You are here:

Motor activities teaching and complexity: a reversal of the classical description of the mechanisms of perception and action
ARTICLE

, ,

Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society Volume 9, Number 3, ISSN 1826-6223 e-ISSN 1826-6223 Publisher: Italian e-Learning Association

Full Text

Abstract

In the last decade we saw a heated debate on the implementation of complex learning theories in Physical Education. In the educational field there has been the difficulty to apply in the teaching practice a conception of the knowledge and learning which, on a theoretical level, has recognized the role of the body in movement, while it struggles, on the operative level, to define methodologies and tools usable in everyday’s activities. The constructivist hypothesis in Physical Education has faced serious difficulties in educationally interpreting the nature of the motor experience. This paper focuses on the concept of action and on the reversal of the process of perception-action operated by the phenomenological tradition (Merleau-Ponty), which has been confirmed in more or less recent neuroscientific evidences (Berthoz, Decety, Jeannerod). In this perspective, the subject builds his world according to his basic needs and action tools. From this point of view, faced with insurmountable difficulties posed by a multidimensional reality, the typical activity of living beings proceeds through the reduction of the dimensionality of the problems, a reduction that addresses complexity simply acting ahead. In other words, the body in action solves local complexity. This idea leads to the disintegration of cognitivist methodological model, based on a concept of information processing that involves discrete, separate, non-overlapping stages of perception-action, and moves in direction of an approach to complexity that shifts from a descriptive level (identification and understanding of the phenomenon) to a pragmatic level (supporting its existence and development).

Citation

Carlomagno, N., Di Tore, P. & Sibilio, M. (2013). Motor activities teaching and complexity: a reversal of the classical description of the mechanisms of perception and action. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 9(3),. Italian e-Learning Association. Retrieved September 1, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aiello, P., & Sibilio, M. (2010), The teaching research focused on the movement: heuristic approaches and elements of complexity. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 29(4), 5.
  2. Angerman, H., & Vogel, G. (1977), dtv-Atlas zur Biologie: Band.
  3. Bergamasco, M. (2005), Multimodal Interfaces: an Introduction to ENACTIVE systems. Paper presented at the Eurographic.
  4. Berthoz, A. (1997), Le sens du mouvement (Vol. 223): Odile Jacob Paris.
  5. Berthoz, A. (2000), The Brain’s Sense of Movement: Harvard University Press.
  6. Berthoz, A. (2008), Neurobiology of “Umwelt”: How Living Beings Perceive the World: Springer.
  7. Berthoz, A., & Petit, J.-L. (2006), Phénoménologie et physiologie de l’action: Odile Jacob. Ca l la riGa l l i , M. , Ce ru t i , M. , & P ievan i , T. (1998) , Pensare la diversi tà. Per un’educazione alla complessità umana: Meltemi.
  8. Carlomagno, N. (2012), Corpo, movimento e didattica: emergenze formative e sviluppi professionali. I nuovi profili professionali motorio-sportivi nei contesti educativi per l’età evolutiva: Pensa Editore.
  9. Carnus, M.F. (2010), Analyse didactique clinique de l’activité décisionnelle de deux enseignantes en éducation physique et sportive (EPS). Education et didactique, 4(3), 49-62.
  10. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2003), Why aren’t they getting this? Working through the regressive myths of constructivist pedagogy. Teaching Education, 14(2), 123-140.
  11. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2012), Fitting teacher education in/to/for an increasingly complex world. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(1).
  12. Davis, B., Sumara, D.J., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000), Engaging Minds: Changing Teaching in Complex Times: Taylor& Francis.
  13. Decety, J., & Jackson, P.L. (2004), The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews, 3(2), 71-100.
  14. Di Tore, P.A., Discepolo, T., & Di Tore, S. (2013), Natural User Interfaces as a powerful tool for courseware design in Physical Education. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 9(2).
  15. Galimberti, U. (2006), Parole nomadi: Feltrinelli. Gell-Mann, M. (1995a), The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex: St. Martin’s Press. Gell-Mann, M. (1995b), What is complexity. Complexity, 1(1), 16-19.
  16. Gibson, J.J. (1986), The ecological approach to visual perception: Taylor& Francis.
  17. Ginsburg, C. (2011), Alain Berthoz Mind and Motion: The Brain’s Sense of Movement Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(11), 9.
  18. Jeannerod, M. (1994), The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain sciences, 17(02), 187-202.
  19. Leman, M. (2008), Embodied Music: Cognition and Mediation Technology: Mit Press.
  20. Lewontin, R.C. (1982), Organism and environment. Learning, development and culture, 151-170.
  21. Light, R. (2008), Complex learning theory—its epistemology and its assumptions about learning: implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(1), 16.
  22. Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003), Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55(2), 161-176.
  23. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962), Phenomenology of Perception: An Introduction: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  24. Morin, E. (1990), Carrefour des sciences. Paper presented at the Actes du colloque du Comité national de la Recherche scientifique interdisciplinaire.
  25. Morin, E. (2005). Educare gli educatori. Edup Roma.
  26. Norman, D.A. (1999), Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43.
  27. Petit, J. (2012), Complexité-Simplexité-De la simplexité au champ phénoménal: La réponse du vivant à la complexité. Retrieved 30/05/2013, from http://www.jeanlucpetit.com/sites/default/files/seminaire_complexite-simplexite_23-24.05.12.pdf
  28. Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (2002), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX: Oxford University Press Oxford:.
  29. Rink, J.E. (2001), Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(2), 112.
  30. Schmidt, R.A., & Wrisberg, C.A. (2008), Motor learning and performance: a situation-based learning approach: Human Kinetics Publishers.
  31. Sibilio, M. (2012), Il corpo e il movimento nella ricerca didattica. Indirizzi scientificodisciplinari e chiavi teorico-argomentative: Liguori.
  32. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E.T., & Rosch, E. (1992), The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience: MIT Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts