Dr.Hab., professor V.M. Igumenov
Russian State University of Physical Culture, Sport, Youth and Tourism (GTsOLIFK), Moscow

Keywords: cognitive/ cognition-centred structuring of combat athlete training system, training process factors, cognitive analysis, cognitive map.

Introduction

Cognitive/ cognition-centred structuring of an elite combat athlete training system may be defined as the process designed to determine the following:

- Desired condition of the athlete;

- Training process control factors;

- Training environment factors; and

- Cause-and-effect factors of the process in their interrelations.

Cognitive analysis and cognitive modelling are the methods to help get a clear idea of a problematic situation, specify its key contradictions if any and analyze the subject system. The objective of the cognitive analysis is to put into shape and further clarify a hypothesis to explain the functionality of the subject to the study and the relevant cause-and-effect factors of influence, with due account of their contributions and interdependencies.

A cognitive map will be used to present deliverables of the cognition-centred structuring process (S.I. Lebedev, 2010). The cognitive map will be developed and updated in the process of the researcher acquiring deeper knowledge of the process environment and its variation trends. It may be described as a harmonic ‘alloy’ to combine knowledge, will and creativity of the researcher acting under influences of different social factors. It is through a wide range of choices of the cognitive/ cognition-centred options or research solutions – when the research subjects are significantly indefinite – that the scientific knowledge development process and its variations are largely determined by (S.I. Lebedev, 2010).

Objective of the study was to offer promising approaches to the cognitive analysis of the elite combat athlete training process factors in their interrelations.

Methodology and organisation of the study

Expert opinion polls

Expert opinions are in fact the key source of knowledge on the subject system, including forecast conditions of the subjects. It is traditional that an individual expert opinion is accepted as a basis for a model and, hence, is critical for success of the modelling process. It is important, however, that the expert should make due account of the major factors as opposed to the less significant ones. When it comes to specification of interrelations of many factors, the expert will consider a wide range of associations and screen out the indirect associations from the direct and major ones [1].

The expert opinion poll procedure offered a list of questions to every expert to obtain his/her assessments of and recommendations on the ways to increase efficiency of the elite combat athlete training process and rate the process factors using a verbal scale system; put together the rated expert opinions in a consolidated table; and come to the final opinion.

The polled experts were requested to: provide their expert opinion on the best ways to improve the elite combat athlete training process; sort out the key factors of influence on the elite combat athlete training system improvement process; specify interrelations of these factors; rate the factors by importance; and forecast variation trends for the factors of influence [1].

The experts were requested to weight each process factor within the range of 0 to 1 on a probability scale. In doing so, composed probabilities of the lower data blocks were assumed to equal 1 (in accordance with the composition of probabilities theorem), whilst importance of each data block was rated by multiplying the relevant probabilities.

For the purposes of the variation trend forecasts, we computed the relevant importance rates (RIR) for every process factors by multiplying the factor expert assessment rates.

Verbal scales

We used the verbal scales offered by L.S. Bolotova (2012) to rate the expert’s opinions.

Table 1 hereunder gives the factor relations rating scale. Relation means herein the link that ensures the system integrity and is indicative of its structure (statistical data) and functionality (factor variability data) [1].

Table 1. Factor relationship rating scale by L.S. Bolotova, 2012

Given in Table 2 hereunder is the factor variation trend rating scale by L.S. Bolotova, 2012.

Table 2. Factor variation trend rating scale by L.S. Bolotova, 2012

Cognitive analysis method in application to the elite combat athlete training process factors

Cognitive analysis is a promising research tool that opens new opportunities for studies in many areas, including sports. The cognitive analysis and modelling methodology gives the means to analyse possible solutions and take the right decision in uncertain situations (R. Axelrod, 1976). The methodology is based on subjective expert opinions on the subject process and includes the following components:

- Process structuring component; cognitive map drafting component, with the expert opinions being presented in a form of directed graph with a set of process factors F and a set of cause factors versus effect factors relations W; and the relevant process variation trend analyzing methods (in the case under study they are focused on the elite combat athlete training process factors). The cognitive map is designed to provide a graphic presentation of the process environment.

