Presented at the 40th NSCA National Conference in Las Vegas on July 14th, 2017. This presentation discusses the intersection between motor learning and motivation using self-determination theory as a guide. Learn how optimizing your athlete/client's sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness leads to a motivational environment that nurtures skill development.

1. STOP SHOUTING! I Can’t Hear My Motivation Talking
Nick Winkelman, PhD | Head of Athletic Performance & Science | Irish Rugby

2. mo·ti·va·tion:
The reason or reasons one has for acting
or behaving in a particular way

3. What do we typically think about when we
hear the word ‘Motivation’?

6. Remember The Person
That Gave Up?
Neither does
anyone else!

7. What do all these forms of motivation have
in common?
Externally Regulated

8. Is BEING motivated the same as
being motivated?
Probably Not

9. Empty

10. GONE

11. Alone

12. How sustainable and effective is
this form of motivation?

13. ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

14. Motivation
01 ‘Self-Determination Theory’

15. SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
Within social-cognitive theory, SDT proposes
that intrinsic motivation emerges in accordance
with the fulfillment of psychological needs
SDT emphasizes the “role of the environment
(i.e., coach) in fueling people’s perceptions of
self-determined autonomy, competence, and
relatedness”
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Mallett, 2005)

16. Autonomy
(Control)
CompetenceRelatedness
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY

17. Autonomy
(Control)
Competence
Relatedness
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
The opportunity to govern one’s self;
freedom from unwanted external control
and influence; self-directed
The ability and belief in one’s ability to
successfully perform a task; self-efficacy
The connection one has with others;
shared empathy and the ability to relate
to another person’s point of view

18. Intrinsic
Motivation
Integrated
Regulation
Identified
Regulation
Amotivation
External
Regulation
Introjected
Regulation
Enjoyment,
pleasure,
and fun
No rewards
Integrated
behaviors
satisfying a
psych-
ological
need
Behaviors
based on
identified
value to
individual
Lack of
personal
intention or
causation
Behaviors
based on
avoiding
external
punishment
or gaining
rewards
Behaviors
based on
avoiding
external
disapproval
or gaining
approval
Basic Psychological Needs
Autonomy RelatednessCompetence
Extrinsic Motivation
High (Control) Autonomy Low (Control) Autonomy
Integrated High LowInternalization (Ryan & Deci, 2007)

19. Internal
(Intrinsic)
Partially
Internal
External
(Extrinsic)
Partially
External
Sport is a part
of who I am.
I am driven to
win, but I also
love the
environment
and the
competition
I play sport
because I
enjoy the
competition,
but most of
all, I love
to win
I play sport
because I feel
pressured to
do so by my
parents and
coach
I play sport
because all
of my friends
play and I
want to fit it
Self-Determined Non Self-Determined
High Internalization Low Internalization
Motivation: Sport Example
Amotivation
There is no
point trying
as my
success is
unlikely or
impossible
Intrinsic
I love sport
and will
continue
playing
throughout
my life

20. How do I influence one’s Self-
Determination as a coach?

21. Controlling Behaviors:
“Pressure to think, feel, or behave in specified
ways, thereby ignoring the person’s needs and
feelings…Power-assertive…Pressure to comply.”
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003, p. 886)

22. Autonomy-Supportive Behaviors:
“Takes the other’s perspective, acknowledges
the other’s feelings, and provides the other with
pertinent information and opportunities for
choice, while minimizing the use of pressure
and demands.”
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003, p. 886)

23. Motivation emerges when the basic psychological needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fulfilled
Motivation is multidimensional and changes based on
the task, situation, and environment
Coaches can affect motivation through developing
controlling or autonomy-supportive environments
Take Home Message

24. Should motivation just … motivate …
or is there something else?

25. Motor Learning
02 ‘Self-Determination Theory’

26. More Effort
& Persistence
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)

27. Perform
Better
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)

28. (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)
Concentration

29. (Sanli et al., 2013)
Providing individuals with controlled choice over a specific practice
variable has been shown to improve motor learning and skill acquisition
Choice No Choice

30. When given the opportunity to control feedback, individuals
will request feedback less often the more they perform a task
(Chiviacowsky et al., 2008)

31. When given the opportunity to control feedback, players will
request feedback <30% of the time (as low as 7%)
(Chiviacowsky et al., 2008; Janell et al., 1995/1997)

32. Players will request feedback after successful trials more
often than they will request feedback after poor trials
(Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002/2007)

33. (Wulf &Toole, 1999; Keetch & Lee, 2007; Andrieux et al., 2012 )
Providing individuals with choice over progressions and difficulty
has been shown to improve motor learning and skill acquisition

34. Practice is individualised to the player
(i.e., Feedback, Demonstrations, & Progressions)
Players can request feedback after ‘good reps’
Players extract more information from demonstrations
Self-control leads to higher motivation, active involvement in
the learning process, and deeper information processing
Take Home Message
(Wulf, 2007)

35. How do I apply this principle in my setting?

36. Motivational Environment
03 ‘Autonomy…Competence...Relatedness’

37. mo·ti·va·tion; move·ment; mo·tor:
Share the Latin Root movere, meaning to move

38. “Humans are more than neutral processors of
information, and evidence suggests that learning
is optimized by practice conditions that account
for motivational factors.”
(Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2012, p. 173)

39. MOTIVATIONMOTOR LEARNING

40. Autonomy

41. Provide controlled choice when appropriate
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)

42. (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)
Provide a rationale for programming elements
and any training limitations

