Olympic Fortunes - what has been the legacy of London 2012?

A few weeks ago, I asked fellow travellers in Twittersphere about their views of Olympic Legacy.  This was not just a random act of nosiness, as Sebastian Coe had just been given responsibility for the International Inspirations, which seems to be seen by those in power as an important part of the Legacy programme.

For no very good reason, I decided to turn my little survey into a 'Family Fortunes' style affair, and stopped the poll at 100 responses.  As (depending on your age and nationality) Vernon Kay, Les Dennis, Bob Monkhouse or some large-toothed American TV presenter might say:

WE ASKED 100 PEOPLE …. WHAT HAS BEEN THE LEGACY OF LONDON 2012?

It is important to recognise that this is not in any way a scientific study. The aim of the survey was simply to take a snapshot of people's views, and those people formed what researchers called a self-selected sample. In other words, it would be a mistake to assume that the hundred people surveyed here work in any way representative of the population as a whole.

On the other hand, this strong dose of humility ought to be partially balanced against the likelihood that (since the survey was promoted mainly through my Twitter-feed) most respondents worked in or near sport, in one way or another.  So, perhaps they could claim some special insight into the matter.

I lack the computer skills (and inclination) to offer an interactive reveal of the findings.  And maybe that is not necessary and the results are fascinating enough.

The results are what politicians might euphemistically call "disappointing". 65% of respondents claiming that Olympic Legacy commitments have been based is a rather damning report card, although a figure of less than 10% claiming that commitments had been met is possibly even worse!

Respondents were also invited to make a comment about the Olympic Legacy, and a selection of these responses has offered below.  I have decided not to organise them, but rather let them speak for themselves as individual contributions to the debate.

Is it too soon to be able to measure this yet?

Clearly some legacy commitments are quicker to achieve than others, and rightly so, it shouldn't just be a flash in the pan process. Others will take time such add the cycling cross rail development in London. Others will take time to realise success or failure such as the impact on school sport and participation rates. Dispute the gloom mongers we can't judge too soon, whilst she same time those with responsibly at all levels must remain focused on the legacy cause and steadfast in their approach to achieve legacy commitments.

It will take 10 years to make the population level changes, as young people 'inspired' mature and adults inspired stay involved.

Lack of commitment in the run-up to the Games and a lack of imagination.

I feel strongly that the olympic "legacy" has been very much missed. The thrust of Sport england's initatives are currently 14-25 (at best a difficult age group to engage) - we need to make a concerted effort to (re)introduce "sport" in all its forms to primary school children.

The jumping on the back of other programmes is not a London Legacy. These seems to be little, if anything, that has actually been inspired by L2012 rather than programmes that were in operation already that L2012 has given a polish to.

Much of the legacy aspiration is in talking up something that had never been planned properly in order to ensure that it was achieved. It is now simply and mereley government and organisational rhetoric with no substance at all.

The interest was created in the initial aftermarth of the games, where many people had the drive and motivation to be more active, the amount that have carried that on and the reasons behind that are at presently up for discussion. So a kind of half way house. Personally I believe that as well as what hasdn't been done, what has and what has been effective should be extended / researched.

Issue is twofold - people see the legacy as creating new gold medal winners whilst others see it as a way to address the health of the nation. If the health of the nation was improved dramatically but we got no gold medals in Rio would people be happy with the legacy?

Nothing has really changed outside the east end of London, kids still do to little exercise and are mainly driven to school by their parents The only thing that has really changed is that i have a set of good memories!

Strategy has focussed on activity provision at local level - more of the same. However, what I believe we need in UK is a cultural shift i.e believing, thinking and then doing Health Sport and Education considered in a holistic fashion with investment looked at broad terms not segmented in historical silos and competition on who gets what and why We need all of the spectrum of physical activity, sport and physical education provision If we were starting again we would take an alternative and somewhat radical view of how our current provision is deployed.

All talk and no action.

Cuts completely undermine this. Look around at local level posts of people who have had an impact on youth participation and how quickly they are disappearing.

Not enough investment and activity following the Games to make a meaningful impact from grass roots to elite sport.

I think many factors contribute towards a succussful legacy, from participation rates, regeneration of London, improved and accessible facilities to the nations attitudes towards sport and eachother. This is why it seems almost impossible for us to know if there is a legacy, and how positive the legacy is. The question of timing also needs to asked, at what point do we draw the line and collect data to determine if we have a legacy or not? And if we do that, what do we do as a result of the information. We could celebrate what has been achieved and continue to develop it, or just admit defeat and maybe hope that the best is yet to come. I think a lot of positives have come from the Olympics and Paralympics which is why I believe we are nearly there with the legacy. The main priorities of legacy need to be integrated into the roots of sport to ensure that we have infact inspired a generation, and the next one and the next one … A lot more needs to be done to integrate into a society a culture of physical activity and healthy living to ensure the Olympic legacy is positive, and long lasting.

Sport in school was cut when the Tories came in and no way of making it better has been worked out.

Now that the games are over there is no sign of any legacy. I see no additional attempts to persuade or indeed help fund young people to have ago at new sports.

