See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/50936610

Representative Learning Design and Functionality of Research and Practice in

Sport

Article in Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · February 2011

DOI: 10.1123/jsep.33.1.146 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

674 6,456

4 authors, including:

Ross Pinder Keith Davids

Paralympics Australia Sheffield Hallam University
51 PUBLICATIONS 1,893 CITATIONS 714 PUBLICATIONS 35,470 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Duarte Araujo
University of Lisbon
370 PUBLICATIONS 19,462 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Duarte Araujo on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-
lication in the following source:

Pinder, Ross A., Davids, Keith W., Renshaw, Ian, & Araujo, Duarte (2011)
Representative learning design and functionality of research and practice
in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(1), pp. 146-155.

This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47250/

c Copyright 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as

copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a
definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
 COMMENT
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 2011, 33, 146-155
© 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Representative Learning Design

and Functionality of Research
and Practice in Sport
Ross A. Pinder,1 Keith Davids,1 Ian Renshaw,1
and Duarte Araújo2
1Queensland University of Technology; 2Technical University of Lisbon

Egon Brunswik proposed the concept of “representative design” for psychological

experimentation, which has historically been overlooked or confused with another
of Brunswik’s terms, ecological validity. In this article, we reiterate the distinc-
tion between these two important concepts and highlight the relevance of the term
representative design for sports psychology, practice, and experimental design. We
draw links with ideas on learning design in the constraints-led approach to motor
learning and nonlinear pedagogy. We propose the adoption of a new term, repre-
sentative learning design, to help sport scientists, experimental psychologists, and
pedagogues recognize the potential application of Brunswik’s original concepts, and
to ensure functionality and action fidelity in training and learning environments.

Keywords: learning design, ecological dynamics, ecological validity, representa-

tive task design

Egon Brunswik proposed the term representative design as an alternative to

systematic design more than half a century ago (Brunswik, 1956; Dhami, Hertwig,
& Hoffrage, 2004). He advocated the study of psychological processes at the level
of organism–environment relations, an ideal focus for sport psychologists inter-
ested in research and practice. His ideas have been allied with tenets of James J.
Gibson’s theory of direct perception (Gibson, 1979), although Brunswikian ideals
have failed to be fully appreciated and integrated into the behavioral sciences. The
impact of these concepts has begun to be acknowledged by some in experimental
psychology research (e.g., Rogers, 2008), with principles of representative design
gaining greater recognition (e.g., Dhami et al., 2004; Hammond, 2001). Perhaps
the greatest acceptance of representative design has been in the study of adaptive
movement behaviors in sport and physical activity (see Araújo & Davids, 2009;
Beek, Jacobs, Daffertshofer, & Huys, 2003; Davids, 2008; Dicks, Davids, & Araújo,
2008; Fajen, Riley, & Turvey, 2009). However, despite the adoption of key aspects

Ross A. Pinder, Keith Davids, and Ian Renshaw are with the School of Human Movement Studies,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Duarte Araújo is with the Faculty of Human
Kinetics, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.

146
 Representative Learning Design   147

of representative design in practice (predominantly through striving for ecological

validity), a principled theoretical analysis has yet to be articulated in detail to guide
research and practice in sport psychology and sport science.
Over the years the concept of representative design has become entangled with
another of Brunswik’s terms, ecological validity (Araújo, Davids, & Passos, 2007),
which has been inadvertently adopted to refer to the generalizability of experimental
designs in sport psychology and other sports sciences. In this article, we clarify
differences between the concepts of ecological validity and representative design,
before discussing their relevance for the design of experimental tasks and learning
environments in sport. As a task vehicle, we highlight current research on perception
and action in sport, and demonstrate how representative design could be adapted
to provide experimental psychologists, sport scientists, and pedagogues with a
framework for assessing the functionality of experimental and learning designs.

