We use the exact same term and technique in climbing. Especially in single pitch sport climbing and bouldering. If there is a certain boulder problem you can't do... chunk it down. Work on the 'easy' parts so that they are wired. Work only on the crux move(s). Maybe it's the transition into the crux that's the sticking point. Try the move statically and/or dynamically. By breaking the whole down into individual chunks, it's often easy to solve a problem. (Applicable to TGU as well
)
Yes, "chunking" is the term from cognitive psychology and applies to all types of learning, motor and cognitive. In fact, there seems to be less difference between all types of learning than once thought. The process that Steve and you describe is what all professionals do. The more minute the attention to detail when chunking, the more likely it is an example of elite performance.
There are two huge problems though. One is that it is really hard to focus on what you are not good at. It takes good ego control. The book I mentioned gives the example olympic level figure skaters fall down more than high school athletes because the keep practicing the hard jumps and not making themselves feel comfortable repeating what they can already do.
Students when they study reread their notes to make themselves feel comfortable, which causes them to overestimate how well they know the material. They should be self-quizzing or elaborating on those parts they don't know.
Another problem is that this type of practice can also be boring with only highly motivated performers willing to tolerate it over time. Martial arts schools keep adding on new moves to keep students interested, not because it is the way to learn whereas pros keep drilling fundamentals.
On the opposite end, the other finding in research relevant to motor skills generally and kettlebell instruction is that almost even generally effective teachers try to teach step by step until the student has mastered one step before the other. But this is not the best way. OR they use massed practice of something newly learned for long blocks before adding another.
However, just like with Russian strength training methodology, waving is normal and progress is not linear except for some beginners. We should take things apart and chunk but also move forward and also regress moves in interleaved practice, not linear progression. We all know that pros keep drilling the fundamentals but this is often neglected in teaching.
For example, if you are teaching a getup you might teach each sequence step by step adding a new one when mastered. However, you should also continually regress for deliberate practice with an aim to mastery, then advance and regress etc. For a swing, you might practice concentrating only on the float but then regress to a kettlebell deadlift but focus on the snap of contraction in the standing plank even for those students who have decent basic swing dynamics. I looked carefully at how Pavel and other's standing swing plank look like their deadlift lockout. There is a clear snapping contraction (a zipping up) for less than max efforts. It is clear in elite hardstyle performers but much less noticible even with other pretty good athletes.
To simplify, traditional teaching of something like getup sets might be 1,2,3,4,5,6; 1,2,3,4,5,6; 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc. with practice on say step 4 if a student has visible problems.
Effective teaching would be more like.
1,2
1 regression
1,2,3, putting the chunks together.
2,3, deliberate practice of the transition between these two steps.
1,2,3,4,5,6, Rebuilding the sequence and previewing what is to come.
2,3,4, reconsolidating and linking new skill 4 to baseline 2,3.
repeat depending on sticking points needed for attention, need for review, degree of consistency achieved etc.
A Karate Kata could be taught the same way.
In short, it would probably look more like Plan Strong waving.
If you were doing an all day user's course on swing, press, squat and TGU one would normally do them in sequence but it would be more effective to do them in cycles 1,2,3,4; 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 over the day. It seems confusing and is not intuitive to the learner, however. And it is harder to manage and program. Frequency is more effective than massed practice.
Sorry for the length of the post. I work in higher education and I am very disappointed by the disconnect between what we know how people learn in research and how education is done in our society. It just does not make sense. 70 percent of American college students use the least efficient study methods: reading their notes in sequence...
People often criticize reasearchers for being out of touch and not practical, but this is valid because it is how the pros approach things intuitively when they practice.
The book Make It Stick details all of these findings in research over the last 30 year. I also highly recommend this book and course , especially to those in school that you know. years.
Learning How to Learn: Powerful mental tools to help you master tough subjects | Coursera