CC BY
17PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
THE PHENOMENON OF SYMMETRY-ASYMMETRY THROUGH THE PRISM OF HUMAN
MOTOR ACTIVITY
Khitaryan D.
Rector - PhD of Pedagogy, Professor - Armenian State Institute of Physical Culture and Sport
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6532646
Abstract
The article discusses issues of "symmetry-asymmetry" as a key feature of nature, manifested in human motor activity, as well. Despite the vast literature and existing practical provisions, it is still very complicated to find out the place of symmetry in the system of sciences, directly related to the science on physical education and sports training, where special focus is set on the principle of comprehensive and harmonious development of the individual.
The outcome of retrospective preliminary researches conducted by the author and exemplified by 20 types of sport (game-based, cyclic, complex coordination, combat), represents an opportunity to note that motor asymmetry is the result of uneven use of both upper and lower limbs, causing a disproportion in physical development and motor abilities of athletes. It has been established that in physical education and sports training while performing various motor actions, the required level of asymmetry is selected. Whereas, the traditional methods of teaching and training do not always take into account the indicators of an individual asymmetry profile and their compliance with the specific requirements of the chosen sport.
Accordingly, arises necessity for developing a new direction, new schemes of teaching and training based on the individual asymmetry profile. And it's no coincidence that experts of the field claim that the issues of motor asymmetry in physical education and sports training are just beginning to be studied. The author's research in this direction is to be expected.
Keywords: symmetry-asymmetry, motor activity, sports training, physical education, bilateral teaching.
Introduction
World famous English physic J.D. Bernal (1969) wrote more than 50 years ago: «....life exists and is functioning on the asymmetric basis» (p. 185). Almost the same idea is expressed by the Georgian psychologist D.N.Uznadze (1961,p.57): «..a man tends to perceive the environment asymmetrically more than on the contrary...... The study about history of science testifies that the doctrine on theory and practice of phenomenon "symmetry-asymmetry" was developed a long ago, with many difficulties and very slowly. Though even in the time of Pythagoras, the concept of symmetry-asymmetry was formed quite clearly. The ancient Greeks back at that time distinguished 10 pairs of opposites, among which the right and left were specified.
Actually we should acknowledge the principle of «symmetry-asymmetry» as a fundamental feature of nature which is reflected in multifarious fields of human activity. It has been established that one of the methods of studying a person is to consider the issues of "symmetry-asymmetry" in the manifestation of motor, functional, psychic abilities. Although there are contradictions here (Shafranovskiy, 1968; Gott, 1977; Lebedev, 1975), yet the problem is still one of the main methods of understanding the world.
Speaking about the problem of "symmetry-asymmetry" Vernandsky (1974, p. 173) aptly notes that despite the vast literature and existing practical provisions, it is still very complicated to distinguish the place of symmetry in the system of sciences, directly relevant to the science on physical education and sports training, where special focus is set on the principle of comprehensive and harmonious development of the individual.
The phenomenon "symmetry-asymmetry" reflects the dialectical unity of processes in living and inanimate nature. It is constantly evolving and is increasingly used to explain many patterns, that's why it attracts the attention of researchers (Gott & Pereturin, 1967; Bragina & Dobrokhotova, 1988). The famous French scientist P. Curie (1908) at the beginning of the 20th century formulated relevant and useful ideas about "symmetry-asymmetry". He argued that one cannot consider the symmetry of any kind of body without taking into account the symmetry of the environment. Therefore, the symmetry of the environment affects the bodies therein. This explains the universal law of symmetry that reigns on the surface of the earth.
The phenomenon "symmetry-asymmetry" explains many biological mechanisms of adaptation of the human body and is deemed to be both a compatible pair and an overall principle of how the nature is developing and functioning (Bragina & Dobrokhotova, 1988; Chermit, 1993). It's worth mentioning that researches in the field of classical symmetry are associated with leading scientists-crystallographers: E.S. Fedorov, A.V.Shubnikov and N.V.Belov. Subsequent studies of the problem pertained to the issues of physics, mathematics, curvilinear symmetry, yet issues related to the symmetry of human motor activity did not stand aside.
Symmetry is one of the basic and focal laws of the universe - inanimate and living nature, society. The category "symmetry" is supplemented by its opposite - the category "asymmetry", hence the harmonious pair "symmetry-asymmetry" appears. Asymmetry is the ultimate, particular and most common case of symmetry breaking. The symmetry of human movements reflects the order, proportionality, commensurability, stable balance and state that exist in objective reality. The
modern concept of "symmetry" (commensurability -according to Shafranovskiy (1968)) corresponds to the ancient Greek version - harmony (Urmancev, 1978).
Accordingly, there are data available about symmetry of developing plants (Fedorov, 1901; Shafranovskiy, 1968), about symmetry in the movements of animals (Bragina & Dobrokhotova, 1988) data about ancient forms of a man's motor activity, whereas voluntary movements are organized more asymmetrically.
