The development of digital technology, such as video, to assist athletic 10
development is becoming common place (Ives et al., 2003) and coaches and players 11
are both able to use this technology to improve their performance. The weekly 12
structure of a football academy is fairly stable, and involves a process of continuous 13
review and development of which reflection is a part of an iterative action-research 14
cycle. Learning can happen through a number of means; for example, through 15
experience, reflection, study or instruction (Nelson et al., 2006). By combining 16
aspects of coaching, psychology and performance analysis, the delivery of video 17
feedback could be seen as an integral part of the learning processes within the life of 18
the youth footballer. For example, the post-match team debrief meetings provides a 19
weekly opportunity for group reflection on the performance of the team, units and 20
individuals, and to agree future goals. Other video-based opportunities to reflect on 21
performance are provided for the players in one-to-one video feedback sessions and 22
video self-reflection, and for the coach in the form of post-match analysis packages 23
and training videos. These processes provide coaches, players and staff alike with an 24
opportunity to provide unequivocal, honest and open feedback coupled with the 25
18
promise of support and potential action. The team and individual meetings especially 1
provide a vehicle for promoting the coach-athlete relationships, and helped the 2
players to better understand what is expected of them and how (in co-operation with 3
the coach) they can achieve it (Potrać et al., 2002). Effects on player learning have 4
been found to relate to different preferences for receiving performance analysis 5
feedback, thus demonstrating the importance of understanding athletes as individuals 6
(Groom et al., 2011, Nelson, Potrac & Groom, 2014). In addition, the effectiveness 7
of coach–athlete interactions has been highlighted to be effected by a number of 8
complex interacting social factors such as coaching knowledge, power, respect and 9
the suitability of the learning environment (Groom et al., 2011, Nelson et al., 2014).
10
It short, it is a valuable learning opportunity woven into the fabric of the academy 11
system.
12
MacKenzie & Cushion (2013) argue that understanding learning in relation to 13
PA requires a consideration of the learners (e.g. athletes, coaches) and the world they 14
inhabit and internalise. Arguably the best theoretical framed explanation for how 15
coaches and athletes informally learn has come from Gilbert and Trudel’s (2001) 16
experiential learning model. Experiential learning is defined as being intentional and 17
can be mediated or unmediated, and is different from learning from experience which 18
is largely unintentional. Schön’s (1983, 1987) theory of reflective practice provides 19
an effective framework for analysing and explaining how people frame their 20
knowledge and learn from practice experiences. MacKenzie & Cushion (2013) 21
highlight the potential of using a learning theory, such as Schön’s (1983) 22
Experiential Learning Theory (ELT), as a tool to help researchers understand and 23
structure experiential learning to develop domain-specific knowledge in the context 24
of professional practice (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001, 2004).It has been argued that this 25
19
informal learning occurs through reflection triggered by practical dilemmas that 1
occur and is governed by a role frame, an individual’s frame of reference that is 2
formulated on experiences and perceptions (Gilbert and Trudel). Role frames acted 3
as filters that influenced which scenarios were and were not considered worthy of 4
reflection. Research by Groom and colleagues (2011) has demonstrated how these 5
role frames play an important part in the way coaches deliver PA within professional 6
soccer.It is clear that learning from PA cannot be viewed as occurring in a vacuum, 7
but as a part of complex realities associated with modern day sporting environments, 8
which involve interactions between individuals of different ages, class, experiences, 9
gender, philosophies, race and values (Potrac et al., 2002).
10
Reflection - a concept which has been linked to video replay (Groom &
11
Cushion, 2004, 2005; MacKenzie & Cushion, 2014) –has been identified consistently 12
in the sport literature as a useful framework to understand informal learning. The use 13
of reflection within video-based learning seems intuitively beneficial. Within sport, 14
reflection has become a widely employed tool to aid understanding and development 15
(Cassidy, Jones & and Potrac, 2004), and is a key process which athletes, coaches 16
and practitioners can use to cognitively analyse personal performance to encourage 17
learning and development (Ghaye, 2001).
