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.

The Emergent Nature of Skill

Golf is a game played in environments where specifying variables (affordances for action) include: weather systems, topology, surface type and performance pressure; furthermore these specifying variables are non stable and subject to fluctuations.  Regardless of this the golf performer, typically, attempts to overcome these constraints during block practice sessions in predictable environments, leading to inevitable problems in relation to retention and transfer of skill to the performance context.

Not surprisingly research has shown (e.g. Ball et al 2003; Fairweather et al 2002) that no common optimal coordination pattern can exist because each time a skill is performed in ‘real life’ it is subject to a set of unique variables (e.g. wind, temperature, slope, physiological status, psychological factors) that will be present to a lesser (or greater) extent each time a skill is performed. In thermodynamics, which predicts a tendency toward entropy, such systems are called ‘open systems’ which are in contrast to ‘closed systems’ that tend to be information impoverished. This effect is seen in skill acquisition during block practice in ‘closed’ contexts where performance tends to be effective during the practice session however retention and transfer tend to be poor, whilst the random prescription of practice tasks, known as contextual interference, has been shown to have the opposite effect (see Lee & Simon 2009).

According Ecological psychologists (e.g.Gibson 1979), specifying variables in the environment are acted upon in the form of a functional (or non-functional) movement response/solution; this is referred to as ‘information-movement coupling’. Under such conditions skill is considered to be an emergent attribute constructed when an agent firstly becomes aware of the key information sources in the environment; and secondly fine tunes the movement response. These interactions produce order through a process called ‘self organisation’ as the human system acts to form coherent spatial and temporal structures (Huys et al 2009).

One way the coach can encourage the self organising propensity of the human system is through a process called constraints based coaching (see Chow et al 2006). In constraints based coaching the practice session takes place with all information sources present and flowing (e.g. the mental, technical, tactical, physical aspects of performance). In this situation the coach can manipulate environmental constraints, such as changing the scaling parameters of the playing field, to induce greater levels of skilled behaviour.

Designing 'representive tasks' in this way according to Davids et al (2007), exemplify how perception, decision making and action (a) are examples of adaptive behaviour, (b) embodies the performer – environment system, (c) function in a task specific manner, (d) are dependent on interacting constraints that are specific to the performance context.   

Instruction Versus Environment

In an earlier post (The Problem with Stack and Tilt) I stated that the most adaptive co-ordination patterns are those that are soft assembled and in tune with environmental fluctuations - this new post is will look at this notion in more detail.

 When movement patterns are soft assembled the player is able to focus ‘externally’ on the anticipated outcome of the action, instead of ‘internally’ on the specific movement itself.  In other words the player begins with the outcome in mind (based on how they perceive the shot/situation) and this perception is then orientated to an appropriate movement pattern – this is called action-perception coupling.

In contrast to this, movement patterns that begin life as instructor led demonstrations of the correct posture, weight shift, arm position, hip action etc.,  have been shown to degrade performance under pressure and in some cases are more detrimental to performance than receiving no instruction at all.

(Typically this type of instruction occurs in highly managed, static environments that are characterised by safety and control. In order to reduce information overload ‘part task' practice activities are learned as a precursor to performing the whole skill)

It is likely that during the initial rehearsal of these new movements the player experiences a degree of improved performance. This is likely caused by practicing in a stable environment that allows fine tuning of movement parameters from one attempt to another. This often results in an artificially high level of performer confidence which often results in poor or negative transfer to a stressful performance situation.

It would of course be wrong to suggest that an emerging performer/novice needs no instruction at all, however skill acquisition practitioners advice that as soon as the learner acquires a rough approximation of the movement pattern they should shift their training to a more random schedule.

Whilst time spent in an instructional context would seem to diminish positive transfer to target context this should not have negative implications for the golf coach/instructor/teacher. Instead it would be hoped that a generation of cutting edge coaching research begings to inform the future direction of the industry.

References

Davids, K; Button, C; Bennett (2009) Dynamics of Skill Acquisition, A constraints led approach, Champaign, Human Kinetics

Schmidt, R.A & Wrisberg, C.A (2008) Motor Learning and Performance, A situation based learning approach Champaign, Human Kinetics

Wulf,G., Lauterbach,B., & Toole,T. (1999). Learning advantages of an external focus of attention in golf.Research Quarterly for Exercise & Spor

The Problem with Stack and Tilt!?

Never before has a golf coaching innovation divided opinion to the extent that the swing classification system known as ‘Stack and Tilt’ has. For this reason it needs no introduction apart to say that discourse on this subject is almost always dominated by arguments about its bio-mechanical principals.

