Teaching the learning theories in PE and Sport lessons

Dear PE colleagues,

Teaching skill acquisition in A-level PE, AS PE and BTEC Sport at KS5 is a fantastic experience. Much of my career has been defined by KS5 classroom-based PE teaching and, I believe, I have taught close to every KS5 course and unit. One of the topics that sticks out to me in my experience is the teaching of the learning theories. I have been teaching observational learning, conditioning, gestaltism and constructivist learning for decades and I have thought about the concepts and also the delivery of them a great deal.

Before we get started, I should clarify which courses expect a knowledge of which theories:

*BTEC refers to “cognitive learning” when summarising a range of motor programme theories. These are not considered as cognitive learning in this post. 

Each course has slightly different requirements and tends to ask questions in slightly different ways but there is remarkable synergy across these courses and this fact allows the details that follow in this post to be relevant to almost every teacher. 

So, I am going to write about:

1. Observational learning
2. Classical conditioning
3. Operant conditioning
4. Cognitive learning
5. Constructivism

Learning theory 1: Observational learning

Oh, yeah! Here we go! Possibly my favourite. Observational learning is an absolutely critical theory for all PE teachers to understand, whether teaching it as a classroom-based topic or not. Observational learning is a core experience in PE and I urge you to read through this section with intrigue.

Theorist: Albert Bandura
Timeframe: Published early 1960s
Main principle: Human beings can learn behaviours by observing others and modelling their behaviour.

Initially, human beings draw their attention toward a model. Let’s assume that our model is you and that you are a PE teacher. It’s pretty likely that you demonstrate skills from time to time. Therefore, we can consider what causes your learners to draw their attention to you and to what you want them to notice. The following factors play a role:

• The level of interest of the observer.
• The “cues” used by the demonstrator. Cues are things like coaching points, which draw attention to one aspect of the demo. For example: “Look at the change of angle of my elbow as I shoot the ball.”
• The perceived attractiveness of the model. Do the learners see you as a positive example that they would like to copy?
• The status of the model. Do the learners respect you? Are you a role model to them?
• Can the observers hold their attention long enough? Does the demo go on too long?
• Are the observers incentivised? Will they need this new knowledge after the demonstration?

So, these factors help us to understand whether potential learners are maximising their attention. So what’s the next stage?

Retention comes next. This is all about whether the modelled behaviour is held in the memory or not. For example, it is no good simply observing a behaviour and then forgetting it. The learner must hold the image in their mind before they can recreate it. 

So, what influences retention? These factors:

• Was the demonstration of the behaviour memorable?
• Has the learner used mental rehearsal to attempt to bring the model back to their mind?
• Was the demo meaningful to the learner? Do they want to retain it?
• Has the information in the demonstration been chunked into manageable pieces like foot position, arm action, etc.?
• Has the demonstration been repeated?

At the motor reproduction stage, learners will attempt to reproduce the observed behaviour. The important factors for success are:

• The physical attributes of the learner must be sufficient to reproduce the skill. Think about shortened rackets and lighter implements and why these are used.
• The learners must be emotionally willing to perform the behaviour.
• The learners must be warmed up, assuming that the behaviour is of a physical nature. 

This section is so important. It explains how coaches and PE teachers match their demonstrations to the capabilities and motivations of their learners.

And finally, motivation determines the tendency for the behaviour to be repeated. The main factors are:

• Is reinforcement (of all kinds) used to increase the likelihood of the behaviour?
• Has feedback been provided to continually stimulate the learner?
• Is the behaviour incentivised?
• Does the learner identify themselves in the demonstrator?
• Does the learner consider the model to be high status?
• Does the learner experience vicarious reinforcement? This means that they see others within a group repeating the behaviour.

So, how do we summarise all this? Well, Bandura provides a well-structured model as to how human beings learn things by copying one another. This is very helpful.  But it is not the only way to learn. So, what are the others?

Learning theory 2: Classical conditioning

Theorist: Pavlov
Timeframe: Published early 1890s
Main principle: Human beings can develop involuntary responses to neutral stimuli.

I’m guessing you know a bit about Pavlov’s dogs. Right? You probably know that a dog can involuntarily salivate to a greater degree when it is conditioned to associate food with the sound of a bell. This is classical conditioning. Let’s break it down:

• Classical conditioning relates to involuntary responses. This could be salivation in a dog but could also be the release of excitatory hormones in human beings that raise arousal levels.
• Classical conditioning causes an association between a naturally occurring response, such as the release of adrenaline, with a neutral stimulus, such as walking through a changing room door on the way to the pitch/court/pool/track. 

Classical conditioning explains why human beings learn to associate certain natural phenomena, such as increasing arousal levels, with a neutral stimulus such as walking towards competition. 

Being aware of classical conditioning can be really helpful in sport and physical activity because the effects of natural responses can be heightened, suppressed or even understood. 

Let’s imagine that a young sailor becomes nervous one hour before each race and that these nerves have a tendency of causing her performance to worsen. Well, classical conditioning can help. A coach can help by either describing the process that is occurring or, perhaps for more impact, helping the sailor to associate the same stimulus to a different, more calming natural response. For example, a coach can help the sailor by using visualisation and mental rehearsal to control their natural response and add layers of self-talk to reinterpret any excitatory feelings as positive. 

Learning theory 3: Operant conditioning

Theorist: Skinner
Timeframe: Published early 1904-1910
Main principle: Human beings can develop voluntary responses to neutral stimuli.

Let’s put this into context. A badminton coach wishes to cause her player to smash and drive overhead shots closer to the cord of the net. To do this, the coach positions a second barrier only three inches above the top of the net and then repeatedly feeds shuttles to the player at three quarters depth and expects the player to smash or drive. By creating this post-box-style challenge, the player has to hit with a steeper decline in the shot. Their behaviour is “shaped” in this context. Does this mean that the player understands why they are hitting at this angle? No! But through a series of processes, the behaviour can be built.

If you look again at the S-R bond image, it is worth noting that most students focus on the letters. They shouldn’t. They should initially focus on the bond:

The bond is the crucial bit and coaches can interact with the bond through reinforcement. There are three types of reinforcement:

So, let’s take these three types and apply them to my badminton example once again. Notice that I have inverted them. Can you see why?

All three types of reinforcement are relevant at different times. You may also consider that negative and positive reinforcement are often done in close proximity. A coach will often remove the punishment (which is an act of negative reinforcement) and simultaneously offer positive reinforcement. 

Finally, coaches need to be cautious with the overuse of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement, technically speaking, needs to be reserved for the right response, not just the ending of the wrong one. My experience with lots of PE teaching, coaching or even parenting is that some people use positive reinforcement instead of negative reinforcement. Remember: positive reinforcement is there to strengthen the bond between a stimulus and the desired response NOT to form that bond. 

Before we leave operant conditioning and, earlier, classical conditioning behind, it is worth addressing a slight elephant in the room. That elephant is Edward Thorndike and his three laws of learning, which I and so many other PE teachers tell our students about without further thought. The reason I am cautious to simply write about Thorndike’s Laws is that Thorndike was a eugenicist and argued throughout his life for processes including selective human breeding. Let’s just say that he was quite keen on limiting the reproductive behaviours of cohorts of human beings that he deemed to be less intelligent naturally. It’s really not nice stuff and, therefore, I’m mentioning this here because I want as little connection (ha, pardon the pun!) with this **** as possible. 

So, with that out of the way, back to it. Thorndike offered three laws that interplay with conditioning behaviours in the classical and operant models. They were:

*I strongly recommend that you utilise the E-I-O model with your students to get them to write well for AO2 and AO3 skills (in most courses). 

A note about conditioning for parents

I’m pretty sure this statement is going to make me unpopular but I’m going to write it anyway. It is my opinion that learning through conditioning is currently underutilised by parents that I come into contact with. My observation is that too many parents, perhaps understandably, try to explain too many decisions to their young children in a cognitive learning (see below) style. I am of the opinion that children benefit when much of their learning is achieved through conditioning. Even nuanced behaviours such as sharing and kindness can be conditioned in children and I encourage parents to reconsider conditioning as a completely normal and standard method of learning that can be combined with other learning models when the context allows. Remember: You are the parent, the adult. If you say/expect it, it should happen. If you’re wondering how the heck this writer is to advise parents, you have a fair point and I offer this particular suggestion as an opinion only. I do have 27 years of teaching experience, much of it working with teenagers, and I am also the parent of two teenage daughters, one at university and the second on the verge of being. Therefore, I hope my opinion has some relevance and is, at least, worth making here. 

Learning theory 4: Cognitive learning

Theorist: Kohler
Timeframe: Published 1913-1925
Main principle: Human beings can learn by solving problems.