18
Gilbert & Trudel outlined three forms of reflective practice: reflection in action (i.e.
19
during the action present), reflection on action (i.e. within the action-present but not 20
in the midst of activity, as in half-time video feedback) and retrospective reflection 21
on action (i.e. outside of the action present, as in post-performance video feedback).
22
Some research has examined reflection as a by-product of PA video feedback 23
(Groom & Cushion, 2004, 2005; MacKenzie & Cushion, 2014). Hammond (2004) 24
ascertained that performance analysis techniques utilized to develop athletic 25
20
performance may also be beneficial to sports coaching. He advocates the use of 1
video within reflective practice, in order to encourage a more holistic evaluation of 2
the instructional process in sport. Fraser (2008) explored how video can be used to 3
assist the learning process of nineteen inexperienced coaches. Nineteen 4
inexperienced coaches recounted their experience of using a video recording of a 5
personal coaching practice, identifying five themes pertaining to the use of video in 6
reflection: (a) Reflective process; (b) Purpose of reflection; (c) Video reflection in 7
coaching; (d) Personal learning from video; and (e) Practical implications. The 8
coaches reported that video reflection helped them improve their coaching by 9
highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in performance that may be overlooked 10
through their formal coaching experiences.
11
The importance of understanding how video fits within this complex and 12
interchanging environment is demonstrated in a recent study by Pain and Harwood 13
(2007). The author’s explored coaches, sport scientists and players perceptions of the 14
performance environment within international youth football squads in England. This 15
study used a ‘…semi-structured protocol with a prospective sample [of], national 16
coaches (n = 6), sport scientists (n = 3), and players (n = 4), [who] were interviewed 17
directly following international tournaments about the factors that positively and 18
negatively influenced performance’ (2007, p. 1307). They found support amongst 19
coaches and performance managers for the usefulness of video within the 20
performance environment as tactical tool, a pre-match preparation tool, a post-match 21
evaluation tool, and as a process for improving the coach-athlete relationship. At a 22
macro level, the coaches identified the importance of positive impact of integrating 23
video work into the long-term goals of the team, e.g. via a consistent tournament 24
strategy. At a micro level, the results show that the coaches saw video as an effective 25
21
psychological tool both pre- and post-match, and as a source of team and self-1
efficacy information an interesting component. While this study offered some 2
support for the role of video-based practice in youth football, it also highlighted the 3
relevance of using qualitative methods to explore the applied setting.To date, 4
however, there remains a limited understanding of the complex role video-based 5
practice plays in the development of youth footballers from a learning perspective.
6
To be able to understand the range of factors at play with video-based 7
practice researchers have recently begun to argue for the development of empirically 8
grounded models of performance analysis use ‘in action’ (Cushion, Armour & Jones, 9
2006), in response to the overly-simplistic, unproblematic and idealistic models 10
proposed for the analysis of performance which have dominated the research to date.
11
It is acknowledged that within the elite youth football settings, understanding the 12
attitudes, actions and behaviours of coaches and players is be central to the creation 13
of effective learning and performance environments (Gilbourne & Richardson, 14
2006). Research has shown that how the coach facilitates learning in the athlete is 15
crucial to enhancing performance (De Marco, Mancini & Wuest, 1996; Moore &
16
Franks, 1996). As coaching behaviours during practice have been found to directly 17
relate to the quality of the experience for the athlete (Smoll, Smith, Barnett, &
18
Everett, 1993), it is logical to assume that the behaviours of the coach outside of 19
practice also directly influence the quality of athletic performance. This makes the 20
study of coaches’ behaviours an important area of applied research. Indeed, if 21
coaches are to be successful, it is essential that they acquire knowledge of what 22
coaching behaviours are desired by, and most effective for, their athletes (Laughlin, 23
& Laughlin, 1994; Brewer, Selby, Under, & Pettipas, 1999).
24
22
Whilst experimental studies have dominated video research to date, recent 1
qualitative research within the Performance Analysis (PA) literature has begun to