ORIGINAL PAPER
Microstructure of practice activities for team and individual sports
1
Faculty of Sports Science and Coaching, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim, Malaysia
Submission date: 2021-09-27
Acceptance date: 2022-04-29
Publication date: 2022-06-21
Hum Mov. 2023;24(2):70-77
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Research on the microstructure of practice activities has reported equivocal findings. Limited sports have been included in systematic observations. Playing form activities have not been examined for individual sports. This study scrutinized the amount of time devoted to different activities during practice and refined the usability of playing form and training form for various sports.
Methods:
Systematic observations were conducted in an elite sports school. Youth athletes aged 16–20 years and coaches from 6 different sports (hurdling, archery, field hockey, netball, squash, volleyball) were involved. Practice activities were categorized as playing form, training form, and transition, and compared between sports.
Results:
The proportion of different activities conducted during practice varied for each sport and coach. Hurdlers employed the longest time on transition (43%), squash players utilized the majority of time on playing form (40%), whilst the archers and all 3 team sports athletes consumed most time on training form (51–83%). Representatives of 3 sports did not engage in any playing form activities.
Conclusions:
This study showed that elite coaches are still applying traditional approaches in structuring practice activities. Coaches should employ playing form during practice sessions, but the definition needs to be adapted to encompass multiple sports.
Research on the microstructure of practice activities has reported equivocal findings. Limited sports have been included in systematic observations. Playing form activities have not been examined for individual sports. This study scrutinized the amount of time devoted to different activities during practice and refined the usability of playing form and training form for various sports.
Methods:
Systematic observations were conducted in an elite sports school. Youth athletes aged 16–20 years and coaches from 6 different sports (hurdling, archery, field hockey, netball, squash, volleyball) were involved. Practice activities were categorized as playing form, training form, and transition, and compared between sports.
Results:
The proportion of different activities conducted during practice varied for each sport and coach. Hurdlers employed the longest time on transition (43%), squash players utilized the majority of time on playing form (40%), whilst the archers and all 3 team sports athletes consumed most time on training form (51–83%). Representatives of 3 sports did not engage in any playing form activities.
Conclusions:
This study showed that elite coaches are still applying traditional approaches in structuring practice activities. Coaches should employ playing form during practice sessions, but the definition needs to be adapted to encompass multiple sports.
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Ericsson KA. Development of elite performance and deliberate practice: an update from the perspective of the expert performance approach. In: Starkes JL, Ericsson KA (eds.), Expert performance in sports: advances in research on sport expertise. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2003; 49–83.
2.
Williams AM, Hodges NJ. Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: challenging tradition. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(6):637–650; doi: 10.1080/02640410400021328.
3.
Baker J, Young B. 20 years later: deliberate practice and the development of expertise in sport. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2014;7(1):135–157; doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2014.896024.
4.
Coutinho P, Mesquita I, Fonseca AM. Talent development in sport: a critical review of pathways to expert performance. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2016;11(2):279–293; doi: 10.1177/1747954116637499.
5.
Farrow D, Reid M, Buszard T, Kovalchik S. Charting the development of sport expertise: challenges and opportunities. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2018;11(1):238–257; doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2017.1290817.
6.
Erikstad MK, Høigaard R, Johansen BT, Kandala N-B, Haugen T. Childhood football play and practice in relations to self-regulation and national team selection; a study of Norwegian elite youth players. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(20):2304–2310; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1449563.
7.
Hüttermann S, Memmert D, Baker J. Understanding the microstructure of practice: training differences between various age classes, expertise levels and sports. Talent Dev Excell. 2014;6(1):17–29.
8.
Deakin JM, Cobley S. A search for deliberate practice: an examination of the practice environments in figure skating and volleyball. In: Starkes JL, Ericsson KA (eds.), Expert performance in sports: advances in research on sport expertise. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2003;115–135.
9.
Rothwell M, Stone JA, Davids K, Wright C. Development of expertise in elite and sub-elite British rugby league players: a comparison of practice experiences. Eur J Sport Sci. 2017;17(10):1252–1260; doi: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1380708.
10.
Ford PR, Yates I, Williams AM. An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: exploring the link between science and application. J Sports Sci. 2010;28(5):483–495; doi: 10.1080/02640410903582750.
11.
Harvey S, Cushion CJ, Cope E, Muir B. A season long investigation into coaching behaviours as a function of practice state: the case of three collegiate coaches. Sports Coach Rev. 2013;2(1):13–32; doi: 10.1080/21640629.2013.837238.
12.
Low J, Williams AM, McRobert AP, Ford PR. The microstructure of practice activities engaged in by elite and recreational youth cricket players. J Sports Sci. 2013;31(11):1242–1250; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.778419.
13.
Gentile AM. Skill acquisition: action, movement, and neuromotor processes. In: Carr J, Shepherd R (eds.), Movement science: foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation, 2nd ed. Rockville: Aspen Publishers; 2000; 111–187.
14.
O’Connor D, Larkin P, Williams AM. Observations of youth football training: how do coaches structure training sessions for player development? J Sports Sci. 2018;36(1):39–47; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1277034.
15.
Stonebridge I, Cushion C. An exploration of the relationship between educational background and the coaching behaviours and practice activities of professional youth soccer coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2018;23(6):636–656; doi: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1485143.
16.
Partington M, Cushion C. An investigation of the practice activities and coaching behaviors of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(3):374–382; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01383.x.
17.
Hall ET, Gray S, Sproule J. The microstructure of coaching practice: behaviours and activities of an elite rugby union head coach during preparation and competition. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(10):896–905; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1076571.
18.
Deakin JM, Starkes JL, Allard F. The microstructure of practice in sport. Ottawa: Sport Canada; 1998.
19.
Cope E, Partington M, Harvey S. A review of the use of a systematic observation method in coaching research between 1997 and 2016. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(20):2042–2050; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1252463.
20.
Güllich A. “Macro-structure” of developmental participation histories and “micro-structure” of practice of German female world-class and national-class football players. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(12):1347–1355; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1558744.
21.
Hornig M, Aust F, Güllich A. Practice and play in the development of German top-level professional football players. Eur J Sport Sci. 2016;16(1):96–105; doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.982204.
22.
Kinnerk P, Harvey S, Kearney P, MacDonncha C, Lyons M. An investigation of the self-reported practice activities and session sequencing of inter-county Gaelic football coaches. Int Sport Coach J. 2019;6(2):211–219; doi: 10.1123/iscj.2018-0090.
23.
Brewer CJ, Jones RL. A five-stage process for establishing contextually valid systematic observation instruments: the case of rugby union. Sport Psychol. 2002;16(2):138–159; doi: 10.1123/tsp.16.2.138.
24.
McKenzie TL, van der Mars H. Top 10 research questions related to assessing physical activity and its contexts using systematic observation. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2015;86(1):13–29; doi: 10.1080/02701367.2015.991264.
25.
Cushion C, Harvey S, Muir B, Nelson L. Developing the Coach Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS): establishing validity and reliability of a computerised systematic observation instrument. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(2):201–216; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.635310.
26.
Grambow R, Born P, O’Shannessy C, Breuer J, Meffert D, Vogt T. Serve efficiency development in women’s vs. men’s professional tennis. Hum Mov. 2022;23(2):128–137; doi: 10.5114/hm.2022.109071.
27.
Fasold F, Houseman L, Noel B, Klatt S. Handball-specific skill acquisition by use of different instruction methods. Hum Mov. 2021;22(3):45–53; doi: 10.5114/hm.2021.100323.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-1955 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
