Chapter 2- Theoretical Perspectives in Motor Development- Life span development AHSC

Chapter

Theories of Motor Development

Maturational perspective

Information processing perspective

Ecological perspective

Maturational Perspective

Motor development driven by maturation of systems (Nature)

–Specifically, the Central Nervous System

Minimal influence of environment

Characteristics of motor development

–Qualitative

–Discontinuous

History of the Maturational Perspective

1930s: Gesell, McGraw

Suggested invariable, genetically determined sequence of development (individuals can have unique timing)

Research: Co-twin control strategy

Maturationists’ Interest in Process

McGraw (1935) associated motor behavior changes with development of nervous system.

McGraw posited that advancement in central nervous system triggers appearance of a new skill.

Long-Lasting Beliefs from Maturation Theory

Basic motor skills emerge automatically.

There is no need for special training.

Mild deprivation does not arrest development.

The nervous system is most important.

Descriptive Methodology in Motor Development

Characteristic of maturational perspective

Used from 1940 – 1970’s

Normative

–Use of quantitative scores to describe children’s average performance (e.g. Espanchade, Glassow, Rarick)

Biomechanical

–Use of biomechanical descriptions of movement patterns in fundamental skills (e.g. Glassow, Halverson, Wickstrom)

Information Processing Perspective

Motor Development driven by external processes (Nurture)

Basic tenet: brain acts like a computer

–The passive human responds to stimuli in the environment.

–Important concepts:  Input, encoding, processing, feedback.

Young adults often studied first as basis of comparison for performance of children and older adults

Perceptual-Motor Development

Subfield exists within the framework of information processing.

Early work (1960s) tried to link learning disabilities to delayed perceptual-motor development.

Ecological Perspective

Development driven by interrelationship of individual, environment, and task (importance of multiple systems)

Neural system one of many responsible for action

Two branches

1. Dynamical systems

2. Perception–action

Dynamical Systems

Theory was advocated in early 1980s by Kugler, Kelso, and Turvey (among others).

Body systems spontaneously self-organize (not driven solely by CNS).

Body systems, performer’s environment, and task demands interact.

Dynamical systems cont’d

Some systems may develop more slowly in the young or degrade faster in the old and thus control rate of development or change.

Development is characterized by qualitative and discontinuous change.

Change occurs across the life span.

Perception-Action

Theory is based on the work of Gibson (1960s and 1970s).

Affordance is the function an environmental object provides to an individual.

–Characteristics define objects’ meanings.

–Object functions are based on individuals’ intrinsic dimensions (i.e., are body scaled) rather than object’s extrinsic, objective dimensions.

Ecological Perspective

Both branches reject CNS as executive controller of nearly limitless opportunities for movement.

Control is distributed throughout the body, at both global and local levels.

This challenging perspective allows for new types of experiments and new ways of thinking about old questions.