Talking Education and Sport

Interview from the Football Collective Conference

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:19:00 GMT

I was honoured to be invited speak at the first conference of the Football Collective, at the FC United of Manchester ground.

My presentation introduced two overlooked concepts of talent development:

I argued that no account of the talent development process is complete without considering these two aspects. The difficulty is that they threaten to undermine the whole process. Quite often they do!

I'm hoping to do more work on these ideas over the next few months, and will try to post something on this blog.

If you don't know about this great venture, you can check it out here: https://footballcollective.wordpress.com

The Football Collective is dedicated network of people who wish to bring critical debate to football – for those interested and involved in building football for the future. Through sharp analysis and research informed original reporting, we aim to provide a platform for thought provoking critical debate in football.

Our manifesto is simple:

We are a network bringing critical debate to our game

Anyway, here is a short interview I did at the event, making the case for collaborative research in sport ...

Sport, physical activity and educational achievement

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 12:09:00 GMT

Sport, physical activity and educational achievement is now available from both ResearchGate and Academia.edu.

Any comments or suggestions for further development of the model would be very gratefully appreciated.

New article: Sport, physical activity and educational achievement

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:32:00 +0100

I've recently published an article in the academic journal Sport in Society on the question of the contribution sport and other forms of physical activities might make to school grades and examinations.

This is the abstract / summary:

Sport and other forms of physical activities have traditionally held an ambiguous place within schooling, often being pushed to the margins. At the same time, there is a consensus that such activities are necessary for the healthy development of young people. This was proven during the second half of the last century, representing a revolution in the understanding of health. Recent developments in neurology, psychology and related sciences hint at a second revolution in which a strict distinction between mind and body has physical activity can make distinctive contributions to educational achievement, and a host of wider benefits. Focusing on cognitive functioning, psychosocial development, school engagement and general educational attainment, the article reviews the available evidence and concludes that there is sufficient reason to believe that sports and physical activity can make useful contributions to educational achievement.

The article can be accessed here. Unfortunately, it is currently protected by a pay-wall. However, I will put a pre-publication version on ResearchGate and Academia.edu, which will be freely available.

Comments would be very welcome.

New Huffington Post blog - What About Sport? Sport Needs Health; Health Needs Sport

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:08:00 +0100

I've recently written a new blog article for the Huffington Post. Its topic is the relationship between sport and the healthy physical activity agenda.

The article can be accessed here. Or by clicking on the image below. Comments and suggestions for new subjects will be very gratefully received.

The Philosophy of Science and Sport and Exercise Science

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:06:00 GMT

Introduction

“Cheshire Puss,' she began, rather timidly, as she did not at all know whether it would like the name: however, it only grinned a little wider. 'Come, it's pleased so far,' thought Alice, and she went on. 'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat. “I don't much care where—' said Alice.“Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.“—so long as I get SOMEWHERE,' Alice added as an explanation.“Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, 'if you only walk long enough.”(Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass, 1902)

The Philosophy of Science is simply philosophy directed towards questions of science. These questions generally take two forms. First, there are those related to the nature of science in general, and about central concepts in science, such as the nature of theories, truth, objectivity, and so on. The most fundamental question of this sort is whether or not there really is a special scientific method, and if so, what is it? Second, other questions focus on specific sciences. The philosophy of biology, for example, examines evolution, genetics and development, whilst the philosophy of physics is concerned with possible interpretations of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory. The Sport and Exercise Sciences could be described as second-order fields, since they rely and build on the concepts of more fundamental disciplines like physiology, mathematics and psychology, and seek to apply them in sporting contexts. It is difficult to imagine what a distinct and coherent "philosophy of the sports and exercise sciences" might look like, but philosophical issues are inseparable from serious study and practice in the sport and exercise sciences.

This essay aims to offer an introduction to the Philosophy of Science, and discusses some of the ways in which an understanding of its debates and disputes might be relevant for researchers and practitioners in the sport and exercise sciences. The language of this field is a matter of some debate itself. In some countries, it is conventional to talk of either sport science or sport and exercise science, while elsewhere people use Kinesiology, Bio-kinetics, Human Movement Studies, and other names. Different titles sometimes reflect local traditions, and sometimes they indicate am attempt to delineate the content of the field of study. Discussion of the most suitable terminology for these areas of study is a fascinating and worthwhile philosophical activity in its own right, but I will not be doing this here.

Does it matter if the sport and exercise sciences are scientific?

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." (Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass, 1902)

A great deal of the literature that makes up the Philosophy of Science addresses the meanings of central terms and concepts. The most fundamental of these is of course science, and this will be the focus of this short article. But it is possible to argue, as did Humpty Dumpty that we can choose our own meanings of the words we use, and we are sometimes free to do so. Poets regularly play with words and their meanings, as do small children, and this seems perfectly acceptable. When John Lennon of The Beatles wrote, ‘I am the Walrus’, it would be a peculiarly literal critic who condemned him as a liar: ‘I have seen pictures of Mr Lennon, and can confirm that is not, in fact, a walrus!’

Matters change when we make claims whilst trying to communicate with or claim to express truth to other people. In contexts like these, words and their meanings can matter a great deal. They can hide as well as show truth. This is not just an academic point. Adoption of the language of science is frequently used to present a set of ideas as possessing scientific value and credibility, and to adopt the intellectual authority that implies. Presumably this explains the emergence of Library Science, Leisure Science, Management Science, and so on. It might also explain why even the world of alternative medicine goes to great lengths to claim its scientific credentials.

The Australian comedian and poet Tim Minchin, in his ‘beat poem’ Storm, was unpersuaded by strategies

(https://youtu.be/HhGuXCuDb1U):

"By definition", I begin"

Alternative Medicine",

I continue"

Has either not been proved to work,

Or been proved not to work.

Do you know what they call "alternative medicine"

That's been proved to work?

Medicine."

The demarcation problems

“If you set to work to believe everything, you will tire out the believing-muscles of your mind, and then you'll be so weak you won't be able to believe the simplest true things.” (Lewis Carroll, Letter to to Mary MacDonald, 1864)

The quickest way to get a sense of some of the most basic questions examined by philosophers of science is to consider the difference between science and non-science. This is called the problem of demarcation (or the problem of setting the boundaries or limits of science).

The question of what is or is not scientific knowledge is as old as science itself, and remains the subject of on-going debate among philosophers and scientists. One difficulty confronting anyone reflecting on issues is that there are many different types of science (such as theoretical and applied), concerned with many different sorts of objects (including people, animals, plants and minerals), at different stages of disciplinary maturity (from emerging areas of research to well-established sciences). Consider, for example, some of the types of research reported in recent Sport and Exercise Sciences journals:

Randomised Control Trials of the effectiveness of physical activity interventions;

Surveillance reports of sports participation around the world;

Analysis of specific groups’ motivations to engage in exercise;

Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-analyses of various, narrowly defined topics;

Observational studies of sports coaches’ behaviours;

Laboratory studies of oxygen uptake on a treadmill;

Brain scans of skilled practice.

Research methods used in any multi-disciplinary field are likely to be diverse, since the methods of each of the parent disciplines can potentially be used, and this variety will only be multiplied when that field encompasses both theoretical and applied work, and populations ranging from shortly after birth to death. In fact, the range of methods used by sport and exercise scientists is even wider than that, since many methods regularly used have been imported from further afield. Systematic reviewing has origins in agricultural studies of seeds and fertilisers. Cluster analysis was first used by bacteriologists. And the detailed observational procedures used to track player behaviour during a game or session were imported from ethologists’ studies of animals in the wild (although that sometimes requires less of a leap of the imagination!).

Although science has been defined in many ways, most people who have examined the subject agree it is ultimately not a body of knowledge, but a way of establishing and developing a body of knowledge (Shneider, 2009). There are many forms of inquiry that are not scientific, but are perfectly respectable. History, ethics and theology would not normally be considered branches of science, but they clearly have values and standards. Ways of differentiating science from these academic disciplines is sometimes a topic of the Philosophy of Science, but far more common is the distinction between science and what is usually called pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific theories claim to conform to the methodological norms of science, but, when judged by non-believers, the claims are deemed to violate science and often common sense (Koertge, 2013). In a recent article, I offered an alternative terminology theories and practices that look superficially like science, are presented as science, but do not follow the accepted standards of science: these theories are “ sciency” (Collins and Bailey, 2013).

The philosopher most associated with the problem of demarcation is Karl Popper. Growing up in pre-World-War-1 Vienna, he was immersed in one of the most exciting intellectual environments there has ever been. As a young man, Popper attended public lectures and read books by many of the greatest thinkers of the day. He was impressed by the boldness of Albert Einstein’s new theory of relativity, and much less impressed by the psychoanalytical ideas of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler. The problem with Freud’s and Adler’s views, he thought, was that their power to explain psychological states and experiences was illusory, since it would be almost impossible to show them to be incorrect. Einstein, in contrast, explicitly stated the conditions that would kill his theory. Popper searched for some way of distinguishing between what he saw as the power of Einstein’s physics and the poverty of Freud and Adler, and concluded that the answer was falsification. A theory is scientific, he reasoned, if it can be shown to be false. This is in contrast to the idea that science operates through the generation of confirmations of theories, which had previously dominated discussions of the scientific method (and sometimes, in various forms, to this day).

According to Popper, the relative power of positive (confirmations) and negative (falsifications) evidence is asymmetrical: no amount of confirmations can demonstrate a theory’s value because it is always easy to find them; but a single falsification, he claimed, can kill a theory dead.

The most memorable metaphor Popper used to exemplify this point is 'the black swan'. Europeans for thousands of years had observed millions of white swans. Relying on positive findings, we could come up with the theory that all swans are white. However exploration of Australasia introduced Europeans to black swans. Poppers' point is this: no matter how many observations are made which support a theory, there is always the possibility that a single black swan can kill that theory.

So, the scientist (or at least the good scientist) does not search for evidence that seems to support a theory, but looks for ways in which it might be found to be mistaken. In other words, genuinely scientific theories include statements that could be shown to be false by empirical evidence; pseudoscientific theories do not (Popper, 1934; Magee, 1973). And the spirit of falsification continues extends to the scientific community as a whole, where the "friendly- hostile co-operation" of scientists (Popper, 1994), is expressed through mechanisms like peer review of articles,

Consider, as an example of the asymmetry between confirmation and falsification, the famous ‘four-minute mile’ that became an iconic goal for runners in the middle of the 20th century. For years, so many athletes had tried and failed to run a mile in less than four minutes that people suggested it was a physical and psychological impossibility. Scientists of the day even believed it was unachievable, as the human body was simply not able to maintain the necessary speed of 15 miles per hour (24.14 km/h, or 2:29.13 per kilometre, or 14.91 seconds per 100 metres). The theory gathered hundreds of confirmations until a 25- year-old medical student called Roger Bannister won a mile race in Oxford, UK, with a time of 3 minutes and 59.4 seconds.

In Popper’s terms, no amount of confirming evidence proved or even supported the theory that the four- minute mile was impossible. But just one negative piece of evidence destroyed that theory.

Falsification as the criterion of demarcation continues to be influential among scientists, but philosophers have generally abandoned it as a simple way of setting science apart from pseudoscience. There have been various criticisms of Popper’s view, but the most damaging is probably what is sometimes called the ‘Quine-Duhem Problem’. It is based on the observation that when a scientist tests a theory, it is not in isolation from other assumptions and hypotheses. So what appear to be observations that falsify a theory might really be some other factors.

Imagine a hypothetical experiment. A sport psychologist has a theory that sports players use reasoning skills during their game play which resemble norms of correct reasoning. The method is to recreate game situations, and asking players to solve problems whose correct solution is determined by logic, probability or decision-making theory. Suppose none of the participants manage to solve the problems according the prescribed. According to a simple account of Popper’s view, there is cause for concluding the theory has been falsified, and it should be abandoned. But this would be premature, as all that can be concluded is that the cluster of theory, accompanying assumptions and practical aspects of the experiment failed. Where the failure lies is, in itself, impossible to identify. It might be that the norms of reasoning cannot be provided by logic, probability or decision-making theory, or that, even if they can, they have been incorrectly applied in this experiment. Alternatively, the failure might be due to performance errors, or to misapplication of the experiment. Or perhaps there are other factors about which the sport psychologist is not currently aware.

In response to these sorts of criticisms, Popper modified his theory, arguing that scientists should be very clear and explicit about both the theory and any associated assumptions and hypotheses that might affect it. In some ways, this is a stronger position, since it means that the scientist is prepared to dictate more fully the theoretical and experimental conditions necessary for proper testing. However, it does not adequately deal with the Quine-Duhem Problem, since it will never be possible to completely deal with complicating variables. In addition, Popper’s revised version of his theory lacked the beautiful simplicity of distinguishing between science and non-science that was so appealing about the original (Lakatos, 1978).

While philosophers have tended to reject Popper’s formal theory of falsifications, most would endorse its central tenets, such as the central importance of a critical approach, well-designed tests and a suspicion of an over-reliance on confirming evidence. However, some philosophers have offered radically different theories of sciences. The best-known alternative is probably that of Thomas Kuhn.

