Seeing Below the Surface:
How Technology Can Make Coaching a Shared Experience
Final Reflection
by Matt Jones
After being immersed below the surface during this study, points of reflection have become clear now that I have had the chance to dry off and look back at the results. These points of reflection, from which I have learned, come to four. These four points are concerned with the results of this study, personal introspection, organizational observations and lastly a significance on a scholarly level.
Reflecting on the Results of this Study
The results from this study, Seeing Below the Surface: How Technology Can Make Coaching a Shared Experience, have allowed me to consider a couple of results. First the importance of providing diverse stroke technique critiques. Second, in order to provide a diverse array of critiques it is important to provide a structured method of stroke analysis.
Over the span of the three cycles a total of sixty seven critiques were given by the participants. Of those sixty seven critiques, sixteen were concerned with the “pull” of the stroke, twenty-four with the “kick”, eighteen were directed at “body position” and nine fell into the category of “other”. These figures are relevant to this study when looked at within the realm of their respective cycles. For example, during cycle one, a total of thirty-nine critiques were given by the participants. Cycle one’s diversity in stroke technique commenting was evident in that: eleven were about “pull”, ten were concerned with “kick”, nine focused on “body position” and nine, also, could be categorized into “other”. During cycle one, fifteen, or thirty eight percent, of the critiques were corrected meaning four of the six participants improved their times. Four of six participants obviously, isn’t one hundred percent, however, two of the participants were absent during the second video session of the cycle, therefore only four actually completed the cycle, from start to finish. Making one hundred percent of the participants who finished the cycle improve their times. In order to also note the importance of stroke technique critique diversity, cycle two and cycle three must also be considered.
At the beginning of cycle two the participants noted, in each other, a total of twelve critiques. This total was significantly lower than that received in cycle one. Of those twelve received critiques only two, or seventeen percent, were modified within the members’ strokes. However, the two modifications did not prove beneficial to the participants, because the two participants who each made one modification based on the peer review to their strokes, added time to their swims. During this cycle it was participant F3, who made no adjustments to her stroke who ended up improving her swim. So, why did stroke modification not help the participants? Although there are many potential reason, one very apparent reason is, of the twelve critiques given ten of them, or eighty-three percent, were directed at “kick”. Should a participant only receive a critique of an element of their stroke which they either don’t need to correct, or correct incorrectly the critique could prove to be counter intuitive, as was the case with M2 and F1 during cycle two. These results begged the question, how to increase a diversity in stroke analysis? Cycle three attempted to answer this question.
During cycle three a grand total of fifteen critiques were received. This number is still lower than cycle one, but higher than cycle two. Additionally, of these fifteen critiques, six, or forty percent were actually adapted into the participants strokes. The results displayed that three of the five participants improved their times during their swim. (In this cycle please note that one of the five participants was absent. This actually meant that four participants completed the cycle three study from start to finish, which also meant that three of four participants improved their swims.) Therefore, why were more swimmers able to improve their times? Like in cycle two, many answers could be present, however one difference from cycle two, and in alignment with cycle one, was a diversity in the critiques of the stroke technique received. Within cycle three of the fifteen total critiques received, five were “pull” targeted, four were directed at “kick” and six were focused on “body position”. This result lends itself to be interpreted that a diverse array of stroke technique critiques provide the swimmer with multiple options to correct increasing the chance they have to make proper modifications to their stroke, to help them improve. The question remains though, how to approach generating a diversity in stroke technique critiques?
To answer the aforementioned question, it is important to deduce the differences between the three cycles. The answer is the following: cycle one provided the swimmers with a form to fill out, helping direct their critiques to many diverse areas of stroke technique to consider when making their critiques. In cycle three, knowing this, a video containing a method of analysis was displayed to each participant. Cycle two, however, did not provide a clear structure to critiquing stroke technique, which, as indicated in the result, meant that eighty-three percent were directed at a single area. Hence the answer to the question, lies in providing a clear structure for a method of stroke analysis in order to receive diversity in the critiques given.
Personal Introspection
Diving into this study, changed a lot more than the swimming strokes of my participants, in many respects it also changed my coaching methods, how others perceive me and how I perceive myself.
