Implicit V Explicit Learning

Which do you think works best? & which is more important for a coach to know & exactly how can this change the way a coach teach’s their participants?

I’m going to tell you exactly what I think.

Implicit learning – individuals with impaired movement dynamics may benefit from implicit learning methods when acquiring sports-related motor skills. Individuals with altered movement dynamics and compromised working memory can benefit from implicit motor learning. (Steenbergen Et al, 2010)

Explicit Learning – Explicit learning places high demands on working memory capacity, but engagement of working memory is largely circumvented when skills are learned implicitly. Older people, whose movement dynamics deteriorate, can implicitly learn sports-related motor skills and that this results in more durable performance gains than explicit learning. (Steenbergen Et al, 2010)

What’s the difference?

Implicit learning methods typically contain no formal instruction about how to perform the skill yet result in a learner being able to perform the skill despite being unable to verbally describe how they do it. Explicit learning can be related to traditional coaching approaches where verbal instruction is used to coach a learner about how to perform a skill. This process typically results in the learner being able to verbalise how to perform the skill, although it does not guarantee the learner can physically execute the skill (Farrow, 2015).

In theory Implicit learning could lead into explicit learning, for example a child with an born ability at a particular sport would be able to perform well in that sport however when questioned about it he/she would not be able to explain oneself. However if the child was to research and study the motor skills, the child would then be able to explain clearer or fully at a later point.

How can this affect my coaching style?

For myself, explicit learning would be a more effective way of coaching as I am working with younger children, so this would mean that I would be able to explain in better detail to the children as well as enabling them to fully understand that motor skill themselves so that they could explain it themselves, and how they are performing that skill. This would benefit the children I coach as when I coach, I ask a lot of questions to them to see if they understand what I have demonstrated. This would be obvious to me as they will all be able to respond to my questions with the correct answers.

Implicit learning is better for informal structures, for example at a skate park, children are being coached but they do not need to reiterate what they have learnt and how they have learnt that skill. They are just able to do that skill and keep doing that skill without people questioning them so they are more likely to learn more because they are not being hassled to do better.

Knowledge V Intelligence

What is more important? Can you really distinguish the difference between knowledge and intelligence? Do you think coaches or athletes know the difference between them? How can this effect your learning or teaching? Lastly, Does this effect me as a coach if I did not know this?

Knowledge – one of the most important factors to develop both coach and athlete. Knowledge is based upon facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject (Oxford Dictionary, accessed March 2015).

Intelligence – would you say that we are born with intelligence or is it learnt through others? Intelligence enhances the process of the coaches philosophy, benefiting both coach and athlete. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills (Oxford Dictionary, accessed March 2015).

“Listening to a meaningful speech is knowledge, applying what you listened is intelligence”

“Knowledge speaks, Wisdom listens” (Jimi Hendrix)

Thinking about these 2 definitions of knowledge and intelligence, it is vital for a coach to know the difference so that they can provide themselves with the intelligence if they do not have the knowledge or gain knowledge to enhance their intelligence. Both work hand-in-hand but can mean so much more standing on their own.

For myself, coaching has given me intelligence and I have given my participants knowledge but, coaching given me extra knowledge whilst I have given my participants some intelligence.

Could you work with one when the other isn’t involved? I’d say no, they both work together to enhance each other. Which in turn, turns a situations or problem into something greater or enables somebody to progress better. If I had knowledge without intelligence, I couldn’t portray that knowledge because I wouldn’t know how. The same would apply if I had intelligence with no knowledge, how could I do anything with my intelligence if I had little knowledge. Personally, I feel as though my intelligence and knowledge wouldn’t stand and help on their own.

Performance V Development

Focusing too much on the result of your sport can inhibit your development because focusing too much on results will directly prevent your athletes from learning maybe even the basics of the sport that you are playing. Even though they might be winning, when they begin to play other teams that have developed and maybe not won from a young age, they will be able to play a better game so they will more than likely be the winners. This is what I believe would happen fro my own experience of playing, coaching and umpiring netball, I have been able to see the difference between teams that are all about winning and teams that are about developing. For me, at a young age it does not matter whether you win or lose, it matters whether your child/children are enjoying themselves and the sport that they are taking part in. Although it cannot be specifically defined whether development is more important than results, Gibson (1993), gives us the opinion that during previous studies that have addressed the values of sport, they have not directly dealt with the ethics of valuing performance over triumph. Different theorist have given their opinion on this but have not gone into depth about facts and what is true and what isn’t. Thus, giving everybody their space to conduct their own theory and opinion on this subject given.

At grassroots level, I believe that focusing more on developing your athletes is more important than winning, as they are learning themselves their own movements and how to use their body in different ways which therefore provides them with developments. If, as a coach, you focus on winning at grassroots level, you are less likely to see that development in your athletes which could lead into athletes dropping out of that sports and/or all sports together because they will have the idea that all sports will only focus on winning and that might not be what they want out of sports, they want to play sports to make friends and have fun. So this could lead into other aspects of their lives being effected including their social life.

