Necessary support or a limitation on growth?

Within sports and physical education, learning pathways have been an important didactic tool for decades. Skills are built up step by step: from simple to complex, from isolated technique to game situations. This approach offers structure and clarity for the coach, but is it really what is best for the player? At the same time, this raises questions in light of scientific insights from motor learning. This article explores the extent to which working with learning pathways is scientifically supported and how it relates to alternative approaches.

What do we mean by a learning pathway?

A learning pathway generally implies:

a fixed sequence of skills;
a progressive structure, from step A to B and C;
an implicit final model of technique;
a more or less uniform development for all athletes.

Although these principles are didactically appealing, the question is whether they correspond with how motor learning actually takes place.

Insights from motor learning

Research in motor learning, including that of Peter J. Beek, emphasizes that movement behavior strongly depends on the interaction between the individual, the task and the environment. There is no universal “correct” technique. Players develop different solutions depending on the situation. Beek also argues that “learning using only a methodical series of exercises has less value.” Learning is, after all, not linear.

The dynamic constraints-led approach, described in the work of Karl Newell, states that skill does not emerge or improve through a predetermined route, but through adaptation to changing conditions.

Research into attentional focus, particularly external focus, by Gabrielle Wulf also shows that performance and learning outcomes improve when athletes focus on the effect of their movement rather than on detailed, sequential technical instructions. These instructions may lead to better practice results ‘temporarily’, but they are not applicable in a match. This puts the importance of a linear technical structure into perspective. It therefore implicitly supports implicit learning and variation rather than fixed steps within a learning pathway.

What scientific arguments support learning pathways?

There are studies from around 40 years ago, including the classic study by Shea and Morgan (1979) on the contextual interference effect. This research shows that blocked practice forms, such as repeatedly practising the same technique, lead to better performance during training — the practice result — but that variable practice forms produce better retention and transfer — the learning result. Later reviews of this research confirm that structured repetition can be particularly effective in the initial phase, while variation becomes more important as the skill develops.

These findings partly support the logic of learning pathways, from simple to complex, but at the same time show that overly strict linearity can limit adaptive learning.

Another theory, Cognitive Load Theory, developed by John Sweller, provides one argument in favour of structured progression. Beginners have limited processing capacity, which means that an overly complex or variable learning environment can lead to cognitive overload. A temporary reduction in complexity — often applied in learning pathways — can therefore be functional. At the same time, this theory also emphasizes that structure should gradually be reduced as expertise increases.

What alternative methods are there?

Several models question fixed learning pathways.

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), developed by Rod Thorpe and David Bunker, starts from the game context and emphasizes tactical understanding over technical sequence. TGfU begins with a game problem rather than a technique. Players learn by participating in adapted game forms and exercises in which tactics, decision-making and technique come together. The learning process is cyclical: playing, understanding, deciding and playing again. The coach creates learning environments in which behavior emerges, rather than prescribing and following fixed steps.

In addition, the Action Type approach by Ralph Hippolyte and Bertrand Théraulaz emphasizes individual movement preferences, which challenges the assumption of one uniform technique. This approach states that multiple techniques can be effective. What is optimal for one player may be less suitable for another. A uniform learning pathway does not take this into account.

Differential learning, developed by Wolfgang Schöllhorn, goes even further by placing variation at the center and deliberately avoiding the repetition of identical movements. Here, variation is not a tool, but the starting point of learning. By continuously using small variations in execution:

adaptability is developed;
no fixed technique is “engrained”;
the player develops a broad repertoire of solutions.

The Athletic Skills Model, developed by René Wormhoudt, Geert Savelsbergh and Jaap Teunissen, also reinforces the view that learning does not begin with sport-specific technique, but with a broad motor foundation. This shifts the role of learning pathways from a fixed technical progression to a flexible developmental framework in which variation and transfer are central.

What has not been scientifically proven

that learning pathways are superior as an overall didactic model;
that all athletes follow the same developmental route;
that technical development necessarily takes place step by step.

Conclusion

Learning pathways offer structure for the coach, but learning in sport is less linear than is often assumed. Insights from motor learning, TGfU, Action Type, differential learning and the Athletic Skills Model show that variation, game context, broad motor development and individual differences are central.

Effective training does not seem to consist of following a fixed technical learning pathway, but of designing dynamic, flexible learning environments in which players develop their own effective solutions through variation and game context — in other words, game-based forms.

The question is not: “Which step of the learning pathway is this player at?” But rather: “What dynamic learning environment, or game context, does this player need right now?”

Should we abolish learning pathways altogether? Certainly not in the initial phase, but we should redefine them: from a step-by-step plan to a flexible framework in which structure, variation and game context alternate, depending on level and situation. And perhaps we should call them teaching pathways instead.

In this way, the role of the coach shifts from instructor to designer of dynamic learning environments in which players can adapt, vary and learn to find solutions within the game context.

Sources

Motor learning / dynamic systems / constraints-led approach

Beek, P. J. (2000). Peering into the dynamics of skill acquisition: Variability and motor learning. Human Movement Science, 19(5), 681–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(00)00045-0

Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–360). Martinus Nijhoff.

Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Human Kinetics.

TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding)

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8.

Contextual interference / practice forms

Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.2.179

Magill, R. A., & Hall, K. G. (1990). A review of the contextual interference effect. Human Movement Science, 9(3–5), 241–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(90)90005-X

Brady, F. (1998). A theoretical and empirical review of the contextual interference effect. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1998.10607686

Schema theory / motor control

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076770

Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (5th ed.). Human Kinetics.

Cognitive Load Theory / structure in learning

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

Feedback / guidance hypothesis

Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.355

Variability of practice

Wulf, G., & Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Variability of practice and implicit motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 481–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.481

Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728

Deliberate practice

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363

Athletic Skills Model (ASM)

Wormhoudt, R., Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Teunissen, J. W., & Davids, K. (2018). The Athletic Skills Model: Optimizing talent development through movement education. Routledge.

Wormhoudt, R., Teunissen, J. W., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (2012). Athletic Skills Model. Arko Sports Media.