E.M. Revenko, associate professor, Ph.D.
T.F. Zelova, postgraduate.
N.V. Nikitina
V.A. Sal’nikov, professor, Dr.Hab. Siberian state automobile and highway academy, Omsk

 

Key words: innovations in physical education, motor load, heterogeneous relations, dynamics of physical development, progress dynamics.

Introduction. One of the most remarkable elements of modernization of school physical education is introduction of the third physical education lesson a week to the school curriculum. Unfortunately, it is just a small part of the fundamental innovation approach designed by the research team headed by V.K. Balsevich [2–4], that is being realized in large-scale educational practice. The basic idea of innovation physical education – the idea of introduction of sports technologies to mass physical culture has not found its way to the full yet. Moreover, material and technical resources of modern schools prevent from full realization of the wide range of sports specializations for schoolchildren, based on their individual inclinations for occupations of some sport.

Misunderstanding of the increased number of physical education lessons in school curricula is another aspect of the problem. We partly agree with the opinion of the authors [13] indicating to the existing “hindering factors” such as misunderstanding of the meaning of the introduced extra lesson of physical education and undeveloped school material and technical resources which could provide full and effective implementation of these lessons [13].

The modern educational environment is characterized by continuously increasing intellectualization, growing rates and volumes of information given during studies. At the same time, the priority of intellectual development is so high that it replaces, to some extent, other important spheres of personal development such as development of psychomotor and moral potentials of an individual. Earlier, the problem was seen more in the decrease of motor activity, but not only the increase of the intellectual load for schoolchildren. According to F.R. Zotova [8], modern school faces not the problem of intellectual overloading but the problem of lack of motor activity. This point of view was first stated in 2004, and today we can say that the educational environment is characterized by the increasing intensification of education and aims to purposeful activation of intellectual activity only. Apparently, the latter causes disharmony in pupils’ development, and, consequently, affects the development dynamics of a person’s intellectual sphere.

Here, the study by E.A. Borzunova [5] is very significant, who revealed numerous disharmonious pupils, when intensive cognitive development is being realized thanks to underdevelopment of other spheres (psycho-motor and emotional). Such children have problems relative to physical developmental retardation, irregular and disharmonious development of emotional sphere; which all together leads to reticence, depression and psychosomatic diseases. But such problems are specific not only for talented children. Nowadays, with the global intensification of the educational process, there is a risk of disharmony in development and intensified intellectual activity at the expense of  other personal spheres, not only affects them but has no expected positive influence on the intellectual sphere itself.

In view of the system approach, which sees a person as an integral and at the same time versatile phenomenon, it clarifies that the prospects of increase of the educational quality are in many respects related to obtaining of scientific data concerning both heterogeneous and homogeneous correlations between some educational impacts and evolution of specific functions (such as the influence of intellectual tasks on development of some cognitive actions; the influence of physical exercises on a specific physical quality development). Efficiency of the educational process can be provided only in case of such a system organization which meets the rules of age development of various body systems which are, to some extent, interconnected and interdetermined. It is difficult to estimate the unique value of innovation in the sphere of PE of the rising generation without understanding the system laws of individual development.

B.G. Anan’ev emphasized, that “this or that change brought by education and training into a child’s development, gets into some mechanisms, is resisted by others, accelerates or slows down this or that set of reactions, creates a new communications system or transforms a previous one [1, p. 519 – 520]. Surely, development of an integral personality is not a process of summing up time history of its single elements but a complex process which includes interdependent changes of the system components. Consequently, changes caused by PE in the motor sphere, touch upon and influence changes in other personal sphere (mental one, particularly).

In other words, 6-formers with low intellectual level showed higher intellectual dynamics after increasing motor activity during an academic year. Implementation of 3 PE lessons a week, one of which aimed at speed and strength development of 6-formers led to the higher rate of corresponding motor skills and also to more expressed dynamics of development of intellectual features in comparison with original ones.

Taking into account heterogeneous connections in human development, we can suggest that extra specialized physical load results in intellectual development of some teenagers. The deprivation of the basic need for motor activity, especially in the juvenile age, must affect other psychological processes (emotional, motivational, intellectual etc).

We suppose that a great role of school PE, which has not been fully implemented by now, influences directly the process of harmonious personality formation – by increasing psychomotor development, emotional maturity and moral qualities (at game and competitive lessons in particular). Physical development also influences indirectly, via heterogeneous connections, the personal intelligence development.

The purpose of this study was to compare the progress dynamics of 6-formers who learned by the curricula with 2 or 3 PE lessons a week.

Materials and methods. Male 6-formers from secondary school 149, Omsk, Russia, were the subjects of the research. The study consisted of 2 phases. The first phase, in 2009-2010, was dedicated to the study of the dynamics of motor and intellectual skills in traditional PE system (2 PE lessons a week) by comparing autumn and spring test results. We calculated the values of Total Dynamics of Physical Development (TDPD) based on the calculations of the arithmetic mean of growth rates at every single motor display, along with pupils’ progress dynamics at the end of the 1^st and the 4^th terms. The second phase of the study, in 2010-2011 was devoted to the studies of the dynamics of the same skills in the system of 3 PE lessons a week (the 3^rd one being developing). TDPD and progress dynamics at the end of the 1^st and the 4^th terms was calculated.

The dynamics figures studied were calculated using O. Brodi formula. Reliability of average group differences was defined using Student’s t-test. The relations of the tested variables were calculated using Pearson’s r correlation coefficient [6].

The specificity of load in the educational experiment and comparative measures of motor density during the trial and educational experiments was shown earlier [9]. As it was stated, in the trial experiment, 6-formers had 2 PE lessons a week and the motor density was low due to the prevailing educational component. During the educational experiment, the 3^rd “developing”, PE lesson was included in the curriculum to cut down the educational component and to increase pupils’ motor activity via competitions, relay-races and circuit training.

Results and discussion. The study [9] represents the dynamics of intellectual and motor abilities as a result of the educational experiment and the correlation of these abilities. Higher growth rates of motor abilities and intellectual dynamics were revealed during the educational experiment. The latter influenced the positive correlation of examined abilities which was not observed in the background data of the trial experiment. In the educational experiment TDPD is generally in the sample negatively correlated with the original intellectual level (r = - 0.389; P ≤ 0.05), and positively correlated with intellectual dynamics (r = 0.570; P ≤ 0.01). This indicates to the growth of both general motor and intellectual development of 6^-formers in the implementation of 3-lessons-per-week PE system at school.

Having compared the pupils’ progress in the 1^st and the 4^th terms, we revealed the progress dynamics in the trial and educational experiments (Tab. 1). The expressed positive progress dynamics by the end of the academic year was not detected in the trial experiment. Meanwhile, the progress decrease was revealed in some subjects. All in all, general progress and progress in humanities grew slightly in the trial experiment along with a fall in natural sciences.

 

Table 1. Comparative analysis of 6-formers’ progress dynamics in the trial and educational experiments

Subject	Trial experiment			Educational experiment			t-test
	1st term	4th term	growth М	1st term	4th term	growth М	М - М
Russian language	3,68	3,77	2,76	3,79	4,07	7,44	1,41
Literature	4,13	4,1	– 0,51	4,14	4,41	6,76	2,08*
Foreign language	3,87	3,90	1,74	4,14	4,34	5,25	0,95
Mathematics	3,71	3,71	0,2	4,07	4,24	5,1	1,72
IT	4,26	4,13	– 3,05	4,45	4,59	3,07	1,76
Physics	4,03	4,00	– 0,72	4,03	4,17	4,12	1,34
History	3,84	4,06	5,61	4,31	4,52	5,69	0,02
Social science	4,23	4,13	– 2,15	4,48	4,66	4,02	2,30*
Geography	3,84	3,97	3,89	4,28	4,41	3,72	0,05
Biology	4,06	3,87	– 4,89	4,21	4,28	1,75	1,95
Craft	4,23	4,61	9,63	4,03	4,59	13,49	0,91
PE	4,61	4,77	3,76	4,69	4,86	4,05	0,09
GP	4,05	4,10	1,48	4,22	4,42	4,96	2,62*
HP	3,97	4,02	1,33	4,18	4,41	5,79	2,59*
NSP	4,00	3,95	– 1,22	4,18	4,33	4,01	2,69*

Legend: In this and next tables, sign * - reliability of differences (correlations) at the value level P ≤ 0.05; ** - P ≤ 0.01; GP – general progress in all subjects; HP – progress in humanities; SP – progress in natural sciences.

