Nielinearna pedagogika – zastosowanie w kulturze fizycznej

• Authors: Ludwiczak Mateusz , Bronikowski Michał

Title variants

EN

Nonlinear pedagogy – the application in physical culture

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

PL

Praca jest próbą przedstawienia alternatywnej metody w procesie nauczania wychowania fizycznego. Obecnie najistotniejszym problemem wychowania fizycznego jest jego mała atrakcyjność w stosunku do innych form aktywności dostępnych dla młodzieży, takich jak nowoczesne technologie. Podczas lekcji wychowania fizycznego uczniowie czują się znu­dzeni i rozczarowani. Istnieje potrzeba stworzenia przyjaznego i atrakcyjnego środowiska dla uczniów podczas każdej lekcji. Pomocna może być tu nielinearna pedagogika będąca holistycznym podłożem teoretycznym dla Teaching Games for Understanding, postrzegająca ucznia jako współtwórcę procesu nauczania. W artykule pokazano różnicę pomiędzy po­dejściem tradycyjnym a nielinearnym względem wymiaru technicznego, taktycznego oraz mentalnego. Ideą nielinearnej pedagogiki jest ukazanie różnych dróg dojścia do określonego celu oraz zwrócenie uwagi na brak idealnego wzorca ruchowego i wzorowego rozwiązania w sytuacjach boiskowych. Uczniowie rozwijani są poprzez modelowanie zmiennymi doty­czącymi uczestnika, środowiska oraz zadania, dzięki czemu nauczyciel ma możliwość dużej indywidualizacji procesu. Dzięki ukierunkowanemu odkrywaniu uczeń ma poczucie autonomii podczas zajęć. Nielinearna pedagogika może zwiększyć wkład wychowania fizycznego w rozwój jakości życia uczniów, wyposażając ich w umiejętności życiowe oraz zachęcając do aktywnego spędzania czasu wolnego.

EN

The paper is an attempt to present an alternative approach to teaching physical education. The main problem of current physical education is its low attractiveness as compared with other forms of activity available for youth, such as those offered by new technologies. During physical education classes, students feel bored and disappointed. There is a need to create a friendly, attractive environment for pupils during each class. The problem could be helped by nonlinear pedagogy, which is the holistic theoretical basis for Teaching Games for Understanding; it perceives a student as a co-creator of the learning process. The paper indicates the difference between the traditional and nonlinear approaches with respect to the technical, tactical, and mental dimensions. The idea of nonlinear pedagogy is to show that there is no one ideal pattern of movement or perfect solution in game situations. Stu­dents can develop through modelling with variables referring to the participant, environment, or task. Thus, the teacher can apply strongly individualized strategies. Owing to guided discovering, students can experience their autonomy in class. Nonlinear pedagogy can enhance the contribution of physical education to the development of students’ quality of life, equipping them with life skills and encouraging to active leisure.

Keywords

PL

wychowanie fizyczne; nielinearna pedagogika; proces nauczania

EN

physical education; nonlinear pedagogy; teaching process

• Publisher: Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego we Wrocławiu
• Journal: Rozprawy Naukowe Akademii Wychowania Fizycznego we Wrocławiu
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 57
• Pages: 103-115

