Two new papers published

I am delighted to have published two papers together with some inspiring colleagues over the summer.

Theory to practice; performance preparation models in contemporary high-level sport guided by an Ecological Dynamics framework  is published in sports medicine.

Conceptualizing Physical Literacy within an Ecological Dynamics Framework is published in Quest.

Theory to Practice: Performance Preparation Models in Contemporary High-Level Sport Guided by an Ecological Dynamics Framework

This paper was written together with some colleagues in the UK and Australia and is partly a collaboration with Port Adelaide FC (Aussie rules) and AIK Research & Development department (Stockholm).

You can get access to the article here

https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-020-00268-5

Carl Woods (twitter) excellent work at Port Adelaide is  featured in the article and is a powerful example of how they are utilising an ecological dynamics approach in high performance Australian Rules Football. While the work being done at AIK youth football (8-12) can provide some insights how adopting and ecological dynamics perspective is helping the club to re-conceptualise youth player development.

The paper gives some insights in to practice environments that are

  • utilising empirical and experiential knowledge sources within a Department of Methodology to inform present and future practice
  • repositioning the coaches role to one of an environment designer, who facilitates athlete- environment interactions
  • embedding a constraints led approach

we also look at how

  • coaching skill was being developed and shaped by the landscape of traditional coaching practices and coach education programmes,
  •  attributes and skills appreciated in players were culturally embedded in traditional pedagogical approaches, organisational settings and structural mechanisms founded upon specific socio-cultural and historical constraints.
  • training designs  have typically been underpinned by a culturally dominant planning paradigm pervasive in traditional educational approaches (e.g. coach determines in advance the specific theme, presents predetermined coaching points and controls the sequence and duration for each part of the session)

 

Screenshot 2020-08-22 at 19.36.04

“Do players have the freedom to explore solutions to problems designed? Youth players should not be ‘props’ in some type of coach-conducted orchestration, where players learned to play an idealised model of the game as opposed to functioning in the game itself, limiting player autonomy and self-regulating tendencies” (Woods, C.T., McKeown, I., O’Sullivan, M. et al. Theory to Practice: Performance Preparation Models in Contemporary High-Level Sport Guided by an Ecological Dynamics Framework. Sports Med – Open 6, 36 (2020).

 

 

Conceptualizing physical literacy within and Ecological Dynamics framework

“The shared intentionality across sporting and physical activity landscapes should be about supporting self-regulation, thus supporting the individuals’ continued physical literacy across a lifespan.”

Article can be sourced from here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/RPWZT9CRJGN6JNX5U9CC/full?target=10.1080/00336297.2020.1799828

 

This paper has an interesting history. In March 2019 I presented together with colleagues James Vaughan (twitter) and Jean Cote (twitter) at a Riksidrottsförbundet (Swedish Sports Confederation) conference in Stockholm. There was a lot of talk about physical literacy, from measuring it, to how it should be central to school physical education, to even commercial organisations selling physical literacy as a product. What I realised was that there was no clear consensus of what Physical Literacy actually is and how it can be implemented. I had some great conversations with James and Jean about this that inspired me to dig a bit deeper.

I originally wrote a blog about this rather promiscuous (thanks Richard) concept called Physical Literacy  and just before the summer together with some great colleagues we put together this paper.

The abstract will give some insights with the intentions of the article.

 

Screenshot 2020-08-22 at 18.54.45

We look in to

  • the definitional vagueness
  • problem with how it is being promoted through national governing bodies
  • the problem with the idea of Fundamental Movement Skills and how physical literacy is measured
  • how  the lack of a theoretical framework underpinning the concept has been an issue

We recommended a way forward for the concept by utilising the Ecological Dynamics framework

These are the concussing remarks:

Screenshot 2020-08-22 at 19.44.25

 

As a complimentary to this paper, I highly recommend listening to James Rudd (twitter) on the Perception Action Podcast (see here)

 

Re-conceptualizing Player Development at AIK Youth Football (MSA Ireland Presentation)

As part of a series of webinars for Movement & Skill Acquisition Ireland (Twitter), Dennis Hörtin (twitter) and I recently had the honor of presenting the work being carried out at AIK youth football in Sweden. You can check out the presentation here, with a really interesting Q&A.

The presentation focused on AIK youth football and their decision to remove its early selection model (see here), with a particular focus on the 8-12 age groups that are immediately affected by this decision. We delve in to the work of the AIK Research & Development department and offered some pedagogical principles to guide practice task design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROoNlKwmWkk&feature=youtu.be

I have taken the liberty to add some extra notes to the presentation based on the numerous conversations and the great feedback we had after the presentation. Again, it needs to be made clear, this is no silver bullet.

Building a player development framework

Frameworks for youth player development need to be flexible (Bergeron et al., 2015), dynamic and adaptable to both, the cultural context, and that of the individual (Meyers et al., 2013; Vaughan et al., 2019). In other words, a player development framework needs to evolve in, interaction with the sociocultural context in which we are embedded. Avoid copy and paste!

“The problem is, when you copy a Dutch model or a Dutch way in to another country, it will not work. Our infrastructure is so unique for example”.  – Jan Verbeek (KNVB)on the Learning in Development Podcast (See here)

Inherent barriers to changing practice in sports organizations, shaped by socio- cultural-historical constraints reveal a trajectory, a path dependency (see here), which is often difficult to change (Kiely, 2017, Rothwell, Davids & Stone, 2018; Ross, Gupta, & Sanders, 2018).

We need to investigate form of life to understand these socio-cultural- historical constraints and to create our own knowledge about the means of transforming ways of action to develop a flexible player development framework.

 Form of life (What the AIK Research & Development department are continually investigating).

Form of life (Wittgenstein, 1953), describes the behaviors, attitudes, values, beliefs, practices and customs that shape the culture, philosophy, and climate of societies, institutions, sports organizations and player development programs in different societies (Rothwell, Davids & Stone, 2018). Karin Redelius (2013) captures the influence of form of life in Swedish youth sport, when she suggested that culture in a particular club or sports organization can be understood as partly a result of a historical process influenced by the development of society and the views of individual leaders, influencing type of practice design, who is considered talented, what distinguishes a good leader and what is considered success.

AIK Base

Working within a unified conceptual framework encouraged the coordination of shared principles and language that informed the ‘AIK Base’ framework, forming a coherent foundation for the club’s practice design and education programs.

Screenshot 2020-05-27 at 18.57.25

Figure 1 AIK Base: AIK Research & Development

Practice task design

Coaches should see themselves as learning designers and what they do in practice is underpinned by a theoretical framework (at AIK we use ecological dynamics) as this will give them principles to guide their practice. This emphasizes the idea that young players are still on a learning journey. So, as Jason DeVos suggested in the Learning in Development podcast, “instead of player development pathway we should say player development journey”.

Regarding coach interventions and session objectives:

  • We encourage coaches to move away from theme-based sessions and design practice around  principles of play

In Possession: Search Discover Exploit gaps and space.

Recovering the Ball: Minimize opportunities for opponents to utilize space and gaps. Win the ball.

Coaches can check their design and reflect using the following diagram.

  • Ball-opponent-direction
  • Consequence (e.g. lose the ball, if you don’t win it back, opponents can score)
  • All players are active (avoid queues or unnecessary waiting times)
  • Information in practice task design should be representative of the game or aspects of the game

Screenshot 2020-05-27 at 12.46.12

Figure 2 AIK Research & Development

We start where people are at not where we want them to be. The above ideas may help explain the principles of nonlinear pedagogy to parent coaches

  • Representative learning design,
  • Task simplification instead of task reduction. Modify the task while insuring that functional information -movement couplings are maintained
  • Repetition without repetition (movement variation)
  • The manipulation of constraints: Adjust task constraints (pitch size, number of players, starting positions, ball feed, rules)
  • Promote an external focus of attention: Reduce conscious and explicit control of movement (instructions should promote an external focus of attention to help players learn to learn how to exploit information)

Coaches and players are architects of a learning experience.

  • If the design is rich in representative information and tailored to the age and capacities of the young players then the first feedback should come from the design directly to the children. It is their behavior that the coach observes, and that determines the necessary interventions. However, if a coach must step in too often and explicitly instruct, then the coach needs to re-examine their design.

A key point is to use game forms in training sessions that “directly talk to the players”. This means that feedback is directly “coming from the game forms”, so that the coach has to give less feedback from the outside and providing instructions that reduce the player’s breadth of attention.(Daniel Memmert, Footblogball, 2015)

A great point brought up by Andrew Abraham (Twitter), was that all coach interventions have the potential to disempower the young players. This is something that needs to be considered carefully.

  • For me guided discovery is as much about the design as the questions and task manipulations. This is often forgotten. Interventions should help players focus their attention and intentions towards developing understanding in (Understanding of the game does not imply understanding inthe game)

Practical example

  • It is quite common that opportunities to design practice are constrained by environmental factors such as available pitch space, amount of goals on pitch. For example, AIK 8 and 9 -year-olds play 5 a side competitive games and the 10 and 11 year-olds play 7 a side. Due to the limited amount of pitches availabe in the municipality we can have up to 8 teams on a full-size pitch with only four available 5 a side and 7 a side goals. This is a common issue in Stockholm and indeed in many large urban cities.

Taking this in to consideration I would like to give an example of how a coach can design practice with limited field space and material.

You can check a video of these session designs in the presentation for MSA Ireland (see here)

Screenshot 2020-05-27 at 13.36.18

 

Screenshot 2020-05-27 at 13.46.35

 

 

references 

Bergeron MF, Mountjoy M, Armstrong N, Chia M, Coˆ te ́ J, Emery CA, Faigenbaum A, Hall G Jr, Kriemler S, Le ́ glise M, Malina RM, Pensgaard AM, Sanchez A, Soligard T, Sundgot-Borgen J, van Mechelen WV, Weissensteiner JR, and Engebretsen L.International Olympic Committee consensus statement on youth athletic development. Br J Sports Med 49: 843– 851.

