Introduction to non-Linear pedagogy Pt 2 - Coaching

The development of non-linear pedagogy is predicated on the notion that the learner is a non-linear dynamical system that produces movement solutions in response to information in its environment.  An agent and its environment are inseparable in which case open systems are susceptible to perturbations that can either fatally disorder it or drive it to self-organise. The view that the biological adaptive process drives the development of talent in this way has given rise to the notion that ‘expertise is an adaptation’ to the many interacting (i.e. psychological, physiological, sociological) constraints acting on the individual at any given time.

The basis therefore of a non-linear pedagogy is that the coach can manipulate the sources that act to constrain performance in a way that guides the performer to a more functional state. For example evidence shows that the manipulation of constraints can lead to the production of successful motor patterns and decision making behaviour (Chow et al 2006). In ‘constraints led coaching’ the coach creates training environments that are designed to induce adaptation in the ‘known’ mechanisms that control performance in the target context – they attempt to build the machine for the race it's in!

Some thoughts on designing learning in a constraint based framework;

-          The key constraints that can be manipulated are: the task (i.e. Rules), the individual (deliberately fatigued), the environment (i.e. the scaling parameters of the playing space)

-          The configurations of constraints by the coach are not designed to prescribe the way the learner behaves but instead guide it (Davids et al 2012)

-          Constraints cannot influence the learning process independently (see Davids 2008) i.e. the technical, mental, tactical aspect of performance must be integrated in to the training environment.

 

-  Practice therefore  should be ‘representative’, if the setting for practice provides more time for participation and it doesn’t invoke physical, psychological and performance adaptation the it should not be considered as a talent development environment (Cobley et al 2012)

-          Practice should designed to drive the performer to the ‘edge of stability’ where they are forced to function at high levels of intensity (Renshaw et al 2012)

 

Introduction to non-linear pedagogy

Extended engagement in practice leads to functional adaptation in the mechanisms that control performance. The emergence of new structure characterises the adaptive process and occurs when specific constraints act to perturb the systems state of homeostasis. In this respect ‘new structure’ emerges even though the system has no previous knowledge of the new structures impending form. Crucially when an athlete experiences a plateau in performance the existing structure of the system will remain unchanged until entropy overwhelms the systems current state of stability. Entropy then, as described by Stephen et al (2009), is an index of disorder or instability acting upon the system driving it to spontaneously reorganise.

The self organising propensity of neurobiological systems can be harnessed for the development of sporting talent. The space in-between stability and instability is known as the ‘phase space’ where the athlete is transitioning from one level of performance to another. This is described by Rernshaw et al (2011) as the meta-stable region of performance where the athlete is poised on the edge of stability in a highly adaptive state. In this respect the developing performer can be thought of as a non-linear dynamical system because what acts to perturb reorganisation of system dynamics in one individual may not be the same in another.   

Conceptualising human development in this way is significant because traditional theories of learning have been unable to show how individual differences can be acounted for and designed into the learning process (Davids et al 2012). For this reason monotonic linear models of talent development aligned to deliberate practice methodology have been unsuccessful (Renshaw et al 2011). 

If this knowledge is to be integrated successfully into learning design, in a way that directly impacts on the talent development process, practitioners will need to have a sound theoretical understanding of the transfer-appropriate processes that govern such thinking.