Reflections on my experiences
As a Gaelic games development officer in Hong Kong schools, when coaching kids the soloing skill (kick to yourself) in Gaelic football, I remember asking kids to stand in line, wait their turn, follow a technical model, and then utilise it in more variable conditions, like game play. My sessions generally progressed from drill tasks to skill tasks, to games. My “traditional” coaching was not optimally preparing the players and it was not a fun environment. This was also seen in my strength and conditioning coaching, where I was aiming to develop better movers on the field of play. Linear movement drill tasks (A-skip, B-skip etc.), tasks to aid sprinting mechanics, cone drills to aid change of direction mechanics, all devoid of highly representative information, stripping athletes of the chance to learn to couple their movements with key information sources - information-movement coupling, see Chow et al. (2021) – were examples of poor, “traditional” coaching. I needed to evolve my coaching practice to align with “contemporary” coaching principles, like those from ecological dynamics.
However, along my journey (over the last four years in particular), through exposure to other perspectives, my own perspective has changed, and I have tried to evolve to be a more critical thinker. This has been helped by my formal education (MSc, MPhil and currently PhD), gaining insights into various disciplines of sport science and coaching, like physiology, biomechanics and psychology. It has also been helped by my applied work experience, and my interactions with others. The real world is too complex to have “if this-then that” or blanket rules. At all times, coaches and practitioners must remain responsive to the individual and contextual variabilities present within their own environment. This provided me with another lens to reflect my past coaching experiences and challenge my initial reflections on them.
To return to the soloing example – it not unsuitable to provide an example of an ideal solo to give learners an example of what it looks like, especially if the learners had never seen one before. How realistic is it that all learners will have the pre-requisite knowledge and coordination to complete a new skill in a new sport without any instruction or guidance? Through a demonstration of the skill, and asking novice learners to practice the skill in a low-variability environment (like a linear drill), where they encounter minimal “noise”, and present them with the opportunity to learn from each other’s demonstrations, maybe I am creating an experience for the learner matched with their developmental needs (Kearney et al., 2024)? Maybe, however, this is an example of confirmation bias to justify my coaching? Ultimately, if I had my time again, I would undoubtedly do it differently.
As a strength and conditioning coach, there is nothing wrong with incorporating running drills into warm-ups, if it gives players a context and understanding of key movement positions they need to hit during high-speed movements. Ultimately, they fulfill the requirements of a warm-up. While acknowledging that these types of activities can support the development of better movement, but are not enough on their own.
Warm-up activity in Hong Kong!
It is also important to recognise the conditional value of activity types - drills are not always boring, and games are not always fun, and the coach/teacher has a big role to play in shaping the learning experience of the learners. Drills and games also have conditional outcomes. Coaches are central agents in learning environments to create optimal conditions for athlete learning and performance (Côté et al., 2010).
A “versus” versus “non-versus” outlook
It is important to recognise that with each example shared above, there were undoubtedly other options to achieve the same outcome. This is the essence of expert decision making and the development of expert decision making – the recognition and consideration of alternatives (Abraham, 2015; Abraham & Collins, 2011; Collins & Collins, 2021). However, even though there may be more effective options for a given scenario, with some being more effective than others, it is unwise to suggest that any approach is unconditionally the best. As Wilson and Kiely (2023) state: “problems can be approached from multiple, sometimes competing, perspectives and have multiple possible solutions. The ‘best’ solution, however, cannot be determined in advance.”
What has now been created is, what I believe, a false dichotomy. Coaches have been encouraged to “choose” between theoretical approaches, with claims that a “pick and mix” strategy is not coherent – see Hydes et al. (2024) for an in-depth discussion. Indeed, there have been investigations exploring an ecological dynamics approach versus an information processing approach, to support. For example:
Lindsay et al. (2023) compared a nonlinear pedagogy learning approach (integration of variability into practice) and linear pedagogy approach (a focus on repetition and replication of an “ideal” technique) when learning a movement based skill, the power clean. In a four-week intervention, the nonlinear pedagogy group were presented with analogy-based instructions and two task-based constraints. The linear pedagogy group received instructions that explicitly prescribed movement technique. It was found that there were no significant between groups in relation to movement exploration and barbell trajectory, and both groups improved in performance accuracy.
