Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2019-4
Participation can make a difference to be competitive in sports: A systematic review on the relation between complex motor development and self-controlled learning settings
The purpose of the study was to provide an empirically based argument that grounds the relation between potentials of athletic performance and participatory settings within the autonomous inner logic of competitive sports. Therefore, the present paper systematically reviewed the empirical evidence of the association between complex motor learning and performance, and self-controlled practice conditions. Six electronic databases, reference lists and citations of full-text articles were searched for English and German language peer-reviewed articles. The search string multiply combined different terms relating to motor learning AND self-control. Two reviewers evaluated the full-text articles and critically appraised the included studies. Thirty-one studies with 1273 participants met the inclusion criteria. The vast majority of the studies reported significant learning advantages for experimental groups under self-controlled practice conditions compared to experimenter-imposed yoked groups. No study showed adverse effects. Thereby, the effects of self-controlled practice conditions have been shown to be relatively generalised to a variety of participatory variables and target groups. Advantages in accuracy, form and performance were more frequently reported than advantages in consistency. Despite increasing research efforts, the explanatory underpinnings behind the learning benefits remain debatable. The evidence indicates that complex motor learning and motor performance are typically enhanced when learners are given the opportunity to take part in decisions and therefore presents profitable implications for coaches and anyone responsible in competitive sports. However, in order to become a professional effective argument, the social context and the status of reasoning in changing habits need to be considered.
StichwehR. Sport as function system in world society. Eur J Sport Soc2013; 10: 87–100.
2.
BetteKH. Die Trainerrolle im Hochleistungssport, St. Augustin: Richarz, 1984.
3.
CassidyTJonesRLPotracP. Understanding sports coaching: the social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice, London: Routledge, 2009.
4.
MeinbergE. Training: a special form of teaching. Port J Sport Sci2002; 2: 115–123.
5.
ChelladuraiPSalehSD. Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: development of a leadership scale. J Sport Psychol1978; 2: 34–45.
6.
LewinKLippittRWhiteRK. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. J Soc Psychol1939; 10: 271–299.
7.
JonesRLArmourKMPotracP. Sport coaching cultures: from practice to theory, London: Routledge, 2004.
8.
DenisonJMillsJPKonovalT. Sports’ disciplinary legacy and the challenge of ‘coaching differently’. Sport Educ Soc2017; 22: 772–783.
9.
LyleJ. Sports coaching concepts: a framework for coaches' behaviour, London: Routledge, 2002.
10.
KidmanL. Developing decision makers: an empowerment approach to coaching, Christchurch, NZL: Innovative Print Communications, 2001.
11.
LenkH‘Authoritarian’ or ‘democratic’ style of coaching. In: LenkH (ed). Team dynamics, Champaign, IL: Stipes, 1977, pp. 81–89.
12.
LightRLHarveyS. Positive pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport Educ Soc2017; 20: 271–287.
13.
MillerPSKerrGA. Conceptualizing excellence: past, present, and future. J Appl Sport Psychol2002; 14: 140–153.
14.
Barker-RuchtiNTinningR. Foucault in Leotards: corporeal discipline in women's artistic gymnastics. Sociol Sport J2008; 27: 229–250.
15.
GearityBMillsJP. Discipline and punish in the weight room. Sports Coach Rev2012; 1: 124–134.
16.
HeikkalaJ. Discipline and excel: techniques of the self and body and the logic of competing. Sociol Sport J1993; 10: 397–412.
17.
JonesRLStandageMFirst among equals: shared leadership in the coaching context. In: JonesRL (ed). The sports coach as educator. re-conceptualizing sports coaching, London: Routledge, 2006, pp. 65–76.
18.
PotracPJonesR. Micro-political workings in semi-professional football coaching. Sociol Sport J2009; 26: 557–577.
19.
ChelladuraiP. Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. J Sport Psychol1984; 6: 27–41.
20.
MoenF. The coach-athlete relationship and expectations. Int J Humanit Soc Sci2014; 4: 29–40.
21.
SharmaR. Preferred leadership behaviours of male and female badminton players. Int J Sci Cul Sport2005; 3: 73–83.
22.
HoushTKHoushDJJohnsonGO. Introduction to exercise science, London: Routledge, 2017.
SewellDWatkinsPGriffinM. Sport and exercise science, Abingdon: Hodder Education, 2012.
25.
SmithDJ. A framework for understanding the training process leading to elite performance. Sports Med2003; 33: 1103–1126.
26.
