Coaching and off-field staff thread

Joined
May 3, 2005
Posts
86,838
Likes
79,801
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Moderator #651
The mention of learning styles worries me. This concept has been disproven by research.
Uh, what?

In practice, scaffolding and differentiation are still core planks of teaching students with different needs regardless of what research on something as broad and nebulous as “learning styles” indicates.

I have no doubt there would be players who are able to strengthen their understanding of a gameplan and their performances by looking at videos, stats, and X and Os on a whiteboard.

Then within that there would be players who just instantly look at the video and instantly say “yep, I let my opponent get goalside of me at that ball up, got it” or “as soon as that ball was turned over I needed to sprint to the fat wing and close down the switch, I need to react quicker next time”. Then there might be players who need it to be pointed out and explained in more detail, and look at a bunch of similar case studies to identify what should happen in each case.

Then there would be other players who get relatively little from this sort of analysis and make 90 percent of their learning gains out on the field actually executing it at training and being coached on the fly. Let’s face it, while the “research” on how knowledge is acquired might indicate that it is basically the same for everyone, that doesn’t change the fact that if someone is bored, they will be less engaged, and learn less.

Teaching is about using limited resources and time to get the best outcome from your cohort. You don’t have time to waste telling individuals stuff that they already know, or banging your head against a wall trying to explain something in theoretical terms to another individual something that they are really only going to learn and entrench through hands on practice and experience.

As with pretty much everything in football, every small percentage edge you can eek out is vital. Understanding how your players learn most effectively and building your teaching program around that is simply another opportunity to gain an extra couple of percent. I’d be annoyed if we weren’t looking at this.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dlions

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Posts
4,961
Likes
5,249
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Uh, what?

In practice, scaffolding and differentiation are still core planks of teaching students with different needs regardless of what research on something as broad and nebulous as “learning styles” indicates.

I have no doubt there would be players who are able to strengthen their understanding of a gameplan and their performances by looking at videos, stats, and X and Os on a whiteboard.

Then within that there would be players who just instantly look at the video and instantly say “yep, I let my opponent get goalside of me at that ball up, got it” or “as soon as that ball was turned over I needed to sprint to the fat wing and close down the switch, I need to react quicker next time”. Then there might be players who need it to be pointed out and explained in more detail, and look at a bunch of similar case studies to identify what should happen in each case.

Then there would be other players who get relatively little from this sort of analysis and make 90 percent of their learning gains out on the field actually executing it at training and being coached on the fly. Let’s face it, while the “research” on how knowledge is acquired might indicate that it is basically the same for everyone, that doesn’t change the fact that if someone is bored, they will be less engaged, and learn less.

Teaching is about using limited resources and time to get the best outcome from your cohort. You don’t have time to waste telling individuals stuff that they already know, or banging your head against a wall trying to explain something in theoretical terms to another individual something that they are really only going to learn and entrench through hands on practice and experience.

As with pretty much everything in football, every small percentage edge you can eek out is vital. Understanding how your players learn most effectively and building your teaching program around that is simply another opportunity to gain an extra couple of percent. I’d be annoyed if we weren’t looking at this.
And to add, that the Coaching staff are willing to spend their time with different kids in different ways is an absolute credit to them and a credit to the program that has been put in place.
Trying to get the best out of your students, must be the ultimate goal.
 

Gibbo_88

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Posts
4,006
Likes
1,650
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Interesting comment DanT7 , would you say you don't have some ways of learning that are more productive than others?

I know that I need to watch video's and have conversations about topics to really learn something as opposed to a lecture or reading/writing.
 

Nunez

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Posts
10,045
Likes
16,626
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Uh, what?

In practice, scaffolding and differentiation are still core planks of teaching students with different needs regardless of what research on something as broad and nebulous as “learning styles” indicates.

I have no doubt there would be players who are able to strengthen their understanding of a gameplan and their performances by looking at videos, stats, and X and Os on a whiteboard.

Then within that there would be players who just instantly look at the video and instantly say “yep, I let my opponent get goalside of me at that ball up, got it” or “as soon as that ball was turned over I needed to sprint to the fat wing and close down the switch, I need to react quicker next time”. Then there might be players who need it to be pointed out and explained in more detail, and look at a bunch of similar case studies to identify what should happen in each case.

Then there would be other players who get relatively little from this sort of analysis and make 90 percent of their learning gains out on the field actually executing it at training and being coached on the fly. Let’s face it, while the “research” on how knowledge is acquired might indicate that it is basically the same for everyone, that doesn’t change the fact that if someone is bored, they will be less engaged, and learn less.

Teaching is about using limited resources and time to get the best outcome from your cohort. You don’t have time to waste telling individuals stuff that they already know, or banging your head against a wall trying to explain something in theoretical terms to another individual something that they are really only going to learn and entrench through hands on practice and experience.

As with pretty much everything in football, every small percentage edge you can eek out is vital. Understanding how your players learn most effectively and building your teaching program around that is simply another opportunity to gain an extra couple of percent. I’d be annoyed if we weren’t looking at this.
This 100%. Well put TBD.
 

BRAB

Just Hip my Wood
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Posts
24,519
Likes
36,641
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Uh, what?

In practice, scaffolding and differentiation are still core planks of teaching students with different needs regardless of what research on something as broad and nebulous as “learning styles” indicates.