 

Kiely, John. (2017). Periodization Theory: Confronting an Inconvenient Truth. Sports Medicine. 48. 10.1007/s40279-017-0823-y.

 

Redelius, K. (2013) Att vilja och kunna fortsätta – Om idrottens utformning och tillgänglighet (s. 19-40), i Spela vidare: en antologi om vad som får unga att fortsätta idrotta, Stockholm: Centrum för idrottsforskning.

 

Ross, E., Gupta, L., & Sanders, L. (2018). When research leads to learning, but not action in high performance sport. Progress in Brain Research Sport and the Brain: The Science of Preparing, Enduring and Winning, Part C,201–217. doi: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.08.001′

 

Rothwell, Martyn & Davids, Keith & Stone, Joe. (2018). Harnessing Socio-cultural Constraints on Athlete Development to Create a Form of Life. Journal of Expertise.

 

Vaughan, J., Mallett, C. J., Davids, K., Potrac, P., & López-felip, M. A. (2019). Developing Creativity to Enhance Human Potential in Sport: A Wicked Transdisciplinary Challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(September), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02090

 

 

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

 

 

 

 

It’s difficult to change the system if you are only talking to part of the system (How do we make each other better?)

Screenshot 2020-05-12 at 12.36.32

For the 5th guest discussion on our Learning in Development podcast we invited in Dr. Jennifer Turnnidge from Queens University, Kingston. Ontario.

Jennifer did her doctorate degree in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University under the supervision of Jean Côté. In addition to her doctoral work, she also completed her Undergraduate (2009) and Master’s (2011) degrees at Queen’s. Broadly, her program of research explores how coach-athlete and peer relationships can promote positive development in sport. Specifically, she examines how coaches’ leadership behaviours can influence the quality of youth’s sport experiences. Outside of her role as a researcher and a student, Jennifer loves to spend time with her family and friends.

iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/how-do-we-make-each-other-better/id1507378548?i=1000473034597&l=en

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/42VJefYAUUiwrP1YPxW79J

While the aim of this series of podcasts is not to present the ‘silver bullet’ answers, it is hoped that after listening we will all leave these discussions with better questions (I know that I certainly have).

Insights

How can we use research to improve the sporting experience for people?

We should be embedding collaborations between researchers and practice in national governing bodies, sports organisations or clubs in representative environments (coach education, day to day club activities)

This approach invites a possibility for rich shared experiences and discussions that can further inform the research.

Research can inform practice and practice can inform research – Its bi-directional, reciprocal and dynamic. We need to create opportunities for this.

Can we create environments for children to play for ‘play’s sake’?

We often focus on the long-term outcomes of sport. We also need to focus on the immediate experience, the meaning and value of what is happening to them (the children) now.

Sports development comes back to the day to day experiences

Who are we organising sport for?

How can we improve the immediate experience?

What are the barriers to change?

Do we need to reconceptualise child youth sport as something that is participated in away from organised sport?

How can we encourage a diversity of experiences?

How do we design in opportunities for these experiences?

What do children ‘not’ miss about organised sport?

Are we really paying attention to what matters?

Reccomended reading: The play deficit – Peter Gray (see here)

 

It’s difficult to change the system if you are only talking to part of the system

 We need to deliberately engage more with parents

 We need to provide parents with good examples of what good youth sport looks like. The examples we have now tend to come from the professional level. For example, adult driven examples of what good coaching looks like.

The coach is part of the activity

We need to educate coaches about the important role they have

Coaches can better define their objectives if they are underpinned by the quality of their interactions. For example, objectives for a practice can be co-designed with the young players

A good youth coach can find the link between the behaviours they see and the outcomes that the players are hoping to achieve?

RIP Millie Small

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Different cultures, similar issues

Screenshot 2020-04-23 at 16.29.41

The 4th guest discussion on our Learning in Development podcast brought together two national federations from different sides of the globe to discuss how they are looking to evolve player development and coach education. We also discussed the culturally pervasive beliefs that underpin the values, belief, ideas and behaviors (form of life) in and around child-youth football.

 

From the Dutch football federation (KNVB) we have Jorg van der Breggen (twitter) and Jan Verbeek – KNVB

From the Canadian Soccer Association, we have Director of Development Jason De Vos (twitter)

You can listen to the discussion here:

iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/different-cultures-similar-issues/id1507378548?i=1000472307211&l=en

Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/episode/4IaLMq2Btbjw14GKun4sDK?si=-uZvHDqvSpqX3BIlujfVLQ

While the aim of this series of podcasts is not to present the ‘silver bullet’ answers, it is hoped that after listening we will all leave these discussions with better questions (I know that I certainly have).

Screenshot 2020-05-04 at 16.29.42        Screenshot 2020-05-04 at 16.30.30

Insights

There are many positives for youth football when you consider the geography of the Netherlands. With a population of 17 million and 3,000 clubs in such a small country, there are opportunities everywhere for children to play football locally. A football club is often just a bike ride away.

The biggest challenge Canada Soccer faces is the vast scale of the country. Football, how it looks and the culture of the game can be very different on one side of the country when compared to the other side. It has been common for young children to travel 6 hours or more in a car just to take part in a football tournament.

It is the role of a national federation to be progressive and to continuously ask questions about their current practice and structures.

Despite having different football cultures, both federations are basically investigating and assessing the same thing, youth football. For example, they are both asking, how do we structure youth football to meet the needs of the young players? Are the systems already in place respecting the nonlinearity of player development?

Investigating this is a delicate process as is how we act on the information we collect and the knowledge we create. Are we going to regulate the system with restrictions, or are we going to build it on relationships with people through education?

It is a common mistake to assume that success at senior national level directly reflects the state of youth football in that country at that time. While a system may seem effective, as you may be getting players through that can perform at the top level, it does not imply that it is efficient. For example, an inefficiency in the system may be seen in the relative age effect. As a federation we need to ask how we can work with these inefficiencies?

Words like ‘production line of talent’,’ football factory’ are highly problematic. This can shape form of life (e.g., the conversation, values, beliefs, behaviors and ideas) in and around youth football and make for a resilient culture.

It seems that there is one common model- in practice The Standard Model of Talent Development (see here). It gives the illusion that it is working as players come through the system. But does this model adhere and respect principles that underpin the nonlinearity of human and therefore player development?

The KNVB “Equal Opportunities Project” is investigating this system, the selection and deselection of players at a very young age. This system has many assumptions that need to be challenged and there is much room for improvement.

 

Children compete, adults compare

In both countries many adults have assumed that by not publishing league tables with the youngest age groups we are stopping children from competing.

We had an adult competition model super imposed on to children’s football

We don’t need to teach kids how to compete: The idea not publishing league tables or not having promotion and regulation with 9 and 10 -years old’s, will not stop children from competing

The new game formats at the foundation phase that KNVB are promoting are in line with the vision of Johan Cruyff. In many ways it goes back to street football. Cruyff was quite ahead of his time without knowing it. His ideas and the ideas been promoted within KNVB align pretty well the concepts of Representative Learning Design (see here) and Ecological Dynamics (see here)

 

Do not copy and paste

If you try and copy and paste someone else’s ideas, it just won’t work!

 “If I had a dollar for every person that told me that you just need to copy what Germany does, Belgium does, what Iceland does, then I would be able to retire right now” – Jason DeVos (Canadian Soccer Association)

“The problem is, when you copy a Dutch model or a Dutch way in to another country, it will not work. Our infrastructure is so unique for example”.  – Jan Verbeek (KNVB)

You have to have a deep understanding of your own national culture

 

Coach Education

We need to ask why are we delivering our coach education programs in the manner we are?

The traditional evaluation systems used in coach education need to be questioned

Move coach education away from the standardised approach. Start with a conversation and some self-reflections and base the course around the individual’s needs.

Coach education programmes should have the same individualised approach towards coaches as we should have with players.

 

To change what we do, to better serve what they need

We are not in the football business, we are in the relationship business.

You can put the best structure in place, but it’s down to creating environments for kids to fall in love with football

Our job is to understand how we can try and help and support people and Covid-19 has really shown how important this is.

The challenge is, how can we change what we do, to better serve what they (the young players) need?

We start where people are at, not where we want them to be

 

 

 

 

Are we paying attention to what matters, or are we paying attention to what we can measure?

Screenshot 2020-04-21 at 17.23.20

The 3rd guest discussion on our Learning in Development podcast was a real challenging one as it involved guests with a broad range of experiences, from a broad range of disciplines. We used the Menotti quote, “Those who only know about football, don’t know about football” that featured in a previous discussion with Jordi and Isaac from FC Barcelona (see here), as our point of departure.

Tony Strudwick: Welsh national football team coach, Head of performance at Sheffield Wednesday, former head of development at Manchester United

Martyn Rothwell: PhD researcher and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University with a focus on performance analysis, skill acquisition and talent development. Background in rugby league as a coach educator and player developer.

Dennis Hörtin: Head of education and Research and Development at AIK youth football

You can listen to the discussion here:

iTunes:

https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/those-who-only-know-about-football-dont-know-about-football/id1507378548?i=1000471574165&l=en

Spotify:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0mOqkDFl7jPwErqFWRk7aU?si=HPZC5WgoSCWCkAZf-PlRXA

While the aim of this series of podcasts is not to present the ‘silver bullet’ answers, it is hoped that after listening we will all leave these discussions with better questions (I know that I certainly have).

 

Insights

There is a lot to be said for looking at the micro questions through the lens of macro aspects

We must recognise complexity of the holistic environment that supports the young player to understand what learning in development actually is and what it can look like

A wider picture of society and people are extremely valuable. Look at the wider aspects- For example the social media world for kids today is one of instant gratification. This also influences parents. So, what is understood as good practice at a club both on and off the pitch and what it should look like, can be influenced by this.

Question to reflect on: If we accept that the modern skill set for a modern coach has changed (due to changes in the game and society), what are the requirements for coaches to deliver these holistic programmes that we feel are necessary?

Form of Life

Form of life describes everyday practices, customs, beliefs of a group of people (Wittgenstein, 1953)

How does form of life influence athletes, coaches etc? For example, the cultural context invites many of the coaches behaviours that we see today

Much of the research has mainly focused on the individual characteristics of the athlete (organismic asymmetry) and not necessarily the environment. This has been problematic.

