The adaptable coach – A critical review of the practical implications for traditional and constraints–led approaches in sports coaching: A commentary

Introduction

‘Thoughtful people have forever been troubled by the enigma of applying theoretical knowledge to practical problems’. (Bruner, 1996, p. 44).

Learning is complex; consequently, it is not surprising that numerous theories have been developed which endeavour to explain the learning process.^1,2 These theories are sometimes accompanied by guidelines for practitioners such as coaches and physical education teachers to help them to translate theoretical principles into practical strategies.^3,4 We commend Lindsay and Spittle on their efforts to revisit well-established questions^5–8 in the motor learning domain: of the many theories which have been proposed, which should the coach attend to? Is it better to adhere to one theory, or to draw ideas from different theories? The sheer diversity of theories, and the conviction of the adherents of each, can create a confusing picture for the practitioner seeking to be informed by theory and led by evidence in their practice. In this commentary, we first identify lessons from positioning Lindsay and Spittle's comparison of two broad families of theories in an historical context. Second, we highlight the risks associated with the integration of theories. Third, we consider different approaches to integration, drawing lessons from other disciplines. Fourth, we examine how an alternative theory drawn from outside the motor learning domain warrants consideration for the integrated approach that Lindsay and Spittle advocate, rather than a merger of dominant motor learning theories. Finally, we identify a trend within the motor learning literature which could be further exploited to provide greater clarity for academics, coaches, and practitioners.

Lessons from the historical context

Previous efforts to compare representation-based and ecological accounts of motor control and learning are plentiful.^5–7,9 While Lindsay and Spittle did not have scope to revisit this historical context in detail within their article, some important lessons can be drawn from these previous efforts. This debate is unlikely to be decided to the satisfaction of all parties; neither resolution in favour of one theory, nor the development of a hybrid version, can be meaningfully achieved without undermining the basic tenets of one or both approaches. ⁶ Furthermore, it has recently been questioned whether a sufficient body of robust evidence exists at this time to advance theoretical debates on motor learning in a meaningful way, ⁸ and crucially, coaches cannot wait for theoretical resolution to guide their practice. ¹⁰ Therefore, and especially considering that most sports coaches are volunteers, recent efforts to develop a common set of guiding principles^11,12 including those of Lindsay and Spittle are welcomed.

A second lesson from the historical context is that theories evolve; even the most celebrated of theories, such as Schmidt's Schema theory, ¹³ may ‘retire’.^14,15 While contemporary theories may be inheritors of a broad theoretical concept (e.g. the centrality of representations), the specific details of how that concept works (e.g. what is represented and how) may be radically different.^7,16 Criticisms of poor coaching abound^17–19; athletes report that this poor coaching typically derives from attempts to apply overly simple solutions to complex problems. ²⁰ As Lindsay and Spittle illustrate, poor coaching practices can be attributed to outdated theories or to the misinterpretation of theoretical perspectives. Thus, the development of guiding principles for coaches must focus on an accurate understanding of contemporary theory. Related to this point, a third lesson from the historical context is that two theoretical approaches may offer different explanations for why the same intervention (e.g. demonstration, questioning, conditioned games) is effective.^21,22 While not disputing that some differences in the recommendations for coaching practice will persist, there is sufficient common ground to forge guiding principles that will elevate the quality of coaching and the athlete experience.

Risks associated with the integration of theories

Although coaches may not always be able to articulate why they coach the way that they do, their decisions and behaviours rest upon often unquestioned beliefs about learning and the learning process.^23–25 Examples are readily available of inconsistency between coaches’ espoused theories and their theories in use^26–28; for example, Selimi et al. ²⁸ described a soccer coach who advocated for representative learning design as a foundation of their practice while also describing extensive use of repetition within unopposed situations. Aligning to one theory offers coaches a means to foster coherence between elements within their design and delivery of practices.^29–31