If anyone mentions actual 'legacy' within months of the games, that's like saying there is a Wimbledon legacy as tennis courts fill up for a fortnight.

So much promise to start with, new facilities, new passion and new opportunities but it seems it was just a phase and now we are left to be independent again and the Olympics is 'put to the back of the draw' as to speak. Would the 'legacy' not indicate continuation and additional effort such as primary school specialists and coaching? Maybe not, maybe the inaccessible arenas will motivate the nation.

Games that inspired a nation but the 'dream legacy ' is an unfulfilled one .We need some government backing, some decisions and some drive. It’s all there. 2012 proved that. But unless something is done - it will all be - a dream.

Most people talk about the Olympics that amazing summer last year... But that's it! No legacy. I thought school would be bombarded with Legacy projects in the new term ... But nothing. The momentum, I fear, has been lost.

It appears that it is all talk and no action. In fact if what we read is true it is going backwards with the selling off of playground space, no expectation of sport and physical education and cuts in funding.

I believe that despite all the percieved good the Olympics have done for participation in Sport, they are still an out-dated institution where able-bodied and disabled competitors are segregated. They also focus on the competitor over any of the other important roles that make the games, events and sports happen, ignoring the whole community of practice as it were. 

It would be great to receive further commentary on this important issue via Twitter (@DrDickB).

How to become an Olympian

As the thrills of the 2012 London Olympic Games still linger in our minds and the excitement of the Paralympics beckons us on to hours more TV viewing, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of a few facts about the most watched public event in the world.

For a start, the Modern Olympics have very little to do with Ancient Greece.  They were actually the idea of a French aristocrat who was inspired by the ethos of the English Public School sports of the Victoria era.  Baron Pierre de Coubertin looked to the ‘muscular Christianity’ of Rugby and other Public Schools, and concluded that, “organised sport can create moral and social strength”.  The youth of France – indeed the whole world – urgently needed some of this strong medicine, and so he travelled the world gathering support for his vision.  De Coubertin called this the ‘Olympic’ idea because he believed that it was the Ancient Greeks who have first developed the core philosophy.

The Baron’s vision was that the Games competition would be only one of a series of activities that take place during the Olympic year.  The ‘Cultural Olympiad’ was a marriage of sport and the arts, and included music, dance, visual arts and other wholesome activities.  This broader conception of the Olympics continues to exist, despite an almost total lack of interest from the national media … or anyone else.

__________________________________________________

Quick Quiz: Which of the following activities have appeared in the Modern Olympic Games?*

Cricket                                      Solo synchronised swimming

Pistol Dueling                           Long Jump for horses

Sculpture                                  Literature

Singing                                     Tug of War

* Answers are given at the end of this blog

__________________________________________________

Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, the elite sport aspect of the Olympics is just the outward expression of philosophy of life called Olympism.  This philosophy is built on three core values – excellence, friendship and respect – and aims to use the Olympic activities to inspire education and development in all people around the world.  De Coubertin wrote:

“Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of a good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”

Ultimately, then, the razzamatazz of two weeks in the summer are just the tip of the iceberg.  The Olympics are a metaphor for something much bigger and more important, namely the potential of sport and the arts as vehicles for the realisation of human excellence.  And excellence can take different forms.  As we all know, it can refer to successful performance in high-level competitions.  What educationalists might call this the ‘summative’ view!  However, as we all know, it’s the ‘formative’ that makes the real difference in the long term.  This second form translates as personal excellence, and refers to on-going achievement against personal goals throughout one’s life.

It seems to me that, in launching the Olympics on the world, De Coubertin was offering a powerful metaphor for personal excellence.  The champions have their day, and in doing so, elite sport represents a laboratory for the rest of us.  We can see before our eyes the effects of someone pursuing excellence.  We can learn from their successes and challenges.

Fascinatingly, recent research seems to support this position: there is a great of similarity between the processes used by elite sports people in preparing for the Olympics and those used by the rest of us trying to improve in our own terms.  At least, this is the view of Professor David Collins, from the University of Central Lancashire.  Prof. Collins is a ‘Performance Psychologist’ and was National Coach for Athletics at the Beijing Olympics.  His research suggests that there are ‘champion behaviours’ that can be learnt by children (and by anyone else).  Starting with explicit teaching and reinforcement from others, eventually children learn to take responsibility for setting and monitoring their own personal development.

According Collins and his colleagues, champion behaviours include the following:

Goal setting - establishing specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-targeted goals.

Performance evaluation – regularly assessing your performance against your goals.

Imagery – going through an event or activity in your mind, using all of your senses, including sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and movement to recreate performance.

Planning – articulating the steps necessary for on-going improvement.

Commitment and role clarity  - learning to understand and accept your responsibilities with the group.

Focus and distraction control – remaining focused, despite pressure or failure.

Evaluating and coping with pressure – managing stress and learning to use it for positive purposes.

They have found that each of these behaviours can be learned, and they go further.  They argue that all children should be taught the skills, so that all of them have at the skills and behaviours of champions at their disposal.  Then, if they choose to aspire to excellence, they will have the psychological foundations necessary.

