Re: PCP and movements

Harald Seelig (
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 19:06:20 +0100

James Mancuso wrote:
> Your point about needing to learn a new task on the basis of
> existing constructs seems [to me] to be related to the thinking that has
> grown from Vigotsky's kind of theorizing -- that having to do with the
> "zone of proximal distance." Developing a new construction cannot take
> place readily if the base of existing constructs is not already
> available.
> This idea, so far as PCP is concerned, relates to the core ideas
> one uses when speaking of MEMORY PROCESSES. What is stored for use by a
> system of constructs. I have proposed that we should think of storage
> in terms of TWO POLED CONSTRUCTS. Thus, each anticipatory construction
> -- whether it be a motor movement by which we anticipate a valid body
> position, position of a putative object in space, or our self as text
> for another to process -- represents a NEW constructions. That is,
> constructions should not be taken as the unit of storage.Hi Jim Mancuso:
I agree. That is why we are not trying to find a storable prototype of Two Poled
Movement Constructions. This, I suppose, would lead to something like the
"Imagery-Debate" for vision.(see Kosslyn and others)(In fact the are some
attempts to find physiological correlates to motor tasks(!) in the motor cortex
(see Jeannerod)). What we try to find is the reflected construct that surely
does correspond to more basic categories in order to get an "overview" of the
psychological space belonging to a specific movement. If we do this extensively
enough, we hope to find the maximum range of possible describtions to a
Too naive???

> 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