Exploring Non-Linear Pedagogy in PE

Written by Lee Sullivan in collaboration with Mo Jafar

In PE, learning can be defined as the ‘process of change within a learner’s intrinsic dynamics (i.e. inherent tendencies/characteristics of each learners movement repertoire),’ (Chow et al., 2016, p.46). There’s an increasing awareness of the limitations of common skill-drill approaches in PE as this method often fails to engage students effectively, lacking relevance, inclusivity, excitement, and fun. As humans, we get good at what we practise, therefore we want practice to be as specific as it can be whilst also being developmentally appropriate (Jafar, Walker and Beckey, 2023).

As I continue my learning journey, exploring methods that engage, enthuse, and support the learning and development of each student’s movement repertoire in PE, I keep returning to Non-Linear Pedagogy (NL). However, I have struggled to grasp this approach due to the complexity of the literature surrounding it, particularly in terms of practical application in PE lessons. Respected colleagues, such as Mo Jafar, have spoken publicly about the benefits and NL, which has motivated me to persist in my efforts to understand it better. This blog is my attempt to “think out loud” and provide an accessible introduction to NL. I hope to articulate why this method is worth exploring, what NL entails, and how we, as PE teachers, can effectively apply it in our practice.

Playground Revelations

When reading up on particular areas of research in PE, I often find myself considering how that might look in a PE lesson or life beyond PE. As mentioned, I had found the writing around NL to be difficult to digest, however on a rare, sunny morning at my local park whilst observing my son and daughter in the playground I had NL revelation. My children love to be timed and often compete against each other to be the first one to go on, over or through all of the playground equipment and make it back to me. My daughter decided that by climbing up the slide and swinging one handed a bar at a time across the monkey bars earlier on in the run, she could get back quicker, where as my son wanted to ascend the climbing wall first and then balance his way across the beam and finish by descending down the slide. Their natural curiosity and creativity led them to master the playground’s challenges. Through this exploration, they not only learned to navigate the equipment effectively but also found immense joy in the process. I could have set out a route for them, and told them how to climb the wall step by step or isolate the balance beam and spend time only on that, but by doing so, I would drain the fun out of the challenge and stifle their own exploration. There were a number of different ways to navigate this playground and who was I to say what was the right way to do it?

In PE, by focusing heavily on repetitive drills and specific techniques, we risk taking away the exploration, space for learning and fun that come from allowing students to find their own paths. Over-coaching and dictating exactly how skills should be performed can stifle creativity and adaptability, turning dynamic activities into monotonous routines. By over-coaching and dictating exactly how students should perform, the teacher might inadvertently stifle the students’ creativity and ability to adapt to different situations. Instead, we should leave space for exploration and personal discovery, fostering an environment where students can experiment, adapt, and enjoy the learning process. I am in no way suggesting that there is no longer a place for direct and explicit instruction, but that we should also provide opportunities to learn through exploration.

Explain, Demo, Replicate, Repeat

The skill-drill approach in PE is a commonly used method focused on repetitive practice of specific skills in a controlled environment. This approach often involves breaking down a skill into its component parts and having students practice these parts in isolation until they achieve a level of proficiency. PE lessons will follow the same pattern: explain the skill, demonstrate the skill, students replicate the skill, repeat the skill in isolation numerous times, repeat One significant critique of the skill-drill approach is its compatibility with the objective of nurturing intelligent, autonomous performers within sporting environments. In Sport, skilled behaviours emerge from the dynamic relationship formed between a performer, the environment and the task (Chow et al., 2016, page 37). Emphasising repetition without incorporating variability fails to challenge students to adapt to diverse situations, hindering their ability to develop problem-solving skills and adaptability crucial for success in real-world sporting scenarios.

In his book “How We Learn to Move: A Revolution in the Way We Coach & Practice Sports Skills” (2021), Rob Gray provides a compelling argument against the long-held belief that repetition is the key to learning new sporting skills. He expresses his frustrations with seeing static, isolated, and choreographed drills in sports that are usually dynamic and exciting. Gray presents the idea that skillful movers “do not achieve their goals by moving the same way every time” (p.12). He reviewed experiments that highlighted the variability of movements among performers, underscoring that attempting to repeatedly imitate a flawless model isn’t an effective method for learning, especially in high-pressure situations like competitive matches. Gray suggests that there must be a more effective approach to teaching and learning. One potential method involves encouraging exploration by manipulating various constraints. Gray proposes that as educators and coaches, our primary responsibility should be to develop players’ problem-solving skills and adaptability, rather than focusing solely on teaching a single “correct” technique.