Refusing to align to only one theory, and instead drawing upon different theories as Lindsay and Spittle among others^17,32 advise is not automatically a more effective choice. There is the danger of abstracting parts of each pedagogy from the whole, resulting in distorted understanding and application. ³³ For example, a practitioner may over-constrain players, ³⁴ encourage excessive time in isolated activity rather than appropriate contextualisation,^35,36 utilise both implicit and explicit methods in combination thereby neutralising the effect of the implicit learning technique, ²⁶ or adopt a ‘the game is the teacher’ mentality where appropriate coaching is prohibited.^37,38 To be clear, we are not opposed to efforts at integration; rather, we wish to emphasise that without due care, abstracting parts of different pedagogies can result in fragmented and mutated ‘folk pedagogies’ ³⁹ : incoherent assumptions about learning and coaching which can be difficult for coach development to overcome.^40–42

Lindsay and Spittle offer their set of guiding principles to integrate the theoretical approaches; that is, to combine and/or move between coaching strategies associated with the different theoretical approaches as the circumstances demand. Before integrating different theoretical approaches, it is important to fully consider the flexibility offered within each approach. Lindsay and Spittle offer some guidance on this flexibility in their section on ‘Approach to practice’ but it is worth expanding upon. In a sense, ⁴³ we may consider some theoretical approaches prioritising the meaningfulness of content and thus starting from a position where as much of the context as possible is preserved in the practice design (Constructivist; Ecological). Other approaches prioritise success for the learner and thus start from a position where as little of the context as necessary (Gentile, 2000) is preserved in the practice design (Behaviourist; Cognitivist). However, all approaches are concerned with presenting an experience for the learner which is matched to their developmental needs. Marteniuk's ³⁵ classic text on Information Processing in Motor Skills is worth quoting in detail, to illustrate the long-standing albeit sometimes marginalised common ground between theoretical approaches:

‘Intuitively, it would seem that for an open skill a performer should be exposed to as many environmental situations as possible…after a learner has acquired the basic idea of the skill, he should practice in gamelike situations as much as possible [emphasis ours]…he must practice in situations that not only will allow the main variations of a movement to be produced but also will require the learner to produce movements that fit the exact environmental demands. For instance, once a learner has the idea of a jump shot in basketball, very little is gained from having him continually practice it without someone checking him [emphasis ours]. An opponent will not only provide information about when the jump shot should be taken but also will force the learner to modify his shot in subtle ways depending on how the opponent reacts’. (p. 214).

As highlighted by Lindsay and Spittle, Marteniuk's ³⁵ recommendations to spend as much time as possible in ‘gamelike situations’, promote variability of movement and matching movements to the ‘exact environment demands’ encourage coaches to design practice activities which are very similar to those promoted by a proponent of Ecological Dynamics. Overemphasising the need for successful performance by deconstructing a task to the extent that it becomes a mindless and meaningless exercise for the learner is a misunderstanding of both Behaviourist and Representation-Based theories, and a profound disservice to the learner. Equally, failing to simplify a task enough for a student to achieve success and experience a challenge appropriate to their level of development is a misunderstanding of both Constructivist and Ecological theories, and again a profound disservice to the learner. Before switching between theoretical approaches, and risking the development of ‘folk pedagogies’, skill acquisition specialists and coach developers should assist coaches to understand the full range of options available within each approach to present appropriately meaningful and challenging practice for the learner.

Understanding different approaches to integration

Coaching is not the only domain in which practitioners are faced with a variety of theoretical paradigms which explain why the world is as it is and what the practitioner should do as a consequence.^44,45 For example, psychotherapists^44,46 and sport psychologists^47,48 are also faced with diverse ‘schools of thought’ which sometimes complement and often compete. In light of Lindsay and Spittle's call for an integration of theories, it is useful to examine definitions of ‘integration’ within these other domains.

