CONTRAST LEARNING PART 1/5

                                           

I put this review article in my files not long ago and finally made my way to it late last week but failed to realise that when copied into my files it was 30 pages long and suffiuce to say, it was a very dense read and took me many goes to finally get though it while summarising it with my own notes.

I was finally able to dot point the 30 pages down into 6 and I'll break that into 5 parts for you starting today.

Have a pen and paper handy as you go through the 5 parts to jot down any similarities you have within your own training and also things you could change and/or improve upon.

1. Behaviourism is your step by step approach (ball grip, to ball drop, to foot contact when teaching kicking for instance).
2. Constructivisim is the development of skills via game play only.
3. The middle option is cognitivism which is an approach in teaching consisting of instilling behaviours under control but features an active learning/processing of the information, to assimilate knowledge.
4. It bids on the changes in the knowledge beforehand which requires a highly demanding mental activity, especially for memory, because the knowledge has to align with an external demand or guiding (you learn a stab kick in isolation but do you know when to use it during a game and what that affordance looks like in real time?)
5. This aims the instructions, correction and/or information to emphasise the natural cues from the environment that reflect the objective information, but that cannot alone lead to learning to play (give someone a hammer and they'll try and hammer a solution for everything - Hulk Smash!)
6. From that point the player is already given more responsibility and autonomy in choosing what to do during the play when using cognitivisim compared to behaviourism, but still features control over the action which is similar to behaviourism (drill design around the capabilities of the player allowing them to search for their own solution based on what they currently have in their own tool box).
7. Behaviourism and cognitivism are both considered to articulate objective knowledge but only cognitivism and constructivism are recognised as interactionist approaches, since the are inherently conducted within the context of play, so these 2 approaches reflect the conditions for the learners to reach their potential in relation to their autonomy in reading the play and making decisions.
8. Both approaches show a greater applicability to the play at the expense of behaviourism with constructivism being more relevant to the need of building competencies for autonomy.
9. Constant change in the environment of play needs specific characteristics in the knowledge of the game, the decisional process and the capabilities favouring the non-linear learning of the game (trying to solve the same problem  many different ways).
10. Tactical knowledge is the source of decision making and is developed through repeated experience of play and is not necessarily conscious or implicit.
11. Players are mostly able to learn new content if they can make sense of it because it is significant to them.
12. The association between new content and previous experience is capable of motivating the player to explore, fail and/or improve and this owned knowledge will emerge through the experience of favouring conditions of play and opportunites of the game, which will practically help players construct it and to review its content (knowledge gained via self exploration tends to stick far better and longer than spoon-fed knowledge).