Making Learning Happen Pt. 2A: Optimizing Intrinsic Load Through Spacing & Retrieval Practice

Introduction

In this second part of the three-part series on making learning happen through drawing on cognitive load theory, we focus on optimizing intrinsic load. In part one, we established that when working memory becomes overloaded, learners find it too challenging to encode and process information, meaning that learning is less likely. Optimizing intrinsic load is key to ensuring that cognitive load is managed and learning occurs. In this article, we focus on two established strategies to optimize intrinsic load, spacing, and retrieval practice. These strategies are just as important for coach educators, so for those fulfilling this role, we ask you to read the article through this lens.

Spacing / Retrieval Practice

A critical factor determining any educational program's effectiveness is how the learning content is scheduled (Kang, 2016). There are two main ways to think about how content is presented to players. The first, and arguably most common, is massed practice, which is when learners are asked to practice a specific area of performance over a concentrated time period, for example:

• The players have been working on mastering ball possession for four consecutive weeks/training sessions. Naturally, and due to the volume of practice in this specific area, players are showing high performance levels. The coach follows a similar routine of designing similar practice activities and preceding questions to check for understanding against the key coaching points. Players become faster at answering these questions, and by the end of the four weeks, require no prompting from the coach.

Spaced practice, an alternative way to schedule learning, is characterized by the allowance of time between the initial exposure of the learning focus and when learners are asked to share their thinking and understanding of this learning focus. For example:

• After two weeks of the players developing their knowledge and skills of mastering ball possession, the coach spends the next session focussed on the out-of-possession topic of breaking up play. The design of the practice remains the same but the focus of the learning has changed. The week following a focus on breaking up play, the coach precedes to reintroduce the idea of mastering possession, but only for a part of the session.

This is an example of spaced practice as the coach has intentionally left a break between the learning of mastering ball possession. The reason why this is important and supports player learning is because it enables forgetting to happen. In massed practice scheduling, players are required to do little more than move beyond information that stays in their working memory, and so do not have to engage in deeper levels of reflective practice in searching for a response to a question posed by the coach. This relates to a common debate regarding the distinguishing features of performance vs. learning. Massed practice scheduling is associated with improvement in current performance, while spaced scheduling may result in lower current performance, but improved long-term learning.

In spaced practice, a time lag (i.e., the time between initial learning and the coming back to this learning) is created, which means information no longer sits in the working memory, but instead the long-term memory. This is beneficial, as retrieval now has to take place, which is an effortful activity and a necessary factor in the learning process. Through spaced retrieval, players can strengthen their understanding between what they currently know and what needs to be known to develop knowledge and understanding further, and application in practice (i.e., the performing of skills in contexts where these skills are required) (Wahlheim, Maddox, & Jacoby, 2014).

Skilful coach questioning where players are afforded time to reflect on their performance individually and as a group is an example of a retrieval strategy, as part of a spaced practice schedule. Often coaches are too quick to formulate a response on behalf of the players or rephrase the question when an answer is not immediately forthcoming (Cope, Harvey, Cushion, and Partington, 2016). These questions are typically considered ‘checking for understanding’ questions. They serve as a place for assessing knowledge of current performance but do not require learners to move beyond recalling what they already know. If the purpose of the question is to engage players in reflective practice of their performance we encourage coaches to pose a question after a period of performance. However, instead of requiring a response straight away, players need to be given opportunities to think about the response by playing the game and then discussing it with other players, for example:

• The coach stops the first practice focussed on developing ball mastery to retain possession after noticing play keeps breaking down due to a lot of passes being too difficult for players to control. The issue seems to be with the weight of the pass about the distance the pass is being played. The coach brings the players in and asks ‘I am noticing play is breaking down a lot, what might the reasons for this be?’ ‘I do not want an answer right now. Instead, I want you to go back into the practice and consider this question as play is occurring. If you need a break to discuss with others then we can do that. We will play for another repetition and then I will get your thoughts’.

The nature of the question asked might need to vary depending on who the question is being asked to. It might be that simpler questions (i.e., those with fewer responses) are asked of beginner players. This is because these players might become overwhelmed with an increased number of options available to them, and will unlikely have the pre-existing knowledge to know what the answer might be. A recognition from coaches that they might need to rephrase a question or support in identifying possible answers could be needed here. For more expert learners, the opposite can be said based on the principle of the expertise-reversal effect. In these instances, a problem through the way of a question could be set early in a practice session for the players to explore throughout it. The intention for expert players is to use retrieval strategies to activate their long-term memory, which strengthens knowledge and understanding and aids the transfer of this learning into new contexts.

Conclusion

By spacing the time between learning, natural forgetting will happen. This is good for learning so long as retrieval strategies are employed, such as questioning, as discussed in the main body of this article. Massed practice serves the purpose of improving short-term performance, but if the coach intends to support long-term learning, then spaced practice with retrieval has been suggested as an effective learning strategy. We encourage coaches to consider their questioning approach used, and whether this is achieving the purpose of learner recall based on something the coach has recently explained, or the purpose of reflective thinking, where the learners are required to think more deeply, and thus activate prior learning to solve the problem being posed. Finally, spaced practice with retrieval is equally applicable for coach educators working with student coaches. Spacing time between learning episodes and using strategies such as questioning to have student coaches recall information or reflect more deeply on their learning are important parts of their learning experience that support longer-term coach development.

References

Cope, E., Partington, M., Cushion, C. J., & Harvey, S. (2016). An investigation of professional top-level youth football coaches’ questioning practice. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 8(4), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2016.1157829

Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning: Policy implications for instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624708

Wahlheim, C. N., Maddox, G. B., & Jacoby, L. L. (2014). The role of reminding in the effects of spaced repetitions on cued recall: Sufficient but not necessary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034055

Biographies

Ed Cope is a Senior Lecturer in Sport Coaching at Loughborough University. He completed his BSc in Sport Coaching from Leeds Beckett University, his MSc in Sports Coaching Science from the University of Worcester, and his PhD at the University of Bedfordshire (all UK). Ed has also worked at the English Football Association, where he was responsible for the design and development of their education courses. Ed continues to support the English Football Association in the design and delivery of its coach education and talent ID provision and is active as a Coach Developer and deliverer of talent ID education in soccer.

Stephen Harvey is Professor in Coaching, Health, and Physical Education at Ohio University, OH, USA. He completed his BA (Hons) in Sport Studies at Northumbria University (UK), both his PostGraduate Certificate in Education (leading to teaching licensure in Physical Education & Geography) and Masters in Sport Pedagogy at Loughborough University (UK), before completing his PhD in Exercise Science from Oregon State University (US). His research is focused on teacher/coach pedagogy and practice and its influence on student/player learning. Stephen is a Coach Educator Developer and Coach Educator for US Soccer, and currently holds various head coaching roles in soccer in Ohio including within the Olympic Development Program, a high school girls program, and a 2011 competitive girls club team.