Dr.Hab., Associate Professor A.I. Zagrevskaya¹
Dr.Hab., Professor L.I. Lubysheva ^1
1National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk

Keywords: ontokinesiology,  anthropic technologies, kinesiological potential, training process, competitive training, sportization of physical education, trainees

Background. Modern philosophical and methodological view on human nature implies a human being interpreted as a bio-socio-cultural entity with an emphasis on the interconnection and interdependence of the psychical and motor functionality viewed as a framework for the psychomotor abilities developing activity. It is the psychomotor abilities that form a core of physical abilities that manifest themselves in the individual psychophysical qualities so important for the social and professional progress.

Objective of the study was to provide evidence of the benefits of the ontokinesiological approach for the physical education process sportization initiatives in the national education system.

Study results and discussion. It is an individual kinesiological potential that is built up as a result of the psychomotor development as verified by the relevant physical fitness rates, motor skills and abilities. The notion of kinesiological potential was introduced in the national physical culture theory by Vadim Konstantinovich Bal'sevich, a prominent national researcher [2]. Human kinesiological potential may be defined as a systemically acting and mentally, morpho-functionally and biomechanically sound array of skills and abilities for purposeful motor actions determined by the relevant qualitative and quantitative performance criteria. We provisionally consider the structure of a human kinesiological potential being composed of the following components (their development degrees being indicative of the potential on the whole): psychological, motor coordination, biomechanical and morpho-functional ones [4].

As provided by V.K. Bal'sevich (2009), it is the underage and adolescent (teenage) growth period when the individual kinesiological potential is fast accumulated, with a systemic training practice at every stage of ontogenesis being acknowledged as a key tool for the individual kinesiological potential development and improvement [2]. It was also indicated by V.K. Bal'sevich that the individual motor functionality development rate is naturally uneven being determined mostly by the individual genetic factors albeit some development process parameters may be adjusted by a variety of sporting tools. This is the reason why the body “transformation rhythms” need to be reasonably harmonised with the body development regularities.

The above ontogenetic transformation sequence is determined, first of all, by the biological adjustment of the body for fully-fledged operation in the relevant environment, i.e. the final objective of individual development is to establish due conditions and prerequisites for the individual life in society being effective enough. Therefore, an individual kinesiological potential (including physical qualities, motor abilities and adaptability) may be reasonably modified despite the fact that it is genetically predetermined. It is clear in this context that children and adolescents are always in need of due conditions for their systemic sport training practices.

Training process, as defined by V.K. Bal'sevich, means the human body functionality variation process. This simple definition underlines the individual changeability and development potential as a fundamental quality of any human (and any other living being) nature. This quality is genuine for every individual and predetermined by the genetically inherited information the individual brings to the world with birth and employs later on in the lifetime. Focused training process may be of significant impact on the relevant adaptation processes albeit in cannot change the key regularities that have been formed by the long evolution of the live species on the planet including humans. These main regularities imply, among other things, unevenness of the progressive development rates of the individual elements of the motor system, the relevant functions and other bodily organs and systems over the life cycle. In view of this general logic of the human motor functionality development process, the key rule of any physical training process may be defined as follows: training loads are to be managed as required by the current status of the trainee being duly harmonised with the natural progress of the individual motor functions [2].

The training load management regime is also to be determined by the long-term individual physical improvement program and the natural age-specific development aspects; i.e. due consideration is to be given to the trainee’s fitness and natural predisposition to the proposed training process tools, priorities and intensities. The above key training process management rule means in practice that due consideration is to be given to the genuine unity of the genetic prerequisites for the individual physical activity and the fundamental bodily qualities including its adaptability, plasticity, learning and training abilities and actual progress.

Therefore, an individual athletic (conditioning) training may be defined as the purposefully structured development stimulation process with the body kinesiological potential being built up. In this context, an increasing priority is to be given to the sportizated junior physical education since it is only through a training process that individual psychophysical abilities may be improved and inborn psychophysical qualities may be advanced.

Practical experience has demonstrated high benefits of the sportizated technologies implemented at many national education establishments. This was the reason for the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation to support a few innovative projects initiated by the sport education community including the Chess to Schools and Sambo to Schools Projects. As required by the modern FSES, the valid academic Physical Education curricula were expanded to include and offer elective courses to cater for the individual predispositions and preferences of the students [6, 7].

In the sportizated physical education system design, due priority is to be given to the unity of the biological and social human nature manifested in the individual kinesiological potential. A special emphasis is to be made, first of all, on the axiological aspects of personality, with the modern anthropic education technologies providing the relevant tools basically outlined by the educational kinesiology [3].  

The educational kinesiology sets a variety of new goals, as follows: explains values and senses of one or another motor sequence (by the relevant semantic image and structure being formed); delivers the senses of one or another line of arguments, considerations, findings (by semantic structuring of the knowledge base); develops technologically sound systemic motor skills in the educational process; and encourages students for reflexion, creative search, self-analysis and self-control in the learning process.

Therefore, the ontokinesiological approach (much like the above-considered kinesiological methodology) to the sportizated physical education system design based on the modern anthropic education technologies helps activate the axiological aspects of personality required for the values of sporting culture being accepted and cultivated.

