Introduction
The classical idea of learning a movement normally looks like this: The practitioner performs the movement to be learned several times in a row. At the beginning the movement is usually executed very uncertainly and technically imprecisely. The teacher or trainer has a certain idea of what the target movement should look like and tries to make it as understandable as possible for the practitioner by means of picture series (visual) or descriptive (acoustic).
Anything that deviates from this optimal target movement (technical model) during the execution of the movement is wrong and must be avoided as far as possible during the repetition of the exercise (constant comparison of target and actual values). The deviation from the technical model is increasingly reduced until the target movement is achieved with as little fluctuation as possible. Everyone knows this procedure from sports lessons or training in a club.
The trainer tries to have the movement repeated and to correct the errors until the target movement (target technique) is reached. Those who are not particularly involved in sports can illustrate this correlation in classical school lessons. In the past, if a mistake was made in dictation, this word had to be repeated several times.
It becomes clear in this context that the intervention and the idea of the trainer’s/teacher’s optimal movement are in the foreground. If, while correcting a dictation, a word was misspelled several times, the wrong word would be memorized in the memory. This is similar in sports.
In this case, the athlete/student is considered a “technical deficiency” who has no “movement” experience. In this so-called program theory approach, human learning is understood as a kind of computer. Now, however, there is a problem with this view of learning, both in the motor and cognitive areas, because the human brain (and thus learning) does not function like a computer.
The brain works best with associations of the known. However, this ability is not (or hardly) exploited in school or in extracurricular sports/learning. Differential learning is based on the assumption that the human being has the ability to learn the right movement etc.
within himself. Often this approach is not, or not yet, accepted in training practice due to a lack of understanding. Many coaches believe that if the athlete develops the correct movement himself, the coach figure becomes superfluous.
This is not the case at all, rather the other way round, there are more and more and even more difficult tasks for the coach. (More on this later) At this point, it must be pointed out that conventional training (program theory view) is not wrong or bad compared to differential learning, it is based on a different principle and ultimately leads to success. However, results from recent studies have shown that learning through differential learning has a faster success rate.
A classic example of the system-dynamic approach (differential learning) to motor learning can be found in the learning to walk of small children. Until learning the target movement (upright walking), the learning process is characterized by very high fluctuations in the execution of movements. The learning process takes place exclusively through independent trial and error.
Parents seldom break down walking into partial movements and teach small children by means of compound partial methods. However, the target movement is always achieved to near perfection. The child experiences a great sense of movement due to the high fluctuations in learning to move.
Differential learning is based on the assumption that movements, regardless of the type of sport, contain a very high degree of individual factors. This can be seen very clearly in the example of the technique in tennis of the two sportsmen (Roger Federer and Raphael Nadal). Both play at the highest level with completely different techniques.
It is therefore very difficult to determine a technical model, since each person has different dispositions to solve a movement task. The differential approach thus calls into question the guiding principles of technology when learning to move. A further factor from the system-dynamic approach (differential learning) is that movements are always subject to high fluctuations.
It is practically impossible to perform the same hit/shot/throw etc. twice under the same conditions because too many external and internal factors disturb the movement. It is precisely these fluctuations (called errors in the program theory approach) that differential learning exploits in order to enable the widest possible range of movements.Thus, as with the program theoretical approach, the aim is to achieve the individual optimal target movement, but in differential learning the human being is understood as a self-learning system.
The human being strives for differences. Both on the physiological and on the neurological side. Therefore, this also applies to strength training.
The same training with the same weights and the same number of repetitions will probably not achieve the desired success in the long run. Anyone who trains for years in the area of hypertrophy (muscle building) will achieve greater success in muscle building with a single training stimulus in the strength endurance area than another hypertrophy stimulus. Many (but not all) trainers do not understand the intention of this approach, however, and misinterpret the fluctuations mentioned.
It goes without saying that the right amount of movement variation is important. These differences, also known as “noise”, must be chosen by the trainer in such a way that a reference to the optimal movement is always guaranteed. Let’s look at the serve in tennis, for example.
Differential learning involves a changed environmental condition (choice of racket, choice of ball) and changed technique components (foot position, hip use, arm use, grip position etc. etc.). Typical errors that are well known to the coach are consciously integrated into the execution of the movement in order to provoke adaptation in the neural network (neural plasticity).
However, the focus and the selection of the sway must always provoke the achievement of the target movement. Therefore, it is not beneficial to simulate an impact from below, since the extent of the movement is very far away from the target movement (impact from above). In the ideal case, a so-called noise is deliberately used for each movement execution.
If the learning of movement is varied by differential learning around the respective target movement, it enables the learner to react variably in future movement sequences. This leads to an interpolarization of the technique. Let’s take the example of tennis: In free play, the player has to react to an ever-changing movement situation through the influence of the opponent.
Due to the fluctuations in movement learning, the athlete is given a greater scope of movement and action. The target movement is not linked to the trainer’s technical concept, but develops for each player himself in the course of development. We speak of a solution area.
The proof of differential learning has been proven several times in practical studies. The classical approach (program theoretical view/methodical exercise series) and differential learning were compared. In the areas of basketball, soccer, tennis and shot put, significant performance improvements have already been observed.
Due to the rule changes in the 90 years there have been fundamental changes in handball. This structural change enabled a much higher playing tempo and more dynamics. Since then, the performance prerequisite or the conditional requirement profile has moved more and more into the foreground.
Elementary for the sport of handball is not only tactics and stamina, but also learning the right technique and therefore the right technique training. When learning a technique, a distinction is made between two different methods:
- Program theoretical (traditional) approach
- System dynamic (differential) APPROACH
The so-called conservative program theoretical approach comes from classical psychology and sees the human being in learning movements as a pure information processing system. So-called generalized motor programs (gmP) are developed.
A newly learned movement is thus a new centrally stored program. This learning method is characterized by a high number of repetitions in the same situation. In tennis, this would mean repeating the same stroke over and over again.
Coarse coordination –> fine coordination –> fine coordination Classical teaching methods are With the program theoretical approach, a number of problems occur, which are briefly summarized below. Control and correction is always done by the teacher or trainer under external control. There is no evidence for a central control system in the brain, on which the program theoretical approach is based.
The natural fluctuation within the movement is always present, even in high-performance sports. More on this topic under: Motor Learning
- Methodical principles
- Methodical exercise series
- Methodical game series
The basis for the system dynamic, differential approach is physics.This approach sees humans as a synergetic, non-linear, chaotic system that learns by self-organizing. Learning to move is a process of searching and experiencing perception, perception and experience.
In comparison to the program theoretical approach, there is no standardized movement process. Variability –> instability –> self-organizationThe execution variability is consciously used and applied in differential learning in order to provoke the greatest possible variation within the movement. This triggers the process of self-organisation.
Note: Small children learn to walk in the differential system. Differential learning offers various possibilities to consciously create variability within a movement.
- Differences in the spatial execution of movement
- Differences in spatial-temporal motion execution (speed)
- Differences in dynamic motion execution (acceleration)
- Differences in the temporal execution of movements (rhythm)
All articles in this series: