Self Determination Theory | Analyis

Quality effective coaching is about interdisciplinary knowledge. As well as the ability to recognise implicit and explicit decision making. Coaching is essentially about problem solving, a good coach uses a procedural and declarative knowledge compilation to help towards problem solving. A good example of this would be the Kolb’s Experimental Cycle (1984). It shows a continuous flow of development, including; reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation, active experimentation and concrete experience. This implies that learning is a process where knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Within this essay I will be discussing an understanding of two different coaching science theories and how they can be applied to real coaching experiences. I will be critiquing both theories, showing how I can improve in aspects of the theory in my coaching and how they both incorporate reflective practice.

Self determination theory (SDT) represents a broad framework for the study of human motivation and personality. The theory is based on the premise that individuals pursue self determined goals to satisfy their basic psychological needs to independently solve problems, interact socially, and overcome tasks. According to SDT, a concept that could explain the relationship between participant’s motivation and their experiences in exercise is due to the level to which their behaviours are autonomous. Autonomous is when a task is; fully volitional, freely pursued, and wholly endorsed by the person. When participants exercise experiences are controlled, i.e. pursued and directed by external or internal forces, it leaves participants feeling like they have very little or no choice. Research clearly supports the idea that individuals have different types of motivation, ranging from high (autonomous) to low (controlled) levels of self determination. Participants can be intrinsically motivated, when they engage in learning activities for their own benefit, and extrinsically motivated when they engage in activities for influential reasons. Intrinsic motivation represents the model of self determination, because a person is motivated to act for the fun or challenge entailed in the behaviour rather than because of external factors, such as pressures or rewards. In contrast extrinsic motivation embraces a variety of behavioural factors that vary in their level of self determination. Intrinsic and indentified regulations are self determined, whereas external and introjected regulations are non self determined forms of motivation (Tessier et al, 2010). Motivational characteristics are influential in shaping participants desire to persist in sport or to discontinue their sport participation.

Self determination theory suggests adolescents are more likely to follow peer leaders who afford them autonomy to choose, an avenue for relatedness with the leader and other members of their group, and a sense of competence for the task they are doing (Ward et al, 2010). Although psychological and physical benefits can be obtained from participation in competitive sport (Mandigo and Holt, 2000), it can also lead to damaged self esteem and mood disturbances, particularly when youths experience performance pressure from close adults (Reeve and Deci, 1996). For these reasons, the influence of coaches and parents on youth participant’s sporting experiences is an issue of high importance in sport psychology. There is considerable research on the interaction of parents and coaches with sport participants. For example, parental pressure predicted decreased enjoyment in basketball (Brustad, 1988), and parental and coach positive emotional involvement predicted the enjoyment in football (Ommundsen and Vaglum, 1991). Also, having an autocratic coach who provided little feedback decreased involvement and intrinsic motivation.

Self determination theory proposes that humans have three fundamental needs that must be satisfied in the social context. The first need is to feel autonomous in performing an activity. Autonomy involves being volitional and acting in such a way as to represent your integrated sense of self (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Autonomy support can be enhanced by allowing participants within an environment to choose the things that they enjoy and really want to do. The second need is to perceive relatedness with others in the community of involvement. By working hard as or within a group, participants can achieve a sense of team bonding, which can in turn lead to strong friendships. A third fundamental need is to perceive competence in relation to the activity. Competence is widely regarded as fundamental to the expression of motivation in the sport context (Reinboth and Duda, 2006). Youth sport literature suggests that experiencing competence in sports is strongly related to being accepted by a peer group and having positive peer relationships within a group (Weiss and Duncan, 1992). Results from Vazou, et al (2005) even suggested that youths’ perception of their own competence was related to the level of support and acceptance by peers in the group. This developmental process is about gaining a sense of accomplishment and believing in yourself to complete a task to the best of your ability. This can lead to motivational outcomes in self determination theory. However, this does not account for learning acquisition of new skills, like contextual interference theory.

