6 ms·

Great point on competition in schools. The competitive focus of sports in schools rewards those that are already athletically gifted while shaming and discourag

Great point on competition in schools. The competitive focus of sports in schools rewards those that are already athletically gifted while shaming and discouraging the mediocre. That's great if the purpose of PE is to create elite athletes. If the point is to encourage a healthier population by instilling an appreciation for sport and physical activity in kids it's an abject failure. Kids that are already good at sports love PE, while less gifted kids develop a disdain for sport and by adulthood have often dropped all sports and exercise.

divan 3y ago
Yes, and it's not just in schools. Drawing from SDT (self-determination theory), one of the main predictors for motivation is a psychological need called 'competence' (perception of whether your actions lead to the feeling of growth or accomplishment). Different actions and situations can send either a positive competence signal to a person (and increase motivation) or a negative one (and decrease motivation). These things are measurable. The main issue with competitions is that they send positive competence signal to one person (winner) and negative to everyone else. Like you trained for months, and now you've lost. This leads to increased dropout rates in sports, which are especially pronounced in kids. Norwegians asked the question – instead of spending money and effort to try to engage people and kids in sports, maybe we should ask a question, 'Why do they drop out in the first place' and prevent those? Competitions came as one of the strongest predictors of dropping out of sports, hence the policy.
- vladms 3y ago
  Depends on the competition format a bit. You can also have rankings and while they are not ideal either, probably it will not be as bad as "send positive competence signal to one person (winner)". For example if you do a single elimination tournament of course people eliminated in first round will get bored and not interested (you can't even make a proper ranking) Focusing on winners only is a societal choice though. I have met people (in countries were a lot of people like doing sport) that were practicing a sport and joining competitions for years even though they were not very competent in that sport - because it was their hobby and they just enjoyed being there.
  - divan 3y ago
    Yes, and we're talking about statistically measurable things. There is plenty of room to experiment with different reward systems in competitions. For example, in Finland, there is an alternative figure skating judging system for kids' competitions, and they have medals (1,2, and 3 place), but everyone else is the rest. Thus they send a positive competence signal to the winner and a relatively weak negative competence signal to others (i.e. no one is labeled "worst", plus everyone gets some prize reward). Tennis' Play&Stay program for kids under 10 years old is also a good example – they use different tournament structures, so no one feels like they lost.
somenameforme 3y ago
This has not been my experience in sports, not even remotely so. I was never once shamed for the sports I sucked at. Quite the opposite my teammates were always there to try to help me out and help me generally improve, even when I was playing shamefully poorly. There is a huge amount of bonding in sports, team and individuals, because you all go through the training together, losses together, and of course also the wins. School sports also have generally divisions: typically varsity, junior varsity, and then intramural. There's something for everybody. If anything, the hardest part about sports is that you have to be the sort of person who can try their hardest, compete, lose and then use that as motivation to further improve yourself. Do you know how it feels to give something your all, and then fail - all in front of hundreds of people counting on you? And then come back from that? It's not easy. Behind any champion you're going to see a lot of pain and loss that they had to overcome. It's not like you're born a champ and everything is just easy. People of course are not equal, but the struggle is something we all deal with, and sports really helps with that.
- divan 3y ago
  It's awesome that you have this experience. So, to be clear, competition – with rewards, prizes, and medals – is a form of extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is often very powerful (gun at your head – also an extrinsic motivator – will motivate you to do what's asked). The problem, though, is that it's short-lived. So if you were a sports minister who tries to maximize people's involvement in sports (at all ages), you would prefer to have more intrinsic motivation to sports, rather then extrinsic.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    I would, of course, completely agree that intrinsic motivation > all. But I think you're also arguing something quite a bit different here than you were earlier. Rankings, in particular, are extremely important. They provide you a reasonably objective measure of seeing yourself improve, and they also help you determine who is a proper opponent for yourself. In chess, for instance, a 200 point rating difference usually gives the stronger player an expectation of about 3:1. And ratings range from about 500 to just under 2900. So those ratings are absolutely critical in order to find an opponent at your skill level. In sport the exact same thing is true, with similarly wide scales of ability. I think the humility that rankings force upon one is also a very important part of sport and improvement. So for instance about the Norway anecdote you gave (related to the prohibition on youth rankings from the 70s onward), Norway was always absolutely god tier at the winter Olympics, long before the 70s. In the 6 Olympic games from 1924-1952 they came in overall #1 5 times, and #2 once. In the 12 games since 1980, they've only came in overall #1 3 times. [1] Their total number of medals has increased, like everybody's, because many more events, and occasionally even new sports, have been added to the Olympics over time. I would not read much into this one way or the other, beyond pointing out that it's not a particularly relevant anecdote. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_at_the_Olympics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_at_the_Olympics
sokoloff 3y ago
I laughed out loud the first time I heard the band name "Gym Class Heroes" because I instantly identified with part of what you said in terms of some kids hating gym class. On the other hand, I think that there are kids who are coordinated/sporty/physically talented and just as we celebrate and nurture the academic talents of academically talented kids, I think it's good to celebrate and nurture the talents of physically talented kids. Not everyone is going to excel at academics and if we steer schools to only encourage excellence in certain areas, I think we risk discouraging those who excel in other areas from feeling good about themselves.
bigbluesax 3y ago
I don't even think it's a good strategy for creating elite athletes. Can we really determine someone's "elite potential" by how good they are as a young kid? If one kid has parents who took them skating a couple of times and the other didn't, the first one is going to absolutely destroy the second in a competition, but does that really tell us anything about how they will perform, 10 years down the line at the olympics? Yet we filter out anyone who doesn't conform to this standard.
- divan 3y ago
  True. Traditional (and still popular) beliefs that sports talents can be identified early are questioned a lot within the sports science community. [1] Canada has implemented a scientifically-based LTD (Long-Term Development) model of sports development [2], and while it's based a bit on concepts of optimal windows of trainability (like the age where flexibility is trained best), it draws on the fact that everyone's journey in sports is unique. This non-linearity is also a basis of a modern coaching science known as the Constraint-Led Approach (CLA) [3] – it's basically a non-linear pedagogy applied to motor skill acquisition practices. [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.0066... [2] https://sportforlife.ca/long-term-development/ https://sportforlife.ca/long-term-development/ [3] https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Studies-in-Constraints-Based-Methodologies-in-Sport/book-series/RSCBMS# https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Studies-in-Constraints-B...

