PhD, Professor A.V. Karavan¹
Dr.Hab., Professor R.M. Kadyrov^1
1St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, St. Petersburg

Keywords: theory, physical education, coverage.

Background. The valid academic Physical Education Theory and Practice curriculum may be described as traditional in its design as it has not been changed for many years. However, lately a few new disciplines have emerged including Methodology of Education and Training (Physical Education); Physical Education Methodology; and Sport Theory; with the relevant curricula covering the modern physical education theory to different extents. Some studies consider the key philosophical and practical issues with concern to the key notions of the modern physical education theory [1, 3, 4]. Due efforts need to be taken for the new scientific data to be covered by the above education curricula.

Objective of the study was to provide grounds for new sub-disciplines to be included in the valid academic Physical Education Theory and Practice discipline.

Study results and discussion. Traditional education tools may be listed as follows: textbook, teaching aid, writing materials, interactive blackboards etc.; whilst the modern physical education tools are dominated by a physical exercise that may be viewed as a method at the same time. Generally, physical exercise may be considered a physical education element rather than a tool. In addition, modern physical education includes ideomotor (mental reproduction of motor actions), electrically stimulated, tactical skills building and other exercises that can unlikely be covered by the commonly accepted definition of a physical exercise. Furthermore, a physical exercise shall include a motor sequence design, guiding scheme of moves etc. Therefore, additional clarifying notions shall be found to enrich the definition of physical exercise. Physical exercises may be classified into educational, educational-and-training and purely training ones, each of them including a guiding scheme of moves and a performance adjustment component.

It is a training task that may be described as the base element of an athletic training system and an integral part of a training process being crucial in other process design elements. Success of the training process largely depends on design, coverage, place and time of each training task and its qualitative and quantitative components.

Training task may be defined as the technological performance model of an exercise geared to attain the relevant educational process goal – mostly the specific short-time training effect within the relevant combination of process factors and elements of the exercise (time, intensity, repetitions, rest breaks etc.). When prudently designed and managed, the training exercise may serve as a construction element of the education and training process within the academic physical education and sports system [2]. A relevant theoretical study may be necessary in the case to thoroughly consider one of the key notions of the modern physical education theory of high importance for the educational and teaching process to be logically and harmonically designed.

Presently the popular terminology shows some imperfections in application to physical education methods – for example, ‘strictly regulated exercise’ (with non-identified degree of strictness); or ‘dismembered’ training method (with ‘dismembered’ applicable to criminal investigations and meat trade businesses rather than to the subject under consideration); no less obscure is the popular term ‘tough rest’. It might make sense to at least clarify these terms by minor adjustments: e.g. regulated exercise as opposed to the game-like and competitive methods; and phased training method instead of ‘dismembered’.

As far as the physical education process goals are concerned, they are traditionally classified into the physical development optimising (health improvement), educational and training ones. It is important that the relevant curriculum is designed to make due emphases on the motor skills mastering and physical qualities development aspects; whilst the health improvement domain of the physical education process is still largely uncovered. Furthermore, it is clear that the methods of development of physical abilities shall be different for basic physical education, athletic training and recreational physical education components. In view of the health agenda being given a top priority today, the relevant matters deserve being considered separately.

Physical progress is rated in the education process by the relevant tests and, hence, the physical education theory and practice shall address the relevant issues by a special study field that may be called ‘sport testology’. This field is undoubtedly important for the professional physical education specialist training since the modern specialist responsibilities include both direct tests of the trainees’ physical progress and design of the relevant progress tests. Therefore, we believe that a modern test process theory should be ranked among the most important components of the academic education under the academic Physical Education Theory and Practice curriculum.

Traditionally practical basics are analysed starting from the age-specific (youth etc.) physical education process elements albeit in the primary physical education theory these sections are referred to as the educational process elements. It seems unlikely that this content fully covers the modern physical education process methodology. We believe that it was the Y.F. Kuramshin’s textbook that offered the most relevant and successful classification of the physical education process methodology [4]. It should also be noted that despite the fact that presently the process methodology is considered one of the key components of physical education, it still obviously in need of the relevant theoretical grounding; and the grounding shall be based on the relevant research toolkit to explore every practical component of the modern physical education process. For these purposes, it could be appropriate to apply a simulation modelling method based, among other things, on a discretional-and-situational approach to the modelling process. The models shall help find the best possible formats for physical education practices. It should be mentioned that for the time being the sector applies the relevant software (gpss, anylogic) to design a set of reasonably operable models. The Anylogic toolkit includes, among other things, process visualising instruments to show every element of the model operation. When and if the accumulated modelling experience is sound enough and the software tools are popular and widely applicable, the above software products may be reasonably applied to further develop the existing physical education and sport theory and practice.

