View in EDS HTML Full Text

Practice Behaviors of Youth Soccer Players

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Practice Behaviors of Youth Soccer Players
Language: English
Authors: Smith, Robert C., Ward, Phillip, Rodrigues-Neto, Manoel
Source: Physical Educator. Win 2009 66(1):2-11.
Availability: Phi Epsilon Kappa Fraternity. 901 West New York Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202. Tel: 317-637-8431; Web site: http://www.phiepsilonkappa.org
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2009
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Males, Team Sports, Teaching Methods, Drills (Practice), Athletes, Physical Education, Athletic Coaches, Time Factors (Learning), Skill Development, Children
ISSN: 0031-8981
Abstract: Coaching youth athletes has much in common with teaching physical education. Over the past three decades there has been substantive research in physical education settings that has given educators empirical support for effective teaching practices to improve the learner's performance. However, little research has taken place in youth sport settings. The purpose of this investigation was to examine youth soccer training and game environments. The dependent measures were ALT-PE and opportunities for players to participate (i.e., number and success of trials). Three 9 year-old male players of average and below average ability levels participated in the study. Results show while the players were engaged 75.5% of practice time, there were less than 20 trials per 10-min for players to improve. These data have important implications for both coaching and physical education instruction. The most important of which is that coaches and teachers need to create practice environments that provide opportunities for students to engage in high numbers of successful trials. (Contains 3 figures.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 26
Entry Date: 2009
Access URL: https://www.phiepsilonkappa.org/public.html
Accession Number: EJ862173
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0037287366;pye01feb.09;2009Apr08.16:05;v2.2.460</anid> <title id="AN0037287366-1">Practice Behaviors of Youth Soccer Players </title> <p>Coaching youth athletes has much in common with teaching physical education. Over the past three decades there has been substantive research in physical education settings that has given educators empirical support for effective teaching practices to improve the learner's performance. However, little research has taken place in youth sport settings. The purpose of this investigation was to examine youth soccer training and game environments. The dependent measures were ALT-PE and opportunities for players to participate (i.e., number and success of trials). Three 9 year-old male players of average and below average ability levels participated in the study. Results show while the players were engaged 75.5% of practice time, there were less than 20 trials per 10-min for players to improve. These data have important implications for both coaching and physical education instruction. The most important of which is that coaches and teachers need to create practice environments that provide opportunities for students to engage in high numbers of successful trials.</p> <p>It has been estimated that upwards of 35 million children and youth, ages 6 to 16, are involved in organized sports in and out of school (McCallister, Blinde, & Kolenbrander, 2000). These youth are taught by 2.5 million adults in non-scholastic sport settings and by about 400,000 in high schools (Malina, 1997). Many of these coaches are trained in formal coach education programs such as the American Sport Education Program and the National Youth Sports Coaches Association (Siedentop, 2001). Despite the increasing emphasis on training coaches there is very little empirical evidence that can be used to guide coaching practices in youth settings. Much of the literature on coaching and player behaviors has focused on elite coaches and their athletes (Lee, 1993; Tkachuk, Leslie-Toogood, & Martin, 2003).</p> <p>Coaching elite athletes is not the same as coaching recreational youth athletes. The instructional skills needed to coach youth in recreational leagues have much more in common with physical education than it does with elite sports. Youth coaches and physical educators have the task of developing skills, knowledge, and values with their charges. Both teaching and coaching are complex and challenging activities because youth vary in learning styles, in the skills they bring to the learning environment, and in their motivation to participate (McCallister et al., 2000). There are at least two important differences between coaching and physical educations settings. First, youth athletes participate on a team because they have an interest in the sport, while students in physical education classes participate as a requirement of their school curriculum. Second, in the coaching setting the coach is able to spend more time on a practice session, and often more frequently per week, than physical education teachers can devote to instruction. Moreover, in coaching contexts this time is devoted to one sport. This is not the case in physical education where teachers often cover as many as five sports in what would be considered a single soccer season. These differences notwithstanding, coaching youth in recreational settings and teaching these youth in physical education is more alike than dissimilar. Given the similarities between instructing in physical education and youth sports, using the physical education research strategy of examining player behavior could contribute an important piece of the puzzle of youth sports that is currently missing. This strategy is characterized by systematic and direct observation of player behavior.