Ecological Validity and Representative Design

Historically, experimental research designs have been inherently systematic in
nature, affording high levels of control and manipulation of individual variables,
as exemplified in sports science and motor learning research (Dhami et al., 2004).
External validity came to refer to the generalization of research findings from
the study of a specific sample, to either a larger population, often referred to as
population validity (Bracht & Glass, 1968), or to behavioral situations beyond the
experimental context and population studied (Lucas, 2003). In sport psychology,
concerns over external validity are exemplified in studies of expert performance
in sport, which have tended to examine behaviors of available participants such as
skilled undergraduate students (e.g., the use of skilled university-level golfers in the
study of expertise, Wulf & Su, 2007) rather than Olympians or elite athletes (e.g.,
the visual attention of truly elite balance acrobats, Wulf, 2008). Egon Brunswik
(1956, p. 39) proposed that “proper sampling of situations and problems may in the
end be more important than proper sampling of subjects.” His ecological approach
to studying cognition, perception, and action was implemented through the theo-
retical framework of probabilistic functionalism. This perspective proposed that
performer–environment interactions are based on the pickup of multiple sources
of imperfect information from the environment (for comprehensive reviews, see
Hammond & Stewart, 2001, or Kirlik, 2009). Ecological validity was originally a
Brunswikian term that has since been used frequently in sports science. It origi-
nally referred to the statistical correlation between proximal cues available in the
environment (perceptual variables) and the extent to which they depict the distal
criterion state of the environment (Brunswik, 1956). Put simply, individuals use
a series of imperfect cues to infer events or aspects of some unobservable state of
the environment (e.g., the way in which skilled performers in sport use advance
information from opponents’ movements to predict future actions before their own
movements are initiated). After Ulric Neisser (1967), researchers have generally
(mis)used the label ecological validity to refer to the external validity of research
designs. In using the term in this way, researchers were actually alluding to aspects
of Brunswik’s (1956) highly significant concept of representative design (Araújo,
et al., 2007). In sports science, ecological validity has generally been presented as
the study of performance, learning, and behavior under sport task constraints—such
148   Pinder et al.

as by contrasting simple, contrived laboratory tasks (a pointing or manual aiming

task) with typical sports performance tasks (catching a ball or coordinating other
multiarticular actions). (For examples of this misunderstanding, see Jobson, Nevill,
George, Jeukendrup, and Passfield, 2008, and Jobson et al., 2007). Therefore, con-
cerns of ecological validity have tended to focus on the generalization of observed
behavior in experimental laboratory settings to “natural behavior in the world”
(Schmuckler, 2001, p. 419). The misconceptualization is important to acknowledge
since in downplaying Brunswik’s original theoretical contribution, it is clear that
some important nuances of representative design have been lost to researchers, and
there is potential to harness further theoretical benefit from the original concepts.
Brunswik (1956) advocated that for the study of organism–environment inter-
actions (such as those observed in visual anticipation in sport research), “cues” (or
perceptual variables) should be sampled from the organism’s typical environment
so as to be representative of the environmental stimuli from which they have been
adapted, and to which behavior is intended to be generalized (Brunswik, 1956).
In sport psychology, this definition of representative design emphasizes the need
to ensure that experimental task constraints represent the task constraints of the
performance or training/learning environment that forms the specific focus of
study. In representative design, there is a strong emphasis on the specificity of the
relations between the participant and the environment, which is often neglected in
traditional approaches to behavioral sciences (see, e.g., Dunwoody, 2006).
Brunswik’s (1956) ideas are a particular concern for the study of human per-
formance and behavior in sport, with representative design being fundamental to
generality of experimental results. Just as participants of an experiment must be
representative of those to which the study wishes to generalize, the experimental
task constraints must also represent the environmental (performance) constraints
to which they are to be generalized. In this context, Brunswik (1956) used the
term represent, when originally defining representative design as the arrangement
of constraints in an experimental design so that they represent the behavioral
setting to which the results are intended to apply (see also Hammond & Stewart,
2001). Generalization of findings outside defined experimental conditions, besides
underplaying the role of the environment on human behavior, can be problematic
in studying the adaptability of performers in dynamic performance contexts. This
weakness emphasizes the need to adequately sample environmental constraints to
provide experimental designs that can shed insights into functional human behav-
iors. The prominence of designing task constraints that emphasize functionality of
behavior has been articulated by researchers in medical education (Wigton, 2008),
motor learning (Davids, Button, Araújo, Renshaw, & Hristovski, 2006), and judicial
contexts (Dhami et al., 2004), among others. Here we examine the importance of
these ideas for the creation of experimental and learning designs in sport.