One challenge that many coaches encounter is how to best structure practice schedules that will facilitate the development of skilful movements (Porter, Landin, Hebert, & Baum, 2007). Contextual interference (CI) is a functional interference in a practice environment which affects the structure of the session to improve learning effectiveness. The stage of learner development will directly affect the structure of the practice session. It is well established that interference during practice has substantial influence on skill learning (Guadagnoli and Lee, 2004). The contextual interference effect acknowledges that learning is enhanced when interference during practice is high, such as when participants practice multiple tasks in a random order. Results from studies investigating the effects of practice order on motor learning typically show that a random practice order enhances motor learning more when compared with that of a blocked practice order (Wright, Magnuson and Black, 2005).

One way to control interference during practice of multiple tasks is to change the order in which the tasks are practiced. For example, a random practice order in which tasks are practiced in a quasi random order (i.e., 3-1-2, 1-2-3, 2-3-1), where each number represents a skill, is thought to introduce more interference than a blocked practice order in which each skill is practiced repeatedly prior to switching to the next skill (i.e., 1-1-1, 2-2-2, 3-3-3). Football, basketball, and volleyball are activities which require general strategies to be formed to cope with the unlimited variations of situations which arise within the game. These open skilled games require variety in training for cognitive generalization to occur, so that the participants can adapt to various unique competitive task demands. It is still important for athletes to experience a significant number of successful practices, whether for variable or specific skills, to achieve an eventual state of over learning (Christina, 1996).

In a study by Porter and Saemi (2010), they showed that practicing with systematic increases in contextual interference for multiple days would perform better than equally skilled participants who practiced with traditional blocked and random scheduling. The participants practiced three different basketball related passes using either a blocked, random, or increasing contextual interference practice schedule. All participants practiced trials every day for five consecutive days. Participants completed an immediate retention test, and a 48 hr delayed retention test. The results of the immediate and delayed retention test showed that practicing with gradual increases in contextual interference resulted in superior performance compared to traditional blocked and random scheduling. These results were important because the 48 hr delay more accurately reflected a real world athletic environment. It is common for athletes to practice for multiple days in training, and then receive a one to two day break before a game. Therefore it is important to measure the learning of sport skills after one or two days without practice. The findings presented in this experiment suggest that coaches working with moderately skilled athletes can create effective learning environments by progressing from a blocked to a more random schedule during practice. The results further suggest that the benefits of an increasing contextual interference practice schedule can be observed when practice sessions are spaced over multiple days. One reason why a practice schedule that offers gradual increases in contextual interference may be beneficial is because it challenges learners at the appropriate level by creating an environment that becomes progressively more difficult as the athletes’ skill level improves (Porter and Saemi, 2010).

The evidence for contextual interference is strong, when the skills practiced are dissimilar. However, when contextual interference is used, the performer actually spends less time working on any specific skill than if they were to use blocked practice (McMorris and Hale, 2006). The coach must determine how long to spend on any individual skill, this is completely reliant on the level and ability of the performer. Blocked practice may be more beneficial to an athlete wishing to fine tune a specific technique, which will require a lot more time spent practicing that skill technique, for example, a golf swing. On the other hand, for a beginner, the range of skill practices acquired during a contextual interference session may be more beneficial to them. This will allow them to practice a large variety of skills over a short space of time, possibly giving a better rate of retention long term.

Both of these theories can be applied in a coaching setting to help participants learning and motivational needs. For a coach, the use of pedagogy and theory based practices are essential in developing a coaching session that is sufficient for the requirements of the participants. Each theory gives the coach a set of structure to the session, and allows the participants to get the most out of it. From personal experience of using both theories in real life practice, I can see that both have their advantages, although dependant on participants ability level and understanding of a specific sport. With regards to self determination theory, the coach can integrate forms of structure, autonomy support and involvement into a session using a variety of methods. Structure can be enhanced by using clear organisation and clearly stated procedures of participant expectation. Sessions should be challenging with maximum participation, allowing coaches to provide informative and timely feedback. For example, positive and constructive feedback given throughout session to group and individuals encouraging work towards clear session goals, as long the feedback is given in an autonomy supportive manner. Autonomy support is given to the participants through explanation and provided rationale for the practice session, as well as encouragement of expression, choice and creativity for athletes. An example of this could be, avoiding controlling behaviours while coaching and acknowledging the participants feelings and perspectives on the session. The athletes should be allowed opportunities for independent work where they can use their initiative. Autonomy support can be enhanced by the use of student led activities, for example, student signalled starts; this encourages the participants to control how and when the session will progress. Involvement is provided by the relationship between coach and participants throughout the session, showing emotional support and a level of interest. Involvement can be improved within a session by expressing affection towards participants, learning their names and remaining within a close proximity to the athletes during the session. For example, this could be during refereeing by the coach or when giving positive feedback during the session. Self determination theory is a key aspect when trying to improve athlete’s motivation levels during practice. It does not however, affect the learning process and retention of skill acquisition like contextual interference theory does.

