{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033542976939203356, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002795248078266946, 'mean_word_length': 5.581609195402299, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What learning environments help improve decision-making?

ABSTRACT Background: Decision-making is a key component of performance in sport. However, there has been minimal investigation of how coaches may adapt practice sessions to specifically develop decision-making. Purpose: The aim in this exploratory study was to investigate the pedagogical approaches coaches use to develop decision-making in soccer. Method: Youth soccer coaches (n = 29) currently coaching youth teams (U11–U17) in Australia were filmed conducting two practice sessions. The first session was a regular training session, whereas in the second session, participants were asked to create an activity they believed would promote the development of on-ball decision-making. Systematic observation of the learning and teaching (LandT) component of each session was undertaken to provide a detailed analysis of the coach behaviours and practice activities in which they had players engage. During this activity, the number of on-ball actions was measured to reflect the associated decision-making opportunities. Coaches indicated how they believed decision-making is developed in players, the strategies they would employ to improve decision-making, the perceived success of the activity (i.e. did they achieve their aims), and modifications they would make if conducting the activity again. Data analysis: To assess differences between the regular training LandT activity and decision-making-specific LandT activity, coach behaviours, and on-ball actions, a Mann–Whitney U test was conducted. Coach perceptions were deductively analysed to identify main themes. Findings: Participants identified three main strategies for incorporating decision-making into training activity – repetition of real scenarios with guided discovery, prompting decision-making by providing cues or solutions, and manipulating the game/activity. There were no differences in the frequency, average duration, or the percentage of allocated time for any of the practice activity variables (i.e. Playing Form; Training Form; Inactivity), coach behaviours (instructions; questions; management) or the number of on-ball decisions per minute between the regular activity and decision-making-specific activity (p > .05). Descriptive statistics indicated the coaching practice was stop-start in nature for coaches to instruct or ask questions. Conclusions: Participants generally use strategies which may promote decision-making opportunities for players such as the use of questioning, constraints-led pedagogy, and Playing Form rather than Training Form activities. However, findings provide evidence to suggest the participants over-coach, with high amounts of instruction and a very stop-start nature to the activity. This coaching practice potentially limits the problem-solving and decision-making demands on players.