Challenging Traditional Approaches to Skill Acquisition

1. Challenging Traditional Approaches to Skill Acquisition And Other Stories to Scare Squash Coaches

2. My Personal Story • Senior Lecturer in Motor Learning and Skill Acquisition - Canterbury Christ Church University • Director & Head Coach of CCCUtennis • NOT a squash coach! • Aim to give you options and the confidence to ask questions (of yourself and others). Not here to give you the answers.

3. Presentation Overview • Review the traditional approach to coaching / skill acquisition • The myths of traditional coaching practices • Outline a Constraints-led approach to skill acquisition

4. What’s Your Philosophy on Skill Acquisition? • How do athletes learn to perform in your sport? • Why do you coach skills in this way? • What is role of the Coach in the learning process? • Fountain of Knowledge? • Where is the evidence that your coaching works?

5. The reality of learning a motor skill

6. What is Skill Acquisition? • Traditionally – An internal process that brings about a relatively permanent change in the learner’s movement capabilities. (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2004) • Do not confuse performance changes with learning.

8. Traditional approach to coaching • The process of identifying the sub-components of a skill or movement, and then ordering their development in a linear progression; • Assists the coach in: • Assessing skills; • Writing goals and outcomes; • Preparing programmes of development • (L2 coach qualification!).

9. Myths of Traditional Coaching Practices

10. 1) Repetition, Repetition, Repetition! • Grooving in • “encouraging learners to develop pre-set packages of muscle instructions” • “If practice is poor or technically incorrect, then you will be rehearsing the wrong movement” • technique has to be good from early learning so re-enforcing correct programs

11. The Response? • The human body is ever changing  • The changing conditions of the environment means that we can never produce the same movement twice  • Bernstein (1967) - impossible to reproduce the same action due to the redundant DOF • Introduce variety into training allowing learners to evolve the correct technique 

12. The Response? • Biomechanical analysis has shown that variability in joint angles in experts is greater than beginners…? • Variability increases with practice…? • Can get confusing – experts do seem to be more consistent • “Repetition without repetition…not the means for solving a given motor problem, but the process of its solution” (Bernstein, 1996)

13. Typical training session • Drive to length X 100, Volley to Length x 100, Boast X 100 • OR • Straight Drive front, Straight drive back, Straight drop, kill shot, Straight drive, Drop cross random design • Benefits of ‘contextual interference’ • Improved retention and transfer effects • Qu) Does either practice develop all aspects of the game?

14. Goode & Magill (1986): Goode & Magill (1986) from Magill (1998)

15. Take home message • Random variable practice is best for parameter changes (force/direction) • Low variable error • Fixed/blocked practice if movement patterns are not fully developed • High variable error • Players do not like Random Variable Practice • Upsets grooving and perceptions of improvement • We like to practice what we are good at!

16. 2) Simplifying the Task Helps the Learner: A warning against task decomposition • Coaching practice - task decomposition • Squash and Ghosting • Closed feeding – lacks contextual information • However,

17. Two-Visual-System (see Williams, Davids, & Williams (1999) p72-82) see pg 78, figure 3.7. Dorsal stream Ventral stream

18. Implications • Aims of the task are different • Perception (interceptive action-contact point of the ball) • Action (footwork and swing) • Therefore, different neural pathways! • Practice should not split important perception and action links • Practitioners should adopt simplification strategies to reduce overload. • = simulate natural performance conditions, key variables such as velocities, distances, and forces are reduced. Group Disc

19. 3) Feedback must be Frequent, Detailed and Immediate • “More is better”? • Redundancy & Dependence • You must promote internal error correction • Summative feedback • Adaptable, autonomous players • Player Determined Timing of Feedback (not the coach) • Use of technology

20. 4) Demonstrations are Always Effective • Universal use amongst coaches in all sports • Effectiveness depends on information to be conveyed • Good for global strategy • Although maybe no better than verbal instruction • Bad for adapting existing movement patterns • Constrains search for individual solutions • Identify on goal-focused info (e.g. Ball flight)

21. 5) Players Must Focus on Good Form • Internal FOA – conscious awareness of body movements. • External FOA – conscious attention of consequences of the players bodily movements • External has been shown to have a superior affect on performance and learning.

22. Focus of Attention

23. Focus of Attention • How could it work? • Constrained Action Hypothesis(Wulf, Shea, & Park, 2001) • Internal focus of attention consciously intervenes in control processes that regulate the coordination of their movements (Wulf, 2007). • Less effective-less efficient process (EMG) • External focus allows sub-conscious, fast, and reflexive processes to control movement.

24. Focus of Attention • External Focus of Attention & Feedback • Not affected by overload effects. • The coach can provide 100% external feedback with little/no dependency effects. • No drop in motor learning.

25. Art of coaching Vs Science of skill acquisition • Sally Sunflower • Options not rules