Methods
The main objective of the given research was to characterize the essence and state of knowledge on the "symmetry-asymmetry" phenomenon through the system of physical education and sports training. General scientific methods of theoretical research were utilized - theoretical analysis and generalization of scientific and methodical literature.
Results and discussion
Actually it's hard to find such an area of modern science that doesn't deal with ideas and methods of studying the principle, category or phenomenon of symmetry-asymmetry. The field of physical education and sports training is no exception.
Several types of asymmetry are distinguished in humans - morphological, biochemical, psycho-physiological. In sports practice a pivotal role plays psycho-physiological asymmetry, specifically embodying motor asymmetry. Talking about the motor asymmetry one means the whole complex of indicators on inequality of hands, feet, halves of the body, face in the formation of general motor behavior and its expressiveness. (Bragina & Dobrokhotova, 1988; Aleksandrov, 2014). Most people have strong preferences in motion execution by hands, feet to the right or left side. For instance, a variety of combinations is distinguished in sports practice, those of jumping leg, swing-up leg, right-eye dominant or vice versa, best throws of choice to the right or left, etc.
An important question is the extent to which structural differences between the right and left hemispheres correlate with the performance of motor asymmetry, and what functions they have in space and time. Most studies have proven that both cerebral hemispheres are at work in the implementation of movements. The left controls the right hand and right foot, and the right controls respectively the left hand and left foot (Kuraev, 1982; Urmancev, 1978; Gott, 1967). Consequently, the left hemisphere is dominant for right-handed people. In this regard the structural and functional disparity of the left and right cerebral hemispheres becomes obvious.
Recent evidences of various scientists worldwide and investigations of coaches through diverse types of sports suggest (Bragina & Dobrokhotova, 1988; Cher-mit, 1993; Aganyanc; 2004) that individual motor activity is based on the individual profile of asymmetry -IPA. The latter implies the combination of motor symmetry-asymmetry, specific to each person and athlete, bringing under regulations age and gender features of organizing and managing this combination, as well as the issues linked to the impact systematic sports trainings have. That's exactly why an individual approach
is needed for assessing asymmetry. In view of this, taking into account the features of human motor asymmetry the issues of individual differences are under particular study in recent scientific-methodical literature (Chermit, 1993; Aganyanc, 2004; Sologub & Taima-zov, 2000; Moskvin & Moskvina, 2010). It's worth mentioning that an important investment has had A.P.Chuprikov (2005) in developing of this approach.
With each passing year the problem of motor asymmetry in sport attracts the attention of an increasing number of researchers - firstly, in terms of prevention and elimination of disorders in physical development and motor preparedness stemming from years-long study and load asymmetry (Kyphosis, Lordosis, Scoliosis, explicit right-handedness and left-handed-ness, etc.), secondly, for tackling problems related to more symmetric development of human motor activities aimed at preparing for a better lifestyle and labor activity, improving sports mastery. Case studies in this direction have been carried out for more than 70 years, and the results are discussed not only among sports teachers, but also sports physiologists, psychologists, morphologists, geneticists.
From then onwards, based on studying and summing up an abundant array of scientific and methodical literature on motor asymmetry with special reference to multifarious sports, it seems possible to outline a number of, possibly opposite, points of view or directions. Proponents of the first direction suggest developing symmetrically both sides and limbs of the body during the trainings. Suffice it to note that these issues were laid back in ancient times.Later, such a pedagogical approach extends across different countries occupying its objective and consistent place in the systems of physical education and sports training.
It was considered expedient to exercise both limbs when performing joint movements (Litvinsiy, 1878; Ussinch, 1899; Volonchev, 1923; Shmidz, 1925; Mac-Kenzi, 1930; Ivanitskiy, 1959; Okon, 1990). The proponents of the second direction underline the necessity of «alignment», «smoothing» of motor asymmetry as a prerequisite of human body development harmony. (Poceluev, 1951; Ambarov, 1969; Sologub & Taimazov, 2000). Yet this does not mean that the left-handed should be retaught to right-handed, though such practice was applied in a number of countries. Such a change has a negative effect on health and psychological functions of the organism.
The proponents of the third direction think that the genetype and living conditions embodying the standards of education, content of motor activity, have a significant impact on the phenomenon «symmetry-asymmetry» and on the formulation of left- and right-handedness (Bragina & Dobrokhotova, 1988; Ravich-Sherbo, 1988; Aghanyanc, 2004). Nevertheless, the genetic impact factor remains and there is no sense in interfering its nature and trying to chanege it. (Lebedev, 1975).
