Ecological Dynamics Simplified

In 2017, I stumbled upon a skill acquisition theory known as Ecological Dynamics. The more I listened to podcasts and webinars on this theory the more my curiosity was peaked, and eventually I began reading books, journals and online resources devoted to the framework and its concepts.  It did not take long to get hooked.

​

However, one thing was very clear.  The language and terminology around this theory was difficult to navigate.  It was based on academic and research terminology and language from the fields of Skill Acquisition, Dynamical Systems Theory and Ecological Psychology.  Two of these three were very foreign to me, but I even discovered that the language of skill acquisition was quite different from the language of skill development within the game of hockey.

​

I quickly discovered that my biggest task was going to be deciphering the language and understanding the terminology.  And a considerable task it was. There was a lot of new terminology to learn and understand.  But it was more then just learning and understanding it.  I also wanted to simplify it for other coaches I worked with.  Many coaches pull back from this framework and others like it because of the terminology and language.  My goal was to try and help coaches understand it easily in hopes of them seeing its virtue and value.

​

​

What is Ecological Dynamics?

Ecological Dynamics is a skill acquisition theory that places the relationship between the athlete and the environment (practice and/or game) at the center of the learning process.  This is a simple definition.  But to fully understand the theory we really do need to dig a little deeper.  Understanding the core principles of the theory may help.

​

1. Skill emerges from the player's interactions within the environment. Its not just the environment that is central to skill acquisition.  The interactions the player has within the environment are key.  The interactions we are referring to are those the player has with the variety of information they collect from the environment.  We call these information sources constraints.  The number of players, the location of players, the space they have, the space they do not have, the location of the puck, location of a stick, location of the goalie, time in the game, score of the game, rules of the game.  The list of information sources (i.e. constraints) can be endless.  The emergence of skill within a player is based on how they learn to interact with these sources of information. 
   

2. Skill emerges from a continuous process of perception-action coupling. This principal piggy backs off the first principle.  In principle #1 above we highlighted the value of the interactions between the player and the environment, the interaction with sources of information.  In order for players to interact with these sources they must first be able to perceive them.  They must see, feel, and/or hear them.  Once a player has perceived information, they can then act on it. In this theory, the emergence, or development, of skill comes from a constant cycle of perceiving information and acting upon it.  But here is the kicker.  This theory suggests that perception and action need to remain coupled for skill to fully develop.  If you remove perception and only ask the player to act it will not be sufficient.  Isolated or unopposed drills remove perception and break the coupling. 
   

3. Skill development, and learning, is non-linear (as opposed to linear). This last principle is the one that defines this theory in a way that differentiates it from what is the more traditional or dominant approach used in our game.  In simple terms, non-linear learning does not prescribe a one solution for all or the notion of the one ideal solution.  Non-linear learning does not move players through a path of strict, predetermined sequences. Linear learning is the opposite.  Linear learning is very much "A before B before C".  Structured approaches are used to present content in predetermined sequences and progressions to move step by step from simple to more complex. Coach education and most methods used in our game lean more to linear then non-linear learning.

​

​

Things to Consider  

I coached using linear learning much more then non-linear for most of my coaching career.  That was how I was coached, and that is what I learned from coach education and other training I had taken.  When I started to move more into this framework, I realized there were other considerations and impacts.

​

1. The Definition of Skill. Skill was always skating, passing, shooting, puck control and checking.  The technical elements of the game.  I defined techniques as skills.  In this theory I needed to accept a new definition.  Skill was now a decision-making, problem solving quality.  It only exists within a game (or game like) context.  Being skilled meant a player had the ability to perceive the environment and act accordingly by effectively applying techniques to solve problems.  “Being skillful does not involve executing a movement…drilled into our head through repetition. Being a skillful mover relies on adaptive problem solving” (Gray, 2019)  

2. Constraints Led Approach In this theory, with its core principles and definition of skill, it was now obvious I could not use the methods I had always used.  The constraints led approach became my new method.  Its safe to say this method is the choice for coaches following this theory.  For more on this method see my previous blog post on Coaching with a Constraints Led Approach. 
   

3. Representativeness To achieve skill development with this theory it was necessary to ensure the practice environment was as much like the game as possible.  It did not need to look exactly like the game, but it needed to represent elements of the game.  Sources of information that were common in the game needed to be in practice.  Representative learning design was now essential which meant removing isolated, unopposed drilling, or at least greatly minimizing it.

​​

​

Greatest Take-Aways

​

Having adjusted my coaching to this theory, here is what I can share:

​

• Players love it.  Practice is full of competitive, game like activities, and players feel like they are "playing the game" much more in practice.

  
  

• Practice to game transfer is greatly enhanced.  Because players are constantly facing the same problems the game presents them they are learning how to solve them...in different ways.  This transfers to the game very effectively.

  ​

• Technical proficiency can be improved.  Starting out I clung to the belief that you would not be able to improve skating, passing, shooting and puck control with this approach.  You would still need to do isolated drilling to work on technical elements.  I found this not to be the case.  Players I worked with were getting better not just in their skillfulness, decision making, etc. but their technical base was expanding and improving.

  ​

• Its easier then I thought.  First impression was that all this constraints led approach, representative learning design and non-linear stuff was going to make it harder to design practice sessions and deliver them.  Not so.  Once you get a grasp, it actually can become easier.  Practice planning turned more into practice preparation.

  ​

• And last but not least...it became the best solution to developing hockey sense.  Throughout all practice activities players are being asked to perceive information, think, act upon it, solve problems...and when you fail, try it again or try something different.