As a result of this study, and seeing the importance of a diversity within stroke technique critique, when I comment on the strokes of my swimmers I now spend a great deal of time, each practice, informing them of multiple areas I believe they should considering working to correct. However, in addition to making sure to provide the swimmers with a variety of options, I also no longer dictate to them, what they need to do, rather, by thought provoking inquiring, I drop an initial thought into their ear, which then ripples over the surface of their thinking. ( This is clearly indicated by the increase in questions and feedback of ideas I receive from my swimmers, which is higher after having done this study than it was previously.) As a result the communication between myself and my swimmers has increased, as has the topic of stroke technique. These changes have not gone unnoticed by those who I don’t coach. Consequently these have also caused others to take notice of my coaching strategy.
Through observation, I have noticed swimmers from other groups, their parents and other coaches paying attention to what I am saying and what I am doing with my swimmers. In fact, one parent, of a kid in a younger group, came to me and said “My son, cant wait to move up to your group. He saw you in the water with your swimmers the other day and thought that you seemed like a ‘cool coach’”. Upon hearing this, I asked the parent, why she thought her son thought that of me. Her response was that I seemed like a coach who wasnt scared to try something new and keep it interesting for those I coach. Although, in previous years I have received compliments from parents, the majority were directed at my enthusiasm and personality. Since changing my methods, as a result of this study, I now hear more critiques directed at what I am doing as a coach and what the swimmers are learning. As a result of feedback, such as that previously mentioned, I have also come to see myself in a different way.
Since this study, I have changed the perspective of myself. Previously, I often considered myself to be the coach, who had a significant amount of success in his own swimming career, who loved the sport, and could offer great advice to those he coached. However, this often left the swimmers in awe of my accomplishments. The select few, with more determined personalities, would decipher that “if coach Matt could do it, I can too.” However, that being said, since this study I have now transitioned into being the coach, who is “on the same level” with those he coaches. As a result the kids have become increasingly comfortable to be around me and make mistake, and they have also been more intrigued to ask me about my opinions of their stroke and of the swimming superstars who inspire them. Essentially, I have come to view myself as a mentor. In the role of mentor I am committed to the success of my swimmers performances, but also increasing their knowledge about everything swimming related and how it pertains to life. Not to mention, I also work with my swimmers to make sure I am not the only resource during practice, and I encourage them to rely on each other for support and information.
Organizational Observations
Back paddling out of the introspective reflection, observations have also been made pertaining to the organization in which I coach. From efforts of my action research study I have noticed changes to other coaches within the organization, swimmers and their parents.
Coaches, like teachers, bring something individual and unique to their classroom or the pool deck as the case may be. Since the coaches have seen my effort in underwater recording the participants of my cycle studies, there has been an increased interest for me to record swimmers from other groups, as well, and hold discussion sessions. As a result of these inquiries, for the first time on my team, I see collaboration beginning to happen in the actual training environment between coaches. Rather than the coaches wanting to continue to hoard their own techniques for their specific training groups, an initial effort has been made to have me work with the swimmers of other groups. Should we proceed to work, as coaches, with each others’ swimmers, I believe that a long term result could become a coaching collaborative. A collaborative could provide for our swimmers a diverse practice curriculum composed of the varying groups of swimmers, segmented by age, being coached by a team of coaches rather than one at a time as they age. I believe this could lead to a swimmer with a very rich understanding of stroke technique, race strategy and training understanding.
Although, the impact I have seen my study have on the coaches within my organization, the greatest influence as been on the swimmers who partook in my study. Normally at a swim meet the coaches sit along once side of the competition pool, stationary, as they watch each swimmer race. The swimmers are typically required to talk to their coach before and after their races. However, the four participants from my study, who remain on the team, often spend their time, during a meet, sitting on the deck next to me. Without any provocation, these four swimmers will critique the strokes of the swimmers racing in the water, often pausing to ask me my thoughts on how the swimmer of their focus is swimming. As a result, we often dive deep into the discussion of stroke technique and why individualized stroke technique may be important. However, I am not the only person who has noticed this change in this small group of swimmers, the parents of this group and of other kids not involved in the study have noticed too.