Representative Task Design in the Study

of Perception and Action in Sport
In the study of perception and action in sport, representative design has been
acknowledged as the generalization of task constraints in experimental designs to
the constraints encountered in specific performance environments (Araújo, Davids,
 Representative Learning Design   149

& Hristovski, 2006; Davids, 2008). Despite technological and methodological

advances, questions still exist over the representative design of many experimental
designs in sports science research. Ensuring that task constraints of experiments are
representative is not a trivial matter since, in sport studies, small changes in task
constraints can lead to substantial changes in performance outcomes and move-
ment responses (Hristovski, Davids, Araújo, & Button, 2006). This argument can
be exemplified by the analysis of research on visual anticipation processes in sport.
In sport, the ability for performers to use information from the environment
to support actions is predicated on an accurate and efficient relationship between
perceptual and motor processes (Le Runigo, Benguigui, & Bardy, 2005), referred
to as perception-action coupling. A recent comprehensive analysis of common
experimental design modes in the visual anticipation literature demonstrated how
many previous studies had failed to implement recent developments in behavioral
neuroscience. For example, a significant weakness is captured by the tendency of
some psychologists to confuse processes of perceptual discrimination between two
or more sources of visual stimulation with processes of decision making, which in
dynamic performance environments like sport involve processes of cognition and
action (e.g., Drugowitsch & Pouget, 2010; Stanford, Shankar, Massoglia, Costello,
& Salinas, 2010).
A major limitation has been that little attention has been paid to the comple-
mentary contributions to performance of both ventral and dorsal cortical visual
systems, and the functionality of perception and action processes in many studies
(Milner & Goodale, 1995, 2008; van der Kamp, Rivas, van Doorn, & Savelsbergh,
2008). By emphasizing the importance of movement control in perception of infor-
mation for action, van der Kamp and colleagues (2008) questioned the efficacy
of the ubiquitous occlusion methodologies and video simulation tasks in research
studies that have typically required participants to respond with verbal, written,
button pressing, or micromovement responses. Research has highlighted signifi-
cant differences in participant perceptual (Dicks, Button, & Davids, 2010) and
movement behaviors (Farrow & Abernethy, 2003; Ranganathan & Carlton, 2007;
Shim, Carlton, Chow, & Chae, 2005) under varying experimental task constraints
that have manipulated the degree of perception–action coupling. For example,
(Dicks et al., 2010) examined this issue in the comparison of movement and gaze
behaviors of soccer goalkeepers in typical video simulation and in situ research
designs. Significant differences in participant behavior were observed between task
constraints that required verbal or simulated movements compared with the in situ
(representative) interceptive action condition during a penalty kick. Such findings
have major implications for experimental design in research in sport (Araújo &
Davids, 2009; Araújo & Kirlik, 2008; Dicks et al., 2008; van der Kamp et al., 2008).
Current perceptual–motor behavior research is beginning to extend this line of study
to address parallel concerns in the design of task constraints in sport development
and training programs (e.g., the use of ball projection machines in practice), where
the removal of key information sources from the performance environment has
been observed to significantly affect the timing and control of interceptive actions
(Pinder, Renshaw, & Davids, 2009; Shim et al., 2005). Critically, the traditional
(mis)conceptualization of ecological validity may not allow for the implications
of representative task design to be fully appreciated beyond the generalization of
experimental settings to performance. Just as sport psychologists must be aware of
150   Pinder et al.

the interacting constraints of the specific experimental settings and the limitations
of applying empirical findings beyond these settings, coaches and pedagogues need
to fully understand the constraints of the sport in question, and consider how the
design of practice tasks and interventions may allow for the maintenance of coupled
perception and action processes that reflect the functional behavior of athletes in
specific performance contexts. This distinction highlights the need for the adoption
of the concept of representative design. In the next section we propose a new term
that theoretically captures how sport scientists and pedagogues might use these
insights to ensure that practice and training task constraints are representative of
the context toward which they are intended to generalize: the performance setting.