When using contextual interference theory in real coaching practice, the coach must know the needs of the participants; this can be done through a needs analysis. According to the athlete’s sporting level, ability and environment, the session can then be constructed to include varied or random practice of skills. The level of contextual interference used is also determined by the coach’s procedural and declarative knowledge on the subject. Although practicing under conditions of contextual interference does not always lead to immediate good performance, research suggests that it leads to better long term skill learning. It is also suggested that learning skills through contextual interference can work better if the skills are not too closely related biomechanically, or in a similar generalised motor program. By using a different array of skills, different motor pathways are being processed, facilitating better learning with a high level of contextual interference.

It is usually traditional for coaches to begin the instruction process with blocked, constant practice of a single skill before progressing through drill practices towards random, variable practice conditions. A potential criticism of this approach is that coaches move too slowly through the development stage. According to traditional cognitive models of motor skill learning, such as Schmidt’s (1975) schema theory, variability in movement and context characteristics are essential to develop a more expansive and generalized motor program to cope with a variety of similar but different situations. The assumption is that when variability is introduced into the practice environment, the learner has to adapt the motor program differently from one trial to the next resulting in a more flexible and interchangeable movement schema (Schmidt and Lee, 1999). A low contextual interference practice schedule may involve practising one skill per session, or perhaps two separate skills, for example, shooting and passing in blocks of 20 – 30 minutes each (blocked practice). Higher levels of contextual interference would arise if a variety of skills, for example; shooting, passing and dribbling, were practised in a random manner throughout the session (random practice). In the most random practice schedule, a player never practises the same skill in consecutive tasks. The clear message is that to promote learning coaches should try to avoid repetitive, blocked practice by presenting a variety of skills within the same session.

Both theories relate to the process of reflection, for coach and athlete. Reflection is a key aspect within learning development; it allows us to reflect on positive experiences to encourage constructive behaviour, as shown in the Gibb’s reflective cycle (1988). Gibb’s model is clear and precise allowing for description, analysis and evaluation of the experience helping the reflective practitioner to make sense of experiences and examine their practice. It also allows us to reflect on our negative experiences so that in future experiences we can control how to give ourselves the best opportunity for a positive outcome. Reflective thinking needs to be structured so that you can describe what happened to you in a given situation, come to some conclusions about the experiences and possibly decide how to act in dealing with future similar experiences.”We learn from experience” is a well known statement, but according to Dewey (1933) we don’t learn from experience, instead “we learn from reflecting on experience”.

In order to increase my understanding of both of these theories, I intend to further use and improve in aspects of the theories during my coaching practice. From some of the research that I have done to complete this essay, I can already see areas of my coaching that can be improved upon. Some of these include, my ability to give positive, informative and timely feedback to participants, this will help autonomy support with the participants. I could also improve by knowing all of my athletes on a first name bases, this will help improve my relationship with the participants and increase my involvement with them, an area I feel I could improve on greatly. By increasing my declarative and procedural knowledge of each sport I feel as if I will be able to offer more in terms of opportunities for creativity and initiative within my sessions. All of these will help greatly improve motivational levels of my athletes which then in turn I hope will improve their performances. I have taken quite a lot from STD theory, but I have also learned just as much from the contextual interference theory in relation to my coaching. This is especially true when I consider how I will be constructing all of my future practice sessions. By taking into account the sporting level and ability of my participants, as well as what skills I am considering introducing, my session will be structured appropriately with the correct level of contextual interference. I will be using a lot more varied and random practice within my sessions, especially for beginners and younger athletes, to help increases their long term retention of new skills. As a coach and a constant problem solver, I am continuously looking for ways in which I can improve my ability to coach at a high level. These scientific theories have helped improve my declarative knowledge of coaching in general, but I will be looking for further ways I can improve my overall performance as a coach.