How a national champion coach gets better at giving feedback

Last week, my students broke a new record: 1,600 championships.

I volunteer with UCLA’s mock trial team. Years before I joined, the team won two national championships. When I was an undergraduate, we won two more. In 2023, we won another.

This year, only one member of the 2023 squad is still competing. Her peers have graduated. It’s a relatively young squad.

But they’ve enjoyed one of the best streaks I’ve seen in the activity, winning their last three contests back to back. They have a good shot at the 2025 title (knock on wood).

Their wins don’t belong to me, of course. It’s their hard work on display—I’m not the one competing. Their victories are also reflective of their other coaches, such as 2022 UCLA alum Andrew Moon, 2023 national championship coach Brandon Benjamin, and program director Elizabeth Smiley.

Since I tend to meet with students one-on-one or in pairs over Zoom throughout the week, I have a lot of footage of myself coaching to play back. I treat my coaching sessions like a football player reviewing game tape—I try to pinpoint valuable activities, what comments add value or confuse the issues, and how much I’m balancing criticism versus compliments.

I pay a lot of attention to feedback—because I used to really struggle with giving it.

I worried about my students’ egos. What if I hurt their feelings by being too direct?

I worried about my students’ expectations. What if they thought it was a waste of time because I wasn’t direct enough?

I worried about my value as a coach. What if I was giving them the wrong advice?

So, I spent some time researching best practices.

The research was easy to understand but hard to implement.

Consider this 2004 report from the Journal of Communication Education, which tells us that sensitive students prefer less harsh, critical feedback. Sure. Fine. Makes sense. What happens if we fail to effectively gauge a student’s level of sensitivity?

Or this 2007 study from Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, which states that performances are best improved by a combination of written and verbal feedback. That’s useful because it means we shouldn’t just speak our critiques into the ether—they need to be recorded—but it’s not enough.

Meta-analyses were not particularly helpful. For instance, this systematic review of face-to-face feedback for health professionals thought that some feedback was better than none, but lacked ‘high-quality’ evidence.

I turned to LinkedIn. CorDell L. (who is currently #OpentoWork!) did a fine job summarizing a couple studies on performance reviews. His conclusions are generally good: discuss your standards regularly, match observations to numbers/results, compare performance to an ideal standard, and give the subject space to ask questions.

What did AI tell me about my coaching style?

Some people have an effortless ability to immediately connect with people over shared interests. I do not. Others project a deeply felt warmth and understanding. That’s not me. Many top coaches bring a gravitas and world of lived experiences that are apparent before they even begin to speak. I’m still in my early 30s, and I look it.

But after feeding transcripts of my last few weeks’ worth of coaching sessions into AI, I unearthed some strengths and suggestions.

Strength #1: Deep Subject-Matter Expertise

• Broad Knowledge of Multiple Formats:
  Whether the student is preparing for impromptu speeches, parliamentary debate, mock-trial cross-examinations, or public speaking generally, Dr. Lampert shows command of the frameworks, rules, and best practices in each area.

• Targeted Resource Recommendations:
  He frequently points students toward very specific, high-quality materials (e.g., debate lecture videos, formats, AI tools for transcript summarization) that can accelerate learning. Rather than generic “study more” advice, he offers practical, curated suggestions.

Strength #2: Clear Structural Guidance

• Frameworks & Templates:
  Dr. Lampert consistently breaks down complex tasks into clear, repeatable structures—for instance, “Background–Harm–Solution” in impromptu, or how to do a thorough cross-ex in mock trial (start with a “pocket” of questions, then layer in details).

• Immediate, Concrete Examples:
  Instead of staying abstract, he models the skill in real time (e.g., crafting a quick impromptu outline on “determination,” or role-playing an objection drill). This show-and-tell approach helps students grasp both the concept and its application.

• Step-by-Step Explanations:
  He takes care to walk students through each phase of a skill (such as writing a structured impromptu or responding to an evidentiary objection), making sure they see the logical progression.

Strength #3: Adaptive, Responsive Style

• Adjusts to Student Needs on the Fly:
  Dr. Lampert quickly pivots when a student’s goals or questions change—whether they decide, mid-session, to focus on a different debate format or realize they need an alternative approach to an objection.