divan 3y ago

Yes, and it's not just in schools. Drawing from SDT (self-determination theory), one of the main predictors for motivation is a psychological need called 'competence' (perception of whether your actions lead to the feeling of growth or accomplishment). Different actions and situations can send either a positive competence signal to a person (and increase motivation) or a negative one (and decrease motivation). These things are measurable. The main issue with competitions is that they send positive competence signal to one person (winner) and negative to everyone else. Like you trained for months, and now you've lost. This leads to increased dropout rates in sports, which are especially pronounced in kids. Norwegians asked the question – instead of spending money and effort to try to engage people and kids in sports, maybe we should ask a question, 'Why do they drop out in the first place' and prevent those? Competitions came as one of the strongest predictors of dropping out of sports, hence the policy.

vladms 3y ago
Depends on the competition format a bit. You can also have rankings and while they are not ideal either, probably it will not be as bad as "send positive competence signal to one person (winner)". For example if you do a single elimination tournament of course people eliminated in first round will get bored and not interested (you can't even make a proper ranking) Focusing on winners only is a societal choice though. I have met people (in countries were a lot of people like doing sport) that were practicing a sport and joining competitions for years even though they were not very competent in that sport - because it was their hobby and they just enjoyed being there.
- divan 3y ago
  Yes, and we're talking about statistically measurable things. There is plenty of room to experiment with different reward systems in competitions. For example, in Finland, there is an alternative figure skating judging system for kids' competitions, and they have medals (1,2, and 3 place), but everyone else is the rest. Thus they send a positive competence signal to the winner and a relatively weak negative competence signal to others (i.e. no one is labeled "worst", plus everyone gets some prize reward). Tennis' Play&Stay program for kids under 10 years old is also a good example – they use different tournament structures, so no one feels like they lost.

