Produced famous player x" or something like that.

I don't think these people would ever care what skill acquisition science finds. They are just not open to science a lot of the time, in my experience.

There are many training activities that are quite obviously motivated by the idea that skill acq is the storage of context-independent movement patterns.

I don't think it's some great evil for coaches to use those activities but the justification is usually just "well this coach did it and they

Thanks for signposting the barrett et al article, i hadn't seen it. What I mean by "received view" of skill is that coaches may not know or explicitly think about it but it pervades practice via copying and means you mention.

coaching practice, and I don't have data on the prevalence of these practices so I'd be open to changing my mind if shown convincing data to the contrary.

Curious on your thoughts.

I don't make it some big moral issue and I think kids being active, outside, interacting with caring adults is certainly a net positive so inefficient skill acq doesn't trigger me like it does some, but I do think we can do better.

Of course, some of this is anecdotal. I don't study

coaches right now (lovely people). What's painfully obvious is that the recieved view of coaching is centered around getting kids to repeat movements and then hopefully stand in the right areas of the pitch.

So, it does feel to me that this is where coaches start out more often than not.

training event it seems clear to me that this individual-level definition of skill still motivates practice design. Nick Gearing's work has also shown that football academy coaches are still attached to individual technical training.

Anecdotally, I'm working with a few new grassroots football

For example, practice fidelity will defined differently depending on whether you think skill is an adaptive functional performer-environment relationship or a property of the individual performer.

I still see a lot of advocacy for the latter, and if you roll up to a random youth sports

What evidence supports this form of inclusivity? I have a sense that supporters of mixing feel they are inherently less dogmatic or more nuanced, but is enforcing C (A+B) any different than enforcing A or B?

Second is the idea that CLA creates straw men.

that I find a bit concerning right now.

First is a sort of generic "both/and" inclusivity that doesn't allow for preference/selectivity.

I think we need to have a serious discussion about whether doing both A and B is actually doing A and B, or a third thing C.

Thanks for these thoughtful insights.

I think we've agreed that these LP vs NLP studies have key limitations as a general format (relying on group mean and assuming the purpose of skill acq research is to draw a box around around a set of activities).

But there are two trends in skill acq

To my knowledge, Ripoll never tested this requirement empirically.

We have the data to answer this question now. Results will be out shortly!

Finally, Ripoll's claims echo Alan Newell's confidence in an independent "knowledge level" operating in distinction from physical dynamical processes.

This requires the process in question to unfold at a single, "vertically separated" timescale (Simon, 1977).

I'm far more likely to look at a specific academic's google scholar or researchgate page to see what they've been working on or read up on a topic/area.

Do I just not pay much attention to journals? Part of me wonders if it's a bit generational based on days of print journals.

Thoughts?

Interesting read. As an ecological psychologist I would have worried I was creating a straw man of mainstream cognitive science if I attributed some of those definitions to them 😂 Seems like Pylyshyn's 1980 definition is still influential.