Study results and discussion. Practical experience of the systemic and structurфд approach being applied to the elite athlete training process (A.A. Novikov, V.V. Kuznetsov, 1970, 1972) provided the tools to find and rate interrelations of the system elements and thereby design a hierarchical structure of the system.

A.A. Novikov (1974) offered a process functionality factors classification chart including Level 1 of the competitive accomplishments rating factors; Level 2 of the athlete skills rating factors; and Level 3 of the main body system functionality rating factors.

As things now stand, neither of the athletic training systems can offer ready solutions for the process problems and objectives and it is the reason why the modern training system designers have to make more emphasis on scientific approaches in the efforts to improve the existing training systems. The system cognition analysis being applied as a tool to explore influences of the process factors on the efforts to reach the desired condition of the studied subject gives the means to increase the objectivity of the combat athlete fitness rating system.

Special attention of the sport analysts is now being given to solutions of the management decision-making problems in the situations that occur on the junctions of different processes and activities specific for the situations under the study. The complicating conditions may include multiple aspects, interrelations and combinations of the process factors; and the situation may be further complicated by the following:

1. Inadequate and/ or incomplete qualitative background data on variations in the subject process that could be used to put together quantitative assessments of the process elements; and

2. Volatility of the subject activity-related processes that entails some uncertainty giving no way to design a reliable qualitative model of the process under study.

In solving the technically challenging problems of that kind, researchers normally apply ‘factors’ as variables, with the factor interrelations and the factor relevant importance rates (RIR) being applied for the analysшs in the expert opinions processing procedures.

Graph decompositions of the elite combat athlete training process control factors

Correlation of the ‘training process’ factor (0.6) versus the ‘training process provisioning’ factor (0.4) was found to be of modest influence on the process (see Tables 1 and 5).

Correlation of the ‘training process’ factor (0.6) versus the ‘training program’ factor (0.7) was found to be of strong influence on the process for the reason that the higher is the cause factor the higher is the effect factor (see Tables 1 and 5).

Correlation of the ‘training process’ factor (0.6) versus the ‘sport-specific training standards’ factor (0.3) was found to be of modest influence on the process (see Tables 1 and 5).

Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘training process’ factor (0.6) versus the ‘training program’ factor (0.7) (see Table 1) shows a significant growth trend of 42%, see Tables 2 and 5.

Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘training process’ factor (0.6) versus the ‘sport-specific training standards’ factor (0.3) (see Table 1) shows a modest growth trend of 18%, see Tables 2 and 5.

Table 3. Cognitive map for the elite combat athlete training process control factors

Figure 1. Graph decompositions of the elite combat athlete training process control factors

Correlation of the ‘training process provisioning’ factor (0.4) versus the ‘research and methodological provisioning’ factor (0.7) was found to be of strong influence on the process for the reason that the higher is the cause factor the higher is the effect factor (see Tables 1, 3 and 5).

Correlation of the ‘training process provisioning’ factor (0.4) versus the ‘financial, technical and informational provisioning’ factor (0.3) was found to be of modest influence on the process (see Tables 1, 3 and 5).

Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘training process provisioning’ factor (0.4) versus the ‘research and methodological provisioning’ factor (0.7) (see Table 1) shows a modest growth trend of 28%; see Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘training process provisioning’ factor (0.4) versus the ‘financial, technical and informational provisioning’ factor (0.3) (see Table 1) shows a very low growth trend of 12%; see Tables 1, 2, 3 and 5.

Graph decompositions of the elite combat athlete training process environment factors

Environment means herein the totality of the subjects which quality variations cause different influences on the system under study plus the subjects which qualities vary depending on the system variations.

Correlation of the ‘sport management (sport committees/ federations’ factor (0.8) versus the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) was found to be of modest influence on the process (see Tables 1, 4 and 6).

Correlation of the ‘sport management (sport committees/ federations’ factor (0.8) versus the ‘sport institutional and legal provisioning’ factor (0.5) was found to be of significant influence on the process for the reason that the higher is the cause factor the higher is the effect factor (see Tables 1, 4 and 6).

