Coaching: The Problem with Pavlov

**Jason** · 06-16-2006 02:57 AM

A lot of the recent threads on coaching (Mr. Epee's obvious ploy to hit number 1 on the rep list) indicate that a, let's say, pavlovian approach to training is being adopted by various board members in their coaching lives (or, at least, in their coaching beliefs). The argument seems to be based on the reasoning that, in teaching fencing movements (and I mean "movement" as opposed to "action"--an action being the application of that movement; a fleche is a movement, but it may be applied as attack or riposte or whatever, all of which are actions), the goal is to teach as quickly and easily (for the coach) as possible. There seems to be an interesting degree of agreement regarding the value of teaching without speaking--using some kind of nod or grunt or whatever to display approval or displeasure in order to properly condition the students to have a good en garde.

While pavlovian methods are interesting and can surely bring some kind of results, certain important principles are being ignored when coaches train students this way.

It's important to remember what a coach's goals are when teaching beginners (obviously, if you are introducing en garde and fleche, you are working with beginners). When dealing with children (let's leave the issue of adult beginners for a moment), a coach should be trying to help the students develop physically, emotionally, psychologically, even morally (not always a popular word, but there's sense to it), he should be ingraining a love of fencing and of sport in the children, he should be helping foster a sense of self-confidence, self-efficacy, and self-respect. It is crucial that the coach demonstrates a respect for his pupils if they are going to be able to respect themselves.

When attempting to educate children using the methods employed by animal-trainers, the coach creates an environment in which the children are being sent a message that says, "I won't communicate with you verbally. Maybe you're too simple. Maybe I don't want to waste the energy. But I won't be speaking to you."

In order to develop an arguably more "human" approach to training, a coach ought to first explain, verbally, what it is he is about to have the children learn. The students should know what it is and why it is used. They should do it because they understand it, not because their coach has told them to do it.

After an (obviously brief and direct) explanation, the coach should then demonstrate the movement or position (2 or 3 times, sometimes at full speed, sometimes slowed down). The students should then try to do it themselves. After some attempts on their own, the coach should then make VERBAL corrections, along with any necessary demonstrative corrections. Obviously, the amount of speaking during all this should be limited--you don't want to waste time, and you don't want what Gallwey refers to as the conflict between "Self 1" and "Self 2"--but it should not be and need not be completely eliminated.

Human beings use language. Our thoughts are based in language. Coaches should encourage their students to be thinking creatures. The "thoughtless mind" involved in the "flow state" or in Gallwey's "Self 2" can be very helpful in achieving top performance and in learning, but before children are engaged in questions of where to direct their consciousness, they should be engaged in the development of their thoughts--they should be trusted to be able to understand what they are doing and why they are doing it, a far more important task than learning en garde.

Involving language and mutual respect might increase the amount of time that it takes a student to learn en garde, but it's certainly worth it.

(As an aside, I don't really understand how learning a proper en garde is such an issue. Adding some explanation might mean the process takes, what, 62 seconds instead of 53?)

**AaronK** · 06-16-2006 04:49 AM

I agree with Jason in that a behaviorist approach leaves little human interaction between the coach and the athlete.

I would only like to add that there are other methods of instruction than the classical approach. By "classical approach" I mean that instruction follows the formula:
Lecture (name the skill being taught), Demonstrate (the skill for the students), allow the students to drill or practice the skill, and give feedback (in the form of corrections, adjustments or affirmations). It is the most commonly used (as far as I am aware) in the united states. [It was the method I was taught in education classes in kineseology as well as art education].
There are other methods that also allow for language-based instruction (there are not really speciffic names for these approaches, and I am just giving a few examples).
More of a self-dscovery model: Coach may give a problem to the students with or without guidelines, the coach will probably need to demonstrate the problem for them (so they have a visual frame of reference for the problem), the students would then drill amongst themselves to "solve" the problem, and finally the coach would have the students come together to demonstrate or share their solutions with each other. This method makes the students more accountable for their own learning. As Jason said- it WILL take students longer (perhaps) to learn certain motor patterns because they are not made into robots. I would argue that because they are more connected to their own learning, they will have a greater retention to the information- and also more confidence in the choices they make on the strip.
Guided bouting method: The coach only describes enough rules to get kids to begin an assault. The coach will allow the assault to continue until the athletes develop their own problems. Once an athlete runs into a repetitive problem with no solution, they will demonstrate the problem for the coach (or even for the whole class). The coach can at that point offer a solution to the problem and have the athletes drill the solution, or make suggestions to guide them to a solution, OR the coach could fall into the self-discovery model and have their athletes come up with their own solutions. Once the athlete has drilled the new skill-set, then they can return to the assault to find more "problems".

**Grasshopper** · 06-16-2006 05:54 AM

The figure-four leg lock should not be attempted on an "undamaged" opponent. Best to wear him down with some stomping, especially around the leg area to soften him up. When he goes limp, grab his ankles, slap on the figure four and get that submission win.

**qatet** · 06-16-2006 08:48 AM

In teaching, I try to always use more than one way to communicate an idea to kids - everybody learns differently. Having an approach to coaching that COULD be completed without words means that visual learned can get every step. Augmenting it with words means that auditory learners can understand, too. It also means that I can use words to make the fencing environment a touch less scary for newcomers. (Our youth arrive when our elite kids are finishing their training. There's a lot of tall, strangely dressed, good athletes doing odd stuff when they first enter the door.)

For me, the overall method depends on what I'm teaching. If I'm teaching basic stances and movements I'll use more of the verbally guided monkey-see-monkey-do approach outlined above. Once they start playing distance games (the next step, for our program), I'll give kids the rough outline of a drill and let them muddle through with it for a while. A lecture at the beginning just helps to confuse them - too many ideas. Once they've been struggling to get the right distance to hit for a few minutes, then they know what ideas they've been trying to use and their success rate. They're also often just frustrated enough to want to hear ideas that others have found useful. At that point I poll the kids to have them verbalize what worked for them or didn't work, and to make them think about how their opponent was hitting them. I also demonstrate the more important ideas from their own methods - both what worked and what didn't work. And then I send them out to do it again.

As far as corrections go, I tend to use a mix of physical and verbal corrections - sometimes they can't understand the verbal ones right off the bat, or can't remember what it's supposed to feel like. It never ceases to amaze me how many people consistently move their whole arm when you tell them to raise their point, or lower their whole blade when you tell them to drop their hand, for instance. Sometimes they seem to need physical guidance to figure out that these are all different parts of the fencer.

**Katman** · 06-16-2006 09:15 AM

Grasshopper has given up on contributing anything, or his auto pilot is set to wrestling.

I think discussion on teaching methods is wonderful, and didn't see the enguarde thread "the issue" of teaching en guarde, more like "how do you do it." Comparing notes and experimenting to find better ways of teaching is OK in my book. That's what we're doing here too.

I talked to my students all the time, about everything. I never taught children, though I imagine I'd do the same there too. The important part of giving them the silent method (though I myself and I imagine, most of the other guys, were never completely silent, far from it) is that it allows the students a path to get to en guarde. Eventually they'll just drop into it on their own. I've watched beginners without the path adjust their feet for almost 10 seconds while beginners with it would be in the same en guarde (often better) in less time, and with less effort.

My point there is not that I'm not trying to save myself a few seconds so I can blaze through the next fencing movement with grunts and whistles and pointed fingers. My point there is that the student learned it quicker and easier.

Language is wonderful and I agree that you shouldn't be a silent automaton whilst coaching. Explaination for why en guarde is a good thing shouldn't be ommited.