No abstract

We explore how expertise is obtained in the domain of rugby refereeing. The research data are qualitative and are drawn from an 18 month period working in collaboration with the Rugby Football Union Elite Referee Unit. Adopting an ethnographic mode of enquiry, the study combined long-term participant observation with in-depth interviewing, indirect observations and the collection of artefacts including existing protocol, coach feedback forms and strategic reports. The diversity of methodologies allowed us to examine how expertise is developed across various domains of analysis, including the intrapersonal, interpersonal, group and social perspectives. Building on expertise studies in "deliberate practice", further prerequisites for expertise, at least in this domain and with these participants, incorporated "deliberate experience" and "transfer of skills". Additionally, a key issue in the findings concerns a shift from "descriptive" towards a "non-linear processes"-oriented model of development. We conclude by identifying opportunities and limitations associated with the adoption of ethnography as a method for studying expertise.

1 The present study investigated the differential effects of analogy and explicit 2 instructions on early stage motor learning and movement in a modified high jump task. 3 Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: analogy, 4 explicit light (reduced informational load), or traditional explicit (large informational load). 5 During the two-day learning phase, participants learned a novel high jump technique based 6 on the 'scissors' style using the instructions for their respective conditions. For the single-day 7 testing phase, participants completed both a retention test and task-relevant pressure test, the 8 latter of which featured a rising high-jump-bar pressure manipulation. Although analogy 9 learners demonstrated slightly more efficient technique and reported fewer technical rules on 10 average, the differences between the conditions were not statistically significant. There were, 11 however, significant differences in joint variability with respect to instructional type, as 12 variability was lowest for the analogy condition during both the learning and testing phases, 13 and as a function of block, as joint variability decreased for all conditions during the learning 14 phase. Findings suggest that reducing the informational volume of explicit instructions may 15 mitigate the deleterious effects on performance previously associated with explicit learning in 16 the literature. 17 18 19 20

This article considers interesting differences between the mental focus employed by an elite athlete javelin thrower (E1) when contrasted with three international standard javelin throwers (I1, I2, I3). Athletes’ mental focus was recorded in both competition and training using self-report measures. In addition, kinematic analysis through point of release was examined for both categories of athlete. In both conditions, E1 demonstrated lower patterns of movement variability. Interestingly, a contrasting mental focus was recorded among athletes I1, I2, and I3 when compared with athlete E1. Tentative conclusions are drawn concerning the optimum sources of information for athletes before task execution in self-paced athletic events.

recently published a study that indicated that analogy instruction may help older adults acquire resilient motor skills that require reduced cognitive processing compared to traditional explicit instruction. Although we do not dispute that analogy learning may prove useful for this population, in this commentary, we contend that there are methodological issues in this research-which are shared with previous studies comparing analogy and explicit instruction-that potentially limit ecological validity, impact the size of detected effects, influence the development and understanding of associated theory, and, as such, constrain resulting recommendations for applied practice. Of particular concern is the comparison of the single-item analogy instruction to the list of nine explicit instructions, which risks conflating the effects of the type of instruction with the volume of instruction. We further argue that the benefits of analogy may be more parsimoniously explained by the instruction's capability to succinctly convey skill (rather than its potential for limiting reinvestment), but that this capability may only be realised if the to-belearned analogy is relevant and readily understood by the learner. Finally, we suggest that research in this area must look to incorporate more rigorous methods that compare experimental conditions to representative reference groups that allow us to explore how and when to deploy the myriad instructional tools available to practitioners and learners.