In contradiction to the Popperian account of science as revolutionary, and characterised by ambitious attempts to create and destroy theories, Kuhn portrayed science as an essentially conservative practice, ruled by powerful paradigms and in which the context of research is vitally important. Popper recognised that many scientists do spend their days solving Kuhnian puzzles that work within the confines of the concepts and methods learned from textbooks. However, this apparent fact neither offers support for Kuhn’s position nor does it undermine the value of experimental testing, as ultimately, Popper and Kuhn were addressing quite different questions. Kuhn portrayed science as it is sometimes carried out, whereas Popper’s primary interest was in how science ought to be. Kuhn sought to describe how science worked; Popper prescribed how it should work.

At the centre of Kuhn’s analysis of science was his conception of the paradigm, by which he meant a recognised scientific achievement that provides model problems and solutions to scientists. Paradigms guide ordinary scientific practice, which Kuhn labelled ‘normal science’, which is research based upon previous scientific achievements that have been adopted by a scientific community. It is the everyday practice of scientists, as they exercise their skills against a restricted range of puzzles. Scientists within the same paradigm are engaged in an enterprise which is structured in the same way by the paradigm. Thus, their theories, methods, practices and the puzzles they attempt to solve are very similar. Basic rules and standards are unquestioned, with dogma an essential element in the process.

As normal science proceeds and puzzle-solving activities are carried out, anomalies inevitably begin to develop, when the paradigm does not work as it is supposed to, or when circumstances arise that are not soluble within the current paradigm. Over time, these discrepancies mount up until some scientists begin to doubt the paradigm itself, and a crisis develops. Eventually, competing paradigms emerge, and a scientific revolution occurs when a new paradigm replaces the old. Kuhn called the period of crisis ‘revolutionary science’, when new paradigms are proposed and compete for the allegiance of the scientific community. The new paradigm is ‘incommensurable’ with the one it replaced, meaning that there are no neutral standards for judging or comparing different theories. The process of abandoning the old in favour of the new cannot be a gradual, logical or scientific process based upon evidence or reasoning. The differences between advocates of competing paradigms at the time of crisis will be so great that they are unlikely to agree on what would constitute good grounds for preferring one to the other, since the criteria for those preferences are internal to the different paradigms. Thus, according to Kuhn’s early work, at least, the scientist does not reason herself into the new paradigm; Kuhn compared it to a conversion experience into religious groups. In this respect, Kuhn’s account of science is radically different from those, like Popper, who viewed science as fundamentally concerned with bold problem-solving, innovation and exploration.

The education of the scientist, according to this image of science, is one that aims to produce competent puzzle-solvers, fully familiar with standards and methods. In large part, this training is achieved through students attempting repetitively to solve puzzles that are learned from standard textbooks. Science is distinguished from other disciplines by its dependence upon textbooks, and until the last stages in the education of a scientist, textbooks are systematically substituted for the creative scientific literature that made them possible. The education of the normal scientist, according to Kuhn is an initiation into a largely unquestioned tradition. Kuhn implied that science is science because scientists say it is.

Kuhn presents a rather unattractive image of science education; one more akin to certain forms of religious indoctrination (Bailey, 2006). Science has traditionally been seen as the apex of rationality and critical thinking. Predictably, Kuhn’s portrait of normal science education has received a frosty reception from a number of philosophers and scientists. Popper’s comment is typical: “‘Normal’ science, in Kuhn’s sense, exists. It is the activity of the ... not-too-critical professional ... The ‘normal’ scientist, in my view, has been taught badly (Popper, 1970, pp. 52-3). Others have described Kuhn’s account of young scientists’ training in unquestioned paradigms, dependent on uncritically absorbing the content and methods of textbooks to be more characteristic of indoctrination than Scientific education (Bailey, 2000).

Another difficulty for Kuhn’s argument is that it is too inclusive, describing areas of academic work that are not usually associated with science. Consider, for example, the following sport-related contexts:

Strength and conditioning;

Mental skills training;

Research into the history of the sport of chess-boxing;

The 4-4-2 formation in football/soccer;

Cricket match-fixing.

Each of these could be understood in terms of individuals working within variations of a general agreed set of basic concepts, theories and methods. A theory of science that might include physics, criminal behaviour and Bayern Munich’s team organisation is hardly adequate!

The debate between Popper and Kuhn is, of course, only a fraction of the on-going the the debates within the Philosophy of Science. However, the central issues they discussed continue to occupy scholars, and are indicative of some of the central problems confronting anyone wishing to talk coherently about the nature of science.

Bad science

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." (Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass, 1902)

So, should we abandon the goal of demarcating between science and non-science? Since it is so difficult to draw a clean line demarcation, some think so. Paul Feyerabend, a student and then critic of Popper, claimed that there was nothing particularly distinctive or even special about the scientific method. He also argued that there has never been a rule within science that has not been broken at some point. Specifically, he put forward the view that science is just a tradition or form of inquiry among many others and it is not characterised by any distinctive methodological rules. So, Feyerabend concluded, “the only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes” (1993, p. 14).

This attitude seems hardly satisfactory to scientists confronted with questionable ideas that do not just undermine their professional work. Untested, unregulated and un-supported medical practices can be seriously harmful to people; they can even be fatal (Singh & Ernst, 2008), and such practices continue to be used regularly with athletes today (Gerbing, & Thiel, 2015). There are other dangers, too, as outlined by the philosopher and biologist, Massimo Pigliucci:

“The first is philosophical: Demarcation is crucial to our pursuit of knowledge; its issues go to the core of debates on epistemology and of the nature of truth and discovery. The second reason is civic: our society spends billions of tax dollars on scientific research, so it is important that we also have a good grasp of what constitutes money well spent in this regard ... Third, as an ethical matter, pseudoscience is not — contrary to popular belief — merely a harmless pastime of the gullible; it often threatens people’s welfare, sometimes fatally so.” (2013, unpaged)

The list of questionable ideas that have entered the Sport and Exercise Sciences is endless. In many cases, the popularity of their adoption stems from athletes’ never-ending pursuit of a competitive edge; that marginal gain in performance that lets them to excel in their sport. Sometimes, they take up such ideas because their coach, or even sports governing body, promote them. These are often ergogenic aids in the areas of drugs or nutrition, training routines or competition strategies and equipment or products (Pelham, Holt, & Stalker, 2001). One of the perennial concerns with any new practice or aid is the placebo effect and its relationship to expectancy. Expectancy directly relates to the athletes’ beliefs regarding the effectiveness of new idea, and a considerable amount of empirical research has demonstrated that expectancy effects alone can generate increases in performance (Lindheimer, O’Connor, & Dishman, 2015).

A recent example of an ergonomic product, that promised extraordinary gains for those who used it, is the hologram or energy bracelet. This is a rubber wristband carrying a hologram (a photographic recording of a light field). According to one manufacturer, the wristband incorporates ‘hologram frequency-embedded technology’. It is not entirely clear what ‘hologram frequency means, other than it "mimics Eastern philosophies". The makers the best- known hologram wristband claimed the “performance technology is a mylar hologram embedded with a range of frequencies that react positively with your body’s energy field”, resulting in “faster synaptic response, enhanced muscle response, increased stamina, more flexibility and vastly improved gravitational balance” (cited in Brice, Jarosz, Ames, et al, 2011). For a while, these products became hugely popular partly due, no doubt, by the fact that celebrity sports stars like Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham, Rubens Barrichello and Shaquille O'Neal wore and endorsed them. Unfortunately, the creators of these products seem to have undertaken no tests on the effectiveness before marketing them, and all rigorous tests so far have found the wristbands to have no effect on performance (Hansson, Beckman, & Persson, 2015; Teruya, Matareli, Soares, et al, 2013).

A second example of a questionable practice is learning styles. The relevance here is that assessments of learning styles is extremely common in certain areas of sport and exercise science, especially sports coaching. A survey of questionable practices in coaching in the UK revealed that every major national governing body for sport used some form of learning styles assessment at some point in their coach education, and anecdotal evidence suggests a similar pattern exists in other countries. Learning styles refers to the belief that different people learn information in different ways (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008). The assumption of the learning styles hypothesis is that different people learn information in different ways, and that formal experiences can be tailored to the individual learning style of the student, player or coach. It this idea is true, it would revolutionise coaching, as it would allow coaches to identify each player’s learning strengths, and to develop a bespoke programme of development, much as they might devise a physical fitness training schedule. As before, and despite its great popularity, there is no compelling evidence that matching formal instruction to individual perceptual strengths and weaknesses is any more effective than instruction which is not multi-sensory specific (Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Rohrer, & Pashler, 2012). Teaching according to an assumed preference may even cause harm, as learning is best promoted by taking students out of their comfort zones, not keeping them in it (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, et al, 2004).

So, at the issues discussed by philosophers of science are not just of academic interest. They often have very practical implications. For example, distinguishing between pseudoscience and genuine science has a practical importance. But in the absence of neat criteria of demarcation (such as falsification), is it really possible to identified science?

A useful tool used by philosophers when clarifying ideas is to consider the ‘necessary’ and/or ‘sufficient’ conditions for its use (Brennan, 2012). A sufficient condition occurs when it is enough to make something happen, whereas a necessary condition means that something will not happen unless the condition happens. For example, for a sports team to win a competition it is necessary to practice (but that is not enough on its own). Breaking a major rule during a game is sufficient for them to be disqualified. Popper believed that falsification was both a necessary and sufficient condition for an activity to count as science. There are reasons to suppose that this characterisation of science has serious problems. Kuhn’s account is less clear, but it would be fair to say that there are certain characteristics that are necessary for fields of inquiry to possess for them to be scientific, such as established paradigms, with shared concepts and methods. So, although Kuhn did not identify sufficient criteria for science, he did believe there are necessary ones. Some philosophers, however, have abandoned the pursuit of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be science completely. In its place, they have tended to provide lists of criteria that make a field more or less scientific. According to this view, a field that shows a number of specified characteristics is considered more likely to be scientific or pseudoscientific. Tavris (2003), for example, wrote that, in contrast with pseudoscience, scientific research tends to be characterised by a willingness to question received wisdom, to gather empirical evidence to determine the validity of the prediction, and falsification. Another list tried to highlight the characteristics of pseudoscience (Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2015):

unfalsifiability

absence of self-correction

overuse of ad hoc immunizing tactics designed to protect theories from refutation’ of;

absence of connectivity with other domains of knowledge (i.e., failure to build on extant scientific constructs;

the placing of the burden of proof on critics rather than on the proponents of claims;

the use of obscurantist language (i.e., language that seems to have as its primary function to confuse rather than clarify;

overreliance on anecdotes and testimonials at the expense of systematic evidence;

evasion of peer review;

emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation;

absence of boundary conditions (well-articulated limits under which predicted phenomena do and do not apply); and,

the mantra of holism (the idea that scientific claims cannot be judged in isolation).

Considered individually, many of these criteria are insufficient to indicate that field is pseudoscientific or has problems. Conclusive falsification, as has been seen, is extremely difficult (if not impossible), and obscure language is hardly absent from scientific journals. In fact, many of these characteristics could be identified in reputable scientists. The point, however, it is not to compile a list of necessary criteria for science, but merely a list of clues that will help to separate good scientific work from nonsense.

This is a much more modest aim than Popper and Kuhn sought. But perhaps it is also more realistic? Science is complex and takes many forms, and this especially true for sport and exercise science, so it seems unlikely to be reducible to simple criteria of demarcation. There is much scepticism among philosophers about the possibility of clearly distinguishing science from non-science, in part by unsuccessful attempts to provide such criteria in the past, and by the acknowledgement of the ever-increasing diversity of methodologies and methods of those disciplines considered scientific. Early, ambitious attempts by the likes of Popper to provide a satisfactory criterion of demarcation have been replaced by more contested approaches. However, there are good reasons to continue this enterprise. And there are good reasons why is sport and exercise scientists should become familiar with these debates.

Conclusion

“Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.” (Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass, 1902)

So, sport and exercise scientists need an account of what science is, what scientists do, and what aims and methods characterise scientific research. Consumers of sport, exercise and health are bombarded with remarkable claims. With such responsibility handed to scientists and the scientific community, it is important that there is some strong understanding of what counts as a proper science and, as opposed to pseudoscience and non-science. Otherwise, it would be impossible to distinguish between contemporary exercise physiology and ancient theories of energy, or between sport psychology and psychobabble. The sciences of sport and exercise can bring many benefits, both for individuals and societies, from improved sports performance to the reduction of noncommunicable diseases. If there is a value in Sport and Exercise Sciences within the perennial context of limited resources, it seems important to be able to identify what counts as science and which research projects are worth supporting and learning from.

References

Bailey, R. P. (2006). Science, Normal Science and Science Education – Thomas Kuhn and Education. Learning for Democracy, 2(2), 7–20.

Bailey, R. P. (2013). The use of questionable methods in sports coaching organisations in the UK. Unpublished manuscript.

Bortolotti, L. (2008). An introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Polity.

Brennan, A. (2012). Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrievd from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/necessary-sufficient/

Brice, S. R., Jarosz, B. S., Ames, R. A., Baglin, J., & Da Costa, C. (2011). The effect of close proximity holographic wristbands on human balance and limits of stability: A randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Journal of Bodywork and Movement therapies, 15(3), 298–303.

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Collins, D. & Bailey, R. P. (2013). ‘Scienciness' and the allure of second-hand strategy in talent identification and development’. International Journal of Sport Policy, 5(2), 183–191.

Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against Method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.

Gerbing, K. K., & Thiel, A. (2015). Handling of medical knowledge in sport: Athletes' medical opinions, information seeking behaviours and knowledge sources. European journal of sport science, (ahead-of- print), 1–8.

