Do You Want to Develop New Sport Skills? Should You Verbally Cue or Constrain?

Motor learning refers to the acquiring, fine-tuning, and recall of skills. Whether a post-stroke patient or an NFL quarterback, learning, refining, and recalling skills require proper “teaching” methods to optimize outcomes. Two prominent approaches are constraint-based learning/dynamic ecological and verbal cueing. Determining which is more impactful depends on the learner’s goals, experience, and task complexity.

Verbal Cues

Verbal cues are concise instructions, usually a word or series of words that serve to have an athlete “feel” or recall a prior movement pattern. The coach directly solves movement deficiencies by explaining the problem and providing simple commands to improve the athlete’s movement solution. Through these words, the learner can simplify movements, and enhance performance. However, cueing reduces the implicit learning and self-directed organization of the athlete, sometimes leading to an overreliance on feedback from the coach to display proper movement solutions or correct inefficiencies. Therefore, verbal cueing can be used to fine-tune athletes who already have dense and productive movement solutions (i.e. highly experienced and efficient athletes). Verbal cueing can be particularly effective in the late stages when an athlete is much closer to mastery and autonomous recall, as it helps refine technique.

• External Focus directing attention to outcomes (Wulf et al., 1998).
• Simplification (Porter et al., 2010).
• Immediate Feedback

The risk with verbal cueing is overloading learners, especially younger and more inexperienced ones, with instructions that can create dependence on immediate feedback and hinder performance. When learners become dependent on external cues to improve their pattern recall or skill, they are less likely to self-organize and create movement solutions to complex tasks seen in sports. This is detrimental when an athlete is “alone” on the field. 

Power of Constraints

Constraints modify the environment, task, or individual to guide the athlete toward specific movement solutions without explicit instructions. This approach encourages problem-solving and intrinsic learning.

• Self-Organization: Constraints foster exploration, allowing learners to discover effective movement solutions (Newell, 1986).
• Implicit Learning: Skills learned through constraints are retained longer and adapt better to varied contexts (Hossner & Wenderoth, 2007).
• Transferability: Training under constraints mimics real-world conditions, enhancing performance under pressure (Davids et al., 2008).

Constraints reduce reliance on verbal feedback and are ideal for fostering adaptability in complex or team-based tasks. As an athlete, the focus on finding coaching that properly implements constraint-based learning initiatives is important for the transferability of a training session to a field-based activity. Having intrinsic retention and self-directed movement answers allows the athlete to recall proper efficient patterns in a myriad of situations.

This type of teaching is more complex, less verbal, and requires a dense understanding of environmental and task constraint drills. However, when implemented properly it is the most effective way to train new movement skills that require retention and recall under stress. Additionally, these serve the non-exert level athlete the best as they allow for self-exploration and teach them how to feel their movements and body positions more so than answer to a cue. 

Which Is More Impactful?

The effectiveness of constraints and verbal cues depends on context. Constraints are more impactful for early skill acquisition, complex tasks, and fostering creativity. They encourage self-discovery, leading to long-term retention and adaptability. Verbal cues, on the other hand, excel in refining technique, offering immediate corrections, and enhancing performance in experienced individuals. Synergistically combining constraints with verbal cues yields the best outcomes long term, during the development process. Constraints shape the learning environment, while verbal cues fine-tune movement. 

References

1. Wulf, G., Höß, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). External focus of attention enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(4), 380-385.

2. Porter, J. M., et al. (2010). Focus of attention and verbal instructions: Strategies of elite track and field coaches. Sport Science Review, 19(3-4), 199-211.

3. Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control.

4. Renshaw, I., et al. (2010). A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 117-137.

5. Hossner, E. J., & Wenderoth, N. (2007). Implicit motor learning and movement optimization. Movement & Sport Sciences, 61(1), 35-50.

6. Davids, K., et al. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Human Kinetics.

7. Davids, K., et al. (2013). Environmental design and nonlinear pedagogy in sports performance. Sports Medicine, 43(8), 555-564.