 We need to be aware of the phenomena are we trying to understand? Does it operate under principles of complexity or principles of more mechanistic, linear domains and practices?

There has been a dominant mechanistic, linear approach, a recipe approach to coaching, coach education and player development. For example, this idea of an optimal movement template, the right way to perform a technique is a good example. (see path dependency).

This highlights how the wider socio-cultural influences player and coach development.

These culturally resilient beliefs filter down to shape parental beliefs, what coaching and practice should look like and what talent development looks like down to the daily, weekly and monthly training cycles and how they should look. (For further reading- The present is not a clean slate).

Screen Shot 2018-01-07 at 22.21.39

There is no valid model of a human system but the system itself

Don’t look for a template, blueprint or curriculum to adopt straight in to your club or governing body. Focus your attention on what is actually going on, pay attention to the environment, the players, their parents, the wider aspects and then make informed decisions

Fixed template coaching has been central to coach education and player development. These generic linear pathways, in the current landscape, need to be re-addressed.

Step based and stage based curriculms that are common in clubs and governing bodies are limiting. They are driven by our desire for certainty and they are not necessarily sensitive to  the nonlinearity of human development. They draw our attention away from individuals and their interactions.

Anything (i.e., a plan, a curriculum) that distracts our attention from paying attention to the interactions of individuals and understanding that wider context inhibits us, and isn’t helping us.

Are we paying attention to what matters or are we paying attention to the data, what we are measuring or the plan or curriculum?

The world is its own best model

 

Drowning by numbers?

Is the desire to measure, underpinned by quantitative analysis, taking us away from being ‘present’?

There is no value placing a GPS monitor on a 12-year old

Data is great, it should guide us but should not be the driving principles behind youth player development and even at the top professional level.

The Illusion of professionalism in youth football through the collection ‘adult type’ performance measures. This takes us away from being present.

 

Language

By looking at the micro level and the words that are used, you can enable cultural change by encouraging a small-changes in language. Culture catches up with language.  Micro changes in language can actually shape conversations and assumptions and potentially can help cultural change. Are you producing players or fostering young people that play football?

 

Academia and applied practice

There is a need for more applied ‘real world’ research. This is a real challenge for academia and applied practice

The work that goes on in academia doesn’t always fit the narrative of what clubs are looking for. Those ideas that have almost been propagated and stayed within coach development and coach education have been the pop-science ideas like, 10,000 hours and learning styles. They survived due to the lack of opportunities for them to be academically scrutinised.

Someone employed in a club as part of a research and development department can help tie the ideas of academia and practice where experiential knowledge of coaches is integrated with theory and empirical data.

For our paper on embedding a Department of Methodology (research and development) in a sports club see here

RIP Dave Bacuzzi

Children Compete, Adults Compare

 

Screenshot 2020-04-19 at 17.16.39

The 2nd guest discussion on our Learning in Development podcast shone a light on various aspects of child-youth sport. We discussed some aspects that need to be amplified and others that need to be dampened.

It is important to understand that this is not a discussion about how coaches design their sessions. It is  about the culturally pervasive beliefs in child youth football that influence how it is structured , how learning in development is viewed and understood; and how this apparent inertia can be investigated and challenged?

Bastiaan Riemersma (twitter),Head of Youth Development at Dutch premier league club Willem II, (most known for fostering Virgil van Dijk and Frankie DeJong) shared his views on learning in development for young football players and gave some insights in to the present discussions in and around Dutch youth soccer.

Michiel de Hoog (twitter) is a journalist. In recent years being investigating culture and practice in youth sport around the world, with a particular focus on youth football. Michiel shared some revealing insights from his work. His investigations in to youth sport can be viewed in De Correspondent

You can listen to the discussion here:

iTunes

https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/learning-in-development/id1507378548?l=en&i=1000471395882

Spotify

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6VLwADcNx8Pfup79KzrdSx?si=HPZC5WgoSCWCkAZf-PlRXA

While the aim of this series of podcasts is not to present the ‘silver bullet’ answers, it is hoped that after listening we will all leave these discussions with better questions (I know that I certainly have).

It should be noted that the title Children compete, adults compare is something that I borrowed from Jamie Williams(twitter)

 

Insights from the discussion

As Willem II is not such a big club with a lot of financial resources they have to do things differently when it comes to player development. The club focuses on serving the local community and does not take in young players that live more than 25 kilometers away. Having patience and a sense of culture is so important. The culture is reflected in the daily behaviours of the coaches, the parents and the players. It is important that this is consistent.

Willem II try to keep their system open as long as possible for as many as possible. The club carries out a selection at 13 but the idea is to try and keep the group as big as possible until 16.

Buying young players is not developing players. Budgets available in certain big clubs means that they can buy the best young players in the country or even Europe. This is not developing your own players. There is a big difference between developing players and identifying players

A national or district football associations competitive structure can hinder clubs that are looking to implement evidence-based approaches underpinned by empirical and experiential knowledge. This may be in conflict with the club’s philosophy.

 

Select the coaches

Select coaches that believe in the idea of learning in development. If you have coaches that believe in the idea of talent then it will be difficult to change the system.

We have a way of playing and training that focusses on the idea that it is fun to play our way.

A good youth coach can work with all players not just the players who are the best performers just now

Work with the culture- You can influence the culture by how you react to winning or losing, how a you react when someone makes a mistake

We can talk all we want about to how we play and train, our methodology. You can find a lot of this information on the internet, that is not a secret anymore. How do we deal with set-backs? How do coaches speak to each other? How do coaches speak to the children? How do you speak to the parents?

Wellbeing of children is one of the main aims at Willem II. Each of our players can chose a coach at the club to become their mentor. This is not specifically for football reasons but to have someone to reach out to, and talk to about ‘life’.

While our mandate may be to develop players, our duty of care is towards developing people.

 

We don’t cover the weather, we cover the climate (De Correspondentmotto)

Many present systems, models and ideas in youth football are seemingly promoting certain expectations with parents, coaches and clubs regarding what child youth football is, how it should be structured and what learning in development looks like. This limiting their ability to think critically, act differentlybreak routines and try new ways

It’s hard to change even the smallest of assumptions in youth football, even the idea of not seeing it as just a miniature version of the adult game.

There are growing and influential voices in Dutch football that are thinking critically and questioning the status quo. Some discussions that would never even be considered a few years back are now surfacing.

The assumption that early performance is an indicator of late performance is being challenged. However, there is a tendency towards ‘survivorship bias’ (see here) when arguments are presented in favour of the early selection and deselection of children.

Screenshot 2020-04-19 at 16.12.49

KNVB (Dutch Football Association) are listening. For instance, the RAE (Relative Age Effect) has played a big influence on player development in Dutch football and this is something that KNVB are looking in to.

This quote by Laura Finnegan (twitter) from her excellent report on the Relative Age Effect in UEFA u17 Championships 2019 (read more here) is worth reflecting on.

“The Netherlands displayed one of the largest recorded percentages of quarter 1 births seen in youth football research, with 62% of their players being born in the first 3 months of the year”.

 

Clubs act out of fear. “If we don’t do it, someone else will do it..” – Aloys Wijnker

There are some interesting developments happening in the Netherlands.

Aloys Wijnker who will soon become the new head of talent development at KNVB was recently interviewed by Michiel (see here).One of the things Wijnker questions about football is the idea that adult men can earn their money by evaluating the football ability of seven- and eight-year-old’s.

This issue is further highlighted by AZ Alkmaar youth talent developerBart Heuvingh (Heuvingh on Twitter.),who spoke from experience and in reference to his own research work: “The predictive value of performance at that age (7 years old) is next to nothing”- 

The message is clear from Wijnker – “Forget about scouting that small group of youngest children; pay more attention to a larger group of children; and only invest in the best when they are older”.

In stark contrast: There was an open talent day at Ajax in Novermber 2019 where 3-year old kids were being evaluated by professional scouts.

The KNVB (Dutch football federation) have received criticism from some of the bigger clubs and commercial media for opening up a discussion around these issues. For example, not publishing league tables in children’s football was met with the argument that Dutch football is in danger of surrendering the will to win and lose in children’s football. Kids compete, adults compare.

.

 Virgil van Dijk and Frenkie DeJong

 They were not the best players when they were younger. Virgil van Dijk was regularly on the bench until he was 13. Frenkie De Jong was a small child.

Bastiaan mentioned that he had some games of Frenkie playing for Willem II against PSV U16 and Frenkie only touched the ball twice in one half”

There is a document at Willem on the development of Virgil van Dyke when he was a 12-year-old. The document refers to an evaluation and forecast on van Dykes future. The coach said that he could maybe reach the 2nd team of Willem II. This document can be shown to young players at the club now as it says a lot

They both loved playing on the street. They played for hours with their friends. The reason why Frenkie DeJong chose to stay with Willem II for so long (until 17), and not go to a bigger academy club, was to play with his friends.

We cannot predict the future, so instead of talking about the future, keep the system open. It is difficult. There is a game on Saturday and we are back to comparing children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Learning in Development: Those who only know about football, don’t know about football

Footblogball pic 1

I recently started the Learning  In Development podcast series together with my good colleagues and friends Mike Whyatt (twitter) and Britain Thomas (twitter)

Over the coming weeks I aim to publish these podcasts on this blog and include some of my own personal notes and refelctions from the discussions.

To kick off, we invited in  Jordi Fernandez (twitter) and Isaac Oriol Guerrero (twitter) from FC Barcelona  as guests. We discussed the culture of coaching, coach education, player development and some of the culturally pervasive beliefs around learning in development that we need to unearth and investigate.

While the aim of this series of podcasts is not to present the ‘silver bullet’ answers, it is hoped that after listening we will leave these discussions with better questions (I know that I certainly have).