Let me be clear about one thing, bio-mechanically and for the purpose of striking a golf ball, I believe the principals of S&T to be sound; however I also believe that this may well be its critical weakness!

The organisation of the system came about based on the research/advice of noted coach Mac O’Grady and by the principals laid out in the book “the golfing machine”. For this reason I will refer to S&T as being created in a laboratory setting characterised by predictability and control.  The ultimate evaluation of a laboratory creation is the degree to which the system is able to interact with the environment that it was designed for.

It would seem that at this stage in time S&T for many interacts perfectly with the environment that created it, exemplified by impressive ball striking by its advocates in closed contexts, but not so well with its target environment. As such its functionality or fitness in a naturalistic setting has been drawn into question which has hindered its implementation on a far greater scale.

The situation is not surprising, nor is it exclusively an S&T issue; research into motor learning and skill acquisition provides an interesting explanation for this. In open systems movement orientates itself to information sources in the environment (ecological constraints), such constraints (weather, playing surfaces, pressure, perception etc.) shape a systems behaviour and as such the most adaptive coordination patterns are those that are ‘soft assembled’ and able to tune into the prevailing task conditions. In other words the environment creates the movement pattern and not the other way about.

S&T, and any other swing conception, created and learned in a static controlled environment will always orientate best to static and controlled conditions. Unfortunately few sports are played in more unpredictable and interchangeable environments than golf. That is why the research shows that the most transferable skills are those that are created and mastered when all information sources are present and flowing.

Deliberate Practice - Expertise IS in our GENES!

The long held belief that outstanding performance was a result of innate ability has now been replaced by beliefs about the role of intensive deliberate practice.   Why then has there been such a seismic shift away from previously held views regarding the crucial role of innate talent in the developemnt of expertise?

The answer to this question is central to the Ericssons theory of deliberate practice and can be explained by the mediating role of 'gene expression' during the transformation from one level of performance to the next. During this process dormant genes are actively selected (called in to action) as a result of intense and extended practice - in other words the mechanisms of the body, through training, adapt to meet the demands that are being placed on them.

Under these circumstances the superior capacities (physiological and cognitive) exhibited by experts and previously thought to be innate, in fact result from rather than cause the development of expertise. It is therefore not unrealistic to suggest that all healthy individuals have inherited the potential to reach expert levels of performance, as the necessary genes appear to reflect genes contained within all individuals’ DNA.

For example endurance athletes routinely experience hypertrophy in the left ventricular of the heart which speeds up the flow of blood to meet their increased need for oxygen (see below).

hypertrophy in the left ventricular (botton right) of the heart

Another example of adaptation to training and its mediating role in the development of expertise is that of professional musicians. A professional key board player can produce 1800 notes per minute with precision of space and time that is unsurpassed in any other type of human behavior. This is possible because professional musicians’ develop quicker nerve conduction due to the enlargement of myelin cells - this specifically occurs during training activities that require rapid information transfer and temporal precision.
 

In applying this thinking to the development of expertise in golf involves the following: firstly the qualities that allow experts reproduce superior performance in a representative context needs to be identified. Experts often fail to outperform non experts in closed context controlled tasks. Experts, then, are distinguishable from non experts by their ability to perform under the many constraints that affect performance at an elite level. Only once you have learned how they acquired these skills can you go about designing training activities that lead to superior performance in golf.

References

Ericsson, K.A (2003) “How the Expert Performance Approach Differs from Traditional approaches to Expertise in Sport” in Starkes, J.L & Ericsson K.A (Eds), Expert Performance in Sports, Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics

Ericsson, K, A; Nandagopal, K and Roring, R,W (2009) Toward a Science of Exceptional Achievement: Attaining Superior Performance through Deliberate Practice Longevity, Regeneration, and Optimal Health 2009 New York Academy of Science  1172: 199–217

Gruber, H; Jansen, P; Marienhagen, J and Altenmueller, E (2010) Adaptations During the Acquisition of Expertise, Talent Development & Excellence of Expertise, Vol. 2, No. 1, 3-15

Münte, T, F;  Altenmüller, E and  Jäncke, L (2003)”The musician’s brain as a model of neuroplasticity”,  Neuro Science Volume 3  473

Stewart, L. (2008) Do musicians have different brains? Clinical Medicine, 8, 304–308.

