Matching Challenge and Skill for Performance

A recent publication from Hodges & Lohse (2022) explores the utility of the challenge-point framework, a model of conceptualizing motor learning to guide practice design. The idea asserts that learning is maximized at a task difficulty that matches the skill level of the athlete. With this information, practitioners would be able to construct training sessions with an emphasis on task difficulty and individual abilities to enhance learning, skill maintenance, and/or transfer. 

‍

From Practice to Perfection

‍

There is a general belief, generated largely by Ericsson et al. (1993) and popularized by mainstream media (Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers), that the amount of time spent deliberately practicing a skill is all that matters in determining mastery (Hambrick et al., 2013). It’s about how many hours you can put in, ultimately creating a certain path to success. Of course, this idea has been redirected to assert that expert level performance isn’t as simple as time on the task (Hambrick et al., 2013). There are many variables influencing skill performance, and for athletics particularly, neither can be chalked up to either “biologically or environmentally deterministic positions” (Davids & Baker, 2007). A few of these variables include, but are not limited to (Davids & Baker, 2007): 

‍

• Parents - the provision of resources
• Coaches - decide the quality of training received
• Culture - determines the probability of a particular sport being played
• Relative age - determines success within a given cohort

‍

While practice is not the sole determinant of mastery, it carries a tight causal relationship with mastery outcomes. 

‍

To take a step back, “Practice is generally considered to be the single most important factor responsible for the permanent improvement in the ability to perform a motor skill.” (Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004). When conditions are sterilized, practice serves as a very strong predictor of skill improvement. Although, in the real world practice must be contextualized, laid forth by coaches who are inherently limited in their expertise, experience, and abilities. 

‍

“Because of our incomplete knowledge of practice variables, we are often inefficient in our practice sessions.” (Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004)

‍

With adequate coaching, practice enhances skill performance or minimizes skill degradation. Although straightforward, this can be overly simplified without a better understanding of the interrelationship between athlete, task, and the impact on skill acquisition. There are two aspects of skill difficulty that can help conceptualize the relationship, nominal and functional difficulty.

‍

Nominal difficulty refers to the qualities of a task that are held constant, regardless of who is performing it (Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004). An example of this would be the particular exercise chosen and the set/rep/load combination (e.g., no hook no feet snatch at 80% for 4 sets 3 reps). Regardless of who is performing the snatch, it will retain a high nominal difficulty. This is contrasted to functional difficulty, the aspect that relates task demand to the skill level of the athlete. For a beginner, this would be an even more challenging task, and less so for an elite weightlifter with plenty of experience executing this movement. 

‍

Applying the correct amount of challenge to catalyze the desired result (maintenance, learning, transfer) falls on the expertise of the coach, to recognize, understand, and integrate the abilities of the athlete with the goals of the training session.

‍

Differentiating Outcomes

‍

Separate from performance is learning. Learning is the process by which skill execution is improved over time through initial change and retention from practice. Alterations in performance, particularly improvements, are not necessarily related to future skill retention. In fact, referencing the previous points about necessary challenge to promote learning, performance should be challenged to provide information that enhances learning and retention. This means that failure is likely and should be expected.

‍

Two other aspects of skill acquisition exist, transfer and maintenance. Transfer is the degree that the learned skills impact competitive performance. Learning for the sake of learning can be helpful, but if there is minimal or no transfer to the competitive event time can be better allocated elsewhere. When the focus is not on enhanced learning, maintenance or retention of previously developed abilities For periods of training where the focus shifts, an allocation of training volume and exercise selection could be geared towards physiological adaptations, less so skill-based improvements.

‍

There is always an interplay occurring between learning, transfer, and maintenance. The training focus will usually determine the extent to which these outcomes are emphasized. General preparation blocks can allocate large amounts of resources to technical development, specifically where the athlete struggles most. Competition preparation blocks may lean more heavily towards skill maintenance, focusing less on developing abilities whole cloth. This is not only determined largely by the competition calendar, but also by the athlete undergoing the training.

‍

Who Needs What?

‍

For novice athletes, “simple” skills will present sufficient challenge to target learning (e.g., 20 snatch singles on the minute). For more advanced athletes, the challenge must match the abilities of the athlete, often requiring more difficulty (e.g., a complex including 3-5 different movements to target a single technical inefficiency). As the skill level of the athlete advances, challenge must follow, providing an appropriate stimulus for change. During particular times of a micro-, meso-, or macrocycle skills will be challenged to emphasize the desired outcome.

‍

This information should connect the dots. As the skill level of the athlete grows, so does the necessary challenge to induce learning. Hence the name “Challenge-point framework”. The challenge-point is a moving target, lying along the axis of functional task difficulty and available information. 

‍

What’s the Cost?

‍

When challenge is matched to the athlete’s needs, degradations in performance are likely and should be anticipated. Even if informed beforehand, this can still be psychologically challenging. It is not uncommon for athletes to struggle when implementing new exercises targeting their technical faults or instructions given by their coaches on what changes they should make. Although it feels like that will result only in improvement, it can often lead to failure and frustration.

‍

Striking an equilibrium between the psychological “tax” and the potential growth in performance is something to be considered by both the coach and athlete. When made aware beforehand, the tax can be faced with confidence, instead of potentially feeling blindsided by failure if that does not occur. As with most successful relationships, this hinges on an understanding by both the coach and athlete on the what and how, along with constant communication along the way.

‍

Final Thoughts

‍

It is well known that sufficiently difficult training will lead to the desired result. If this does not happen, some part of the process is adjusted to bring the two into alignment. If squat strength is the goal, but there’s no budge in the movement then intensity, volume, and/or exercise selection can be adjusted to provide the right form and dose of stress. Infrequently though do we think of skill acquisition in a similar light. If no learning is occurring then smaller adjustments are made or coaches just repeat themselves ad infinitum. If we can reconceptualize this process and appreciate the need for sufficient challenge, the first place we would turn when faced with failure is a recombination of training inputs.