 

Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/session-design-planning-paradigm/id1507378548?i=1000471078827

 

  1. Challenging a culturally dominant planning paradigm that underpins many coach education programs around the world.
  • Coach decides the theme, breaks the session up in to fragments, decides how long each part will be and their sequential order
  • Can liberating coaches from these culturally resilient paradigms improve coach development and ultimately player development?
  • Are we over structuring our sessions? How much is too much? Are theme-based sessions giving away the answer?

Insights

A training session is just the expression of the coach and what he thinks his role is.

How the coach does a session is an emergent behavior of all the influences of context, of culture of society that ends up with me doing this as a coach. We need to understand how the role of the coach is perceived and why it’s perceived this way in this very context.

Most coaches have the intention of, “I am going to session to train solutions”. The coach’s planning, design, timing, interventions will therefore be related to their intentions, to the idea of “I am the provider of solutions

If we understand that coaches have a bigger impact in society, a bigger impact in the development of the child and that there is nothing measurable in front of you,  yet right now they measure what happens in the weekend (the result).

If we develop a context where these coaches see that the actual impact happens in 5 years’ time or even longer, that might change the mentality of the coach, and then the coach can attune him/herself to new possibilities within that session. If we change that lens from how the coach watches the session or sees his/her role then we can change many of thise things.

 

  1. Explicit top down game models being introduced earlier and earlier, where the coach gets the kids to practice predetermined passing patterns that they regurgitate in competitive games. Are children therefore only learning a model of the game as opposed to the game?

 Insights:

In the pay to play model (USA, Canada) there are parent expectations that are underpinned by what their understanding of what coaching is. So. a more passive coach may be viewed as someone that is not coaching. Coaches do identify themselves as providers of solutions.

Within each team there can be 20 different game models because of the players.

For us the most important thing is to observe the natural behavior of the players. In our work we try to use certain constraints around elements of space and time so that we can be open to observe the natural behaviour of the player. If we are very focused on one game model then we are only focusing on pre-determined established model for the player (a one size fits all approach).

 

  1. Should coaches see themselves as designers (architects of an environment)? The first feedback to the players should come from the session design and how the players interact (with information) informs the coach how he interacts with the learning space to add value.

Insights:

We have to challenge the status quo especially with regard to the idea of what feedback is. We of course need to change this.

Can we design context to create situations where the player decides so that they can connect their intentions with actions?  This requires patience as the player has to analyse their own feelings and emotions and we cannot be judging their actions too early. (players need to be given the opportunity to learn how to self-regulate their behaviours)

What coaches are doing with players is more or less what governing sports bodies, or federations or coach education institutions are doing with the coaches. It all comes with the culture of certainty and needing control. If we change the paradigm but implement it the same way that we have always done then we will probably still have the same issues.

It is not just the player that is learning, the coach is also learning and serving the community. We need an approach from both directions so that we are able to act on what is in front of us and not on what is established or what we think is right or wrong.

We can possibly learn more (about football) from attending a seminar on culture than one given by a professional coach

Those who only know about football, don’t know about football(Cesar Menotti)

  1. Football Interactions

The action is something that is isolated, when you are doing interactions, you are doing something because of your teammates and opponents. These interactions are situational, and also framed by cultural

 

  1. Learning is an active, ongoing process that happens in development

The role of the coach is to optimize their players, through their own optimisation (the coaches own learning in development).

Language that you use in your club material, in your daily interactions, can help your coaches to adjust their lens

The cultural context (for good and bad) plays a part in inviting  certain coach behaviours that we see today

 

RIP Bill Withers

Erling Haaland – As Many as Possible, as Long as Possible, as Good as Possible

As reported in the national Norwegian newspaper VG, Marius Johnsen, a former professional footballer,  carried out research into Erling  Haaland’s journey towards professional football. The results are quite revealing and challenge many culturally pervasive structural and pedagogical assumptions, providing an argument for a re-conceptualisation of player development in youth football.

Screenshot 2020-03-08 at 17.12.16

For me, this once again highlights the need for an open conversation on evolving a purposeful and supporting culture for young players, parents, coaches, leaders and community in child youth sports. Why are we creating generic linear  models in the hope of finding unique people?

Maruis Johnsen’s thesis can be read here (only in Norwegian) https://uia.brage.unit.no/uia-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2620251/Johnsen%2C%20Marius.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Here are the main points from the thesis as reported in VG

  • Played until he was 16 for his mother club Bryne
  • He was born 2000 but played with the team born 1999
  • His training group consisted of 40 players (39 boys and 1 girl)
  • At 9 they had one training session a week
  • Facilities (indoor and outdoor) were kept open for spontaneous football and many of the kids took the opportunity to play as much football as possible.
  • Not one player dropped out before 16 years
  • Football was understood as a social environment for learning in development and keeping the social group together was a priority
  • At 15 the players were given the choice to decide if they wanted to train 4 times a week (specialized team) or 2 times a week (recreation team). The kids themselves made the choice.
  • 5 national team players and in total 10 professional players emerged from this group
  • Many including high profile youth coaches who assumed that the best must play with the best otherwise they will not develop, questioned Alf- Ingve Bersten’s approach to coaching . Bernsten says “it would be fun to go back and speak to them now”.
  • Bersten believes that what was most important was to include all players and avoid giving in to these culturally pervasive beliefs that have remained unchallenged and unchanged. He admitted that he could not see who will be the best
  • “If you have 40 players and select the best 14 as the 1stteam, 13 as the 2ndteam and 13 as the 3rdteam, then the 1stteam gets the good coaches. Before summer the 3rdteam collapses and then the same thing happens with the second team. Then you are left with 14 of 40 players and of those maybe 5 or 6 will lose interest. Suddenly you have too few players when you are going up to junior football (11 a side). This happens so often”.
  • Bergsten has nothing against top academies, but I doubt the effect of them. Martin Odegaard does not come from an academy. Then you have Erling Halland who played with a girl and 38 boys.

 

Screenshot 2020-03-08 at 17.04.22

Something to reflect on

There is a fundamental flaw in any system that excludes individuals based on rates of development and does not take into account the complexity and non-linearity of human development & excludes individuals based on rates of development.

Despite the fact that we have been educating coaches, parents, clubs and federations for decades it is hard to imagine any changes (structurally & pedagogically) taking place as long as the structural conditions remain unchanged & unchallenged.  This includes coach education.

Many clubs and even NGB’s are still anchored in a traditional view of sport and competition limiting their ability to think critically and differently, break routines and try new ways  (Håkan Larsson , 2013 )

Skills have history (Baily & Pickford, 2010). Movement solutions in young players cannot be separated from each individuals’ unique bibliography of movement experiences and opportunities their environment offered to them up to that point

 

RIP Andrew Weatherall

Part 2: Considering the Individual -Environment Fit at the Core of Physical Literacy. 

In part 2 of this blog, I will introduce a conceptual realignment of physical literacy that is different from the ‘business-as-usual’ concepts (see part 1), that seemingly underpin the construct in both policy and practice and even as a finally packaged product.

Screenshot 2020-01-20 at 14.02.39

“Skillful interactions” refers to how a mover coordinates his/her behaviour within the performance context in relation to that environment, on the basis of not only the immediate physical and informational (i.e., situational) demands, but also on the basis of historical and cultural factors. Thus, following from Newell (1986), skillful interactions are sufficiently optimal solutions to the movement problem faced in terms of safety, efficiency and/or effectiveness for that individual at that moment in time – Phil Kierney (Footblogball,May 2018).

Such an emphasis shifts the narrative away from fundamental to functional, towards developing an adaptive ‘interactor’; considering the individual-environment fit.

 

Introduction

Current literature contains different representations of the concept of physical literacy (Edwards et al., 2016). Due to lacking a clear theoretical foundation, it can be argued that the construct has progressively evolved into something it originally was not (Young, O’Connor and Alfrey, 2019).This adaption of numerous definitions and interpretations across different countries, disciplines and organisation (Shearer et al., 2018), has arguably led to a lack of consensus as to how to employ it in practice (Hyndman & Pill, 2018; Jurbala, 2015).

This vagueness associated with the construct reveals aneed for a comprehensive theoretical rationale to underpin how to apply the concepts and ideas from physical literacy research. One such framework that can support the physical literacy journey is the theoretical framework of ecological dynamics. It has been previously argued by Roberts, Newcombe and Davids (2018) that ecological dynamics can inform how we can evolve the concept of physical literacy, both in policy and physical education curriculum, away from the dominant traditional approaches. I argue, from this perspective, the concept of physical literacy can be enriched and extended within and beyond organised sports and physical education, through the reconceptualisation of the nature of an individual’s relationship with the specific environments they interact with over a lifespan. The establishment of an individual -environment fit across varied movement contexts over a lifespan, should therefore be a central tenet of the concept of physical literacy.

 

An Ecological Approach to the Concept of Physical Literacy

It has been proposed (Allan, Turnnidge and Côté, 2017) that through supporting optimal interaction of the dynamic elements (i.e., activities, relationships, and settings), the long-term outcomes of positive youth development (i.e., performance, participation, and personal development) are likely to be achieved. In other words, through development, a child’s varied movement contexts provide different opportunities or affordances for (inter)action that are fundamental to promoting motor competence (Flores et al., 2019). These contexts invite, permit or inhibit (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993). This of course extends in to adult life and is relevant throughout a lifespan. The manifestations of the process and the outcomes (i.e., what is performance for an adult?) need to be tailored to the individual’s stage of development.

So, if the concept of physical literacy is to be woven into health education, sport and recreation, in both policy and practice, then it needs to take in to account that individual differences, movement preferences and nonlinear rates of development are as much a function of social milieu in which they have developed as their physiology, anatomy or psychology (Uehara, Button, Falcous, Davids,2014). With this in mind, we can view physical literacy, like motor skill acquisition, as a dynamic process and also a developmental process (Clarke, 1995), that should be viewed as a lifelong process (Allan., Turnnidge, & Côté, 2017).

