Abstract

Motor learning is an important subject and is a required course for undergraduate students who major in health and physical education according to NASPE standards two. The objective of motor learning courses at the undergraduate level is to prepare our students to be competent to teach motor skills in the future. However, teaching the motor learning course effectively at this level is truly challenging due to the abstractness of the motor learning theories which are largely based on laboratory experiments. Many times students? motivation of learning could be compromised due to a potential disconnect between theory and practice of motor learning course in general. Thus, the purpose of this paper is two-fold: (a) to illustrate the obstacles of teaching motor learning courses, and (b) to introduce the effective ways of connecting theory to practice for teaching motor learning at the undergraduate level.

Keywords

Connecting theory to practice in teaching, Motor learning and performance, Teaching strategies, Motor skills, Sport, Physical education, coaching,

References

  1. P.B. Rukavina, & J.J. Jeansonne, Integrating motor-learning concepts into physical education: Using guided discovery to address NASPE standard 2, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80 (2009) 23-30.
  2. P.M. Fitts, The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47 (1954) 381-391.
  3. W.E. Hick, On the rate of gain of information, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4 (1952) 11-26.
  4. J.R. Stroop, Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(1935) 643-662.
  5. P. Dunham, Distribution of practice as a factor learning and/or performance, Journal of Motor Behavior, 8 (1976) 305-307.
  6. R.A. Magill, (2007), Motor learning and control – Concepts and applications, Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
  7. D.J. Rose, & R.W. Christina, (2006), Multilevel approach to the study of motor control and learning. San Francisco, Pearson, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
  8. R.A. Schmidt, & C.A. Wrisberg, (2008), Motor learning and performance – A situation based learning approach, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  9. R.W. Christina, M.G. Fischman, M.G.P. Vercruyssen, & J.G. Anson, Simple reaction time as a function of response complexity: Memory drum theory revisited, Journal of Motor Behavior, 14 (1982) 301-321.
  10. S.T. Klapp, Feedback versus motor programming in the control of aimed movements, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104 (1975) 147-153.
  11. A.M. Gentile, A working model of skill acquisition with application to teaching, Quest Monograph XVII (1972) 3-23.
  12. A. M. Gentile,. (1987) Skill acquisition: Action, movement, and neuromotor processes. In J. H. Carr, R. B. Shepherd, J. Gordon, A. M. Gentile, J. M. Held, (Eds.), Movement science foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Rockville, MD: Aspen. Pp. 93– 154.
  13. J.G. Anson, Memory drum theory, Alternative tests and explanations for the complexity effects on simple reaction time, Journal of Motor Behavior, 14 (1982) 228-246.
  14. R.W. Christina, & D.J. Rose, Premotor and motor reaction time as a function of response complexity, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56 (1985) 306-315. International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports-IJPEFS, Vol.1. No.4.Dec 2012 ISSN 2277-5447 10
  15. J. Wang, Strategies of filling a performance gap between practice and competition, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 81 (2010) 26–32.
  16. J.A. Adams, A closed-loop theory of motor learning, Journal of Motor Behavior, 3 (1971) 111-149.
  17. R.A. Schmidt, A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82 (1975) 225-260.
  18. R.A. Schmidt, & D.L. Lee, (2005), Motor control and learning – A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics