learning to move↔moving to learn: discussion at the crossroads

13
This article was downloaded by: [Andrews University] On: 26 October 2014, At: 14:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Theory Into Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20 Learning to movemoving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads Kate R. Barrett a a Associate Professor, The University of North Carolina , Greensboro, North Carolina Published online: 05 Nov 2009. To cite this article: Kate R. Barrett (1973) Learning to movemoving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads, Theory Into Practice, 12:2, 109-120, DOI: 10.1080/00405847309542437 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405847309542437 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: kate-r

Post on 28-Feb-2017

215 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

This article was downloaded by: [Andrews University]On: 26 October 2014, At: 14:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Learning to move↔moving to learn:Discussion at the crossroadsKate R. Barrett aa Associate Professor, The University of North Carolina , Greensboro, NorthCarolinaPublished online: 05 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Kate R. Barrett (1973) Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads,Theory Into Practice, 12:2, 109-120, DOI: 10.1080/00405847309542437

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405847309542437

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

Learning to Move Movingto Learn: Discussionat the Crossroads

Kate R. BarrettAssociate ProfessorThe University of North CarolinaGreensboro, North Carolina

There is little doubt that physical educationprograms for young children are taking on amuch greater significance than they have had inthe past. No longer is there hesitation about theunique educational values potentially inherentin such programs.

The greatest change evidenced in the think-ing about physical education programs for youngchildren is the shift to thinking that the child'sphysical education is, in essence, his movementeducation: his education in and through move-ment. This concept represents a developing phi-losophy about movement and the potential roleit plays in a child's total education and life. Forthis reason, many physical education programsdesigned for children between the ages of fourand nine are now referred to as "MovementEducation Programs."

As a concept, movement education is notentirely new. What is new is the increasing in-sight being gained into its potential meaning,and the resulting implications specific to theeducation of young children. Early references tomovement education stressed the need for allpeople to have a thorough understanding of thebody in movement, and for each person to havepersonal mastery over his own body in all move-ment situations. In these times of rapid changeit is important to realize that in this area what

may appear as a radical change, with little fore-thought, actually has emerged because of muchthought over a period of several decades.

Movement education is evolving as a phi-losophy about movement and its significance inthe young child's life. With the acceptance ofthis concept as a vital influence in a child's edu-cation, and in his physical education in particu-lar, there seem to be developing as many "rightapproaches" as there are people interested, afact that might justifiably cause some concern.More and more "programs" are appearing, deal-ing with the physical education of young chil-dren, and all claiming to implement a movementeducation philosophy. The rapidity with whichthese "new approaches to physical education"are emerging is both alarming and exciting.Although examination often reveals major differ-ences between them, and internal inconsistencieswithin single programs, as well as programs de-void of any rationale for their direction, thethrust of interest seems to be sincere.

* In this paper movement (human movement)is being accepted as the content of physical educa-tion, the substance with which all experiences aredesigned. This assumption is fairly conclusivelyaccepted where programs for young children areconcerned. Since this paper is focusing: on thepresent situation, no historical background will begiven. For those interested in this background in-formation, the following sources are suggested:Barrett,3 Locke4 and Siedentop.5

Volume XII, Number 2 109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

In 1965 The American Association forHealth, Physical Education and Recreationstated: "Today's physical education is the sub-ject in which children learn to move as theymove to learn."1 It is within this idea, Learningto Move*—>Moving to Learn, that the essenceof the concept of movement education rests.

Central to the idea of Learning to Move<—>Moving to Learn is its dualistic nature: learningto move and moving to learn. While they areinterdependent ideas, difficult to separate inpractice, there are some important differences ofemphasis. Halverson2 identifies the differencesas:

Learning to move . . . involves continu-ous development in ability to use the bodyeffectively and joyfully, with increasing evi-dence of control and quality in movement. Itinvolves the development of the ability tomove in a variety of ways, in unexpected andexpected situations, and in increasingly com-plex tasks.

