Read on Twitter
As @PsychScientists wrote a long thread about why coaches should strictly adhere to a theoretical perspective and only use the methods that logically follows from that theory, I will try to argue against that (not to be a pain in the ass, I just have a different opinion).
In fact, I will argue not to commit yourself to a specific theory at all. Rather, to have pragmatic approach to coaching. Find out what works and do that. It is as simple as that.
Why? Well, as far as I know, nobody really knows exactly how we learn. We know that random practice leads to better retention than blocked practice. So, should coaches therefore not use random practice to try to facilitate athletes’ long term learning because...
...it is not yet explained why it works? That sound a bit dumb. Furthermore, random/blocked-variable/constant practice is clearly connected to the Information processing perspective.
Does that mean you cannot use these designs if you confess yourself to the Ecological Dynamics paradigm? Again, that does not really make sense.
This leads into the main reason to why you should find out what works and go with that. The thing is this, if a method works in real coaching practice, then it is the job of Andrew and other researchers to work that into their theory.
And if that method doesn't fit with their theory, they will have to change their theory to accommodate for that method. The map (theory) must match the terrain (reality), not the other way around. And there are lots of coaching practices that have been shown to work.
Practices that have been developed in one of the most exposed to competition contexts there is, sport. (That is not to say that all methods that coaches use are good or work all the time. Far from it)
So whether it is Ecod, some IP theory, or whatever that will be shown to be "true" (in the future when we have some way to actually decide this), that theory will have an explanation for any method that is shown to help athletes develop. It has to.
This means that EcoD must be able to explain why direct instructions and mental imagery works. Just like the IP theories must be able to explain why seemingly ridiculous movement variability (i.e. differential learning) can lead to improved performance.
You as a coach do not need to bother about this. Your job is to find out in what situation, in relation to which goal, and for what athlete these different approaches works. From this you can try to draw conclusions of why they work, turn that into knowledge and then...
try to generalize to other methods. It is of course good to have an idea of why something works. But in reality, if even scientists can't agree on why it works, it is perhaps a bit much to ask of coaches that they should know?
This is thus not to say that coaches should avoid having a theory informed practice. If that helps you in achieving your goals, go for it. It may help you get a better understanding of why something works or make you see things in a new light. If so, good for you.
Finally, PJDM or "it depends" is not a scientific theory. It is an approach to coaching.