Firstly, the educational experiment, on the contrary, practically lacks subjects where pupils’ progress decreased at the end of the academic year. Secondly, the progress grew in some subjects in comparison with the trial experiment. Generally, at the reliable level, pupils showed higher dynamics of general progress including HP and NSP.

The examination of the correlations between the growth rates of 6-formers’ motor abilities and TDPD, on the one hand, and their progress dynamics, on the other hand, revealed that the general progress of male pupils is positively correlated with the growth rates of strength, speed, speed and strength abilities, overall endurance and TDPD on the whole (Tab. 2). HP dynamics has positive correlations with the growth rates of strength, speed and strength abilities and general endurance. The NSP dynamics correlates to growth rates of speed and strength abilities.

At the same time, the growth rates of overall endurance do not correlate with the progress dynamics in natural science subjects. TDPD in the educational experiment is reliably (P ≤ 0.05) related to the GP dynamics and, as a tendency, with NSP.

Hence, in the correlation structure, motor abilities are most expressed and were the center of attention at the 3^rd developing lesson, i.e. speed and speed and strength abilities. Moreover, in this correlation system, the correlations between the growth rates of strength abilities (carpal and torso dynamometry) and educational progress became apparent.

The reason for the allocated positive correlations with both progress and intellectual abilities [9] is more likely in the fact that the juvenile age is characterized by dominating interpersonal relations, features of person’s body perception, along with substantially actualized motor need (increased excitement in the “inner” balance – E.P. Il’in [11]; mighty, irrepressible energy, restlessness – N.S. Leytes [12]). Apparently, the deprivation of the basic need along with global intensification and complication of information on different subjects can influence overall physical working capacity, concentration ability and learning motivation in general in teenagers. It is important to take into consideration the individual level of the need for motor activity which depends on pupil’s personal characteristics, where typological peculiarities of manifestations of the features of nervous system are essential [10, 11, 14].

Table 2. Correlations of growth rates of motor abilities and progress dynamics during the educational experiment

Motor manifestations	GP dynamics	HP dynamics	NSP dynamics
Right hand carpal dynamometry	0,299	0,196	0,410*
Left hand carpal dynamometry	0,258	0,157	0,369*
Torso dynamometry	0,436*	0,368*	0,415*
Pull-ups	0,047	– 0,092	– 0,040
Flexion - extension	0,168	0,124	0,390*
Long jump	0,419*	0,401*	0,378*
Rope jumping	0,047	0,062	0,202
Shuttle running	– 0,304	– 0,304	– 0,427*
Running, 30 m	– 0,384*	– 0,229	– 0,263
Running, 1000 m	– 0,437*	– 0,382*	0,022
TDPD	0,369*	0,162	0,335

Comments: the negative correlation of indices in time tests, i.e. running exercises (30 m, 1000 m, and shuttle running) indicates to the positive correlation of motor abilities displayed in these exercises (endurance, speed manifestations) and progress.

More expressed intellectual dynamics (ID) (42.11%) in the educational experiment is specific for students with lower level of ID at the beginning of an academic year. In addition, as shown in Table 3, in the trial experiment, on the contrary, pupils with lower intellectual level had lower ID dynamics (14.32%). It is notable, that pupils with higher intellectual level at the beginning of the study had the same dynamics both in the trial and educational experiments (24.73% and 25.25%, correspondingly). Pupils with average intellectual level showed its identical dynamics both in the trial and in educational experiments at the beginning of the study (26.16% and 26.50%, correspondingly).      

