Many of you may be aware that famed UCLA basketball coach John Wooden led the men’s college basketball program as coach when UCLA (the University of California Los Angeles) won ten of twelve college basketball championships from 1964 through 1975. The Los Angeles, California university’s basketball program, along with the athletes coach by Wooden, owe the man much from a perspective of the life model and philosophy that he has left behind.
(From left, Ronald Gallimore formerly of the Department of Psychiatry and Education at UCLA, and Roland Tharp, formerly of the Department of Education at the University of California Santa Cruz)
Research into the philosophy and conduct of John Wooden‘s coaching style, and the approach for delivering instruction that builds successful men, was conducted by Ronald Gallimore and Roland Tharp, with cooperation by Wooden, in 1975. That research was revisited in 2004 by Gallimore and Tharp with the article in the June 2004 edition of the periodical Sports Psychologist under the title What a Coach Can Teach a Teacher, 1975-2004: Reflections and Reanalysis of John Wooden’s Teaching Practices.
From left, Kareem Abdul Jabbar and John Wooden).
Including his immense success as coach at UCLA, Wooden had immense success as a leader of men. His respect among basketball legends Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bill Walton is well known, and in my opinion from the distance of third party accounts, well deserved. Today, though, I wish focus on learning I took about Wooden’s vision of coaching and teaching as an instrument of learning. As quoted from the article and elsewhere, Wooden’s vision included 4 laws of learning.
“The 4 laws are explanation, demonstration, imitation, and repetition. The goal is to create a correct habit that can be produced instinctively under great pressure. To make sure this goal was achieved, I created eight laws of learning, namely, explanation, demonstration, imitation, repetition, repetition, repetition, and repetition.”
I find this notion for how learning takes place compelling. As Wooden is quoted as saying in the article from 2002, “I think everyone is a teacher. Everyone! Maybe it’s your children, maybe it’s a neighbor, maybe it’s someone under your supervision in some other way. In one way or another, you’re teaching them by your actions.” This notion made the following anecdote from the article particularly insightful and resonant:
“You just don’t throw material out for someone to get, as I’ve heard some college professors say. I had a discussion with an English professor at UCLA. We were both asked to go to Sacramento by Dr. Murphy, the Chancellor at UCLA at the time. When we began to discuss teaching, [the professor] indicated that he was there to dispense material and students were to get.
And I said “I thought you were there to teach them.” He said, “No, no, college students should be getting it themselves. Maybe in the lower levels they’re taught [but not when they get to university].” And I said, “Well I think you’re always teaching.” I can still remember having that discussion. We just differed a little bit on our philosophy.”
For Wooden, his learning as a teacher was as important as ever the longer he went. He believed that he was getting better each year:
“I hope I was learning the very last year [I coached]. I don’t think I learned as much the last year as I did my first year but I hope I learned a little bit each and every year. . . . I think I learned more my first year of teaching than I ever did any other year. The second year I think I learned more than any other year following that, and the third year, and so on. And as time went by, maybe something new would come along that I’d learn.”
The relationships were important with the players, which makes the notion for how John Wooden organized his team, as well as the interactions with them. In the coaching arena, Coach Wooden aimed to use praise with a purpose. Wooden is quoted as saying “I believe in the positive approach. Always have.”
From left, Bill Walton and John Wooden).
Former UCLA player Swen Nater offered the following feedback about John Wooden‘s notion of praise with the following, as taken from the Gallimore and Tharp article:
“As a former student who committed many errors during practice and therefore having been the recipient of plenty of corrections, it was the “information” I received, during the correction, that I needed most. Having received it, I could then make the adjustments and changes needed. It was the information that promoted change. Had the majority of Coach Wooden’s corrective strategies been positive (“Good job”) or negative (“No, that’s not the way”), I would have been left with an evaluation, not a solution. Also, corrections in the form of information did not address, or attack me as a person. New information was aimed at the act, rather than the actor.”
The notion of how information is conveyed, and that it is done safely and with the notion of corrective action geared at the four laws of “explanation, demonstration, imitation, and repetition,” made the notion of reproducing the correct action under stress and with poise that much easier. The teaching implied in this, and having gone beyond mere dispensing of knowledge, gets to what I understand Wooden‘s approach to teaching to mean.
(Types of feedback by players who played in games and reserves who helped game players get ready).
Through much of Wooden’s successful 12-year run with ten NCAA collegiate championships. Typically the players who played in games were the five starters plus two reserves, for a total of seven players for any one game. Swen Nater remembers the feedback by Wooden and his staff going in this fashion:
“The regulars were reinforced by the attention they received during practice, by teaching (he taught regulars more than he taught us) and during games from the fans and media. The reserves were reinforced by being reminded that we needed to stay ready and that our role was to make the regulars better. We did receive praise during practice, more than the regulars, that is for sure.”
When it comes to John Wooden’s vision for his team, the notion of playing fewer players than some others may feel or felt appropriate came down to Wooden believing “that playing a limited number of men made for a stronger, more competitive team.” Wooden wasn’t apologetic for this, as shown in this quote from 2002:
“I wanted them to understand that I’m am only going to play seven, probably never over eight players. And my players have to learn to accept that. . . .I feel that we got better continuity [playing a limited number]. [Those that played regularly were] far more accustomed to playing together than if I was making constant substitutions. And I also felt that [the regulars] were going to be in better condition . . . than they would be otherwise. . . . [And] the others are going to be in good enough condition . . . to do what we need for them to do at any particular time. For the [7 or 8 regulars], I wanted them to have a lot of time working together so they’d learn to know each other on the floor.”
The point that Wooden further made had to do with the importance that communication played in making the reserves aware that there roles were important. (See the comments from Swen Nater above to confirm that some did in fact receive the message).
“. . . the [reserves] are going to be needed [and I needed to let them know that]. You’re going to be developing those that are going to be playing the most and you’re very important . . . we may have a injury or, or a sickness or some other thing that might cause us to lose one of [the regulars]. You have to be ready to step in. If the reserves are dogging it there’s not going to be any improvement in the regulars. So, I’ve got to constantly get across to them how much they are needed. I think it took a special effort to make sure that we do have harmony on the group as a whole.”
The communication about the importance of roles wasn’t fully received by all the players from each of Wooden‘s championship teams. Some players wanted more playing time, or to work with the top level players. Wooden addressed this, again in 2002:
“By practicing and playing only 7 . . . I don’t think it made for better harmony for the team as a whole. It made for better harmony [and consistency] among the seven regulars that are going to get the actual playing time. But [the reserves] are important to the development of the seven [regulars]. If they’re dogging it, there’s not going to be any improvement in 7 regulars. I’ve got to constantly get across to [the reserves] how much they are needed. I think it took a special effort to make sure that we do have harmony in the group as a whole.”
The dynamics and the lessons that come from the above article, and I’ve shared in part from the article written by Ronald Gallimore and Roland Tharp, were used as part of a research and present speech I offered at a Toastmasters International meeting today. This investigation into vision setting, teaching and learning, and some feedback about how to organize and execute around these points within a functional team setting were the focus of my presentation. I am doing the Leadership Development path within the Pathways Learning Experience.
Matt – Saturday, July 25, 2020
(Tigerland: 1968-1969 writer Wil Haygood in front of East High School in Columbus, Ohio).
(The 1968/1969 East High School basketball team was portrayed in the book Tigerland: 1968-1969 by Wil Haygood).
(The 1969 East High School baseball team was portrayed in the book Tigerland: 1968-1969 by Wil Haygood).
(Former 
(
(John Wooden‘s Pyramid of Success)
Matt Lynn Digital 