Jackie Hudson, Scholar

---

Biomechanics Pedagogy Articles: Introductions

Thank you for your presence at this conference and at this presentation. I will infer from your attendance that you care about the learning and teaching of biomechanics. In that regard, I will take you as kindred spirits. Moreover, I am fairly certain that you are geniuses--more about that later. Given that I view you as kindred spirits and geniuses, I would like to have you as allies. So, please remember, whenever I say something that conflicts with your cherished beliefs, the word is allies--not enemies.

Today I would like for us to consider the biomechanics body of knowledge. By biomechanics I will be referring primarily to human movement biomechanics as it might be practiced in departments of physical education or kinesiology. I will be using the term body in both literal and figurative ways. As for knowledge, we will examine several perspectives. In particular, those perspectives can be framed with the following questions:

How is our body of knowledge conceived? What aspects of our body are prominent when viewed by ourselves, our students, our colleagues, and our constituents? How is our body of knowledge communicated to and consumed by our students? How is our body of knowledge critiqued; what does it look like when the procedures of critical theory are applied? And finally, how is our body of knowledge constructed? (Abstract in pdf)

Are you interested in skillful movement? Do you, as a teacher, coach, or spectator, observe and evaluate movement in terms of its effortlessness or effectiveness? Do you try to elicit more skillful movement from yourself or others? If so, you probably have developed some tried and true methods of assessment and adjustment. And you probably have encountered frustration when the mover or the movement is outside your domain of confidence. Chances are that when you are successful, you are applying the core concepts of kinesiology. Likewise, when you are frustrated, you might want to give the core concepts a try.

What are core concepts? According to Kline (1988), they are the underlying structure of our knowledge about a subject. In most cases they are not clear to the person who has them because they are part of the background of experience. And even though we do not see them when we use them, they are the means by which we organize our thoughts and actions on a topic. Thus, the quality of our responses depends in part on the breadth and depth of our core concepts.

Many of us are less aware of the core concepts of movement than we are of the core concepts of music. For that reason I will begin with an overview of how we use core concepts in music: When we play or listen to music we often are concerned with volume, pitch, pace, and rhythm. In other words, we may pay attention to whether the volume is too loud or too soft, or if the pitch is too flat or too sharp, or if the pace is too fast or too slow, or if the rhythm is sporadic or smooth. From the background or foreground of our experiences, we recognize that volume, pitch, pace, and rhythm matter in music. And we realize that these characteristics can be measured and manipulated in many situations to improve the quality of the music. For example, not only can we assess the volume but usually we can adjust it as well. In effect, all music has a "volume knob."

Do we have the equivalent of a volume knob in movement? Yes, about ten of them. Similar to music, gross human movement seems to be organized around several core concepts. The most obvious and important concepts appear to be range and speed of motion, number and nature of segments, balance, and coordination. Unless a movement is slow or simple, compactness is a relevant concept. Finally, when an object is to be projected, extension at release (or at contact), path of projection, and spin are applicable concepts (see Table 1).

Table 1. Core Concepts At a Glance

1. Range of motion

2. Speed of motion

3. Number of segments

4. Nature of segments

5. Balance

6. Coordination

7. Compactness

8. Extension at release

9. Path of projection

10. Spin

Moreover, each of these core concepts of kinesiology can be conceived of as operating like a volume knob. For instance, if we assess volume as too soft, we try to turn the knob to make it louder. Likewise, if we assess range of motion as too small, we try to "turn the knob" to make it larger. Thus, movement knobs can be turned up or down in varying degrees to improve the quality of movement.

Just as with music, these core concepts of kinesiology are part of our background or common-knowledge understanding of movement (Bird & Hudson, 1990). Each of us, as movers and observers of movement, has used the core concepts. At some level we recognize that these characteristics matter in movement. And we realize that these characteristics can be measured and manipulated in many situations for the improvement of movement. The purpose of this article is to bring these concepts from the background to the foreground so we can use them more effectively.