Table 3. The dynamics of intellectual development of 6-formers, differentiated by the initial intellectual level, in the trial and educational experiments, %

Intellectual level at the beginning of the experiment	Intellectual dynamics
	Background data М ± m	Educational experiment data М± m
High	24,73 ± 6,20	25,25 ± 7,22
Average	26,16 ± 4,75	26,50 ± 5,82
Low	14,32 ± 5,21	42,11 ± 5,83

Consequently, the increased total motor density of lessons and larger amount of physical load in the 3^rd, developing, lesson in the educational experiment did not have a negative influence on the 6-formers’ intellectual dynamics with a comparatively high and average intellectual levels; at the same time, they had a substantial positive effect for 6-formers with the lower intellectual level. Moreover, the educational experiment caused some change in the growth rates of the correlations between motor and intellectual abilities of 6-formers, who had lower intellectual level at the beginning of the experiment.

The study of the ratio of progress and intellectual dynamics depending on the initial levels of these features revealed the following. Six-formers with higher intellectual level and progress had a slighter increase in these parameters at the end of the experiment (Tab. 4). On the contrary, pupils with lower intellectual level and progress at the beginning of the experiment had more obvious intellectual and progress dynamics as a result of the educational experiment. All in all, 6-formers with low progress at the beginning of the year had reliably higher general progress dynamics, progress in natural sciences and humanities at the end of the academic year.

Table 4. Comparative analysis of progress dynamics of 6-formers differentiated by intellectual dynamics (ID) in the educational experiment

Subject	Low ID			High ID			t-test
	1st term	4th term	growth М	1st  term	4th term	growth М	М - М
Russian language	4,07	4,20	3,39	3,50	3,93	11,79	1,64
Literature	4,53	4,60	1,48	3,71	4,21	12,41	2,07*
Foreign language	4,40	4,47	1,48	3,86	4,21	9,30	1,72
Mathematics	4,40	4,47	1,90	3,71	4,00	8,53	1,48
IT	4,73	4,67	– 1,48	4,14	4,50	7,94	2,75**
Physics	4,40	4,27	– 3,39	3,64	4,07	12,15	2,70**
History	4,53	4,60	2,33	4,07	4,43	9,30	1,30
Social science	4,73	4,80	1,48	4,21	4,50	6,75	1,05
Geography	4,47	4,53	1,90	4,07	4,29	5,67	1,01
Biology	4,53	4,47	– 1,90	3,86	4,07	5,67	1,74
Craft	4,27	4,60	7,83	3,79	4,57	19,56	1,73
PE	4,73	4,87	2,96	4,64	4,86	5,22	0,63
GP	4,48	4,53	1,17	3,95	4,30	9,03	4,66**
HP	4,47	4,55	2,08	3,88	4,27	9,77	2,95**
NSP	4,51	4,47	– 1,07	3,83	4,19	9,46	4,01**

Obviously, it is difficult to expect from 6-formers with high initial intellectual level and high progress to show high growth rates. The reason is rather simple – the smaller “growth space”. Partly, it is the reason for different directions of correlations between TDPD and progress depending on the intellectual dynamics in the educational experiment (Tab. 5). Concerning pupils with low intellectual dynamics (and with its higher initial level) TDPD is reliably negatively interrelated to the dynamics of general progress (r= - 0.367; P ≤ 0.05); at the same time, pupils with high intellectual dynamics (and its lower initial level) TDPD has positive correlations with general progress dynamics (r= 0.472; P ≤ 0.01). But there is still a weak tendency that pupils with low intellectual dynamics have positive correlation between TDPD and progress dynamics in natural sciences (r=0.225).

The stipulated above induces to believe that there exists a category of pupils with some personal psychological features who react more positively to increasing motor activity which is expressed in the growing intellectual and progress dynamics on this base.

Table 5. Correlations between general physical development and progress dynamics of 6-formers, differentiated by intellectual dynamics in the educational experiment

Educational dynamics	TDPD of pupils with low intellectual dynamics	TDPD of pupils with high intellectual dynamics
GEP	– 0,367*	0,472**
HEP	– 0,175	0,122
SEP	0,225	0,083

Conversely, apparently, pupils of this category have some difficulties with high information loads along with lack of motor activity. Probably, we are not to generalize, as some authors do [13], and not to consider pupils’ negative attitude towards the 3^rd PE lesson as an “interfering factor”. Practice disproves this: some pupils feel shy at PE lessons; but also some pupils try to visit a gym whenever possible. That is why we should avoid generalization and speak on individual inclinations and individually specified expression of the need for motor activity.