Learning through movement.. . impliesmovement as a means to an end, but the endis not necessarily the end of improvement inthe ability of the child to move effectively.It is a means through which a child maylearn more about himself, about his environ-ment and about his world.

In actual movement experiences, wecannot clearly separate the two. Fortunatelythe child will not let us. Yet as teachers, itis essential that we recognize that the em-phases implied under learning throughmovement differ from those implied underlearning to move. Emphasis on one need notexclude the other, but inadvertently, wecould neglect, ignore or completely forgetone or the other in our work.

Understanding Learning to Move*—»Movingto Learn as a two-fold idea is essential if thequality of physical education programs for youngchildren is to achieve consistency and be, as

1. This Is Physical Education (Washington, D. C :The American Association for Health, Physical Edu-cation and Recreation, 1965), p. 24.2. Lolas E. Halverson, "The Young Child . . . TheSignificance of Motor Development," in The Sig-nificance of the Young Child's Motor Development(Washington, D. C. : National Association for theEducation of Young Children, 1971), p. 18.110 Theory Into Practice

well, a truly integrated aspect of the child'stotal educational experience.

Besides becoming aware of what learning tomove and moving to learn implies in general,three additional, interdependent aspects must beexamined specifically in relation to physical edu-cation for young children. They are : ( 1 ) thechild, particularly the child in the process oflearning, ( 2 ) movement, and particularly humanmovement3-4-"- and (3) the child and movement,and particularly the child's education in andthrough movement.

The Child

Every one is looking at the young child and,as Omwake suggests: We know so much—weknow so little."6 Acknowledging the fact thathistorically early childhood education movedrapidly from one approach to another, Omwakeremarks fhat despite this fluctuation:

We are beginning to understand ma-turation, motivation, the concept of criticalperiods, the significance of the first relation-ships, the phenomena of individual differ-ences, the role of the environment in learn-ing . . . . We are much farther along thanwe were 10 years ago in acceptance of therelevance of early experiences to later per-formance and life style. We know moreabout early learning.1

However, she concludes, "It is still a questionin what depth that well-publicized phenomenonis understood."

Strongly interwoven with these beginningknowledges of how children can learn and de-

3. Kate R. Barrett, "A Procedure for SystematicallyDescribing Teacher-Student Behavior in PrimaryPhysical Education Lessons Implementing the Con-cept of Movement Education." Unpublished doctoraldissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Madison,1969, pp. 10-61.4. Lawrence F. Locke, "Movement Education—ADescription and Critique," in Roscoe C. Brown, Jr.,and Bryant J. Cratty, eds., New Perspectives ofMan in Action (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1969), pp. 57-67.5. Daryl Siedentop, Physical Education—Introduc-tory Analysis (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. BrownPublishers, 1972), pp. 105-125.6. Eveline Omwake, "The Young Child . . . We KnowSo Much—We Know So Little," in The Significanceof the Young Child's Motor Development (Washing-ton, D. C. : National Association for the Educationof Young Children, 1971), pp. 10-15.7. Ibid., p. 11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

velop- most effectively is a developing commit-ment to such assumptions as:

1. Each child is a unique individual with apotential for total development specific to him-self.

2. Each child learns most effectively whenhe is personally involved; he has his own waysof learning, implying individuality in both styleand rate.

3. Each child needs self actualization, im-plying the possession of such awareness as:self-identity, self-acceptance, self-direction, andself-worth.

One dimension, then, that is influencingdirections taken in physical education programsfor the young child is the child himself, as heis, and as he is being perceived by those workingwith him. In theory, physical educators showlittle disagreement with this view, but currentpractice is not always consistent with this per-spective. In physical education experiences, theway the learning environment is being structuredis considered to reflect beliefs about how chil-dren learn and develop. Various patterns arepresent : ( 1 ) movement experiences purposelydesigned with little structure, (2) movementexperiences purposely designed with much struc-ture, (3) movement experiences purposely de-signed with varying amounts of structure and(4) movement experiences with no specific at-tention to structure. There seems to be littlelogic in how the concept of structure is appliedto the child's learning environment except thatin theory it supports the individualistic natureof the child and his need for self-actualization.Implications from knowledge about how childrenlearn and develop seem to be implemented hap-hazardly, with little or no rationale. A morecareful and workable understanding of thechild is needed; an understanding that will givemore rational direction to implementation.

