Did you know…that the greatest college basketball coach of all time

didn’t coach? He taught!

Rainer J. Meisterjahn

John Wooden was a teacher before he was a 10-time national champion coach of
the UCLA Bruins basketball team. Just like he did in the classroom, on the basketball
court Wooden believed in simple teaching instruction. His instructional statements were
specifically targeted at tactical and skill improvement of his players similar to an English
teacher who might tell his student not only to create a specific sentence but also how to
do so.

Gallimore and Tharp (2004) studied John Wooden’s coaching behaviors during the
1974-75 season. The researchers attended several practices and observed and recorded
acts of coaching, later described as teaching principles that the coach engaged in.
Gallimore and Tharp found that over 50% of Wooden’s statements to his players consisted
of specific instructions (what to do and how to do it) and over 12% were coded as hustles –
demands to intensify previously instructed behaviors. In contrast, only 6.9% of Wooden’s
statements were praises (i.e., compliments to reinforce desirable behavior) and 6.6%
reproofs (i.e., expressions of displeasure to discourage players from engaging in an
undesirable behavior). Additionally the researchers coded 8% of Wooden’s statements as a
combination of reproofs and reinstruction (i.e., expressions of displeasure, followed by
negative modeling, and concluded by modeling the desired action), which they referred to
as a “Wooden.” The findings were surprising to the researchers as they expected this
expert coach to use principles of reinforcement and punishment much more frequently,
particularly at a time when these behavioral principles of teaching were widely regarded to
be highly effective teaching methods.

While Gallimore and Tharp’s (2004) study recaptured the findings of the original
observational study, the researchers specifically followed up the original study 30 years
later in order to add depth and understanding to the findings. In order to do so they
reviewed their notes as well as Wooden’s books, interviewed the coach himself, and
captured reactions of a former UCLA player. Through these qualitative research methods,
Gallimore and Tharp came to the conclusion that the teaching behaviors Wooden engaged
in were intentional acts designed to help players understand and make them execute
behaviors that would lead to success. Wooden himself revealed that all of his practices
were the product of careful and systematic planning that included minute-by-minute
breakdowns of each session, similar to a lesson-plan. In this context Wooden emphasized
the importance of team as well as individual player development and explained that he was
able to specifically track individual players’ routines during each practice session. He
compared the need to understand the individual players’ needs to the importance of
recognizing the diversity of students’ learning styles in the classroom.

What Gallimore and Tharp (2004) had described as acts of instruction in their
initial study Wooden referred to as “the positive approach.” The coach believed in
directing players’ attention to the fine points in executing basketball skills and plays
correctly. This was confirmed by one of his former players who explained that the
information provided by Wooden helped him make adjustments and changes to his game
and develop as a player. Interestingly, the majority of Wooden’s instructions were
targeted at the “regulars” who received all the playing time. Wooden specifically had these
players working together as a unit in practice so they would accumulate hours learning
about each other’s tendencies and hence prepare for games, whereas the “bench players”
primarily served to compete against the main unit and make them better. This concept of
systematically accumulating practice time specifically to build skills and develop one’s game
(whether individually or as a unit) is consistent with the expert approach outlined by
Eriksson, who believes that 10 years or 10, 000 hours of such deliberate practice are
needed to become an expert.

Gallimore and Tharp’s (2004) study specifically focused on one expert coach.
Hence, the findings may not be easily generalizable to other coaches. While it appears
that Wooden’s teaching approach had a significant impact on the development of his
players (many of whom went on to become experts at the professional level) and the
success of his teams, other factors such as his personality may have contributed as well.
Nonetheless, the teaching method employed by Wooden provides a model of coaching that
allows and encourages the coach to specifically share his/her expertise with players. This
method is in stark contrast to coaching philosophies that strictly focus on behavioral
reinforcement and punishment without providing players with the “how to.” In conclusion,
through consistent instruction, modeling, and a systematic approach to team and individual
player development coaches can share their basketball expertise in order to help players
develop expertise.

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (2004). What a coach can teach a teacher, 1975-2004:
Reflections and reanalysis of John Wooden’s teaching practices. The Sport
Psychologist, 18, 119-137.