Thus, despite the vast literature and existing practical provisions, it is, as it became clear, very complicated to distinguish the place of symmetry-asymmetry in the system of sciences, directly relevant to the science on physical education and sports training. Based
on our analysis exemplified by numerous types of sport (game-based, cyclic, complex coordination, combat) that have inadequate physiological and biomechanical structure, it was revealed that motor asymmetry is the result of uneven use of both upper and lower limbs, causing a disproportion in physical development (height and weight) and motor abilities performance of athletes (muscle strength, speed of movements, flexibility, agility, coordination, balance control and so on).
The following core reasons for explicit motor asymmetry are distinguished: one-sided orientation of expressed training loads, selective specialization of one of the limbs (for instance, take-off foot, pitching hand, a suitable side for performing a specific trick, turnovers), insufficient attention paid to all-round and comprehensive training, specifically in the initial stage of sports training.
In conclusion, a required level of asymmetry is selected in physical education and sports training while performing multifarious motor actions. But at the same time, the traditional methods of teaching and training do not always take into account the individual features of athletes and their compliance with the specific requirements of the chosen sport. Obviously it adversely affects various aspects of training as evidenced by the content cited by authors.
On the other hand in the practice of physical education and sports training it is of no less importance changes of asymmetry indicators with special reference to age and gender. Its significance begins with early diagnosis of handiness and determination of the optimal period for laterally directed impact in order to make equal use of both limbs. This fact finds its confirmation in a range of studies under discussion (Ilyin, 1962).
Thus, analyses and generalization of scientific-methodological literature data identify the fact that issues relevant to motor asymmetry throughout physical education and sports training attract the attention of an increasing number of specialists involved in the same profile, including physical culture teachers and coaches. In this regard, the pivotal point is the issue of bilateral, two-sided regulation of motor actions, which lies at the core of statements by B.G.Ananyev (1968). It has proven important to consider individual features in motor asymmetry manifestation while performing physical exercises and practicing sports as a condition ensuring effective motor activity.
The specialists within the field confirm that the issues of motor asymmetry in sports practice are just being studied (Aganyants, 2004), and available researches provide evidence of possibility and necessity to regulate and change motor asymmetry at the initial phases (Sologub & Taymazov, 2000).
Conclusions
Motor asymmetry in physical culture and sports practice should be deemed as a form of evolutionary adaptation of human body to environmental conditions. Concurrently indicators can change over different periods of time. In our opinion, this type of asymmetry is specific to a particular category of activity, such as sports training, dancing art, physical education, etc.
Whereby, it is no secret that an individual ought to achieve mastery through a command of options for performing a variety of motor actions evenly using both upper and lower limbs. This approach contributes to the realization of physical education core principle: comprehensive and harmonious development of human body.
With this respect, leading experts quite fairly underline the need to create a new applied direction in sports science, with special reference to motor asymmetry and, thereupon - differentiated training, with special reference to the individual features of functional specialization (Moskvin & Moskvina, 2010).
Hence, development of specific pedagogical approaches, adequate schemes and training sequence is required based on the individual asymmetry profile. The author's research in this direction is to be expected.
Funding
Authors received no financial support for the research.
Declaration of Conflict of Interest
There is no potential conflicts of interest to declare with respect to the research.
References
1. Aghanyanc, E.K. (2004). Funkcional'nye asimmetrii v sporte: mesto, rol' i perspektivi issledo-vaniya [Functional asymmetry in sport: place, role and perspectives of research]. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 8, 22-24.
2. Aleksandrov, S.G. (2014). Funkcional'naya asimmetriya i mezhpolusharnye vzaimodeistviya golov-nogo mozga [Functional asymmetry and interhe-mispheric correlations of brain]. Irkutsk: Irkutsk State Medical University, 61.
3. Ambarov, E.Kh. (1969). Funkcional'naya asimmetriya nizhnikh konechnostei i podgotovka po-drostkov i yunoshei, zanimayushixsya lyegkoi atletikoi [Functional asymmetry of lower limbs and training of adolescents and young men involved in athletics]. Doctoral Dissertation: Abstract, 17.
4. Ananyev, B.G. (1968). Chelovek kakpredmet poznaniya [Man as a subject of knowledge]. Leningrad: LSU, 240.
5. Bernal, J.D. (1969). Vozniknovenie zhizni [The Orogon of Life]. Moscow: Mir, 85.
6. Bragina. N.N., Dobrokhotova, T.A. (1988). Funkcional'nye asimmetrii cheloveka [Human functional asymmetries]. Moscow: Medicina, 240.
7. Chermit, K.D. (1993). Prelomlenie obshepri-rodnogo principa "simetriya-asimetriya" v fizi-cheskom vospitanii [Refraction of the general natural principle "symmetry-asymmetry" in physical education]. Doctoral Dissertation: Abstract, 46.