somenameforme 3y ago

This has not been my experience in sports, not even remotely so. I was never once shamed for the sports I sucked at. Quite the opposite my teammates were always there to try to help me out and help me generally improve, even when I was playing shamefully poorly. There is a huge amount of bonding in sports, team and individuals, because you all go through the training together, losses together, and of course also the wins. School sports also have generally divisions: typically varsity, junior varsity, and then intramural. There's something for everybody. If anything, the hardest part about sports is that you have to be the sort of person who can try their hardest, compete, lose and then use that as motivation to further improve yourself. Do you know how it feels to give something your all, and then fail - all in front of hundreds of people counting on you? And then come back from that? It's not easy. Behind any champion you're going to see a lot of pain and loss that they had to overcome. It's not like you're born a champ and everything is just easy. People of course are not equal, but the struggle is something we all deal with, and sports really helps with that.

divan 3y ago
It's awesome that you have this experience. So, to be clear, competition – with rewards, prizes, and medals – is a form of extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is often very powerful (gun at your head – also an extrinsic motivator – will motivate you to do what's asked). The problem, though, is that it's short-lived. So if you were a sports minister who tries to maximize people's involvement in sports (at all ages), you would prefer to have more intrinsic motivation to sports, rather then extrinsic.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  I would, of course, completely agree that intrinsic motivation > all. But I think you're also arguing something quite a bit different here than you were earlier. Rankings, in particular, are extremely important. They provide you a reasonably objective measure of seeing yourself improve, and they also help you determine who is a proper opponent for yourself. In chess, for instance, a 200 point rating difference usually gives the stronger player an expectation of about 3:1. And ratings range from about 500 to just under 2900. So those ratings are absolutely critical in order to find an opponent at your skill level. In sport the exact same thing is true, with similarly wide scales of ability. I think the humility that rankings force upon one is also a very important part of sport and improvement. So for instance about the Norway anecdote you gave (related to the prohibition on youth rankings from the 70s onward), Norway was always absolutely god tier at the winter Olympics, long before the 70s. In the 6 Olympic games from 1924-1952 they came in overall #1 5 times, and #2 once. In the 12 games since 1980, they've only came in overall #1 3 times. [1] Their total number of medals has increased, like everybody's, because many more events, and occasionally even new sports, have been added to the Olympics over time. I would not read much into this one way or the other, beyond pointing out that it's not a particularly relevant anecdote. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_at_the_Olympics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_at_the_Olympics

sokoloff 3y ago

I laughed out loud the first time I heard the band name "Gym Class Heroes" because I instantly identified with part of what you said in terms of some kids hating gym class. On the other hand, I think that there are kids who are coordinated/sporty/physically talented and just as we celebrate and nurture the academic talents of academically talented kids, I think it's good to celebrate and nurture the talents of physically talented kids. Not everyone is going to excel at academics and if we steer schools to only encourage excellence in certain areas, I think we risk discouraging those who excel in other areas from feeling good about themselves.

bigbluesax 3y ago

I don't even think it's a good strategy for creating elite athletes. Can we really determine someone's "elite potential" by how good they are as a young kid? If one kid has parents who took them skating a couple of times and the other didn't, the first one is going to absolutely destroy the second in a competition, but does that really tell us anything about how they will perform, 10 years down the line at the olympics? Yet we filter out anyone who doesn't conform to this standard.

divan 3y ago
True. Traditional (and still popular) beliefs that sports talents can be identified early are questioned a lot within the sports science community. [1] Canada has implemented a scientifically-based LTD (Long-Term Development) model of sports development [2], and while it's based a bit on concepts of optimal windows of trainability (like the age where flexibility is trained best), it draws on the fact that everyone's journey in sports is unique. This non-linearity is also a basis of a modern coaching science known as the Constraint-Led Approach (CLA) [3] – it's basically a non-linear pedagogy applied to motor skill acquisition practices. [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00664/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.0066... [2] https://sportforlife.ca/long-term-development/ https://sportforlife.ca/long-term-development/ [3] https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Studies-in-Constraints-Based-Methodologies-in-Sport/book-series/RSCBMS# https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Studies-in-Constraints-B...