Movement—The Content of Physical Education

Inherent in the difficulty of applying ourknowledge of how children learn and developis the question of what they are learning. Inthis case the subject matter is movement. Physi-cal educators use the idea that movement is thecontent of their programs for children, but thereis nevertheless uncertainty about its very na-ture. The term uncertainty is not being used tosuggest criticism, but rather to identify a stage

in the growth of physical educators' thinkingabout their contributions to early childhood edu-cation.

For example, Figures 1, 2 and 3 are schemesthat represent diagrammatically the nature ofmovement, and in some instances physical edu-cation as a whole. They were selected becausethey demonstrate most clearly the current scenein physical education in relation to childhoodeducation as a whole. In the brief discussionthat follows the models will be viewed in termsof: ( 1 ) the nature or components of movement,( 2 ) the content of programs for young childrenand ( 3 ) the means for program development.

The nature of movement. Frostig and Mas-low analyzed movement in relation to the twoaspects of their program (See figure I).8 theattributes of movement, where the emphasis isprimarily on development of movement skills,and creative movement, where the emphasis isprimarily on increasing the child's awarenessof his own feelings and his sense of self-worth.9

Movement, as analyzed in relation to the at-tributes of movement, is comprised of coordina-tion, rhythm, speed, ability, flexibility, strength,endurance and balance. Creative movement in-cludes space, time, flow, weight, gravity, shapeand levels.10

Stanley,11 in adapting Rudolf Laban's12 sys-tem for analyzing movement, identified four ma-jor components, often referred to by others asprinciples of movement: the body, or what thebody can do; space, or where the body can move,effort, or how the body can move; and relation-ships, or with what relationships the body canmove. See figure 2.

Hansonir- perceives movement as having foui-major divisions: elements of movement, basicmovement, fundamental skills, and specialized

8. Marianne Frostig and Phyllis Maslow, MovementEducation: Theory and Practice (Chicago: FolletEducational Corporation, 1970), pp. 32-33.9. Ibid, pp. 34-39, 75-78.10. Ibid, p. 67, and pp. 32-39, 67-81.11. Sheila Stanley, Physical Education—A Move-ment Orientation (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Companyof Canada Limited, 1969), p. 39.12. Rudolf Laban, Mastery of Movement, 3d ed.,rev. Lisa Ullmann (London: Macdonald and Evans,1971).13. Model, p. 114, developed by Margie R. Hanson,Elementary Education Consultant, The AmericanAssociation for Health, Physical Education andRecreation, 1201 16th Street, N. W., Washington,D. C. 20036. (Permission granted, June, 1972.)

Volume XII, Number 2 111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

Figure 1: The Frostig and Maslow ModelFactors in. Human Movement and

Physical Education Programs

Attributes of Movement

CoordinationAcross body axis of different muscle groups simul-taneously

RhythmJerky vs. smooth movementsSynchrony prerequisite

SpeedContinuous movement in spaceRunning

AgilityInitiation of movementChange of direction

FlexibilityMaximum extension in trunk and limbsRotation of joints

StrengthGeneral, specific muscle groups

EnduranceSustained movement over timeBalance

StaticDynamicObject

Creative MovementSpaceDirections, floor patterns

TimeChanges in speed

FlowBound movements, free flowing movements

WeightHeavy, forceful movement, light, gentle movement

GravityPart or parts of the body that may serve as a baseof support

ShapePosition of body

LevelLow, normal and high

112 Theory Into Practice

skills and activities. Elements of movement inelude space, time, force and flow. The compon-ents of basic movement are not specifically de-fined by the model unless the elements of move-ment are perceived in this role.14 Locomotor,non-locomotor and manipulative skills togethermake up fundamental skills, with team sports,dance, daily life activities, gymnastics, aquaticsand individual sports representing the activities.Specialized skills, as the term is used in thisanalysis, are those skills necessary to performthe above-mentioned activities efficiently. Effici-ent movement is in Hanson's view the majoraim of physical education. See figure 3.