From an ecological dynamics perspective this implies that physical literacy can be understood not as an entity, but reflected in the individual- environment system subject to changing constraints, emerging as an adaptive functional relationship between the individual and his/her environment (Araújo & Davids, 2011). This calls for a shift in perspectives, from ‘fundamental’ to ‘functional’, from the reductionist interpretation of physical literacy discussed previously (see blog part 1), to one which facilitates the emergence of greater functional relationships between the learner/individual and the environment over a lifespan (Renshaw & Chow, 2018).

 

Ecological Dynamics as a Viable Theoretical Framework

The term ‘ecological dynamics’ captures an approach to studying human behaviour allying concepts from dynamical systems theory and ecological psychology. Dynamical systems theory offers a conceptual framework to understand the emergence of coordination tendencies within complex adaptive systems i.e., the interactions between the nervous system, body, and surrounding environment (Kelso, 1995; Seifert & Davids, 2017). Through combining it with a compatible theory of behaviour such as ecological psychology, the integrated frameowork of “ecological dynamics” was formed.

The theoretical framework of ecological dynamics helps us to understand emerging behaviour at the ecological scale of analysis (Araújo, Davids, & Hristovski, 2006), highlighting the reciprocal relationship between the individual and the environment, as elucidated in the seminal work of ecological psychologist Gibson (1966; 1979). It was Gibson (1979, p. 223) who stated “we must perceive in order to move, but we must also move in order to perceive”, implying that we can view the individual and the environment as a pair of mutually coupled dynamical systems (Warren, 2006). The environment is perceived in behavioral terms, where objects, places, surfaces, events and other people, provide different opportunities for action (i.e. affordances), depending on action capabilities (Gibson, 1979). Affordances are understood as properties of the individual-environment system, scaled to each individual’s action capabilities (e.g., speed, strength), body dimensions (Davids et al., 2013),and are perceived by the individual as they learn to establish an individual-environment fit. This highlights the idea that humans perceive the environment in relation to its functionality, its meaningfulness detected in affordances, providing insights in to what they learn and know and how they decide to act (Araújo et al., 2006).

Screenshot 2020-01-20 at 14.05.45

Individual-Environment Fit

The establishment of an individual-environment fit across varied movement contexts over a lifespan should be a central tenet of the concept of physical literacy. Therefore, capturing the construct not as an as end point, but presented as a journey influenced by a unique set of interacting constraints imposed upon an individual.From this perspective, learning a skill can be understood as the emergence of an adaptive, functional relationship between an individual and its environment (Renshaw & Chow, 2019), satisfying a unique set of interacting constraints impacting upon a system (Davids, Araujo, Vilar, Renshaw, Pinder, 2013) over a lifespan.

Constraints shape coordinative patterns within human movement acting as boundaries or limits (Clark, 1995) within which movement systems emerge (Kugler, 1986). Constraints were first categorised by Newell (1986) as individual (e.g., height, weight, speed, motivation, emotions), task (e.g., specific to the activity to be performed, goal of task) and environmental (e.g., light, facilities, social values and societal/cultural expectations). These three constraints don’t operate in isolation, they interact over varying and different timescales. Movement coordination from an ecological dynamics perspective, emerges as an emergent property from interacting individual, task and environment constraints (Seifert, Button, and Davids 2013). This implies that constraints can be manipulated and exploited to provide opportunities for actions (affordances) for behaviour to emerge.

The theoretical framework of ecological dynamics can help inform the concept of physical literacy by elucidating the individual -environment fit. This ‘fit’ is influenced by a unique set of interacting constraints imposed upon an individual, across varied movement contexts over a lifespan

 

Physical Literacy as an Individual-Environment Fit

From an ecological dynamics perspective the concept of physical literacy can be defined not in terms of the person or the environment, but rather as their degree of “fit”or “misfit”. The level of analysis is the reciprocal interactions between characteristics of the individual and the environment. This perspective avoids problems with definition of physical literacy as a characteristic of the individual (an organismic asymmetry, see Dunwoody, 2006; Davids and Araujo 2010), or as a characteristic of the environment. So, physical literacy can be understood as the degree to which individual and environmental characteristics match in varying contexts over a lifespan.

 

Both distal and proximal influences impinge on the individual-environment fit. Distal determinants (e.g. national, institutional, political, socio-cultural and socio-economical) are more stable (Flay & Petraitis, 1994), and can play an indirect influence on proximal factors (playgrounds, sports clubs, amenities, open spaces). The individual-environment fit, for better or for worse, will be reflected in the proximal environment, because of its immediacy and emotional salience to human beings (Bradley & Corwyn, 2004). With maturity the nature, type and complexity of these immediate settings change, as certain environmental affordances for movement become more inviting than others. New physical, social and cultural characteristics invite, permit or inhibit reciprocal interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993) that establish the individual-environment fit. So, while it can be understood that affordances vary with learning and development (Gibson & Pick, 2000), they are just as deeply social as they are related to abilities(Rietveld & Kiverstein 2014; Van Dijk & Rietveld, 2017). For example, in a recent blog, Justin O’Connor (January, 2020) reflected over his thesis on Fundamental Movement Skills. He argued that socio-cultural constraints might limit the opportunities for (inter)action invited to females to access contexts where they could practice the skill of the overarm throw. The simplistic idea of that if we teach the fundamental motor skill (this will develop perceived competence – this will lead to seeking out throwing games – this will lead to playing sports involving throwing), doesn’t address the socio-cultural/environmental barriers

An understanding of the individual-environment fit (or misfit) across varied movement contexts over a lifespan should, therefore, be a central tenet of the concept of physical literacy.

 

Physical Literacy as a Constant Changing State

Two crucial components to consider in motor behaviour and development are the body and the environment. An ecological dynamics perspective as elucidated byAraújo, Davids & Renshaw (2020) involves understanding the whole body (embodied) in close relationship with opportunities for action or affordances offered by the environment (embedded). The current status of the body and the environment affects biomechanical constraints on task performance. Adolph and colleagues (2018), suggested that when infants are learning to walk, their behaviour is shaped from moment to moment by the immediate context i.e., changes in their bodies and in their physical and social environments. This extends in to adult life and is relevant throughout a lifespan, as bodies and environments, their nature, type and complexity are continually changing. This also highlights the socio-cultural constraints that surround individuals, where experiences and attributes on a daily basis are shaped as much by the social milieu as they are by each individual’s physiology, anatomy or psychology (Uehara, et al., 2014). Physical literacy, can therefore be seen as an emergent property from interacting individual, task and environment constraints (Seifert, Button, and Davids 2013), thus accounting for changes in the individual-environment fit over a lifespan. These constraints limit or set boundaries for the system. A change in one, may result in the change in the emergent movement (Clarke, 1995), resulting in changes in the way an individual interacts with the environment. This perspective allows us to conceptualise physical literacy as a construct that changes over a lifespan. It is this window that,according to Clarke (1995), ultimately provides the view, rather than one window of opportunity.

 

Physical Literacy as a Construct that Changes over a Lifespan

The human body can move in many different ways, while at the same time its movement is constrained by its structural organisation. Body structure can enhance (due to growth in size) or limit (due to aging, injury) movement capabilities. From a dynamic systems perspective this acknowledges that different systems might act as rate limiters for different skills (Thelin, 1998), over different time scales, throughout an individual’s lifespan.

 

Environmental features offer different affordances for individuals as they are assessed in relation tous, not according to an objective standard(Konczak, 1990). Our perception of affordances an environment provides (object, surface, place or event) changes as our capability for action changes, in other words, affordances change as individuals change and therefore the nature of our physical literacy changes. This implies that environmental features are framed in terms of body scaling and action capabilities over an individual’s lifespan. For example, a child might not be ableto climb a structure due to short arms and legs. Leg and arm length would be a rate limiter. Until the child reaches a critical level of leg and arm length, the affordance of “climbability” is not perceived. The nature, type and complexity of the settings change as certain environmental affordances for movement (climbing) become more inviting than others. Perception of affordances changes as capability for action changes.

 

One of the key features of practice task design in sport from an ecological dynamics perspective, is to design ‘in’ affordances (Chow et al, 2016) that can enhance the opportunity for individuals to develop stable functional perception-action couplings to support performance. These key concepts can extend beyond organised sports and physical education. For example, in urban planning and recreation, through the designing ‘in’ of rich opportunities or affordances for action, we can support diverse and meaningful movement-based experiences, across varied movement contexts, throughout life. Recently, the UN World Population Prospects report (2019) revealed that the global population of older people is growing at an unprecedented rate. Evidence points to a positive correlation between older adults’ physical activity and well-being (Nimrod 2011). Therefore, cities in particular must adjust (manipulation of environmental constraints) if older people are to maintain quality of life. In a Guardian interview (2016), Stefano Recalcati, project leader behind the report ‘Shaping Ageing Cities’ (2015), based on 10 European case studies, explains that cities must adjust if older people are to maintain quality of life: “It’s important to be conscious of the ageing trend. It is a huge challenge for world cities – they will need to change, to make sure older people continue to play an active role in the community and don’t become isolated. Isolation has a negative impact on health so tackling that is really important.”From an ecological dynamics perspective this is about addressing accessibility. Exploiting the ‘invitational’ nature of environmental affordances through deliberate design, has the potential to offer different opportunities for action to increase (or maintain) healthy behavior over a lifespan (Withagen & Caljouw, 2016). How can we design ‘in’ affordances into landscapes that can enhance the opportunity for an aging population to evolve their ‘own’ physical literacy through establishing an individual-environment fit across varied movement contexts to support their active role in the community and maintain quality of life?

 

Addressing accessibility is an issue for people of all ages. For instance, the ubiquitous “No Ball Playing” signs in modern urban settings give a clear signal to children and are certainly not invitations. We can even consider modern town/city planning projects. Anna Lind (2019), the Swedish Minister for Sports, took this to task from a child’s rights perspective in Swedish national newspaper Dagens Nyheter. She asked, when new homes are built, how often is the child’s opportunity to interact with the immediate environment (e.g. recreation areas) considered and designed ‘in’ to the planning?