43. (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)
Acknowledge the player’s feelings and
perspectives relative to the training process

44. (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003)
Empower players to take initiative within and
outside of the training process

45. Competence

46. Purposeful struggle engages the client while
preserving their sense of competence
Comfort Zone
>80% Success
“Sweet Spot”
50-80% Success
Survival Zone
<50 Success
(Chiviacowsky et al., 2012; Coyle, 2012)

47. Low
Beginner
Intermediate
Skilled
Expert
PotentialforLearning
High
Low HighTask Difficulty (Progression)
=
Optimal Task
Difficulty
Challenge Point Hypothesis
(Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004)

48. (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2005; West et al., 2005)
Positive feedback
drives learning &
motivation

49. (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002/2007)
Reinforce the good
more often than
correcting the bad

50. Provide feedback
on the ‘Process’
over the ‘Person’
“I can see that your hard
work is paying off, your
pass/kick has improved”
VS.
“You have
amazing ability”
(Kamins & Dweck, 1999)

51. RELATEDNESS

52. Group training environments create the
strongest opportunity for relatedness

53. Create individual challenge within the context of a
unified group effort…create a common bond

54. When possible create opportunities for individuals
to PR and rally the team around their effort

55. Create a culture where individual and team
success are one

56. Provide players with the opportunity to interact
within the context of training sessions

57. Player interaction will result in peer coaching
and observational learning

58. Give players a stage to be heard…Start and finish every
session with a message…”Whose Got The Breakdown”

59. TAKE HOME MESSAGE
04

60. Optimizing the motivational climate involves a balance of
contribution from the coach and the player

61. Autonomy-supportive environments enrich athletes and help them to feel
“self-determined” in their development of competence and relatedness

62. Developing environments that drive relatedness act as a protective
agent over an athlete’s competence and affirms their use of autonomy

63. 63© 2014 Athletes’ Performance, Inc.
In the end…
It is not about motivating the player, rather, it is
about creating an environment that allows
players to motivate themselves

64. _ Andrieux, M., Danna, J., & Thon, B. (2012). Self-control of task difficulty during training enhances motor learning of
a complex coincidence-anticipation task. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 83(1), 27-35.
_ Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get
feedback when they need it?. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(4), 408-415.
_ Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2007). Feedback after good trials enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 78(2), 40-47.
_ Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., de Medeiros, F. L., Kaefer, A., & Tani, G. (2008). Learning benefits of self-controlled
knowledge of results in 10-year-old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(3), 405-410.
_ Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Self-controlled learning: the importance of protecting
perceptions of competence. Frontiers in psychology, 3.
REFERENCES

65. _ Coyle, D. (2012). The little book of talent: 52 tips for improving your skills. Random House
LLC.
_ Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior,
1985.
_ Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy.
GP Putnam's Sons.
_ Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry,11(4), 227-268.
_ Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the
effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of motor behavior, 36(2),
212-224.
REFERENCES

66. _ Janelle, C. M., Kim, J., & Singer, R. N. (1995). Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of a closed motor
skill. Perceptual and motor skills,81(2), 627-634.
_ Janelle, C. M., Barba, D. A., Frehlich, S. G., Tennant, L. K., & Cauraugh, J. H. (1997). Maximizing performance feedback
effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 68(4), 269-279.
_ Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: implications for contingent self-worth and
coping. Developmental psychology, 35(3), 835.
_ Keetch, K. M., & Lee, T. D. (2007). The effect of self-regulated and experimenter-imposed practice schedules on motor
learning for tasks of varying difficulty. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 78(5), 476-486.
_ Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2012). 10 Motor learning through a motivational lens. Skill Acquisition in Sport: Research, Theory
and Practice, 173.
REFERENCES

67. _ Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of sports
science, 21(11), 883-904.
_ Mallett, C. J. (2005). Self-Determination Theory: A Case Study of Evidence-Based Coaching. Sport
psychologist, 19(4).
_ Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of positive feedback in sport
and physical education: evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(2).
_ Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). How you provide corrective feedback makes a difference: the
motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting way. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 32(5).
_ Nieuwenhuis, S., Slagter, H. A., Geusau, V., Alting, N. J., Heslenfeld, D. J., & Holroyd, C. B. (2005). Knowing good from
bad: differential activation of human cortical areas by positive and negative outcomes. European Journal of
Neuroscience, 21(11), 3161-3168.
_ Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
REFERENCES

68. _ Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2007). Active human nature: Self-determination theory and the
promotion and maintenance of sport, exercise, and health. Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in exercise and sport, 1-19.
_ Sanli, E. A., Patterson, J. T., Bray, S. R., & Lee, T. D. (2012). Understanding self-controlled motor
learning protocols through the self-determination theory.Frontiers in psychology, 3.
_ Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed
to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159-188.
_ West, R. L., Bagwell, D. K., & Dark-Freudeman, A. (2005). Memory and goal setting: the response of
older and younger adults to positive and objective feedback. Psychology and aging, 20(2), 195.
REFERENCES

69. _ Wulf, G., & Toole, T. (1999). Physical assistance devices in complex motor skill learning: Benefits of
a self-controlled practice schedule. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3), 265-272.
_ Wulf, G. (2007). Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: implications for
physiotherapy. Physiotherapy, 93(2), 96-101.
_ Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and
attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic bulletin & review,
23(5), 1382-1414.
_ Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., Cardozo, P., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2017). Triple play: Additive contributions
of enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and external attentional focus to motor learning.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1-22.
REFERENCES