</p> <p>Research conducted in physical education has shown that time spent in the practice of motor skills is quite low. Students are engaged with the learning task for less than 30% of the lesson (Siedentop, 2001). Researchers report that students in physical education spend 22-32% of their time waiting, approximately 21% of their time receiving instruction from their teacher, and close to 15% of their time involved in management tasks (e.g., assignment to groups). Research instruments such as Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE; Siedentop et al., 1982) have been used to collect the data. Time-based instruments like ALT-PE distinguish between two broad categories of student behavior, non-motor engaged activity (e.g., waiting, management, and instruction), and motor engagement (e.g., time spent practicing and being successful). Because the majority of time is used in non-motor engaged activity there is less time for practice and this ultimately limits the students' opportunities to improve. As a result of this, physical education researchers and teacher educators have for more than two decades, emphasized the importance of devoting time to learning and correspondingly minimizing non-motor engaged activity. Research from this line of inquiry into how teachers arranged lessons in terms of time and how students spend their time have become important mediating variables in understanding teaching effectiveness defined in terms of student learning in physical education (Metzler, 1989). The absence of a similar literature in the youth coaching area provides little guidance to coaches regarding best practices.</p> <p>Knowing how students spend their time in physical education and coaching settings provides a key piece of the puzzle to understanding what is going on in these instructional settings. This data has one limitation, time-based variables do not provide information relative to the number of learning trials students have in a lesson nor the success of those trials. In the past decade the use of trials as a dependent variable has been used to provide another piece of the puzzle relative to student learning in physical education. Typically trials have been used as measures of technical performance and outcomes in a number of studies to show the effects of instruction on student performance (Ward & Barrett, 2000). Using trials as a variable is particularly useful, because unlike time which is a measure of the duration that students are engaged in the activity, trials provide a direct measure of the number of times a student performed the skill and the number of times a student was successful or the outcome was successful.</p> <p>There is also a considerable body of research in physical education that has provided a basis for the validation on teaching practices. There is a much smaller literature base that supports the instructional practices of coaches in youth settings, and there is a dearth of information about player behavior in youth sports. If a pedagogical coaching literature is to develop, it will probably do so in a manner similar to the way it developed in physical education. The initial process will begin with descriptive studies of the various youth coaching settings. Thus, our interest in this study focuses on the issues of player opportunities. In this descriptive study we examine four research questions (a) How do youth soccer players spend their time in training sessions? (b) How many opportunities (i.e., learning trials) do players receive in training sessions? (c) What is the success rate of these learning trials during training sessions? and (d) How many times are players in possession of the ball during a game?</p> <cn>Method</cn> <p>Participants</p> <p>The participants were three 9-year-old male soccer players participating in a competitive 9-year old and under soccer team in the Midwest United States. We chose to examine players who were of average and below average ability because our assumption is that the more skilled players are, by definition, more successful and in more frequent possession of the ball. Two players (Bobby and, Sam, Pseudonyms) were purposely selected by the head coach because they had below average skills when compared to the team on a pre-season (Spring) skills assessment, and on the previous the post-season (Autumn) evaluation. Similarly, one player (Mark) was selected because he had demonstrated skills that were judged, using the skills tests and previous season evaluation, as average skilled. The playing experience of the players on the team ranged between four and five years of recreation soccer. The coach was an experienced physical education teacher, a holder of United States national youth soccer licensure, an experienced trainer of youth soccer players, and a former professional and Olympic soccer player. Training sessions and games were held on soccer fields in the local community.</p> <p>The study was conducted over the course of the spring soccer season. The team typically practiced twice a week, and played two games per week. Additionally, three weekend tournaments were played over the season in which the team played three to four games in a two-day period. The players were involved in 20 training sessions and 16 games over the course of a 10 week season.</p> <p>Training sessions lasted approximately 90-min. The sessions were organized to include 15-min of technical training with the ball, 10-15min of possession games, 25min of the concept of the day (i.e., combination play and defensive principles), 10-min of 2 vs. 1 training, 10-min of a 4 vs. 4 teaching scrimmage, and culminated with a 20-min free-play scrimmage. Data in practices were collected during the 2 vs. 1training and the 4 vs. 4 teaching scrimmage. Data were also collected during games with other teams.