> What you seem [to me] to be saying is that the people who have
> built motor movement theories around notions such as schema or
> anticipatory constructions, have tried to pass on to the learner the
> complete construction, without ascertaining whether or not the person
> has available the interconnected hierarchy of constructs out of which
> he/she can build the construction to be used in the situation.
I'm not sure of being too strict with existing models, but my point is that they
had in mind to find something like a common structure for the reason to explain
how movements are planned, anticipated, performed and perceived, leaving out the
question what subjects might report after performing and/or by imaging a
movement. I think so because these reports do not only reflect textual data -
they textualize proprioceptive data (sometimes for the first time). And I
haven't read (yet; but I'm still learning on this; hints welcome!) any theory on
helping learners to texualize and in the same way to perceive special parts of
this data more intensively in order to accelerate learning.(Which could work
this way)
These models give good ideas what happens in brain physiologically, but as coach
your are mainly confronted with the performing-reports.(not only as a coach;
persons themselves if they try to reflect what they felt)
Our aim is to find out what "templets" are used to build up a re-construction of
the realities of biomechanical parameters.
This all might be too simplified, and we still have only this practical
perspectives. But I hope to get an idea of how self-perception and self-reports
do correspond.
We are still looking for any useful hint in literature on issues like this, as
well as discourses, so
> Response?????is given anytime.
Harald Seelig
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%