a set of cotton sails, nor even with a set of 1999
Dacrons. Nor would you arrive wearing a pair of PVC
yellow shorts. Sailing is moving rapidly forward and the
constancy of change is something we have all learned to
live with, even delight in, with high performance
sailing. Coaching high
performance sailors is no exception and it is not simply
the transmitted knowledge and shared wisdom that has
moved on, it is also style and approach - the pedagogy -
that is separating winners from losers before they even
get into a boat. Not that a ripple in the collective
sailors' gene pool has occurred to change the way our
brains work, any more than the laws of physics have
shifted to change the way wind generates lift, it is
simply that the ways we have available to harness sailors
learning are beginning to reflect the vast amount of
learning research that is simultaneously changing the way
that everyone, from doctors to infants learn.
A part of that
revolution is an emerging understanding that the old
Piaget view of learning (you learn this stage, then
progress to that stage..) which was conveniently linear,
but always implausible has succumbed to "newer kid on the
block" Vygotsky who confirms that we learn by doing
points out rather obviously that we storm ahead in
different directions at different times in our lives in a
much less predictable, and certainly less linear, way.
Sometimes indeed we can achieve huge leaps in one
direction whilst remaining positively remedial in others.
This fits with a commons sense model of learning too: a
young Mirror dinghy sailor may be a relatively weak squad
member but may know more about fluid dynamics that anyone
else on the team, coaches included; an Olympic champion
may get into the medals in the last race of the regatta
but may struggle with the maths needed to evaluate the
possible options for the last beat. Not only that but
different sailors embrace different learning styles at
different times and in different contexts, although they
may be predisposed to one in particular; thus, coaching a
group of five sailors one may remember only your diagram,
two your words and the rest only the activity you all did
together. Understanding this has made schools much more
complex places to manage although it has also helped
parents to see why the teenage years are so
unpredictable. In sailing this means that some rather
convenient organisational behaviour is condemned to the
same skip the cottons sails and PVC shorts occupy. If
youngsters learn in such a scattergun way, dashing off in
all directions, sometimes astonishingly successfully,
that pretending that their learning is best managed by
grouping them according to birth dates is genuinely
hopeless, we might as well use star signs or shoe size as
age. Much better mixing of ages is a problem schools are
now wrestling with, and so too must sailing although it
is curious that in sports and music and theatre
historically it has been the model of older helping
younger whilst the younger chase the role models of older
that has maintained continuity
traditionally. Unfortunately, the
changes don't stop at organisation. A better
understanding of learning also hands us more clarity
about the consequences of "doing it wrong". It is useful
to contrast two "styles" of coaching and explore the
consequences of their use: The old "barrack
room" model, with a full "drill hall" of learners ("stand
up, sit down, what's Rule 14c?") produces sailors who
know some things with a confident certainty:
This learning
style is still found in parts of the armed services for
example, although it's in retreat there too, but in
sailing terms it might suit sail-by-numbers boats in very
predictable waters. 420s in Kingston, Canada, for
example. In contrast the "new pedagogy" would produce
sailors who knew with certainty that they:
That learning
outcome might be good for a consultancy, but in sailing
terms would also suit less predictable waters in
constantly variable boats - a skiff on Sydney Harbour for
example. Of course, the lesson is that nothing is simple.
Spend enough time on unpredictable waters (like Auckland
Bay) and they become relatively predictable but it makes
an interesting exercise to reflect on past performances
and circumstances in this way and to see successes where
national coaches continually challenge their sailors with
maximising opportunities in a regime of uncertainty,
swapping anything, even crews and boats, at short notice
makes for agile, problem solving, unphased sailors.
Eventually! It is worth
revisiting one further reflection about learning:
exploring our own best learning experiences. Any 100
people are likely to reveal that their best learning
happened when they were: It's a useful
checklist for sailing too, even (perhaps especially) at
the highest levels. Mantras to chant, that your own best
learning experiences will confirm, include that
"standards do not mean standardisation" and that
"listening is not participating". Rather less obvious is
the spectre of the self fulfilling prophesy that
constantly confirms a coach's judgment, even when it is
flawed and badly dilutes the pool of talent that our peak
squads are drawn from. The self fulfilling prophesy works
simply; a coach makes a snap judgment, for whatever
reason, that a young sailor is "star quality". As a
result, even in a mixed group with other more talented
sailors, the coach will ask "stretching" questions that
build the esteem of the "star" whilst the truly talented
(but unnoticed) feel slighted by less ambitious questions
and suffer disengagement. By the end of a year the
potentially best sailors have slipped back, or lost
interest whilst the ersatz star has progressed and
extended. "See", says the coach smugly "I can always spot
the stars early on". Self fulfilling prophesy is a bad
coach's best friend and a sport's worst enemy. It is
almost certain that in any group of talented young
sailors you will not be able to
distinguish those with the greatest final potential. This
knowledge should guide your every judgment and activity.