Screenshot 2020-01-20 at 10.07.03

Summary

The vagueness associated with the construct of physical literacy as revealed in the literature (Bailey, Glibo & Koenen, 2019) elucidates aclear need for a comprehensive theoretical rationale to underpin how to apply the concepts and ideas from physical literacy research. I have argued, from an ecological dynamics perspective, the concept of physical literacy can be enriched and extended both in and  beyond organised sports and physical education, through thereconceptualisationof the nature of an individual’s relationship with the specific environmental settings they interact with over a lifespan. This relationship can be understood through the assessment of available affordances for motor skills in those certain settings (Flôres et al., 2019), underpinned by how these contexts invite, permit or inhibit (Bronfenbrenner, Ceci, 1993) an individual-environment fit. Physical literacy can therefore be understood at the level of the individual-environment system, where the dynamic and reciprocal relationships between an individual and their environment can be analysed (Seifert, Orth, Button, Brymer, & Davids, 2017).

The theoretical framework of ecological dynamics can enrich the concept of physical literacy by helping us to analyse the emerging behaviours of humans in ever-changing environments, influenced by a unique set of interacting constraints, throughout a lifespan. The establishment of an individual -environment fit across varied movement contexts over a lifespan, should therefore be a central tenet of the concept of physical literacy.

References

Adolph, K. E., Hoch, J. E., & Cole, W. G. (2018). Development (of Walking): 15 Suggestions. Trends in cognitive sciences22(8), 699–711. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.01

 

Allan, V., Turnnidge, J., & Côté, J. (2017). Evaluating Approaches to Physical Literacy Through the Lens ofPositive Youth Development. Quest, 69(4), 515–530. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2017.1320294

 

Araujo, D. & Davids, K., (2011). What Exactly is Acquired During Skill Acquisition?. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 18. 7-23.

 

Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Hristovski, R. (2006). The ecological dynamics of decision making in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7(6), 653-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.07.002
Bailey, R., Glibo, I, & Koenen, K. (2019). Some Questions about physical literacy. International Journal of Physical Education, 56(4), 2–6.

 

Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2004). Life satisfaction among European American, African American, Chinese American, Mexican American, and Dominican American adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(5), 385–400.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1993). Heredity, environment, and the question ‘‘How?’’: A first approximation. In R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture & psychology (pp. 313–324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

 

Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2016). Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: an introduction. London ; New York: Routledge.

 

Clark, A. (2001). Being there: putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

 

 

Clark, J. E. (1995). On Becoming Skillful: Patterns and Constraints. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(3), 173–183. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1995.10608831

 

 

Davids, K.; Araujo, D.; Vilar, L.; Renshaw, I.; Pinder, R. An Ecological Dynamics Approach to Skill Acquisition: Implications for Development of Talent in Sport. Talent Dev. Excell. 2013, 5, 21–34.

 

Dunwoody, P. T. (2006) The neglect of the environment by cognitive psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(??), 139–153.

 

Edwards, L. C., Bryant, A. S., Keegan, R. J., Morgan, K., & Jones, A. M. (2016). Definitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review. Sports Medicine, 47(1), 113–126. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7

Footblogball (May, 2018): https://footblogball.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/guest-blog-what-is-skill-acquisition-phil-kearney-msa-ireland/

 

Flay,B.R., &Petraitis J. (1994). The theory of triadic influence: A new theory of health behaviour with implications for preventive interventions. In: G.L. Albrecht (ed.) Advances in Medical Sociology. Volume 4(pp. 19–44). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

 

Flôres, F. S., Rodrigues, L. P., Copetti, F., Lopes, F., & Cordovil, R. (2019). Affordances for Motor Skill Development in Home, School, and Sport Environments: A Narrative Review. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 126(3), 366–388. doi: 10.1177/0031512519829271

 

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

 

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

 

https://population.un.org/wpp/

 

https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/shaping-ageing-cities

 

https://www.dn.se/sport/amanda-lind-idrotten-har-en-hemlaxa-att-gora/

 

Hyndman, B., & Pill, S. (2018). What’s in a concept? A Leximancer text mining analysis of physical literacy across the inter- national literature. European Physical Education Review, 24(3), 292–313. doi:10.1177/1356336X17690312

 

Jurbala, P. (2015). What Is Physical Literacy, Really? Quest, 67(4), 367–383. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2015.1084341

 

Kelso, Scott. (1995). Dynamic patterns: the self-organization of brain and behavior. (1995). Choice Reviews Online, 33(03). doi: 10.5860/choice.33-1521

 

Konczak, J. (n.d.). Motorisches Lernen. Springer-Lehrbuch Neuropsychologie,624–631. doi: 10.1007/3-540-28449-4_61

 

Kugler, P.N. A Morphological Perspective on the Origin and Evolution of Movement Patterns. In Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1986; pp. 459–525

 

Newell, K.M. Constraints on the Development of Coordination. In Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1986; pp. 341–360.

 

Nimrod, G. 2011. “The Impact of Leisure Activity and Innovation on the Well Being of the Very Old.” In Understanding Well Being in the Oldest Old, edited by L. W. Poon, and J. Cohen-Mansfield, 240–257. New York: CUP.

 

O’Connor, J. P., Alfrey, L., Hall, C., & Burke, G. (2019). Intergenerational understandings of personal, social and community assets for health. Health & Place, 57, 218–227. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.05.004

 

Renshaw, I., & Chow, J.-Y. (2018). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), pp.103–116. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1552676

 

Roberts, W. M., Newcombe, D. J., & Davids, K. (2018). Application of a Constraints-Led Approach to pedagogy in schools: embarking on a journey to nurture Physical Literacy in primary physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 162–175. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1552675

 

Seifert, L., C. Button, and K. Davids. 2013. Key Properties of Expert Movement Systems in Sport. Sports Medicine 43 (3): 167–178.

 

Seifert, Ludovic & Orth, Dominic & Button, Chris & Brymer, Eric & Davids, Keith. (2017). An Ecological Dynamics Framework for the Acquisition of Perceptual–Motor Skills in Climbing. 10.1007/978-3-319-28265-7_28.

 

Shearer, C., Goss, H. R., Edwards, L. C., Keegan, R. J., Knowles, Z. R., Boddy, L. M., … Foweather, L. (2018). How is physical literacy defined? A contemporary update. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(3), 237–245. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0136

 

 

Uehara, L., Button, C., Falcous, M., & Davids, K. (2014). Contextualised skill acquisition research: a new framework to study the development of sport expertise. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy21(2), 153–168. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2014.924495

 

Warren, W. H. (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychological Review, 113(2), 358-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.358

 

Withagen, R., & Caljouw, S. R. (2016). ‘The end of sitting’: An empirical study on working in an office of the future. Sports Medicine, 46(7), 1019–1027.

 

 

 

 

 

 

From Fundamental to Functional: Investigating the Concept of Physical Literacy

If we are to embrace the concept of Physical Literacy, then it should be viewed not as an end point, but presented as a journey influenced by a unique set of interacting constraints imposed upon an individual

PL PIC 2020-01-03 at 17.51.26

” There is a lack of any empirical evidence related to PL. And this is undermined by the fact that nobody can agree what it means. So, all of the claims should be treated as conjectural. In practice, the claims made about PL and health are based entirely on claims made about fundamental movement skills and health”. (Richard Bailey)

We can view health and wellbeing as a dynamic constant changing state that is multidimensional in nature. While research has largely supported the idea of physical activity as a means for young people to develop physically and psychosocially, we lack the direct empirical evidence connecting the concept of physical literacy with health outcomes. Therefore, the only way that physical literacy can influence health outcomes is via its impact on physical activity, where rich interactions between the individual and the environment across varied movement contexts invite different opportunities or affordances for action. So, if the concept of physical literacy is to be woven into health education, sport and recreation, in both policy and practice, then it needs to be positioned in order to take in to account various multi-level biological psychological, social, cultural, historical and environmental influences. If we are to embrace the notion of Physical Literacy, it should not be viewed as end point, but presented as a journey influenced by a unique set of interacting constraints imposed upon an individual

 

Introduction

Physical Literacy is not a new term, it has been referenced as early as the 1900’s and again in the 1950’s (Corbin, 2016, p.15). The term has gained increased attention within physical education, sport and public health literature, evolving to mean different things to different people in different contexts (Young, O’Connor & Alfrey, 2019). Broadly speaking ‘literacy’ means becoming educated (Richards, 2016, p.1). Lounsbery and McKenzie (2015) identified the similarity of the terms “physically literate” and “physically educated” and, from a definitional perspective, found little difference. Hardman (2011) suggested that a physically educated person is a physically literate person. Often referred to in metaphor form, likening movement fluency with language literacy (Jurbala, 2015), the term physical literacy has lacked a clear theoretical foundation, enabling various interpretations and definitions of the term. Young, O’Connor and Alfrey (2019) have suggested that over time, it is likely that physical literacyhas progressively evolved into something it originally was not. This adaption of numerous definitions and interpretations across different countries, disciplines and organisation (Shearer et al., 2018), has arguably led to a lack of consensus as to how to employ it in practice (Hyndman & Pill, 2018; Jurbala, 2015).

Despite lacking direct empirical evidence connecting it to health outcomes (Cairney et al., 2019), many involved in youth sports programming, policy making and physical education are rallying around physical literacy and promoting it globally (Young, O’Connor & Alfrey, 2019; Jurbala, 2015).

Physical education in the United Kingdom provided the platform for the emergence of the original conceptualisation of physical literacy (Whitehead, 2001). Margaret Whitehead first discussed the term in a 1993 paper (Whitehead 1993, August). More recently she has defined physical literacy as ‘the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and engage in physical activity for life’ (IPLA, 2017). As a concept it has gained traction in recent years in both academic and nonacademic domains (Allan., Turnnidge, & Côté, 2017) and has been adopted into sport systems in North America (Roetert & Jefferies, 2014). It has been highlighted as an important component of physical activity and sports programs, often underpinned by the assumption that sport represents an ideal means for positive development among youth. While research has largely supported sport as a means for young people to develop physically and psychosocially, leading to success within sport and other domains in life (Allan., Turnnidge, & Côté, 2017), it should also be understood that participation in sport does not necessarily guarantee positive outcomes (Fraser- Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2005).

