PhD, Associate Professor V.E. Tsibulnikova
Moscow State Pedagogical University, Moscow

 

Keywords: motor activity, motor activity norms, individual best motor activity.

 

Background. Requirements to the modern teacher’s working capacity and physicality are growing with time since they comprise the key functionality rates critical for the education service quality and quantity within some specific timeframe. It should be mentioned that the growing mental stress rates of the modern teaching service are associated with the shortage of motor activity i.e. habitual physical inactivity (hypokinesia, hypodynamia) ranked among the most serious job-specific health risks behind a wide variety of disorders in different bodily systems at sacrifice of the active longevity.

What factors shall be taken into account in the efforts to encourage and standardize the teachers’ motor activity? First of all we should mention the natural (inborn) need for physical activity that may vary with time. Individual demand for motor activity is believed to be genetically preprogrammed; thus N.M. Ledovskaya argues that it is the genetic aspect that determines the individual proneness to some activity and physical work intensity, i.e. progress in the individual motor activity [6]. It is the natural individual need for movement that appears to govern the optimal individual motor activity [9] that evolves under influence of the relevant genetic and environmental factors.

The teacher’s motor activity standardizing initiatives shall be designed on an age- and physical-fitness-specific basis, with every health improvement project designed to gradually increase the individual physical activity to fully mobilize the personal motor potential (till 25 years of age) and form a basis for the individual physical resource [2, 5].

It may be pertinent to underline in this context that the health and motor activity standardizing projects shall be gender-specific among other things – since the natural daily average men’s motor activity is known to be higher than the women’s one. Thus the daily average locomotion in the female age groups was tested to fall from 10.2-13.6 thousand steps per day for the 21-30 year-olds to 7.8-11.0 thousand steps per day for the 31-40 year-olds; and further to only 4.0-6.1 thousand steps per day for the 70+ year-olds [10].

The modern vocational teaching service is highly intellectual labor intensive, and this factor must be taken into account by the motor activity standardizing projects. Studies by A.Y. Gapon and K.M. Smirnov support the above age-specific variations of the daily motor activity and consider the natural need for physical activity to recommend that the intellectual laborer’s motor activity should vary within at least 8.6-11.8/ 5.8-13.4/ 8.5-9.8 thousand steps per day for the 30-40/ 40-50/ 50-60 year-olds, respectively [3].

Physical activity of the female teachers is known to heavily depend on the individual motivations for physical practices dominated by the following:   

– Health and physical progress motivations;

– Cultural and entertainment motivations; and

– Sporting progress motivations [11].

The teachers’ motor activity standardizing initiatives shall give a special priority to the individual motor memory, motor experience and physical fitness. Thus V.I. Goncharov argues that the motor memory implies the key motor skills and abilities and generally refers to imagery-focused memory with the relevant motor analyzer system, plus movement-recording memory focused on the movement elements and sequences [4].

Objective of the study was to survey and rank the factors of influence on the teachers' motor activity based on the self-rating data.

Methods and structure of the study. We used a questionnaire survey method to rate, statistically process and rank the factors of influence on the teachers' motor activity. Sampled for the study were the 21-65 year-old female teachers (n=480) from 23 Russian regions summoned for an advanced training course ‘FSES compliant health protection technologies in the general education system’ offered by the Online Advanced Pedagogic Education Foxford Center managed by V.Y. Tsibulnikova. The sample was offered to rank the key factors of influence on their MA.

Module One included the following biological factors of influence: individual CNS physiology specifics; mental activity variations; anthropometrical characteristics and physiological types; physical fitness; body constitution; genetic component of the individual predisposition to motor activity; individual need for physical activity; health status; hereditary diseases; formal age; individual age-specific development types; and gender specifics of the female teachers.

Module Two included the following socio-environmental factors of influence: macro- and micro-environment; socializing skills; communication with people with different motor activity rates; physical education and sporting culture; health culture; job-specific requirements to the teaching intellectual laborer; and the teacher’s service regimen.

Module Three included the following intrapersonal factors of influence: individual health values and priorities; life goals including the motor activity motivations and missions; personality progress agenda versus the vocational service specifics; physical self-education; physical fitness; motor memory and practical motor activity experience; and procrastination i.e. delays in the motor activity agenda.

Study findings and discussion. The factors of influence rating data were used to rank the above factors by their effects on the teachers’ motor activity. Biological factors of Module One were ranked as follows: (1) genetic predisposition to some level of physical activity (42.7%); (2) anthropometrical characteristics and physiological types; physical fitness and body constitution (36.4%); (3) health status and hereditary diseases

 (24.6%).

The social and environmental factors of Module Two were ranked as follows: (1) health culture (62.3%); (2) physical education and sporting culture (53.4%); (3) communication with people with different motor activity rates (18.2%).

And the intrapersonal factors of Module Three were ranked as follows: (1) individual health values and priorities (69.3%); (2) personality progress agenda (29.7%); and (3) physical self-education (26.8%).

