Correction SYMB Evans Reynolds

The Organization of Corrective
Demonstrations Using Embodied Action

in Sports Coaching Feedback
Bryn Evans
Auckland University of Technology
Edward Reynolds
University of Newhampshire
Focusing on video recordings of coaching sessions in the context of bas-

ketball and powerlifting, this paper investigates how the sports coach-
ing process unfolds as situated interactions. The work of sports coach-
ing is pervasively oriented toward teaching athletes the correct forms
of motion and play. Correction then is one of the central constitutive
practices of sports training sessions. In this paper, we draw on a collec-
tion of instances of correction demonstrations from powerlifting and
basketball to describe their order. We demonstrate the three phases of
these demonstrations: arranging bodies and gaze for visual access, pre-
senting the error visually, and proposing a correction with an embodied
demonstration. Findings underscore the management of shared visual
access in multi-party correction demonstrations. In demonstrating how
multiple bodies may be involved in embodied reenactments of a cor-
rectable problem, and demonstrating that it is seeing an error, more than
reenactment per se, that is necessary for correction activities, the study
extends existing understandings both of sports coaching processes and
of instructional correction in embodied activities.
Keywords: Conversation Analysis, Ethnomethodology, Sports Coach-
ing, Coaching Process, Instructional Corrections, Embodied Action
INTRODUCTION
Understanding members’ practices of analysis of the body represents a method-
ological imperative for ethnomethodological and conversation analytical (EMCA)
research inquiry. By describing a member’s methods of bodily analysis, EMCA
Direct all correspondence to Bryn Evans, School of Communication Studies, Auckland University of
Technology, City Campus, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand; e-mail: bevans@aut.ac.nz
Symbolic Interaction, (2016), p. n/a, ISSN: 0195-6086 print/1533-8665 online.

© 2016 Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1002/SYMB.255
2 Symbolic Interaction 2016
researchers improve our analytical repertoire for the description of bodily action. In
service of this aim, investigators have chosen to explore contexts of instruction and
the embodied work of those “perspicuous settings” (Garfinkel 2002:181) in which
the bodily practices are made visible and available for analysis (Lindwall and Lymer
2014). To this end, investigators have explored practices of instruction in embodied
skills in a range of contexts, including archeological excavations (Goodwin 2003),
dental education (Hindmarsh, Hyland, and Banerjee 2014; Hindmarsh, Reynolds,
and Dunne 2011; Lindwall and Lymer 2014), surgery (Koschmann et al. 2011), cro-
chet classes (Lindwall and Ekstrom 2012), dance classes (Keevallik 2010), orchestral
rehearsals (Weeks 1996), and violin lessons (Nishizaka 2006). These scholars have
argued for the importance of investigating the instruction of embodied conduct on
three grounds. First, the mastery of manual skills is central to people’s capacity to
function as competent participants in social life, but the practices through which they
develop and instruct such skills have received relatively little academic attention
compared to the research focusing on classroom instruction in subjects such as
science and mathematics (Lindwall and Ekstrom 2012). Second, within settings
of embodied instruction the corporeal practices through which competent perfor-
mances of the activities in question are achieved are deliberately made observable
and instructable for members (Koschmann et al. 2011; Lindwall and Lymer 2014).
In the process of instruction, these practices, normally obscured in the proficient
doing of such activities, are also made available to analysts (Lindwall and Lymer
2014). Third, the material and bodily nature of the activities in which novices are
being instructed makes these settings perspicuous sites for investigating cognitive
processes, such as knowledge, understanding, and professional vision, in and as
embodied interactional practices (Goodwin 1994; Hindmarsh, Reynolds, and Dunne
2011; Koschmann et al. 2011).
While there exists a corpus of EMCA research exploring the organization of social
action within sporting activities (e.g., Allen-Collinson 2006; Button and Sharrock
2013; Coates 1999; Fele 2008; Girton 1986; Hockey and Allen-Collinson 2013; Kew
1986; LeCouteur and Feo 2011; Macbeth 2012; Meyer and Wedelstaedt 2016; Tolmie
and Rouncefield 2013), sports coaching has not yet received sustained or program-
matic attention from ethnomethodologists or conversation analysts. Recently, how-
ever, sports sociologists have begun to identify the promise of EMCA for addressing
coaching questions. Jones and Corsby (2015) assert the potential of ethnomethod-
ology (EM) for understanding coaching processes. They argue that the insights of
Garfinkel, in exposing weaknesses of approaches to social action that rely on cogni-
tivist assumptions, can be usefully drawn upon by coaching scholars in order to move
beyond dominant conceptualizations of the coaching process, which are often char-
acterized by a focus on the coach’s cognitive processes and a consequent neglect of
the social and interactional contexts in which coaching takes place. Miller and Cronin
(2012) focus on the problematic conceptualization of context within existing coach-
ing studies. They argue that rather than relying on theorized versions of context,
as sociological studies of coaching tend to do, developing an ethnomethodological
Corrective Demonstrations in Sports Coaching 3
sensitivity to what the participants in the coaching activity themselves take to be the
relevant context for their actions has the potential to “provide a foundation for inter-
pretative frameworks focused upon meanings as they are constructed, interpreted,
negotiated and transformed by coaches and athletes alike during the actual (flexible)
contexts of coaching” (Miller and Cronin 2012:120). Groom et al. (2014), focusing
on conversation analysis (CA), argue that CA’s empirical grounding and focus on
publicly observable phenomena offers a methodology for developing a better under-
standing of the practices and structures constituting athlete-coach interactions. Over-
all, then, sports coaching scholars see the potential utility of EMCA in the access it
provides to the shared embodied practices through which coaching actions and con-
texts are constituted.
To date, the engagement with EMCA by sports coaching scholars has primarily
consisted of theoretical and methodological discussions, and the uptake of EMCA
in empirical coaching studies remains very limited. Groom, Cushion, and Nelson’s
(2012) analysis of coach-athlete talk-in-interaction is an exception to this general
observation. The study focuses on interactions between a football coach and his play-
ers during video-based performance analysis sessions and aims to develop insight
into the interactional practices through which pedagogical tasks are accomplished.
The researchers collected video recordings of video feedback sessions, transcribed
the talk using CA transcription conventions, and analyzed the interactions in terms
of turn-taking and sequence organization. They argue that the interaction is struc-
turally organized through the use of a modified turn-taking system that restricts the
players to answering questions and responding to invitations, thereby reproducing
the institutional authority of the coach. In a second example of EMCA research
focusing on a setting of sporting instruction, Okada (2013) uses data of boxing coach-
ing sessions to explore questions of interactional competence. Analyzing an activity
involving a boxer throwing punches at his coach’s hands, Okada demonstrates that
the coach conveys precise instructions to the boxer through finely organized gestures
involving both of the coach’s hands working simultaneously to accomplish different
parts of the instructional action. Okada points out that the communicative com-
petencies involved in building these actions are not simply properties of individual
cognition on the part of the coach, but given that the practices are oriented to both
the coach and boxer in realizing their coconstructed activity, they are public and
intersubjectively shared.
While EMCA-informed investigations of coaching practice have yielded some
interesting initial insights, only a very limited range of features of the situated orga-
nization of coaching processes has been described as yet. Of particular relevance to
this study is the absence of consideration afforded to the practices through which
athlete performances are corrected in training sessions. However, while correction
practices have been largely overlooked within coaching research, the correction of
embodied activities is a topic that has received attention from studies of instruction
in nonsporting contexts. We believe the field of sports coaching stands to benefit from
attending to these studies, focused as they are on settings in which the development
of skill is “not only about seeing or discerning what should be done but about getting
the body to act in certain ways” (Lindwall and Ekstrom 2012:42). We very briefly
outline some of the key discoveries of this body of research here.
Weeks (1996), analyzing corrections in the context of orchestral rehearsals, found
that correction was accomplished through instructors’ turns consisting of organized
combinations of verbal expressions and “illustrative expressions” embodying certain
features of the music. These turns were themselves frequently organized into “con-
trast pairs,” in which an embodied reenactment (Sidnell 2006) of a faulted version
of the musical passage (a “correctable”) is closely followed by another enactment
exemplifying the conductor’s prescribed version. The deployment of variations of
this contrast pair sequence to accomplish corrections has also been outlined in the
context of crochet lessons (Lindwall and Ekstrom 2012) and dental training simu-
lations (Hindmarsh, Hyland, and Banerjee 2014). It is important to note here that
these contrast pairs are one specific form of reenactment that participants use to
bring into play the “habitat of a previous scene” (Thompson and Suzuki 2014). A
key finding of the literature on reenactments is the way in which they provide recipi-
ents with visual access to relevant details (Sidnell 2006). Sidnell (2006) demonstrates
the way in which, like direct reported speech (Holt 2000), reenactments show rather
than tell their recipients about the reported scene. Instead of providing a description,
reenactments provide visual access, albeit in a “quoted” analytical way, to the prior
actions enacted by the reenactor. This shows participants’ sensitivity to the primacy
of accounts that have visual access to a scene (Sacks 1972).
In an important example of the accomplishment of correction through the sit-
uated use of a specific form of reenactment to show details of the scene, Keeval-
lik (2010:401) describes a multi-modal practice deployed in the context of dance
instruction sessions, which she terms “bodily quotation.” In the course of correcting a
learner’s dance steps, the dance instructors often reproduce a learner’s faulty perfor-
mance, “invok[ing] other bodies with their own body in order to make a pedagogical
point.” Keevallik discusses a sequential organization of corrective demonstrations in
dance teaching consisting of the following steps: (1) a sequence of dance steps, (2)
opening a corrective sequence, (3) demonstrating incorrect performance (the bodily
quotation), (4) demonstrating correct performance, (5) explanation, and (6) oppor-
tunity for dance students to demonstrate understanding. Keevallik’s study shows the
importance of the sequential positioning of the bodily quote within the correction
sequence for its intelligibility as a reenactment of the learner’s incorrect conduct. Fur-
thermore, her study illustrates the deployment of a specific practice of reenactment
for dealing with specific situational considerations. In the setting of dance instruction,
where correctables consist of ephemeral bodily movements to which the learners
may not have visual access, bodily quotation provides the learners with resources for
locating the correctable in their own performance.
The varied forms of reenactments and contrast pairs found across different
settings shows, in the terminology used by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974),
how the generic, “context-free” sequential resources of correction can be adapted
in “context-sensitive ways” to achieve setting-specific outcomes. In this study, we