Don’t get me wrong with my opinion on results are not important, because sometimes they can be more important than development, this opinion for me varies from child to child as some children will have intrinsic motivation and some will have extrinsic motivations, results of a sport can enhance the child’s performance through motivation. This would be because they are winning games, which will make them want to carry on playing as well as winning, giving them the motivation to develop through that motivation. Athletes will start to understand that development comes along side with winning.

Performance V Development

Performance V Development? What is performance? What is development? Do we need both in our lives or can we have one without the other? Do they go hand in hand and what do we know about performance V development? These are the questions that will be answered throughout this blog.

Performing proper exercises and learning proper technique for running, jumping, changing direction, developing strength, and preventing injuries is one definition of sports performance (Cothern, 2010). Performance is an example of presenting a form of entertainment which could include plays, concerts, or sports games. Now lets compare this to what development is defined as, development is more “focused on management transcends through sport with its emphasis on social objectives” and is “growing in interest in academic, professional and policy circles worldwide” (Girginov, 2009).

Both sports performance and development have significant benefits from one another, this includes how they need to use each other for this sports development continuum, if one was not used to develop the sports development continuum, how can we see performance enhance through out the years. This also works the other way around, if we did not perform in sport, how can we expect to develop to the elite athlete that most of sports students or athletes want to become. How the two elements effect each other can combine a strong force or can make you being tedious, meaning some athletes may find the sport can be long-winded or boring. If an athlete is made to do a sport from a young age they are more likely to become uninterested quicker, which in return results in less performance athletes higher up the scale, which decreases the amount of elite athletes prepared to go for that sport role. Less athletes being prepared to go into a role of elite athlete would result in less choice of great performers, so this could consequently end with that particular sport not being as good as they could have been. Therefore, possibly ending with less money for the next year to develop other athletes, concluding less athletes again for that sport and it will begin a vicious circle that may not ever break. This then making sport less and less competitive for athletes who are trying to make it to be elite.

There are certain variables that can change through biological development which can impact on your performance from being a child into adolescence. These changes can be from genes and hormones to neurological and muscular adaptations which consequently will have a direct impact upon the development of specific components, Sports Coach UK (2010). If these changes impact you from a young age, you can be left out and not get the training that you need, which is less development for grass roots leading into less performance when they grow into adolescence. While other athletes are able to get the training or professional coaching that they probably don’t need, other participants are falling more behind because they are not ‘entitled’ to this coaching as they are not seen as ‘talented’ which puts them down so they think they they are not good enough for that coaching or training, again making them drop out of sports all together. Them participants dropping out of sports all together could be our future elite athletes if they had the same opportunities as other children they may develop more but because they do not have this chance to develop, they cannot show their full potential.

Facilitator V Coach

After a lot of research on what other theorist believe that both roles require, it has come to my attention that facilitators and coaches are very similar in both what they want to achieve from participants and also how they go about doing so. This blog post is going to look in depth into establishing the relationship a facilitator and coach maintain. Facilitation as it’s normally understood, refers to managing and maintaining a group process whereas coaching focuses on helping individuals get into immediate action, while addressing barriers and support they may need to get moving quickly (Davis, 2014). As you can see by Davis definition of both subject matters appear to have similar characteristics although largely disparate.

Hawkins & Smith (2006) identify three important functions of coaching supervision, which are:

1. Qualitative: Ensuring quality and ethical practice are maintained.

2. Developmental: Providing a mentoring/educative aspect to the work together.

3. Resourcing: Taking an appreciative approach to celebrating and building on strengths, renewing energy

Taking Hawkins & Smith’s hypothesis into consideration, you can also link these 3 functions into account, the work that a facilitator does, manages to require these these important functions.

Cavill (2014) identifies how a facilitator can use these 3 functions for there own convenience by concluding that;

• Qualitative – the advanced facilitator acts as a guardian of the programme of learning and has a role in ensuring that the quality of experience for participants is maintained and enhanced through facilitation.
• Developmental – the advanced facilitator takes a mentoring role and helps promote the development of the less experienced facilitator, taking an educative approach to co-facilitation.
• Resourcing – the advanced facilitator is able to take an appreciative approach to the growing skills of the new or less experienced facilitator and help them build on their strengths in order to develop new skills and enhance performance.

Both theorist have informed us that not only are a facilitator and coach very similar in what skills they use but they are also similar in how they mentor participants, by using an educative approach to scenarios. This approach then allows the facilitator and coach to be able to grow their skills and resources by building on them and developing themselves to augment their own coaching style or facilitator role. Most people assume that a facilitator is exactly the same as a coach but they are heterogeneous. A coach is somebody who gives instructions and directions to either an individual or team, which could also lead them to be a teacher in some core aspects of what they do. These little characteristics make them a lot different to a facilitator as a facilitator does not need these attribute to do their job. A facilitators main traits are that they become a guide rather than a teacher, or a discussion leader rather than an active leader. Being a discussion leader rather than an active leader gives them the power to assign other workers or employees to do certain jobs. This is the main way in which a coach and facilitator differ although, still to this day many argue that both the role of a coach and the role of a facilitator are not different at all.