Part 2: Dynamics of Skill Acquisition in Figure Skating

BY GARRETT LUCASH, KEITH DAVIDS, PH.D, AND FABIAN OTTE, PH.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).

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, movement adaptation, and increased self-regulation in practice (see Figure 2).

To summarize so far, all sport-specific constraints (i.e., environmental and task constraints) need to be well understood and incorporated into practice, at varying times depending on individual athletes’ needs, by coaches. There is a constant interaction between constraints of all three categories, driving skill acquisition and talent development processes in sport (Chow et al., 2020). Constant exposure by a coach to interacting constraints helps a skater to better self-regulate under competitive pressure on the ice.

Integrating the athlete and environment in practice

The complex interactions between the three constraint categories help us understand why it is important to consider the relationship between athletes and their environments. By building a deeply interconnected relationship with their dynamically-changing environments, athletes learn to perceive relevant information or particular action opportunities and coordinate their actions accordingly. In constraints-led coaching, it is fundamentally important to respect the deep connections that develop between each individual and the performance environment and avoid the isolation of information and movement in rather decontextualized or decomposed practice ‘drills’ (see Davids et al., 2008). Isolating actions into separate movement components could occur when coaches ask an athlete to focus on their arm’s motion on a jump takeoff. An example of a decontextualized practice drill is when an athlete ‘walks through’ a jump takeoff in slow motion before attempting the skill. Instead, coaches could design practice tasks that help athletes maintain opportunities to couple their actions to surrounding information (see central part in Figure 2). The key methodologies in constraints-led coaching seek to: (i) help learners maintain (enrich and stabilize) these deep interconnections between perception and action systems, and (ii) design practice environments rich in opportunities that athletes learn to explore and exploit as preparation for competition (Otte et al., 2021). Based on information which is representative of and specific to the competitive environment (e.g., practice under varying ice conditions when possible; practice with shortened warm-up durations; delays between warm-up period and performance), athletes can effectively self-regulate their movement behaviors in competition (Figure 2). Thus, while coaches may not be able to control the precise nature of the ambient conditions of competition venues, such as temperature, ice qualities, and lighting, and sound, they can prepare athletes to adapt to possible variations in environmental and task constraints.

Application to figure skating

“How do you teach a Lutz jump?” Coaches often ask each other these types of questions and my (GL) answer is always, “Well, that depends.” Using Newell’s constraints model as a framework guides how I teach a Lutz jump or any other figure skating skill. This depends on the unique characteristics of the athlete (individual constraints described above, which can change from day to day, or even during a single session!). Does this athlete appear to be motivated right now? Are they up for a challenge, or should I dial back the level of challenge? I also consider the unique characteristics of the environment (environmental constraints). What opportunities for action does this ice session invite? Is it crowded or not? Is the ice surface harder or softer or is the ambient temperature colder or warmer than usual? How can I leverage these environmental constraints to create challenging, effective, and stimulating learning opportunities for my skater? Finally, I consider the skill(s) we will work on during the session and the many ways I can adjust the task goals to present new information to support the athlete’s learning (task constraints). I think about the type, order, and number of exercises, games, rules, and other strategies to be used; key technical adjustments for the skater to explore; and the types of feedback I can incorporate to support this exploratory process, such as video replays, the use of model performances, or verbal feedback (task constraints) to guide athletes to search and explore the conditions. When all three constraints categories are considered, I find it best to focus is on designing stimulating learning conditions since it is impossible to ‘teach the same lesson’ each day. The same athlete could be invited to explore and search the Lutz jump in different ways on different days, simply because the athlete and the environment invite various opportunities for action. For example, if an athlete appears motivated, energetic, and positive, this could be an opportunity to dial up the task variability to challenge the athlete to explore new information. I might introduce the athlete to a new entrance to the Lutz or invite them to perform it right after a spin, challenging them to perform while dizzy. The same athlete could be in a negative mindset or be slightly more tired the next day. In this case, it might be best to dial down the task variability to enhance the athlete’s feelings of stability, comfort and competence (the ease of performance, in this case, is effectively prioritized over the struggle of learning).

Take Action

Coaches can get started with the task of constraints manipulations by listing specific constraints in the three categories. They can think of these constraints as a ‘dynamic toolkit’ to design unique practice sessions for each athlete —use Figure 3 as a starting point for listing various constraints.