analyze recordings of basketball practice sessions and powerlifting training sessions
with the aim of identifying the interactional practices through which coaches and
athletes identify correctables and propose courses of action for the athlete’s next
attempt. We show that the coach and athletes engage in a collaborative device,
allowing one another to see and feel errors and corrections. We show that this device
relies especially on the production of reenactments or video replays of previous lifts
and demonstrations of correct performance. We argue that through their collabo-
rative organization of demonstrative work, the participants display their analysis of
relevant features of the setting and that this device of corrective work is constitutive
of these settings as sites of instruction.
In providing these insights, the investigation extends the existing sociological
understanding of the situated accomplishment of teaching and learning in embodied
contexts, particularly the organization of embodied correction work. We believe it
is particularly important for the field of sports coaching to explore this issue given
the pervasive orientation of participants in sports training settings to the potential
relevance of coaching corrections, assessment, and feedback. We also seek to extend
the existing understanding within EMCA regarding instructional correction by
demonstrating how seeing an error is treated by participants as a necessary prereq-
uisite in the course of embodied corrective work, highlighting the role multi-party
reenactments and video plays in the course of showing the error to the athlete(s).
CORRECTION VERSUS REPAIR

Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977) carefully differentiate correction, the right and
wrong of what is said and done, from repair, managing problems of hearing and
understanding. For them, the distinguishing feature between correction and repair
was the lack of error present in the repair of talk. For us then, correction is certainly
a useful term because, as we will show, the presentation of an error is the first step
in the correction reenactment process. For coaches, evidence of the athlete’s error is
the warrant to provide for correcting the athlete’s action, and coaches and athletes
alike treat the appearance of an error as a prerequisite to a corrective event.
As Macbeth (2004) notes, repair and correction are not equivalents. Repair is a
matter of intersubjectivity (Schegloff 1992) and is a prerequisite for the progression
of activities in a setting (Stivers and Robinson 2006). Correction is based on an ori-
entation to the normative order of a setting (Macbeth 2004) and can only proceed
once intersubjectivity is established. That is, correctable activities are perfectly well
understood by parties, but they are treated as “wrong” in a way that is constitutive of
instructional activity. Thus, repair is a prior and prerequisite operation, with which
correction may share some features. Correction is an identifying task and achieve-
ment of classrooms and sports coaching alike.
Much like repair, the correction we describe may be self- or other-initiated and
self- or other-corrected (cf. Macbeth 2004; McHoul 1990). In most cases in our
collection, the “other” of other-initiated correction is the coach; however, other

athletes may collaborate in or even initiate such error identification procedures. This
initiation takes the form of the identification of the error made by the athlete(s) in the
course of their training. In all cases in the collection, it is the coach who provides the
corrective solution (other-correction); however, it is certainly the experience of the
authors that athletes may also provide such feedback to one another.1 Our analysis in
this paper focuses exclusively on the self- and other-initiated other-correction cases
in the corpus, that is, the cases in which the coach provides the corrective solution.
In research on correction, Ende, Pomerantz, and Erickson (1995) found that, in
medical contexts, preceptors took pains to avoid exposing errors in the course of
making their corrections. Using data drawn from discussions between interns and
preceptors in ambulatory care, they found that preceptors avoided exposing interns
as not knowing what they are doing. Teachers, however, while still gentle, routinely
expose the errors of students in the course of producing corrections (Macbeth 2004).
In both settings, instruction is the work of “talking through a subject such that it may
be learnt” (Sharrock and Anderson 1982:171). In both cases, the correcting party is
orienting to the availability of the error as the basis of corrective work. However,
unlike classrooms and medical internship discussions, sports coaching is a bodily
affair; there is no “talking through a subject” to get the job of these settings done.
Errors then are not a matter of what one knows but what one does. Error correction
is a matter of showing the athlete(s) what they did wrong and showing them how to
do it right. Talk is an instructive guide on where to find the action, but reenactment
is the central part of this setting’s instructional work.
Martin and Sahlström (2010) describe the organization of embodied repair and
correction in physiotherapy. Their longitudinal study explored the way in which
physiotherapists and patients, in the course of therapeutic exercise, moved across
time from a tendency of other-initiations of correction and repair to a tendency of
self-initiations of correction and repair. They demonstrate that, as in talk, during
embodied action repair is treated by participants as a prerequisite to progression and
that correction operated on a normative dimension of correct/incorrect movements.
In this study, we explore the worldly work of correction events in these two sports
settings. In particular, we describe the work of showing the error and providing for
its remedy, highlighting the local concern of all parties to the work of correction at
hand. Correction then, while bearing a relationship to repair, is—as Macbeth (2004)
says—an object of a different order. In that order, we are interested in the role of
objects, bodies, and space in conjunction with talk as resources for producing the
correction event, focusing on the reenactments of errors and the bodily proposal of
the corrective solution.2
DATA COLLECTION
The analytical approach informing this study is based in EM and CA and, more
specifically, in the ethnomethodological program involving analyzing the video data
of participants involved in accomplishing collaborative work activities known as

