Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Associate Professor of Motor Behavior, University of Isfahan
2 M.Sc. in Sport Biomechanic, University of Isfahan
Abstract
In this investigation, the throwing patterns variations of children were examined as the resultants of changing in task constraints. A total of 24 children (12 males and 12 females), aged 5 and 6 years old voluntarily participated in the study. The manipulation of task constrains was done via changes in target orientations (horizontal vs. vertical hoops) and ball sizes (6 cm vs. 12 cm diameters) and were considered as the main constraints. The observable throwing patterns of children were evaluated, and the kinematic changes of the components of their preferred throwing pattern were analyzed. Though, transitions from two- to one-hand throws and switching from underhand to overhand one-hand throws were observed in the first few trials (mostly in throwing the bigger balls), yet, the preferred pattern was found to be one-hand overhand throwing. The kinematic analysis revealed the existence of sensitivity of the backswing, forearm, and upper arm components of overhand one-hand throwing pattern toward the imposed task constrains. It was also found that most changes took place in the kinematic properties related to the forearm component. The findings represent some empirical evidences for dynamical systems theory to explain changes of movement patterns in motor development. We discussed the potential advantages using constraints for appropriate skill acquisition processes in physical education settings.
Keywords
Main Subjects
2. Kugler PN, Kelso JS, Turvey MT. On the control and coordination of naturally developing systems. In: Kelso JS, Clark JE, editors. The development of movement control and coordination. New York: Wiley; 1982. p. 5-78.
3. Thelen E. Motor development: A new synthesis. Am Psychol. 1995; 50(2):79-95.
4. Thelen E. Self-organization in developmental processes: Can systems approaches work. In: Johnson MH, Munakata Y, Gilmore RO, editors. Brain development and cognition. 2 ed. Boston, MA: Blackwell Publisher.; 2002. p. 336-74.
5. Newell KM, Jordan KJ. Task constraints and movement organization: A common language. In: Davis W, Broadhead G, editors. An ecological approach to human movement: Linking theory, research and practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2007. p. 5-23.
6. Newell KM. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control. Dordrecht, Germany: Martinus Nijhoff; 1986. p. 341-60.
7. Langendorfer S. Motor-task goal as a constraint on developmental status. In: Clark JE, Humphrey JH, editors. Advances in motor development. 1. New York: AMS Press; 1987. p. 16-28.
8. Bingham GP, Schmidt RC, Rosenblum LD. Hefting for a maximum distance throw: A smart perceptual mechanism. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989; 15(3):507-28.
9. Burton AW, Greer NL, Wiese DM. Changes in overhand throwing patterns as a function of ball size. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1992;4(1):50-67.
10. Burton AW, Greer NL, Wiese DM. Variations in grasping and throwing patterns as a function of ball size. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1993; 5:25-41.
11. Choi Y, Hawkins AH, Langley JG, editors. Changes in throwing pattern as a function of task variation. 2008 AAHPERD National Convention and Exposition; 2008; Fort Worth, Texas, USA: Res Q Exercise Sport. p.A46.
12. Roberton MA. Changing motor patterns during childhood. In: Thomas J, editor. Motor development during childhood and adolescence/edited by Jerry R. Thomas. Minneapolis: Burgess; 1984. p. 48–90.
13. Roberton MA. Developmental level as a function of the immediate environment. In: Clark JE, Humphrey JH, editors. Advances in motor development. 1. New York: AMS Press; 1987. p. 1-15.
14. Webster EK, Ulrich DA. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Test of Gross Motor Development-3rd edition. Journal of Motor Learning and Development. 2017; 5(1):45-58.
15. Mohammadi F, Bahram A, Khalaji H, Ulrich DA, Ghadiri F. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the persian version of the test of gross motor development–3rd edition. Journal of Motor Learning and Development. 2019; 7(1):106-21.
16. SimulCam™Technology. Dartfish connect prosuite. 7 ed. GA: Alpharetta; 2015.
17. Cohen J. Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor anova designs. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973; 33(1):107-12.
18. Gagen LM, Getchell N. Using ‘constraints’ to design developmentally appropriate movement activities for early childhood education. Early Child Educ J. 2006; 34(3):227-32.
19. Garner J. Kinematic and kinetic comparison of overhand and underhand pitching: Implications to proximal-to-distal sequencing: Auburn University (PhD Dissertation); 2007.
20. Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Shuttleworth R, Renshaw I, Araújo D. The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(3):251-78.
21. Balan CM, Davis WE. Ecological task analysis: An approach to teaching physical education. JOPERD 1993; 64(9):54-62.
22. Thelen E, Smith LB. A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press; 1994. p. 376
23. Hardy LL, King L, Farrell L, Macniven R, Howlett S. Fundamental movement skills among australian preschool children. JSAMS 2010; 13(5):503-8.
24. Spessato BC, Gabbard C, Valentini N, Rudisill M. Gender differences in brazilian children's fundamental movement skill performance. Early Child Dev Care. 2013; 183(7):916-23.
25. Foulkes JD, Knowles Z, Fairclough SJ, Stratton G, O'Dwyer M, Ridgers ND, et al. Fundamental movement skills of preschool children in northwest england. Percept Mot Skills. 2015; 121(1):260-83.
26. Herkowitz J. Developmentally engineered equipment and playgrounds. In: Thomas JR, editor. Motor development during childhood and adolescence. Minneapolis: Burgess; 1984. p. 139-73.
)