The content. How movement is analyzed, asrepresented by the three models, directly indi-cates the content of the physical education pro-gram. In other words, Frostig and Maslow'sattributes of movement and creative movement,Hanson's elements of movement, basic move-ment, fundamental skills and specialized skillsand activities, and Stanley's components of move-ment become the basis for selecting the materialto be included in the physical education programrepresented by the models. For example, Frostigand Maslow might design a lesson around severalattributes of movement such as: agility, coordi-nation and balance. The actual experiences mightinclude rope jumping, crossing a room in differ-ent movement patterns, or throwing a beanbag.1' Stanley might develop a lesson or a seriesof lessons around the body awarness or effortcomponents. The actual lesson, then, mightfocus specifically on bodily actions with emphasison using different body parts or contrastingsudden movement with sustained movement.1"Lessons implied by Hanson's model might stressexperiences focused on space, time, force andflow as well as specific locomotor, non-locomotorand manipulative skills.17

Means for program development. The se-lection and development of content over a periodof time becomes, ultimately, one's program of

14. Margie R. Hanson, "Elementary School Phys-ical Education Today," in Promising Practices inElementary School Physical Education (Washing-ton, D. C. : The American Association for Health,Physical Education and Recreation, 1969), p. 3.15. Frostig and Maslow, Movement Education, p.170.16. Stanley, Physical Education, pp. 226-227.17. Hanson, "Elementary School."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

Figure 2: The Stanley ModelOverview—Components of Movement

and Their Important Subdivisions

Body Awareness1. Basic functions: bend or curl, stretch, twist

A. Recognition (i) Of the part used(ii) Of the part stressed

B. Body parts can bend, curl or stretch, twistC. Body parts can lead an actionD. Body parts can meet and partE. Body parts can be used symmetrically or asym-

metrically3. Weightbearing

A. Support—parts taking the weightB. Transference of weightC. Balance

4. Body actionsA. Identification (i) Locomotion

(ii) Elevations(iii) Turns

B. GesturesC. Holding or carrying actions which establish

stillness5. Body shapes: pin, wall, ball, screw

6. Symmetrical and asymmetrical uses of the body

Effort1. Effort qualities of movement

A. Weight: firm (strong), fine touch (light),heavy

B. Time: sudden (fast) sustained (slow)C. Space: direct (straight), flexible (wavy)D. Flow: bound ("stoppable"), free (ongoing)

2. Emphasizing one element3. Emphasizing two elements simultaneously4. Basic effort actions

Space Awareness1. Recognition of and adaptation to space: General

and personalA. RecognitionB. Adaptation to general space

2. Orientation to personal spaceA. The three-dimensional crossB. DiagonalsC. Planes

3. Levels : low, medium, high4. Pathways in space : floor patterns : air patterns5. Extensions in space: large, small, near, far

Relationships1. With objects:

A. The manipulative relationshipB. The non-manipulative relationship

(i) An obstacle(ii) An extension

(iii) A target2. With people:

A. AloneB. Alone in a massC. Partners: cooperative, competitiveD. GroupsE. Intergroup relationships

physical education. This suggests both methodsof instruction, which reflects one's beliefs aboutthe educational process, and progression of ex-periences, which reflect a simple to complexscheme of organization.

Generally speaking, none of the models areexplicit about how content might be developed.Frostig and Maslow imply utilizing methods ofinstruction when they divide their program intotwo aspects : attributes of movement and creativemovement. In the former, they suggest that theteacher be more direct with the children sincethe goals are primarily related to the develop-ment of specific movement skills, and with thelatter, that the teacher be less direct since thegoals are primarily related to developing self-awareness.111 The approach used with creative

movement is consistent with Frostig and Mas-low's belief that children should be helped tobecome self-reliant and self-directed.19 They sug-gest that, where possible, this less direct ap-proach be included in the attributes of move-ment phase of the program.

