The two observed practice sessions were successful and effective in general; however, there were some points that needed to be improved. In addition, each practice had some considerable strengths and weaknesses, which were sometimes common in both practices. In order to evaluate and compare the practices in terms of comprehensiveness and efficiency, their similarities and differences should be assessed.
Although the two practices were different in many aspects, they had some common points. For instance, both practices were structured and consisted of four parts, including warm-up, main part, cool-down, and conclusion. Although having a structured practice plan is considered as the strength, studies show that comprehensive and effective practice …show more content…
A study showed that effective coaches would not treat all the athletes the same. They would recognize who needed more help and attention (Porter, Wu, & Partridge, 2010). Accordingly, both practices were effective regarding this aspect of coaching.
The head coach did not ask the athletes to give feedbacks about why they thought they needed to work on and improve in any of the two practices. In addition, the head coach did not ask the athletes whether they had a question or not at the end of the practice sessions; however, some research shows giving opportunities to athletes to share their opinions and ask their questions increases the learning rate (Sharkey, Ciavarelli, Ashury, Salinas, & Hannessy, 2005).
The two observed practices had several significant differences. One of the differences between these sessions was the time of the practice. Practice one was held at eight to ten o’clock in the morning, whereas practice two was at ten to twelve. In spite of the fact that this two hour difference in the start time might seem negligible, studies showed that learning is more efficient during the early hours in the morning (Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavas, …show more content…
However, the practice plans were not comprehensive in any of the two observed practice sessions. The plans did not include safety and equipment checks. In addition, the athletes did not have the chance of giving feedbacks or talking about what they needed to work on more. In spite of the mentioned common strengths and weaknesses of the two practices, practice two was more efficient and effective due to the fact that it was held early in the morning, the athletes were more actively engaged, and also no sign of boredom was observed among the athletes compared with the practice one. Moreover, presence of two assistant coaches in practice two increased the efficiency of this practice session, since in addition to the head coach watching all the athletes the same as practice one, each assistant coach took care of two athletes. Therefore, they could give more comprehensive and more precise feedbacks, and consequently could help the athletes improve
Although the two practices were different in many aspects, they had some common points. For instance, both practices were structured and consisted of four parts, including warm-up, main part, cool-down, and conclusion. Although having a structured practice plan is considered as the strength, studies show that comprehensive and effective practice …show more content…
A study showed that effective coaches would not treat all the athletes the same. They would recognize who needed more help and attention (Porter, Wu, & Partridge, 2010). Accordingly, both practices were effective regarding this aspect of coaching.
The head coach did not ask the athletes to give feedbacks about why they thought they needed to work on and improve in any of the two practices. In addition, the head coach did not ask the athletes whether they had a question or not at the end of the practice sessions; however, some research shows giving opportunities to athletes to share their opinions and ask their questions increases the learning rate (Sharkey, Ciavarelli, Ashury, Salinas, & Hannessy, 2005).
The two observed practices had several significant differences. One of the differences between these sessions was the time of the practice. Practice one was held at eight to ten o’clock in the morning, whereas practice two was at ten to twelve. In spite of the fact that this two hour difference in the start time might seem negligible, studies showed that learning is more efficient during the early hours in the morning (Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavas, …show more content…
However, the practice plans were not comprehensive in any of the two observed practice sessions. The plans did not include safety and equipment checks. In addition, the athletes did not have the chance of giving feedbacks or talking about what they needed to work on more. In spite of the mentioned common strengths and weaknesses of the two practices, practice two was more efficient and effective due to the fact that it was held early in the morning, the athletes were more actively engaged, and also no sign of boredom was observed among the athletes compared with the practice one. Moreover, presence of two assistant coaches in practice two increased the efficiency of this practice session, since in addition to the head coach watching all the athletes the same as practice one, each assistant coach took care of two athletes. Therefore, they could give more comprehensive and more precise feedbacks, and consequently could help the athletes improve