Dr.Hab., Professor Y.F. Kuramshin
Lesgaft National State University of Physical Education, Sport and Health, St. Petersburg

Corresponding author: jkuramshin@mail.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to offer practical approaches to the meanings and interpretations of individual physical qualities in the context of physical education service.

Results and conclusion. Historical evolution of the notion of “quality” in the physical education theory and practice may be classified into a few stages, with special contributions from the Leningrad and Moscow physical education institutes. It was traditional for the first national studies of the qualities formed by target physical education service to refer to them as psychophysical qualities. It was in 1940 that the Leningrad-based Lesgaft institute of physical education published a practical physical education manual for academic establishments where K.Kh. Grantyn offered a definition of psychophysical qualities developed by specific physical exercises. He interpreted psychophysical qualities as quantitative measures of activity of every bodily system and basically grouped them into psychomotor and moral-volitional ones. The K.Kh. Grantyn classification ranked strength, speed, endurance and dexterity with the psychomotor qualities; and attention control, determination, courage, perseverance, stress-tolerance, endurance and some others with the moral-volitional ones.

After the WWII, the meanings of psychophysical qualities were comprehensively analyzed in the A.D. Novikov monograph "Physical education: issues of the subject, principles, tools, methods and physical practicing forms" [10] where he supported K.Kh. Grantyn in considering psychophysical qualities in the context of functions of the relevant bodily organs and systems. In the 1950-1960ies, the term psychophysical qualities was gradually replaced with motor skills and then physical qualities.

Based on the analysis, we would consider the notion of ‘psychophysical qualities’ as the primary and broadest concept of modern general physical education theory since it adequately covers the subject area of individual physical and mental/ spiritual progress and resource building. A systematic approach implies the individual qualities in the physical education context being considered within the vertical and horizontal ‘multi-storey’ hierarchical structure. In the material domain, physical qualities may be viewed as dictated by activities of the relevant bodily organs and systems.

Keywords: physical education theory, physical qualities, physical abilities.

Background. The key mission of every physical education specialist is to facilitate progress in many aspects, particularly in the sport-specific individual qualities. Modern physical education viewed as a specific social domain requires the individual physical and mental/ spiritual resource being mobilized for the multilateral development purposes [1, 6].

Historically, the physical education theory as a science and academic discipline has prioritized different interpretations of qualities and their manifestations in motor activity as defined by a few relevant terms including ‘physical qualities’, ‘motor skills’, ‘psychomotor qualities’, ‘psychophysical qualities’, ‘bodily motor skills’, etc. Modern educational and scientific publications often use physical qualities and motor skills in the same contexts and meanings without sound theoretical grounds and thereby often make the definitions and the relevant phenomena rather vague and uncertain. Despite the ongoing discussion of qualities and their meanings and interpretations in the theoretical and practical publications including those in the Theory and Practice of Physical Culture journal [4, 5], many issues still remain rather debatable and underexplored.

Objective of the study was to offer practical approaches to the meanings and interpretations of individual physical qualities in the context of physical education service.

Results and discussion. Historical evolution of the notion of “quality” in the physical education theory and practice may be classified into a few stages, with special contributions from the Leningrad and Moscow physical education institutes. It was traditional for the first national studies of the qualities formed by target physical education service to refer to them as psychophysical qualities. It was in 1940 that the Leningrad-based Lesgaft institute of physical education published a practical physical education manual for the academic establishments where K.Kh. Grantyn offered a definition of psychophysical qualities developed by specific physical exercises. He interpreted psychophysical qualities as quantitative measures of activity of every bodily system and basically grouped them into the psychomotor and moral-volitional ones. The K.Kh. Grantyn classification ranked strength, speed, endurance and dexterity with the psychomotor qualities; and attention control, determination, courage, perseverance, stress-tolerance, endurance and some others with the moral-volitional ones [2].

After the WWII, the meanings of psychophysical qualities were comprehensively analyzed in the A.D. Novikov monograph "Physical education: issues of the subject, principles, tools, methods and physical practicing forms" [10] where he supported K.Kh. Grantyn in considering psychophysical qualities in the context of functions of the relevant bodily organs and systems. In the 1950-1960ies, the term psychophysical qualities was gradually replaced by motor skills and then physical qualities; with the issues of qualities analyzed most comprehensively and extensively by V.M. Zatsiorsky and his followers. He interpreted physical qualities as specific aspects of individual motor skills measurable in the same movement patterns by the standard metering equipment, provided they are controlled by the same physiological and biomechanical mechanisms and elements of the individual psyche [3]. He ranked speed, strength, endurance, agility, flexibility, muscle relaxation, feel of space, and equilibrium with the key physical qualities.

Later on, the theoretical, practical and educational publications increasingly favored the term ‘physical/ motor abilities’ as a substitute for physical qualities. We believe that the term physical qualities that have been dominant in the national physical education theory for many years actually fails to fully reflect the subject physical education theory area as was specified in the academic physical education curricula back in 1979. It is natural to question at this juncture whether the physical/ motor qualities may be considered the basic notion of modern general physical education theory. It appears unlikely for us. Analysis of the subject physical education area on the whole and its every element in particular shows that they are essentially geared rather to cultivate specific physical aspects by physical means than only develop the individual physical domain.