FoelsRDriskellJEMullenBet al.The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction. Small Group Res2000; 31: 676–701.
27.
HollembeakJAnthonyAJ. Perceived coaching behaviors and college athletes' intrinsic motivation: a test of self-determination theory. J Appl Sport Psychol2005; 17: 20–36.
28.
OcchinoJLMallettCJRynneSBet al.Autonomy-supportive pedagogical approach to sports coaching: research, challenges and opportunities. Int J Sports Sci Coach2014; 9: 401–415.
29.
Van MaarseveenMJJOudejansRRDSavelsberghGJP. Self-controlled video feedback on tactical skills for soccer teams results in more active involvement of players. Hum Mov Sci2018; 57: 194–204.
30.
GormanADRenshawIApplied motor learning: optimal environments for successful development. In: BakerJCobleySSchorerJet al.(eds). Routledge handbook of talent identification and development in sport, London: Routledge, 2017, pp. 312–324.
31.
SanliEAPattersonJTBraySRet al.Understanding self-controlled motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Front Psychol2013; 3: 611.
32.
WulfG. Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: implications for physiotherapy. Physiotherapy2007; 93: 96–101.
33.
WulfGLewthwaiteR. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev2016; 23: 1382–1414.
34.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJet al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. J Clin Epidemiol2009; 62: 1006–1012.
35.
EimeRMHarveyJTCharityMJet al.Age profiles of sport participants. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil2016; 8: 6.
36.
HopkinsWGAllenSV. Age of peak competitive performance of elite athletes: a systematic review. Sports Med2015; 45: 1431–1441.
37.
SternadDHuberMEKuznetsovNAcquisition of novel and complex motor skills. In: LevinMF (ed). Progress in motor control: skill learning, performance, health, and injury, New York: Springer, 2014, pp. 101–124.
38.
PorrittKGomersallJLockwoodC. JBI's systematic reviews. Study selection and critical appraisal. Am J Nurs2014; 114: 47–52.
AbdollahipourRNietoMPPsottaRet al.External focus of attention and autonomy support have additive benefits for motor performance in children. Psychol Sport Exerc2017; 32: 17–24.
41.
ChiviacowskySWulfGDe MedeirosFet al.Self-controlled feedback in 10-year old children: higher feedback frequencies enhance learning. Res Q Exerc Sport2008; 79: 122–127.
42.
LaughlinDDFairbrotherJTWrisbergCAet al.Self-control behaviors during the learning of a cascade juggling task. Hum Mov Sci2015; 41: 9–19.
43.
McHughML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med2012; 22: 276–282.
WulfGAdamsN. Small choices can enhance balance learning. Hum Mov Sci2014; 38: 235–240.
46.
AikenCAFairbrotherJTPostPG. The effects of self-controlled video feedback on the learning of the basketball set shot. Front Psychol2012; 3: 338.
47.
LemosAWulfGLewthwaiteRet al.Autonomy support enhances performance expectancies, positive affect, and motor learning. Psychol Sport Exerc2017; 31: 28–34.
48.
LimSAliAKimWet al.Influence of self-controlled feedback on learning a serial motor skill. Percept Mot Skills2015; 120: 462–474.
49.
PostPGAikenCALaughlinDDet al.Self-control over combined video feedback and modeling facilitates motor learning. Hum Mov Sci2016; 47: 49–59.
50.
PostPGFairbrotherJTBarrosJACet al.Self-controlled practice within a fixed time period facilitates the learning of a basketball set shot. J Mot Learn Dev2014; 2: 9–15.
51.
WulfGRaupachMPfeifferF. Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Res Q Exerc Sport2005; 76: 107–111.
52.
Ste-MarieDMCarterMJLawBet al.Self-controlled learning benefits: exploring contributions of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation via path analysis. J Sports Sci2016; 34: 1650–1656.
53.
Ste-MarieDMVertesKLawBet al.Learner-controlled self-observation is advantageous for motor skill acquisition. Front Psychol2013; 3: 556.
54.
GrandKFDaouMLohseKRet al.Investigating the mechanisms underlying the effects of an incidental choice on motor learning. J Mot Learn Dev2017; 5: 207–226.
55.
FagundesJChenDDLagunaP. Self-control and frequency of model presentation: effects on learning a ballet passé relevé. Hum Mov Sci2013; 32: 847–856.
56.
FairbrotherJTLaughlinDDNguyenTV. Self-controlled feedback facilitates motor learning in both high and low activity individuals. Front Psychol2012; 3: 323.
57.