As we gain familiarity with the core concepts, we can apply them to a wide variety of movements from dance to sport and from familiar to unfamiliar. Some of these concepts are more important than others in certain situations, and a few of these concepts are important in limited situations. Depending on our circumstances, our use of these concepts can be either qualitative or quantitative, as well as obvious or obscured. In addition, these core concepts apply to a wide variety of movers from lowly skilled to highly skilled. Perhaps best of all, these concepts are the basis of communication about movement that facilitate the progression from lowly-skilled to highly-skilled performance. For example, if you believe that a mover is using too much range of motion, you have a natural language for explaining this to the mover. And the mover has an excellent opportunity for both turning the knob and improving the movement.

In this article, each of the ten core concepts of kinesiology is defined, explained, and exemplified. Also, some reasons and results for turning the knobs that represent these concepts are discussed. As a general rule, the force-production phase of movement is emphasized, and the widest or most holistic possible view of the mover is taken. (Abstract in pdf)

In general, recidivism means a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior (Webster, 1986). If we divide the last 50 years of biomechanics into 25 years of modern biomechanics and 25 years of pre-modern biomechanics, also known as kinesiology, then recidivistic biomechanics is a return to the previous condition of pre-modern biomechanics. The purposes of this paper are to review the positions of modern and pre-modern biomechanics and to invite you to consider a relapse into pre-modern biomechanics. But first, there is a warning: recidivism implies change and not all change is positively valued. In fact, most specific meanings of recidivism are negative. For example, in criminology, recidivism means a falling back or relapse into prior criminal habits, especially after punishment (Webster, 1961); in psychiatry, recidivism means the chronic tendency toward repetition of antisocial behavior patterns (Random House, 1987); and in theology, recidivism means to fall back into paganism (Webster, 1961). Please judge for yourself whether pre-modern biomechanics is criminal, antisocial, or pagan.

"The purpose of the study of kinesiology at the undergraduate level is twofold. It should provide students with (1) the knowledge necessary to undertake a systematic approach to the analysis of motor skill activities and exercise programs and (2) the experience in applying that knowledge to the execution and evaluation of both the performer and the performance in the clinical or educational milieu."

The above quote from the "Guidelines and Standards" (NASPE, 1980) has defined our goals for teaching undergraduate biomechanics for a decade. Yet, most students who have completed a basic course in biomechanics are unable to apply their knowledge to solve the problems that arise in practical settings. What can we do as biomechanics educators to improve this situation? Recognizing that many of our problems are similar to those of science and math educators, we could follow their trend and teach biomechanics using a problem solving approach. That is, we could emphasize various strategies for answering the questions that stem from our competencies. But, is this the solution? Despite the current popularity of problem solving, there is a growing disenchantment with this approach: Although problem solving is important, it may be insufficient for successful operation in a clinical context. In other words, answering the question as an end in itself does not address the outcome of that answer when applied to the performer and the performance. If we want to encourage clinically useful answers, perhaps we should be questioning the answer as well as answering the question. So, how do we prepare our students to question the answer? One solution is to incorporate some concepts from the field of metacognition into our classes.

According to the "Guidelines and Standards for Undergraduate Kinesiology" (NASPE, 1980), "...practice in observation of performance and discrimination in quality of performance based on sound theoretical knowledge must be a primary goal of all undergraduate introductory kinesiology courses." The importance of observation is reiterated in two of the four minimum competencies in applied kinesiology. Specifically, "the student is able to observe and describe a movement technique accurately." And, "the student is able to evaluate the suitability of a performer's technique with reference to the task at hand."

Despite this emphasis on observation in our curricular guide, it is common belief that many students (and practitioners) are not astute observers of movement (cf. Barrett, 1979, 1983; Brown, 1984; Eckrich, 1990; Hoffman, 1984). How can it be that these visually perceptive, young adults with their inherent interest in movement and their myriad of movement experiences have difficulty observing movement? One explanation is that observation is actually a hierarchy of processes and our students are proficient at some but not all of these processes.