“workplace studies” (Hindmarsh and Heath 2000; Luff, Hindmarsh, and Heath
2000). The objective of EMCA-informed research is to describe the methodical
practices by which participants in social interaction jointly organize their talk and
embodied conduct to produce mutually intelligible actions and activities.
The data that form the basis of this study consist of naturalistic audio-visual
recordings of correction events occurring during the training sessions of an Aus-
tralian elite under-23 basketball team during the 2010 season and audio-visual
recordings of correction events from one New Hampshire and one Australian
powerlifting team (mixed gender and age). The collection is comprised of 37 bas-
ketball and 30 powerlifting recordings, numbering 67 correction reenactments in
total.
The basketball team trained twice a week for two hours each time, with practice
sessions progressing from a warm-up period into drills focusing on individual skills
and then on to team-based activities (3-on-3 or 5-on-5), usually involving the exe-
cution of offensive set plays or defensive teamwork. The powerlifting team trained
alone in the specialist gym three times a week for two-hour sessions, with training
sessions progressing from active stretching and muscle activation to the day’s pri-
mary lift (bench press, deadlift, or squat) followed by secondary strength work to
develop the core lifts. We began analysis with a review of all the video recordings
during which correction demonstrations occurred in team-based activities. We then
analyzed the video and audio data with an EMCA-informed approach in order to
develop a collection of instances of correction demonstrations.
Powerlifting and basketball represent two ends of a continuum of individual
versus team sports. Comparison of these two settings allows for the elaboration of
Keevallik’s (2010) description of correction sequences in dance instruction in two
important ways. First, in basketball, the organization of multiple players’ bodies
in contingent, play-relevant ways is often an essential context for the correctable’s
intelligibility, and thus, reenactments in correction sequences frequently involve
configuring and rearranging multiple players’ bodies. Second, in powerlifting, it is
not uncommon to include the immediate review of video as a replacement or substi-
tute for reenactments. In this respect, we show in the analysis of phase 2 that it is not
reenactment (bodily quotation in Keevalik’s terms) per se that is necessary as the
second phase of correction but visual presentation and highlighting (Goodwin 1994)
of the trouble source. Cases were chosen for their perspicuity in (1) highlighting
this continuum and (2) demonstrating this orientation to the visual inspection of an
error (instead of only bodily quotation).
Finally, as an ethnomethodological investigation as actual (or former) athletes
in the respective sports, we are adhering to Garfinkel’s (2002) unique adequacy
requirement of methods. That is, in order to study and describe the setting, we
are members of the community (and in some cases members of the team under
study).
ANALYSIS
Overview of the Correction Reenactment Demonstration
On observing a whole lift or play,3 during a transition space, coaches have the
opportunity to ratify it as not in need of correction or “good.” The images below
show a powerlifting coach clapping at a lifter at the conclusion of a lift to affirm its
correct performance.
Spotting the lift Congratulating the lifter
Leaving the area Exiting the lift
Moving away from the bench
Coaches may choose to not ratify a play or lift by initiating correction. Power-
lifters may also seek feedback at the conclusion of a lift, self-initiating correction
(basketball players were not observed initiating correction events). Regardless
of whoever initiates correction in the cases of embodied reenactments in cor-
rection demonstrations described by our collection, the coach provides for the
corrective solution. Coaches may also stop a play in its course to initiate a cor-
rection demonstration. In powerlifting, a low stress, higher repetition (of lifts)
set may be stopped in course for demonstration, but in most cases, coaches will
wait until the exercises are complete before initiating a demonstration. Correc-
tive feedback may be given in the course of a play or lift that does not require a
demonstration.4
Correction events occur in particular order, proceeding as a context-free method
of corrective demonstration as follows:
a. Enacting a new framework for corrective demonstration

b. Identifying the error
c. Proposing a solution
d. Returning to practice5
We begin our detailed description then with the first phase, reconfiguring the
arrangement of local participation to allow for a corrective demonstration.
Phase 1: Orienting to a Trouble Source by Reconﬁguring

the Arrangement of Bodies and Gaze
This section demonstrates the way in which those who initiate correction orient to
the projected correction demonstration by reconfiguring the arrangement of visible
action. The case analyzed in this example is from the basketball corpus and occurs
just after a performance of a drill focusing on practicing the execution of the team’s
offensive plays has come to a natural conclusion, with an offensive player success-
fully making a jump shot while the coach observes from his usual position on the
sideline (Figure 1). We begin with a description of the way in which a new partici-
pation framework is used to assemble a field of semiotic resources for the coaches’
corrective action in what we are calling the correction initiation phase.
Example 1 (Case 2, Basketball Recording 18b)
Figure 1
1 COACH: Alright. (.) ((Whistle blow#))
fig: #fig 2
Figure 2
2 (1.0)
3 COACH: Go back and set it up here black.
((Coach reaches position near basket, stops walking))
4 (1.2)
5 COACH: Ay set it up here red can do that.
((Coach points toward center of court))
6 (2.2)
7 COACH: Listen up you guys on the sideline over there.
8 (1.9)
9 COACH: Run yellow.
The excerpt begins as, following a made basket by the “black” team,6 the play-
ers coordinate a change of possession to the “red” team. As the red team begins
to inbound the ball,7 the coach, who has been observing the play from the sideline
(Figure 1), says “Alright” and blows the whistle (Line 1). Simultaneously, he begins
moving from his position on the sideline toward the baseline, cutting through the
play-space as he does so (Figure 2).
The coach’s combined verbal and embodied productions here perform three inter-
actional tasks. First, they serve to mark a transition into a separate activity phase: the
coach’s action temporarily suspends the practice activity in progress at the time he
acts. This fact is visible in the players’ responses to the coach: they halt the inbound-
ing process that progresses the practice activity onto the next possession and attend
to the coach. Second, the coach’s actions help to establish a participation framework
(Goffman 1981; Goodwin and Goodwin 2004) of joint visual attention by drawing
the gaze of the players. Through his talk and whistle blow, the coach summons the
players’ attention away from their individual foci of attention and toward him. The
process of establishing a participation framework of mutual attention, while com-
mon to all of the correction activities we have examined, displays context sensitivity.
In the case of the basketball data, while the correctable action is frequently the
conduct of a single player, the correction is enacted in a way that displays that the
intended recipients are the entire team—indeed, even players who are not currently
involved in the activity. This is made visible in Line 7, where the coach temporar-
ily suspends his instructions to the players on the court in order to censure a group
of players outside the activity for not paying attention. Third, by repositioning him-
self close to the players, the coach gives himself embodied access to relevant bits
of the field of action—he preemptively transforms bits of the “world-within-sight”
into features of the “world-at-hand” (Tutt and Hindmarsh 2011). This physical repo-
sitioning gives the coach the capacity to physically manipulate the physical field of
action (e.g., by moving players around) and to employ relevant material structure in
the environment (players’ bodies and court markings) in producing his enactments.
The coach in this case has now provided for the relevances of a new course of correc-
tive action-to-come and arranged a participation framework relevant to the projected
course of action.
In the next example, we demonstrate the same reconfiguration of the course of
action initiated by a powerlifting coach. This example is drawn from the New Hamp-
shire collection of powerlifting recordings. In this case, the lifter, Denise, has just
finished a set of squat movements and is moving the bar back into the squat rack.
Observed by the coach in red, across the course of Figures 2 to 4, Denise struggles
with the weight into the rack as the coach moves in to assist (Figure 4).
Example 2 (Case 3, powerlifting recording 4)
Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5
At the completion of her activity taking a set of squats, Denise is returning the
squat bar to the rack and, finding it higher than expected, tilts the bar to bring it high
enough to rack it on the right side (Figure 4). On seeing this trouble, the coach moves
in to assist the racking process, moving from an even footing (Figure 3) to preparing
to move (Figure 4) and, once in place, assisting with the bar (Figure 5). At the com-
pletion of this course of assistance, the coach then has the option of concluding the
observation and moving on to observe another lifter or providing feedback. As we
see next, he chooses to orient to a corrective course of action.
Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9
In Figure 6, the lifter is coming out from under the squat bar as the coach looks on,
and then, in Figure 7, the coach brings his feet to a stable committed position (Sacks
and Schegloff 2002; Schegloff 1998) as the lifter torques into a facing alignment. The
coach’s position proposes that a new participation framework is now relevant; his role
as a coach, and its enactment at a transition space, makes relevant the possibility of
a correction sequence. The lifter’s torque into a facing alignment treats the coach’s
now-committed body position as relevant for a new course of action. Anticipating
a corrective sequence of some type, the lifter withdraws from the facing formation
(Kendon 2010) enacted by her torqued position and moves into alignment with her
teammate (in black, see Figure 8) in order to form a U (Figure 9) (Kendon 2010). In
doing so, the lifter and the teammate orient to the shared relevance of the instructive
correction.
Having provided for the appropriate visual and bodily framework for initiating
a correction, coaches and athletes then collaborate to find the trouble source in the
second phase of the corrective demonstration.
Phase 2: Demonstrating the Error

