↓ Skip to main content

Nonlinear Pedagogy: An Effective Approach to Cater for Individual Differences in Learning a Sports Skill

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
48 X users
reddit
1 Redditor
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
385 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Nonlinear Pedagogy: An Effective Approach to Cater for Individual Differences in Learning a Sports Skill
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0104744
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Learning a sports skill is a complex process in which practitioners are challenged to cater for individual differences. The main purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a Nonlinear Pedagogy approach for learning a sports skill. Twenty-four 10-year-old females participated in a 4-week intervention involving either a Nonlinear Pedagogy (i.e.,manipulation of task constraints including equipment and rules) or a Linear Pedagogy (i.e., prescriptive, repetitive drills) approach to learn a tennis forehand stroke. Performance accuracy scores, movement criterion scores and kinematic data were measured during pre-intervention, post-intervention and retention tests. While both groups showed improvements in performance accuracy scores over time, the Nonlinear Pedagogy group displayed a greater number of movement clusters at post-test indicating the presence of degeneracy (i.e., many ways to achieve the same outcome). The results suggest that degeneracy is effective for learning a sports skill facilitated by a Nonlinear Pedagogy approach. These findings challenge the common misconception that there must be only one ideal movement solution for a task and thus have implications for coaches and educators when designing instructions for skill acquisition.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 385 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 380 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 16%
Student > Bachelor 58 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 9%
Other 22 6%
Lecturer 18 5%
Other 72 19%
Unknown 116 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 148 38%
Social Sciences 22 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 4%
Psychology 13 3%
Other 46 12%
Unknown 120 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2025.
All research outputs
#1,261,036
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#14,705
of 224,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,331
of 279,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#328
of 5,158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.