On July 6, 1991, dozens of members of the Kinesiology Academy spent much of the afternoon engaged on the topic of graduate education in biomechanics. First, there were keynote addresses by Barry Bates and Jerry Wilkerson (published elsewhere in these proceedings). Then, after a break, there were two concurrent discussion sessions chaired by Larry Abraham and Susan Hall. Although the Academy has focused frequently on undergraduate curricular issues in biomechanics, such attention to graduate curricular issues is unprecedented in the history of the Academy. Perhaps because of the novelty of this topic to the discourses of the Academy, much of the exchange of information was expository and exploratory. What follows are reports from the discussion groups by Larry Abraham (Group 1) and Susan Hall (Group 2), and a reaction by Jackie Hudson.

Many scholars in the field of human movement have emphasized the importance of observation for coaches and teachers (Allison, 1987; Barrett, 1979 and 1983; Biscan & Hoffman, 1976; Brown, 1982; Hudson, 1990; Imwold & Hoffman, 1983; Johansson, 1975; Scully, 1986). After all, the skill of observation is fundamental to 1) monitoring and maintaining a safe environment, 2) verifying that athletes/students are on task, 3) analyzing and evaluating performance for the purpose of assessing skillfulness (and by extension allocating playing time or assigning grades), and 4) modifying performance with the intent of skill development. Of course, success in the first two uses of observation is a precondition to success in the latter two uses of observation.

Much of the research on observation in the teaching environment has been conducted by Barrett (1979 & 1983) and Allison (1987). They have studied the perceptions of people who are more and less experienced with movement in the complex setting of an activity class. Barrett has discussed the need for teachers to plan what they are going to observe and how they are going to observe it. In particular, she focused attention to the identification of "critical features" (i.e., aspects of the movement or the environment that are critical to the outcome of the performance). Allison noted that inexperienced observers did not give attention to movement details and attributed that omission to a difficulty in distinguishing relevant from irrelevant features.

A few researchers have investigated the evaluative aspect of observation (Johansson, 1975; Osborne, 1972; Scully, 1986). In these studies, the environment was simplified by restricting the display of information to a film or videotape of one or two performers. Observers were asked to provide a simple response such as a rating or identification for each sample of movement. Although all observers were able to perceive certain hierarchical features of performance (Johansson), more experienced observers were able to provide more precise and specific information (Scully).

Hoffman and colleagues (e.g., Imwold & Hoffman,1983; Biscan & Hoffman, 1976) also conducted a series of studies about the evaluative aspect of observation. They, too, displayed movement in a simplified environment but the focus of observation was biomechanically specific rather than global. The researchers provided a set of plausible descriptions of the movement and asked the subjects to match their observations with the given descriptions. The ability to correctly identify biomechanical components within a movement was found to be a function of experience in observation and familiarity with the skill (Imwold & Hoffman, 1983).

While the preceding studies and others have supplied a foundation from which to build, there are many questions unanswered. For example, in the absence of predetermined descriptions of movement, what choices do observers make in terms of "what, where, and when to observe" (Hudson, 1990)? Do experienced observers make different choices than inexperienced observers? Do inexperienced observers make similar choices but require more iterations in order to perceive? How much of observational ability is a function of experience in observation rather than familiarity with the skill? Accordingly, the purpose of this investigation is to gain insight on these questions.

In the preface of Sports Biomechanics Terauds, Barthels, Kreighbaum, Mann, and Crakes (1984) wrote "... of the dedication of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sport to 'bridge the gap' between the sports biomechanics researcher and the practitioner. It requires a special understanding of the needs of the athlete, needs of the coach, and needs of the biomechanics researcher. The sports biomechanics researcher must go to the practitioner" ( p. v). Following from these statements, the purposes of this paper are to examine the inter-relationship among the athlete, the coach, and the biomechanics researcher and to raise some issues with regard to the message about technique that the researcher delivers to the practitioner.