Since starting the study, the parents of the participants have commenting to me that stroke technique has “clicked” with their swimmer. Often noting that on the car ride home after practice their young athlete will inform them of things they need to work on, in order to improve. In some cases the parents have even informed me that their swimmer has posted their goals on a display board in their bedroom at home. However, they are not the only parents commenting on the change in the swimmers attitudes. Since completing the study, a parent of a child, who I coach, and was not involved in the study approached me and asked, “Are you going to work with the rest of the group like you did with those kids, after your research is done?” To this I replied, “Yes.” The parent then proceeded to say, “Oh, that is good. Cause all of those kids have been improving and their strokes are looking better. I want my kid to do the same.” This indicates to me an appreciation for the work that has been done, the results of that work and a willingness to welcome it into the lives of other kids. As such, I have learned that extending the study is of interest to others.
Scholarly Level
The final area that I wish to reflect upon has to do with the broader picture. The effects of my work and its importance into the field of action research. While many studies have promoted the need for communities of practice, I believe that my study promotes it in a new area, age group competitive swimming. In order to express my point further, two points must be considered. First, teaching the swimmer to consider their peers as resources and second, for the coach to be among the athletes and not above them.
The importance of my action research, and its largest contribution, comes in the form of developing a community of practice within the age group competitive swimming environment. Often, like the classic lecturing professor, the coach is often the focal point of a practice environment. Typically, the swimmer arrive at practice to be told “what to do” and “how to do it” by their coach. However, hopefully with the proven benefit of peer reviewed stroke technique, coaches can help their athletes understand that their teammates are also resources from which they can refer and contribute. As I have said this would be most influential in the age group competitive swimming environment.
Lastly, in order for the age group environment to become a community of practice, it is necessary for the coach to become more than a lecturer. The coach needs to help the athlete develop into a critical thinker about their sport and the challenges that araise within competition. In order to do this the coach must collaborate with the swimmer and not command the athlete. Only through a process of mutually interactive discussion can the results for the swimmer clearly become individualized.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the impact of Seeing Below the Surface: How Technology Can Make Coaching a Shared Experience, extends itself not only to this action researcher, but to the organization, in which I coach, and it’s members. Additionally, the results of this study can be followed by other action researchers and improved upon. Truly making coaching a shared experience.
Reflecting on the Results of this Study
The results from this study, Seeing Below the Surface: How Technology Can Make Coaching a Shared Experience, have allowed me to consider a couple of results. First the importance of providing diverse stroke technique critiques. Second, in order to provide a diverse array of critiques it is important to provide a structured method of stroke analysis.
Over the span of the three cycles a total of sixty seven critiques were given by the participants. Of those sixty seven critiques, sixteen were concerned with the “pull” of the stroke, twenty-four with the “kick”, eighteen were directed at “body position” and nine fell into the category of “other”. These figures are relevant to this study when looked at within the realm of their respective cycles. For example, during cycle one, a total of thirty-nine critiques were given by the participants. Cycle one’s diversity in stroke technique commenting was evident in that: eleven were about “pull”, ten were concerned with “kick”, nine focused on “body position” and nine, also, could be categorized into “other”. During cycle one, fifteen, or thirty eight percent, of the critiques were corrected meaning four of the six participants improved their times. Four of six participants obviously, isn’t one hundred percent, however, two of the participants were absent during the second video session of the cycle, therefore only four actually completed the cycle, from start to finish. Making one hundred percent of the participants who finished the cycle improve their times. In order to also note the importance of stroke technique critique diversity, cycle two and cycle three must also be considered.
At the beginning of cycle two the participants noted, in each other, a total of twelve critiques. This total was significantly lower than that received in cycle one. Of those twelve received critiques only two, or seventeen percent, were modified within the members’ strokes. However, the two modifications did not prove beneficial to the participants, because the two participants who each made one modification based on the peer review to their strokes, added time to their swims. During this cycle it was participant F3, who made no adjustments to her stroke who ended up improving her swim. So, why did stroke modification not help the participants? Although there are many potential reason, one very apparent reason is, of the twelve critiques given ten of them, or eighty-three percent, were directed at “kick”. Should a participant only receive a critique of an element of their stroke which they either don’t need to correct, or correct incorrectly the critique could prove to be counter intuitive, as was the case with M2 and F1 during cycle two. These results begged the question, how to increase a diversity in stroke analysis? Cycle three attempted to answer this question.