Staging an Error Reenactment
Returning to the basketball collection, we pick up our description of corrective
reenactments as the coach from Case 2 continues his directions with the basket-
ball team. Having now reformed the participation framework to establish mutual
attention, the coach orchestrates the players’ movements in order to replicate the
sequence of events that had taken place up until the moment during the prior drill
performance when the player had committed the error, and to reproduce the spa-
tial configuration of bodies that was in place at that juncture (the transcript of this
example has been divided into two shorter examples, labeled 3a and 3b, to assist the
reader in following the analysis).
Example 3a (Case 2, Basketball recording 18b)

19 COACH: Make a pass.
20 (.)
21 COACH: Before that.
22 (0.3)
23 COACH: Make a cut.
24 (0.6)
25 COACH: This guy he#:re, (1.0) #alright? (.) is there.#
fig : #fig 10 #fig 11 #fig 12
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
The coach here issues a pair of directives, “Make a pass” (Line 19) and “Make a
cut” (Line 23). Each of these two directives is issued to a respective member of the
black team, and the instructions correspond to the first two sequential actions com-
prising the play sequence the team had executed in the last performance. The relevant
players respond by performing the instructed actions of passing the ball and cutting,8
respectively. In this way, the coach provides for the situation leading to the error.
With the context of play arranged, as the second instructed player makes his cut
from the left corner to the middle of the court, the coach makes a deictic person
reference to “This guy he:re” (Line 25). Simultaneously, the coach moves his body
toward the “red” player to his left, David, and reaches out to him, grabbing him by the
jersey as he utters and extends the word “he:re” (Figure 10). In this way, he uses touch
to physically disambiguate the sense of the deictic reference. Holding David’s jersey,
the coach suspends his talk at a place in the developing turn that strongly projects
continuation as he physically pulls David into a new position on the court (Figure 11).
It is only once he has finished moving David that the coach completes his utterance
with “is there” (Line 25), with the sense of this deictic location reference now visible
as the player’s new position in relation to other players’ bodies and the markings on
the court (Figure 12). The act of physically moving the player into a spot provides a
degree of spatial accuracy that may not be achieved via instructions and gestures, and
this act demonstrates an orientation to precise spatial positioning as a prerequisite
of displaying the error. The transcript of the example continues in 3b below.
Example 3b (Case 2, Basketball recording 18b)
26 (0.6)
27 COACH: Alright?
28 (1.4)
29 COACH: This guy he:re, (0.5) was for a split second,
30 (0.4) there.
((Coach grabs a second red player by the arm, moves him into a
new position))
31 COACH: Alright? (.) and you #just standing there
fig: # fi g 13
Figure 13
32 (.)
33 COACH: You’re do noth- absolutely nothing. (.) #all I
fig: #fig 14
Figure 14
34 wanna do is (0.2) step in this corner and get

((Coach relaxes posture and moves behind players toward left corner, then drops
into athletic stance))
35 the ball.
36 (0.4)
After his action of repositioning David described above, the coach performs a
similar action with another player, grabbing him by the arm and maneuvering him
around his body. The utterance produced in time with this repositioning, “This guy
he:re was for a split second, (0.4) there” (Lines 29 and 30), makes the nature of the
work being done over Lines 19 to 30 explicit. The utterance combines a deictic ref-
erence linking a particular player to a particular spatial location with a temporal
reference to a specific moment in time, “a split second.” The use of the past copula
“was” ties this player’s position at this temporal moment to the previous drill per-
formance. The production of this utterance at this sequential juncture—after three
prior instructions directing players to new locations on the court—thus retrospec-
tively identifies those prior instructions as performed in the service of producing a
precisely ordered spatial environment corresponding to the prior drill performance,
more specifically to the particular moment identified as the “split second” when the
players’ bodies were arranged in place for an error to occur just like this. This phase of
the correction activity can thus be seen to be focused on building a precisely ordered
embodied context that replicates a relevant set of sequential and spatial conditions
from the prior play.
Once he has assembled the necessary resources for correction, the coach employs
these resources to provide for the bodily visibility of the athlete’s error. In time with
his utterance of “you” (Line 31), the coach briefly touches a “black team” player,
Steve, on the arm, a move that helps to disambiguate the deictic person reference
and establishes the source of the error. As he utters the words “and you just stand-
ing there” (Line 31), the coach moves into the open space to his left and adopts an
athletic stance with his knees bent and his hands up (Figure 13), a position that he
maintains until he reaches the end of the word “nothing” (Line 33). As Sidnell (2006)
illustrates, the initiation of a reenactment is typically marked with a reportative verb.
In this case, the coach ties his bodily conduct to his verbal report of Steve’s action
“and you just standing there/you’re do noth-absolutely nothing” (Lines 31 to 33).
The onset of the coach’s demonstration immediately precedes his utterance of the
word “just” (Line 31), with this timing, along with the coach’s movement into an ath-
letic stance, contributing to the performance’s visibility as a reenactment of Steve’s
prior error. The coach then marks the end of the reenactment with a return to his
normal posture, straightening at the knees and dropping his hands before returning
to a description of Steve’s performance (Lines 33 and 34).
The coach thus projects his action into a sequential and spatial “gesture space”
(Streeck 2009), representing the specific moment from the prior performance
marked out by the previous world-making activity, and delimits his action as a reen-
actment through talk and posture. The ephemeral action that had been produced
by Steve in the context of a rapidly progressing drill is now visually available as a
stable object to which all of the players, freed from their obligations to orient to
visual features relevant to their respective roles in accomplishing the drill, are able
to attend. The process of building an embodied space and projecting an enactment
into it thus functions as a method for overcoming practical barriers to establishing
the joint attention to relevant features of the setting that is necessary for learning to
occur.
Providing visual access to the ephemeral moment in which an error was made
requires the orchestrated work of the team in the course of corrections in basketball.
Errors occur in relation to context-sensitive actions; those contexts of action must
thus be reenacted in order for the correction to be made visible. However, as we
show next, in powerlifting, an error’s production is a fault of the body and can be
reproduced by the body or on a screen. What matters in both settings is that the
coach can show athletes the error.
Returning to Denise, in this example, the coach is demonstrating a “loose”
reracking9 of the squat bar. Across the course of the figures below, we see the coach
demonstrating the left and right movement.
Example 4 (Case 2, powerlifting recording 4) loose re racking
Figure15 beginning Figure 16 wobble Figure 17 up
Figure 18 wobble Figure 19 wobble
Moving his hands into a bar-holding squat position, the coach first dips the right
shoulder (Figure 16) and then the left shoulder (Figure 19), demonstrating the
unsafe movement of the bar as the lifter walks the bar in. The coach leans forward
as he comes to the left shoulder, moving in space as a reenactment of the lifters
movement toward the rack. The movement itself is a constitutive part of the error,
beyond simply the configuration of the bodies. The visual availability of the error is
treated as necessary for identifying the source of the problem with the lifting activity
at hand.
Finding the Error in a Video

Using the body or bodies in order to make the error visible provides for a phe-
nomenal field that makes seeing the error of the athlete being corrected somewhat
straightforward due to the exaggerated way in which the reenactment is conducted.
In the study by Keevallik (2010), the dance teachers used their bodies to “quote” or
reenact the error. However, it is routine in professionally coached individual sports,
such as powerlifting and cross country skiing, to use video to record and then display
the athlete’s performance. This provides very realistic access to the error but requires
a finer professional vision in order to find the error in the recording. That is, what part
of some recorded athlete’s movement is at error, and what part is not, needs some
narration by the coaches.
The next case is presented as a “deviant” case of correction in the data collection.
In the sessions we recorded, we found two cases of correction not involving a bodily
quotation (Keevallik 2010) by the coach. Although while for many coaches, video
analysis and discussion is routine (Romack and Valantine 2005), for the three coaches
involved in this study, it was the exception rather than the rule. We present this case in
order to elaborate Keevallik’s (2010) description of practices of embodied correction.
We argue that it is the practice of highlighting (Goodwin 1994) the error, whether on a
screen or via embodied quotation, which is central to the work of part b, “identifying
the error.”
In this example, Christyn (in the middle in purple, on the transcript as Chrys) and
Chris (far right, in blue) are observing a video that the coach has taken of Christyn’s
bench press. They are crowded around the bench looking at the iPad to observe the
video (Figures 20 and 21)
Figu re 20 Figur e 21
Example 5 (Case 4, powerlift recording 1) Dipping chest

