It’s in the nature of coaching that we have an idea of what the student should be doing and our aim is that they do it. But there are two paradigms for how we go about this: the most common one is one I call ‘working against’, but instead I think coaches should shift to ‘working with’ wherever possible. Instead of using ‘discipline’ to make students do what we want them to do, we should work with them towards our common goals.
(This is mostly relevant for coaching young people, as adults who willingly come along to anything we are teaching are typically quite willing to work with coaches, though the paradigm might still have some psychological relevance for how we engage with our emotional discomforts.)
Discipline
‘Discipline’ is the default mode of control in our society (I should clarify, I am British, though I think this applies generally to western/Anglo-American societies.) There are all sorts of hierarchical social systems, such as parents to their children, teachers to their students, bosses to their employees, and we could also include patriarchy, white supremacy, and so on. It is totally normal for a parent to say to their child, ‘If you don’t do X, then Y’.
In that scenario, the parent is bending the child to their will. They are saying, I have power, and if you do not do what I want, I will make it worse for you. This is authoritarian and coercive. Even if the parent uses the carrot approach, such as ‘If you behave well today I will give you sweets‘, this is still the parent trying to get the child to do what the parent wills.
Many coaches stay in this default mode of ‘working against’, attempting to make students do what we will them to. We raise our voices and shout at students to pay attention, and punish students such as making them sit out if they don’t behave. I often see coaches shaming a student too, whether it’s directly or through the social effects of their peers. I have seen this recently for a student who wasn’t listening, or to one who gave the wrong answer to a coach attempting some Socratic teaching. This isn’t only for behaviour but also for learning movements and techniques. Forcefully telling people to stop using their knees, or making someone learning a movement feel that they have done something wrong because they used the wrong hand, is still in the ‘working against’ paradigm.
Working With
Instead, I think we should use the ‘work with’ approach whenever possible. In this, as much as possible we encourage students to make decisions about what is best for themselves and then work with themselves towards goals. This a similar pattern to extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation. Fundamentally, the coach and the student should not be in an antagonistic relationship: we have pretty much shared goals! The student wants to have fun, get better at moving, and perhaps develop into a better person too. The discord comes in the means to reach that goal, such as particular exercises or particularities about taking part in the class.
Coaching Examples
Instead of raising my voice for my students to be quiet, I usually wait for them to listen. Periodically, I explain to them that being ready to listen will waste less time and improve their learning. There are times to chat and times to not chat. If I see someone messing around, I don’t tell them off but explain to talk to them about why they are doing what they are doing and explain why I think they should be doing something else instead.
Sitting out can happen, but that’s because I present the student with the choice of either joining in or not joining in and let them make that choice. In some situations, it might be that it’s a choice I enforce, but I try to make it as less a punishment as possible. Ultimately, if some of my students want to sit at the back of the room and chat to their friends instead of do the parkour that I’m offering to them, that’s their choice, and I’m not really into making people do something that they don’t want to do.
When I notice students doing movements where technique should be better, such as using their knees, I don’t express this at them in a coercive way. Instead, I show them why using their knees is bad (answer: ineffective technique that slows you down and can hurt yourself on hard surfaces), so that they agree that using their knees is bad. That way, when I remind them not to use their knees, they are on board with the shared goal of them not using their knees!
If someone is off task, instead of just telling them to do more, I ask them why they are doing what they are doing. ‘Grasshopper, why are you climbing up the frame instead of repeating the precision jumps I asked you to do?’. This treats them with respect, and this interaction can build trust as they learn that I am there to work with them and support them. It also gives the coach information as to why. Do they think it is too easy? They are bored? They just don’t like it? If they think it’s easy – Great, why don’t you show me! – and then we either praise their efforts or show them what next. Maybe we need to offer them something better to do!
The ‘working with’ is also relevant for class rules. Often coaches just tell (or shout) rules at students, but I think that explaining to students the why is a better approach. For example, ‘no chewing gum’. Instead of me telling them it isn’t allowed and them sulking, I explain that chewing gum is dangerous, they can choke on it while running around, and because gum is sticky it is hard to get out of someone’s throat. Usually they agree that they are better off not chewing gum and (almost) voluntarily bin it, but if they don’t want to then I can enforce the rule (coercively) but making clear that it is because I care about their safety.
It would often be quicker to just shout instead of explaining the why, but over time I think it’s worth it and the results show. Ultimately, we aren’t just teaching people parkour: we are also teaching them to take responsibility for their actions. These explanations help towards that.
Conclusion
One final point – this also fits into my approach of trying to grow the students’ autonomy, both in terms the choices they make for themselves and for how much power I give them in my class. I tell them upfront, if you think this is too easy or you are bored, tell me and we’ll figure something else out. Sometimes I set ‘stations’ that are more open-ended. I also ask for feedback periodically, getting students to write down what they like about my classes, if there is anything they would like to be different, and what else they want to learn.
This working with approach isn’t just a principled one about respect; I also think that in the longer term, it gets better results. Classes can be smoother, students can learn better, and the coach can focus more on parkour and less on standing in line properly.
Any thoughts on this post or questions about particular situations, go for it!