It should be noted that, despite the fact that the process planning and control components are viewed among the most important elements of the modern physical education theory and practice, the relevant research mechanisms for their grounding are still underdeveloped. This shortage may be due to the fact that they are overshadowed by the top priority being given to the theoretical grounding of the physical abilities and motor skills development processes since they comprise a pivotal subject of the modern physical education theory and practice. It is common knowledge that detailing level of any plan depends on the planning process scope (limits); with the operational and current plans being naturally developed in more detail than long-term ones. For a physical training session being as effective as possible, a correlation of the current/ short-time effect with the practice repetitions shall be found – albeit the existing theory provides next to no grounds for the following: numbers of repetitions of specific practices, sessions, training cycles, specific training stages and durations of training/ education periods on the whole. This deficiency may be due to the lack of dependable and objective process rating criteria. The presently applied physical progress and fitness measures are highly volatile and, hence, not reliable and authentic enough. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the process elements (or cells) need to be identified to rate effects of the relevant factors (exercises, educational process actions etc.). We believe that it is the training/ educational process task that may be provisionally applied as such a process element.

It is also important and recommended that the academic Physical Education Theory and Practice curriculum should cover the nutritional basics in application to athletic training and mass physical training practices – for the reason that at least strength and bodybuilding practices cannot be successful enough unless the trainees are reasonably knowledgeable in the modern nutritional theory.

Lately a few new disciplines have emerged based on the existing physical education theory and practice, including Methodology of Education and Training (Physical Education); Physical Education Methodology; Adaptive Physical Education Theory and Design; Recreational Physical Education Theory etc. It is important to ensure that these disciplines are developed with no harmful diluting effect on the core basics of the modern Physical Education Theory and Practice discipline with its major subject – that is to study the logics of physical progress and physical abilities building process. We believe that it is the modern biomedical sciences that should make a major contribution to the subject discipline to help analyse and effectively build motor skills and develop relevant physical abilities and qualities – that is the core subject of the modern physical education theory.

Conclusion. The valid academic Physical Education Theory and Practice curriculum may be periodically revised when new research data provide good grounds for such revisions. The academic Physical Education Theory and Practice curriculum must be highly relevant to give a systemic knowledgebase to a future specialist with a special emphasis on the professional service missions, goals and tools i.e. the physical education process concepts, content and practices.

References

1. Dmitriev G.G., Islamov V.A., Bogza K.A., et al. Zakonomernosti adaptatsii voennosluzhaschikh k ekstremalnym usloviyam prirodnoy sredy [Adaptation mechanisms of servicemen to extreme environments]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2016, no. 2, pp. 59-60.
2. Kadyrov R.M., Mikhail I.I. Modelirovanie ob'ema i intensivnosti nagruzok v protsesse fizicheskoy trenirovki [Physical load volume and intensity modelling in training process]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2016, no. 8, pp. 72-75.
3. Kadyrov R.M., Morschinina D.A. Teoriya i metodika fizicheskoy kultury. Ucheb. posobie [Theory and practice of physical education. Study guide]. Moscow: KnoRus publ., 2016, 132 p.
4. Kuramshin Y.F. Teoriya i metodika fizicheskoy kultury. Uchebnik [Theory and practice of physical education. Textbook]. Moscow: Sovetskiy sport publ., 2010, 464 p.

Corresponding author: karavanav6203@gmail.com

Abstract

The study considers benefits of the initiative to update the valid academic Physical Education Theory and Practice discipline to additionally cover some issues of physical fitness tests, nutrition and health, with a few concepts of motor skills mastering and physical training process being subject to a special analysis.

The valid academic Physical Education Theory and Practice curriculum shall be periodically revised when new research data provide good grounds for such revisions. The academic Physical Education Theory and Practice curriculum must be highly relevant to give a systemic knowledgebase to a future specialist with a special emphasis on the professional service missions, goals and tools i.e. the physical education process concepts, coverage and practices.