Coach observation studies commonly examine training and competition environments, with little attention paid to the ways in which coaches provide video feedback in a performance analysis setting. In addition, few studies have considered the reception of feedback by an athlete, or the characteristics of the athlete that may support or hinder feedback reception. The purposes of this study were threefold. First, to examine the characteristics of feedback provided by a coach during a typical video feedback meeting. Second, to measure the impact of this feedback on athlete learning. Third, to consider a range of learner characteristics that may impact feedback reception. Six coaches and six players affiliated with an Australian Football League (AFL) club were recruited. Coach-player dyads were observed in one-to-one video feedback meetings following a game played in the 2017 season. Players were interviewed to test feedback recall. Players also completed a series of tests designed to measure learner characteristics, with the intention of discovering moderating factors of the relationship between feedback and learning outcomes. Rates of feedback generally mirrored those found in previous studies. Coaches provided nearly 30 feedback messages during each meeting. Players recalled 50% of summarised feedback messages but just 6% of all feedback a week later. A ceiling effect on learner characteristics was observed. The paper presents a novel design for examining feedback effectiveness while considering learner characteristics. Given the findings on feedback quantity and recall, coaches are encouraged to adopt a ‘less is more’ approach to providing feedback.
TharpRGallimoreR.What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today1976;
9: 74–78.
2.
CopeEPartingtonMHarveyS.A review of the use of a systematic observation method in coaching research between 1997 and 2016. J Sports Sci2017;
35: 2042–2050.
3.
PainMAHarwoodC.The performance environment of the England youth soccer teams. J Sports Sci2007;
25: 1307–1324.
4.
GroomRCushionCNelsonL.The delivery of video-based performance analysis by England youth soccer coaches: towards a grounded theory. J Appl Sport Psychol2011;
23: 16–32.
5.
BertramCPMarteniukRGGuadagnoliMA.On the use and misuse of video analysis. Int J Sports Sci Coach2007;
2: 37–46.
6.
GroomRNelsonL.The application of video-based performance analysis: the coach supporting athlete learning. In: PotracPGilbertWDenisonJ (eds) Routledge handbook of sports coaching.
Oxon:
Routledge, 2013, pp.96–107.
7.
TrudelPCôtéJBernardD.Systematic observation of youth ice hockey coaches during games. J Sport Behav1996;
19: 50–50.
8.
HortonSBakerJDeakinJ.Experts in action: a systematic observation of 5 national team coaches. Int J Sport Psychol2005;
36: 299–319.
9.
HallETGraySSprouleJ.The microstructure of coaching practice: behaviours and activities of an elite rugby union head coach during preparation and competition. J Sports Sci2016;
34: 896–905.
10.
CarpentierJMageauGA.When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation, well-being and performance: a look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport. Psychol Sport Exerc2013;
14: 423–435.
11.
HalperinIChapmanDWMartinDT, et al.
Coaching cues in amateur boxing: an analysis of ringside feedback provided between rounds of competition. Psychol Sport Exerc2016;
25: 44–50.
12.
WebsterCAHuntKLaFlecheM.Are winning coaches more autonomy-supportive? Examining the context of varsity boys' soccer. J Sport Behav2013;
36: 209–232.
13.
MagillRAAndersonDI.The role and uses of augmented feedback in motor skill acquisition. In: HodgesNJWilliamsAM (eds) Skill acquisition in sport. 2nd ed.
Oxon:
Routledge, 2012, pp. 3–21.
14.
SchmidtRAWrisbergCA.Motor learning and performance: a situation-based learning approach. 4th ed.
Champaign, IL.:
Human Kinetics, 2008.
15.
KernodleMWCarltonLG.Information feedback and the learning multiple-degree-of-freedom activities. J Mot Behav1992;
24: 187–196.
16.
NunesMEdSCorreaUCde SouzaMGTX, et al.
Descriptive versus prescriptive feedback in the learning of golf putting by older persons. Int J Sport Exercise Psychol. Epub ahead of print 4 February 2020. DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2020.1717579.
17.
MasonRJFarrowDHattieJA.An analysis of in-game feedback provided by coaches in an Australian Football League competition. Physical Educ Sport Pedagogy 2020; 25: 464--477.
18.
HattieJTimperleyH.The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res2007;
77: 81–112.
19.