1 COACH: you even lost yer chest a little on that one.
2 (0.6)
3 COACH: watch this. You come down (.) watch yer chest.
4 (2.2)
5 COACH: riiight
6 (1.3)
7 COACH: see it? Got a little collapse o’ the chest right there.
8 (2.0)
9 CHRIS: (got a nice angle of you)
10 CHRYS: I’m- I’m not seeing what you’re talking about.
11 CHRIS: Is it, under the bar?
12 CHRYS: that’s what my ↑arch looks like?
13 CHRIS: yeah I know.
14 CHRYS: ooh jay cee maree.
15 (0.5)
16 CHRIS: right. But the little- At #the end.
fig: #fig 22
Figure 22
17 COACH: ((extends pad out))
18 COACH: yeah its there.
19 CHRIS: that #little bounce. Right there.
fig: #fig 23
Figure 23 Chris returning to point

at the dip at ‘little bounce’ line 19
20 COACH: she drops her chest a little bit.

21 CHRIS: I can see it now, #right when #you- right there.
fi g: # fig 24 #fig 25
Figure 24 Figure 25
22 COACH: there’s a little- she drops her chest a little bit.

23 CHRIS: I can see it. Right when yo[u
24 COACH: [right there
25 CHRIS: Right there. You see your back go down a little bit?
26 COACH: you see your chest raise up when you change directions?
27 that’s what you should be doing when you get to the bottom.
28 CHRYS: oh. Okay. I think I see what you’re saying.
29 COACH: you’re also driving with your feet. So there’s that too. The|
30 the #chest goes down a little bit.
fig: #fig26
Figure 26
31 (4.2) (looking at replay)

32 CHRYS: yah okay #I see it now. #Now that #I’m wa#tching it in full.#
fig: #fig 27 fig#28 fig#29 fig#30
Figure 27 ‘I see it now’ Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30
In this corrective exchange, participants arrange themselves in a U-shaped facing

formation as, in Lines 1 to 10, the coach first initiates a showing of the iPad displaying
a recording of the trouble source. As Phase 1, orienting to the trouble, participants
here are acting on the need for shared visual access to the iPad as a record of the
trouble source. Proffering the iPad into view of Christyn and Chris, he proposes that
she “got a little collapse of the chest.” In providing the pad for viewing and proposing
a candidate problem, the coach is reshaping the participation framework to build
shared availability to the recording.
Participants then orient to highlighting the source of the trouble with the lift, find-
ing the “little collapse” described by the coach. Upon viewing the video at Line 10,
Christyn responds that she cannot “see” the trouble in the press, not rejecting the
possibility of trouble but requesting further detail to “find” the problem in the video
at hand. After a side sequence about her “arch,” Chris then points out the trouble
(Figure 22) for Christyn, highlighting the problem in a display of professional vision
(Goodwin 1994) at Line 16. Across Lines 16 to 24, Coach and Chris collaborate in
commenting as the video replays, describing the “bounce” and the “drop” (Figure
23) of Christyn’s chest in the course of the press. This culminates in Lines 23 to 25 as
Chris enacts precisely what Christyn is doing when the chest drops (Figures 24 and
25). At the completion of the turn “right when you” in Line 23, Chris enacts a quo-
tation of what Christyn is doing when she chest drops but not the chest drop itself.
Chris shrugs her shoulders and brings her hands into parallel fists with her hands posi-
tioned as if she was mid-way through a bench press. Having not found the “collapse”
in response to viewing the video or Chris’s pointing, Chris escalates the highlighting
with her own bodily quotation, not of the problem, but of what else Christyn was
doing when the problem occurred. That is, as a part of highlighting the error, Chris
quotes what else was visible at the point the error occurred.
Then, in Lines 26 and 27, Coach offers a new way of seeing the problem by looking
at the raise in the chest as Christyn “changes direction” in the course of the press, not-
ing the trouble that the “chest raise” should have been earlier in the lift. In a display
of having now found the problem, Christyn offers a tentative agreement marked with
a changed display of understanding at Line 28. At the completion of his description,
he also puts his hands to his chest to highlight the problem area for viewing in the
video (Figure 26). Then, after a further replaying, Christyn ratifies the trouble source
at Line 32. To display her understanding, as she breaks away from the formation, she
brings her hand up (Figure 28) then down (Figure 29) then up (Figure 30), reenacting
the movement of the bar in the bench press. A complete understanding of the error,
whether enacted by the coach or displayed on a recording, is treated by all parties as
a necessary prerequisite before providing a solution.
In this example, the primary modality of making the error available was via a
video. Through multiple viewings of a lift, the lifter was talked through finding the
error. This highlights that corrective demonstrations rely on visual access to the error,
whether is through a coach’s reenactment or a video of the athlete. To extend Kee-
vallik’s (2010) description in these settings, it is not that the coach or instructor needs
to “bodily quote” the incorrect movement; it is simply required that the coach make
visible the error. Furthermore, this demonstrates the utility of Phase 1: shared percep-
tual access to the presentation of the error is necessary in order to proceed to the next
phase. The next example underscores the way in which these two parts of the correc-
tion event are linked in a serial fashion. That is, having provided for what the trouble
is, the coach is accountable for providing the candidate with a corrective solution.
Phase 3: Providing a Solution: Instructing Action

Once the error is visually available, coaches must then provide instruction for
what counts as correct action. The error-solution contrast pair (Weeks 1996) is dis-
tinctly ordered in these settings: the error must be evident and be provided for before
proceeding to the solution. Following on with Christyn and Chris from example 5,
however, finding the problem is not the same as providing a solution. As the coach
moves away, Christyn then requests a solution as below.
Example 6 (Case 4, powerlifting recording 1)
33 CHRYS: so. (0.2) how do you::-
34 COACH: you bring the bar to your chest.# But you also bring your chest
fig: #fig 31
Figure 31
35 to the bar.
36 so that was me like (.) doing this.#
fig: #fig 32
Figure 32
37 COACH: lil bit.#

fig: #fig. 33
Figure 33
Christyn’s request at Line 33 treats the solution as absent from the coach’s cor-
rective sequence prior. In response, the coach offers “bringing your chest to the bar”
(Figure 31) as he displays an arched upper back in the course of a reenacted bench
press. His proposal is for the lifter to aim to move her chest toward the bar as she low-
ers the bar to her chest during the press. Viewing his embodied reenactment, the lifter
also orients to the relevant semiotic field by outstretching her arms in reenactment.
Having provided the solution, Christyn then re-reenacts the error, confirming the
problem at Line 36, moving her shoulders forward and caving her chest in the “incor-
rect” position for a bench, and the coach confirms that she was doing that a “lil bit”
at Line 37 in coordination with a pinching “little” gesture. At completion of Line
37, Chris moves under the bar and begins her own set that had been delayed due to
the correction demonstration. This highlights the turn ordering of the powerlifting
group: a corrected lifter does not immediately reattempt a faulted lift to allow for
rest and to give teammates their turn. In this example, there is no orientation to the
requirement for an explanation by the coach of why the correction was needed. The
lifters and coach treat it as held in common that the “puffed chest” arched thoracic
spine position10 (Figure 31) is the correct one for a bench press; to explain that would
be to treat an experienced lifter as a novice.
We see here that the coach has returned from using a video to the more expedient
methods of embodying the correction. Once again, the shared perceptual access is
necessary, and as we see here, even athletes other than the one directly under cor-
rection may participate and benefit from the feedback.
Multi-Party Bodily Enactment of the Solution

