SPORT SCIENCE Garrett Lucash, RFS, RM
Part 2
Dynamics of Skill Acquisition in Figure Skating B Y G A R R E T T L U C A S H , K E I T H D AV I D S , P H . D , A N D FA B I A N O T T E , P H . D
This is the second of a four-part series on motor skill acquisition in figure skating. Readers can refer to the reference list to explore topics more deeply. I encourage anyone who has questions to reach out to me: garrett@acskating.com.
Key skill acquisition principles for designing practice Key principle 1 (athlete-environment-centered coaching). Understanding athletes and their individual constraints Every athlete is unique. However, this notion appears to be disregarded in many traditional coaching contexts (see Davids et al., 2008, and Button et al., 2020, for introductory books on this topic). When we look at athletes’ individual constraints on structural and functional levels, this idea of unique individuality becomes apparent (see Otte et al., 2021). For example, on a structural level, all athletes have various genetic dispositions: varying in height, weight, body fat and levels of movement flexibility. They each have unique developmental trajectories and injury histories. On a functional level, athletes display different perceptualcognitive abilities (problem-solving and decision-making tendencies, and body-orientation awareness in space), physical capacities (such as explosive leg strength or speed, dynamic balance, aesthetic qualities, emotional), motivational tendencies (such as resilience, motivation levels), and social backgrounds. These evolving individual constraints shape how athletes behave and function in changing practice and competition environments (see left column in Figure 1). Understanding how to harness these individual differences and ‘individual dynamics,’ considered as the set of movement capacities and capabilities that each learner brings with them to practice settings (Button et al., 2020), is critical to adopting an athlete-environment-centered coaching approach (as opposed to a traditional coach-led approach) (top part in Figure 2; Chow et al., 2020). The idea of individualizing practice contexts and collaborating with each athlete to co-design unique practice tasks and training schedules provides a valuable approach towards factoring in athletes’ individual constraints and personal circumstances (see key principles 2 and 3; Button et al., 2020).
10
JULY/AUGUST 2021
Understanding task and environmental constraints Individual constraints represent just one category of the contemporary constraints-led coaching approach. However, athletes never perform in a competitive vacuum or coordinate their actions in complete isolation of context because they interact with their varying practice and competitive environments. Therefore, consideration of two additional constraint categories is important: environmental and task constraints (see central and right columns in Figure 1). These constraints channel the intended actions that emerge from each performer in practice and competition and demand movement adaptation due to interaction with dynamic (ever-changing) performance environments. For example, when a first athlete enters their approach for a triple Lutz jump during practice and another athlete passes in front of them, the first athlete is challenged to stay focused and adapt their movement pattern. Similarly, consider another athlete who has to compete on ‘harder’ ice than what they are used to in the conditions of their practice rink. To achieve their intended movement goals, athletes need to perceive information from the performance environment, such as the feel of the ice, wear and tear of their boots, and the location of their head, limbs, and torso in space. As they become more skillful, skaters become better attuned to the most relevant information sources in their practice and performance environments. Further, social factors, such as crowd noise or different cultural norms, are important environmental constraints that shape an athlete’s ability to perform with and without added pressure. In figure skating, performance outcomes, like ‘normative’ characteristics of the movement forms themselves (e.g., how judges may perceive a performance of a layback spin), with set performance criteria (e.g., what a layback spin is supposed to ‘look’ like to receive credit), provide a narrow performance scale to which the athletes must adhere. However, under varying environmental constraints (mentioned in Figure 1), these same performance outcomes may emerge in different ways between performance venues. From a coaching perspective, these task and environmental constraints may be manipulated for practice purposes to drive athletes’ problem solving,