Hansson, E. E., Beckman, A., & Persson, L. (2015). Does a mineral wristband affect balance? A randomized, controlled, double-blind study. Journal of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, 44(1), 1–5.

Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48, (3), 169-183.

Koertge, N. (2013). Belief Buddies versus Critical Communities: The Social Organization of Pseudoscience. In M. Pigliucci & Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.

Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical papers, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J. E., & Lohr, J. M. (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Lindheimer, J. B., O’Connor, P. J., & Dishman, R. K. (2015). Quantifying the Placebo Effect in Psychological Outcomes of Exercise Training: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Sports Medicine, 45(5), 693–711.

Magee, B. (1973). Popper. London: Fontana.

Pelham, T. W., Holt, L. E., & Stalker, R. (2001). Acupuncture in human performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 15(2), 266–271.

Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (2013). The dangers of pseudoscience. New York Times, 1010/13.

Popper, K. R. (1934). Logik der Forschung: zur Erkenntnistheorie der moderner Naturwissenschaft. Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer.

Popper, K.R. (1970). Normal Science and Its Dangers. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning styles: where’s the evidence? Medical Education, 46(7), 634– 635.

Shneider, A. M. (2009). Four stages of a scientific discipline; four types of scientist. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 34(5), 217–223.

Singh, S., & Ernst, E. (2008). Trick or treatment: The undeniable facts about alternative medicine. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Tavris, C. (2003). Mind games: Psychological warfare between therapists and scientists. Chronicle of Higher Education, February 28, B7–B9.

Teruya, T. T., Matareli, B. M., Soares, R. F., & Mochizuki, L. (2013). The effect of a silicone wristband in dynamic balance. Perceptual and motor skills, 117, (2), 353.

A VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE BULLETIN OF THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF SPORT SCIENCE AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION, the worldwide representative body for sports organisations.

Smart moves: exploring the wider benefits of physical activity

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:58:00 +0100

One of the most exciting aspects of the recent research into physical activity has been the way it led us to widen our view of the potential benefits. No one denies, I assume, that physical activity plays a vital role in the development and maintenance of physical health at all stages of life. Compelling evidence has been gathered over the last 50 years demonstrating its important role in supporting physical well-being and combating a range of serious conditions, including coronary heart disease and obesity.

More recently, though, it is becoming clearer that physical activity positively affects a much wider range of aspects.

The Human Capital Model (HCM) is a particularly interesting approach, and I've been delighted to be involvd with its development. The HCM draws together the most comprehensive range evidence base so far of benefits of physical activity. The Model offers an evidence base for the popular Designed to Move movement, which is a call-to-action supported by a community of public, private and civil sector organisations dedicated to ending the growing epidemic of physical inactivity around the world. The Model is shown below:

In order to build the HCM, a comprehensive review of the beneficial outcomes of physical activity was performed using over 500 published articles. The result was the identification of six different areas of development or ‘capitals’. Each of these six areas defines a set of outcomes that underpin human well-being and success:

Physical Capital: The direct benefits of physical activity to physical health and functioning, including the prevention and limiting of non-communicable diseases and conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity.
Emotional Capital: The psychological and mental health benefits associated with physical activity, including increased levels of self-esteem and self efficacy, reduced depression and anxiety, reduced social isolation, and a greater ability to process stressful events.
Individual Capital: The elements of a person’s character—e.g., life skills, interpersonal skills, values. Reported benefits in this area include teamwork, co-operation, moral and social responsibility, and resilience.
Social Capital: The outcomes that arise when networks between people, groups, organizations, and civil society are strengthened because of participation in group-based physical activity, play, or competitive sports. This domain of capital includes the development of both pro-social behaviors and social inclusion through participation in physical activity.
Intellectual Capital: The cognitive and educational gains that are increasingly linked to participation in physical activity. This feature of capital focuses particularly on the effects of regular exercise on cognitive functioning, on subject-specific performance at school, and on general academic achievement.
Financial Capital: Gains in terms of earning power, job performance, productivity and job attainment, along with reduced costs of health care and absenteeism that are linked to regular physical activity participation.

These beneficial outcomes represent a valuable investment in terms of both quality and quantity of life. Moreover, the scope of this investment (across six capital domains) is much broader than what is normally considered with regard to physical activity promotion for all. Ultimately, the HCM is a call to consider investments in physical activity as powerful catalysts for personal and social change.

The complete model and supporting evidence base are presented and discussed more thoroughly in the whitepaper, Physical Activity: An Underestimated Investment in Human Capital? (Bailey, Hillman, Arent, & Petitpas, 2013), which is freely available from here.

Supporting material, including a review of the literature, are available from the Designed to Move website.

Both Designed to Move and the HCM have attracted a great deal of attention - from politicians, the media, sports administrators, teachers, coaches and parents - and the most frequently asked questions seem to relate to one topic: education. Politicians and teachers want to know if physical activity will support or interfere with student grades. Coaches and sports teachers are keen to find out if the latest research strengthens the case for activity. And parents just want to know what's best for their children.

In light of this interest, I have recently published a new article in the Aspetar Sports Medicine Journal on this topic, and it is freely available from here.

I'd be delighted to hear your thoughts on this very topical issue. Does introducing talk of grades and exams into the physical activity agenda make the cases stronger? Or does it risk confusing the issue with tangential concerns?

What do you think?

POSITIVE EARLY EXPERIENCES OF SPORT MATTER

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Tue, 4 Nov 2014 17:36:00 GMT

There is little doubt that the culture of sports coaching has changed over recent years. Stakeholders at all levels - parents, teachers, coaches, administrators - are recognising the vital importance of positive early experiences as a foundation for lifelong participation in physical activities, and also just because children’s sports should be fun! And while it would be naive to assume that such changes have reached all coaches (they certainly have not), more and more organisations are calling for new ways to present sports, especially to young people.

The increasing call for positive approaches to youth sports have been inspired by an acknowledgement that too many young people become turned off sports by the behavior and demands of adults who should know better. Parents screaming from the sidelines; coaches rubbishing children’s efforts; peewee competitions treated like professional athletics

The absurdity of this situation is vividly highlighted by a series of short films from Hockey Canada, in which children are seen talking to their parents the way that some parents talk during sports.

One of the more interesting, and concerning, consequences of writing my Smart Moves column for Psychology Today magazine column has been the messages I have received from people around the world whose experiences of sports and other physical activities were far from positive:

“I hated PE. Really hated it!”

“My first coach was a bully. It was all about control. Power and control. And we were little kids!”

“Why would anyone want to play a game where adults are screaming at you, or calling you names? Sports are supposed to be fun. My first sports experiences were not much fun!"

At a time when rates of childhood inactivity are rising to the extent that they are causing wide-scale alarm for the harm to health, both now and later in life, the urgency of rethinking youth sport could hardly be greater. Early experiences are important as they set the tone for everything that follows. Positive early experiences encourage further participation; negative experiences turn off kids.

The ways in which physical activity is presented are significant with all populations, but there are particularly compelling reasons to focus on first experiences as they start a pattern for all that follows. If the earliest experiences of activity are uninspiring, boys and girls will not want to continue, and evidence suggests that inactive children are likely to become inactive adolescents, and inactive adults.

Research from the US suggests that sports participation drops by 30 percent for each year of age, after ten years of age. According to a report from the National Alliance for Youth Sports, over 70% of children drop out of organized sports by age 13.

Numerous studies report that many children are put off participating in sports by an over-emphasis on winning, and this effect is especially strong with girls. Children are too-often presented with a narrow and uninspiring range of opportunities, and while many children love team games and athletic events, others find these traditional forms of activity physical activity either irrelevant or boring.

Probably the most important of all factors is fun. There is no doubt that the main reason children play and carry on playing sports and games is that they are enjoyable. Yet well-meaning parents, teachers and coaches spoil sports by making them too serious too soon. As we have seen, sometimes inappropriate forms of competition are the problem. Other times, it seems, children are unable to play the games they would choose.

Research suggests that children under seven or eight years of age are primarily motivated by pleasure, play and the sheer joy of movement. They do not want to serious games. Instead, they want to run and jump and chase and hide because they feel good. By coincidence, these sorts of actions are good for the developing bodies and minds, but that is not why children do them. For young children, play is enough. As they get older, children enter their ‘skill hungry years’. This is the time when they have a drive to learn new skills. They continue to seek out the pleasure of movement, but they also need to have a greater sense of mastery.

Other factors have been found to be important, too. Variety is the spice of life. This is true for physical activities, too. Some suggest early specialization in a sport is necessary for later success, but evidence shows that children who experience a range of activities are more likely to carry on playing, and they are also more likely to find the activity that becomes a lifelong passion. Even people who grow up to become champions tend to have sampled a range of activities as children, and only focused on one much later in life. So positive early experiences are as necessary for future sporting stars as the rest of us!

Problems arise when we forget the three fundamental rules of child development:

·      Children not are mini-adults;

·      Children are not mini-adults;

·      Children are not mini-adults.

Positive early experiences lay a foundation for a lifetime. It is easy to put children off physical activities; it is much more difficult to turn adults on to them. If we wish to make physical activities normal features of childhood, we need to ensure that the foundations are strong.

For more on this topic, see:

The Problem with Praise: Praise is not always a good thing

The latest article in my Smart Moves column.

ISN'T IT TIME WE GAVE UP THE 10% BRAIN MYTH?

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:36:00 +0100

Hollywood has a poor reputation when it comes to scientific accuracy. Perhaps the classic example is the Rachel Welch's One Million Years B.C., which was premised on the claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and battled each other for survival. In fact, the last dinosaurs became extinct around 65 million years ago, and the species of whom which Ms Welch is a particular fine example did not appear until round 200,000 years ago.

This film is not unusual: most films that touch on science seem to get it wrong in some major respects. James Cameron is a notorious stickler for details, yet he felt compelled to change the starlight backdrop to Titanic for that film’s re-release when Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out that the stars were in the wrong place in the original! And almost every space film ever made, from Star Wars to the new Star Wars has failed to deal with the annoying fact that - what with space being a vacuum - there would be no noise.

The recent movie Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson, joins this list of offenders by rekindling the myth that we use only 10 percent of our brains. Johansson’s eponymous character undergoes a transformation when a bag of drugs she was forced to transport inside of her stomach leaks, and rather than causing an agonising, inevitable death, this event somehow gives her access to all of her brain’s potential. With this gift Lucy is ability to learn languages in an instant, beat up gangsters, and throw around cars with the power of her mind.

The premise of the film is summarised by Morgan Freeman, who plays the world’s leading neuroscientist: “It is estimated most human beings use only 10 percent of the brain’s capacity. Imagine if we could access 100 percent.”

The idea that we use only a fraction of our cognitive capacity has become something of a Hollywood cliche. From Flight of the Navigator (1986), via John Travolta’s Scientology advertisement Phenomenon (1996), Inception (2010), and Limitless (2011), movies have asked ‘what if we really are using just a fraction of our true potential?’ Even The Simpsons succumbed, when Bart is prescribed a fictional hyperactivity drug that allows him to use the “full” potential of his brain:

“Most people use 10 percent of their brains. I am now one of them!”

Wouldn’t it be nice?
Many speculative ideas about the brain and learning seem to be motivated by a powerful drive, that I call the ‘wouldn’t it be nice drive?’, inspired by the Beach Boys paean to wishful thinking:

Wishful thinking has become one of the dominant themes in modern educational practice, and lies behind the waves of bullshit and pseudoscience that currently bombard schools.

Wouldn’t it be nice if my son was not academically weak? Oh look, it turns out that he isn’t! He is a kinaesthetic learner, and the school system simply ignores his gifts!

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was some magical way to accelerate my daughter’s performance in mathematics? Quick, get the chequebook: neuro-psycho-physio-gym can join up disconnected parts of her brain without her breaking a sweat!

Wouldn’t it be nice if I could become happier, healthier and wealthier, without investing any time or energy into making it happen? Woo-wee! There are lots of ways of doing this, and the only reason they aren’t better known is because scientists and governments are keeping them from us!

I suspect that ideas like those promoted in films like Lucy give fuel to this sort of wishful thinking by combining an allusion to 'sciency' brain talk with the intuitive power of a simple idea that is frequently repeated. And people do believe it. A 2012 survey of British and Dutch teachers found that 48% and 46%, respectively, accept the claim. According to a 2013 study of Americans by the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, 65% of Americans believe it too.

The claim has now spread around the world, including into schools and workplaces. I have heard doctors, teachers and academics cite it as if it were proven fact. You probably have too.

The bad news
Unfortunately, it is not true. We do not use 10% of our brains: most of us have access to 100%, and without the boost from a life-threatening injection of drugs.

The human brain has evolved over hundreds and thousands of years, at great cost. The average brain weighs just 3% of the body's weight but uses 20% of the body's energy. The idea that this process of development would result in an expensive organ that left 90% of its capacity unused is absurd. And unused cells in the brain that are unused would turn to atrophy, anyway. Not surprisingly, brain scans show the entire brain is active all of the time, even whilst resting or sleeping. In fact, even the most basic functions of the brain - like those controlling breathing and balance - take up more than 10%, and these are needed just to keep us alive.

But don’t take my word for it …

So what?
The 10% Myth is unusual among contemporary brain myths as it does not seem to have originated from a misunderstanding of real science. It seems that it was simply made up. No one really knows where it began, although a popular culprit is American psychologist and philosopher William James, who once mentioned in passing that we “are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources". This comment was repeated in the preface to Dale Carnegie’s 15-million-selling How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Does it matter that it is not true?