In another study, a deliberate practice approach was compared to a nonlinear pedagogy approach in developmental soccer training (Deuker et al., 2023). 40 young male players were randomly assigned to one of three groups to complete a five-week intervention. The practice group performed passing drills (decontextualised environment), the play group performed a nonlinear pedagogy training routine, while the control group continued with their regular training activities. It found that both the play and passing group improved passing skills, with the play group displaying better retention compared to the practice group.
Finally, in another developmental soccer study, an ecological dynamics approach was compared to a “traditional” prescriptive approach (Esposito et al., 2024). 30 players underwent an eight-week training program. The ecological dynamics group training was focused on the manipulation of task constraints, like game rules, to promote adaptability and problem-solving. In contrast, the traditional prescriptive group were provided with specific instructions, immediate feedback, and structured exercise progressions. It was found that both groups improved in the post-test time trial, penalty time and overall performance, with neither group retaining any improvement.
What is interesting across these studies (and I have not offered a critique of the methods in each study) is that despite similar study designs and findings, the results are presented differently. When concluding their findings, Lindsay et al. (2023, p. 793) state: “Overall, both NLP and LP approaches appear to positively influence skill development.” In contrast, both Deuker et al. (2023) and Esposito et al. (2024) both conclude that ecological dynamics approaches were more effective than the traditional. Different conclusion for essentially similar results. In my view, none of this evidence supports one way being better than another.
Focus of attention
The presentation of a dichotomy is also relevant to other areas within skill acquisition, notably around cueing and focus of attention. An external focus of attention is a key principle of non-linear pedagogy (Chow et al., 2021), and an external focus of attention on the intended movement effect or outcome has consistently been found to enhance motor learning, performance, retention and transfer relative to an internal focus (Wulf, 2013; Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). Indeed, internal, external, and holistic focus of attention cues were compared for a karate punching task (Mohammadi Sanjani et al., 2023). It was found that there were significant differences in performance outputs (force and velocity) from external cueing to internal cueing, but no differences in the perceived workload. Authors concluded that “an external focus delivers superior performance compared to an internal focus” (p. 483). However, it is important to note that all cues (internal, external, and holistic) were effective.
Furthermore, the evidence supporting an external focus of attention has been called into question through meta-scientific work. McKay et al. (2023) acknowledged that some studies with non-significant results of small effects – sometime referred to as non-significant trends (Otte et al., 2022) – may not have been published. The authors reanalysed seven meta-studies on external focus of attention correcting for publication bias, an found that an internal focus may be superior to an external focus in nearly as many situations as the reverse.
Final thoughts
Blanket statements around “better” approaches are seldom useful to practitioners and coaches in complex environments, and are not true (see image below and caption for the podcast). While both conclusions (one approach is better versus both are useful) are technically correct, they belong to different paradigmatic and ontological commitments. Interestingly, none of the studies on the comparison of one approach versus another clarified their paradigmatic or ontological stance. When contrasting ontological positions are used, useful consensus remains elusive (a line taken from one of Andy Kirkland’s X posts).
Ashford et al. (2020) highlighted the challenges that coaches face when trying to interpret seemingly contrasting or contradictory findings. Often researchers are deeply rooted in a particular philosophical camp and interpretation of empirical data presents one side only (Araujo et al., 2019; Williams & Jackson, 2019). This presents a challenge for the coach, because first they need to understand findings that are explained in different ways and then draw connections between them. In addition, each approach can use perspective-specific language (for example, representativeness vs specificity). Despite a coach’s best efforts, engaging with research can lead to confusion, conceptual blind sports and convoluted and contrived solutions to complex practical problems.
References
Abraham, A. (2015). Understanding Coaching as a Judgement and Decision Making Process: Implications for Coach Development Practice University of Central Lancashire].
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011). Effective skill development: how should athletes' skills be developed? In D. Collins, A. Button, & H. Richards (Eds.), Performance Psychology (pp. 207-229). Churchill Livingstone. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-06734-1.00015-8
Araujo, D., Hristovski, R., Seifert, L., Carvalho, J., & Davids, K. (2019). Ecological cognition: Expert decision-making behaviour in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1349826
Ashford, M., Abraham, A., & Poolton, J. (2020). A Communal Language for Decision Making in Team Invasion Sports. International Sport Coaching Journal, 8. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2019-0062
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2021). Nonlinear Pedagogy in Skill Acquisition (2nd Edition ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003247456
Collins, D., & Collins, L. (2021). Developing coaches’ professional judgement and decision making: Using the ‘Big 5’. Journal of Sports Sciences, 39(1), 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1809053
Côté, J., Bruner, M. W., Erickson, K., Strachan, L., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2010). Athlete development and coaching. In J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sport Coaching: Professionalization and practice (pp. 63-83). Elsevier.