Considering the physical education system as a whole with its multiple interrelated elements, we naturally give a special priority to physical exercises as an important factor in developing an integral and multifaceted personality having high physical and mental resources, as was many times emphasized by P.F. Lesgaft [11].

This idea was further advanced by G.G. Natalov [8] who recommended to consider the exercise law in the following two dimensions: (1) "work builds an organ" (as provided by Lamarck); and (2) it is only via exercises that an individual movement structure is build up to fully develop the individual physical qualities and abilities (as provided by D. Diderot, N.A. Bernstein). The author argues that the physical education subject-object relationship is developed in the biological, psychological and social domains/ levels. In the biological domain of the exercise law (that is the relationship between the body and movement), the exercises are mostly focused on specific physical aspects/ qualities including strength, speed, endurance, agility, flexibility and elasticity of the bodily parts. In the higher (psychological and social) domains, the exercise law implies the key mental (sensory, intellectual), social (moral, volitional) and other relevant qualities being developed.

V.B. Korenberg [4] came up with a somewhat different approach to the physical qualities qualification issues to offer a concept of motor-functional qualities that classifies them into: (1) somatic (flexibility, strength, body length, body weight); (2) somatomotor (absolute and relative strength, speed, working capacity); (3) psychosomatomotor (reactivity, coordination, motor stability); and (4) psychomotor (courage, resourcefulness, decisiveness, efficiency, willpower, etc.) ones.

Foreign researchers offer a different classification of qualities [13] based on a set of physical activity rating criteria indicative of the human interaction with the environment, such as the body-environment relationship; connections of the acting individual with the object of actions; and connections of the acting individual with the society. The resultant system of controlled motor acts is based on the classification of qualities into information-orienting, motivating-guiding, and energy-conditioned.

We believe that the concept of physical qualities viewed as elementary aspects within the hierarchy of individual motor activities may be considered the most promising for the subject matter analyzed herein since it assumes the individual social structure being developed on a multilevel staged basis [8, 15]. Thus B.A. Nikityuk [9] offered, based on findings of V.S. Merli and B.A. Vyatkin, the following levels of the human nature knowledge building structure with individual traits and qualities: socio-psychological (social/ team status, interpersonal relationships, teamwork); personal (motivations, individual priorities and values); psychological (perceptions, intelligence, willpower); psychodynamic (temperament); physiological and biomechanical (nervous system qualities, physique, etc.).

Therefore, we would recommend that an individual physical qualities system in the context of physical education forms should be interpreted as a hierarchy of psychophysical activity aspects and elements specific for the sport discipline, adaptive physical education, etc.

Conclusion. Based on the analysis, we would consider the notion of ‘psychophysical qualities’ as the primary and broadest concept of modern general physical education theory since it adequately covers the subject area of individual physical and mental/ spiritual progress and resource building. A systematic approach implies the individual qualities in the physical education context being considered within the vertical and horizontal ‘multi-storey’ hierarchical structure. In the material domain, physical qualities may be viewed as dictated by activities of the relevant bodily organs and systems.

References

1. Vydrin V.M. Modern problems of physical education theory as form of culture. St. Petersburg: Lesgaft National State University of Physical Education, Sport and Health publ., 2001. 78 p.
2. Grantyn K.Kh. General foundations of physical education methodology. Physical education methodology. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1940. pp. 5–151.
3. Zatsiorskiy V.M. Athlete’s physical qualities: fundamentals of theory and methods of education. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1966. 199 p.
4. Korenberg V.B. Problems of physical and motor characteristics. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 1996. No. 7. pp. 2-5.
5. Kuramshin Y.F. Problem of abilities and qualities in physical education theory. Proc. final research-practical conference of the faculty of Lesgaft National State University of Physical Education, Sport and Health, St. Petersburg, 2020. St. Petersburg, 2021. pp. 26-29.
6. Matveyev L.P. Theory and methodology of physical education. Introduction to the subject. St. Petersburg: Lan publ., 2003. 160 p. ISBN 5-8114-0483.
7. Merlin V.S. Personality psychology. Moscow: Institute of Practical Psychology publ., 1996. 448 p.
8. Natalov G.G. Theory of physical education. Alma-Ata: Kazakh Institute of physical culture publ., 1976. 62 p.
9. Nikityuk B.A. Somatomental relations and their role in performance management. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 1983. No. 7. pp. 44-46.
10. Novikov A.D. Physical education. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1947. 135 p.
11. Lesgaft P.F. Main works with comments of professors V.A. Taymazov, Y.F. Kuramshin, A.T. Maryanovich. Saint-Petersburg, Pechatny dvor publ., 2006. 719 p. ISBN 5-7062-0231-1.
12. Vyatkin B.A., Dorfman L.Y., Shchukin M.R. Psychology of integrated individuality: Perm school. Moscow: Smysl publ., 2011. 636 p.
13. Pohlman R.S. 5 Thesen rum “Fahigbeitssystem” der sportmetorih im handlungsspsychologishen berug. Theorie und praxis der korper kultur. 1977. No. 7. pp. 511-516.