“Representative Learning Design”

Recent work in physical education, sport pedagogy, and coaching science has
demonstrated how principles of ecological psychology and dynamical systems
theory can underpin interventions and practice in a nonlinear pedagogy (Chow et
al., 2006, 2007; Renshaw, Chow, Davids, & Hammond, 2010; Renshaw, Davids,
Shuttleworth, & Chow, 2010). Nonlinear pedagogy is predicated on the concep-
tualization of the performer/learner in sport as a complex neurobiological system
exemplifying a nonlinear dynamical system in nature. Theoretical and empirical
advances have provided a sound rationale for a nonlinear dynamics explanation
of how processes of perception, cognition, decision making, and action underpin
intentional movement behaviors in dynamic environments (e.g., Turvey & Shaw,
1999; van Orden, Holden, & Turvey, 2003). This perspective proposes that the most
relevant information for decision making and regulating action in performance
environments is emergent during performer–environment interactions (see Araújo
et al., 2006; van Orden et al., 2003) Nonlinear pedagogy proposes that athletes,
considered as neurobiological systems, exhibit purposive adaptive behaviors from
the spontaneous patterns of interactions between system components. An impor-
tant feature of complex neurobiological systems is the emergent relationship that
develops between perception (information) and action (movement) as such systems
coordinate their actions with respect to the environment. This position was sum-
marized by Gibson’s (1979, p. 223) view that “we must perceive in order to move,
but we must also move in order to perceive.”
Nonlinear pedagogy is predicated on the mutual interdependence between per-
ception and action in neurobiology, and it has been suggested that these processes
should not be allowed to function separately in learning design (e.g., Araújo et
al., 2006). Gibson’s (1979) insights reveal why practice tasks in sport need to be
carefully structured and managed to maintain relationships between key sources
of information and action for learners and performers during practice. Different
sources of perceptual information present different affordances for performers to
execute specific actions in sport, and for this reason care should be taken in designing
learning environments. Nonlinear pedagogy emphasizes the manipulation of key
task constraints (particularly informational constraints on action) during learning
to allow functional movement behaviors to emerge in specific sports and physical
activities. These manipulations require skillful construction by pedagogists accord-
ing to the theoretical principles of representative learning design.
 Representative Learning Design   151

In the practice of coaches, sports scientists, and physical educators, experi-

mental design equates to the design of practice and training environments. As in
experiments, the constraints of training and practice need to adequately replicate
the performance environment so that they allow learners to detect affordances for
action and couple actions to key information sources within those specific settings.
This critical requirement was highlighted in a recent study examining the effective-
ness of training drills to replicate the lower limb coordination patterns in the sport
of triple jumping (Wilson, Simpson, Van Emmerik, & Hamill, 2008). Findings
indicated that coaches should focus on dynamic, rather than static, training drills
that more closely replicate the coordination patterns representative of competitive
triple jumping performance. Similar issues with static task constraints have been
highlighted in the design of performance analysis tests to assess skilled move-
ment (e.g., Ali et al., 2007; Huijgen, Elferink-Gemser, Post, & Visscher, 2010)
or decision-making behaviors (e.g., Nevill, Balmer, & Williams, 2002; Ripoll,
Kerlizin, Stein, & Reine, 1995). Static tests lack functionality and do not success-
fully represent the constraints of performance environments. For example, Ali et al.
(2007) attempted to overcome recognized limitations of previous “closed” soccer
skills tests, claiming to have “enhanced ecological validity” by designing tests for
the assessment of ball passing that required players to pass soccer balls to specific
targets on benches arranged in a square in a gymnasium. The shooting skills tests
required targeting specific goal areas when faced with a static plywood goalkeeper
in a “set” position. Furthermore, the consequences of not adequately representing
the key variables in that performance environment can be directly applied to sport
psychology research. Abouzekri and Karageorghis (2010) adopted this passing test
in the assessment of a precompetition state anxiety intervention on performance
timing and accuracy. This example highlights how our understanding of different
aspects of sports performance may be limited by lack of representative design in
experimental protocols. However, there do exist some clear examples of observing
the importance of representative design in some research studies, although perhaps
not articulated explicitly. For example, reflecting on recent studies of visual atten-
tion of orienteers (e.g., Eccles, Walsh, & Ingledew, 2006), representative design
was attained due to the selected experimental task constraints replicating those of
the performance environment (Davids, 2008).
In sport psychology and performance analysis, there is a need for greater aware-
ness of (a) the concept of Brunswik’s (1956) representative experimental design and
(b) the requirement for these methodological principles to be adopted in all kinds of
practice, training and learning environments (e.g., Renshaw, Davids, et al., 2010).
To facilitate this process, the term representative learning design could be adopted
by sport psychologists and pedagogues to ensure functionality and action fidelity in
interventions, as well as coaching, training, and learning. To attain representative
learning design, practitioners should design dynamic interventions that consider
interacting constraints on movement behaviors, adequately sample informational
variables from the specific performance environments, and ensure the functional
coupling between perception and action processes. Functionality (achievement and
attainment in a Brunswikian sense) would ensure that (a) the degree of success
of a performer’s actions are controlled for, and compared between contexts, and
(b) performers were able to achieve specific goals by basing actions in learning
contexts (movement responses, decision making) on comparable information to
152   Pinder et al.