The Adaptable Mover

Non-linear pedagogy, as detailed by Chow et al. (2016), introduces a dynamic method for skill acquisition in PE. In contrast to traditional linear approaches that stresses step-by-step progression, non-linear pedagogy recognises the complex and adaptive characteristics of learning movement skills. This approach encourages teachers to design environments rich in variability and exploration opportunities, tailored to the participants’ capabilities (or intrinsic dynamics). It’s important to note that while variability can be beneficial, there can also be ‘bad variability’ that leads to frustration and demotivation. Therefore, it’s crucial to match the level of variability and exploration to the needs of the learners. Instead of concentrating solely on correct technique, non-linear pedagogy focuses on cultivating adaptable and creative movers who can proficiently respond to the unpredictable demands of real-world movement scenarios.

Instead of adhering to rigid instructional drills, non-linear pedagogy encourages students to explore and experiment with their movements. ‘Educators are challenged to provide learning experiences for students that are realistic and which present opportunities for potential performance solutions to be generated by learners themselves.’ (Chow et al., 2007, p.3).  By providing an environment where students can try different techniques and find solutions on their own, teachers can foster a deeper understanding and a more personalised development of physical skills.

Non-Linear Pedagogy Principles

As summarised in the ‘Principles of Nonlinear Pedagogy in sport practice’ paper (Correia et al., 2018), NL has the five key principles. I have attempted to apply them to a PE context:

• Representative learning design: Learning should occur in environments that replicate key aspects of actual performance situations, providing learners with relevant information to guide their actions. An example might involve incorporating tasks that mimic common movements or challenges encountered with a small sided game.
• Developing relevant information-movement couplings: There should be a reciprocal relationship between perception and action to support the emergence of goal-directed behaviours. For example, in table tennis, students can be encouraged to observe the opponent’s positioning and movement patterns. This allows them to adjust their own positioning and shot selection dynamically during rallies. Students can use dynamic cues from their environment and opponents to guide their movements effectively, fostering the emergence of goal-directed behaviours in PE.
• Manipulation of constraints: Learning designs should involve the manipulation of conditions or boundaries to encourage exploration, discovery, and utilisation of effective movement solutions. This could include adjusting the size of the playing area, altering the number of players, or introducing obstacles or barriers to navigate around.
• Exploratory learning leveraging functional variability: Learning designs should embrace variability to enhance exploratory behaviours and adaptive responses, leading to the emergence of personalised movement solutions. PE teachers can encourage students to explore different movement solutions and techniques through open-ended tasks and appropriate challenges.
• Reducing conscious control of movement through attentional focus:  Instead of instructing students to think about their body parts (internal focus), PE teachers can use analogies or external cues to direct attention towards desired movement outcomes. For instance, rather than telling students to bend their knees and swing their arms when jumping, teachers could use the analogy of jumping over a big puddle. This external focus on the desired outcome (jumping over the puddle) allows students to engage in movement more instinctively and efficiently, leveraging self-organising mechanisms to guide their actions implicitly.

Considering Constraints

Constraints have been defined as boundaries or features which shape the emergence of behaviour by a learner seeking a stable state of organisation (Newell, 1986). Newell (1986) organised constraints into three distinct categories, offering a systematic framework for understanding how movement patterns arise during task performance. These categories comprise performer, environment, and task constraints.

I have done my best to summarise these constraint categories with an example of how a PE teacher might apply them within a PE lesson below:

• Performer constraints encompass the inherent physical and cognitive attributes of individuals, such as height, weight, and cognitive abilities.
• PE Lesson Example: In a PE lesson focusing on gymnastics, performer constraints may influence the types of movements learners can perform. The age and experience of some students might impact their ability to apply more complex strategies and tactics into a game situation.
• Environmental constraints include weather, surfaces and context.
• PE Lesson Example: If possible, take advantage of different surfaces if facilities allow, such as transitioning from grass to a gym floor to highlight how surface impacts movement and skills. Additionally, guide students to consider how weather conditions, like wind or rain, might affect their performance and encourage them to adapt their strategies accordingly. Finally, the context of the activity (e.g., the last minute of a competitive game or needing 5 points to win) may influence how students navigate and engage in activities effectively.
• Task constraints are specific to the performance context and include elements like game rules, equipment, and playing area boundaries.
• PE Lesson Example: In a PE lesson, task constraints may involve modifying the game rules to encourage specific skills development. For example, reducing the number of players on each team can create more opportunities for each player to engage with the game more frequently.