There are multiple options by which practitioners can combine techniques or theoretical frameworks within their practice.^44,46,49 Common Factors refers to the use of interventions that are recommended by all theoretical approaches; this approach has been criticised as being too general to guide practice in specific contexts and may leave important questions unanswered. ⁴⁹ Technical Eclecticism refers to combining techniques based on their efficacy, irrespective of their theoretical origin: ‘What treatment, by whom, is most effective for this individual with that specific problem, and under which set of circumstances?’. ⁴⁹ Technical Eclecticism, which is often referred to as ‘it depends’ within sports coaching, ¹⁷ does not mean that anything goes, but rather that a careful and selective synthesis of interventions is developed based on evidence of efficacy, ⁴⁵ aligned with the practitioner's underpinning values and beliefs ⁴⁷ In addition to the risk of distorted application raised in the previous section, Technical Eclecticism may prove difficult to implement in novel situations due to the absence of a guiding theoretical framework. Theoretical Integration produces a new hybrid theory; the main criticism here is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to integrate all aspects of one theory to all aspects of another theory, ⁴⁹ potentially inadvertently increasing confusion for the practitioner. ⁴⁴ A fourth option is Assimilative Integration, where the practitioner retains a dominant theory, but supplements their practice by drawing upon techniques, concepts or perspectives from one or more theories that are empirically supported, theoretically complementary, and address shortcomings in the home theory.^46,49

Within disciplines outside of Motor Learning, Assimilative Integration appears to be a prominent approach to integration (although in practical application, there may be considerable overlap between these approaches^44,50). Sport psychologists^51,52 and psychotherapists ⁵³ often describe themselves as holding one organising theoretical approach while ‘drawing carefully’ ⁵¹ on different approaches so as to be flexible to the needs of a situation. Lampropoulos ⁴⁹ offers the following considerations to successfully assimilate concepts or techniques drawn from a range of theories into one's preferred theory:

Where you assimilate: the theory that is being assimilated should have sufficient empirical support.

What you assimilate: the techniques that are being assimilated should have sufficient empirical support.

When you assimilate: empirical guidance on the circumstances and rationale for selecting a technique should be available.

How to assimilate: individual techniques must be utilised in such a way that they do not contradict the central tenets of the organising theory.

The coherence of assimilation: the overall process resulting from assimilative integration must be theoretically compatible with the central tenets of the organising theory.

The effectiveness of assimilation: the new approach should be rigorously tested to evidence its efficacy relative to alternatives.

There are many ways in which practitioners can integrate approaches. These considerations may provide a useful stimulus for reflection for practitioners wishing to engage in Assimilative Integration, or to evaluate the quality of their efforts at integration.

The foundation for an integrated approach from outside of motor learning

While word count and an emphasis on motor learning forced Lindsay and Spittle to restrict themselves to two theories, there are more theories of learning available for coaches to draw upon than those proposed by the field of motor learning.^2,54,55 Nelson and Colquhoun ⁵⁶ argue that much of coaching practice (especially what Lindsay and Spittle have termed ‘traditional’ coaching) has been built on a foundation of behaviourist (not cognitive/representation-based) psychology; that is, coaches act to reinforce desired behaviours and suppress undesirable behaviours. ⁵⁷ When Vickers ¹⁸ proposed her Decision Training framework, aligned to a Representation-Based approach, she contrasted it against training informed by a Behaviourist tradition. ⁵⁷ Roberts and Potrac ⁵⁴ presented a creative non-fiction highlighting the commonalities and differences between Behaviourist- and Constructivist-informed coaching. Renshaw et al. ⁵⁸ contrasted the constructivist-aligned Teaching Games for Understanding with constraints-led coaching aligned to an Ecological approach ¹ . Thus, the choice (and confusion) faced by coaches is not merely between Representation-based and Ecological theories, but between a much broader gamut of perspectives which overlap in different areas.