8. Chuprikov, A.P. (2005). Mir levorukix [Left handed world]. Kiev: Institute of Neuropsychiatry, 88.
9. Fedorov, E.S. (1901). Kurs kristallografii [Course of crystallography]. SPb: K.L. Rikker, 1.
10. Gott, V.S., Pereturin A.F. (1967). Simetriya i asimetriya kak kategorii poznaniya [Symmetry and
asymmetry as categories of knowledge]. Moscow: Nauka, 211.
11. Ilyin, E.P. (1962). O simetrii i asimetrii v deyatel'nosti dvigatel'nogo analizatora [Symmetry and asymmetry in the activity of the motor analyzer]. Doctoral Dissertation: Abstract, 17.
12. Kuraev, G.A. (1982). Funkcional'naya asim-metriya kory mozga i obuchenie [Functional asymmetry of the cerebral cortex and teaching]. Rostov-on-Don: Rostov State University, 158.
13. Lebedev, V.M. (1975). Teoreticheskoe iprak-ticheskoe znachenie fenomena asimetrii v sporte [Theoretical and practical significance of the phenomenon of asymmetry in sports]. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 4, 28.
14. Moskvin, V.A., Moskvina N.V. (2010). Problema levorukosti v sporte [The problem of left-handed-ness in sports]. Proceedings of International Conference, Minsk, 152-154.
15. Poceluev, A.A. (1951). Voprosy razvitiya le-voi ruki u shkol'nikov-sportsmenov [Issues of left-
handed development of schoolchildren-athletes]. Doctoral Dissertation: Abstract, 19.
16. Ravich-Sherbo, I.V. (1988). Rol' sredy i nasledstvennosti v formirovanii individual'nosti che-loveka [The role of environment and heritage in identity formation]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 159.
17. Shafranovskiy, I.I. (1968). Simetriya v prirode [Symmetry in nature]. Leningrad: Nedra, 184.
18. Sologub, E.B., Taimazov, V.A. (2000). Spor-tivnaya genetika [Sport genetics]. Moscow: Terra -Sport, 127.
19. Urmancev, Yu.A. (1978). O prirode pravogo i levogo (osnovy teorii disfactorov)//Princip simetrii [On the essence of right and left (basics of theory disfac-tors)// Symmetry principle]. Moscow: Nauka, 180-195.
20. Uznadze, D.N. (1961). Osnovnye polozheniya teorii ustanovki [Basic provisions of the implementation theory]. Tbilisi: TSU, 57.
21. Vernandskiy, V.I. (1975). Razmyshleniya naturalista [Reflections of a naturalist]. Moscow: Nauka, 1:173.
FOSTERING STEM-ORIENTED TEACHING COMPETENCY FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM 2018
IN VIETNAM
Phi Thi Hieu
Associate Professor Ph.D of Thai Nguyen University of Education,
Viet Nam
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6532656
Abstract
In the article, the author has referred to the requirements of the general education program 2018 for the secondary school teachers' STEM-oriented teaching competency and the fostering of this competency for them. Keywords: secondary school, teachers, STEM, general education program, fostering, competency.
1. Introduction
The introduction of the general education program 2018 is an important milestone for the educational reform process in Vietnam. This educational program aims to help students master general knowledge, know how to effectively apply the learned knowledge and skills in life, know how to self-study lifelong, and develop their qualities as well as their competencies. Therefore, implementing the form of STEM-oriented teaching is the national policy for all educational levels. STEM-oriented education equips learners with the necessary knowledge and skills related to the fields of science (S), technology (T), engineering (E), and mathematics (M). These contents of knowledge and skills are taught integratedly, supplementing one another to help students understand the principles and be able to apply them to create products to serve in daily life [1].
The academic year 2021-2022 is the first year that the general education program 2018 is implemented at the secondary level. For the effective implementation of this program, it is necessary to prepare in many aspects such as facilities, teaching equipment and human resources etc. Therefore, fostering competencies for teachers including STEM-oriented teaching capacity, to meet the general education program 2018, is of particular concern.
In this article, we have referred to the requirements of the general education program 2018 for the secondary school teachers' STEM-oriented teaching competency and the fostering of this competency for them.
2. Contents
2.1. Requirements of the general education program 2018 for the secondary school teachers' STEM-oriented teaching competency in Vietnam
In the general education program 2018, STEM education is understood as «an educational model based on an interdisciplinary approach, helping students apply knowledge of science, technology, engineering and mathematics to solve practical problems in the particular contexts"[1]. Thus, STEM education is both meant to promote education in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, while demonstrating an interdisciplinary approach to help with developing learners' competencies and qualities.
STEM education is an idea-based curriculum that equips learners with knowledge and skills related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics - in an interdisciplinary approach, and learners can apply their practices to solve problems in life. Instead of teaching the four subjects as separate and discrete ones, STEM combines them into a cohesive learning model