Correlation of the ‘sport management (sport committees/ federations’ factor (0.8) versus the ‘sport financing system’ factor (0.5) was found to be of significant influence on the process (see Tables 1, 4 and 6).

Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘sport management (sport committees/ federations’ factor (0.8) versus the ‘sport institutional and legal provisioning’ factor (0.5) (see Table 1) shows a modest growth trend of 40%; see Tables 2, 4 and 6.

Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘sport management (sport committees/ federations)’ factor (0.8) versus the ‘sport financing system’ factor (0.5) (see Table 1) shows a modest growth trend of 40%; see Tables 2, 4 and 6.

Correlation of the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) versus the ‘sport discipline importance’ factor (0.7) was found to be of strong influence on the process (see Table 1).

Correlation of the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) versus the ‘research contribution to the sport practice’ factor (0.3) was found to be of modest influence on the process (see Table 1, 4 and 6).

Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) versus the ‘sport discipline importance’ factor (0.7) (see Table 1) shows a very low growth trend of 14%; see Tables 2, 3 and 6.

Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) versus the ‘research contribution to the sport practice’ factor (0.3) (see Table 1) shows a very low growth trend of 6%; see Tables 2, 3, 4 and 6.

Table 4. Graph decompositions of the elite combat athlete training process environment factors

Figure 2. Graph decompositions of the elite combat athlete training process environment factors

The cognitive analysis gave us the means to offer optional solutions to step up the elite combat athlete training process efficiency and forecast the events of potential influence on the process efficiency.

Table 5. Elite combat athlete training process: rated contributions of the process factors and trends

Table 6. Elite combat athlete training process: rated contributions of the environmental factors variation trends

Conclusions

• The study offers approaches to rate the relevant importance of every elite combat athlete training process factor, with the following findings being considered the most notable ones: the correlation of the ‘training process’ factor (0.6) versus the ‘training program’ factor (0.7) was found to be of strong positive influence on the process for the reason that higher cause factor promotes higher effect factor. Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘training process’ factor (0.6) versus the ‘training program’ factor (0.7) shows a significant growth trend of 42%. Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘training process provisioning’ factor (0.4) versus the ‘research and methodological provisioning’ factor (0.7) shows a modest growth trend of 28%. Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘training process provisioning’ factor (0.4) versus the ‘financial, technical and informational provisioning’ factor (0.3) shows an insignificant growth trend of 12%.

• The study rated the environmental factors of influence on the elite combat athlete training process: in particular, the correlation of the ‘sport management (sport committees/ federations’ factor (0.8) versus the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) was found to be of modest positive influence on the process. The correlation of the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) versus the ‘sport discipline importance’ factor (0.7) was found to be of strong positive influence on the process. Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) versus the ‘sport discipline importance’ factor (0.7) shows an insignificant growth trend of 14%. Factor variation trend forecast for the ‘sport discipline potential’ factor (0.2) versus the ‘research contribution to the sport practice’ factor (0.3) shows an insignificant growth trend of 6%.

References

1. Bolotova L.P. Sistemy iskusstvennogo intellekta: modeli i tekhnologii, osnovannye na znaniyakh: uchebnik (Artificial Intelligence Systems: knowledge-based models and technologies: textbook) / FGBOU VPO RGUITP; FGAU GNIY ITT «Informika» / L.P. Bolotova - Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 2012. - 664 P.
2. Lebedev P.I. Sovremennaya filosofiya nauki: Didakticheskie shemy i slovar': Ucheb.posobie (Modern philosophy of science: Didactic schemes and vocabulary: study guide) / P.I. Lebedev. - Moscow: Pub. h-se of Moscow psychology-social institute; Voronezh: MODEK. - 2010.-384 P.
3. Novikov A.A. Osnovy sportivnogo masterstva (Fundamentals of sports competency) / A.A. Novikov - Moscow: VNIIFK, 2003. - 208 P.

Corresponding author: ioan47@mail.ru