O’Connor ⁵⁵ identified Constructivist theories derived from educational psychology, which underpin Game-Based Approaches ⁵⁹ to coaching, as a ‘third perspective’ worthy of consideration in any debate on theories of learning. One specific Constructivist theory which may be useful to consider is Complex Learning Theory.^2,24 This theory can be used to provide an explanation for Game-Based Approaches such as Game Sense, ³⁰ Teaching Games for Understanding, ⁶⁰ or Positive Pedagogy^4,61 which extends the Game-Based concept to individual sports. Complex Learning Theory is particularly suitable to consider because its combination of an emphasis on developing player understanding as well as an emphasis on learning in context is consistent with Lindsey and Spittle's call for an integration of traditional and constraints-led coaching. Complex Learning Theory also has the advantage of clearly defined pedagogy to translate theoretical principles into coaching actions, ⁴ as well as illustrative case studies ⁶² which could facilitate its uptake across a range of sports. Rather than attempting to integrate both Representation-Based and Ecological theories and risking the development of ‘folk pedagogies’ that ensues, Complex Learning Theory may offer a promising foundation for those seeking an integrated approach.

Providing clarity for coaches: what more is needed?

Roberts and Potrac ⁵⁴ noted that ‘there still remains a paucity of literature addressing how a theory of learning actually becomes a theory of coaching’ (p. 180). A strength of some theories such as Ecological Dynamics and Complex Learning Theory is that they are coupled to clear pedagogical guidelines for coaches: Nonlinear Pedagogy ³ and Positive Pedagogy, ⁴ respectively. With respect to contemporary Representation-based theories (e.g. Cognitive Load Theory^63,64), although some general guidelines have been presented,^65,66 coaches would benefit from a more detailed pedagogical framework grounded in sporting examples.

In addition to formalised pedagogical frameworks, coaches and applied sport scientists would benefit from case studies which illustrate precisely how each theoretical approach can be implemented, and most importantly flexibly adapted to meet the needs of a diverse range of participants across the development continuum. Detailed case studies of the interaction between skill acquisition specialists and coaches in a range of domains and guided by a range of theoretical approaches from motor learning have started to appear within the literature.^67–70 Similarly, the application by coaches (and other professionals) of pedagogical approaches from outside of the motor learning domain (e.g. Teaching Games for Understanding ⁷¹ ; Game Sense ³⁰ ) provide valuable insights into the challenges facing coaches and strategies to overcome these challenges. Existing reflections on the process of working with coaches emphasise the importance of developing trust and taking time to understanding their perspective, prior to questioning assumptions and exploring new concepts,^68,72 thus meeting coaches where they are and acknowledging both the value and limitations of experiential knowledge. ⁷³ Additional case studies would be invaluable for coaches and coach developers, especially if (a) focused on the full range of learners (e.g. children's recreational sport to high performance professional sport), (b) detailing efforts to employ an integrated approach, and (c) containing both a rich description of the collaboration and reflections on the process.

Conclusion

Examining the historical context of motor learning research reveals that the debate between theoretical approaches in motor learning is unlikely to be resolved soon. Indeed, attempts to force a premature conclusion could be detrimental to the domain of coaching. ⁸ An improvement in coaching practice (and athlete experience) could be achieved by reaching consensus on a set of base guiding principles for coaches, such as those proposed by Lindsay and Spittle and others. ¹² These principles must be based on an accurate understanding of contemporary theories from each approach, while also acknowledging that different coaching strategies may be effective as a result of different underlying mechanisms. The decisions to align with one theoretical approach or to draw upon a range of theories to inform coaching practice bring different risks. Before promoting an integrated theoretical approach, skill acquisition specialists should aid coaches to understand the flexibility offered within each theory so as to avoid the development of ‘folk pedagogies’. There are many ways in which practitioners can integrate approaches. ⁴⁴ It is valuable for skill acquisition specialists and coaches to understand these different ways, and how they may be effectively implemented. There are more theories of learning available for coaches to draw upon than those proposed by the field of motor learning; alternatives such as Complex Learning Theory already offer a practice that closely resembles the integrated approach advocated by Lindsay and Spittle, and deserve consideration alongside motor learning theories. Lindsay and Spittle conclude, and both theoretical approaches that they compare would agree, that a coach's decision-making processes should be tailored to the individual athlete and their targeted learning outcomes. While case studies are appearing that illustrate the flexibility offered by each theoretical approach to enable this tailored delivery, coaches and coach developers would benefit from further examples from a broader range of theoretical approaches and especially, case studies which specifically illustrate the decision-making inherent in integrating theoretical approaches.