The Role of Deliberate Practice

The fact that Anders Ericsson’s theory of deliberate practice (see Ericsson et al 1993) needs no introduction is a reflection of its newly found position in popular culture. Without doubt the most popular hypothesis from the deliberate practice framework is that expert performance is achieved because of an individuals’ prolonged effort to improve and not because of any special or innate talents.
 

If this alone were true then potentially, you and I and countless others would be playing on the PGA Tour by now. Ben Hogan, for example, spawned generations of golfers who were willing to beat balls for hours on end and yet so few went on to achieve the same success. Why then do some people derive more from practice than others?

According to Ericssons research, the answer is simple; when the reproduction of a skill becomes automatic (the autonomous stage of learning), no amount of increased practice/experience will bring about a marked improvement in performance. In other words the autonomous stage of learning means that a skill can be reproduced without any real stress; and here in lies the problem, in order to experience continued adaptations in the mechanisms that control performance we need stress. In the absence of stress no further adaptations will be experienced - we have arrested the development of our potential.

For this reason expert performers’ deliberately circumvent the autonomous stage of learning by seeking out increasingly demanding tasks. Such tasks continuously require them to stretch their performance beyond its current level. They overcome the detrimental effect of automaticity and in doing so acquire the cognitive skills to support their continued learning and improvement.

As Ericsson explains, the future experts and their teachers “…search continuously for optimal training activities that will appropriately strain the targeted systems to induce further adaptations…”

Perhaps then Hogan’s secret was quite simply that above all he developed the ability to practice with the most effective intensity and duration – he had what is known as the talent to practice deliberately!

References

Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. and Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) “The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance”, Psychological Review, Vol 100, No. 3; pp 363-406

Ericsson, K.A (2007) “The Influence of Experience and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Superior Expert Performance” in Charness, N; Feltovich, P,J; Hoffman, R,R &  Anders Ericsson, K (Eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, pp 683-703, New York, Cambridge University Press

The Myth of LTAD?!

I was reminded recently about a lecture at the University of Birmingham in 2006 when the presenters had the temerity to talk to us about the “The myth of LTAD”. Up until this point I like many others had accepted LTAD as fact and had welcomed it as a great resource.  So how then could something so well respected, scientific and embraced by so many NGB’s, be a myth?

If the controversial nature of the lecture was designed to pique our interest it certainly worked; during the past five years I have been able to study this closer as it relates to my own area of research.

In making my own assessment with regards to the “Myth of LTAD” I have looked at the model primarily from the viewpoint of its evidence base and the scientific principles around which the theory is built.

The Issues surrounding the evidence base of the model are simple; during the development of the model no scientific/empirical studies were conducted to establish whether expert athletes actually develop via the four key stages proposed in LTAD. Indeed the only research conducted so far regarding how experts develop reveals different activities and stages to those proposed in LTAD (see Williams 2009). As it stands the evidence base for the model constitutes the basic elements of the Canadian Men's Alpine Ski team program spanning three Olympic cycles.

So what then of the scientific principles that form the conceptual framework of LTAD? In terms of validity, within a model, these principles should form laws that govern any observable variances in the phenomena of athlete development.

An example of this would be the so called limiting affect, in LTAD, experienced if the athlete neglects any age related critical and sensitive periods of development,  during these ‘windows of trainability’ the athlete is said to experience accelerated adaptations to specific types of training. Failing to take an advantage of these ‘windows’, it is warned, will lead to athlete never reaching their full potential. Not surprisingly this type of information is intuitively appealing to sports coaches’; and indeed the practical applications of these principles have led some to claim to be world leaders in their field.  

However on closer scrutiny it is not possible, amongst the vast LTAD literature, to find any citations of peer reviewed evidence supporting the “windows of trainability” claim. Indeed the research, non peer reviewed/ non empirical or otherwise, is so scarce that Viru et al (1999) suggest that any conclusion being drawn from them should be considered to be inaccurate.  

This lack of evidence leads to criticism of LTAD as operating in the ‘land of theory’ in that it can only claim to be reflecting ideas, theories, hunches and hypotheses about the development of an athlete. None of which is a problem, we all have theories and hunches about the world but when the model is promoted as absolute scientific fact then there is no doubt that "the myth of LTAD" is a reality. 

References

A, M, Williams & P.R Ford (2009) Promoting a skill based agenda in Olympic sports: The role of skill acquisition specialists, Journal of Sports Sciences, 27: 13, 1381 - 1392

Viru, A., Loko, J., Harro, M., Volver, A., Laaneots, L. and Viru, M. (1999) ‘Critical periods in the development of performance capacity during childhood and adolescence’, European Journal of Physical Education, 4 (1): 75–119.