The reenactment of error is thus paired with, but distinct from, the reenactment
of the correct course of action. As evident in the previous transcript, multiple par-
ties may participate in the solution proposal. In our final transcript, we see the same
error-source, error-solution pairing in the course of a correction sequence in basket-
ball play.
Example 7 (Case 2, basketball recording 18b)

45 COACH: >Use you-< Your man is #focused now on #that.
fig: #fig 34 #fig 35
Figure 34 Figure 35
46 (0.4)
47 COACH: Alright?
((Steve nods))
48 (0.2)
49 COACH: So you #might have a slip the#:re, (0.4) #get the ba:ll (.)
fig: #fig 36 #fig 37 #fig 38
Figure 36 Figure 37
Figure 38
50 and #score.
fig: #fig 39
Figure 39
Continuing on from example 3, Case 2, after his reenactment of Steve’s error, the
coach moves over to Steve, stands between him and the baseline, and places both
of his hands on the player’s mid-back. Following a repair sequence (lines removed),
the coach progresses the correction by zooming in to highlight the set of circum-
stances in play at the relevant moment in even finer detail. He verbally describes a
key visual feature of the setting—the orientation of Steve’s defender, David: “Your
man is focused now on that” (Line 45). In this description, the object of David’s
attention is the deictic “that.” The coach’s talk is accompanied by a pointing gesture
toward Steve’s teammate Tony (Figure 34); the referent of “that” is elaborated by the
gesture and by Tony’s body, which together make visible the fact that Tony’s court
position has forced David to attend to Tony to prevent him from getting the ball in
an undefended scoring position and, as a result, has left Steve unguarded. As the
coach produces his utterance, David drops into a defensive stance, providing a visual
representation of the state of affairs verbally described by the coach (Figure 35).
In Lines 49 and 50, “So you might have a slip the:re, (0.4) get the ba:ll, and score,”
the coach gives a verbal description of a competent response to the constructed cir-
cumstances. This description is enacted bodily in time with the turns. As the coach
begins the utterance in Lines 49 and 50, he moves his body slightly closer to Steve’s,
and then, in time with his pronunciation of “a slip the:re,” he shoves Steve toward
the basket (Figure 36). Steve’s subsequent movement as he slides through the gap
between the bodies of the surrounding players into an easy scoring position close to
the basket with no defenders nearby (Figures 37 and 38) serves both to disambiguate
what “a slip the:re” involves as an embodied action in this context and to demonstrate
the outcome and value of the “slip.” Furthermore, the shove provides an element of
velocity to Steve’s movement that serves to highlight it against the background of
static and slowly moving bodies.
It is not until Steve has arrived at a point almost directly under the hoop that the
coach resumes speaking with “get the ba:ll, and score” (Lines 49 and 50). The delay
illustrates the coach’s orientation to Steve’s body and its position on the court as
an important element of the demonstration: while the coach’s talk provides a verbal
account of what the player ought to do in this situation, Steve’s movement and occu-
pation of space constitutes the embodied/visual component of the same enactment.
The timing of the coach’s utterance “get the ba:ll, and score” is thus precisely coor-
dinated with Steve’s arrival at the position where this action should be performed,
under the hoop.
As the coach says “and score,” he raises both hands, enacting the action of making
a layup (Figure 39). The embodied demonstration of correct performance is thus
distributed between multiple parties: Steve provides the movement embodying the
slip and the spatial coordinates of the scoring position that is its outcome, while
the coach contributes the gesture of scoring itself. Furthermore, as Steve moves
toward the basket, Keith, the player in possession of the ball, closely follows Steve’s
movement with his gaze, and as Steve reaches open space, Keith brings the ball from
a relaxed position at his waist (Figure 38) to a “ready to pass” position overhead
(Figure 39), thereby contributing to constituting the sense of Steve’s action as a
“movement into an open scoring space” by configuring him as a pass recipient. This
section of the correction activity is thus built through the finely coordinated actions
of the coach, addressed player, and nonaddressed players and involves their talk,
embodied actions, and use of both a material object (the basketball) and the material
structure provided by the basketball court. It illustrates the parties’ orientations
to the correction being performed here as a multi-party activity requiring, for its
accomplishment, players’ analyses of, and relevant responses to, the actions of the
coach and other players.
So providing a solution requires the visually available enactment of a solution. In
some cases, such as dance or powerlifting, one body may suffice in demonstrating
correct conduct, but in team sports, it may take several. What this demonstrates
then is that this phase is oriented to the work of providing an arrangement of
a watchable-for-its-particulars correct order of conduct to “replace” the error
provided in the previous phase. What is relevant for coaches is providing an
instructionally relevant, visible depiction of the action; however, that is achieved in
sports-specific ways.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we have described the three-part structure coaches and athletes use
in the course of accomplishing corrective sequences. We demonstrated that partic-
ipants first reconfigure the semiotic resources to highlight the visual assemblage of
the corrective reenactment to come. Then, we illustrated the way in which coaches
and other parties make visible the error, highlighting the source of the trouble in the
athlete’s prior action. Then, in a linked relevant next step, we presented the way in
which parties organize the corrective remedy enacted by the coach and/or athletes
(under the coach’s instruction). The semiotic arrangements of bodies, space, and gaze
are recrafted as the basis for the correction events; these visual relevances are then
employed as resources in providing for the embodied reenactments of errors and
enactments of solutions. Most saliently, for understandings of instructional correc-
tion, we highlighted that it is visual access to the error that is the necessary feature of
step 2, and that participants may configure multiple bodies together in reenactments
or use video to replay the phenomenal field of past action.
Returning to Keevallik’s (2010) description of corrective sequences in dance
instruction. we can see that the context-free three-part structure of (1) initiation, (2)
error demonstration, and (c) solution proposal is fitted to specific coaching situations
for setting-specific jobs. In basketball, coaches may employ multiple parties in the
course of the demonstrations; in powerlifting, coaches may employ video for the
error demonstration. Furthermore, the necessity of explanation is occasioned by the
specifics of the bodily movements being instructed (sport, dance, etc.), the learner’s
role, and the particulars of the correction at hand. We offer the current results
then not as a critique or corrective to Keevallik (2010) but to demonstrate two of
the context-free features—multi-party reenactments and the visual nature of error
demonstration—in the context-bound enactment of these correction sequences.
Beyond sports and dance, this three-part structured device of correction may oper-
ate as a participatory method of instruction. Instead of methods of instruction and
correction based on telling, as are dominant in many pedagogic models of instruc-
tion, this highlights a method of instruction based on showing. Further to Sacks’
(1972) discussion of the primacy of visual access in the discussion of elements of
past events, these findings highlight the value of showing as an account for correc-
tion. That is, showing is a more persuasive device than telling in matters of correcting
embodied conduct. This aligns with discussions of experiential learning (Kolb 2014;
Nicolopoulou et al. 2009), which would argue that showing and telling are central pre-
requisites prior to doing in and as the course of learning. In one discussion, one coach
even confirmed using a “visual auditory and kinetic” or show, say and do structure to
their feedback (but see Geake 2008). Further research in other pedagogical contexts
would be useful to discover the education-specific arrangements of the elements of
this corrective device.
In team sport, teams are successful not based on the individual movements of
players but on the players correctly arranging their bodies in space and time relative
to the play at hand. What is correctable and quotable for basketball depends on the
contingent arrangement of players on the court. Demonstrating an error thus takes
arranging sufficient players to highlight the error of play, directing players in what
to see in the reenacted rearrangement of the team. Likewise, demonstrating the cor-
rect play takes multiple bodies to show the correct choices in the contingent context
of play. Corrective sequences in this sport thus take on a team sports feature using
multiple bodies for arrangements of players. The quotation of bodies is necessary
for coaches and players engaged in correction but not in a decontextualized manner;
it also requires the ephemeral layout of players on the court as a team arranged in
place.
The arrangement of players as a team arranged in place for the purposes of reen-
actment highlights the lamination of a previous habitat (Thompson and Suzuki 2014)
onto the current one for the purposes of correction. This supports Thompson and
Suzuki’s (2014) description of the way in which multiple parties may be recruited or
may volunteer to participate in a multi-party reenactment. Further to their descrip-
tion, the reenacted location, movement, and orientation of participants for basket-
ball’s purposes enacts a formation of bodies in space with temporal relevances. That
is, it is not just that reenactment constructs who, what, and where people are from ear-
lier scenes, but that the phenomenal fields of previous scenes, enacted by participants’
locations, movements, and orientations, is the object of multi-party reenactments. It
is the salient field of social relevances made by parties that is necessary to reenact,
not merely their bodily shapes.
For sports coaching research, we have highlighted the way in which attention to the
sequential structures of action can illustrate empirically rigorous models of practices
of coaching (Cushion, Armour, and Jones 2006). Close analysis of large collections
of video recordings highlighted the context-free operation of one device of coach-
ing. These corrective events bring to the surface the omnirelevant orientation to
“correct” sports action, which pervades the activity of training. The correctness of
activities is constantly being judged by all parties to the sporting practice events.
Opportunities to address errors, while potentially face threatening, are treated by
participants as a prior and fundamental part of the activities. Action stops in the
face of errors discovered in these interactions until the error is found and corrected.
Corrective activities then are constitutive of the work of these instructional settings,
and the situated methods by which these activities are collaboratively organized and
accomplished, some of which have been described above, thus comprise a central
part of “how coaching actually plays out as situated action” (Jones, Edwards, and
Filho 2014:201).
The ways in which the resources of correction are adjusted to fit site-specific
requirements in different sports and at different levels, and therefore how coaching
processes transform, and are transformed by, their contexts, is a topic for future
research. Future research may also be oriented to exploring if, and how, coaches
use corrective devices that tell rather than show. Furthermore, in conjunction with
EMCA, a careful evaluative study may even provide answers to the effectiveness of
different devices of corrective feedback. Understanding the organization structure