By the way, don't
assume that because a group don't seem to engage in your
"compelling" session that the problem lies with them. As
one youngster interviewed commented: Great sailors are
not necessarily great communicators. Indeed sport in
general has a problem that as reaching the top becomes
more absorbing and complex, so the great "personalities"
that characterised the past begin to disappear. This
matters to coaches because in face to face "seminar"
situations great oracy skills can become confused with
great sailing ability, feeding the self fulfilling
prophesy again. Sailors who answer questions, if the
seminar becomes competitive, don't necessarily know the
most, they just have the most confidence in contributing
perhaps because their learning styles are centred around
speech. Asking for drawings and illustrations may favour
other more kinesthetic sailors. In research at Ultralab
in the 1990s, exploring the dynamic of the seminar
situation, some real surprises emerged. Mapping the flow
of speech around the seminar members revealed that there
was little relationship between knowledge and
contribution. As a generalisation often the people who
spoke most were simply good at speaking rather that
knowledgable. In one case a genuine expert in the subject
discussed remained silent throughout its discussion.
Asked why she held back her memorable response was that
"they seemed to know so little I thought it was churlish
to intervene"! Coaches should be aware of the dangers,
but should consciously mix styles and approaches to allow
the best talent to rise to the top, rather than filtering
talent inappropriately. Another tough
challenge for coaches is the march of technology into the
learning arena. It is too trite to suggest that young
learners are unequivocally wired whilst older coaches
aren't, but it is clear that younger learners expect not
only a wider spectrum of media in their learning, but
make judgments about coaches' capability based on their
ability to handle it. A faltering unstoppable video, with
no indexing and little structure, dismays young learners
every bit as much as an inarticulate performance dismays
older coaches. If the coach is to be held in any esteem,
then demonstrating some capability with simple technology
will help. Actually being good at it will help even more
because there are such powerful analytical and
comparative tools that can be harnessed at very short
notice to inject some of the essential diversity into
coaching sessions. By its very
nature, coaching is an intermittent activity so that a
graph of learning would show peaks and troughs between
coaching activity and sessions starting with a wasted
"now, where were we...?" section. The wonderful thing
about Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is
the word in the middle: Communication. By simple emails
and other little provocations a coach can keep alive the
questioning and discourse that underpins the coaching
sessions with the effect that, not only is less time lost
at the face to face moments, but the peaks and troughs
are ironed out a little, with a clear net gain in
learning. Don't mail "knowledge" to your charges, mail
questions and uncertainties that engage them in their
time away from you. Mail a picture of a top flight fleet
arriving at the last leeward rounding and ask questions
like "what if you were leading here but with suspect
boatspeed?", "what if I was the German boat, but badly
wanted to go left?", "what if I needed a fourth to win
the regatta but am a very tight seventh here?" and so on.
You'll find the responses, with the benefit of some time
for reflection and research, lift the next face to face
session immeasurably. Technology doesn't recreate
familiar situations but it does offer new situations that
deliver on our need for diversity, challenge, engagement
and agility. Finally a note for
coaches' own development. All this sounds like a load of
trouble; why not simply stick to coaching squads for
predictable waters in sail-by-numbers boats, annoint a
few chosen "stars", encourage them like mad and sit back
for a quiet life? One self centred but effective reason
not to, might be to understand the value that the economy
places those on coaches who can do the opposite. If you
can coach for problem solving and agility, can avoid the
curse of the self fulfilling prophesy and can yourself
demonstrate an awareness and understanding of new
learning opportunities, then the economy, and some grand
consultancies, will value you greatly and offer you a
life after coaching replete with thirsty cars and fluid
lunches. Of course if you have a more altruistic
perspective it should be enough to know that your country
has a much better chance of winning medals as a result of
your expertise. Put simply, get it right and we'll waste
less talent. Whatever your
motivation, it's time to change and for the rest of your
coaching life it won't stop being. But you knew all
that didn't you? Prof Stephen
Heppell ©
Ultralab
02/02/02
Coaching pedagogy
in sailing
"the
session started with an introduction to the basics -
but the trouble was every one of us there already knew
the basics. First we got bored then we got naughty and
he told us we'd never be any good if we couldn't even
concentrate on the simple stuff"