Dates

published

2017-06-14

Contributors

author

Ludwiczak Mateusz

• Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego w Poznaniu

author

Bronikowski Michał

• Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego w Poznaniu

References

• Abrams, M., Reber, A.S. (1988). Implicit learning: Robustness in the face of psychiatric disorder. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17(5), 425–439.
• Araújo, D., Davids, K., Bennett, S., Button, C., Chap­man, G. (2004). Emergence of sport skills under constraint. W: A.M.W.N.J. Hodges (red.), Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice (s. 409–433). London: Taylor & Francis.
• Brown, J. (2004). Tennis: Steps to success. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Bunker, D., Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary school. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8.
• Butler, J., McCahan, B.J. (2005). Teaching games for understanding as a curriculum model. W: Linda Griffin, Joy Butler (red.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice (s. 33–54). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., Shuttleworth, R., Button, C., Renshaw, I., Araújo, D. (2007). From processes to principles: A constraints-led approach to teaching games for understanding (TGfU). Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251–278.
• Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Rein, R. (2008). Dynamics of movement patterning in learning a discrete multiarticular action. Motor Control, 12(3), 219–240.
• Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Rein, R., Hris­tovski, R., Koh, M. (2009a). Dynamics of multi-articular coordination in neurobiological systems. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences, 13(1), 27–52.
• Chow, J.Y., Davids, K.W., Button, C., Renshaw, I., Shuttleworth, R., Uehara, L.A. (2009b). Nonlinear pedagogy: implications for teaching games for understanding (TGfU). W: T. Hopper, J. Butler, B. Storey, (red.), TGfU: Simply Good Pedagogy: Understanding a Complex Challenge (s. 131–43). Ottawa: Physical Health Education Association.
• Chow, J.Y., Davids, K., Hristovski, R., Araújo, D., Passos, P. (2011). Nonlinear Pedagogy: Learning design for self-organizing neurobiological systems. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 189–200.
• Chow, J.Y., Renshaw, I., Button, C., Davids, K., Tan, C.W.K. (2013). Effective learning designfor the individual: a nonlinear pedagogical approach in physical education. W: A. Ovens, T. Hopper, J. Butler (red.), Complexity Thinking in Physical Education: Reframing curriculum, pedagogy and research (s. 121–134). London–New York: Routledge.
• Davids, K., Button, C., Bennett, S. J. (2002). Coordination and Control of Movement in Sport: An Ecological Approach. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
• French, K., Thomas, J. (1987). The relation of knowledge development to children’s basketball performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 15–32.
• Griffin, L.L., Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Guła-Kubiszewska, H. (2007). Efekty dydaktyczne samoregulowanego uczenia się motorycznego, Studia i Monografie AWF we Wrocławiu, 86.
• Handford, C.H. (2006). Serving up variability and stability. W: K. Davids, C. Button, K. Newell (red.), Movement system variability (s. 73–83). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Hodges, N.J., Franks, I.M. (2002). Modelling coaching practice: The role of instruction and demonstration. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(10), 793–811.
• Horn, R.R., Williams, A.M. (2004). Observational learning. W: A.M. Williams, N.J. Hodges (red.), Skill acquisition in sport. Research, theory and practice (s. 33–54). London–New York: Routledge.
• Howarth, K. (2005). Introducing the teaching games for understanding model in teacher education programs. W: L. Griffin, J. Butler (red.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice (s. 91–105). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Hristovski, R., Davids, K., Passos, P., Araujo, D. (2012). Sport performance as a domain of creative problem solving for self-organizing performer-environment systems. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5(1–4), 26–35.
• Krawański, A. (2006). Interaktywne uczenie się i nauczanie w wychowaniu fizycznym i fizjoterapii. Tworzenie stosunku człowieka do ciała i zdrowia. Poznań: AWF.
• Koszyc, T. (2000). Transfer jako problem dydaktyczny w wychowaniu fizycznym. W: T. Koszczyc (red.), Transfer w procesie wychowania fizycznego (s. 9–21). Wrocław: AWF.
• Lee, M.C.Y., Chow, J.Y., Komar, J., Tan, C.W.K., Button, C. (2014). Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. PloS one, 9(8), e104744.
• Light, R., Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55, 161–176.
• Metzler, M. (2005). Instructional models for physical education (2nd ed). Tempe, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway.