We can suggest that in adolescence significant increase of the intellectual load against the background of unrealized motor need can hamper development of other personal spheres. The latter obviously concerns individual psychological features of pupils, since not everybody can learn a big amount of information with the same rate and the same progress in short periods of time. Herewith, it is impossible to create adequate conditions for both motor and personal development as a whole without considering pupil’s personal features which influence the inclination to motor activities, the level of manifestation of motor activity.

Therefore the innovation forms of organization of physical education are to be taken not only as the ways of improvement of motor potential and formation of health of the rising generation, but also in a wider educational context, neither moral and aesthetic, nor maximum mental development of a personality is possible without it. The personality is integral and one cannot single out and develop independently some of its spheres.

 

References

1. Anan’ev, B.G. Selected works on psychology. V. 2. Personality development and character education / B.G. Anan’ev; ed. by N.A. Loginova. − St.Petersburg: Publ. h-se of St.Petersburg un-ty, 2007. − 549 P. (In Russian)
2. Balsevich, V.K. The concept of alternative forms of organization of physical education of schoolchildren / V.K. Balsevich, M.P. Shestakov // Sport, dukhovnye tsennosti, kul’tura. – Moscow, 1997. – Iss. 7. – P. 232–237. (In Russian)
3. Balsevich, V.K. New vectors of modernization of systems of mass physical education of children and teenagers of comprehensive school / V.K. Balsevich, L.I. Lubysheva, L.N. Progonyuk, L.N. Mustafina, N.Ya. Strel’tsova // Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury. – 2003. – № 4. – P. 56–59. (In Russian)
4. Balsevich, V.K. Sports-focused education: educational and social aspects / V.K. Balsevich, L.I. Lubysheva // Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury. – 2003. – № 5. – P. 19–22. (In Russian)
5. Burzunova, E.A. Change in personal potential of gifted teenagers in conditions of increased educational load / E.A. Burzunova // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. – Tomsk, 2011. – № 353. – P. 166–169. (In Russian)
6. Gubler, E.V. The use of nonparameteric tests of statistics in medicobiological studies / E.V. Gubler, A.A. Genkin. – Leningrad, 1973. – 140 P. (In Russian)
7. D’yachenko, T.M. The dynamics of intellectual and personal development of junior schoolchildren and teenagers (longitudinal study): abstract of Ph.D. thesis / T.M. D’yachenko. – St.Petersburg, 2006. – 26 P. (In Russian)
8. Zelova, T.F. The effect of extra physical load on the correlation of the dynamics of motor and mental development / T.F. Zelova, E.M. Revenko,V.A. Sal’nikov // Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka. – 2012. – № 5. – P. 21–26. (In Russian)
9. Zotova, F.R. Efficiency of extra “training” lessons of physical culture at innovation schools / F.R. Zotova // Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka. – 2004. – № 1. – P. 2–5. (In Russian)
10. Il’in, E.P. Psychology of individual differences / E.P. Il’in. – St.Petersburg: Piter, 2004. – 704 P. (In Russian)
11. Il’in, E.P. Human psychomotor organization: textbook for universities / E.P. Il’in. – St.Petersburg: Piter, 2003. – 384 P. (In Russian)
12. Leites, N.S. Age-related talent and individual differences / N.S. Leites. – Moscow; Voronezh, 1997. – 448 P. (In Russian)
13. Mutko, V.L. Extra lesson of physical culture: experience of implementation / V.L. Mutko, N.V. Parshikova, V.A. Chistyakov // Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka. – 2007. – № 1. – P. 20–21. (In Russian)
14. Sal’nikov, V.A. Individual differences in the system of sports activity / V.A. Sal’nikov. – Omsk, 2003. – 261 P. (In Russian)

Author’s contacts: revenko.76@mail.ru