</p> <p>Dependent Variables</p> <p>Data were collected from a sample of 12 training sessions, and 5 games. Two classes of variables were used to describe the training and game settings. The ALT-PE instrument (Siedentop et al., 1982) was used to describe how students spent their time in training sessions. Opportunities to learn were measured in two ways. First, the number of total trials was used to provide an indication of the opportunities each player had to perform a skill. Second, the successful performance of these opportunities was coded according to the criteria stated by the coach in the instructions delivered to the players. These two variables were measured during 2 vs. 1 continuous games and 4 vs. 4 scrimmages during practices and reported separately. Finally the possessions were recorded during games against other teams. These variables are described below.</p> <p>Academic Learning Time--Physical Education-short version. The ALT-PE short version is a coding instrument that describes how students (players) spent their time in the following categories: management, transition, waiting, knowledge, activity, and off-task behavior. Definitions of these variables can be found in Table 1. The instrument uses a six-second observation, six second record interval coding system in which decisions are made at both levels in each interval (Siedentop, et, al., 1982). Data are reported for six categories of player behavior: management, transition, waiting, knowledge, activity, and off-task. We chose the short version because many of the behaviors in the long version were not applicable in the setting we were observing.</p> <p>Trials in possession of the ball during continuous 2 vs. 1 game. Three scenerio's were observed during this activity. First, occasions when the defender did not put pressure on the attacker were coded. This occurred when the attacker dribbled the ball into the open space to engage the defender. Second, occasions when the defender placed pressure on the attacker but denies the pass were coded. This occurred when the attacker dribbled the ball into the open space and towards the goal. Third, occasions when the defender placed pressure on the attacker to prevent the attacker from dribbling to the goal were coded. This occurred when the attacker passes the ball to the teammate in the open space.</p> <p>These behaviors were coded whenever the attacking team had a 2 vs. 1 overload situation. Each game was played for 10 min.</p> <p>Trials in 4 vs. 4 teaching scrimmage. Following the 2 vs. 1 game, players participated in a 4 vs. 4 game. The game consisted of two teams playing on a 25 yard (wide) by 35 yard (long) field with 2 goals measuring 21 feet wide by 7 feet high. Three field players and one goalkeeper represented each team. Off-side was the only rule not employed in the game. The coach officiated the games. The number of times a 2vs. 1 overload situation occurred for the individuals playing during the 4 vs. 4 scrimmage was coded.</p> <p>The number of possessions in a game per individual. The number of times the players were in possession of the ball in a game was compared to the total number of possessions in the game by the team. This measure was used to provide some indication of the extent to which a player came into direct contact with the ball. The measurement however, does not include off-the ball behavior.</p> <p>Training of observers. Three individuals familiar with the game of soccer collected data for this study. The observers were trained first in the definitions of each dependent variable. They then observed live training sessions and discussed the codes. After further practice to develop their coding skills by observing live training sessions observers were then required to code a 20-min session and meet a criterion of agreement with the first author that exceeded 90%.</p> <p>Interobserver Agreement</p> <p>Interobserver agreement measures were assessed on 100% of the practice sessions that included the Continuous 2 vs. 1 activity and the 4 vs. 4 scrimmages. Agreement was computed by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. The overall mean was 85.75% (range, 76.9% to 93.75%). Interobserver agreement measures were also assessed on 80% of the league games (4 of 5 games). Agreement was computed by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. The overall mean was 96.8% ranging from 92.8% to 100%.</p> <cn>Results</cn> <p>Time: The ALT-PE results for the players was remarkably similar regardless of skill level. Because there was less than a 5% variance on any variable among the participants we have reported the results as a mean across sessions for all participants. Figure I displays the means across the six categories of the ALT-PE short version instrument. Time spent in management related activity was consistently less than 2% of the total session time. The means of time spent in the other categories were: transitioning from activities to activity 10% ranging from 5.8%-13.6%, waiting for a turn to practice 5.8% ranging from 4.3%-7.2%, receiving knowledge from the coach 7.45% ranging from 5.6%-9.3%, and engaged in soccer activities 75.5% (range 70%-81.4%). There were no occasions where players were coded as off-task.</p> <p>Figure 2 shows the number of trials for each participant during the 10-min, 2 vs. 1 activity. Bobby averaged 9.5 (range, 7-12) trials per practice session with an average of 6.5 ranging from 4-9 successfully performed. Sam averaged 17.0 (range, 16-18) trials per practice session with an average of 13.5 (range 11-16) trials successfully performed. Mark averaged 10.3 (range, 9-11) trials per practice session with an average of 8.3 ranging from 7-10 trials successfully performed.</p> <p>Figure 3 shows the number of trials for each participant during the 10-min 4v4 scrimmage. Bobby averaged 3.0 trials per practice session (range, 3-3) with an average of 2.5 (range, 2-3) successfully performed. Sam averaged 7.0 (range, 7-7) trials per practice session with an average of 5.5 (range, 4-7) successfully performed. Mark averaged 3.5 (range, 0-5) trials per practice session with an average of 2 (range, 0-5) successfully performed.</p> <p>Results obtained from the league games indicated that that the mean of the five games for Bobby was 7.6 (range 5-12) times per game in possession of the ball and for Sam, 10.8 times (range 8-13). We were unable to collect results for Mark because of the dynamic nature of the game context.