Deuker, A., Braunstein, B., Chow, J., Fichtl, M., Kim, H., Koerner, S., & Rein, R. (2023). “Train as you play”: Improving effectiveness of training in youth soccer players. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 174795412311727. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541231172702
Esposito, G., Ceruso, R., Aliberti, S., & Raiola, G. (2024). Ecological-Dynamic Approach vs. Traditional Prescriptive Approach in Improving Technical Skills of Young Soccer Players. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 9(3), 162. https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/9/3/162
Hydes, S., Rothwell, M., Farrokh, D., & Keith, D. (2024). Can coaches "pick & mix ideas from different scientific theories to inform their practical applications? https://www.theconstraintscollective.com/bloghome/can-coaches-pick-amp-mix-ideas-from-different-scientific-theories-to-inform-their-practical-applications
Kearney, P. E., Logan, O., Dunton, A., & Coughlan, E. K. (2024). The adaptable coach – A critical review of the practical implications for traditional and constraints–led approaches in sports coaching: A commentary. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 0(0), 17479541241247411. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541241247411
Lindsay, R., & Spittle, M. (2024). The adaptable coach – a critical review of the practical implications for traditional and constraints-led approaches in sport coaching. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 0(0), 17479541241240853. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541241240853
Lindsay, R. S., Komar, J., Chow, J. Y., Larkin, P., & Spittle, M. (2023). Is Prescription of Specific Movement Form Necessary for Optimal Skill Development? A Nonlinear Pedagogy Approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 94(3), 793-801. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2022.2054925
MacNamara, Á., & Collins, D. (2015). Twitterati and Paperati: evidence versus popular opinion in science communication. Br J Sports Med, 49(19), 1227-1228. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094884
Marteniuk, R. G. (1976). Information processing in motor skills. New York (N.Y.) : Holt. http://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:000073369
McKay, B., Corson, A., Seedu, J., Faveri, C., Hasan, H., Arnold, K., & Carter, M. (2023). Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis of the attentional focus literature. https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.304
Mohammadi Sanjani, F., Kamp, J., Bahram, A., & Savelsbergh, G. (2023). External focus of attention delivers superior punches with the preferred hand but not with the non-preferred: A comparison of internal, external and holistic focus of attention. International Journal of Sport Psychology.
Nevo, I., & Slonim-Nevo, V. (2011). The Myth of Evidence-Based Practice: Towards Evidence-Informed Practice. The British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1176-1197. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq149
Otte, W. M., Vinkers, C. H., Habets, P. C., Van Ijzendoorn, D. G., & Tijdink, J. K. (2022). Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance. PLoS Biology, 20(2), e3001562.
Parry, T., & O'Rourke, L. (2023). Theories of Skill Acquisition: Implications for Tennis Coaching. ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review, 31(89), 51-56. https://doi.org/10.52383/itfcoaching.v31i89.391
Ribeiro, J., Davids, K., Silva, P., Coutinho, P., Barreira, D., Garganta, J., & Ribeiro, J. (2021). Talent Development in Sport Requires Athlete Enrichment: Contemporary Insights from a Nonlinear Pedagogy and the Athletic Skills Model. Sports Medicine, 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01437-6
Stone, J., Rothwell, M., Shuttleworth, R., & Davids, K. (2020). Exploring sports coaches’ experiences of using a contemporary pedagogical approach to coaching: an international perspective. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020.1765194
Williams, A. M., & Jackson, R. C. (2019). Anticipation in sport: Fifty years on, what have we learned and what research still needs to be undertaken? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 16-24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.014
Wilson, P. J., & Kiely, J. (2023). Developing Decision-Making Expertise in Professional Sports Staff: What We Can Learn from the Good Judgement Project. Sports Medicine - Open, 9(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-023-00629-w
Woods, C. T., McKeown, I., O'Sullivan, M., Robertson, S., & Davids, K. (2020). Theory to Practice: Performance Preparation Models in Contemporary High-Level Sport Guided by an Ecological Dynamics Framework. Sports Med Open, 6(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00268-5
Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1382-1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9
Commentaires