of coaching settings is a prerequisite for CA-based interventions, which may support
coach education and the evaluation of training methods (Antaki 2011).
APPENDIX
Talk has been transcribed according to conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (see
Schegloff, 2007).
Multi-modal details have been transcribed according to conventions developed by
Mondada (2007) as follows:
(( )) Double parentheses contain transcriber’s descriptions rather than, or in addition to,

transcriptions.
ﬁg Image; screen shot.
# Shows the exact moment at which the screen shot has been recorded.
NOTES
1. We make no claim that athlete-athlete feedback has similar features, and we plan future analysis
to explore this.
2. As noted by an anonymous reviewer, a further relevant feature of the organization of these
correction events is the athletes’ responses to the coach’s correction. This is a topic we plan to
address in future publications.
3. In this study, we will refer to “plays” of basketball, representing the planned offensive structures
involving the spatial arrangement of players on the court and their coordinated trajectories of
action in order to score with the ball at the hoop, and the “lifts” of powerlifting, the correct
movements of bench press, squat, or deadlift conducted in accordance with the rules of power-
lifting.
4. This is another form of corrective activity that shall form the basis of future research.
5. A noteworthy difference between our findings and Keevallik’s (2010) is that coaches may, but
do not always, provide an explanation for having provided the proposed correction. Novices tak-
ing correction first time through are routinely provided explanation and closely monitored for
their next attempt at the movements (in line with Keevallik 2010), while more experienced ath-
letes may not be provided explanations and may or may not provide feedback or be monitored
by the coach for their performance. The comparison between experience levels is a complex
discussion that we will leave for future analysis.
6. As is the case for many basketball training activities which pit one group of players against
another, for this activity, the players have been divided up into teams designated by the color
of their jerseys. The team issues reversible jerseys to the players to wear to training for this
purpose, enabling flexibility in grouping players together. Turning up at training without the
proper jersey can be a sanctionable offense.
7. During a basketball game, after every made basket, the opposing team takes possession and
must pass the ball from out of bounds to a teammate on the court.
8. In basketball, a “cut” is a sudden running movement made to get open for a pass.
9. Reracking is when returning the squat bar from a completed squat into the squat rack.
10. This chest position allows lifters to properly engage the pectoral muscles. It contrasts with lying
flat on the bench while bench pressing, which employs more of the smaller deltoid muscle.
REFERENCES
Allen-Collinson, J. 2006. “Running-Together: Some Ethnomethodological Considerations.” Ethno-
graphic Studies 8:17–29.
Antaki, C., (ed). 2011. Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Button, G. and W. Sharrock. 2013. “All at Sea: The Use of Practical Formalisms in Yachting.” Pp.
105–133 in Ethnomethodology at Play, edited by P. Tolmie and M. Rouncefield. Surrey: Ash-
gate.
Coates, S. 1999. “Analysing the Physical: An Ethnomethodological Study of Boxing.” Ethnographic
Studies 4:14–26.
Cushion, C.J., K. Armour, and R.L. Jones. 2006. “Locating the Coaching Process in Practice: Models
’For’ and ’Of’ Coaching.” Physical Education Eand Sport Pedagogy 11(1):83–99.
Ende, J., A. Pomerantz, and F. Erickson. 1995. “Perceptors’ Strategies for Correcting Residents
in an Ambulatory Care Medicine Setting: A Qualitative Analysis.” Academic Medicine
70(3):299–322.
Fele, G. 2008. “The Phenomenal Field: Ethnomethodological Perspectives on Collective Phenom-
ena.” Human Studies 31(3):299–322.
Garfinkel, H. 2002. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Boulder,
CO: Rowman and Littlefield.
Geake, J. 2008. “Neuromythologies in Education.” Educational Research 50(2):123–133.
Girton, G.D. 1986. “Kung Fu: Toward a Praxiological Hermeneutic of the Martial Arts.” Pp. 60–89
in Ethnomethodological Studies of Work, edited by H. Garfinkel. London: Routledge.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. 1994. “Professional Vision.” American Anthropologist 96(3):606–633.
Goodwin, C. 2003. “The Body in Action.” Pp. 19–42 in Discourse, the Body, and Identity, edited by
J. Coupland and R. Gwyn. Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire and New York.
Goodwin, C. and M.H. Goodwin. 2004. “Participation.” Pp. 222–244 in A Companion to Linguistic
Anthropology, edited by A. Duranti. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Groom, R., C.J. Cushion, and L.J. Nelson. 2012. “Analysing Coach-Athlete ’Talk in Interaction’
within the Delivery of Video-Based Performance Feedback in Elite Youth Soccer.” Qualita-
tive Research in Sport, Exercise & Health 4(3):439–458.
Groom, Ryan, Lee J. Nelson, Paul Potrac, and Christopher J. Cushion. 2014. “Conversation Anal-
ysis.” Pp. 227–238 in Research Methods in Sports Coaching, edited by Lee J. Nelson, Ryan
Groom, and Paul Potrac. London: Routledge.
Hindmarsh, J. and C. Heath. 2000. “Embodied Reference: A Study of Deixis in Workplace Interac-
tion.” Journal of Pragmatics 32(12):1855–1878.
Hindmarsh, J., P. Reynolds, and S. Dunne. 2011. “Exhibiting Understanding: The Body in Appren-
ticeship.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(2):489–503.
Hindmarsh, J., L. Hyland, and A. Banerjee. 2014. “Work to Make Simulation Work: ’Realism’,
Instructional Correction and the Body in Training.” Discourse Studies 16(2):247–269.
Hockey, J. and J. Allen-Collinson. 2013. “Distance Running as Play/Work: Training Together as a
Joint Accomplishment.” Pp. 211–226 in Ethnomethodology at Play, edited by P. Tolmie and
M. Rouncefield. London: Ashgate.
Holt, E. 2000. “Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech.” Research on
Language and Social Interaction 33(4):425–454.
Jones, R.L. and C. Corsby. 2015. “A Case for Coach Garfinkel: Decision Making and What We
Already Know.” Quest 67(4):439–449.
Jones, R.L., C. Edwards, and I.A.T.V. Filho. 2014. “Activity Theory, Complexity and Sports Coach-
ing: An Epistemology for a Discipline.” Sport, Education and Society 21(2):200–216.
Keevallik, L. 2010. “Bodily Quoting in Dance Correction.” Research on Language and Social Inter-
action 43(4):401–426.
Kendon, A. 2010. “Spacing and Orientation in Co-present Interaction.” Pp. 1–15 in Development
of Multimodal Interfaces: Active Listening and Synchrony, edited by A. Esposito, Nick Camp-
bell, Carl Vogel, Amir Hussain, and Anton Nijholt. Berlin: Springer.
Kew, F. 1986. “Playing the Game: An Ethnomethodological Perspective.” International Review for
the Sociology of Sport 21(4):305–324.
Kolb, D.A. 2014. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson.
Koschmann, Timothy, Curtis LeBaron, Charles Goodwin, and Paul Feltovich. 2011. “Can You See
the Cystic Artery Yet? A Simple Matter of Trust.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(2):521–541.
LeCouteur, A. and R. Feo. 2011. “Real-Time Communication during Play: Analysis of Team-Mates’
Talk and Interaction.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12(2):124–134.
Lindwall, O. and A. Ekstrom. 2012. “Instruction-in-Interaction: The Teaching and Learning of a
Manual Skill.” Human Studies 35(1):27–49.
Lindwall, O. and G. Lymer. 2014. “Inquiries of the Body: Novice Questions and the Instructable
Observability of Endodotic Scenes.” Discourse Studies 16(2):271–294.
Luff, P., J. Hindmarsh, and C. Heath, (eds). 2000. Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and
Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macbeth, D. 2004. “The Relevance of Repair for Classroom Correction.” Language in Society
33(5):703–736.
Macbeth, D. 2012. “Some Notes on the Play of Basketball in Its Circumstantial Detail, and an Intro-
duction to Their Occasion.” Human Studies 35(2):193–208.
Martin, C. and F. Sahlström. 2010. “Learning as Longitudinal Interactional Change: From
Other-Repair to Self-Repair in Physiotherapy Treatment.” Discourse Processes 47(8):
668–697.
McHoul, A. 1990. “The Organization of Repair in Classrooms.” Language in Society 19(3):349–377.
Meyer, C. and U.V. Wedelstaedt, (eds). 2016. Moving Bodies in Interaction-Interacting Bodies in
Motion: Intercorporeal and Interkinesthetic Enaction in Sports. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Miller, P.K. and C. Cronin. 2012. “Rethinking the Factuality of ‘Contextual’ Factors in an Eth-
nomethodological Mode: Towards a Reflexive Understanding of Action-Context Dynamism
in the Theorization of Coaching.” Sports Coaching Review 1(2):106–123.
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turntaking: Pointing and the emergence of possible
next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225.
Nicolopoulou, A., et al. 2009. “Using the Transformative Power of Play to Educate Hearts and
Minds: From Vygotsky to Vivian Paley and Beyond.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 17(1):42–58.
Nishizaka, A. 2006. “What to Learn: The Embodied Structure of the Environment.” Research on
Language and Social Interaction 39(2):119–154.
Okada, M. 2013. “Embodied Interactional Competence in Boxing Practice: Coparticipants’ Joint
Accomplishment of a Teaching and Learning Activity.” Language & Communication
33(4):390–403.
Romack, J. and A. Valantine. 2005. “Teaching Proper Lift Techniques: The Benefits of Supplement-
ing Verbal Feedback with Video Feedback.” Strength and Conditioning Journal 27(3):60–63.
Sacks, H. 1972. “Notes on Police Assessment of Moral Character.” Pp. 280–293 in Studies in Social
Interaction, edited by D. Sudnow. New York: Free Press.
Sacks, H. and E. Schegloff. 2002. “Home Position.” Gesture 2(2):133–146.
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of
Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50(4):696–735.
Schegloff, E. 1992. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersub-
jectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97(5):1295–1345.
Schegloff, E. 1998. “Body Torque.” Social Research 65(3):535–596.
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol.