GrandKFBruziATDykeFBet al.Why self-controlled feedback enhances motor learning: answers from electroencephalography and indices of motivation. Hum Mov Sci2015; 43: 23–32.
58.
HartmannJM. Self-controlled use of a perceived physical assistance device during a balancing task. Percept Mot Skills2007; 104: 1005–1016.
59.
HooymanAWulfGLewthwaiteR. Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Hum Mov Sci2014; 36: 190–198.
60.
JanelleCMKimJSingerRN. Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of a closed motor skill. Percept Mot Skills1995; 81: 627–634.
61.
JanelleCMBarbaDAFrehlichSGet al.Maximizing performance feedback effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-controlled learning environment. Res Q Exerc Sport1997; 68: 269–279.
62.
PostPGFairbrotherJTBarrosJAC. Self-controlled amount of practice benefits learning of a motor skill. Res Q Exerc Sport2011; 82: 474–481.
63.
WrisbergCAPeinRL. Note on learners' control of the frequency of model presentation during skill acquisition. Percept Mot Skills2002; 94: 797–794.
64.
WulfGChiviacowskySLopez CardozoP. Additive benefits of autonomy support and enhanced learning expectancies for motor learning. Hum Mov Sci2014; 37: 12–20.
65.
WulfGIwatsukiTMachinBet al.Lassoing skill through learner choice. J Mot Behav2018; 50: 285–292.
66.
ChiviacowskySWulfGDe MedeirosFet al.Learning benefits of self-controlled knowledge of results in 10-year old children. Res Q Exerc Sport2008; 79: 405–410.
67.
LewthwaiteRChiviacowskySDrewsRet al.Choose to move: to motivational impact of autonomy support in motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev2015; 22: 1383–1388.
68.
MarquesPGCorrêaUC. The effect of learner's control of self-observation strategies on learning of front crawl. Acta Psychol2016; 164: 151–156.
69.
WulfGChiviacowskySDrewsR. External focus and autonomy support: two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits. Hum Mov Sci2015; 40: 176–184.
70.
BundAWiemeyerJ. Self-controlled learning of a complex motor skill: effects of the learners' preferences on performance and self-efficacy. J Hum Mov Studies2004; 47: 215–236.
71.
WulfGClaussASheaCHet al.Benefits of self-control in dyad practice. Res Q Exerc Sport2001; 72: 299–303.
72.
WulfGTooleT. Physical assistance devices in complex motor skill learning: benefits of a self-controlled practice schedule. Res Q Exerc Sport2008; 70: 265–272.
73.
SuYReeveJ. A Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educ Psychol Rev2011; 23: 159–188.
74.
FischmanMG. On the continuing problem of inappropriate learning measures: comment on Wulf et al. (2014) and Wulf et al. (2015). Hum Mov Sci2015; 42: 225–231.
75.
ReeveTGFischmanMGChristinaRWet al.Using one-dimensional task error measures to assess performance on two-dimensional tasks: Comment on ‘attentional control, distractors, and motor performance’. Hum Perf1994; 7: 315–319.
76.
HancockGRButlerMSFischmanMG. On the problem of two-dimensional error scores: measures and analyses of accuracy, bias, and consistency. J Mot Behav1995; 27: 241–250.
77.
HornRRWilliamsAMObservational learning: is it time we took another look?. In: WilliamsAMHodgesNJ (eds). Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory and practice, London: Routledge, 2004, pp. 175–206.
78.
WrisbergCAEncouraging the self-control of athletes during skill practice: Motor learning research and applications. In: HackfortDSeidelmeierI (eds). Bridging gaps in applied sport and exercise psychology, West Virginia University, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2013, pp. 79–89.
79.
DeweyJ. Human nature and conduct, New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1922.
80.
DeweyJ. Experience and nature, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1929.
81.
DenisonJMillsJP. Planning for distance running: coaching with Foucault. Sports Coach Rev2014; 3: 1–16.
82.
DeweyJ. How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflexive thinking to the educative process, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath & Company, 1933.
83.
GarrisonJ. John Dewey's theory of practical reasoning. Educ Philos Theory1999; 31: 291–312.
84.
JenkinsSPR. Beyond ‘crude pragmatism’ in sports coaching: insights from C.S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey. Int J Sports Sci Coach2017; 12: 8–19.
85.
ChenDSingerRN. Self-regulation and cognitive strategies in sport participation. Int J Sport Psychol1992; 23: 277–300.
86.
SalmoniAWSchmidtRAWalterCB. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull1984; 95: 355–386.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
