Say less, coach better.
What makes good feedback.
For coaches · 2 min read
A cue after every shot, a correction after every pass: that's what dedicated coaching often looks like. Research recommends fewer words and different ones.
First, the words. A cue that points to the goal of the movement ("Hit the middle of the rim") usually works better than one that points to the body ("Snap your wrist"). Gabriele Wulf summarized 15 years of research on this (Wulf, 2013). At the free-throw line, players who focused on the basket made more shots than players who thought about their wrist, and their muscles worked more calmly (Zachry, Wulf, Mercer & Bezodis, 2005). A large analysis of more than 140 studies confirms the advantage, especially for learning (Chua et al., 2021). How big it is exactly is now being debated. The direction has stayed the same.
Then, the amount. For a long time the rule was: players who get constant feedback rely on it instead of their own feel (Salmoni, Schmidt & Walter, 1984). Newer analyses see this less clearly. One finding in kids still fits the gym well: ten-year-olds who were allowed to decide when they got feedback learned a new movement better than kids who got the same amount of feedback on a fixed schedule (Chiviacowsky, Wulf, de Medeiros, Kaefer & Tani, 2008).
For the gym, that means: one cue per rep, phrased as a goal. And ask more instead of telling: "What did you see?"
Our theses
- A good cue points to the goal, not to the body.
- One cue per rep is enough.
- Feedback works best when the kid wants it.
In PRACTX
For every drill, PRACTX shows the goal, the setup and coaching points: how you can tell it's going well, and which mistakes are typical. That way you know before practice what to watch for and don't have to comment on everything in the gym. During practice, the live view shows the current drill, the time left and the next drill. Your eyes stay on your team.
Sources
- Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., de Medeiros, F. L., Kaefer, A. & Tani, G. (2008). Learning benefits of self-controlled knowledge of results in 10-year-old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(3), 405–410.
- Chua, L.-K., Jimenez-Diaz, J., Lewthwaite, R., Kim, T. & Wulf, G. (2021). Superiority of external attentional focus for motor performance and learning: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 147(6), 618–645.
- Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A. & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355–386.
- Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77–104. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728 (opens in a new tab)
- Zachry, T., Wulf, G., Mercer, J. & Bezodis, N. (2005). Increased movement accuracy and reduced EMG activity as the result of adopting an external focus of attention. Brain Research Bulletin, 67(4), 304–309.
As of 29 September 2026