Ray and Becky Brown

In Part I we enumerated a series of challenges that the human learning process poses to teaching. In part II we examine how current teaching methods measure up to these challenges.
 

Current teaching methods are characterized by the wide spread use of metaphors, templates, and rules (MTR) as the basis for instruction. We will refer to this as the MTR Method. The wide spread use of metaphors, templates, and rules in tennis instruction has its origins in an era when there existed little scientific interest in sports. Since sports have become big business, scientific information has become a major avenue to gain a competitive advantage in most sports. However, tennis still lags behind football, basketball, and other major sports in capitalizing on science to improve the quality of tennis instruction.

The historical origins of the MTR method can be traced to three major factors: First, humans cannot see how a stroke is produced because it happens too fast. Second, we cannot remember how a stroke is produced even if we execute perfectly because our brains do not form an accurate memory of how physical actions are produced.; And third, there is very little research on the human learning process that goes into developing tennis teaching programs. As a result, teaching became focused on what we can see and remember and the MTR method developed as a result. For example, two parts of a stroke that we can see are the preparation and the follow-through. As a result, most professional instructors today still emphasize the follow-through. 
 

In the following sections we look at the MTR method and each challenge mentioned in part I.

The speed and degree of success in conveying an idea or a technique to a student depends on several factors, the most important being the clarity of the explanation. Among the factors that affect clarity, ambiguity stands out as one of the most common and serious. 

An explanation is ambiguous when there is more than one reasonable interpretation. For example, rules such as "hit the ball out front", "keep your feet moving" "bend your knees" , "watch ten ball" have numerous reasonable interpretations, many of which produce no improvement in skill level at all and some of which actually reduce the students skill level. The result can be confusion, a loss of confidence on the students part, or even resignation to failure.

A second source of ambiguity is the use of metaphors. For example "Hit through the ball", "Keep your eye on the ball", "Hold the ball on the racquet", "Take the ball early". All of these metaphors are imprecise and confusing and seem to mean something only to the one who is using them.

Templates are another matter. Humans learn best from relevance and experimentation, whereas templates require blind acceptance and rote repetition. The continued use of templates when there is an abundance of research to show that they are inferior to other methods of teaching illustrates just how hard it is to overthrow the outdated legacy system of instruction. 

The key problem with ambiguity is that learning is a matter of exploration, not rote repetition. When an instructor feeds a student balls, the student is not rotely repeating the template. This is impossible. What is happening is that the student, even against their will, is carrying out experiments to determine the limits and differences that are important in an activity. From these differences, a set of components are determined that can be assembled in various ways to obtain the desired result (Enforcing a template on the student interferes with this exploration process, and greatly retards learning). 

Further, ambiguity lengthens the exploration process because the student must explore possibilities that would be eliminated by precise information. For example if you tell someone that they can get to Washington D.C. by crossing the Potomac, they will have to explore a lot of options before getting to their destination. However, if you tell them in detail where the best crossing can be found, the time of their search will be greatly reduced. This is the same situation a tennis student faces when an instructor gives them metaphors in place of facts.
 

The approach to improving visual processing in the MTR method is generally to tell the student to "watch the ball". As noted in Part I, we do watch the ball, but usually with peripheral vision, and hence this rule generally provides no value. Further, it is entirely possible for a professional player to hit the ball with out watching it at all. The MTR method makes no effort to resolve these ambiguities, but rather insists on imposing rules with out reason. It is a fact that one can learn to hit the ball with peripheral if that is a goal. This can be done by first getting the student to understand that to do this, one must first make a large number of observations about the bounce of the ball and experiment with hitting the ball while watching with focal vision. From the data acquired by this process, our brains begin to develop the ability to extrapolate the trajectory after the bounce, thus allowing us to hit the ball with peripheral vision. It is not optimal, but it can be done with good effect. However, the rule based MTR method blocks this important avenue of development.
 

Metaphors, templates, and rules can only be meaningful if the logic and reasoning behind them is understood. However, if the logic and reasoning is available, i. e, if the meaning and relevance of the MTR’s is available, why not start with this in the first place. It is well known that the student will learn many times faster when they know the "Why" behind the rule. However, I know of no research into the "why" that has ever been funded by any professional tennis teaching organization.
 

The MTR method assumes that we know how we execute a stroke and can therefore tell someone else. Instructors often codify this belief as a set of rules. While teaching from rules is suboptimal, teaching from wrong rules is worse. Learning how one produces a stroke takes countless hours of study of high-speed video combined with extensive hypothesis testing to have any hope of knowing how strokes are produced. We note that some popular tennis publications have attempted to reduce the video to six frames and in the process only capture what is already taught in the MTR method. In short, these publications attempt to use high-speed video to justify the antiquated methods of teaching they know and thus miss the entire point of what high-speed video is providing. 
 

The MTR approach to this challenge is usually rote repetition. However, this is exactly what stifles growth and development. Langer's work of learning cited in Part I is one of the best resources to consult on this point.
 

The battle ground of learning is confusing to the casual observer. It seems incredible that a student can have a stroke down on one day and the next have almost no idea of what they did the day before. The problem is that the quality of the information provided by the MTR method is highly subject to disassembly. The remedy is to focus on meaningful components and the reasons behind them because when the right component is developed, it is rarely disassembled. Riding a bike is a good example of component based learning.

Stress breaks down reflexive recall: If you learn something by "conditioning" you may easily forget it under the pressure of a match.

The contrast between practice and match performance is one of the most long-standing mysteries in tennis. However, it is easily explained. The very nature of the MTR method is to develop strokes that are fragile under stress. The fragility arises from the unadaptability of templates and rules, and the lack of precision knowledge provided by metaphors. It is unreasonable to think that such training can stand up under pressure when the most rigorous and simple form of condition response training of animals cannot. 

A precise declarative knowledge (knowledge that can be accurately recited) is superior to reflexive knowledge under pressure. In part, this is because the presence of a precise declarative knowledge supports recall of reflexive actions and in part it is because declarative knowledge can be recited.

A good example we observed recently was of a tennis instructor who was also retired from US Special Forces. His approach to developing technique was to have his students to be able to write down what they were doing on paper. This requires declarative knowledge.

Declarative knowledge is the most effective countermeasure to the disassembly process and is responsible for the progress science and of the human species generally.

The MTR method ignores this challenge also in that the first layer is never laid down so that it will stick. A metaphor does not support layering. Templates are not layers of knowledge. In fact, template based training would be slightly better off if the templates were "metaphorically" thought of as the last layer in the stroke development process. But in the MTR method they ar, de facto, treated as the first. 

Further, a "template-like" action is normally the result of a specific set of circumstances that cause the assembly of a set of components to carryout a specific act. As such, they would be typically be discarded after a single use unless the exact situation on the court was reencountered on the next exchange. 

This is where the MTR method has its greatest shortcomings. Brains do not use templates because they cannot adapt to the constantly changing circumstances of life, and tennis. Hence a template based approach takes years to develop skills learn and typically result in the concurrent development of rigid styles of play that stifle growth potential.

Rules obstruct learning because our brains are seeking (through exploration and experimentation) to develop versatile and multifaceted components that can be employed in a variety of ways to solve problems or hit a tennis ball.

Metaphors are seldom useful except as a method of last resort in tennis because they are highly ambiguous. Some people will connect with them, this is just a statistical fact and provides no proof of their value. Under pressure, a metaphor will not likely aid in making a shot.

In Summary

The MTR method arose at a time when high-speed photography and science were luxuries rather than necessities. It was the best method available for many years. Today, science and technology, such as high-speed photography, are readily available. Consequently, it is time to update the legacy MTR method.