Taking Stanley's model as simply a model,there is no indication of how the content mightbe developed. However, if one accepts Stanley'smodel as an adaptation of Laban's scheme foranalyzing movement, and accepts his theoryabout movement, major characteristics of thelearning environment are suggested. They canbe inferred because Laban, in developing histheory of movement, valued certain educationalaims and these aims, in turn, influence the im-plementation of his work. His aims focus upon

18. Frostig and Maslow, pp. 71, 170. 19. Ibid, p. 163.Volume XII, Number 2 113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

Figure 3: The Hanson Model

EFFICIENT MOVEMENT

(SPECIALIZED

SKILLS

Î AND

I ACTIVITIES

FUNDAMENTAL SKILLSj

\LOCOMOTOR

NON-LOCOMOTOR.i

MANIPULATIVE

tBASIC MOVEMEN

tELEMENTS

OF

MOVEMENT

INDIVIDUA

SHORTS

Theory Into Practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

Comparison of the Frostig and Maslow, Stanley, and Hanson Models

Frostig and Maslow

The Nature of MovementThe attributes of movement: co-ordination, rhythm, speed, flex-ibility, strength, endurance andbalance.Creative movement: space, time,flow, weight, gravity, shape andlevels.

Stanley

The Nature of MovementComponents of movement: bodyawareness, space awareness, ef-fort and relationship.

Hanson

The Nature of MovementElements of movement, basicmovement, fundamental skills,specialized skills and activities.

The ContentThe attributes of movement andcreative movement serve as thebasis for content selection.

The ContentThe components of movementand their subdivisions serve asthe basis for content selection.

The ContentElements of movement, basicmovement, fundamental skills,and specialized skills and activ-ities serve as the basis for con-tent selection.

Program, DevelopmentInstruction. The attributes ofthe movement phase of the pro-gram implies a more teacher-directed approach; the creativemovement aspect of the programimplies a less teacher-directedapproach.Progression. Progression is im-plied in that an understandingof children's capabilities andlimitations is viewed as essentialfor effective planning.

Program DevelopmentInstruction. The learning en-vironment is designed to encour-age the child to make decisionsabout what he does and howhe does it.Progression. Progression is im-plied in understanding and ap-plying Laban's theory and an-alysis of movement.

Program DevelopmentInstruction.'Nothing specific im-plied.Progression. A simple to com-plex type of progression isimplied in the three majordivisions of: basic movement—> fundamental skills —> special-ized skills and activities. Ele-ments of movement are consid-ered the means through whichefficient movement is attained.

the individual becoming more aware of himselfas a total person through an increased under-standing of his own movement characteristics,capabilities, and limitations, and through thisincreased self-awareness, achieving a better un-derstanding of others and the environment.20

In support of these goals the learning environ-ment encouraged children to make decisionsabout their work in ways that helped makeeach experience personally meaningful. Theseideas are not unique to Laban; there is muchsupport for them in education today, where amuch broader and deeper interpretation of thebasic theme of self-awareness is currently de-veloping.

20. Samuel Thornton, Laban's Theory of Movement:A New Perspective (Boston: Plays, Inc., 1971),pp. 57-58.

In relation to Hanson's model, no specificideas relative to methods of instruction can beinterpreted directly. For insight into what shemight suggest as means for developing content,her beliefs about education and the educationalprocess would have to be known.

