7 Expert performance

Modern research has suggested a number of ways in which expert performers seem to differ cognitively from novices [6].

Perhaps the most fundamental difference concerns the knowledge athletes have concerning their sport. According to R. Anderson’s model of memory two types of knowledge are stored, declarative and procedural. Experts have more knowledge in both the procedural domain – that is, they have a better knowledge of how to do things – and in the declarative domain – that is, they know more facts about sport, including rules and strategies. This was demonstrated in a study by B. Abernathy when snooker players of different standards were compared on their procedural knowledge (how to perform a shot) and their declarative knowledge (how to plan ahead to set up future shots). Expert players emerged as superior in both these senses.

It appears that the amount of knowledge is not the only factor distinguishing experts from novices. Experts also appear to be more skilled at using the knowledge they have. S. Woll suggests that experts process information relevant to their sport more deeply than do novices. Research has also demonstrated that experts assimilate relevant information more efficiently than novices. For example, B. Howard showed karateka of various grades a range of karate techniques, and then questioned them about what they had seen. Although the novices recalled as many techniques as the higher grades, the more expert practitioners had better recall for the frequency with which each technique had been performed and in what context.

Another way in which experts differ from novices appears to be in their ability to anticipate events before they happen. This is important because at top levels athletes have to respond to movements the speed of which exceed the fast human reaction times. It takes 0.2 seconds for a sensory message to reach the brain and a motor impulse to be sent to the muscles. This is too long for a goalkeeper to have time to follow the trajectory of a penalty ball and move to intercept it. However, some penalties are saved because goalkeepers become expert at judging from cues in the movements of the player taking the penalty and thus move the right way at the instant the boot connects with the ball. A fascinating recent study set out to test the extent to which anticipation develops over time. G. Tenenbaum followed a group of Israeli tennis players of different levels of experience, testing their anticipation abilities by temporal occlusion tasks, in which video footage was shown with the ball’s flight path disguised. The participants’ task was to anticipate the ball’s direction just with the information from the body position and movements of the opponent. Although more expert performers were better at this task, there were substantial individual differences amongst the novices. This could suggest that anticipation is influenced by genetic factors; alternatively, it could mean that anticipation is affected by other activities undertaken before commencing formal training in tennis.

Metacognition is an area currently generating tremendous interest in modern psychology. M. Larkin defines metacognition as “a form of cognition” [1, p. 187], a second or higher-level process. It involves both a knowledge of cognitive processes and a conscious control and monitoring of that processing. J. Flavell suggests that men make use of three categories of metacognitive knowledge; personal knowledge, task knowledge and strategy knowledge.

Personal knowledge concerns the knowledge and beliefs athletes have about their individual cognitive characteristics. For example, an athlete knows what techniques and strategies he is most comfortable with. To use a footballing example, he knows whether he prefers to run the ball himself or play long passes.

Task knowledge concerns what athletes know about the sporting task they are engaged in. For example, athletes are aware when they play football that the task of tackling an attacking player differs in its require from that of putting an effective corner into the penalty area.

Strategy knowledge refers to the awareness of the available strategies to progress on a sporting task and the ability to select the most appropriate strategy. For example, if a sportsman is on the attack in a football match, he should have a range of strategies for getting the ball and players into a scoring position.

Research has shown clearly that expert athletes make more use of metacognitive knowledge. For example, in one study, S. McPherson compared novice and expert tennis players on the frequency with which they planned strategies between points. This was a measure of their metacognitive use of strategy knowledge. The experts as far superior used strategy knowledge three times as frequently as the novices [1].