that existing in the performance environment. For example, in team ball sports, the
use of context-specific performance settings (e.g., game test situations; Memmert
& Roth, 2007) and games-based approaches (Chow et al., 2007; Renshaw, 2010)
are becoming a prominent feature of both research and practice design.
Empirically, to examine the degree of association between behavior in an
experimental task with that of the performance setting to which it is intended to
generalize, the importance of Stoffregen et al.’s (2003) concept of action fidel-
ity (Araújo et al., 2007) needs to be recognized. In the use of flight simulations,
Stoffregen et al. (2003, p. 120) described action fidelity as the “fidelity of perfor-
mance,” and proposed that fidelity exists when there is a transfer of performance
from the simulator to the simulated system. In this respect, practice, training, and
learning tasks could be viewed as simulations of the performance environment
that need to be high in action fidelity (in much the same way that video designs in
experimental settings are simulations of the performance context that is the subject
of generalization). The degree of action fidelity can be measured by analyzing
task performance in detail. For example, measures of task performance in sport,
such as time taken to complete a task and observed kinematic (coordination) data
during performance, would provide satisfactory means to assess action fidelity of
simulated training, practice, and learning environments (Araújo et al., 2007). The
purpose of action fidelity is to examine whether a performer’s responses (e.g.,
actions or decisions) remain the same in two or more contexts, for example, when
attempting to sample a sports performance environment within an experimental
setting. Pinder et al. (2009) illustrated this idea by analyzing the movement
responses of cricket batters when responding in representative performance tasks
of batting against a “live” bowler, and a ball projection machine, which are ubiq-
uitous in experimental and learning environments in sport. In essence, the ball
machine in practice is used to simulate aspects of the performance environment
in many ball sports. Significant differences in spatiotemporal responses of the
batting action were observed by Pinder et al. (2009), primarily due to the removal
of key perceptual information sources and a delay in movement initiation times
under the ball machine task constraints. Critically, the removal of perceptual
information from the environment (specifically pre–ball release kinematic infor-
mation of the bowler’s actions) was observed to limit a cricket batter’s ability to
use information to support actions (e.g., the creation and refinement of informa-
tion–movement couplings; see Jacobs & Michaels, 2002). Fundamentally, this line
of research demonstrates that practice or experimental tasks that do not consider
the representative design of the performance context may not (a) allow for the
correct diagnosis of the critical aspects of performance required to be trained or
enhanced and (b) allow for the development of intervention or training tasks that
achieve these goals.

Summary
Brunswik’s (1956) methodological concept of representative design, after more
than half a century of being largely overlooked or confused in the behavioral sci-
ences, has continued to be implemented by some experimentalists. Here, we have
described how Brunswik’s principles of experimental design can be applied to the
design of interventions, practice, and training tasks in sport. We proposed a new
 Representative Learning Design   153

term, representative learning design, which may help sport psychologists, perfor-
mance analysts, and pedagogues describe a theoretical framework for interpreting
the functionality and action fidelity of practice tasks and learning environments.