Conclusion. The study data and analyses give the grounds to conclude that an individual need for motor activity is largely genetically predetermined, albeit actual motor activity is limited and dictated by the social, environmental and intrapersonal factors i.e. it is the society, living environment and professional service that effectively shape up the individual motor activity. The teacher’s motor activity encouragement initiatives, therefore, shall take into account the above three sets of the individual biological, socio-environmental and intrapersonal factors. The individual ratings of the above factors by the degrees of their influence on the teachers’ motor activity were found dominated by the individual genetic predisposition to one or another motor activity; individual health agenda and physical education level; values and priorities of the health-centered motor activity and culture; and the individual motivations for motor activity.

 

References

1. Bykhtenko O.V. Psikhofiziologicheskie osobennosti lits s razlichnoy potrebnostyu v dvigatelnoy aktivnosti [Psychophysiological features of persons with different needs for motor activity]. PhD diss.; Vosstanovitelnaya travmatologiya i ortopediya. Kurgan, 2004, 162 p.

2. Vlasova I.A., Gubin G.I., Molokov D.D. Fizicheskoe zdorovye v pozhilom vozraste [Physical health in old age]. Sibirskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal, 2009, no. 7, pp. 151-152.

3. Gapon A.Y., Slonim A.D., Smirnov K.M. [ed.] Issledovanie povsednevnoy dvigatelnoy aktivnosti u lits umstvennogo truda [Study of everyday motor activity in persons of mental labor]. Dvigatelnaya aktivnost cheloveka i gipokineziya: Sb. statey [Human motor activity and hypokinesia: col. works]. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Sib. Dep. Institute of Physiology. Novosibirsk: [s.n.], 1972, 213 p.

4. Goncharov V.I. Pamyat na dvizheniya kak mnemicheskiy komponent protsessa formirovaniya dvigatelnyih navyikov v fizicheskom vospitanii i sporte [Motor memory as mnemic component of motor skills building process in physical education and sports]. Doct. diss. (Psych.). Herzen RSPU. St. Petersburg, 2008, 334 p.

5. Kobyakov Y.P. Kontseptsiya norm dvigatelnoy aktivnosti cheloveka [The concept of norms of human motor activity].Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2003, no. 11, pp. 20-23.

6. Ledovskaya N.M. Obyichnaya dvigatelnaya aktivnost rebenka ot 3 do 7 let [Routine motor activity of child from 3 to 7 years of age]. PhD diss. abstract. SSMI. Saratov, 1973, 18 p.

7. Neskryabina O.F. Smysl i tsennost chelovecheskoy individualnosti [The meaning and value of human individuality]. Doct. diss. (Phil.). St. Petersburg, 1996, 323 p.

8. Semenov V.V. Fiziologicheskaya potrebnost v dvigatelnoy aktivnosti u lits zrelogo i pozhilogo vozrasta [Physiological need for motor activity in persons of mature and elderly age]. PhD diss.. Tyumen, 2003, 203 p.

9. Smirnov K.M., Gapon A.Y., Zhelezovskaya D.G. et al. Obychnaya dvigatelnaya aktivnost, potrebnost v dvizheniyakh i fizicheskoe vospitanie [Normal motor activity, need for movement and physical education]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 1972, no 12, pp. 53-54.

10. Chusov Y.N., Skovorodko V.A. Opyt izucheniya dvigatelnoy aktivnosti cheloveka [Experience in study of human motor activity]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 1976, no, 6, pp. 30-33.

11. Shcherbakov I.I. Vliyanie sotsialno-demograficheskogo statusa trudyashchikhsya na motivatsiyu zanyatiy fizicheskoy kulturoy i sportom [Socio-demographic status of workers versus motivation for physical education and sports]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 1986, no. 4, pp. 34-36.   

 

Corresponding author: Vicki-77@yandex.ru

 

Abstract

The study analyzes the issues of the modern teacher’s motor activity regulation to address the risks of the job-specific physical inactivity that is commonly acknowledged among the key health risk factors; lists the teacher’ physical activity control factors; outlines the job responsibilities and specifics; and offers representative survey data arrays with the teachers’ own ratings of different factors of influence on their motor activity. Sampled for the study were the 21-65 year-old female teachers (n=480) from 23 Russian regions summoned for an advanced training course. The questionnaire survey made it possible to rate the factors of influence on the teachers’ motor activity. The study data and analyses give the grounds to conclude that an individual need for motor activity is largely genetically predetermined, albeit actual motor activity is limited and dictated by the social, environmental and intrapersonal factors i.e. it is the society, living environment and professional service that effectively shape up the individual motor activity. The teacher’s motor activity encouragement initiatives, therefore, shall take into account the above three sets of the individual biological, socio-environmental and intrapersonal factors. The individual ratings of the above factors by the degrees of their influence on the teachers’ motor activity were found dominated by the individual genetic predisposition to one or another motor activity; individual health agenda and physical education level; values and priorities of the health-centered motor activity and culture; and the individual motivations for motor activity.