</p> <cn>Discussion</cn> <p>The activity time for the players is high when compared to effective activity time for physical education classes. Transition and waiting time is low which means the players were spending less time in non-motor engaged activity. Receiving knowledge was the highest non-motor engaged activity with players spending between 5.6% and 9.3% of their time. Regardless of ability level the players all engaged in high levels of on-task behavior that exceed 70% of their practice sessions. This is quite high when compared to around 30% physical education lessons (Siedentop, 2001). Much of the explanation for these ata lies in the capability of the instructor because of his expertise he possessed both the content knowledge and the pedagogical skills to create well organized practices.</p> <p>While the time-based data show similarity for the three players for the 2 vs. 1 and 4 vs. 4 sessions, analysis of the trial data show that players did not have similar opportunities to practice their skills. There are two findings here that are important. First, the total number of trials typically does not exceed 2 per minute in the 2 vs. 1 game and 1 per minute in the 4 vs. 4 scrimmage. This is not a very high engagement rate and stands in contrast to the time based data. This finding should be interpreted in two contexts. On one hand, these data captured on-the-ball behavior for each player, but not off-the-ball engagement. Most players in soccer spend more time engaged in off-the-ball behavior than in possession of the ball. So while trial data indicate that there were few actual trials, the same data hide the fact that the players may have been on-task in appropriate positions to receive the ball or to move to a position to receive the ball. On the other hand the data must also be considered in the context of equitable opportunities to learn.</p> <p>At this point in time we simply do not know if this engagement rate is low or high relative to players' skill acquisition. In this study we have argued that the instructor was highly organized and had good content knowledge. At least one conclusion from this is that this might represent the upper level of engagement. If more trials are needed for skill acquisition then longer periods of practice with these drills are needed. In this study we used 10-min intervals for each drill.</p> <p>Second, despite the differential opportunities to engage in these activities the success rate for the players for the most part were above 77% (an exception is Bobby's performance in the 2 vs. 1). This is a very high success rate and provides further evidence that the tasks were presented at an appropriate level of difficulty. Researchers have reported a positive, moderate to high, relationship between correct trials and achievement (Ashley, Lee, & Landin, 1988; Buck, Harrison, & Bryce, 1991; Silverman, 1985; 1993).</p> <p>The game data show that Bobby had a trial on the ball every 4.2 minutes in the game; Sam had a trial in possession of the ball every 2.9 minutes of the game. Again we do not know if this represents high or low levels of possession for youth players because there is no database against which to compare the data. However, we think that compared to the 4 vs. 4 scrimmage data these represent considerably less opportunity to learn. This league used 8 vs. 8 games (8 players per team) played on 45 yard (wide) by 80 yard (long) fields. This is developmentally inappropriate and these data, though from a very small sample, provide initial evidence to support arguments for smaller sided teams. US Youth Soccer (2005) recommends players at this age and developmental level playing 6 vs. 6 games on a field size of 35-45 yards (wide) by 45-65 yards (long). This is an important concept for both youth sport and physical education settings. Coaches and teachers should not only understand the importance of modified (short-sided games), but should implement modified (short-sided games) as well.</p> <cn>Recommendations</cn> <p>A unique feature of this study is the use of both time-based and trial data (both numbers of trials and percentage success in trials) collected in a youth soccer practice setting. Very little research has taken place in youth sport settings that describe how players engage in that environment. Using both time and trial data affords a more comprehensive analysis of player performance. Clearly, there is a need to conduct more descriptive studies that will create a data base to help establish a benchmark against which to make judgments about coaching practices and player performances. In this study we examined only player performance. In future studies both coach and player performance should be analyzed.</p> <p>A second feature of this study is data that were collected in game settings. In terms of game data, statistics such as goals, assists, and saves are often kept by coaches, but, there is limited data relative to performance of a player during a game. From the data collected, we can see that players have limited possessions of the ball in a game. Strides have been made over the last decade to limit the players on the field for younger ages. US Youth Soccer (2005) has recommended 4 vs. 4 games for players at the U-8 level; 6 vs. 6 games for players at the U-10 level; 8 vs. 8 games for players at the U-12 level; and 11 vs. 11 games for players over the age of 12. However, many youth leagues continue to play the adult game, and have not accepted the recommendations of US Youth Soccer. A promising line of future research would be to observe players involvement in the modified games recommended by US Youth Soccer, and compare with leagues who continue to play with more players on the field.