The most fundamental requirement of any attempt to develop excellence is the simplest: practice.  Forbes magazine summarized the view of many researchers like this:

“The best people in any field are those who devote the most hours to what the researchers call ‘deliberate practice’.  It's activity that's explicitly intended to improve performance, that reaches for objectives just beyond one's level of competence, provides feedback on results and involves high levels of repetition.”

It is quite easy to find support for this view among those who have excelled in their work.  For example, here is the actor Will Smith:

“I’ve never really viewed myself as particularly talented.  I’ve viewed myself as slightly above average in talent.  And where I excel is ridiculous, sickening, work ethic.  You know, while the other guy’s sleeping?  I’m working.  While the other guy’s eatin’?  I’m working.  While the other guy’s making love, I mean, I’m making love, too.  But I’m working really hard at it,”

And here is the genius footballer Pele:

“Everything is practice.”

Famously, some studies examining expert performance have found that a minimum of 10 years, or 10,000 hours, of sustained practice appears to be a necessary.  But not just any practice will do.  According to Dr K. Anders Ericsson, the ‘expert on expertise theory’, the key is ‘deliberate practice’, which is done with the specific goal of improving performance, is effortful and attention-demanding, is not necessarily enjoyable, and does not lead to immediate social or financial rewards.  So, according to Ericsson’s expertise theory, every athlete at the top level has invested huge amounts of high quality practice into their sport.  The same can be said of professional musicians, chess grandmasters, and leading scientists.

There are many things about Ericsson’s theory that are admirable, not least his attempt to differentiate between practice and deliberate practice, and his corrective of the default position of sport scientists to explain every phenomenon in terms of biology.  However, there are problems too.  One is the status of the magical 10,000 hours rule.  As a metaphor, it works quite well.  But the briefest perusal of the careers of champions (including those at the 2012 Games) reveals that 10,000 hours is not the threshold value it is often claimed to be.  Some champions have managed to excel in their sport remarkably quickly (such as the Olympic Gold Medalist HeatherStanning or the Ironman goddess Chrissie Wellington), whilst others have taken much, much longer to succeed at the top (such as almost every Golfer).  Also, the portrayal of deliberate practice – hours and hours of exhaustive and boring repetition) simply does not match the accounts of most champions.

My own research with elite sports people and dancers has provided some detail to the understanding of deliberate practice.  The figure below shows three of the key characteristics. 

Supported Learning - It is sometimes said that practice does not make perfect; practice makes permanence.  A task that is repeated for an extended length of time becomes progressively more automatic and unconscious.  This is fine if the task being learned is quite simple and done correctly, but if not, practice can cement ineffective skills.  This is why feedback is so important for learning, as it nudges the performer back to proper form.  This is also why teachers and coaches are vital to high quality learning.  They guide, direct, and correct practice.

Mindful Learning - An second problem with any repeated task is that is can quickly become boring.  The psychologist Ellen Langer calls this mindlessness, and suggests that it is a barrier to motivating, effective learning.  Mindfulness, on the other hand, occurs when the individual is actively involved with task, constantly makes small changes and variations, and is open to new ideas.  Langer describes this mindset like this:

“Mindfulness is a flexible state of mind in which we are actively engaged in the present, noticing new things and sensitive to context.”

Our studies have lead us to conclude that mindful learning is a powerful component of personal excellence.

Contextual Learning - The third factor is probably the most important from the point of view of effective learning: learning that reflects the real context of performance.  In other words, contextual learning is learning that is designed so that learners can carry out activities and solve problems in a way that reflects the nature of such tasks in the real world.  Research supports the effectiveness of learning in meaningful contexts.  This means that the best way to learn to play cricket is to play a lot of cricket games; and learning to play the piano happens when learners play music.  This is especially worth emphasizing, as decontextualised practice is extremely popular in many activities, especially in education and sport, where drills often take up a great deal of time in sessions.  Research suggests that such activities are mostly valueless.

The implication of these ideas seem clear: practice is not enough.  Excellence requires high quality learning experiences that are characterized by meaningful, attentive practice supported by great teachers or coaches.  This is a necessary condition of excellence.

Taken together, these strands of research suggest that the achievements of top sports people reflect fundamentally similar processes to those used by the rest of us as we battle with our own pursuits of personal excellence.  There is nothing magical about Olympic performance; it simply shows what is possible if practices that are available to all of us are taken to extremes.

So, Baron Pierre de Coubertin’s early insight seems to have been right.  The glory and spectacle of the Olympic Games can act as a metaphor for personal excellence, giving evidence of the possibility of the realization of potential.  Skills like goal setting and role clarity are used everyday by likes of Jessica Ennis, Tom Daley and Michael Phelps.  Most exciting, however, is the fact that they can also be learned by children, and applied to their own sport and their own schooling.  They might also be used by you, Dear Reader, in supporting your own ambitions.

Finding out more?

Ellen Langer The Power of Mindful Learning

Daniel Pink Drive: the surprising truth about what motivates us

David Shenk The Genius in All of Us

Quick quiz answer: Answer: ALL of them!