Studying the development of Tiger Woods is fascinating, and provides us with a lot of insight about player development in golf. Perhaps the most significant thing we can learn about Tiger's development is the teaching style of Earl Woods.
We know that Earl was a good player - a low handicap amateur - but by no means was he a player of touring pro quality or an outstanding instructor of technique. People often have the misconception that Earl created the Tiger by "programming him for greatness" from a young age - as if he had all the answers and just had tell Tiger what to do, much in the same way that a computer programmer writes code to program a computer.
We know from research that this direct style of teaching is actually not very effective: If you simply tell a child what to do or how to do something, they will not retain what you've told them for very long. If they are just doing what you tell them to do, they don't have to cognitively process it and don't really learn it fully. On the other hand, if a child develops a skill by figuring it out on their own and "discovering" how to perform that skill by themselves they will "own" that skill forever.
What made Earl so effective is how he trained Tiger to develop his skills (especially his mental skills) not by directly telling him what to do, but instead by putting Tiger in situations where he could discover on his own what works. This technique of instruction is called "guided discovery".
Consider the comment that Earl makes at the beginning of this Nike commercial which aired last year: "You don't really instill anything into a child. You encourage the development of it."
The research is fairly conclusive: Kids learn most effectively through guided discovery, if they are put in situations where they can discover skills on their own. The genius of Earl Woods is that he was able to put Tiger in these situations over and over, so that Tiger was able to develop his skills efficiently and own them permanently.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
LESS feedback means MORE learning
Research in motor skill learning tells us that people learn tasks best when they are given the LEAST AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK POSSIBLE. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but allow me to explain the research that supports this idea.
A professor at UCLA named Dr. Richard Schmitt did a study where people had to learn a motor task that they had never done before (I can't recall exactly what it was, but it's not really that important - it's the principle that is informative. If fact, pretend as if you were teaching people to putt who had never putted before). He seperated subjects into three groups to practice the motor task, and then they would be tested to see how well they learned the skill.
The first group received feedback after every repetition of the exercise (e.g., "No, hold you hands with the thumbs down the shaft", or "yes, that is good, make sure you keep rocking your shoulders without moving your wrists"). These students eventually started performing the exercise fairly well during practice, as you might expect - if you took a beginner and instructed them on how to putt after each putt attempt, they would probably be able to putt reasonably well under your direction.
The second group of subjects received feedback in summary form after every fifteen repetitions (e.g., "Your got better over the last few, just to swing the putter through towards the target and see what happens on the next few"). This group showed some improvements over the practice session, but were not performing as well in practice as the first group.
The third group received no feedback at all. They showed slight improvement during practice time, and but did not perform the skill during practice as well as the other two groups. Again, this isn't surprising since they received no instruction.
Next, the students were tested to see how well they had learned the exercise. They had to perform the task in a test situation - no help from instructors. The researchers were surprised at what they saw. The first group of subjects (the ones who got feedback after every repetition and were doing the best in practice) performed very poorly compared to how they were doing in practice. In fact, they performed SLIGHTLY WORSE on the test than subjects from the third group who had not received any feedback during practice at all. The second group (the subjects who had received occasional feedback) performed the best on the test even though they were getting beaten consistently in practice by the first group.
It's counterintuitive to think that receiving feedback after every repetition could be anything but helpful. However, as it turns out, overdoing the feedback creates a problematic reliance on instructor help that is not available in a testing situation. On the other hand, if feedback is dispensed sparingly and only when necessary, the learner is forced to figure out things on their own. Rather than being spoonfed information, they are forced to discover how to perform the skill effectively. Of course, the occasional feedback they receive is tremendously helpful. The important take-home here is that providing feedback sparingly rather than frequently creates self-sufficiency and mastery of the skill that holds up under test conditions.
The implications of this research for player development in golf are: 1) Don't tell developing juniors the answers. Let them search for it and discover it so they own it later. 2) Over-coaching is as at least as bad as providing no coaching at all.
A professor at UCLA named Dr. Richard Schmitt did a study where people had to learn a motor task that they had never done before (I can't recall exactly what it was, but it's not really that important - it's the principle that is informative. If fact, pretend as if you were teaching people to putt who had never putted before). He seperated subjects into three groups to practice the motor task, and then they would be tested to see how well they learned the skill.
The first group received feedback after every repetition of the exercise (e.g., "No, hold you hands with the thumbs down the shaft", or "yes, that is good, make sure you keep rocking your shoulders without moving your wrists"). These students eventually started performing the exercise fairly well during practice, as you might expect - if you took a beginner and instructed them on how to putt after each putt attempt, they would probably be able to putt reasonably well under your direction.
The second group of subjects received feedback in summary form after every fifteen repetitions (e.g., "Your got better over the last few, just to swing the putter through towards the target and see what happens on the next few"). This group showed some improvements over the practice session, but were not performing as well in practice as the first group.
The third group received no feedback at all. They showed slight improvement during practice time, and but did not perform the skill during practice as well as the other two groups. Again, this isn't surprising since they received no instruction.
Next, the students were tested to see how well they had learned the exercise. They had to perform the task in a test situation - no help from instructors. The researchers were surprised at what they saw. The first group of subjects (the ones who got feedback after every repetition and were doing the best in practice) performed very poorly compared to how they were doing in practice. In fact, they performed SLIGHTLY WORSE on the test than subjects from the third group who had not received any feedback during practice at all. The second group (the subjects who had received occasional feedback) performed the best on the test even though they were getting beaten consistently in practice by the first group.
It's counterintuitive to think that receiving feedback after every repetition could be anything but helpful. However, as it turns out, overdoing the feedback creates a problematic reliance on instructor help that is not available in a testing situation. On the other hand, if feedback is dispensed sparingly and only when necessary, the learner is forced to figure out things on their own. Rather than being spoonfed information, they are forced to discover how to perform the skill effectively. Of course, the occasional feedback they receive is tremendously helpful. The important take-home here is that providing feedback sparingly rather than frequently creates self-sufficiency and mastery of the skill that holds up under test conditions.
The implications of this research for player development in golf are: 1) Don't tell developing juniors the answers. Let them search for it and discover it so they own it later. 2) Over-coaching is as at least as bad as providing no coaching at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