Publications on physical literacy are often produced by government funded organisations and departments (Lynch, 2019, p.78), and in general are underpinned by the strong correlation in the research evidence between health and physical activity (Lynch, 2013). Interestingly, children in countries that promote physical literacy (USA) are according to Curran (2014) “among the unhealthiest in the world” (UNICEF, 2007), which suggests how the concept of physical literacy is implemented may be a form of reactive panic rather than proactive, strategic forward planning (Lynch, 2019, p.50).So, while the concept of physical literacy is beginning to become part and parcel of many national physical education programs, what is not so clear is how practitioners might be advised to deliver its well-meaning aims (Roberts, Newcombe & Davids, 2018).

Despite lacking empirical evidence how it can be employed to stimulate participation or be a functional basis for activity programs, interest in physical literacy among sport and physical activity practitioners and policy makers continues to rapidly grow (Jurbala, 2015). In the Netherlands physical literacy has been promoted as a stepping stone to elite performance (Way et al., 2014, p. 23), while in Canada as “the cornerstone of both participation and excellence in physical activity and sport” (Way et al., 2014, p. 23). In the UK physical literacy has been described as an aim that every child needs to achieve (Sport England, Strategy, 2016), framing physical literacy as a set of capabilities or achievements. This can be seen in the stage- based models of motor development that underpin many government sports policy programs. These policies are seemingly grounded in the hypothesis of a causal chain of increased motor skill, where early mastery of fundamental movement skills (FMS) are viewed as a prerequisite for increased activity, development of complex sport skills or improved physical fitness. However, Holfelder and Schott (2014) argued that while high levels of FMS relate to higher levels of physical activity among children, they are of low predictive value for level of activity in adults. They further suggested that there is a need to consider the multifactorial complexity of development of movement skills such as, perceived competence, socio-economic status and others (Holfelder & Schott, 2014, p. 389).

 

Physical Literacy: What’s in a Name

In a commentary on physical activity and health (2016), Thomas L. McKenzie and Monica A. F. Lounsberyreferred to a lack of consensus with regard to what constitutes physical literacy. If international physical activity/fitness experts are uncertain what physical literacy is, how can we expect policy makers, school teachers, coaches and the public to clearly define it? McKenzie and Lounsbery (2016, p. 1) asked the question “What’s in a name? Is physical literacy simply a rose by any other name?”.They argue that, as many cannot discriminate among terms such as physical activity, physical fitness, and physical education, adding yet another term (physical literacy) may only add to the confusion

 

Physical Literacy: What’s in a Metaphor

This metaphor of likening movement literacy with language literacy (Jurbala, 2015), is in itself problematic. It has promoted in the media the notion that children should be taught physical literacy in the same way that they learn to read and write (see here). Designed to appeal to educators and policy makers (Jurbala, 2015), the metaphor arguably captures the dumbing down of the concept of physical literacy, something which Almond (2013) has criticised. Like click bait to capture public attention, the metaphor also positions physical literacy as a testable and measurable phenomenon which seemingly influences how it is being carried out in practice. This highlights a tendency to over-simplify, by promoting the view of body-as-object (Lloyd, 2012) using generic assessments of physical literacy (Tremblay & Lloyd, 2010), that reflect the traditional standardised testing of reading and writing. Lundvall and Tidén (2013) identified similar conflicts with physical literacy in practice in the Swedish PE curriculum, noting the need for approaches to move away from the traditional normative assessment where students are catagorised, towards the development of embodied knowledge, where learners learn to reflect on their development and potential.

 

Different Perspectives on Physical Literacy

Definitions of physical literacy have seemingly resulted in an oversimplification of the concept (Whitehead, 2010), bringing about an unsatisfactory reductionist application of physical literacy in practical settings (Roberts, Newcombe & Davids, 2018). For example, physical education content being based primarily on the development of fundamental movement skills and little else. In the light of this, Almond (2013) called for a broader discussion to clarify what is implied by associating fundamental movement skills with physical education. However, some value has been placed on Whitehead ‘s own definition (Edwards et al. 2017),which has been refined over the years from its original definition in 2001.

As appropriate to each individual’s endowment, physical literacy can be described as a disposition to capitalize on the human embodied capability, wherein the individual has the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for maintaining purposeful physical pursuits/activities throughout the life course. (Whitehead, 2013, p. 29)

 

According to Allan and colleagues (2017), physical literacy can be viewed from two different perspectives: (i) The holistic approach (Whitehead, 2001), and (ii) the performance- orientatedapproach, where physical literacy principles are implemented within the programming of curriculums for national sports organisations (Higgs, 2010). Whitehead’s holistic approach (2001) to physical literacy conceptualises all human conditions as an integrated whole, focusing on the embodied dimension of human existence through enriching experience (Whitehead, 2007).This promoted the notion of embodiment, emphasising the inextricable relationship between mind and body, thus rejecting the Cartesian view of mind and body as separate entities. In contrast the delivery of physical literacy within North American sport programming focused almost exclusively on the body and performance (Roberts, Newcombe & Davids, 2018). Whitehead took the stance that human potential can be achieved through rich interactions between the individual and the environmentand sport represents just one context in which embodied capacities are both challenged and celebrated (Whitehead, 2001, 2007).  So, physical literacy should be seen as a journey (Green et al. 2018) extending beyond sport and physical education, throughout an individual’s lifespan (Whitehead and Murdoch, 2006)

The performance-oriented approach that has seemingly been favoured by governing bodies, is concerned with the mastery of movement skills as building blocks for more complex skills throughreductionism and thedecontextualisation of movements from the environment (e.g., Lloyd, 2011).It has been suggested that this approach aligns closely with the concept of deliberate practice(Allan, TurnnidgeandCôté, 2017).As suggested by Roberts, Newcombe and Davids (2018), these reductionist approaches, with an over-reliance on fundamental movement skills have been a barrier to the development of a complex dynamic and embodied understanding of the individual physical literacy journey. Whitehead’s (2007) holistic approach argued for a move away from these types of curriculaand strategies, promoting diverse interactions with the environment delimited by individual constraints, cultural norms and opportunities to interact with the environment (Whitehead, 2013).

 

Health and physical activity

This strong correlation between health and physical activity in the research is influential in how policy makers construct their programs in response to various health problems. For instance, Quennerstedt, Burrows and Maivorsdotter (2010) suggested that Health Education is guided by obesity discourses, which is now recognised as a world-wide problem (Cale & Harris, 2019). Anarina Murillo and David B. Allison (2016)when contributing to a discussion on obesity asked the question: “Are there any successful policies and programs to fight overweight and obesity? (2016)”. They argued that public policies dealing with this matter despite the best of intentions, might have limited success if these programs do not take in to account the social norms, values and culture of the targeted community. This, as highlighted by Rogers and Collins (2012), signifies a need to determine which programs have proven successful and for whom. So, despite many efforts at the local, national, and international levels, there is little evidence that existing programs are both effective and sustainable.

Lynch and Soukup (2016) have previously highlighted a problem regarding physical education practice and policies. They argued that many discourses have been underpinned by the idea of the “body as an object”, an ideology that has been referred to as ‘healthism’. This has led to the perception of health problems as individual problems that can be unproblematically dealt with through individual effort and discipline (Crawford, 1980), while failing to recognise the social and environmental influences. It has previously been argued that healthism can form a belief that caused guilt for those who do not fit the “exercise = fitness = health idea (Kirk & Colquhoun, 1989).

 

Health andPhysical Literacy

In 2012, Vandorpe et al. (2012) claimed that there is no direct empirical test of the effect of physical literacy on health. However, in recent years there seems to be increasing interest in physical literacy in the field of public health [Dudley, Cairney, Kriellaars,  Mitchell, 2017].  Cairney and colleagues (2019) presented a model of physical literacy as a determinant of health, with the aim ofstimulatingincreased discussion and further empirical research.They identified a need to open up to a broader perspective regarding the links between education and health at a population level. The example question they posed; “what community-based infrastructure is needed to support diverse and meaningful movement-based experiences for children?”- echoes the need for a more holistic and culturally sensitive approach to the implementation of physical literacy in government funded programs.

Acknowledging that health behaviour is closely related to social and cultural factors” (Ruskin, Fitzgibbon, & Harper, 2008), recognises the interactions between many dimensions (physical, social, emotional and mental) and that health is dynamic, a constantly changing state (QSCC, 1999). Therefore, when promoting wellbeing it has been proposed that we need to view it as multidimensional in nature (OECD, 2017). This implies that curriculums (and strategies) regarding youth development, need to be connected to the child’s world and everyday interests (Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett, & Farmer, 2015), “where children are learning through their interactions, as well as adopting and working through the rules and values of their own cultural group” (Arthur et al., 2015, pp. 99–100).

Summary

We can view health and wellbeing as a dynamic constant changing state that is multidimensional in nature. While research has largely supported the idea of physical activity as a means for young people to develop physically and psychosocially (Lynch, 2013), we lack the direct empirical evidence connecting physical literacy with health outcomes (Cairney et al., 2019). Therefore, the only way that physical literacy can influence health outcomes is via its impact on physical activity, where rich interactions between the individual and the environment across varied movement contexts invite different opportunities or affordances for action. Physical literacy as suggested by Jurbala (2015), should be viewed as an avenue to reject traditional approaches to skill development, where it has often been viewed as a brief window of opportunity instead of as a journey throughout a lifespan that extends beyond organised sports and physical education.Therefore, we should view ‘skill learning’ as a dynamic and developmental phenomenon, where, as argued by Clarke (1995, p.173), “we understand that we cannot limit our focus to one period in the life span, or to tasks that are not rich in context and complexity and real in their adaptive significance. Motor skill behaviour changes over a life span and it is that window that ultimately provides the view”.

If the concept of physical literacy is to be woven into health education, sport and recreation, in both policy and practice, then it needs to take in to account that learner’s individual differences, movement preferences and nonlinear rates of development are as much a function of social milieu in which they have developed as their physiology, anatomy or psychology (Uehara, 2014). This calls for a shift in perspectives, from ‘fundamental’ to ‘functional’. From the pursuit of the reductionist application of physical literacy (Roberts, Newcombe & Davids, 2018), to one which facilitates the emergence of greater functional relationships between the learner/individual and the environment (Renshaw & Chow, 2018).