Many people find the idea inspiring in some way. Perhaps we should continue to use the idea, but as a metaphor rather than a factual claim. We do know that performance in almost every domain can be significantly improved through lots and lots of high quality practice, so maybe the 10% Myth can become a memorable ‘meme’ for emphasising the difference between our potential and our current performance. Perhaps.

But the simple fact is that most people who repeat the 10% Myth are not using it in this way. They are making a claim about the brain that is not true, and is not even plausible. And since gullibility and scientific illiteracy tend to like company, this myth is often accompanied by a host of other nonsense. So, Lucy does not just become brighter and stronger. She develops telekinesis! Advocates in the wonderful world of social media use the 10% Myth as the jumping-off point for an endless stream of equally unsubstantiated claims, from NLP and learning styles to spoon-bending and spiritual healing!

We do not use 10% of our brains. Not even people who believe the claim do. Perhaps it is about time we put this particular myth to rest? Believing bullshit is a dangerous habit to acquire.

Michael Gove has been sacked as Education Secretary - is the only way up?

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:18:00 +0100

"We been broken down
the lowest turn
and been on the bottom line
sure ain't no fun
but if we should be evicted from our homes
we'll just move somewere else
and still carry on
Hold on, Hold on, Hold on

Chorus
"The only way is up, baby
For you and me, baby
The only way is up
For you and me"

('The Only Way is Up', Yazz & The Plastic Population)

There is a principle is statistics called 'regression to the mean', which refers to the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement. In other words, it means that events tend to even out, so an unusual measure is likely to be followed by a more 'normal' result.

Regression to the mean explains why football managers often seem to experience a brief period of success when they begin a new post (because they usually get their job after a particularly disasterous time for their predecessor - even standard levels of performance will appear to be an improvement after abject failure). It also explains why alternative medicine sometimes seems to work (people tend to seek unusual treatments when their symptoms are severe, and any slight improvement is attributed the magical sugar tablet, rather than simply that random fluctuations would mean that the severity would have probably declined anyway).

Regression to the mean also explains the widespread euphoria that followed the sacking of Michael Gove as English Secretary of State for Education. Such was the contempt felt for Mr Gove by large numbers of teachers and parents, that it was simply assumed that his replacement, Nicky Morgan could not fail to be improvement. That Ms Morgan is a political and religious conservative who opposed equal marriage (she says she's in parliament not only for her constituents, but "to remember the Word of God and serve the Lord") was more than out-weighed by her assertion that an important part of her job was to work with teachers, rather than against them:

'I will obviously be nice to teachers, because working with teachers and heads and governors and everyone else in the system is critical in getting the best outcome for our children. Education can be life-transforming.'

That the government minister responsible for education has to state something so blindingly obvious out-loud is an indication of how warped and distorted this role has become. Whether or not Mr Gove, who showed his contempt for teachers with his every utterance and ill-thought-out policy, is the worst Secretary of State ever is a matter of debate. He certainly has some stiff opposition for that title from the various bullies, incompetents and loons who have held the position over the preceding decades.

In this context, Nicky Morgan could become a wildly popular Education boss merely by staying in her office and watching daytime TV. Perhaps she could appear from time to time at conferences to tell teachers and parents, like 'Young' Mr Grace of 'Are you Being Served', 'You've all done very well', before being carried back to her LaZboy recliner and the latest episode of 'Doctors'.

But lest we forget, Nicky Morgan was appointed by the same man who thought it was a good idea to hand over our children's futures to Michael Gove. She is an ambitious Cameronite, and immediately felt compelled to jump on all of the standard Tory educational bandwagons, including Academies, faith-based schooling, and Grammar Schools.

As I have argued before, the case for Grammar Schools is weak, and its impact could be summarised simply as 'benefit for a few at the expense of the rest'. Much the same conclusion, I suspect, could be said of academies and faith-based schooling, although I would not include children among the beneficiaries of the latter.

My concern, though, is not that the new Secretary of State for Education holds these views. It is that she is at the very beginning of her role, and has already decided her position on some of the most contested issue in education without, it seems, recourse to evidence or even discussion with those in the teaching profession.

Does that remind you of someone?

New Psychology Today Post: Healthy Body and a Sound Mind? Does Physical Fitness Improve Cognition?

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sun, 6 Jul 2014 10:27:00 +0100

The Roman poet Juvenile popularised the motto “a sound mind in a healthy body”). But is this really the case? What is the relationship between physical health and mental power, and why does it matter for schools?

I've just published the latest contribution to my Psychology Today column: Healthy Body and a Sound Mind? Does Physical Fitness Improve Cognition?

Please check it out, leave a comment and share!

Make the Familiar Strange: one action that can transform your coaching

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:33:00 +0100

I have recently achieved an amazing thing, and I feel very proud of myself. In fact, as I walked away from the encounter with a broad grin on my face, I found myself doing that least English of all things: I punched the air!

So what have I done? I've opened a bank account.

I accept that you might not too impressed, unless you are a close friend or family member who generally assume that even the most basic life skills are beyond me. But there is another element to the story: I achieved this feat in another country, and in another language. Germany and German, respectively.

Although I speak enough German to make my way around the place with only occasional humiliation and ridicule, I have found myself paralysed with anxiety at the thought of doing something that would ordinarily be an everyday task for most people. I feared that my 'how-much-are-the-Lederhosen' language skills would not stretch to conversations about current accounts, variable interest rates and regulations about money laundering.

Anxiety of this sort has been a recurring experience since I moved to Berlin a couple of months ago, and every time I walk into a shop planning to buy some bread only to leave with 10 metres of garden hose and a box of Tampons, I find myself jolted into an awareness that I am a novice with regard to an endless list of activities.

My banking adventure brings to mind a comment from the Russian writer, Viktor Shklovsky:

“Art makes the familiar strange so that it can be freshly perceived. To do this it presents its material in unexpected, even outlandish ways: the shock of the new.”

That pretty much captures my outlook since moving to Germany: the familiar has become strange (and this is not including the genuinely strange aspects of German life!).

Zen Buddhists talk about 'Beginner's Mind' (Shoshin, 初心), which is characterised by an openness to new challenges and the absence of prejudgement. For the beginner, even the most rudimentary task is thrilling or scary and new. For a bewildered foreigner, Beginner's Mind is not so much a spiritual goal as a lived experience.

The Beginner's Mind is the learner's mind, and it is very difficult to artificially generate, because it is so difficult to shut up the continual audio-commentary produced by previous experience. It is an usual teacher or coach who, when attending a course on a subject they know well, doesn't find the mind forcing the information provided through the filter of their own presuppositions and prejudgements: I agree, therefore it is right; I disagree, so it is wrong; this is similar to how I teach; I wouldn't do it that way!

This sort of dialogue seems to be the default way the human mind makes sense of the world, by seeing how new experiences fit in the pre-existing patterns that allow it to operate. But there are clearly consequences. The Zen monk Shunryu Suzuki wrote:

If we genuinely wish to experience the Beginner's Mind, we need to learn how to suspend judgement and just experience things fresh and shiny new.

This creates something of a problem for the expert or experienced teacher or coach, those purpose and function are premised on the absence of beginner-ness. The novice approaches the expert precisely because the expert is more familiar with the activity than they are. But even the most traditional and didactic teacher or coach needs to react and adapt to some extent to the idiosyncratic needs and responses of the students in front of them. So the expert's strength can also easily become their weakness, as the challenges facing the novice become progressively more alien. The coach who think they understand the experiences of their most inexperienced students is almost certainly wrong!

How can a coach of twenty years possibly understand the fears and challenges of someone taking their very first lesson? Or deal with a lack of comprehension of the most basic ideas? And if they can't do this, how can they communicate in a way that truly connects with the novice?

After years of trying and failing, I have concluded that it is probably impossible to do this through a feat of imagination. I cannot forgot what I have learned though years of practice, and I cannot shed the sense of familiarity and expertise that accompanies it.

So I am left with just one alternative: to become a beginner again. As far as I can tell, the only way a coach can understand the Beginner's Mind is to become a beginner again. Learning something that is new-alien, unfamiliar-disorientating, and exciting-nerve-wracking offers an unparalleled first-hand appreciation of the challenges that the students' experience everyday, and of which most coaches are more-or-less unaware.

Most coaches and teachers would accept, I think, the need to attend courses related to their sport or subject. Continued professional development is self-evidently necessary in order to keep in touch with new ideas and extend skill-sets. But I do not think any of this is as important as learning something completely new.

Stepping outside of the comfort zone means stepping into an area that is unfamiliar and uncertain, and in which possibilities are still endless. Beginner's Mind cannot be imagined; it can only be lived.

New Column with Psychology Today

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:42:00 +0100

I am delighted to report that I have recently started a: with the hugely popular psychology today magazine!

The focus of the column is the relationship between sport, physical activity and learning.

I will continue to publish entries to Talking Education and Sport. And in the meantime, please do check out my new venture!

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/smart-moves

Cricket versus Barbarism

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sat, 17 May 2014 22:46:00 +0100

Having just returned from watching the German Cup Final, with all of the diving, playing for fouls, and general gamesmanship that are often just accepted as part of the modern game, I find myself drifting towards one of my perennial ruminations about the place of "sport" in professional sport.

Then I found an short earlier post about another game. And it seemed pertinent, somehow.

_________________

I'd like to start with a quiz. Who said this

“Cricket civilises people and creates good gentlemen. I want everyone to play cricket ..; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen.”

I will reveal the answer at the end of this entry.

The stimulus for my mention of cricket is an interesting article in the magazine All About Cricket. The author, Safi Thind, reports on the emergence of a number of initiatives that have used cricket as a vehicle to combat problems like misbehaviour at school and youth delinquency.

For example,

"StreetChance "aims to increase aspiration, promote mutual respect, and enhance relationships with others, including schools, police and the wider community by providing structured coaching and competitive opportunities for young people."

Another charity - Cricket for Change - gives some clues about the selection of cricket as the means to these ends:

"We see cricket, because of its history throughout the world, as being uniquely able to transcend the major urban racial groups, black, white and Asian and because it's a non-contact game, is also uniquely able to help young people with a disability share in the benefits of competitive team sport.

We believe that cricket can be used to make a positive impact on the lives of individuals and communities and for the last 30 years we have used our unique cricket programmes to help young people, in particular, make positive choices about their lives and to help them feel good about themselves."

Cricket, above all other sports that emerged from Victorian Britain (which is, let's face it, almost all sports) has the reputation for developing decent behaviour.

This was the view of the philosopher David Stove. Cricket, he wrote, “requires gentlemanliness, and teaches it”. And such gentlemanliness is expressed both in the nature of the game (and its often extreme delays of gratification) and its spirit. In other words, cricket teaches decent behaviour by providing an environment in which such behaviour is practiced.

Of course, it is not difficult to undermine a simple equation between cricket and civility: bodyline, ball-tampering, match fixing, and so on. But that the vast majority of cricket matches manage to maintain an over-riding air of good manners and good spirits - even at the very highest levels - does suggest that these schemes are on to something.

And the source of the claim that cricket civilises people that I quoted at the start of this entry? It was that great humanitarian Robert Mugabe.

_________________

And if Mugabe cannot persuade you of the virtues of cricket, take a look at the story of a truly remarkable Cricket club: the Compton Cricket club in California, USA ...

Five Books (not about Coaching) that can Transform your Coaching

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Tue, 13 May 2014 22:13:00 +0100

STOP PRESS: I am delighted to announce that Arton 'Float Sting ' Baleci and I are running a new course on learning - for coaches, teachers and other learners!For more information, and the register, please go to: http://t.co/hqdr4ksJPq

It seems to me that coaching, and teaching in general, are basically thinking activities. Thought is required in planning, throughout delivery of sessions, and during the reflective phase that necessarily follows it (at least, it is a necessary element

All of the good and great coaches and teachers I have known have had ceaselessly enquiring minds. And most of them have repeatedly stepped away from the cosy certainties offered by their areas of specialism, and have looked elsewhere in the pursuit of new insights and new ways of thinking.

I certainly do not regard myself as a great coach or teacher, but I have benefited enormously, both professionally and personally, from the books I list here have inspired me, others have infuriated or disorientated me. But all of them have left their mark on my thinking about thinking about sport.

Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle MaintenanceDon't be put off by the title: it is not really about motorcycles, or about Zen. This is an engaging, thought-provoking book, probably best described as 'philosophical fiction'. The discussion about the nature and development of Quality, in particular, should be of great interest and relevance to coaches and teachers.

"We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world."

Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull

Sometimes mistaken for a story about a seagull. OK, it is a story about a seagull. But is also a parable about skill, perfection, and the meaning of a life worth living. And it is very short.

"Don’t believe what your eyes are telling you. All they show is limitation. Look with your understanding. Find out what you already know and you will see the way to fly.”

Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

Sports coaching is awash with bullshit. Gimmicks, fads, and magical nonsense rob us all of time, money, and professional integrity. Read this funny and shocking book, and see the light!

"Repeat after me: pharma being shit does not mean magic beans cure cancer."

Gary Marcus, Guitar ZeroA cognitive scientist tries to learn to play the guitar. This is probably the best book, to date, that tries to bridge the gap between what is known about how people learn complicated skills and what this can mean in practice. However, just as important is the author's account of the joys and frustrations of learning and then mastering a new skill. A great book.

"To dismiss talent is to ignore all evidence from biology.”

