Implicit versus Explicit Learning: What to Teach and What to Let Emerge

There is a question that every parkour coach faces, usually without naming it explicitly:

How much should I explain?

The beginner wants to know what to do. The coach knows what to do. The obvious response is to tell them. And in many cases this is exactly right. But in others — more than most coaches realise — explaining too much is precisely what slows learning down.

Understanding why requires a brief look at two fundamentally different learning systems.

Two systems, two kinds of knowledge

Explicit learning produces declarative knowledge — things you can describe, articulate, and consciously recall. "The roll line is diagonal, shoulder to opposite hip." You know this as a fact. You could write it down.

Implicit learning produces procedural knowledge — things you can do but may not be able to fully articulate. The experienced practitioner who executes a clean parkour roll without thinking about the shoulder-to-hip line is drawing on implicit knowledge. It is in the motor system, not the verbal memory.

Both kinds of knowledge matter. The problem arises when coaches over-invest in producing explicit knowledge — when they spend session time teaching the theory of movement rather than creating conditions in which movement develops organically.

The problem with too much explicit instruction

Explicit knowledge about a movement is vulnerable in a way that implicit knowledge is not. Under pressure — fatigue, height, time constraint, the presence of other people — explicit knowledge degrades. The practitioner who is thinking "diagonal line, tuck chin, round the back" has three things to manage consciously in a moment that requires zero conscious management.

The practitioner who has developed the roll implicitly — through thousands of repetitions in varied conditions — executes it without conscious processing. The movement is automatic. Pressure does not degrade what was never verbal to begin with.

This is why the analogy cue is such a powerful tool: it encodes a complex biomechanical pattern in a single image, bypassing the explicit system entirely and allowing the motor system to self-organise. "Roll like a wheel" produces a rounded, continuous, momentum-preserving roll without any of the words that describe it.

When explicit instruction is right

None of this means coaches should stop explaining things. Explicit instruction is the right tool when:

Safety requires it. The chin tuck in the parkour roll must be understood explicitly before any attempt. The consequence of not tucking is immediate and serious. You cannot rely on implicit learning to develop a safety-critical habit — you name it, you emphasise it, you check it every time until it is automatic.

The learner has a wrong model. If someone believes the roll goes straight down the spine, practice without correction will ingrain an injury risk. Explicit correction of a fundamental misunderstanding is necessary.

Transfer is the goal. If you want a coach-candidate to be able to teach a movement to others, they need declarative knowledge about it. Implicit knowledge does not transfer through instruction. If the goal is understanding as well as doing, explicit teaching has a place.

Creating conditions for implicit learning

The practical implication is that coaches should invest as much thought in the conditions they create as in the instructions they give. This is the core logic of the constraints-led approach — by manipulating the environment, the task, or the constraints on the learner, you can guide movement to develop in a particular direction without naming that direction explicitly.

A coach who wants learners to develop softer, more absorptive precision landings could instruct: "bend your knees more and absorb." Or they could place a slightly unstable landing surface — a balance board, a slightly raised platform, anything that rewards absorption and penalises rigidity — and let the motor system find the solution independently.

The second approach produces more robust learning. It takes more thought to design. It looks less like coaching from the outside. And it works better.

The skill of knowing when to speak and when to create conditions instead — when to teach explicitly and when to let movement emerge — is one of the deepest skills in coaching. It develops slowly, through deliberate reflection on what actually works. The research gives you a framework. Your own practice gives you the evidence.

Both are worth taking seriously.

For a practical reference of coaching cues across every major parkour movement, see the ADAPT Coaching Database. For the conceptual vocabulary behind these ideas, see the Coaching Glossary.

Published by ADAPT Qualifications — the world's original parkour coach certification, founded 2008. View upcoming courses.