I have no doubt there would be players who are able to strengthen their understanding of a gameplan and their performances by looking at videos, stats, and X and Os on a whiteboard, while other players get very little from it and make 95 percent of their learning gains out on the field actually executing it at training and being coached on the fly.
Just googled "learning styles", so am now an expert.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...ning-styles-scientists-neuroscience-education

Looks like the main issue that people are worrying about is applying a fixed mindset which obviously isn't occuring in the context of what's going on at the lions given that they literally identify weaknesses as growth areas.
 

blynd_freddie

Roughed Scuffed & Tuft
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Posts
6,620
Likes
5,138
Location
in the August fog of '71
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
The Bulls, Pamplona

SizeMatters

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Posts
12,592
Likes
11,310
Location
Reality
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
For example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131516302482

There is a multitude of academic, peer reviewed journal articles that dispel the learning styles myth.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Dunno man. I reckon learning styles in an ideal world is the way to go. Unfortunately due to lack of resourcing and a lot of shit teachers in Australia it can't be achieved. I'm a kinesthetic learner myself and will absorb much more information that way, but it's probably the least used 'technique'. I just can't uptake any information if it's verbally taught for example. I'm grateful my current job is open to these learning styles and I benefit greatly from it. :)
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Posts
86,838
Likes
79,801
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Moderator #661

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DanT7

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Posts
1,515
Likes
760
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
If you think that means that everyone should be taught the same way then you have misconstrued the research significantly.
No, I don’t think that, at all. Reliance on learning styles in learning design or development is, however, naive. Unfortunately, many of us have been told that we have a particular learning style, and despite the evidence, are married to this idea. With this in mind, I imagine that people will remain unconvinced that it is ill-founded, despite the evidence. Nonetheless, I encourage you, and anyone else interested (particularly anyone in a teaching or L&D role) to look into it critically and cease the propagation of the simplistic reliance on learning styles. I’m not blaming Scott, he was inevitably taught this in his own teaching degree, and I suspect that if you quizzed a bunch of teachers they would attest to it’s accuracy. However, the contemporary research clearly indicates that learning styles are a myth. The article I linked to (which is peer reviewed) is a good place to start if you want to informed.
 

DanT7

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Posts
1,515
Likes
760
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Dunno man. I reckon learning styles in an ideal world is the way to go. Unfortunately due to lack of resourcing and a lot of shit teachers in Australia it can't be achieved. I'm a kinesthetic learner myself and will absorb much more information that way, but it's probably the least used 'technique'. I just can't uptake any information if it's verbally taught for example. I'm grateful my current job is open to these learning styles and I benefit greatly from it. :)
So what might be at play is that you have been told that you are kinaesthetic and this means you resist other instructional or learning methods.

I do agree about the lack of quality teachers in Australia. The causes for this are actually quite complex, and go beyond pay. Unfortunately, the low quality staffing begins at early childhood (in daycare centres and the like).

Nonetheless, even ignoring learning styles, the value of tailoring learning experiences (and particularly, motivational approaches or feedback) to the individual is valid.

Here’s another, more accessible article for those interested: https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/tackling-the-learning-styles-myth.
This one isn’t peer reviewed as such, but from a trusted industry publication.
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Posts
86,838
Likes
79,801
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Moderator #665
Dan you are too hung up on the concept of "learning styles" as some fundamental theoretical construct and almost certainly applying the term in the same way Borlace is.

There is the idea of learning styles as some sort of high level meta-cognitive process of how we acquire knowledge and then there is the more widespread application of the term relating to adjusting the teaching practice to gain the best outcomes from different learners.

You said it yourself, tailoring learning experiences to the personality type and needs of the individual is incredibly beneficial, and this is almost certainly what Borlace is talking about, and certainly us teachers.

I mean Marzano is still a thing for a reason, and it's not because the education industry suddenly stopped looking at peer reviewed evidence.
 

DanT7

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Posts
1,515
Likes
760
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Dan you are too hung up on the concept of "learning styles" as some fundamental theoretical construct and almost certainly applying the term in the same way Borlace is.

There is the idea of learning styles as some sort of high level meta-cognitive process of how we acquire knowledge and then there is the more widespread application of the term relating to adjusting the teaching practice to gain the best outcomes from different learners.

You said it yourself, tailoring learning experiences to the personality type and needs of the individual is incredibly beneficial, and this is almost certainly what Borlace is talking about, and certainly us teachers.

I mean Marzano is still a thing for a reason, and it's not because the education industry suddenly stopped looking at peer reviewed evidence.
TBD, I’ve tried to explain it to you, but it’s probably now time for you to engage with the extant research. What’s actually more important is tailoring feedback and motivational practice to the individual, not tailoring learning design to the individual. The problem is “us teachers” are getting it wrong all too often, and relying on what was taught in their teaching degrees, which was likely incorrectly reverent to learning styles.
The persistence of Marzano is not proof of credibility of learning styles or an impending demise of peer review evidence, so I’m unsure of your point.
However, I would suggest (without any evidence to substantiate) that any reflective practice or genuine effort to care for students (which the process of learning styles analysis encourages) is indeed valuable to learning outcomes.
 
Joined
May 3, 2005
Posts
86,838
Likes
79,801
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Moderator #667
Pfft no teacher uses any of the theoretical shite they learned in their education degree. Curriculum study only. Good god man. You really seem divorced from the practice.
 

jason pm

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Posts
13,471
Likes
24,403
Location
Walking distance
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fortitude Valley Diehards. Chelsea.
Zane Littlejohn on The Roar Deal this week was very impressive, worth the listen.

He was saying that the players like getting into The Touch Shop, and no The Divinyls isn't playing in the background.
 
Top Bottom