Hanson's model is the only one that spe-cifically suggests developing content that reflectsa simple to complex type of progression. Indi-cation of how Hanson perceives progression ap-parently begins with the hierarchical arrange-ment of three of her four major divisions:basic movement, fundamental skills, and special-ized skills and activities. By ordering the di-visions in this way she suggests a simple to com-plex type of progression. The elements of move-ment are not being interpreted as a part of this

Volume XII, Number 2 115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

progression but rather as a constant influence tothe total progression. This interpretation is madebecause Hanson symbolizes these elements asroots of the tree, and, as roots are the meansthrough which a tree maintains life and stability,the elements of movement are the meansthrough which movement maintains its "life andstability." In other words, space, time, force andflow are always inherent in any of her divisionsof movement, and how these elements are useddetermines the efficiency of the movement inquestion. The effective use of these elements ofmovement, therefore, becomes the meansthrough which skillful movement is attained inbasic movement, fundamental skills and special-ized skills and activities.-1

Progression, per se, is not explicity identi-fied within either the Stanley or the Frostig andMaslow model. Frostig and Maslow seem toimply it when they stress the importance ofrecognizing the capabilities and limitations ofthe children. However, neither in their struc-tured, prescribed exercise aspects of the pro-gram, nor in their creative movement aspect isprogression made explicit.

To identify specifically anything related toprogression as Stanley might reflect it, one hasto return again to Laban and how he perceivedit. For example, Laban identified "Sixteen BasicMovement Themes,"22 eight of which he feltwere more appropriate for young children. Theseeight themes directly related to his analysisof movement and focus on such awareness as:the body and parts of the body, weight, time,space, flow and the movement of others. Whilethis is incomplete as far as explicitly dealingwith progression, it serves as a starting pointfor all teachers interested in working with chil-dren and organizing their physical educationexperiences around the four components ofmovement as suggested in Stanley's program.

It is apparent that all three models—eachin its own way—analyze movement into majorcomponents, identify content, and suggest, im-plicity or explicitly, means for program develop-ment. The chart on page 115 summarizes thebasic ideas of each model.

21. Hanson, "Elementary School."22. Rudolf Laban, Modern Educational Dance, 2ded., rev. Lisa Ullman (London: Macdonald andEvans, 1963), pp. 29-49.116 Theory Into Practice

The Child and Movement

Giving a child opportunity to increase hisability in movement, and to use this ability asone of many means for learning, is more under-standable when the idea of "the child" and theidea of "movement" are unified, so that a dy-namic concept replaces the two static ones. Toexperience the dynamic quality of this conceptthe idea of Learning to Move*:—^Moving toLearn must be revisited. Learning to move im-plies that to learn to increase one's ability tomove skillfully, experiences specifically designedfor that purpose are essential. Moving to learnimplies that movement has meaning and there-fore is significant in its own right.

Learning to move. Some distinct emphasesare emerging in physical education for youngchildren, all of which ultimately should con-tribute to our skill in helping children becomemore efficient and effective in their ability tomove. Presently, however, these emphases arefragmented: they appear separate, but are ob-viously related. Common elements that mightserve to unify our thinking still lie hidden. Twoassumptions seem to be giving the greatest im-petus to the emerging directions in currentprograms: (1) that children's movement abilitydevelops in a sequential, orderly progression offundamental movement patterns and ( 2 ) thatskill in movement is acquired through carefullydesigned learning experiences.

Both assumptions seem plausible, and onthe surface offer little with which to disagree,but interpretations differ markedly. For ex-ample, some of the research that examinessequential movement development includes suchdiverse emphases as:

1. Characteristics of motor development:dominance, opposition, and symmetry, dynamicbalance, total body assembly, rhythmic 2-partlocomotion, eye-hand efficiency, agility, and pos-tural adjustment.2-'

2. Motor skills/patterns; movement pat-terns/tasks: throwing, striking, kicking, jump-ing, catching, ascending stairs, bouncing on aboard, bouncing a ball and carrying.24

23. Caroline B. Sinclair, Movement and MovementPatterns of Early Childhood (Richmond: Divisionof Educational Statistics, State Department of Edu-cation, 1971), p. 9.24. Halverson, "The Young Child," pp. 29-33; Sin-clair, Movement Patterns, p. 10.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

3. Sensori-motor acuity: body image andspace and direction awareness, balance, basicbody movement, symmetrical activities, eye-handand eye-foot coordination, large and small muscleactivities, form perception, and rhythm.2"'

