Nels Rydberg, MS
Assistant Coach
University of Portland
 Background
Information
• Motor Behavior Research
 Focus
of Attention
• Choose your words carefully
 Observational
Learning
• Two for the price of one
 Mindset
• What are they thinking?
 Ideas
and Questions
 Motor
behavior research
• Learning vs performance
 Retention test
• Open vs closed skills
 Generalizability
 Transfer test
 Volleyball skills
 Internal
focus: on body movements
 External focus: on the movement effect
• Not related to visual focus
Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a
review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77-104.
Wulf, G. (2007). Attention and motor skill learning.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
 Initial
findings
Wulf, G., Höß, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor
learning: Differential effects of internal versus external
focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 169-179.
• Pressure exerted on platform vs feet exerting the
pressure
• Markers on board horizontal rather than feet
horizontal
 Retention (and later, transfer) had no instructions,
internal or external
 Movement
effectiveness
• Accuracy, consistency, balance
 Movement
efficiency
• Muscular activity, force production,
cardiovascular responses
 Higher skill level is achieved sooner
 Benefits performance and learning
 Measurements
• Balance, accuracy, muscular activity, maximum
force production, speed and endurance,
movement kinematics and kinetics (whole-body
coordination patterns optimized)
 Tasks
• Golf shots, volleyball serve, kicks, free throws,
weight lifting, throwing accuracy and form,
jumping, sprinting, agility, swimming, rowing
 “…even
a single instructional cue can
impact whole-body coordination” (Wulf,
2013, p. 78).
• Why does this work?
 “Self-invoking trigger”
 Negative effects of self-consciousness
 Mindset?
 In
your gym
• Serving
 Target, point of impact on the ball
• Passing
 Target, trajectory
• Blocking
 Attacker’s shoulders, points to reach for
• Reading and external focus
Beckmann, J., Gröpel, P., & Ehrlenspiel, F. (2013).
Preventing motor skill failure through hemispherespecific priming: Cases from choking under pressure.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3),
679-691.
 In
short
• Right brain = automated behavior
• Squeeze left hand to activate right hemisphere
Shea, C. H., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (1999). Enhancing
training efficiency and effectiveness through the use of
dyad training. Journal of Motor Behavior, 31, 119-125.
Shea, C. H., Wright, D. L., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (2000).
Physical and observational practice afford unique
learning opportunities. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(1),
27-36.
• Form of mental training
 Model does not have to be an expert
 Experiment
1
• Physical vs observational practice
 Retention
 physical > observational > control
 Transfer
 physical = observational > control
 Better able to apply parameters and strategies
 Experiment
2
• Dyads: “…participants develop some form of
interactive relationship during practice…” (Shea,
et al., 2000, p. 34)
• Physical vs combined (physical and
observational) practice
 Acquisition
 Physical = combined
 Retention
 Physical = combined > control
• Physical vs combined (cont.)
 Transfer
 Combined > physical > control
 Physical deteriorated in transfer, combined did not
• Possible explanations
 What worked vs what did not
 Mental processing that cannot be done during
physical practice
 Social interactions including motivation and social
comparison
 Mindset?
 Benefits
and application
• Increased learning efficiency
 Space, equipment, time
• Decreased fatigue and chance of injury/overuse
 Effective use of rest intervals
• Teach your players to observe each other
• Design drills that facilitate observational
learning
Granados, C., & Wulf, G. (2007). Enhancing motor
learning through dyad practice: Contributions of
observation and dialogue. Research Quarterly for
Exercise & Sport, 78(3), 197-203.
• Observational practice enhanced learning
regardless of dialogue
 More
specifically
• Enhanced expectancies
• Conceptions of ability
• Self-confidence
• Social-cognitive
• Positive affect
• Intrinsic motivation
 Self-Determination Theory
(SDT)
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory
and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68-78.
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/
• Basic needs
 Autonomy, competence, relatedness
 Intrinsic motivation, positive affect
 Feedback
after successful trials
• Increased intrinsic motivation and self-
confidence
 Catch someone doing something well and tell them
about it
 Trip on the curb, shank one pass
Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled
feedback: Does it enhance learning because
performers get feedback when they need it? Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 408-415.
Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M.
(2011). Feedback after good trials enhances intrinsic
motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
82, 360-364.
Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Namazizadeh, M., & Wulf, G.
(2012). Feedback after good versus poor trials:
Differential effects on self-confidence and activation.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 196203.
 Acquirable
skill > inherent ability
• Incremental theorists > entity theorists
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2009). Conceptions of ability
affect motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41(5),
461-467.
 Normative
feedback
• “Above average” performance
Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2010). Social-comparative
feedback affects motor skill learning. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 738-749.
 Performance
under pressure
• Throwing accuracy
McKay, B., Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2012). Enhanced
expectancies improve performance under pressure.
Frontiers in Psychology, 3:8.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00008
 Experienced, trained
athletes
 Increased physiological efficiency
Stoate, I., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Enhanced
expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(8), 815-823.
 Why?
• Automaticity vs conscious control processes
 How?
• Instructions or feedback should focus on
learners’ improvements or effort invested in
practice

Ideas?
• Feedback after good trials
• Self-controlled feedback
 Establish the proper mindset
 Background
Information
• Motor Behavior Research
 Focus
of Attention
• Choose your words carefully
 Observational
Learning
• Two for the price of one
 Mindset
• What are they thinking?
 Ideas
and Questions
 Sharing
of ideas
• Focus of attention
• Observational practice
• Mindset
 Questions
Nels Rydberg
rydberg@up.edu