CHAPTER 5

THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVES

After completing this chapter, students will be able to:

 Knowledge about why theories important in the study of motor skills.
 Assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of each of the major theories underlying the study
of motor skill.

OVERVIEW OF THE TOPICS:

CHAPTER 5: THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVES
A. COGNITIVE-BASED THEORY
 The Information Processing Model
- 3 Stages - Perceptual Stage
Decision-Making Stage
Programming Stage
- Loop System - Closed-Loop system of Information Processing
Open-Loop Systems of Information Processing
B. DYNAMICAL SYSTEM THEORY
 Movement Constraints - Task Constraints
Organism/Individual Constraints
Environment Constraints

INTRODUCTION
A scientific theory is a statement or set of statements that relates observations about a
specific phenomenon of interest in a coherent, logical, and testable way. A good theory does two
things (see Hawking and Mlodinow, 2005). First, it accounts for a significantly large class of
observations on the basis of only a few simple, though powerful, propositions. Second, it makes
definite predictions about the results of future observations—it is testable.
For example, Einstein’s theory of special relativity is based upon two simple propositions:
that the speed of light is the same for any observer regard-less of his or her relative speed, and
that the laws of physics as described by Newton will always be the same for observers in the
same inertial (i.e., non-accelerating) frame of reference. Given these two simple statements,
Einstein’s theory has successfully predicted the expansion and structure of the universe, the
properties of subatomic particles, the principles of nuclear power, and provided the necessary
guidelines for sending space vehicles to other planets in our solar system.
 The results of over a century of scientific experimentation concerning motor skills have
led scientists to develop theories designed to explain the many and often seemingly
contradictory observations concerning how movements are acquired and controlled.
You often hear people say that something is “just a theory,” by which they mean it is a
supposition that might or might not be true (and, in fact, the implication is usually that it cannot
be trusted and should not be considered true). In science, however, a theory is an explanation
for which there is considerable support and which is therefore generally considered to be true.
In science, a sort of hierarchy of claims to validity exists (scientists never claim to have
arrived at absolute truth). This hierarchy is expressed by the terms hypothesis, theory, and law.
A closer look at each of these important terms follows.
A hypothesis is an educated guess based upon previous observations. It usually describes
how one thing is guessed to have an effect on another thing, which is then tested experimentally.
A hypothesis can be proven false, but never proven to be true—it is accepted, however, until it
may be disproved in future experiments.
A theory summarizes a significant group of hypotheses that have supported the same
conclusions about something through repeated testing. One way to consider a theory is to define
it as the acceptance of a large number of hypotheses. A theory is considered to be valid as long
as there is no evidence to dispute it (this can be a point of major contention between scientists
of competing views).
A law generalizes a large body of scientific observations, usually of many experiments
over a substantial period of time that have tested something in a broad diversity of ways. At the
time it is postulated, no exceptions have been found to the law. Scientific laws explain things
rather than describing them as do theories. One way to distinguish a law from a theory is that if
it answers the question of why something is as it is, then it is a law.
Theories are like ways of looking at art. They can provide a perspective that brings a
collection of individual facts into a single coherent framework. As in art, a theory provides the
perspective that connects individual elements into a unified picture. A theory, in the case of
human movement, allows us to see how the many individual elements comprising motor skills
are connected. It refocuses our intellectual perspective—rather than a crazy quilt patched
together from many isolated facts, a single blended fabric of unified meanings is discernable. As
you study the individual elements of motor skills, a solid grasp of theory will place them in a
broader and more meaningful perspective. Although there were a lot of theories but this chapter
focuses on two theories which are common to motor control and motor learning. Here are some
of the common theories used for motor control and learning: COGNITIVE-BASED THEORY and
DYNAMICAL SYSTEM THEORY
Can More Than One Theory Be Correct?

To the movement science student, it may seem that because the two dominant
theoretical perspectives concerning motor control and learning differ so drastically, one being a
closed system and the other an open system, one approach must be incorrect and, presumably,
the other correct. Such an assumption would be unwarranted, though. Both cognitive-based and
dynamical systems perspectives meet the criteria of being good scientific theories. That is, both
explain in fairly parsimonious yet elegant terms a large and diverse set of observations
concerning human movement. Both also have proved successful in predicting new observations,
thereby expanding our understanding of the factors responsible for human movement control
and learning.
How can we make sense of this seeming enigma? Remember that a theory explains a large
and significant number of observations but that it does not explain all of them. Human movement
is extremely complex, and fully explaining it is not only beyond our present state of knowledge,
but probably our knowledge in the foreseeable future as well. This does not mean that we should
give up in our quest to understand the workings of the motor system, however. The very fact
that we have competing theories—that a new theory has evolved to challenge existing
assumptions—is a strong sign that we are indeed advancing in our quest for knowledge and
understanding. It is reasonable to assume that both theoretical perspectives offer much toward
advancing our knowledge, though each in its own way. That is, each theory has both strengths
and weaknesses, and together each might provide perspectives that neither can alone. Of even
greater significance is the potential that taken together, each perspective might help point the
way for future researchers to develop a more powerful and explanatory theory encompassing
the insights of both present perspectives. Just what potential for a workable synthesis of the two
theories there may be, however, for the present remains a contested area of debate. We should
take assurance in the belief, though, that each perspective provides unique insights into human
motor control, as well as specific guidelines for the effective instruction of motor skills