During cycle three a grand total of fifteen critiques were received. This number is still lower than cycle one, but higher than cycle two. Additionally, of these fifteen critiques, six, or forty percent were actually adapted into the participants strokes. The results displayed that three of the five participants improved their times during their swim. (In this cycle please note that one of the five participants was absent. This actually meant that four participants completed the cycle three study from start to finish, which also meant that three of four participants improved their swims.) Therefore, why were more swimmers able to improve their times? Like in cycle two, many answers could be present, however one difference from cycle two, and in alignment with cycle one, was a diversity in the critiques of the stroke technique received. Within cycle three of the fifteen total critiques received, five were “pull” targeted, four were directed at “kick” and six were focused on “body position”. This result lends itself to be interpreted that a diverse array of stroke technique critiques provide the swimmer with multiple options to correct increasing the chance they have to make proper modifications to their stroke, to help them improve. The question remains though, how to approach generating a diversity in stroke technique critiques?
To answer the aforementioned question, it is important to deduce the differences between the three cycles. The answer is the following: cycle one provided the swimmers with a form to fill out, helping direct their critiques to many diverse areas of stroke technique to consider when making their critiques. In cycle three, knowing this, a video containing a method of analysis was displayed to each participant. Cycle two, however, did not provide a clear structure to critiquing stroke technique, which, as indicated in the result, meant that eighty-three percent were directed at a single area. Hence the answer to the question, lies in providing a clear structure for a method of stroke analysis in order to receive diversity in the critiques given.
Personal Introspection
Diving into this study, changed a lot more than the swimming strokes of my participants, in many respects it also changed my coaching methods, how others perceive me and how I perceive myself.
As a result of this study, and seeing the importance of a diversity within stroke technique critique, when I comment on the strokes of my swimmers I now spend a great deal of time, each practice, informing them of multiple areas I believe they should considering working to correct. However, in addition to making sure to provide the swimmers with a variety of options, I also no longer dictate to them, what they need to do, rather, by thought provoking inquiring, I drop an initial thought into their ear, which then ripples over the surface of their thinking. ( This is clearly indicated by the increase in questions and feedback of ideas I receive from my swimmers, which is higher after having done this study than it was previously.) As a result the communication between myself and my swimmers has increased, as has the topic of stroke technique. These changes have not gone unnoticed by those who I don’t coach. Consequently these have also caused others to take notice of my coaching strategy.
Through observation, I have noticed swimmers from other groups, their parents and other coaches paying attention to what I am saying and what I am doing with my swimmers. In fact, one parent, of a kid in a younger group, came to me and said “My son, cant wait to move up to your group. He saw you in the water with your swimmers the other day and thought that you seemed like a ‘cool coach’”. Upon hearing this, I asked the parent, why she thought her son thought that of me. Her response was that I seemed like a coach who wasnt scared to try something new and keep it interesting for those I coach. Although, in previous years I have received compliments from parents, the majority were directed at my enthusiasm and personality. Since changing my methods, as a result of this study, I now hear more critiques directed at what I am doing as a coach and what the swimmers are learning. As a result of feedback, such as that previously mentioned, I have also come to see myself in a different way.
Since this study, I have changed the perspective of myself. Previously, I often considered myself to be the coach, who had a significant amount of success in his own swimming career, who loved the sport, and could offer great advice to those he coached. However, this often left the swimmers in awe of my accomplishments. The select few, with more determined personalities, would decipher that “if coach Matt could do it, I can too.” However, that being said, since this study I have now transitioned into being the coach, who is “on the same level” with those he coaches. As a result the kids have become increasingly comfortable to be around me and make mistake, and they have also been more intrigued to ask me about my opinions of their stroke and of the swimming superstars who inspire them. Essentially, I have come to view myself as a mentor. In the role of mentor I am committed to the success of my swimmers performances, but also increasing their knowledge about everything swimming related and how it pertains to life. Not to mention, I also work with my swimmers to make sure I am not the only resource during practice, and I encourage them to rely on each other for support and information.