 

Main points

  • There is a lack the direct empirical evidence connecting physical literacy with health outcomes
  • Despite this, interest in physical literacy among sport and physical activity practitioners and policy makers continues to rapidly grow.
  • What is not so clear is how practitioners might be advised to deliver its well-meaning aim
  • The metaphor of likening physical literacy with language literacy is problematic. This has positioned physical literacy as a testable and measurable phenomenon which influences how it is being carried out in practice.
  • This has led to an oversimplification of the concept bringing about an unsatisfactory reductionist application of physical literacy in practical settings with an over reliance stage- based models
  • This has been a barrier to the development of a complex dynamic and embodied understanding of the individual physical literacy journey.
  •  Despite lacking direct empirical evidence, many involved in youth sports programming, policy making and physical education are rallying around physical literacy and promoting it globally.
  • For physical literacy to influence health outcomes it needs to impact on physical activity,
  • Sports governing bodies, policy makers, sports clubs, coaches and coach education need to promote and facilitate rich interactions between the individual and the environment across varied movement contexts that invite different opportunities or affordances for action.
  • Physical Literacy should not be viewed as end point, but presented as a journey influenced by a unique set of interacting constraints imposed upon an individual

 

Quiz question: Who had a huge hit with a cover of this song?

References

Almond, L. 2013a. “Physical Literacy and Fundamental Movement Skills: An Introductory Critique.” Journal of Sports Science and Physical Education 0: 81–89. Bulletin No. 65.

Anarina Murillo and David B. Allison (2016). Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/fr/member/anarina-murillo

Allan, V., Turnnidge, J., & Côté, J. (2017). Evaluating Approaches to Physical Literacy Through the Lens of Positive Youth Development. Quest, 69(4), 515–530. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2017.1320294

Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2008). Programming and planning in early childhood settings (4th Edition). Melbourne: Thomson.

Cairney, J., Dudley, D., Kwan, M., Bulten, R., & Kriellaars, D. (2019).Physical Literacy, Physical Activity and Health: Toward an Evidence-Informed Conceptual Model. SportsMedicine, 49(3), 371–383. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01063-3

Clark, J. E. (1995). On Becoming Skillful: Patterns and Constraints. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(3), 173–183. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1995.10608831

Corbin, C. (2016). Implications of physical literacy for research and practice: A commentary. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87, 14–27. https://doi. org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1124722.

Crawford, R. (1980). Healthism and the Medicalization of Everyday Life. InternationalJournal of Health Services, 10(3), 365–388. doi: 10.2190/3h2h-3xjn-3kay-g9ny

Curran, T. (2014). Punishing students with exercise is reckless political posturing.The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/punishing- students-with-exercise-is-reckless-political-posturing-23495.

Dudley D, Cairney J, Wainwright N, Kriellaars D, Mitchell D. Critical considerations for physical literacy policy in public health, recreation, sport, and education agencies. Quest. 2017;69(4):436– 52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1268967.

Edwards, L. C., A. S. Bryant, R. J. Keegan, K. Morgan, and A. M. Jones. 2017. “Definitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review.” Sports Medicine 47 (1): 113–126

Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,10, 49–70. doi:10.1080/ 1740898042000334890

Green, N. R., W. M. Roberts, D. Sheehan, and R. J. Keegan. 2018.“Charting Physical Literacy Journeys Within Physical Education Settings.”Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 37 (3): 232–240.

Hardman, K. 2011. “Physical Education, Movement and Physical Literacy in the 21st Century: Pupils’ Competencies, Attitudes and Behaviours.” In 6th FIEP European Congress. Physical Education in the 21st Century–Pupils’ Competencies, edited by I. Prskalo, and D. Novak, 15–25. Zagreb: Hrvatski kineziološki Savez.

Higgs, C. (2010). Physical literacy-two approaches, one concept. Physical & Health Education Canada Journal, Spring 2010, 6–7.

Higgs, C., Balyi, I., Way, R., Cardinal, C., Norris, S., & Bluechart, M. (2005). Developing physical literacy: A guide for parents of children ages 0 to 12. Vancouver: Canadian Sport Centres.

Hyndman, B., & Pill, S. (2018). What’s in a concept? A Leximancer text mining analysis of physical literacy across the inter- national literature. European Physical Education Review, 24(3), 292–313. doi:10.1177/1356336X17690312

Holfelder, B., & Schott, N. (2014). Relationship of fundamental movement skills and physical activity in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 382–391. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.005

International Physical Literacy Association. (2017). Definition of physical literacy. Retrieved from https://www.physical- literacy.org.uk/.

Jurbala, P. (2015). What Is Physical Literacy, Really? Quest, 67(4), 367–383. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2015.1084341

Kirk, D., & Colquhoun, D. (1989). Healthism and Physical Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 10(4), 417–434. doi: 10.1080/0142569890100403

Lloyd, R. J. (2012). Moving to learn and learning to move: A phenomenological exploration of children’s climbing with an interdisciplinary movement consciousness. The Humanistic Psychologist, 40(1), 23–37. doi:10.1080/08873267.2012.643683

Lounsbery MAF, McKenzie T L. Physically literate and physically educated: A rose by any other name? J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4:35-40.

Lundvall, S., & Tidén, A. (2013). Assessing embodied knowledge in Swedish PEH—the influence of physical literacy. Journal of the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education, (65), 325–335.

Lynch, T. (2019). Global Policy: Holistic Health, Wellbeing and Physical Education Evolution. Physical Education and Wellbeing, 43–58. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-22266-6_4

Lynch, T., & Soukup, G. J. (2016). “Physical education”, “health and physical education”, “physical literacy” and “health literacy”: Global nomenclature confusion. Cogent Education, 3(1). doi: 10.1080/2331186x.2016.1217820

 McKenzie, T., & Lounsbery M. (2016). Physical literacy and the rose: What would Shakespeare say?Physical Activity Plan Alliance Commentaries on Physical Activity and Health, 2.

Retrieved from  http://www.physicalactivityplan.org/commentaries/McKenzie.html

Mikael, Quennerstedt & Burrows, Lisette & Maivorsdotter, Ninitha. (2010). From Teaching Young People to Be Healthy to Learning Health. Utbildning & Demokrati : Tidsskrift för Didaktik och Utbildningspolitik. 19.

Renshaw, I., & Chow, J.-Y. (2018). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. PhysicalEducation and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 103–116. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1552676

Roberts, W. M., Newcombe, D. J., & Davids, K. (2018). Application of a Constraints-Led Approach to pedagogy in schools: embarking on a journey to nurture Physical Literacy in primary physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 162–175. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1552675

Roetert, E. P., & Jefferies, S. C. (2014). Embracing physical literacy. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 85, 38–40. doi:10.1080/07303084.2014.948353

Rodgers, G. P., & Collins, F. S. (2012). The Next Generation of Obesity Research. Jama, 308(11), 1095. doi: 10.1001/2012.jama.11853

Richards, R. (2016). School sport. Retrieved from https://www. clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/knowledge_base/organised_sport/value_ of_sport/school_sport.

Shearer, C., Goss, H. R., Edwards, L. C., Keegan, R. J., Knowles, Z. R., Boddy, L. M., … Foweather, L. (2018). How is physical literacy defined? A contemporary update. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(3), 237–245. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0136

Sport England (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.sportengland.org/media/10629/sport-england-towards-an-active-nation.pdf

Thomas L. McKenzie and Monica A. F. Lounsbery (2016)Retrieved from https://www.physicalactivityplan.org/commentaries/McKenzie.html

Tremblay, M., & Lloyd, M. (2010). Physical literacy measurement—the missing piece. Physical and Health Education Journal, 76(1), 26–30.

UNICEF. (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries—A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations. Innocenti Research Centre Report Card 7 C. Florence: The United Nations Children’s Fund. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf.

Uehara, L., Button, C., Falcous, M., & Davids, K. (2014). Contextualised skill acquisition research: a new framework to study the development of sport expertise. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy21(2), 153–168. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2014.924495

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2014). World-wide survey of school physical education. Retrieved from https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002293/229335e.pdf.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2015). Quality physical education: Guidelines for policy makers. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Vandorpe B, Vandendriessche J, Vaeyens R, Pion J, Matthys S, Lefevre J, et al. Relationship between sports participation and the level of motor coordination in childhood: a longitudinal approach. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15(3):220–5.

Way, R., Balyi, I., Trono, C., Harber, V., & Jurbala, P. (2014). Canadian Sport for Life—long-term athlete development resource paper 2.0. Vancouver: Canadian Sport Institute—Pacific.

Weinberg, B. (2013). Introduction. Journal of the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education, (65), 18–20.

Wesley O’Brien (2019) Promoting active lifestyles in schools, Sport, Education and Society, 24:8, 907-911, DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2019.1657326

 Whitehead, M. (2001). The concept of physical literacy. European Journal of Physical Education, 6(2), 127–138.

Whitehead, M. (2007). Physical literacy: Philosophical considerations in relation to developing a sense of self, universality and propositional knowledge. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 1(3), 281–298. doi:10.1080/17511320701676916

Whitehead, M. (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse. London, New York: Routledge.

Whitehead, M. (2013). The history and development of physical literacy. Journal of the International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education, (65), 18–20.

Whitehead, M. (1993, August). Physical literacy. Paper presented at the IAPESWG Congress, Melbourne, Australia.

Whitehead, M., and E. Murdoch. 2006. Physical Literacy and Physical Education: Conceptual mapping. Accessed July 11, 2017. http://www.physical-literacy.org.uk/conceptualmapping2006-abstract.php.

Lisa Young, Justen O’Connor & Laura Alfrey (2019) Physical literacy: a concept analysis, Sport, Education and Society,DOI: 10.1080/13573322.2019.1677586

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/05/physical-literacy-children-dina-asher-smith