1. Nels Rydberg, MS Assistant Coach University of Portland

2.  Background Information Motor Behavior Research  Focus of Attention Choose your words carefully  Observational Learning Two for the price of one  Mindset What are they thinking?  Ideas and Questions

3.  Motor behavior research Learning vs performance  Retention test Open vs closed skills  Generalizability  Transfer test  Volleyball skills

4.  Internal focus: on body movements  External focus: on the movement effect Not related to visual focus Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77-104. Wulf, G. (2007). Attention and motor skill learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

5.  Initial findings Wulf, G., Höß, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 169-179. Pressure exerted on platform vs feet exerting the pressure Markers on board horizontal rather than feet horizontal  Retention (and later, transfer) had no instructions, internal or external

6.  Movement effectiveness Accuracy, consistency, balance  Movement efficiency Muscular activity, force production, cardiovascular responses  Higher skill level is achieved sooner  Benefits performance and learning

7.  Measurements Balance, accuracy, muscular activity, maximum force production, speed and endurance, movement kinematics and kinetics (whole-body coordination patterns optimized)  Tasks Golf shots, volleyball serve, kicks, free throws, weight lifting, throwing accuracy and form, jumping, sprinting, agility, swimming, rowing

8.  “…even a single instructional cue can impact whole-body coordination” (Wulf, 2013, p. 78). Why does this work?  “Self-invoking trigger”  Negative effects of self-consciousness  Mindset?

9.  In your gym Serving  Target, point of impact on the ball Passing  Target, trajectory Blocking  Attacker’s shoulders, points to reach for Reading and external focus

10. Beckmann, J., Gröpel, P., & Ehrlenspiel, F. (2013). Preventing motor skill failure through hemisphere- specific priming: Cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 679-691.  In short Right brain = automated behavior Squeeze left hand to activate right hemisphere

11. Shea, C. H., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (1999). Enhancing training efficiency and effectiveness through the use of dyad training. Journal of Motor Behavior, 31, 119-125. Shea, C. H., Wright, D. L., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (2000). Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(1), 27-36. Form of mental training  Model does not have to be an expert

12.  Experiment 1 Physical vs observational practice  Retention  physical > observational > control  Transfer  physical = observational > control  Better able to apply parameters and strategies

13.  Experiment 2 Dyads: “…participants develop some form of interactive relationship during practice…” (Shea, et al., 2000, p. 34) Physical vs combined (physical and observational) practice  Acquisition  Physical = combined  Retention  Physical = combined > control

14. Physical vs combined (cont.)  Transfer  Combined > physical > control  Physical deteriorated in transfer, combined did not Possible explanations  What worked vs what did not  Mental processing that cannot be done during physical practice  Social interactions including motivation and social comparison  Mindset?

15.  Benefits and application Increased learning efficiency  Space, equipment, time Decreased fatigue and chance of injury/overuse  Effective use of rest intervals Teach your players to observe each other Design drills that facilitate observational learning

16. Granados, C., & Wulf, G. (2007). Enhancing motor learning through dyad practice: Contributions of observation and dialogue. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 78(3), 197-203. Observational practice enhanced learning regardless of dialogue

17.  More specifically Enhanced expectancies Conceptions of ability Self-confidence Social-cognitive Positive affect Intrinsic motivation

18.  Self-Determination Theory (SDT) Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/ Basic needs  Autonomy, competence, relatedness  Intrinsic motivation, positive affect

19.  Feedback after successful trials Increased intrinsic motivation and self- confidence  Catch someone doing something well and tell them about it  Trip on the curb, shank one pass Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 408-415.

20. Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M. (2011). Feedback after good trials enhances intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 360-364. Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Namazizadeh, M., & Wulf, G. (2012). Feedback after good versus poor trials: Differential effects on self-confidence and activation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 196- 203.

21.  Acquirable skill > inherent ability Incremental theorists > entity theorists Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2009). Conceptions of ability affect motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41(5), 461-467.  Normative feedback “Above average” performance Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2010). Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 738-749.

22.  Performance under pressure Throwing accuracy McKay, B., Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve performance under pressure. Frontiers in Psychology, 3:8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00008

23.  Experienced, trained athletes  Increased physiological efficiency Stoate, I., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(8), 815-823.

24.  Why? Automaticity vs conscious control processes  How? Instructions or feedback should focus on learners’ improvements or effort invested in practice  Ideas? Feedback after good trials Self-controlled feedback  Establish the proper mindset

25.  Background Information Motor Behavior Research  Focus of Attention Choose your words carefully  Observational Learning Two for the price of one  Mindset What are they thinking?  Ideas and Questions

26.  Sharing of ideas Focus of attention Observational practice Mindset  Questions

27. Nels Rydberg rydberg@up.edu