• Mitchell, S.A., Griffin, L.L., Oslin, J.L. (1995). The effects of two instructional approaches on game performance. Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching in Physical Education and Sports, 1(1), 36–48.
• Mitchell S.A., Oslin J.L., Griffin L.L. (2006). Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games approach. Vol. 1. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L., Griffin, L.L. (2013). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach for ages 7 to 18. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., Babiarz, M., McCaughtry, N. (2001). Changes in basic tactics and motor skills in an invasion-type game after a 12-lesson unit of instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 352–369.
• Newell, K.M., Liu, Y.T., Mayer-Kress, G. (2001). Time scales in motor learning anddevelopment. Psychological Review, 108(1), 57–82.
• Newell, K.M., Liu, Y.-T. (2012). Functions of learning and the acquisition of motor skills (with reference to sport). The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5(Suppl 1-M3), 17–25.
• Nowocień, J. (2013). Studium o pedagogice kultury fizycznej. Warszawa: AWF.
• Pasterniak, W. (2016). Edukacja przez zrozumienie. W: W.J. Cynarski, W. Błażejewski, W. Pas­terniak (red.), Pedagogika nowoparadygmatyczna w poszukiwaniu nowych inspiracji i aplikacji pedagogicznych (s. 68–83). Rzeszów.
• Pawłucki, A. (2013). Nauki o kulturze fizycznej. Wrocław: AWF.
• Phillips, E., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., Portus, M. (2010). Expert performance in sport and the dynamics of talent development. Sports Medicine, 40(3), 1–13.
• Renshaw I., Moy B. (2011). Adopting a theoretically driven approach to learning design changes student’s beliefs in how to teach P.E. AISEP 2011: International Association of Physical Education in Higher Education International Conference; 22–25th June 2011. Limerick: University of Limerick.
• Renshaw, I., Oldham, A.R., Bawden, M. (2012). Nonlinear pedagogy underpins intrinsic motivation in sports coaching. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5, 88–99.
• Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., Grolnick, W.S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. W: D. Cicchetti, D. J. Cohen (red.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and methods. Vol 1 (s. 618–655). New York: Wiley.
• Sagar, S.S., Lavallee, D., Spray, C.M. (2007). Why young elite athletes fear failure: Consequences of failure. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(11), 1171–1184.
• Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Salmoni, A.W., Schmidt, R.A., Walter, C.B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355–386.
• Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L. (1997). Coaching the coaches: Youth sports as a scientific and applied behavioral setting. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6(1), 16–21.
• Thorpe, R.D., Bunker, D.J., Almond, L. (1984). A change in focus for the teaching of games. W: M. Pieron, G. Graham (red.), Sport pedagogy: Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings. Vol. 6 (s. 163–169). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Tinning, R. (2006). Thinking about good teaching in physical education. W: R. Tinning, L. McCuaig, L. Hunter (red.), Teaching health and physical education in Australian schools (s. 232–239). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia.
• Turner, A.P. (1996). Teaching for understanding: Myth or reality? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46–55.
• Turner, A.P., Martinek, T.J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 286–296.
• Turner, A.P. (2005). Teaching and learning games at the secondary level. W: L.Griffin, J. Butler, Teaching games for understanding: Theory, research and practice (s. 71–90). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
• Turvey, M.T., Shaw, R. (1995). Toward an ecological physics and a physical psychology. W: R.L. Solso, D.W. Massaro (red.), The science of the mind: 2001 and beyond (s. 144–169). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Werner, P., Almond, L. (1990). Models of games education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 61(4), 23027.
• Whiting, H.T.A., Brinker, B.P.L.M. (1982). Image of the act. W: J.P. Das, R.F. Mulcahy, A.E. Wall (red.), Theory in research and learning disabilities (s. 217–235). New York: Plenum.
• Williams, A.M., Hodges, N.J. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(6), 637–650.
• Wulf, G., McConnel, N., Gartner, M., Schwarz, A. (2002). Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34(2), 171–182.
• Zanone, P.G., Kelso, J.A.S. (1992). Evolution of behavioral attractors with learning: nonequi­librium phase transitions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 403–421.