Victor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

A psychiatrist chronicles is experiences as an inmate at the Auschwitz concentration camp during the Second World War. Frankl's story is remarkable, and it is beautifully told. The lessons he learned and shares from this nightmare are, for many people, life changing. His discussion of the importance of meaning in one's life has enormous implications for education and sport.

"Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'."

STOP PRESS: I am delighted to announce that Arton 'Float Sting ' Baleci and I are running a new course on learning - for coaches, teachers and other learners!For more information, and the register, please go to: http://t.co/hqdr4ksJPq

EMBRACING WRONG

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:51:00 +0100

STOP PRESS: I am delighted to announce that Arton 'Float Sting ' Baleci and I are running a new course on learning - for coaches, teachers and other learners!For more information, and the register, please go to: http://t.co/hqdr4ksJPq

From an early age, we are conditioned to want to be right. We learn to need to be right.

Parents applaud their children when they do something well, or answer a question correctly. At school, we are rewarded and celebrated for passing tests, and can suffer in any number of ways for failing them.

The lesson is continually reinforced as we grow older. Promotions, reputations, careers are built on our capacity for right thinking. Or, at least, the appearance of right thinking. To be right is to succeed.

This is fine. It is entirely understandable. But this all-encompassing valuing of being correct comes with a risk. It can make us feel being wrong is always a bad thing, and so etching to be avoided always.

Right equates to success, wrong means failure. Newspapers are filled with stories of mistakes made by experts and public figures, often followed by the demand that they be punished or sacked or in some way called to account for their errors.

If something goes wrong we seem compelled to look for blame, even if it is difficult to figure out where the fault really lies.

Whatever the wisdom or justice of this mindset in public life, it carries with it an implicit assumption that there is in some way a break from the norm of rightness. Being wrong is understood as an aberration or a glitch.

And this is obviously not true.

We are all wrong. A lot. We are wrong about small, inconsequential things, and we are wrong about big, important matters. We might not want to accept them, we might even try to hide them (from ourselves as well as others). A moment's reflection will remind us that our lives are full of mistakes.

This is the terrain of behavioural economics and the psychology of decision-making. Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking Fast and Slow' is possibly the best known of a series of recent books that have highlighted that our evolved human mind is not, as we might like to believe, a rational computer. It is more accurately conceived as a veneer of reason on top of a collection of bias, hunches, and prejudices. So, to borrow Kahneman's terms, we assume that we live our lives laid mainly by slow, rational thinking. However, reason actually plays a relatively minor role in much of our day-to-day decision-making. Instead, we rely on fast, intuitive thinking, which is often below the level of consciousness. In other words, we believe (and want to believe) that we reason, when we usually just react. Reason occasionally steps in, in times of difficulty, but by then we may have long since acted.

This presents something of a problem for us, and especially those of us who would like to live lives in which reason and evidence have a say, because our minds have evolved over millions of years for survival and reproduction. And they evolved in environments very different than the ones in which the vast majority of us now live.

So, we tend to be extremely good at tasks that require quite quick judgements and actions, but not so good in those situations where reflection is needed. For example, evidence from research over the last 20 years also shows that the biases, hunches and prejudices that come pre-installed in the human mind can lead to a wide range of quirks:

Confirmation Bias - the tendency to accept evidence that confirms our beliefs and to reject evidence that contradicts them.

The Gambler's Fallacy - the sense that the odds of something with a fixed probability increasing or decreasing depends on what has recently happened.

Probability Neglect - our inability to properly grasp a proper sense of risk, which often leads us to overstate the risks of relatively harmless activities, while forcing us to overrate more dangerous ones.

Attribution Asymmetry - the tendency to attribute success to internal characteristics (such as talent and innate abilities) and to attribute failures to external factors (like simple bad luck).

Repetition Bias - the willingness to believe what one has been told most often and by the greatest number of different sources.

Cognitive Inertia - the unwillingness to change thought patterns in light of new circumstances.

And there are numerous other biases and intuitions that 'feel' right, even if they are leading us astray.

So, we better think again about our attitude to being wrong, because to err really is human. It is scientifically, measurably human.

The philosopher Karl Popper argued that learning could be best characterised as a process of trial and error-elimination. It begins with guesses that are, to all intents and purposes blind to their outcomes. We cannot discover if they are right or wrong, or if they work do not work, until we test them with experience or criticism. So, for Popper, error is an integral feature of learning. If we shy away from the possibility of being mistaken, we dramatically limit our guesses, and consequently block learning.

With this in mind, I recommend an excellent TED Talk by the journalist Kathryn Schulz. She takes a different focus than I have here, but the take-home message is the same: we had better start embracing wrong, because - for much more of our lives than we might wish to admit - wrong is what we usually are!

___________________________________

STOP PRESS: I am delighted to announce that Arton 'Float Sting ' Baleci and I are running a new course on learning - for coaches, teachers and other learners!

For more information, and the register, please go to: http://t.co/hqdr4ksJPq

St Patrick's Guide to Learning

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:31:00 GMT

Since it is St Patrick's Day, I thought I would offer an irish-themed blog. And since, mixed in with my mongrel ancestry is a large element of Irishness, I feel able to start with an Irish joke.

A tourist in Ireland is lost and asks one of the locals for directions to Dublin. The Irishman replies: ‘Well sir, if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here’.

In my last blog entry, I suggested that creativity is a habit. It is learned by doing it. Exactly the same could be said of skill: skilful performance is acquired, developed, and improved by performing skilfully. And, as the great coach educator Geof Gleeson used to say, a successful skill has a successful outcome. Learners who can appear technically outstanding, but you cannot actually put those techniques into practice are not skilful in any meaningful sense of that word.

This might seem so obvious as to hardly bare mentioning. But I think it is worth stressing because of the fact that will be obvious to anyone who has spent any time observing teaching or coaching sessions, as many seem to be concerned with the development of different qualities than the coach or teacher claims to be the aim.

Let me give you a few examples: two from sport, and one (very topical example) from school education

A sports coach who claims to want his players to be creative, but who fills each session with predictable, dull drills and practices will create players who are predictable and dull.

A martial arts instructor who wants her fighters to develop explosiveness and sharp timing, but who mainly asks students to punch air and repeat pretty punches and kicks in the air will produce dancers not fighters.

To paraphrase the Irish joke, if you want students to be creative or explosive, I wouldn't start with this!

And perhaps the most stark illustration of a disconnection between intention and preparation is the enforcement on teachers of young children to teach reading through the use of synthetic phonics. As you may be aware, this is the approach that is insisted upon by The English government; the only approach that should be used, according to some agencies. It teaches the phonemes (sounds) associated with the graphemes (letters), and the sounds are taught in isolation then blended together. In fact, synthetic phonics can form one among a number of effective strategies for teaching reading. But the evidence base behind the government assertion that it is the most effective and should be taught alone is simply non-existent.

But this is not help people read. Understanding the constituent sales of words is a very useful strategy in case of complex words, but effective reading takes place at a number of levels, from the phoneme, to the graphemes, to the sentence, paragraph, and story. Evangelists insist that children should be withheld real books until they understand the elements of words. And this is simply nonsensical. It is also not supported by the research evidence.

What is the consequence of an approach like synthetic phonics? My worry is that it will produce a generation of learners who have detailed understanding of the elements of reading and writing, but will have nothing of interest to read or write about.

Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh!

Risteárd Mac an Breitheamh

Anarchism and Creativity: first break the rules

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:13:00 GMT

About 20 years ago, I had the opportunity to study at the University of Vienna, in Austria. It was a great opportunity for me to experience living in a new city, and to acquire at least a basic ability to speak German. Since that time, I have stayed in many other foreign cities, and in each case I have been struck by a small differences and idiosyncrasies. Ways of behaving that I had always thought to be "normal"or even "natural" quickly turned out to be simply local traditions.

In some cases, I have abandoned my good old British ways in favour of the foreign alternative (for example, I now believe that food should have flavour and texture, that it is perfectly acceptable for a man to dance, and that coffee should taste of coffee). I have also come to the conclusion that there are many aspects of Britishness that deserve keeping, and even promoting (queueing, the BBC, driving on the left hand side of the road - a subject to which I will return in another blog entry).

Anyway, back in Vienna, I once found myself in the wee small hours waiting to cross a road, alongside about 20 other people. We were returning from a festival, and were the only humans to be seen. Despite the evident fact that the road was entirely empty, my fellow pedestrians stood on the pavement, waiting for a signal to cross. I felt a little impatient, and motion to go forwards, only to be greeted by a murmur of 'ssssssss'. So, social pressures kicked in, and I waited with everybody else, although this obedience to the diktat of a traffic-light made no sense to me at all.

I was reminded of this event whilst reading 'Two Cheers for Anarchism' by the political scientist James C. Scott. In fact, Scott found himself in an almost identical situation to me, but this time in Neubrandenburg, Germany (and, unlike me, he managed to extract an important lesson from the experience). He visited this small town once every week while working on a nearby farm, traveling there and back by rail. And every week, while waiting for his train back, he would spend some time watching people at the nearby intersection.

Scott observed that the timing of the traffic lights in the evenings - presumably not adjusted to reflect the reduced car traffic and increased number of pedestrians - meant that they would regularly be 50 or 60 people waiting to cross the intersection. Again and again, these groups would wait patiently at the corner for the light to change in their favour, whether or not their was any traffic in sight. Sometimes this meant waiting for four or five minutes or more.

Observing this repeated scenario, Scott thought the behaviour ridiculous and irrational. And considering the country in which this was taking place (and, of course, precisely the same applies to my experience in Vienna), such unquestioning obedience seemed highly dangerous.

"You know, you and especially your grandparents could have used more of a spirit of lawbreaking. One day you will be called upon to break a big law in the name of justice and rationality. Everything will depend on it. You have to be ready. How are you going to prepare for that day when it really matters? You have to stay ‘in shape’ so that when the big day comes you will be ready."

He advocates "anarchist calisthenics": "Every day or so break some trivial law that makes no sense, even if it’s only jaywalking. Use your own head to judge whether a law is just or reasonable. That way, you’ll keep trim; and when the big day comes, you’ll be ready."

Personally, I find this argument completely convincing, and not just for those who live in countries with a legacy of tyranny.

The freedoms most of us take for granted have been hard-won, and can easily be lost again. Obedience to every law, instruction and directive, no matter how stupid or unreasonable, is not just dumb, it is irresponsible. And to paraphrase the great libertine Quentin Crisp, if the time does ever come when you need to stand up and fight, obedience will have become your style.

It seems to me that the same logic can be applied to creativity.

The great dancer and choreographer Twyla Tharp wrote that, "Creativity is an act of defiance". It is about changing and breaking the rules. It is about abandoning the established way of things, and stepping bravely towards the new.

I doubt that there is any teacher or coach who would say that they were not interested in promoting creativity among their learners. In the case of sport, creativity would seem to be absolutely essential, as the novelty and innovation are distinctively powerful weapons in a competitive environment. An elite rugby union coach once said to me: "I assume technical expertise and extreme fitness of all players at the top level. What I'm really looking for are creative players. They are the ones who do things differently. They are the ones who give the team an edge."

In practice, it seems to me, the frequently expressed desire to develop creative players and learners is rarely matched by a pedagogy aimed at such an outcome. As I have observed elsewhere in this blog, a certain style of the lesson continues to dominate, and it is as antithetical to creativity as it is to learning, in general:

- An emphasis on correct technique

- Highly structured, repetitive drills and practices

- An assumption that "the basics" have to be mastered before they can be employed in real settings

- A view of learning in which knowledge is passed from the expert teacher to be ignorant learner

We have absolutely no reason for believing that any of this is true or valid.

Drills and repetitive practices enforce conformity. Lessons that place the teacher or coach as the fount of all knowledge lead to passivity. An emphasis on correctness results in obedience. And none of this is likely to result in the development of creative learners.

Creativity is a habit. It is learned and developed through practice and experience.

There are lots of ways in which this habit can be encouraged and nurtured. And I will consider some of them in future articles. For now, though, I will suggest just one idea, and it is inspired by Scott's suggestion:

CREATIVE CALISTHENICS: Encourage learners to break a rule or principal or norm every lesson!

I am not, of course, encouraging the abandonment of the rule of law. I'm not suggesting that teachers of young children allowed them to run into the streets, Or steal. I'm simply suggesting that, as a matter of course, they are encouraged to think for themselves. More than this, they are required to think for themselves. Every lesson. And that they recognise that most of the things they are taught in sport are really just rules of thumb or generalisations. They can be broken with no harm done, and if they are broken strategically, they can offer an immediate competitive advantage over an opponent.

In case you think I have lost my mind, let me give you a couple of concrete suggestions:

A basic strategic principle of all invasion games (football, rugby, hockey, basketball) is to attack wide, and defend narrow. This makes perfect sense in most cases, as it stretches and weakens the opposition defence and aims to strengthen your own. BUT the competitive advantage of this ploy is undermined by the fact that everybody is trying to do the same thing! So a judicious and occasional reversal might, at least, unnerve The opposition: attack narrow and defend wide.

A very basic rule of many fighting sports is to maintain a strong guard (for example, in boxing, Thai boxing, and mixed martial arts, fighters routinely hold both hands high in front of their head and upper body). Again, this makes perfect sense, as the arms protect many of the major targets that an opponent is trying to hit. BUT a long lineage of fighters from Muhammad Ali and Bruce Lee to Floyd Mayweather and the Gracie clan of Brazilian Ju Jitsu have found that deliberately lowering one's guard (called "drawing") can be a highly effective way of forcing the opponent to act in a predictable and consequently stupid way.

It could be argued that both of these strategies could be trained in an authoritarian and traditional way, and that is true. But their real value comes when they are initiated as a response to an active, changing, and unpredictable opponent. And that cannot be drilled or rehearsed; it requires a creative response. And, I have argued, a creative response requires a teaching or coaching environment in which breaking the rules is not just tolerated but positively encouraged.

Six strategies for improving learning in sport

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:43:00 GMT

My last blog entry offered a perspective on learning using, as a case study, fighting sports. But the basic principles apply to any skill learning situation.

In a nutshell, my argument was:

1) The best way to learn how to do something is to do it.

2) The closer practice activities resemble the full activity the better.

3) Just because you teach something does not mean that students will learn it.

The most frequently asked questions by commentators on the article was "so what does this mean in practice?" I'm planning to return to this question a number of times over the coming months. But now, I offer just six practical ways in which learning can be pushed to the forefront of sports lessons.

1) The warm up should be a part of the learning, not a preparation for it.

Too many sessions begin with meaningless calisthenics that do not resemble the movements that will follow. Effective warm ups need to prepare both mind and body, and consequently need to contain the same characteristics. In other words, they need to be specifically related to the main activity.

My own observations suggest that many sessions begin with activities that could be transplanted into any number of different sports.

For example, hockey warm ups that do not involve a stick and a ball will not properly prepare the body, and will not engage the mind. They will simply waste valuable time for practice and play.

Similarly, tennis/badminton/squash exercises that do not involve hitting a ball with a racquet do not work well because they do not exercise the relevant muscles, and do not focus the mind on tennis/badminton/squash.

Of course, I am not suggesting that players should dive into a full game at the start of a lesson. That could be very unwise! But it is perfectly possible to devise simplified, appropriate activities that gradually warm the body and wake the mind.

2) Effective learning builds on previous learning

There is considerable evidence showing that learning is most effective when it builds on previous learning and understanding. However, it is too easy to begin each lesson from scratch, ignoring what has come before.

This can be another valuable function of a good warm up: it can be an ideal opportunity to remind learners of lessons learned in previous sessions by practising adapted versions of previous activities.

The same activities allow you to observe and assess the learners, to identify their different needs, and provide teaching/coaching that is more suitable.

3) Start with the game

By far the most common error made in lesson planning is to begin with extended technique or skill practices. The assumption is that these practices will be applied later in the full game. However, as I argued in my previous blog entry, there is no reason to believe this actually happens. Instead, there is a danger that learners are simply going through movements without a strong sense of their purpose.

One way of understanding learning, I have argued, is as problem-solving. Giving a learner a skill or a technique without first letting them develop an extremely strong and compelling understanding of its purpose is like giving somebody a solution to a problem they do not have!

So what should the teacher/coach doing? The solution is simple: start with the game.

If you want a footballer to learn to keep the head down when shooting at goal, do not start with a drill. Start with a game, and introduce techniques and drills if (and only if) a problem arises. That way learning happens because you have offered a solution to a real problem.

Exactly the same logic applies to developing a golf swing. My own research with golf coaches showed that approximately 50% introduce a novice to the game on the driving range. In some cases, the beginner stays there for weeks, and only ventures onto the actual course once the coach has judged that the basic swing has been learned. But this approach is problematic because the practice is meaningless. The swing only has a function in the context of a golf course.

Starting with the game, or an adapted version of the game, creates meaning, purpose and context. It helps the learner understand the point of the activity, and (vitally) the reason why he or she is learning these techniques. This understanding should improve performance, and will certainly improve motivation.

4) Focus

The quality, not the quantity of practice is the determining factor of skill early. According to some books for teachers, skill learning should take up to 3/4 of lesson time. As far as I can see, the only outcome of this approach is that learners switch off, and end up simply going through the motions. Effective practice activities should be relatively short, intense, and highly focused. They should also be immediately followed by an application in a meaningful game.

5) To err is human and good

The great basketball coach John Wooden once said, "If you're not making mistakes, then you're not doing anything. I'm positive that a doer makes mistakes." He was a wise man, as all learning necessarily involves errors and attempts to overcome them.

It is understandable that we would rather perform a skill well than badly, but from the perspective of learning, mistakes drive learning. If we never make mistakes we would not develop, we would simply reinforce what we already do. It is only when things do not go according to plan that we are forced to rethink, and to devise new ways of acting.

Learners need to become comfortable with their mistakes, and to enjoy the new opportunities for learning and development that they promise. And coaches/teachers need to step back to give learners the time and space to experiment and to create their own solutions.

Learning is problem solving. So, mistakes are the motor of learning as they generate new problems.

6) Shut up!

Most coaches/teachers talk too much! I certainly do!!

The most important element in any lesson must be playing the game. The next most important factor is short, focused practices. In both cases, learners need to make the knowledge, skills, and understandings their own. This means that the teacher/coach needs to leave them alone and problems, to try things out, to make lots of mistakes, and to practice and play.

As a general rule: if you are talking more than the learners, you are doing it wrong!

I'd love to hear any comments on these ideas. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below. Or via Twitter (@DrDickB).

How do fighters learn how to fight? An insiders' critique of traditional teaching methods

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sat, 1 Feb 2014 22:23:00 GMT

(this is an early version of a chapter that is going to appear in a book on the martial arts in the modern world. I will add publication details when I have them)

Tradition

During World War II in Britain when armaments were becoming scarce and use of manpower was critical, time-and-motion studies were made of gun crews in the artillery to see if the speed of operating could be increased. One of these studies looked at artillery crews. In many ways, the operation was impressive, with each of the soldiers smoothly following the well-choreographed process. But one thing puzzled the observers: at a certain point, just before the firing of the gun, two of the men stood at attention away from the gun. Once the gun was fired, they stepped back in to help.

Nobody seemed to know why the soldiers simply stood while the others carried on. They just knew that it had to be done that way because it had always been done that way. Then one day, the researchers met an old artillery Colonel. He immediately knew the reason for the immobile soldiers. He said that 50 years earlier, horses had been used to haul the big guns, before motor vehicles took over. The time-and-motion people looked confused: “So how does that explain the two soldiers standing to attention, Sir?” “Simple: they’re holding the horses!”

This blog entry focuses on the martial arts - the physical recreation that has occupied most of my adult life - and it seems to me that the martial arts have more than their share of horses! (Much the same applies for many other activities, but I will hold off from mentioning them in the name of authorial discipline)

Even in this era of martial sports, Mixed Martial Arts, and street self-defence, the centre of gravity of combat activities lies firmly in the styles that sell themselves (whether explicitly or implicitly, honestly or dishonestly) as traditional. Indeed, the appeal of these systems comes largely from the sense that they have survived for a very long time. This sense is bolstered by the paraphernalia of training clothes based on the daywear of Japanese or Chinese peasants, the insistence that lessons take place in a foreign language, and the maintenance of a code of conduct often alien to most host countries.

The fact that hardly any of the styles taught in the West are as old as they imply is an awkward truth. For example, three of the most popular styles, Shotokan Karate, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do were all invented during the Twentieth Century (Funakoshi, 1973; Park, Park, & Gerrard, 2009; Ueshiba, 1988). Much the same can be said of versions of Chinese ‘kung fu’. Whilst their students might like to think they are successors to a line that can be traced back to the mystical Shaolin Temple, they are much more likely to be a member of a school dating back just a few decades, the result of one of the endless splits and feuds that characterise the history of Asian martial arts (Green & Swinth, 2003).

The medium is the message, and tradition continues to be a dominant feature of most martial arts. This is not necessarily a problem. Quite the contrary: traditions are indispensable components of learning and knowing, and we would barely be able to function at all without accepting some sort of authority, custom and tradition. Tradition can show us what has worked well in the past, and what has kept our predecessors alive. However, in the words of the great Lemony Snicket (2004),

“Just because something is traditional is no reason to do it, of course”.

Difficulties begin to rise when tradition becomes a thing in itself; when it is recognised as 'Tradition'. Then tradition ceases to be an adaptable and living repository of learning and becomes a source of deadening authority.

This is what has happened in martial arts pedagogy.

Traditional martial arts pedagogy

There is an inherent danger facing anyone criticising practices that they describe as ‘traditional’, or ‘standard’, or 'conventional', and that is that they merely construct a ‘straw man’ to knock down. A straw man argument occurs when the critic re-interprets a position in such a way that it is so weak or absurd than no sensible person would hold it. And dishonest strategy is particularly easy to play in the martial arts, which are characterised by a huge degree of variation, contradictions, and tensions. The martial arts are not a coherent clan, unified by a shared passion; they are a lose group of waring tribes!

Nevertheless, I maintain that not only is there such a thing as traditional martial arts pedagogy, but that its influence is so great it is practised even in styles that explicitly distance themselves from the past, such as Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kune Do, kickboxing and modern self-defence systems. (To be clear on this point, I am not suggesting that all instructors in these systems adhere to traditional approaches, but that many of them cannot separate themselves from them. For example, a JKD school I once attended taught the usual mixture of Kali, boxing and Wing Chun, using teaching methods that were indistinguishable from Shotokan Karate!)

This traditional pedagogy happens when most or all of the following criteria are met:

a considerable amount of the session time is spent with students practising basic techniques without an opponent;
when an opponent is involved, s/he is relatively immobile and compliant;
predetermined, choreographed drills and patterns, such as kata, hyeong, or forms form a central feature of training.

That these elements can be sensibly described as the traditional approach to teaching martial arts is supported by numerous textbooks and academic studies (e.g., Cox, 1993; Layton & Bell, 1997; Lorge, 2011; Nakayama, 1977; Ohlenkamp, 2006; Theeboom & Knop, 1998). It is also supported by practitioners themselves. In preparation for this article I engaged in a series of conversations with martial artists of different styles from around the world via social media (specifically Twitter and LinkedIn). If anything, their views of the importance of basic techniques and kata were more fundamentalist than those of the textbooks. “Basics are everything”, I was told, “they lay the foundation for all that follows”. “Kata is the time-honoured method for practising these techniques”, and “It must work because it has been around for centuries”. In the words of one popular karate text, kata and their associated basic techniques represent the “key” to the martial arts, and traditional practice gives the student that key (van Weenen, 2002). Significantly, though, none of these sources seemed willing or able to offer any coherent explanation about how basics or kata actually translated into improved fighting skills.

At this point, one thing needs to be made clear. As my title suggests, my primary concern is the effectiveness of martial arts pedagogy as a preparation for fighting. I do not for a moment believe that this is the only, or even main reason why people would wish to undertake such activities. There is little doubt that regular martial arts training can make positive contributions to participants’ health and well being (Abbott & Lavretsky, 2013; Woodward, 2009). It also seems capable of contributing to much wider personal, creative, and spiritual development (Nicol, 1975; Yuasa, 1993; Zarrilli, 1998). However, my concern here is with what might arguably be considered the defining characteristic of the martial arts - combat. In this respect, I claim, traditional pedagogy is ineffective.

Learning

Pedagogy - the art, craft and science of education - is a hotly contested topic among theorists (Hansen & Laverty, 2010). But some themes are not controversial. For example, it is beyond doubt that pedagogic practice is built upon theories of learning; that some of these theories are mistaken; and that’s decades of research have taught us a great deal about effective and ineffective pedagogy.

We also know that the long-standing view of the brain as a kind of blank slate (or empty container) onto which is written experiences is plain wrong (Pinker, 2003). Babies enter the world hard wired with countless sources of knowledge and insight gleaned through thousands of years of evolution. From that moment, the young child voraciously consumes information, seeking to understand, adapt to, and control issues or her environment. By the time a student enters a martial arts club, therefore, he will she has an extensive biography of experience and knowledge which cannot help but influence any learning that takes place. This is why the much-prized “beginner’s mind” of Zen Buddhism is an idealised aspiration rather than an everyday reality (Suzuki, 1970). Consequently, no two people will leave a pedagogic encounter with the same learning, and the learning that does occur is not necessarily that which was intended by the teacher. Learning is essentially an active process, in which the learner struggles to construct meanings that are relevant to them from the situation. As the great psychologist Jerome Bruner put it, “Stimuli ... do not act upon an indifferent organism” (Bruner & Postman, 1949, p. 206).

This point has an implication that is of enormous importance: teaching and learning have no necessary connection. Most of my social media informants simply assumed that what was taught was what was learned. But because an activity aims to teach a certain skill or knowledge does not mean that it will. No matter how skilled or impassioned the teaching, unless the learner understands it and engages with it, there is no reason to suppose that he or she has learned and that he or she will be able to apply it. The philosopher Karl Popper (1974) offered a useful way of understanding how this might work in practice. Learning, he suggested, has the character of problem solving, and is most likely to occur when teaching and experience provide solutions to problems that are real and meaningful to the learner. So, if a martial artist is struggling to defend him/herself from a certain type of attack, and the instructor provides a workable solution, learning is very likely to take place, it will be remembered, and applied in future. However, if the same instructor merely demonstrates a series of apparently arbitrary techniques that are then imitated by the students, those techniques are much less likely to be retained and applied (Bailey, 2000) (Since my focus is on martial arts pedagogy, I have not even gone into the sometimes bizarre techniques that make up many kata and forms, and from which some folk make a decent living pretending to have found ways in which they might actually work in the real world!)

