Possibilities of Using OPTIMAL Theory in School Physical Education and Teaching of Sports Games
Vol.12,No.2(2018)
The objectives of this article were to give the reader a brief account of the main ideas and foundations of a relatively new theory of motor learning, OPTIMAL, formulated by Gabriele Wulf and Rebecca Lewthwait. The study will also point out the possibility of its application in school physical education lessons, particularly in teaching sports games. The authors critically assess “traditional” teaching of new locomotor skills stressing the frequent neglect of the internal motivation of pupils and support for their autonomy. According to the traditional method, internal focus of attention is imposed on the pupils, i.e., concentration on the movements of the body or its parts. It is claimed that the result of such an approach is a learning process that is not sufficiently effective. On the contrary, they recommend that teachers should consciously raise the pupils’ expectations, support the need for autonomy by their more active involvement in the teaching process and focus their attention externally towards the goals of the task. It seems that the practical application of the OPTIMAL theory in school physical education lessons is feasible. It is above all the support for autonomy that follows the current trends. However, we expect high demands set on the organisation of the teaching process and on the teachers themselves. Future testing in the school practice is necessary. The TGFU (Teaching Games for Understanding) didactic paradigm has been successfully used in teaching sports games for a number of years. Due to the similarity of some principles of the OPTIMAL theory and this paradigm, it is apparent that the new theory of motor learning could be successful, too, particularly in teaching the fundamentals of game skills in sports games. This assumption, however, should also become a subject of testing in the future.
motor learning; autonomy; external focus; self-efficacy
166–171
Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. In Bulletin of Physical Education, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 5-8.
Dobrý, L. (2003). Přehledná studie o vývoji a současném stavu zkoumání herního výkonu a jeho osvojování. In Pedagogická kinantropologie.Praha: Karolinum, s. 36-87. ISBN 80-246-0767-0.
Chen, D., & Singer, R. N. (1992). Self-regulation and cognitive strategies in sport participation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 277–300.
Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599260">https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599260
Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Campos, T. (2012). Motor learning benefits of self-controlled practice in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Gait & Posture, 35, 601–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.12.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.12.003
Griffin, L. L. – Butler, J. I. (2005). Teaching Games for Understanding. Champaign : Human Kinetics, ISBN 13: 9780736045940.
Kal, E. C., van der Kamp, J., & Houdijk, H. (2013). External attentional focus enhances movement automatization: A comprehensive test of the constrained action hypothesis. Human Movement Science, 32, 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2013.04.001">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2013.04.001
Kirschenbaum, D. S. (1984). Self-regulation and sport psychology: Nurturing an emerging symbiosis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.6.2.159">https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.6.2.159
Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2010). Grand challenge for movement science and sport psychology: Embracing the social-cognitiveaffective-motor nature of motor behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(Article 42), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00042">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00042
Lewthwaite, R., Chiviacowsky, S., Drews, R., & Wulf, G. (2015). Choose to move: The motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1383–1388. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0814-7">https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0814-7
Loosch, E. (1995). Funktionelle Variabilität in Dartwurf (Functional variability in dart throwing). Sportwissenschaft, 25, 417–425.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education. (5th Ed). New York: Benjamin Cummings.
Parr, R., & Button, C. (2009). End-point focus of attention: Learning the “catch” in rowing. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40, 616–635.
Psotta, R. & Velenský, M. (2001). Aternativní pojetí vyučování sportovních her ve školní tělesné výchově. In Pedagogická kinantropologie. Praha: Karolinum, s. 17-27. ISBN 80-246-0322-5.
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: evolution of a model. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1996.10607176">https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1996.10607176
Wulf, G., McNevin, N. H., & Shea, C. H. (2001). The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1143–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756012">https://doi.org/10.1080/713756012
Wulf, G. & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance trough intrinsic motivation and attenion for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 23, no. 5, p. 1382-1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9">https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9
Wulf, G., Orr, S., & Chauvel, G. (2017). Optimizing golf skill learning. In M. Toms (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Golf Science, p. 88-97. London: Routledge.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2019 Studia sportiva