1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E., G. Jefferson, and H. Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organi-
zation of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53(2):361–382.
Sharrock, W. and R. Anderson. 1982. “Talking and Teaching: Reflective Comments on In-Classroom
Activities.” Pp. 170–183 in Doing Teaching, edited by G. Payne and D. Hustler. London:
Batesford.
Sidnell, J. 2006. “Coordinating Gesture, Talk, and Gaze in Reenactments.” Research on Language
and Social Interaction 39(4):377–409.
Stivers, T. and J.D. Robinson. 2006. “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in
Society 35(3):367–392.
Streeck, J. 2009. Gesturecraft: The Manu-Facture of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thompson, S.A. and R. Suzuki. 2014. “Reenactments in Conversation: Gaze and Recipiency.” Dis-
course Studies 16(6):816–846.
Tolmie, P. and M. Rouncefield, (eds). 2013. Ethnomethodology at Play. Surrey: Ashgate.
Tutt, D. and J. Hindmarsh. 2011. “Reenactments at Work: Demonstrating Conduct in Data Ses-
sions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(3):211–236.
Weeks, P. 1996. “A Rehearsal of a Beethoven Passage: An Analysis of Correction Talk.” Research
on Language and Social Interaction 29(3):247–290.
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTOR(S)

Bryn Evans is Lecturer in the School of Communication Studies at the Auckland University of
Technology, New Zealand. His research focuses on the sequential and embodied organization of
social activities. Prominent research areas include practices of instruction and intervention in sports
coaching settings. He has recently begun exploring the organization of human-robot interaction.
Edward Reynolds is a Lecturer in Communication at the University of Newhampshire, Durham.

His research focuses on the social organization of groups in settings of conflict, collaboration, and
competition. His research has examined settings of public debate, sports, and nursing. His publica-
tions include coediting a special issue of the Australian Journal of Communication (2013, 40 2 with
Sean Rintel and Richard Fitzgerald) and research on the interactional organization of deception
in the British Journal of Social Psychology (with Johanna Rendle-Short, 2011) and membership
categorization analysis in The Sage Handbook of Membership Categorisation Analysis (2015).

Correction SYMB Evans Reynolds

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Correction SYMB Evans Reynolds

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Organization of Corrective

Demonstrations Using Embodied Action

Focusing on video recordings of coaching sessions in the context of bas-

Symbolic Interaction, (2016), p. n/a, ISSN: 0195-6086 print/1533-8665 online.

in “context-sensitive ways” to achieve setting-specific outcomes. In this study, we

CORRECTION VERSUS REPAIR

collection, the “other” of other-initiated correction is the coach; however, other

of participants involved in accomplishing collaborative work activities known as

Spotting the lift Congratulating the lifter

Leaving the area Exiting the lift

Moving away from the bench

a. Enacting a new framework for corrective demonstration

Phase 1: Orienting to a Trouble Source by Reconﬁguring

1 COACH: Alright. (.) ((Whistle blow#))

Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9

Phase 2: Demonstrating the Error

Example 3a (Case 2, Basketball recording 18b)

fig : #fig 10 #fig 11 #fig 12

34 wanna do is (0.2) step in this corner and get

Figure15 beginning Figure 16 wobble Figure 17 up

Figure 18 wobble Figure 19 wobble

Finding the Error in a Video

Example 5 (Case 4, powerlift recording 1) Dipping chest

Figure 23 Chris returning to point

20 COACH: she drops her chest a little bit.

22 COACH: there’s a little- she drops her chest a little bit.

31 (4.2) (looking at replay)

Figure 27 ‘I see it now’ Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30

In this corrective exchange, participants arrange themselves in a U-shaped facing

Phase 3: Providing a Solution: Instructing Action

37 COACH: lil bit.#

Multi-Party Bodily Enactment of the Solution

Example 7 (Case 2, basketball recording 18b)

fig: #fig 34 #fig 35

fig: #fig 36 #fig 37 #fig 38

different devices of corrective feedback. Understanding the organization structure

(( )) Double parentheses contain transcriber’s descriptions rather than, or in addition to,

Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTOR(S)

Edward Reynolds is a Lecturer in Communication at the University of Newhampshire, Durham.

You might also like