So, people learn best when learning situations are real and meaningful. How does the teacher or instructor make sure that these conditions apply? This is where another group of findings from research become relevant. Situated learning emphasizes that learning is most effective when it is specific to the situation in which it is learned. In other words, learning is most likely to occur when the context of teaching closely reflects the context of learning (Ramsden, 1984). Swimming on dry land, for example, is a poor preparation for swimming in water because it lacks many of its defining characteristics (such as water). Likewise, many people claim that schools fail to prepare their students because life in a classroom shares few of the features of the world into which the young people will enter.

Situated learning is actually made up of a number of claims, and each of them highlights the difficulties for traditional martial arts pedagogy (see Table 1).

Sources: Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996; Greeno, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991.

From the perspective of situated learning, then, traditional martial arts pedagogy fares rather badly because it fails to resemble the situations in which its skills will be applied. Simply put, we learn what we do. If any martial artist wishes to prepare for the complexity and chaos of a street fight, he or she will be badly served if the training is simple, ordered and decontextualized.

Photo courtesy of Jamie Clubb, Clubb Chimera

Techniques or Skills?

It was a traditional martial artist who first and most effectively translated the practical implications of this type of research for the martial arts, and for sport in general. Geof Gleeson was the UK’s National Coach for Judo, and as a young man had lived and studied with the family of Judo's founder, Jigaro Kano. Gleason made a number of innovations and provocative ideas (mostly resisted and ultimately ignored by the Judo establishment), but the one that is of most relevance to this discussion is his distinction between techniques and skills (Gleeson, 1983; 1989). Gleeson’s initial target was what judo players call Uchikomi, or repetitive technical training. It is worth remembering that, unlike most martial arts, practice of techniques in JUdo necessarily involves interaction with another player. So, from the perspective of learning theory, judo (and other grappling sports) already have a significant advantage over other (punching and kicking) systems. Nevertheless, Gleeson was critical of the use of Uchikomi for three main reasons:

1. Fixed routines: Uchikomi is often practiced as habitual patterns of movement. However, Gleeson argued that judo is the practice and application of a skill, and habit and skill are not synonymous. Gleeson further maintained that there was no necessary connection between the static repetition of a throw as Uchikomi and the dynamic performance of a throw when the players are in motion.

2. How the completion of a skill movement affects the improvement of the skill: the throw is rarely completed in Uchikomi practice. In fact, practice is often carried out with no movement of the players, non-completion of the throw and no realistic resistance from the partner. Therefore, the player never really knows if he or she is performing the techniques correctly and effectively since there is no genuine feedback. Gleeson’s conclusion was that not only will Uchikomi not help to improve throwing skill, but will actually impede any skill improvement.

3. Rhythmic pattern differences in static and dynamic movement: Non-movement of the partner and a stereotypical movement in and out of the position by the throw leads to a regular beat rhythm. This never happens in competition fighting. The movement patterns associated with fighting in training and competition are complex and contain endless variations of movement by both of the players. Therefore, the transference of skills between the practice and performance is non-existent.

Gleeson conceded that the practice of Uchikomi may help to increase stamina and strength, but its value as a method of improving throwing skills in fighting situations is extremely limited (Gleeson, 1967).

Geof Gleeson teaching on an early International Budo Federation coaching course (your author is the keen young man in black)

Traditional martial arts pedagogy focuses on the development of technique (as almost all martial arts textbooks also do), and simply assumes that this will transfer into skilled performance against an opponent. Gleeson’s central insight is that this is an error. Technique cannot be treated in isolation, for there are many other things which affect and modify all techniques when they are converted into a competitive skill. Ultimately, skill is much more about context that it is about technique, and it is context that needs to be taught, experienced and understood. Uchikomi - which is actually a rather more dynamic and interactive form of basic technique training that is common in the majority of martial arts - is limited precisely because it confuses skilled performance with the repetition of mere technique. Skill “can be defined only in terms of success, of achievement, of a goal” (Guthrie, 1952, p. 136). So, skills are actions with some outcome in mind (Schmidt and Wrisberg, 2000), rather than mere physical actions.

The philosopher Hubert Dreyfus - as far as I am aware, not a martial artist - offered another argument, which seems to support Gleeson’s position. Dreyfus took issue with the widespread view that road to expertise begins with the development of isolated elements (what Gleeson would call techniques): “meaningless, atomistic elements ... Nothing is intelligible to us unless it first shows up as already integrated into our world, fitting into our coping practices” (Wrathall, 2000, p. 95). Dreyfus argued that if we were to go straight to the actual phenomena we are studying, and undertook a very detailed observation of the activities that they make up, it would be evident that we are not processing bits of information as we deal (or cope) with them. In addition, Dreyfus introduces what he calls the 'argument from skills' (Wrathall, 2000) to show how the traditional view of learning by building up discrete bits of technique is problematic. His argument can be paraphrased and reframed like this: if we are to understand how people learn to perform martial arts, and we follow the assumptions of traditional pedagogy, we will need not only rules for performing the techniques, but also a specification of the rules that allow us to know when specific techniques apply in different contexts. The different techniques that make up the different skills necessary for successful fighting mean that we are talking about a huge number of rules. But still further rules would seem to be needed to direct these rules, and so on for an infinite regress.

It is difficult to see how to escape this descend, without abandoning the traditional assumption that skilled performance is the result of acquired, developed and applied techniques. However, the argument does not apply if performance in fighting is understood in terms of the learning of real and meaningful skills in real and meaningful contexts. In a nutshell: there is only one way to learn how to fight in the martial arts: fighting. Of course, this need not always be fighting in the sense of “the real thing”. It is possible (and sensible) to construct a programme of teaching and learning that simulates different aspects of fighting contexts, and encompasses many of the defining characteristics of fighting situations, which would include unpredictability, emotion, and contact.

Conclusion

Fighters learn to fight by fighting. So, martial arts pedagogy, at least as it relates to preparation for fighting, is much simpler than is usually presented both in textbooks and by instructors. Basic training and kata, in the way practised around the world have many virtues, but they are fundamentally flawed as preparations for fighting. They survive not because they work, but because of the power and mythology of tradition in the martial arts. And because critical thinking are rarely features of programmes. They also gain sustenance by the fact that they all rarely tested in the crucible of real fighting. It is surely not a coincidence that systems that are regularly tested, whether in the relatively safe arena of full contact sport or in the real world, are much less likely to rely on traditional martial arts pedagogy. They have learned that tradition is only of value to the extent that it keeps you fighting.

Your author competing in a Muay Thai event, Newcastle, 1989

References

Abbott, R., & Lavretsky, H. (2013) Tai chi and qigong for the treatment and prevention of mental disorders. The Psychiatric clinics of North America, 36(1), 109-119.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996) Situated learning and education. Educational researcher, 25(4), 5-11.

Bailey, R.P. (2000) Education and the Open Society: Karl Popper and Schooling. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999) How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. (1949) On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm. Journal of personality, 18(2), 206-223.

Cox, J. C. (1993) Traditional Asian martial arts training: A review. Quest, 45(3), 366-388.

Funakoshi, G. (1981) Karate-Dō: My Way of Life. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Gleeson, G. R. (1967). Judo for the West. Kaye & Ward.

Gleeson, G. R. (1983) Judo inside out: a cultural reconciliation. London: Lepus Books.

Gleeson, G. R. (1989) Judo Games. London: London: A & C Black.

Green, T. A., & Swinth, J. R. (Eds.). (2003) Martial arts in the modern world. Westport, CO: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Greeno, J. G. (1998) The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American psychologist, 53(1), 5.

Hansen, D. T., & Laverty, M. J. (2010) Teaching and Pedagogy. In R.P. Bailey, R. Barrow, & D. Carr, 2010). The Sage Handbook of Philosophy of Education. London: Sage Publishing, p. 223.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Layton, C., & Bell, V. C. (1997) Slow movement as a function of advancement in the shotokan karate kata set. Perceptual and motor skills, 84(3), pp. 1009-1010.

Lorge, P. A. (2011) Chinese martial arts: from antiquity to the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nakayama, M. (1977) Best karate: comprehensive. Tokyo: Kodansha international.

Nicol, C. W. (1975) Moving Zen: karate as a way to gentleness. London: Bodley Head.

Ohlenkamp, N. (2006) Black Belt Judo. London: New Holland Publishers.

Park, Y. H., Park, Y. H., & Gerrard, J. (2009). Tae Kwon Do: The ultimate reference guide to the world's most popular martial art. New York: Facts on File Publishing.

Pinker, S. (2003) The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. New York: Penguin.

Popper, K. R. (1974). The Philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. 1). La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.

Ramsden, P. (1984) The context of learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (eds), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Snicket, L. (2004) A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Blank Book. New York: HarperCollins.

Suzuki, S. (1970). Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.

Theeboom, M., & Knop, P. D. (1998) Asian martial arts and approaches of instruction in physical education. European Journal of Physical Education, 4(2), 146-161.

Ueshiba, K. (1988) The spirit of Aikido. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

van Weenen, J. (2002) The Beginners Guide to Shotokan Karate. Bedford: Paul Hooley and Associates.

Yuasa, Y. (1993) The body, self-cultivation, and ki-energy. New York: SUNY Press.

Woodward, T. W. (2009) A review of the effects of martial arts practice on health. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 108(1), 40.

Zarrilli, P. B. (1998) When the body becomes all eyes: Paradigms, discourses and practices of power in Kalarippayattu, a South Indian martial art. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Tom Daley and other Sporting Heroes

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Mon, 2 Dec 2013 20:56:00 GMT

Homophobic bullying is endemic in sport.

The truth of this statement is so obvious that it hardly bares stating. Many of us/most of us who are coaches and teachers dedicate ourselves to offering life-enhancing experiences through sport, yet operate within a system that is simply not welcoming to lesbian, gay and bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) people. Sometimes exclusion is stark and frightening. More often, it is more subtle.

On a few, rare occasions, I have seen coaches verbally abusing LGBT players in front of their peers. When confronted, the coaches gave the same response: surprise. They were only teasing, they said. Just messing around. It is no different from teasing someone about the colour of their hair, or their obesity! Apparently, adding the phrase 'only joking' renders even the most offensive comment harmless. If the player cannot take a bit of harmless banter, one told me, then maybe they should consider a different hobby.

Words like 'poof', 'queer' or 'dyke' are casually used in sports clubs to indicate some failure of an individual to meet an unstated, but unquestioned standard of manliness / femininity. Boys and men who fail to perform in the acceptable manner are told that they "play like a girl". Girls and women who play well, but without the required degree of femininity, are labelled "butch". In many sports, a posturing machismo represents the norm against which all other behaviours are judged. Lesbian, gay and bisexual usually fall outside of this norm.

Some sports are clearly worse than others. It seems to be that tolerance for different lifestyles is least among the most high profile sports. For example, when United States international footballer Robbie Rogers came out as gay, he was only the third footballer after England's Justin Fashanu and Swedish midfielder Anton Hysen to have come out. Fashanu killed himself in 1998.

It would be easy, not too depressing to continue this sort of analysis with other sports.

Sport should be a home for everyone. People of vastly different backgrounds can be brought together in a shared love of a game. Sport offers a shared language that can overcome differences of all varieties.

That is the claim. And at its best, this claim is true. But the power of sport to include can too easily be corrupted and turned towards exclusion. When this happens, the power of the group can shift from friendship to alienation to bullying.

Many lesbian, gay and bisexual young people continue to live lives in which one of the most precious aspects of their existence - their sexuality - must be kept secret.

According to the gay rights charity Stonewall, more than 55% of of lesbian, gay and bisexual school pupils have been bullied. A 2012 report by Cambridge University found that one in four young lesbian, gay and bisexual people had tried to take their own life.

So, it seems to me, that the fact so many of us in sport continue to tolerate homophobic behaviour is shameful. Few, I am sure, explicitly support bullying. But many of us implicitly endorse it by failing to challenge it directly, or by taking steps to reduce the chance that it ill arise in the first place. We tell ourselves that "there is no problem here", or that homophobic comments to individuals are just playing and not serious. But lesbian, gay and bisexual people tell us that they are serious, they are hurtful, and they reinforce an environment that can end in exclusion, bullying, or suicide.

The revelation by Olympic diver Tom Daley that he is now in a homosexual relationship was an act of remarkable bravery. Tom knows, as all of us in sport know, that such an admission can be risky. He is a public figure, so the statement about his sexuality open to to all manner of hurtful comments. But he is also a role model for countless young sports people. His honesty and openness should inspire anyone struggling with personal challenges.

Sporting stars like Robbie Rogers and Tom Daley are inspirations. However, the most powerful role models in the lives of young sporting people are not the elite, but those they meet on a day-to-day basis. Evidence shows that the most influential people are the coaches, teachers, and older players within the club or team. They are the ones who set the standards of behaviour: by what they say, and by how they act.

The simple fact is that many gay young people will never join a sports club for fear of a homophobic behaviour and bullying. Those who do may feel they must remain silent about a core aspect of their nature, their sexuality. Sports coaches and teachers are among the most trusted adults by young people. Young people talk to us about problems at school, with their parents, with their friends, and this places a enormous responsibility on us all.

If we genuinely believe that sport is for all, we need to take the issue of homophobia in sport seriously. It will not go away without a concerted effort from everyone involved, at all levels. But it is coaches and teachers of sport who need to lead the way.

