What Would Physical Educators Know About Movement Education? A Review of Literature, 2006–2016

ABSTRACT

This review article identifies the conceptual underpinnings of current movement research in physical education. Using a hermeneutic approach, four analogies for movement education are identified: the motor program analogy, the neurobiological systems analogy, the instinctive movement analogy, and the embodied exploration analogy. Three issues related to logical consistency and its relevance for movement education are raised. The first relates to tensions between the analogies and educational policy. The second concerns differences among the four analogies. The third issue relates to the appropriateness of specific analogies for dealing with certain movement contexts. In each case, strategies for improvement are considered. The article concludes with a brief summary, along with reflections on issues that require further attention.

KEYWORDS:

• Analogy
• hermeneutics
• motor learning
• movement capability
• skill

Notes

1. Some researchers use the term “metaphor” in much the same way as we use “analogy” here. Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) made a distinction by suggesting analogies underlie whole systems of meaning and constitute forms of “pre-understanding.” Metaphors, in contrast, refer to less-developed instances of comparison. Using this distinction and given our focus on higher level explanatory representations, analogy appears to be the more appropriate term.

2. “Motor” and “movement” have been used interchangeably in this literature. Larsson and Quennerstedt (2012) critically engaged with the idea of FMS, asking “fundamental in relation to what?” (p. 291). Smith (2016) suggested FMS can be seen as a complementary pair to fundamental game skills and that there is little reason to teach movement skills before game skills.

3. Compare with advocates of an information processing perspective, who claim that “a common misconception is that children ‘naturally’ learn fundamental motor skills” (Stodden et al., 2008, p. 293), or Martin and colleagues’ (2009) claim that “children do not acquire FMS as a result of the maturation process but rather through instruction and practice” (p. 228).

4. On the other hand, Atencio and colleagues (2014) suggested the non-linear perspective does “find sympathy with recent calls in PE to educate pupils more holistically” (p. 245).