The modern anthropic education technologies centred on a personality (viewed as a bio-socio-cultural entity) and applied in the physical culture and sporting values cultivation process imply the relevant kinesiological education space being created. The kinesiological education space means herein an array of purposefully structured physical education and sport resources applicable at educational establishments to create facilitating conditions and opportunities for the trainees (viewed as subjects of the senses-driven reformative physical activity) [5]. In these conditions, progress of a trainee acting as a subject of his/her development process is to be secured by the following mechanisms: mutual understanding, due cooperation and interpersonal agreement in the educator-trainee interactions with transformation of the individual kinesiological potential and joint creative activity to solve a variety of motor tasks. To put it in other words, the kinesiological education space helps an individual to perceive him/herself, redesign own relationships with the world and master productive cooperation in relations with other people and social systems via the individualised sporting activity.

The modern anthropic education technologies are designed to advance an individual reflexive culture that may be described as a combination of abilities, means and policies to secure an individual practical experience being accumulated and individual style being improved via a rethinking process shaped up by a developmental communication environment. The developmental communication environment is referred herein as a special domain of the physical and sports education system geared to not only transfer information on the motor actions but also facilitate cooperation and sharing of personality-valuable and socio-cultural senses in the interpersonal educational interactions.

The developmental communication environment is built up on a subjective principle with the contents of the sporting activity being a subject to educational communication. The communication environment exploration process gives a high priority to the efforts to improve the trainee’s ability “screen personally valuable knowledge from the information flow” as recommended by the reflexive self-control principle. Incoming information may evolve into knowledge only when it is accepted by the individual, digested via reflexion, fully understood and interpreted in the context of the personal purposes and priorities of the individual activity. It terms of educational kinesiology, it is the reflexion that serves as an interaction mechanism for the subject and object of perception, cognition and transformation (it is the kinesiological potential that is viewed an object in the context of our study); the reflexion being considered a phenomenon of consciousness and self-consciousness including two reflexive sub-structures, namely the Self-cognizing (a subjective constituent of the reflexive self-consciousness) and Self-cognizable that provides an object for searching reflexive process (designed to find everything that has some importance, meaning and sense for the subject, using individual subjective activity structuring methods).

The axiological relationship development principle is applied in the education and training process via the psychophysical self-image building efforts with the relevant self-cognizing, self-assessment and reflexion of own mental, bodily and motor qualities.

The personality development principle application in the developmental communication environment implies the object for cognition, assessment and transformation (i.e. the individual kinesiological potential) being represented in form of a system under development. It should be noted that not only an individual transforms one or another object by his/her actions, but the object may cause a converse effect on the internal individual world as a result of the actions.

It may be pertinent to mention in conclusion that the ontokinesiological approach in the sportizated physical education is based on kinesiology as the meta-subjective integrated knowledge of human motor activity and movements supported by toolkits of the above considered kinesiological approach and the V.K. Bal'sevich’s age-specific human motor functionality evolution concept.

References

1. Bal'sevich V.K., Lubysheva L.I. Teoriya i tekhnologiya sportivno orientirovannogo fizicheskogo vospitaniya v massovoy obshcheobrazovatelnoy shkole [Theory and technology of sports-centered physical education in mass general school]. Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka, 2005, no. 5, pp. 50-53.
2. Bal'sevich V.K. Ocherki po vozrastnoy kineziologii cheloveka [Essays on developmental kinesiology of man]. Moscow: Sovetskiy sport publ., 2009, 220 p.
3. Dmitriev S.V. Sotsiokulturnaya teoriya dvigatelnykh deystviy cheloveka: sport, iskusstvo, didaktika [Socio-cultural theory of human motor actions: sport, art, didactics]. N. Novgorod: NSPU publ., 2011, 359 p.
4. Zagrevskaya A.I. Aktualizatsiya kineziologicheskogo potentsiala studentov v usloviyakh fizkulturno-sportivnogo obrazovaniya [Actualization of kinesiological potential of students in context of physical culture and sports education]. Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka, 2015, no. 1, pp. 28-30.
5. Zagrevskaya A.I. Formirovanie kineziologicheskoy kompetentnosti studentov v sisteme fizkulturno-sportivnogo obrazovaniya. Avtoref. dis. dokt. ped. nauk [Students' kinesiological competency building process within physical culture and sports education. Doctoral diss. abstract (Hab.)]. Tyumen, 2015, 42 p.
6. Lubysheva L.I. Sovremennaya sportivnaya nauka: ot stagnatsii – k novoy paradigme razvitiya [Modern sport science: from stagnation to new development paradigm]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2017, no. 5, pp. 3-5.
7. Lubysheva L.I. Sport i sotsializatsiya: ot metodologii sportizatsii – k innovatsionnym sotsiokulturnym proektam [Sport and socialization: from sport-centered methods to innovative socio-cultural projects]. Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka, 2017, no. 1, pp. 2-4.

Corresponding author: a.zagrevskaya@yandex.ru

Abstract

The study analyses the essence of the ontokinesiological approach for physical education sportization based on the integrated knowledge of human motor activity and movements with a special emphasis on the ontological aspects. The study demonstrates the complex nature of a human kinesiological potential including a variety of psychological, biomechanical, morpho-functional, motor coordination and motor conditioning abilities that, being integrated, are referred to as the individual mental and physical motor qualities. As provided by the age-specific human motor functionality evolution concept, an individual kinesiological potential is most efficiently developed by the relevant body conditioning and athletic training tools within the frame of the sportizated (sports-prioritizing) physical education. A training process within the kinesiological educational space with its interpersonal educator-student, pupil-pupil and student-student interactions is designed to secure a facilitating environment for self-development and self-building of the individual kinesiological potential.

It should be noted that the proposed ontokinesiological approach was developed based on the previously described kinesiological concept and the Bal'sevich’s human motor functionality age-specific evolution concept with application of anthropic education technologies.