The Organization of Corrective Demonstrations Using Embodied Action in Sports Coaching Feedback

Abstract

Focusing on video recordings of coaching sessions in the context of basketball and powerlifting, this paper investigates how the sports coaching process unfolds as situated interactions. The work of sports coaching is pervasively oriented toward teaching athletes the correct forms of motion and play. Correction then is one of the central constitutive practices of sports training sessions. In this paper, we draw on a collection of instances of correction demonstrations from powerlifting and basketball to describe their order. We demonstrate the three phases of these demonstrations: arranging bodies and gaze for visual access, presenting the error visually, and proposing a correction with an embodied demonstration. Findings underscore the management of shared visual access in multi‐party correction demonstrations. In demonstrating how multiple bodies may be involved in embodied reenactments of a correctable problem, and demonstrating that it is seeing an error, more than reenactment per se, that is necessary for correction activities, the study extends existing understandings both of sports coaching processes and of instructional correction in embodied activities.

Tasks and instructions on the simulated bridge: Discourses of temporality in maritime training

“…This way of organizing instructions during ongoing action is seen also in studies from a wide range of different learning contexts, such as sports coaching, handicraft, healthcare and music practice (cf. Evans and Reynolds, 2016; Hindmarsh et al, 2014; Lindwall and Ekström, 2012; Weeks, 1985). What is specific to the instructional work done during maritime scenarios is the time frame for deliverance of corrections.…”

“…This instructional practice was found to be valuable for exposing the ‘correctable’, making the deficit noticeable for students in a variety of instructional practices. These include, for example, sports coaching (Evans and Reynolds, 2016), simulator-based dental training (Hindmarsh et al, 2014) and handicraft classes (Lindwall and Ekström, 2012). In this way, the use of contrasting pairs highlights matters that are not immediately tangible in instruction, rendering implicit matters explicit by comparing right and wrong work practices.…”

Introversive semiosis in action: depictions in opera rehearsals

“…Multimodal interaction analysis prioritizes the examination of members' practices for achieving local actions (in our case, below, achieving a proposal). The examination of actual, situated occurrences of multimodal depictions in interaction has overwhelmingly been in teaching contexts (though there are exceptions such as Due and Lange 2020 who demonstrates depictions body parts with other body parts in video mediated physiotherapy consultations; and Due 2016 for depictive gestures during business meetings) Termed "demonstrations," these depictions are used to correct and coach behaviour (Evans and Reynolds 2016), to model how other participants should configure their bodies (Nishizaka 2017), to highlight errors and provide alternatives (Keevallik 2010(Keevallik , 2017, to provide referents for imaginary practice (Stukenbrock 2012), and to model how an expert would approach the task with their professional vision (Goodwin 1994). This paper will provide an analysis of how depictions can be used in a non-teaching context, for the purpose of proposing options and creating art.…”

Humorous or occasioned instructions: Learning the “shoulder check” in theoretical and practical driving lessons

“…After this situational anchoring, the instructor adapts her instructions to the conditions of the stationary setting. One practice she adopts to make the shoulder check illustrative is defining it with the (global) format x is y, not a z (Deppermann & De Stefani 2019), mentioning both a positive example (y) and a negative contrast (z) with regards to the term (x), which in other occasions (faulty prior executions by novices) is a systematically used strategy in expert‐novice‐interaction to correct errors (Evans & Reynolds, 2016; Keevallik, 2010). Here instead it is designed as a (partly) humorous instruction, denoting an exaggerated action (see Drew, 1987).…”