With directions so different it is not sur-prising that programs are taking on so manydivergent emphases. At this point it is importantto interject another point made more evident bystudying the aforementioned examples. A greatthrust is being made by those who feel that"perceptual motor abilities" are being neglected,and that these abilities are important aspects ofthe child's total development. As to their de-velopmental sequence or their relation to otheraspects of a child's movement development, inparticular such skill/patterns as walking, run-ning, jumping, throwing, catching, etc., this isstill a question. At the expense of oversimplify-ing a highly complex and vital issue it can besaid:

1. Historically—that it was not until thelate 1950's that theories concerning the relation-ship between prescribed motor activities andthe improvement of perceptual functions beganto be communicated—and that this interest cameabout through people working with childrenwho were mentally retarded, brain damagedor perceptually handicapped—and that the firstprograms were therapeutic rather than pre-ventive.2"

2. Currently—that programs have continuedto grow at a rapid pace in public schools as wellas in private institutions and clinics, with theemphases not always clearly differentiated be-tween therapeutic and preventive—and that thequestion of how to include this vital dimensionof a child's total development in a physical edu-cation program, if it should be included at all,is still unresolved.27

Studies of the movement development ofchildren often have implications for curriculum,ranging from mere statements that the findings

25. William T. Braley, "The Dayton SensorimotorTraining Program for Three-, Four-, and Five-YearOlds," in Foundations and Practices in PerceptualMotor Learning—A Quest for Understanding(Washington, D. C.: The American Association forHealth, Physical Education and Recreation, 1971),pp. 98-101.26. Hope M. Smith, "Perspectives 1970," Founda-tions and Practices, pp. 2-3.27. Ibid.

should be used in developing curricula for youngchildren to actually prescribing a curriculum,step by step. The latter is often done withoutregard for the fact that children in differentsituations have different needs. While the im-plications from research usually relate to spe-cific movement tasks, some relate to how chil-dren might actually learn to perform the move-ment tasks in question. This emphasis is theresult of carefully analyzing the process thechild goes through in finally achieving the move-ment task under study. Process here refers toinvestigation of the environmental situation, in-cluding such aspects as what the investigatoractually said and did in relation to what thechild said and did during the testing situation.This added dimension is enlarging the study ofthe movement development of children to in-clude : ( 1 ) the characteristics of movement be-havior, ( 2 ) the way in which these characteris-tics change as a result of maturation and experi-ence and ( 3 ) how these characteristics changeunder different environmental conditions.2"

This additional emphasis focuses specificallyon the difficult and elusive question, how dochildren acquire movement skill and skill inmovement? Movement skill refers here to aspecific task, e.g., running, jumping, rolling aball; skill in movement refers to the quality ofa child's movement performance, e.g., the speedof his running, the distance of his jump, theaccuracy of the rolled ball.

The acquisition of movement skill and skillin movement is receiving much more attentionthan previously, and "method" is close to be-coming an over-emotional issue in physical edu-cation programs. We are in a bind: on the onehand we have many innovative ideas, with theprocess of learning deeply imbedded in them,and on the other hand we have confusing evi-dence about how movement skill and skill inmovement are acquired. We are aware of learn-ing constructs, such as association theory, cogni-tive theory, and cybernetic theory,211 but thisawareness remains mainly underground: knowl-edge of learning theory exists, but is neither con-sistently or rationally applied.

28. Halverson, "The Young Child," p. 18.29. Margaret Robb, The Dynamics of Motor-SkillAcquisition (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1972), pp. 23-37.

Volume XII, Number 2 117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 11: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

Moving to learn. There can be little doubtthat movement is of vital significance to a child.To use Whitehurst's30 words:

To the young child, movement meanslife. . . . Movement is, for the young child,an important factor in self-discovery. . . .Movement means discovery of the environ-ment . . . an environment that is social aswell as physical. . . . It means freedom . . .safety . . . communication . . . sheer enjoy-ment and sensuous pleasure. . . . Movementmeans acceptance.