Organizational Observations
Back paddling out of the introspective reflection, observations have also been made pertaining to the organization in which I coach. From efforts of my action research study I have noticed changes to other coaches within the organization, swimmers and their parents.
Coaches, like teachers, bring something individual and unique to their classroom or the pool deck as the case may be. Since the coaches have seen my effort in underwater recording the participants of my cycle studies, there has been an increased interest for me to record swimmers from other groups, as well, and hold discussion sessions. As a result of these inquiries, for the first time on my team, I see collaboration beginning to happen in the actual training environment between coaches. Rather than the coaches wanting to continue to hoard their own techniques for their specific training groups, an initial effort has been made to have me work with the swimmers of other groups. Should we proceed to work, as coaches, with each others’ swimmers, I believe that a long term result could become a coaching collaborative. A collaborative could provide for our swimmers a diverse practice curriculum composed of the varying groups of swimmers, segmented by age, being coached by a team of coaches rather than one at a time as they age. I believe this could lead to a swimmer with a very rich understanding of stroke technique, race strategy and training understanding.
Although, the impact I have seen my study have on the coaches within my organization, the greatest influence as been on the swimmers who partook in my study. Normally at a swim meet the coaches sit along once side of the competition pool, stationary, as they watch each swimmer race. The swimmers are typically required to talk to their coach before and after their races. However, the four participants from my study, who remain on the team, often spend their time, during a meet, sitting on the deck next to me. Without any provocation, these four swimmers will critique the strokes of the swimmers racing in the water, often pausing to ask me my thoughts on how the swimmer of their focus is swimming. As a result, we often dive deep into the discussion of stroke technique and why individualized stroke technique may be important. However, I am not the only person who has noticed this change in this small group of swimmers, the parents of this group and of other kids not involved in the study have noticed too.
Since starting the study, the parents of the participants have commenting to me that stroke technique has “clicked” with their swimmer. Often noting that on the car ride home after practice their young athlete will inform them of things they need to work on, in order to improve. In some cases the parents have even informed me that their swimmer has posted their goals on a display board in their bedroom at home. However, they are not the only parents commenting on the change in the swimmers attitudes. Since completing the study, a parent of a child, who I coach, and was not involved in the study approached me and asked, “Are you going to work with the rest of the group like you did with those kids, after your research is done?” To this I replied, “Yes.” The parent then proceeded to say, “Oh, that is good. Cause all of those kids have been improving and their strokes are looking better. I want my kid to do the same.” This indicates to me an appreciation for the work that has been done, the results of that work and a willingness to welcome it into the lives of other kids. As such, I have learned that extending the study is of interest to others.
Scholarly Level
The final area that I wish to reflect upon has to do with the broader picture. The effects of my work and its importance into the field of action research. While many studies have promoted the need for communities of practice, I believe that my study promotes it in a new area, age group competitive swimming. In order to express my point further, two points must be considered. First, teaching the swimmer to consider their peers as resources and second, for the coach to be among the athletes and not above them.
The importance of my action research, and its largest contribution, comes in the form of developing a community of practice within the age group competitive swimming environment. Often, like the classic lecturing professor, the coach is often the focal point of a practice environment. Typically, the swimmer arrive at practice to be told “what to do” and “how to do it” by their coach. However, hopefully with the proven benefit of peer reviewed stroke technique, coaches can help their athletes understand that their teammates are also resources from which they can refer and contribute. As I have said this would be most influential in the age group competitive swimming environment.
Lastly, in order for the age group environment to become a community of practice, it is necessary for the coach to become more than a lecturer. The coach needs to help the athlete develop into a critical thinker about their sport and the challenges that araise within competition. In order to do this the coach must collaborate with the swimmer and not command the athlete. Only through a process of mutually interactive discussion can the results for the swimmer clearly become individualized.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the impact of Seeing Below the Surface: How Technology Can Make Coaching a Shared Experience, extends itself not only to this action researcher, but to the organization, in which I coach, and it’s members. Additionally, the results of this study can be followed by other action researchers and improved upon. Truly making coaching a shared experience.