References
Abouzekri, O.A., & Karageorghis, C.I. (2010). Effects of precompetition state anxiety inter-
ventions on performance time and accuracy among amateur soccer players: Revisiting
the matching hypothesis. European Journal of Sport Science, 10, 209–221.
Ali, A., Williams, C., Hulse, M., Strudwick, A., Reddin, J., Howarth, L., et al. (2007). Reliabil-
ity and validity of two tests of soccer skill. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1461–1470.
Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2009). Ecological approaches to cognition and action in sport
and exercise: Ask not only what you do, but where you do it. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 40, 5–37.
Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Hristovski, R. (2006). The ecological dynamics of decision making
in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 653–676.
Araújo, D., Davids, K., & Passos, P. (2007). Ecological validity, representative design, and
correspondence between experimental task constraints and behavioral setting: Comment
on Rogers, Kadar, and Costall (2005). Ecological Psychology, 19, 69–78.
Araújo, D., & Kirlik, A. (2008). Towards an ecological approach to visual anticipation for
expert performance in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 39, 157–165.
Beek, P.J., Jacobs, D.M., Daffertshofer, A., & Huys, R. (2003). Expert performance in sport:
views from joint perspectives of ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory. In
J.L. Starkes & K.A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sport: advances in research
on sport expertise (pp. 321–344). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bracht, G.H., & Glass, G.V. (1968). The External Validity of Experiments. American Edu-
cational Research Journal, 5, 437–474.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments
(2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araujo, D. (2006). Non-
linear pedagogy: a constraints-led framework for understanding emergence of game play
and movement skills. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 10, 71–103.
Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The
role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research,
77, 251–278.
Davids, K. (2008). Designing representative task constraints for studying visual anticipa-
tion in fast ball sports: What we can learn from past and contemporary insights in
neurobiology and psychology. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 39, 166–177.
Davids, K., Button, C., Araújo, D., Renshaw, I., & Hristovski, R. (2006). Movement models
from sports provide representative task constraints for studying adaptive behavior in
human movement systems. Adaptive Behavior, 14, 73–95.
Dhami, M.K., Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2004). The Role of Representative Design in
Ecological Approach to Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 959–988.
Dicks, M., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2010). Examination of gaze behaviors under in situ
and video simulation task constraints reveals differences in information pickup for
perception and action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 706–720.
Dicks, M., Davids, K., & Araújo, D. (2008). Ecological psychology and task representative-
ness: implications for the design of perceptual-motor training programmes in sport. In
Y. Hong & R. Bartlett (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Biomechanics and Human
Movement Science (pp. 129–139). London: Routledge.
Drugowitsch, J., & Pouget, A. (2010). Quick thinking: perceiving in a tenth of a blink of an
eye. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 279–280.
154   Pinder et al.

Dunwoody, P.T. (2006). The Neglect of the Environment by Cognitive Psychology. Journal
of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26, 139–153.
Eccles, D.W., Walsh, S.E., & Ingledew, D.K. (2006). Visual attention in orienteers at differ-
ent levels of experience. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 77–87.
Fajen, B.R., Riley, M.A., & Turvey, M.T. (2009). Information, affordances and the control
of action in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40, 79–107.
Farrow, D., & Abernethy, B. (2003). Do expertise and the degree of perception-action cou-
pling affect natural anticipatory performance? Perception, 32, 1127–1139.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Hammond, K.R. (2001). Representative Design in Action in the Middle of the Twentieth
Century. In K.R. Hammond & T.R. Stewart (Eds.), The Essential Brunswik: Beginnings,
Explications, Applications (pp. 67–68). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hammond, K.R., & Stewart, T.R. (Eds.). (2001). The Essential Brunswik: Beginnings,
Explications, Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hristovski, R., Davids, K., Araújo, D., & Button, C. (2006). How boxers decide to punch
a target: Emergent behaviour in nonlinear dynamical movement systems. Journal of
Sports Science and Medicine, 5 (CSSI), 60–73.
Huijgen, B.C.H., Elferink-Gemser, M.T., Post, W., & Visscher, C. (2010). Development
of dribbling in talented youth soccer players aged 12–19 years: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 689–698.
Jacobs, D.M., & Michaels, C.F. (2002). On the apparent paradox of learning and realism.
Ecological Psychology, 14, 127–139.
Jobson, S.A., Nevill, A.M., George, S.R., Jeukendrup, A.E., & Passfield, L. (2008). Influ-
ence of body position when considering the ecological validity of laboratory time-trial
cycling performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 1269–1278.
Jobson, S.A., Nevill, A.M., Palmer, G.S., Jeukendrup, A.E., Doherty, M., & Atkinson, G.
(2007). The ecological validity of laboratory cycling: Does body size explain the dif-
ference between laboratory- and field-based cycling performance? Journal of Sports
Sciences, 25, 3–9.
Kirlik, A. (2009). Brunswikian resources for event perception research. Perception, 38,
376–398.
Le Runigo, C., Benguigui, N., & Bardy, B.G. (2005). Perception-action and expertise in
interceptive actions. Human Movement Science, 24, 429–445.
Lucas, J.W. (2003). Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity.
Sociological Theory, 21, 236–253.
Memmert, D., & Roth, K. (2007). The effects of non-specific and specific concepts on tactical
creativity in team ball sports. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1423–1432.
Milner, A.D., & Goodale, M.A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Milner, A.D., & Goodale, M.A. (2008). Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia,
46, 774–785.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Nevill, A.M., Balmer, N.J., & Williams, A.M. (2002). The influence of crowd noise and experi-
ence upon refereeing decisions in football. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 261–272.
Pinder, R.A., Renshaw, I., & Davids, K. (2009). Information-movement coupling in devel-
oping cricketers under changing ecological practice constraints. Human Movement
Science, 28, 468–479.
Ranganathan, R., & Carlton, L.G. (2007). Perception-action coupling and anticipatory
performance in baseball batting. Journal of Motor Behavior, 39, 369–380.
Renshaw, I. (2010). A Constraints-led Approach to Talent Development in Cricket. In L.
Kidman & B. Lombardo (Eds.), Athlete-Centred Coaching (2nd ed., pp. 151–172).
Christchurch, NZ: Innovative.
 Representative Learning Design   155

