Presented at the 40th NSCA National Conference in Las Vegas on July 14th, 2017.
This presentation discusses the intersection between motor learning and motivation using self-determination theory as a guide. Learn how optimizing your athlete/client's sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness leads to a motivational environment that nurtures skill development.
13. ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
15. SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
Within social-cognitive theory, SDT proposes
that intrinsic motivation emerges in accordance
with the fulfillment of psychological needs
SDT emphasizes the “role of the environment
(i.e., coach) in fueling people’s perceptions of
self-determined autonomy, competence, and
relatedness”
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Mallett, 2005)
17. Autonomy
(Control)
Competence
Relatedness
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
The opportunity to govern one’s self;
freedom from unwanted external control
and influence; self-directed
The ability and belief in one’s ability to
successfully perform a task; self-efficacy
The connection one has with others;
shared empathy and the ability to relate
to another person’s point of view
19. Internal
(Intrinsic)
Partially
Internal
External
(Extrinsic)
Partially
External
Sport is a part
of who I am.
I am driven to
win, but I also
love the
environment
and the
competition
I play sport
because I
enjoy the
competition,
but most of
all, I love
to win
I play sport
because I feel
pressured to
do so by my
parents and
coach
I play sport
because all
of my friends
play and I
want to fit it
Self-Determined Non Self-Determined
High Internalization Low Internalization
Motivation: Sport Example
Amotivation
There is no
point trying
as my
success is
unlikely or
impossible
Intrinsic
I love sport
and will
continue
playing
throughout
my life
20. How do I influence one’s Self-
Determination as a coach?
21. Controlling Behaviors:
“Pressure to think, feel, or behave in specified
ways, thereby ignoring the person’s needs and
feelings…Power-assertive…Pressure to comply.”
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003, p. 886)
22. Autonomy-Supportive Behaviors:
“Takes the other’s perspective, acknowledges
the other’s feelings, and provides the other with
pertinent information and opportunities for
choice, while minimizing the use of pressure
and demands.”
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003, p. 886)
23. Motivation emerges when the basic psychological needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fulfilled
Motivation is multidimensional and changes based on
the task, situation, and environment
Coaches can affect motivation through developing
controlling or autonomy-supportive environments
Take Home Message
29. (Sanli et al., 2013)
Providing individuals with controlled choice over a specific practice
variable has been shown to improve motor learning and skill acquisition
Choice No Choice
30. When given the opportunity to control feedback, individuals
will request feedback less often the more they perform a task
(Chiviacowsky et al., 2008)
31. When given the opportunity to control feedback, players will
request feedback <30% of the time (as low as 7%)
(Chiviacowsky et al., 2008; Janell et al., 1995/1997)
32. Players will request feedback after successful trials more
often than they will request feedback after poor trials
(Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002/2007)
33. (Wulf &Toole, 1999; Keetch & Lee, 2007; Andrieux et al., 2012 )
Providing individuals with choice over progressions and difficulty
has been shown to improve motor learning and skill acquisition
34. Practice is individualised to the player
(i.e., Feedback, Demonstrations, & Progressions)
Players can request feedback after ‘good reps’
Players extract more information from demonstrations
Self-control leads to higher motivation, active involvement in
the learning process, and deeper information processing
Take Home Message
(Wulf, 2007)
38. “Humans are more than neutral processors of
information, and evidence suggests that learning
is optimized by practice conditions that account
for motivational factors.”
(Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2012, p. 173)
46. Purposeful struggle engages the client while
preserving their sense of competence
Comfort Zone
>80% Success
“Sweet Spot”
50-80% Success
Survival Zone
<50 Success
(Chiviacowsky et al., 2012; Coyle, 2012)
48. (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005; West et al., 2005)
Positive feedback
drives learning &
motivation
49. (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002/2007)
Reinforce the good
more often than
correcting the bad
50. Provide feedback
on the ‘Process’
over the ‘Person’
“I can see that your hard
work is paying off, your
pass/kick has improved”
VS.
“You have
amazing ability”
(Kamins & Dweck, 1999)
64. _ Andrieux, M., Danna, J., & Thon, B. (2012). Self-control of task difficulty during training enhances motor learning of
a complex coincidence-anticipation task. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 83(1), 27-35.
_ Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get
feedback when they need it?. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(4), 408-415.
_ Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2007). Feedback after good trials enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 78(2), 40-47.
_ Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., de Medeiros, F. L., Kaefer, A., & Tani, G. (2008). Learning benefits of self-controlled
knowledge of results in 10-year-old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(3), 405-410.
_ Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Self-controlled learning: the importance of protecting
perceptions of competence. Frontiers in psychology, 3.
REFERENCES
65. _ Coyle, D. (2012). The little book of talent: 52 tips for improving your skills. Random House
LLC.
_ Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior,
1985.
_ Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy.
GP Putnam's Sons.
_ Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry,11(4), 227-268.
_ Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the
effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of motor behavior, 36(2),
212-224.
REFERENCES
66. _ Janelle, C. M., Kim, J., & Singer, R. N. (1995). Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of a closed motor
skill. Perceptual and motor skills,81(2), 627-634.
_ Janelle, C. M., Barba, D. A., Frehlich, S. G., Tennant, L. K., & Cauraugh, J. H. (1997). Maximizing performance feedback
effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 68(4), 269-279.
_ Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: implications for contingent self-worth and
coping. Developmental psychology, 35(3), 835.
_ Keetch, K. M., & Lee, T. D. (2007). The effect of self-regulated and experimenter-imposed practice schedules on motor
learning for tasks of varying difficulty. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 78(5), 476-486.
_ Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2012). 10 Motor learning through a motivational lens. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory
and Practice, 173.
REFERENCES
67. _ Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of sports
science, 21(11), 883-904.
_ Mallett, C. J. (2005). Self-Determination Theory: A Case Study of Evidence-Based Coaching. Sport
psychologist, 19(4).
_ Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of positive feedback in sport
and physical education: evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(2).
_ Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). How you provide corrective feedback makes a difference: the
motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting way. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 32(5).
_ Nieuwenhuis, S., Slagter, H. A., Geusau, V., Alting, N. J., Heslenfeld, D. J., & Holroyd, C. B. (2005). Knowing good from
bad: differential activation of human cortical areas by positive and negative outcomes. European Journal of
Neuroscience, 21(11), 3161-3168.
_ Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
REFERENCES
68. _ Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2007). Active human nature: Self-determination theory and the
promotion and maintenance of sport, exercise, and health. Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in exercise and sport, 1-19.
_ Sanli, E. A., Patterson, J. T., Bray, S. R., & Lee, T. D. (2012). Understanding self-controlled motor
learning protocols through the self-determination theory.Frontiers in psychology, 3.
_ Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed
to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159-188.
_ West, R. L., Bagwell, D. K., & Dark-Freudeman, A. (2005). Memory and goal setting: the response of
older and younger adults to positive and objective feedback. Psychology and aging, 20(2), 195.
REFERENCES
69. _ Wulf, G., & Toole, T. (1999). Physical assistance devices in complex motor skill learning: Benefits of
a self-controlled practice schedule. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3), 265-272.
_ Wulf, G. (2007). Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: implications for
physiotherapy. Physiotherapy, 93(2), 96-101.
_ Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and
attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic bulletin & review,
23(5), 1382-1414.
_ Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., Cardozo, P., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2017). Triple play: Additive contributions
of enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and external attentional focus to motor learning.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1-22.
REFERENCES