When filling out the list, you may realize that some constraints may be out of your control to manipulate— especially some individual and environmental constraints. For example, a skater might have had a bad day at school, and they arrive at the rink lacking that positive mindset to cope with task challenges. They may also lack energy or feel fatigued from previous training sessions, especially possible during adolescence. Coaches may also not have control over the rink temperature, whether or not the ice will be softer or colder, crowded or not. However, coaches could adopt a mindset of ‘emergent coaching’ which means that they can still plan for when these constraints change, facilitating opportunities for skaters to adapt to surrounding conditions. This coaching approach may help them focus on ‘skill adaptation’ in learners, rather than ‘skill acquisition,’ raising some important questions to consider. For example, what type of practice opportunities can I prepare for a school vacation day when more skaters will be on the ice than usual? By changing up the ‘sameness’ of daily practice, coaches can help athletes to adapt by practicing their skills in different locations on the ice (e.g., athletes are tasked to jump once in each of the four corners) or even change the size of the ice surface the athlete is allowed to use (e.g., athletes are tasked to jump across the short length of the ice).

Task constraints open up a wide range of skill adaptation possibilities only limited by our creativity. We urge coaches to think beyond the repetition of technical skills when considering task constraints and consider psychological skills and perceptual behaviors, such as how each athlete copes with practice and performance challenges or even their timeliness in arriving at training. We also remind coaches not to think of constraints as barriers that block action, but rather opportunities for new and unique learning opportunities for adapting their actions. For example, we could react to the athlete who arrives at training with a negative mindset as a barrier to conducting an effective practice session. However, we could also turn this into a unique training opportunity that centers on methods to trigger motivational shifts within the athlete. In other words, “I have this negative athlete in front of me— what one do to help them through this?”. The answer might require a re-defining of ‘success’ for the day by putting technical work aside to emphasize those feelings of competence displayed in the capacities for an athlete to physically and mentally adapt to changing conditions and circumstances of practice.

References

Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The Co-Ordination and Regulations of Movements. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Button, C., Seifert, L.,

Chow, J.-Y., Araújo, D. & Davids, K. (2020). Dynamics of Skill Acquisition: An Ecological Dynamics rationale (2nd Edition). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics. Chow, J.-Y., Shuttleworth, R., Davids, K., & Araújo, D. (2020). Ecological dynamics and transfer from practice to performance in sport. In A. M. Williams & N. Hodges (Eds.), Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Button, C. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Lucash, G. (2020). The athlete’s navigation device. The Professional Skater. March-April. 12-13

Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341-360). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

Otte, F. W., Davids, K., Millar, S-K., & Klatt, S. (2020). When and how to provide feedback and instructions to athletes? – How sport psychology and pedagogy can improve coaching interventions to enhance self-regulation in training. Frontiers in Psychology - Movement Science and Sport Psychology, 1(1444). 1- 14.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01444 - Available online at: https://www.frontiersin. org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01444/full

Otte, F. W., Davids, K., Millar, S-K., & Klatt, S. (2021). Understanding how athletes learn: Integrating skill training concepts, theory and practice from an ecological perspective. Applied Coaching Research Journal, 7. Available online at: https://www.ukcoaching.org/resources/topics/research/applied-coachingresearch-journal Rudd, J., Pesce, C., Strafford, B., & Davids, K. (2020). Physical Literacy - A Journey of Individual Enrichment: An Ecological Dynamics Rationale for Enhancing Performance and Physical Activity in All. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01904 – Available online at: https://www.frontiersin. org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01904/full Woods C.,

Rudd J., Robertson S., and Davids K. (2020a) Wayfinding: How ecological perspectives of navigating dynamic environments can enrich our understanding of the learner and the learning process in sport. Sports Medicine – Open, 6 (51): 1-11. - Available online at: https://sportsmedicineopen.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-020-00280-9

Woods, C., McKeown, I., Rothwell, M., Araújo, D., Robertson, S., & Davids, K. (2020b). Sport Practitioners as Sport Ecology Designers: How Ecological Dynamics Has Progressively Changed Perceptions of Skill “Acquisition” in the Sporting Habitat. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00654 - Available online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ fpsyg.2020.00654/full

Wulf, G. & Lucash, G. (2021) Optimizing Figure-Skating Performance part 2. The Professional Skater, March-April, 10-13