Thread: To cue or not to cue? Is that the question?

I believe we owe it to the broader coaching community to consider the merit of what appears to be a growing tension between instructional (verbal) and constraint-led (non-verbal) approaches to coaching. 1/19

I meet many coaches who are seeking to do right by their athletes/clients and are challenged (if not confused) by the polarizing conversations that seem to place information processing against ecological dynamics...cues against constraints. 2/19

My goal with this thread is to start to narrow this perceived gap and illustrate that it is NOT about cues vs. constraints. Rather, it is about better cues and better constraints. 3/19

To bridge this gap, we must first recognize that our ability to learn is directly connected to our ability to pay attention to the right things at the right time. We cannot learn something if we do NOT pay attention to it. 4/19

To be clear, one doesn't need to be aware of everything they're learning, rather, they must point their attention at the information source on which their learning is based. For example, I cannot learn to avoid a defender that I do not see or hit a ball that I do not watch. 5/19

These examples illustrate that for learning to take place, there needs to be a perceiver, an environment to be perceived, and a goal that binds them together. This last point is key, as the goal establishes the problem to be solved, which necessitates the gathering... 6/19

...of the information needed to solve it. Thus, to learn to avoid a defender, I must learn to pay attention to the defender and space around them, and to hit a baseball I must pay attention to the pitcher and the ball. These "information sources" help me solve the... 7/19

...the movement problem. The question is whether I change something about the environment or task to draw the athlete's attention to the information source (i.e., constraint) or instruct the athlete to focus on that information source directly (i.e., cue). 8/19

In neither case do I tell the athlete how to explicitly solve the problem, rather, I nudge their attention towards the information source where the solution can be found. It is at this juncture that the critiques from both sides emerge. 9/19

The critique of cueing goes something like this. We are susceptible to over-coaching and coaching in a way where we "tell" the athlete how to move their body in an effort to help them "solve" the movement problem. This is the classic technical approach to coaching where... 10/19

...I ask you to think about your movement (internal language), rather than the goal of your movement (external language). The concern is that one disconnects from the environment they're moving in (and learning from) when they solely focus on the body doing the moving. 11/19

The critique of constraints goes something like this. Just because I change a feature of the task/environment to highlight an information source, doesn't mean the athlete will recognize and respond to it. Also, what about a movement where... 12/19

...constraining the environment/task is nearly impossible (e.g., bobsled, hitting off a live pitcher, etc.). Critics will often say that "if the primary variable is the environment and task, then why don't my athletes keep getting better just by playing the sport." 13/19

While both critiques have merit, they highlight a dysfunctional variety or limited view of the coaching methods in question. Again, we must recognize that learning is co-created by the perceiver and the perceived. You cannot have one without the other - both matter. 14/19

That said, a change to the environment or task may not always be possible and, even if it is, it does not guarantee that the athlete will naturally pick-up on this "brightened" information source. 15/19

Equally, if I am constantly asking my athlete to think about their body as opposed to what their body is trying to achieve (e.g., hit a baseball), then I risk severing the connection between perceiver and perceived, lowering the possibility for meaningful learning. 16/19

Here we start to see how cues and constraints can work together to achieve a superior outcome than either on their own. When used correctly, both strategies can shape focus and both strategies can respect the perceiver/perceived relationship. 17/19

In fact, one can think of a cue as a cognitive constraint, encouraging the athlete to focus here versus there. In the same breath, we can see how a constraint is a cue, triggering attention to be paid to this versus that. 18/19

Again, it is not about cues vs constraints, it is about better cues AND better constraints. If we focus on the task and what the task is asking of the athlete, we will learn how best to guide attention. Maybe a cue, maybe a constraint, maybe both. 19/19