_____________

Former rugby international and 'Strictly' star Ben Cohen has launched a charity that focuses specifically on challenging homophobia, especially in sport. Click on the image below to find out more, and Stand Up against all kinds of bullying.

The Art and Science of Crap Detection

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 00:34:00 GMT

One of the ironies of modern culture is that, despite the remarkable advances of science and medicine, many people continue to believe utter nonsense.

The sea of dubious information has clearly been fed by the emergence of social media. Anyone who uses Twitter or Facebook will be confronted with a continual stream of bold claims, shocking controversies, and supposed secrets for improved health, wealth and happiness. Some of these claims come from genuine experts, some come from people trying to make a fast buck, and some come from fools.

Telling the difference can be frustratingly difficult.

Two examples. I've just been reading a report in a newspaper about advances in cancer treatment. The same issue also includes an article about the powers of Chinese "internal healing". Another source, this time an online magazine, juxtaposes a piece about recent advances in brain science with a quiz inviting readers to find out whether they are "left brain" or "right brain" thinkers.

In case you are not clear yourself (and who could blame you?), there is no compelling evidence in favour of either internal healing or left/right brain thinking. They might be attractive ideas. They might conceivably turn out to be true at some point in the future. But, in the words of the late, great Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And, at the moment, the evidence is missing.

The genius of social media is that it has democratised knowledge. Information is no longer the preserve of a select few. We can all access vast amounts of information. But democracy cannot work without an educated population. It assumes that people have sufficient knowledge, skills, and understanding to make informed judgements about the decisions confronting them.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of people have not been educated to make such judgements.

The writer Ernest Hemingway famously said, "The most essential gift for a good writer is a built-in, shockproof, shit detector." That inspired Neil Postman to claim:

As I see it, the best things schools can do for kids is to help them learn how to distinguish useful talk from bullshit.

Most schools do not do anything that remotely resembles this. Consequently, they send young people out into the world inherently vulnerable to bullshit. And that seems rather shameful.

Of course, it is not just schools who have failed to prepare their charges. Many universities force their students to complete 'learning styles' assessments, despite the fact that it is well-known that most experts on learning and the brain deny that such styles exist at all. Even worse, an informal review of sports coaching education programmes in the UK by my colleagues and me revealed that all of them taught questionable or erroneous theories as scientific fact.

Remember Power Balance? The bracelets that used "hologram technology" to "resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body", resulting in the improvement of sporting performance. Sounds implausible? Not so much that it prevented tens of thousands of sports coaches, athletes, and normal people from from around the world buying one, just in case they actually worked.

People bought the devices even after scientists demonstrated that they had no effect at all. Television news items even demonstrated, with the most basic of tests, that the bracelets were useless. But people continued to buy them, right up until the company that produced them went out of business, mainly due to a court ruling that the company should stop making unsubstantiated claims and that dissatisfied customers should be given a full refund.

Anyway, the company has relaunched under a new name, and people have started buying the bracelets again.

What is to be done?

Surely, the ultimate solution must be to change education programmes to better prepare people to do with the barrage of bullshit with which they will inevitably be confronted during their lives. This is as much to do with a sceptical mindset as specific techniques.

For a start, though, consider this list of questions from the writer Michael Shermer, which make up his "Baloney Detection Kit".

THE TEN QUESTIONS

How reliable is the source of the claim?
Does the source make similar claims?
Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
Does this fit with the way the world works?
Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Crap detection can be framed even easier than this, as one simple but profound question:

How do you know?

If every student was taught to ask this whenever confronted by a new idea - no matter who offered it - they would be making a giant step towards being genuinely educated.

6 Must-Read Books on Coaching and Learning

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:35:00 +0100

Coaching and teaching are essentially thinking activities. Excellent coaching and teaching demand imagination, reflection and analysis. For this reason, books are, and will remain, the one necessary resource. Fashions come and go in education, but we have found nothing to replace the quiet, simple act of reading, and the intellectual revolutions that it promises.

This blog recommends six really useful books on coaching and learning (subsequent blogs will look at motivation, and other areas of interest to coaches and teachers). I'd love to hear your thoughts about them, and any suggestions of your own, via the wonderful world that is Twitter - @DrDickB.

“The more that you read,the more things you will know.The more that you learn, the more places you'll go.”(Dr. Seuss, I Can Read With My Eyes Shut!)

Stafford, I. (Ed.). (2011) Coaching children in sport. London: Routledge.

The most authoritative book on the subject. Covers a wide range of subjects in and accessible way.

Bransford, J.D. Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Quite technical in parts, a bit old, and long, but this is the best single-volume guide that explains the science of learning.

Myerson, J. (2005) Not a Games Person. London: Yellow Jersey Press.

A memoir of someone who didn’t ‘get’ sport! Very funny, but also revealing for those of us take the joy of sport for granted.

Medina, J. (2010) Brain Rules: 12 principles for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

A well-written and engaging book on the brain and learning (and some other things). Much less awful than most books on the brain!

Pink, D. H. (2010) Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Edinburgh: Canongate Books.

An excellent book on motivation, with ideas that can be immediately applied to coaching and teaching.

Physical Education for Learning: a guide for secondary schools. London: Continuum.
A wide-ranging and comprehensive book, focusing on the support of learning in physical education and sport.

'Hoover is only one brand of vacuum cleaners' - some alternatives to Powerpoint

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:23:00 +0100

Some products have become so ubiquitous that their name has morphed into a generic noun. I still find myself referring to 'Hoovers' years after their dominance in the world of vacuum clears has subsided (all hail the Dyson!). And I still talk quite freely about 'Durex' as a catch-all term for contraceptives, despite learning to my cost (and embarrassment and potential injury) that the word means sticky tape in Australia).

Some trademarks and brands have become completely absorbed into everyday language. You might be surprised to learn (as I was) that 'Aspirin' is not the name of a drug, but actually a proprietorial brand. And the same is true of Astroturf, Bubble Wrap, Hula Hoop, Frisbee, Ping Pong, and Jacuzzi.

Microsoft's Powerpoint is another case in point. In most Universities and schools, 'powerpoint' simply means presentation. And it is the most commonly used software, to the extent that departing from the norm can prove inconvenient or even impossible in many institutions. In fact, so all-pervasive is Powerpoint that not using presentation software at all - whether or not it is appropriate - is seen as the behaviour of a Luddite!

But there are good reasons to consider alternatives. The first is a political one: I suggest to you that conformity and obedience should be resisted as a matter of principle. It is our duty as free men and women (apologies to readers in North Korea). Breaking free of the heavy hand of Microsoft in schools and universities can be a daily dose of "anarchist callisthenics", that exercise the freethinking muscles!

A more fundamental reason to resist is that Powerpoint, like any software is a tool, and all tools have their inherent limitations. Use only kind of software and weaknesses quickly become acceptable, then normal, then inevitable. Introduce another type of software and choice suddenly becomes an option.

Powerpoint contains a remarkably comprehensive range of functions, but it is not as intuitive or pretty as Apple's Keynote (although you would also need to swap your PC for a Mac ... which is another great reason). It is also not non-linear nor as flexible as the online program Prezi. Nor is it free like Google's Drive presentation, PowToon, and 280 Slides.

If the intention is to do the same sort of thing as Powerpoint, but with a different look or feel, it is worth considering Sliderocket. If multimedia is your thing, then the new SlideSnack is excellent.

I'm not going to offer a proper review here. Nor will I dissect the virtues and vices of the different systems. My aim is to make a simple point: there is more to presentation software than Powerpoint, and it is well worth taking a little time to check out some of the alternatives.

In the era of web-based and cloud-based programs, the horny old 'PC versus Mac' question becomes somewhat redundant (the answer's Mac, by the way!). And many programs are offered free of charged, or at greatly reduced prices, so money is less of an obstacle that it once was.

So don't do it for me. Do it for your colleagues and friends who have had to suffer through countless hours of tediously similar slides and effects! Do it for those poor souls for whom the sight of a clever transition or animation no longer brings shrills of anticipation; just the deadening certainly that another bloody slide is coming along. Do it for those who still think that being told 'but we always do it this way' is reason enough to do something else!

Practically Perfect Presentations

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:56:00 +0100

The new school and university terms are approaching, so it is a good opportunity to reflect a while on the elements of excellent presentations.

With this in mind, I asked a few people with greater knowledge of the subject than me to share their words of wisdom. These are people whose work on this subject I respect and / or who I have seen live and thought "I wish I could do that!"

I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for contributing their thoughts. I hope you find their ideas as valuable as I do.

Professor Margaret Talbot, President of the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education (ICSSPE), the worldwide umbrella body for sport, suggests:

"Always respect your audience, and make sure you are well prepared for both the topic and the audience. So many people think they can 'wing it', and it is always obvious when they do!"

Andy Reed OBE, former Member of Parliament, now the Director of SajeImpact Ltd, works with a number of sports and charitable organisations, and is the chair of the Sport and Recreation Alliance. Andy wrote:

"Know who your audience are and what their knowledge and expectations will be.

"For me it's about sharing a passion for a topic and therefore being enthusiastic and authentic. It's about being aware of strengths and weaknesses and being prepared for different situations. I am poor at formal presentations without detailed notes, but prefer minimal notes/ PowerPoint when its more informal and a subject area I know well.

"Be prepared to alter direction.

"I always personally prefer Q&A as a large proportion of the talk - getting to understand what people want to know - it's about dialogue. Not just imparting everything you know!

"So know your audience, be yourself and authentic, prepare to the right level for the event, be authentic and engage."

Hiran Ilangantileke is an accomplished Musician and Public Speaker. He has trained, facilitated and presented to a wide range of audiences from Media companies to High Risk Organisations. As a professional commercial Musician he has engaged crowds of many thousands.

"My top tip for being a great presenter?…..Prepare for Presenting as you would for any major performance of skill.

"Consider the effort spent by an Athlete or Musician preparing for their, often, very public performance. An Athlete will know their event, a Musician their song and accordingly, a Presenter needs to know their material. This is Fundamental preparation, but is it enough to be a great communicator?

"To make presentations sparkle I often adapt a simple mental rehearsal technique from the world of sports. The best time to do this exercise is the night before your presentation, after you have revised your material.

The most important step is to set a good psychological and physical state. For most people this means to relax, but choose the state you want to carry into the presentation and transmit to the audience. Ask yourself, what state or personal qualities will elicit the response that you want from the audience? e.g. if you want your crowd to be motivated/inspired/relaxed etc. what state should you be in? Your breathing rate is the foundation to your psychological and physical state, change your breathing – change your state.

Once you have set your desired state, close your eyes and mentally rehearse the presentation (performance) whilst all the time maintaining your state, as indicated by your breathing rate. Start the mental movie well before you’re in front of the audience. Rehearse everything from approaching the stage to leaving it. At all times whilst you are visualising, notice how your state supports your voice quality, recall of information, flexibility and overall, elicits the responses you want from the audience. It's okay if you don’t know what the room or audience looks like yet, just use your imagination. That said, it can be very powerful to run this technique whilst in the actual room you’ll be in the next day.

"Enjoy your great performance!"

Dr David Morley, from Leeds Metropolitan University, is an outstanding workshop leader. He stressed the importance of building rapport with the audience from the very beginning of a presentation:

"Engage everyone with eye to eye contact in the first minute of the presentation."

Finally, Daniel Coyle is the author of the excellent The Talent Code, and one of the masters of communicating the art and science of outstanding performance. Daniel offered advice for putting mistakes into proper perspective:

"Always remember that mistakes aren't verdicts - they're information to help you make the next reach."

What's your style?

noreply@blogger.com (talkingeducationandsport) — Tue, 2 Jul 2013 08:03:00 +0100

I recently came across this talk by the philosopher and populariser of eastern mysticism, Alan Watts, about the choices we make in our lives (via the superb Brain Pickings). He asks, "what would you do if money were no object?"

Watts was my first intellectual hero. He had discovered Buddhism as a child, and later moved to San Francisco a decade before the 60s' embrace of Eastern philosophies. Many scholars are quite sniffy about Watts' writings. I suspect that their disregard is partly because his writing is clear and rather beautiful: an unforgivable sin for most academics.

I can't quite remember why I suddenly decided to read his "Way of Zen", but the effect was profound. I had just left school, and the source of its influence was not so much in the content in as in the implicit insistence that there are alternative ways to thinking to those with which we had grown up and become accustomed. Like many people, my schooling had been more about compliance than education, in any meaningful sense. Watts (and other heroes like Jiddo Krishnamurti, Bertrand Russell, and Robert Pirsig) insisted that each of us had a choice about the paths we followed. Nothing was determined.

Like most very important question, Watts' is beguilingly simple. And, of course, some may say that the question is pointless or ridiculous because money is an object. Very few of us can do exactly as we please. We have responsibilities, bills to pay, people to look after. And if money was no object, I probably wouldn't be speaking to the likes of you!

But that misses the point.

Remember Alice stumbling through Wonderland, when she came across a strange cat?

‘Cheshire Puss,’ she began, rather timidly … ‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’ ‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat. ‘I don’t much care where,’ said Alice. ‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat. ‘So long as I get somewhere,’ Alice added as an explanation. ‘Oh, you’re sure to do that,’ said the Cat, ‘if you only walk long enough.’

I understand Watts to be saying much the same thing: "it all depends on where you want to get to".

Which reminds me of a comment from the splendid old queer Quentin Crisp:

'It's no good running a pig farm badly to 30 years while saying, "really I was meant to be a ballet dancer." By then, pigs will be your style.'