Essentially, the aim is to focus on the intended goal and determine the best combination of constraints to help learners develop multiple strategies to achieve that goal.

Non-Linear Pedagogy Practice

After discussing my learning with my team, I realised that knowing the principles alone isn’t enough to put them into action. So, we had to consider our current practice (the old way) and reflect on what this might look like applying the non-linear pedagogy approach (the new way).  

We then discussed what this might look like in specific lessons. Applying this learning to a football lesson on passing, the following was considered:

Linear Approach: Set up a standard grid size for passing exercises, focusing on practicing passes and movements in a predictable and controlled manner. Students would learn specific passing techniques first before considering different contexts or variables.

Non-Linear Approach: Introduce different sizes and shapes of grids (small, medium, large; thin/wide/long; circle/square/triangles) to vary the distances for passing and receiving. Students would start by receiving from one area and passing to another, with progressions involving moving to areas with fewer people (more space) after making a pass or receiving a pass. This setup encourages decision-making from the start as students must identify and move to open spaces, thereby linking perception and action without separating them. This contrasts with the old method of learning actions first and then adapting to different game-like situations.

Another Way, Not the Way

My exploration of non-linear pedagogy coincided with my reading of “The Spectrum of Teaching Styles in Physical Education” (SueSee, Hewitt and Pill, 2020). In this book, the authors clarify the eleven distinct teaching styles first presented by Muska Mosston in 1966. Each PE lesson can use different teaching styles to match the expected student outcomes and curriculum standards. These styles are chosen based on the lesson’s objectives and the students’ readiness, considering the activity being used. Some parts of a lesson might require a command style, while other tasks can be delivered using the guided discovery style. No one style is more important than any other.

Through this reading, I am increasingly realising that there is no one right way to deliver PE. You may know that I wrote the Concept Curriculum, and while I am a strong advocate of this approach, I would never claim it is the only way to deliver PE. It is one way that has worked for me and many others, but there are many other ways we must also consider. A teacher must decide how they will deliver the learning and why they have chosen this approach.

While I continue to explore non-linear pedagogy, it is important to stress that I am not advocating it as the only way. There are times when a linear approach is required. For example, in a netball lesson, I might have students explore different ways to pass the ball as a worthwhile activity. However, there is also value in showing students how to use a specific pass to progress quickly and efficiently to more challenging learning.

In PE, thinking there is only one way to deliver lessons can be problematic. If we consider a Venn diagram, with the linear approach in one circle and the non-linear approach in another, the overlap represents a valuable grey area. We might find more value spending time in that grey area rather than relying solely on one method of delivery.

Final Thoughts

I am still early on in my journey to understanding and applying this method of PE delivery; however, I hope that this ‘thinking out loud’ blog has provided some clarity in and practical application examples of NL. This blog serves as my current understanding of the topic and may evolve as I continue on my journey to understanding NL.

This method not only aims to improve physical skills but also to promote problem-solving, creativity, and enjoyment. Students are more likely to stay engaged and motivated when they have the freedom to explore and the opportunity to succeed through their own efforts. Just as my children found their unique ways to navigate the playground, students in a non-linear pedagogy framework can discover and develop their own effective movement strategies, making physical education a more enriching and enjoyable experience.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Mo Jafar for his invaluable support and guidance in clarifying the fundamental concepts of NL. His insights and explanations were instrumental in helping me navigate and appreciate the complexities of NL, and whilst I am still learning, I am much more confident now than I was, because of him.

References

Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C. and Renshaw, I. (2016) Nonlinear Pedagogy in Skill Acquisition: An Introduction. Routledge. 

Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I. and Araujo, D. (2007) ‘The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education’. Review of Educational Research 77(3):pp. 251-278. Sage Publications.

Correia, V., Carvalho, J., Araujo, D., Pereira, E. and Davids, K. (2018) Principles of nonlinear pedagogy in sport practice. Sheffield Hallam University.

Gray, R. (2021) How We Learn to Move: A Revolution in the Way We Coach & Practice Sports Skills. Perception Action Consulting & Education LLC

Newell, K. M. (1986) ‘Constraints on the Development of Coordination’. In M. G. Wade and H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor Development in Children: Aspects of Coordination and Control (pp. 341-360). The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4460-2_19

SueSee, B. and Pill, S. (2018). Game-Based Teaching and Coaching as a Toolkit of Teaching Styles. Strategies, 31(5), 21–28.

Walker, N., Beckey, A., Jafar, Mo. (2023). Implementing Nonlinear Pedagogy in Physical Education. AfPE PE Matters.