NelsonLJPotracPGroomR.Receiving video-based feedback in elite ice-hockey: a player's perspective. Sport Educ Soc2014;
19: 19–41.
20.
CôtéJGilbertW.An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. Int J Sports Sci Coach2009;
4: 307–324.
21.
ButlerDLWinnePH.Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev Educ Res1995;
65: 245–281.
CarlessD.Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Stud Higher Educ2006;
31: 219–233.
24.
PensgaardAMDudaJL. “
If we work hard, we can do it": a tale from an Olympic (gold) medallist. J Appl Sport Psychol2002;
14: 219–236.
25.
MesquitaIRosadoAJanuárioN, et al.
Athlete’s retention of a coach's instruction before a judo competition. J Sports Sci Med2008;
7: 402–407.
26.
EngleRW.Working memory capacity as executive attention. Curr Dir Psychol Sci2002;
11: 19–23.
27.
BuszardTFarrowDVerswijverenSJJM, et al.
Working memory capacity limits motor learning when implementing multiple instructions. Front Psychol2017;
8: 1350–1312.
28.
MiddlemasSHarwoodC.No place to hide: football players' and coaches' perceptions of the psychological factors influencing video feedback. J Appl Sport Psychol2018;
30: 23–44.
29.
KlugerANDenisiA.The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull1996;
119: 254–284.
30.
Narciss S and Huth K. How to design informative tutoring feedback for multi-media learning. In: Niegemann HM, Leutner D and Brunken R (eds) Instructional design for multimedia learning. Munster: Waxmann, 2004, pp. 181–196.
31.
IlgenDRFisherCDTaylorMS.Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psychol1979;
64: 349–371.
32.
LondonMSmitherJW.Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resour Manage Rev2002;
12: 81–100.
33.
LinderbaumBALevyPE.The development and validation of the feedback orientation scale (FOS). J Manage2010;
36: 1372–1405.
34.
RasheedAKhanS-U-RRasheedMF, et al.
The impact of feedback orientation and the effect of satisfaction with feedback on in-role job performance. Hum Resourc Dev Q2015;
26: 31–51.
35.
KingPESchrodtPWeiselJJ.The instructional feedback orientation scale: conceptualizing and validating a new measure for assessing perceptions of instructional feedback. Commun Educ2009;
58: 235–261.
36.
SolomonGBStriegelDAEliotJF, et al.
The self-fulfilling prophecy in college basketball: implications for effective coaching. J Appl Sport Psychol1996;
8: 44–59.
37.
FosterJLShipsteadZHarrisonTL, et al.
Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Mem Cognit2015;
43: 226–236.
38.
BanduraA.Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: PajaresFUrdanT (eds) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents.
Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing, 2006, pp.307–337.
39.
JanuarioNRosadoAMesquitaI, et al.
Student retention of the information transmitted by the teacher in physical education classes depending on the characteristics of the information. J Study Educ Dev2015;
38: 212–242.
40.
StaffordLBurggrafCSSharkeyWF.Conversational memory: the effects of time, recall, mode, and memory expectancies on remembrances of natural conversations. Human Comm Res1987;
14: 203–229.
41.
RosadoAMesquitaIBreiaE, et al.
Athlete's retention of coach's instruction on task presentation and feedback. Int J Perform Anal Sport2008;
8: 19–30.
42.
HarrisLRBrownGTLHarnettJA.Analysis of New Zealand primary and secondary student peer- and self-assessment comments: applying Hattie and Timperley’s feedback model. Assess Educ2015;
22: 265–281.
43.
Bangert-DrownsRLKulikC-LCKulikJA, et al.
The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev Educ Res1991;
61: 213–238.
44.
CushionCJJonesRL.A systematic observation of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. J Sport Behav2001;
24: 354–376.
45.
GroomRCushionCJNelsonLJ.Analysing coach–athlete ‘talk in interaction’ within the delivery of video-based performance feedback in elite youth soccer. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health2012;
4: 439–458.
46.
WalshJASattesBD.Quality questioning: research-based practice to engage every learner.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 2005.
47.
WardGTanLGrenfell-EssamR.Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: the effects of list length and output order. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn2010;
36: 1207–1241.
48.
KrumpalI.Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant2013;
47: 2025–2047.
49.
CalmeiroLTenenbaumGEcclesDWi.Managing pressure: patterns of appraisals and coping strategies of non-elite and elite athletes during competition. J Sports Sci2014;
32: 1813–1820.