Because of this, the notion that movementis a means to other ends should become muchmore significant to all those working with youngchildren. A child can and does learn throughmovement.

But at this point we need to exhibit greatcare in what we claim children learn throughmovement. Actually we do not know, per se,but we are assuming various outcomes such associal and emotional adjustment, increased cogni-tive abilities and self-awareness. This is not tosay that movement cannot help children learnin other areas of development, but rather thatwe have no concrete knowledge as to the degreeof relationship between different areas of learn-ing and a child's movement ability. Reacting tothis idea, Smith31 offers this thought on the re-lationship between reading and motor behavior:

I have a hunch that there is not a directrelationship here. I think probably our

( physical educators' ) contribution is that wecan help a youngster to move better in hisenvironment, to manage his body, to make itdo what he wants to to do in terms of thingshe's interested in doing. Then he begins todevelop more positive self esteem, he beginsto feel capable in the thing that is most im-portant to him.

In addition to the assumer relationship be-tween movement and other areas of learning,

30. Keturah E. Whitehurst, "The Young Child . . .What Movement Means to Him," in The Significanceof the Young Child's Motor Development (Washing-ton, D. C. : National Association for the Educationof Young Children, 1971), pp. 52-55.31. Hope M. Smith, "Spiraling . . . Perceptual-Motor Development," in 46th Annual Report, West-ern Society for Physical Education of CollegeWomen, 1971), p. 46.118 Theory Into Practice

some educators and physical educators believethat if a child uses movement as a means forlearnings other than those directly associatedwith skill in movement, that the latter will oc-cur automatically. This belief is also held in re-verse. When educators and physical educatorsstress the aspect of learning how to move pre-dominantly or exclusively, they seem to assumethat concomitant learnings are natural outcomes.Both points of view, although they have no spe-cific support, are realities, and they influencecurrent programs.

Discussion

A child's physical education is his educationin and through movement. This implies rational-ly planned learning experiences which supportthe dynamic quality of the concept Learning toMove*—»Moving to Learn. Insight into the es-sence of this concept is now emerging and withit exciting ideas for the future of education andphysical education. What will characterize thefuture will be determined by how the questionsof today are answered tomorrow. The few ques-tions that follow are designed to make us beginto face the future and the challenge of theunknown.

—Why do inconsistencies between beliefsabout the process of education and actual imple-mentation of the physical education programhappen so frequently?

—To what extent in physical education pro-grams can the emphasis on learning to moveand moving to learn fluctuate, and still main-tain the true essence of each?

—Does a commitment to the goal of self-actualization force a «examination of the pur-poses of physical education and the meansthrough which they might be attained?

—Upon what rationale should decisions bebased regarding the type and amount of struc-ture necessary for effective learning to takeplace in physical education programs?

—Are end-products always predetermined?If not, what implication does this have for thetype of learning experiences that are designedand the way they are organized?

—Can an end-product, either known or un-known, be attained through different means?

—What is the relationship between the goal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 12: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

of skillful movement and the goal of maximumperceptual motor development?

At the Crossroads

Much is being done to help children becomemore skillful in the way they move and to givechildren another means for learning. Many ideas

Volume XII, Number 2 119

have still to be examined before the direction ofthe future becomes evident. Learning toMove<—^Moving to Learn, as a total concept, isthe essence of the physical education experiencefor young children. To give children experiencesthat symbolize this unity is the challenge. Weare at the crossroads.

tip

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 13: Learning to move↔moving to learn: Discussion at the crossroads

he wi non| the w!f CM f i esTo

O Wj .arfan. ñe_. cjos e

The door Soflfi.ß..._o.neJL

ryg n and vil t j andTV) er cru le . The wi

fo'rîeS HaKe ThíocjS, fl

"The Windfairies" by Peri, Age 8 •At what age does a child begin to dif-ferentiate reality and fantasy? What isthe teacher's role in guiding this dif-ferentiation through her curriculumplanning? i.e. When is a child ready forfairy tales?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

And

rew

s U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

20 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014