• Whole learning
• Insight learning
• Problem-solving
• Discovery learning
• Gestaltism

All of these terms, more or less, mean the same thing. I must say, I absolutely love cognitive-learning experiences as a teacher. I love establishing intrigue and intuition with students and, perhaps most importantly, understanding in my students. However, cognitive learning DOES NOT trump conditioning or observational learning. All of these methods should be utilised within learning cycles and, by understanding them well, teachers and coaches (and parents) can cause more learning. 

There are three fundamentals to cognitive learning:

These considerations lead to a phenomenon called “intervening variables”. Intervening variables are very nuanced and situation-specific. They are the range of factors in a cognitive-learning environment that leads to the “right outcome” or solution. 

Let’s use an example. A PE teacher presents this problem to teams of three basketball players:

Starting at your own baseline with a quick outlet pass, your team of three needs to get the ball in a position to take a shot at the other end with both non-shooters making a jump for the rebound.

The groups of three students need to create their best solution possible. They need to take into account, probably subconsciously, all the intervening variables that cause a solution to be the right solution. Moreover, as the teams recover their position after their attempt, they get the opportunity to observe the other teams make their own attempt, at which point they can benefit from observational learning. This really matters because one learning theory at a time is not realistic with human beings. We learn in so many ways that this fact can be embraced.

Let’s use a different example:

Notice that, in this example, the coach recognises when a solution has been found and then they introduce variation. In the classic frame of drive-reduction theory, the coach resets the goal. 

Cognitive-learning practices are absolutely brilliant when learning environments allow for it. But sometimes, they’re just not right. Consider the first lesson of javelin or developing the behaviours of the spotters in trampolining. Cognitive learning is not appropriate at these times. 

I’ve had some of my greatest success with cognitive learning in striking and fielding games. I use it a lot in cricket. I may write a further post about what I consider good teaching to look like in those scenarios in the future. 

Learning theory 5: Constructivism

Theorist: Piaget
Timeframe: Published 1950s-1970s
Main principle: Human beings can learn by solving problems.

• Knowledge is constructed through interactions between individuals and their environment: Learning is situational.
• Learning is a process of actively constructing one's own understanding of the world: Learners must be active agents rather than passive recipients.
• Learners are motivated by their own interests and curiosity: They must be stakeholders.
• Learners use problem-solving and critical thinking to construct new knowledge: Learners have responsibility.

If you think about this model in relation to your school cohort, you might be picturing that tendency towards irresponsible behaviour and daftness in teenagers, but it needs to be stressed that constructivism is more than appropriate for almost all teenagers. The thing is, lots of young people experience learning in classrooms and other environments in a passive role for far more of the time than they should. They become deskilled at constructing learning. For anyone that thinks this is inevitable, think again. Students in secondary schools –strictly biologically speaking– are capable of parenting children. Nature has developed them in such a way that, theoretically, they could raise a child. Now, this is not advocacy for teenage pregnancy. Absolutely not! It is just that I am 100% certain that nature would not have got it so wrong as to create teenagers that can’t take responsibility. They absolutely can!

At the heart of constructivist educational design is the open-ended question. For example:

“Show me a range of ways problem X can be solved.” 

But remember, constructivist design is also based on previous experiences, so an even better open-ended question could be:

“Show me a range of ways problem X can be solved by skill Y that you learned in the previous session.”

Notice that this would elicit different responses by every single learner based on their own experiences and values. But there’s more! Constructivist theory also highly values social interaction. Therefore, an even better open-ended question might be something like:

“Show me a range of ways problem X can be solved by skill Y that you learned in the previous session. Your own solutions must differ in some way from those of the other members of your group.”

In this challenge, the individual needs to establish their solutions but needs to do so in relation to the solutions of others. In other words, they can adopt the solutions of others and then adapt them to themselves. 

Constructivist learning is at the heart of lots of good-quality teaching and learning in the practical space but also in the classroom. My entire series of posts on questioning techniques is constructivist in nature. 

Conclusions

Learning theories are fascinating. Please remember that they all have their place in the learning process and that they all interact with each other. How exciting! By understanding these principles, PE teachers can stimulate broader learning more efficiently and frequently, and this is a fundamentally positive scenario.

Finally, when teaching the learning theories to your groups, try to demystify them for the learners. I often find that students are aloof to the learning theories when, actually, they are some of our most approachable content areas because students experience them all the time. 

Thanks for reading.

James