Renshaw, I., Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010). A constraints-led perspective
to understanding skill acquisition and game play: a basis for intergration of motor
learning theory and pysical education praxis? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
15, 117–137.
Renshaw, I., Davids, K., Shuttleworth, R., & Chow, J.Y. (2010). Insights from Ecological
Psychology and Dynamical Systems Theory can Underpin a Philosophy of Coaching.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40, 580–602.
Ripoll, H., Kerlizin, Y., Stein, J-F., & Reine, B. (1995). Analysis of information processing,
decision making, and visual strategies in complex problem solving sport situations.
Human Movement Science, 14, 325–349.
Rogers, W.A. (2008). Editorial. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 14, 1–4.
Schmuckler, M.A. (2001). What Is Ecological Validity? A Dimensional Analysis. Infancy,
2, 419–436.
Shim, J., Carlton, L.G., Chow, J.W., & Chae, W.K. (2005). The use of anticipatory visual
cues by highly skilled tennis players. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37, 164–175.
Stanford, T.R., Shankar, S., Massoglia, D.P., Costello, M.G., & Salinas, E. (2010). Percep-
tual decision making in less than 30 milliseconds. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 379–386.
Stoffregen, T.A., Bardy, B.G., Smart, L.J., & Pagulayan, R. (2003). On the Nature and
Evaluation of Fidelity in Virtual Environments. In L.J. Hettinger & M.W. Haas (Eds.),
Virtual and Adaptive Environments: Applications, Implications and Human Performance
Issues (pp-111-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Turvey, M.T., & Shaw, R.E. (1999). Ecological foundations of cognition I. Symmetry and
specificity of animal-environment systems. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11-
12), 95–110.
Van der Kamp, J., Rivas, F., van Doorn, H., & Savelsbergh, G. (2008). Ventral and dorsal
contributions in visual anticipation in fast ball sports. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 39, 100–130.
Van Orden, G.C., Holden, J.G., & Turvey, M.T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive per-
formance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 132, 331–350.
Wigton, R.S. (2008). What do the theories of Egon Brunswik have to say to medical edu-
cation. Advances in Health Sciences Education : Theory and Practice, 13, 109–121.
Wilson, C., Simpson, S.E., Van Emmerik, R.E., & Hamill, J. (2008). Coordination variability
and skill development in expert triple jumpers. Sports Biomechanics, 7, 2–9.
Wulf, G. (2008). Attentional focus effects in Balance Acrobats. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 79, 319–325.
Wulf, G., & Su, J. (2007). An external focus of attention enhances golf shot accuracy in
beginners and experts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 384–389.

Manuscript received: April 14, 2010

Revision accepted: October 31, 2010

View publication stats