• Builds on Student Input:
  He frequently asks students for their ideas or examples, then helps them refine or expand those ideas, rather than prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution.

• Encourages Preemptive Strategies:
  In both mock-trial and debate contexts, he shows how anticipating counterarguments or potential pitfalls leads to more credible, persuasive performances. This adaptability equips students to stay calm under pressure.

Strength #4: Emphasis on Measurable Outcomes

• Clarity of Purpose:
  He often starts by probing what “success” looks like (e.g., is it high speaker points in debate, a certain win-loss record, or mastering public speaking skills?). This ensures the advice is targeted to the student’s actual goals.

• Concrete Action Steps:
  Whether it’s keeping a partner accountable in parli or running short debate drills to cover dropped arguments, Dr. Lampert gives specific next steps that make improvement tangible and trackable.

Strength #5: Positive, Encouraging Communication

• Reassuring & Energetic Tone:
  Even when pointing out weaknesses or missed opportunities, Dr. Lampert conveys encouragement. His style helps students feel comfortable experimenting, asking clarifying questions, and making on-the-spot adjustments.

• Balancing Humor & Seriousness:
  He frequently sprinkles in small jokes or analogies (e.g., referencing “BuzzFeed quizzes,” “running out of camera storage”) to lighten the mood—yet he remains focused on the lesson goal.

• Concise Summaries:
  At the end of most sessions, he attempts to recap key takeaways or next steps, ensuring the student leaves with a clear sense of direction.

It’s good to know what I did well, so I also asked trained AI to analyze where I should improve.

Below is a synthesis of potential areas for improvement for Dr. Lampert, based on recurring themes across the various session evaluations you shared. While his coaching style is consistently thorough, adaptable, and encouraging, the following suggestions could further enhance the learning experience for students, parents, and partners:

Improvement #1: More Structured Planning & Wrap-Ups

• Earlier Goal-Setting & Final Summaries
  In several sessions, Dr. Lampert did ask students about their objectives, but there were times when formalizing the goals up front could have brought extra clarity. Likewise, brief end-of-session recaps—where both coach and student outline key takeaways and immediate next steps—would reinforce what was learned and ensure the student leaves with a clear plan.

• Segmenting Complex Topics
  When tackling multiple skills (e.g., speech organization and rebuttal strategy), adding short mid-session “mini-summaries” can help the student (and parent) track progress before moving on to the next focus area.

Improvement #2: Encouraging More Student-Led Reflection

• Inviting the Student’s Self-Correction
  Dr. Lampert often provides real-time demonstrations and solutions, but leaving a moment for the student to propose their own fix first (e.g., “How might you handle that differently next time?”) can strengthen internalization of the lesson.

• Balancing “Coach Demo” vs. “Student Initiative”
  His “show-and-tell” approach is highly effective, yet occasionally it can be valuable to let the student struggle briefly—then prompt them to arrive at an insight. This fosters independence and deeper retention.

Improvement #3: Consistent Time Management & Pacing

• Structured Slices of Practice
  In a few instances, Dr. Lampert’s willingness to explore a topic in depth (especially in cross-ex or parli) led to somewhat lengthy tangents. Adding “Let’s spend exactly 5 more minutes on this piece” can ensure coverage of all intended points within the session’s time.

• Occasional Overlapping Topics
  Some sessions covered several distinct areas (e.g., multiple debate forms + impromptu + parent Q&A) in rapid succession. Ensuring each segment has a well-defined start, middle, and end can help maintain clarity and prevent rushed conclusions.

Final Thoughts

Feedback is difficult for black-and-white subjects. Just ask any math teacher—it’s hard to know if your students understand your lectures until they turn in their assignment. But when they do, you know in black-and-math whether they ‘got it’ or not.

Public speaking contests are tougher, because your students rely on you to pre-judge their presentations and assume what audiences of judges are likely to think about their future performances.

I encourage all public speaking coaches to think critically about their feedback styles.

How do we know it’s working?

How can we get sincere feedback to learn how it can work even better? These self-prompted AI models are the start of a self-critical conversation, but just that—the start.

It’s up to us to keep the dialogue strong for our students’ sake.