</p> <p>A third feature of the study is the use of players of varying skill levels to compare the data. Skill evaluations done before the season observed allowed us to choose players to be involved in the study that had varying degrees of skill. Based on these findings, it is apparent that while players were involved in motor-engaged activity for effective periods of time during training sessions (e.g., ALT-PE), the trial data shows us that players were receiving little opportunity to improve because of the limited trials in possession of the ball during training activities, scrimmages, and in league games. Future studies should analyze their data using skill level.</p> <cn>Conclusions</cn> <p>The results of this study are limited by the small sample size in terms of players observed, and the team observed. It is also limited to youth soccer. Our goal in this study, like those used in the physical education descriptive literature (Siedentop, 2001) was to collect detailed performance data on fewer players rather than less detail on more players. These results of this study have important implications for both coaching and physical education instruction. While time based variables such as ALT-PE are extremely useful indicators of discrete skill training when the focus shifts to tactical play careful attention needs to be made to the number of opportunities students get for on-the ball play. Coaches and teachers need to create practice environments that provide opportunities for students to engage in high numbers of successful trials.</p> <hd id="AN0037287366-2">Table 1. Definitions of the Short Version of ALT-PE</hd> <ct id="AN0037287366-3"> Management (M) Content of the lesson related to class business, unrelated to instructional activity such as taking attendence, informing the class about organizational events. Transition (T) Transitioning the students from one activity to another related to instruction. Waiting (W) Period of no activity and no movement between activities where students are waiting for instruction or an opportunity to participate. Knowledge (K) Content of the lesson related to listening to instructions, watching a demonstration, questioning, and discussing. Activity (A) Content of the lesson related to engaged in motor activity, actively responding, actively supporting Off-Task (O) Occasions where the specific student is not engaged in any of the goals of the lesson.</ct> <p>GRAPH: Figure 1. Mean ALT-PE data for training sessions</p> <p>GRAPH: Figure 2. Mean Total and successful trials for the 2 vs. 1 Scrimmage</p> <p>GRAPH: Figure 3. Mean Total and successful trials for the 4 vs. 4 Scrimmage</p> <ref id="AN0037287366-4"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R. Doman, M., & Howard, G. S. (1988). Performance posting, goal setting, and activity contingent praise as applied to a university hockey team. Journal of Applied Pyschology, 72, 87-95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Alderman, R. B. (1976). Analysis of incentive motivation in young Canadian athletes. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 1, 177-179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Ashley, M. H., Lee, A. M., & Landin, D. K. (1988). Relationship of practice using correct technique to achievement in a motor skill. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 115-120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Buck, M., Harrison, J. M., & Bryce, G. R. (1991). An analysis of learning trials and their relationship to achievement in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 115-120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Donahue, J. A., Gillis, J. H., & King, K. (1980). Behavior modification m sport and physical education. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 311-328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Galvan, Z. J., & Ward, P. (1998). Effects of public posting on inappropriate on-court behaviors by collegiate tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 419-426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Greenspan, M. J., & Feltz, D. L. (1989). Psycho logical interventions with athletes in competitive situations: A review. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219-236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Lee, C. (1993). Operant strategies in Sport and exercise: Possibilities for theoretical development. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 24, 306-325.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sports. Journal of Sports Psychology, 1, 205-222.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>McCallister, S. G., Blinde, E. M., & Kolenbrander, (2000). Problematic aspects of the role of youth sport coach. International Sports Journal, 4, 9-26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Malina, R. M. (1997). Program for athletic coaches' education (PACE) into the 21st century [Online]. Available: http://www.educ. msu.edu/units/dept/PEES/ysi/SpotlightWin97 /pace.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Martin, G. L. (1992). Applied behavior analysis in sport and physical education: past present and future. In. P. West & L. A. Hamerlynk (Eds.), Designs for excellence in education: The legacy of B. F. Skinner. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Metzler, M. (1989). A review of research on time in sport pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 87-103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>McKenzie. T. L., & Rushall, B. S. (1974). Effects of self-recording on attendance and performace in a competitive swimming training environment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 199-206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Siedentop, D. (2001). Introduction to physical education and sport. (4th Ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982). Academic Learning Time-Physical Education coding manual (Rev. ed.). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Silverman, S. (1985). Relationship of engagement and practice trials to student achievement• Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 13-21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Silverman, S. (1993). Student characteristics, practice, and achievement in physical education. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 54-61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Stryer, B. K., Toiler, I. R., & Lapchick, R. (1998). A developmental overview of child and youth sports in society. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America (Philadelphia) 7, 697-724.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Swain, A., & Jones, G. (1995). Effects of goal-setting interventions on selected basketball skills: A single subject design. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 51-63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Tharp. R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today, 9, 75-78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Tkachuk, G., Leslie-Toogood, A., & Martin, G. L. (2003). Behavioral assessment in sport psychology. Sport Psychologist 17, 104-117. US Youth Soccer (2005, May 27). Small Sided Games manual. Retrieved February 6, 2007 from <ulink href="http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/doc_lib/">http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/doc_lib/</ulink> Small_Sided_Games_Manual.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Ward, P. (1993). Theory into practice: Training coaches in the field. The Coaching Director, 7(2), 30 -35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Ward, P., & Barrett, T. (2002). A review of behavior analysis research in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 242-266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" type="bt"></bibl> <bibtext>Ward, P., Smith, S., & Sharpe, T. (1997). The effects of accountability on task accomplishment in collegiate football. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 17, 40-51.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Robert C. Smith; Phillip Ward; Manoel Rodrigues-Neto and Peng Zhang</p> <p></p> <p>Mr. Robert Smith teaches at Liberty Elementary School, Worthington School District, Ohio.</p> <p>Dr. Phillip Ward is a faculty member at the Ohio State University where Manoel Rodrigues-Neto & Peng Zhang are graduate students in the doctoral program.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ862173
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Practice Behaviors of Youth Soccer Players
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Smith%2C+Robert+C%2E%22">Smith, Robert C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ward%2C+Phillip%22">Ward, Phillip</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rodrigues-Neto%2C+Manoel%22">Rodrigues-Neto, Manoel</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Educator%22"><i>Physical Educator</i></searchLink>. Win 2009 66(1):2-11.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Phi Epsilon Kappa Fraternity. 901 West New York Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202. Tel: 317-637-8431; Web site: http://www.phiepsilonkappa.org
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Males%22">Males</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Team+Sports%22">Team Sports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drills+%28Practice%29%22">Drills (Practice)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletes%22">Athletes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Athletic+Coaches%22">Athletic Coaches</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Factors+%28Learning%29%22">Time Factors (Learning)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0031-8981
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Coaching youth athletes has much in common with teaching physical education. Over the past three decades there has been substantive research in physical education settings that has given educators empirical support for effective teaching practices to improve the learner's performance. However, little research has taken place in youth sport settings. The purpose of this investigation was to examine youth soccer training and game environments. The dependent measures were ALT-PE and opportunities for players to participate (i.e., number and success of trials). Three 9 year-old male players of average and below average ability levels participated in the study. Results show while the players were engaged 75.5% of practice time, there were less than 20 trials per 10-min for players to improve. These data have important implications for both coaching and physical education instruction. The most important of which is that coaches and teachers need to create practice environments that provide opportunities for students to engage in high numbers of successful trials. (Contains 3 figures.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 26
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://www.phiepsilonkappa.org/public.html" linkWindow="_blank">http://www.phiepsilonkappa.org/public.html</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ862173
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ862173
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 2
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Males
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Team Sports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drills (Practice)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Athletes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Athletic Coaches
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Factors (Learning)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Practice Behaviors of Youth Soccer Players
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Smith, Robert C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ward, Phillip
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rodrigues-Neto, Manoel
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2009
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0031-8981
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 66
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Educator
              Type: main
ResultId 1