Hypothèse de la variabilité de la pratique physique mise en perspective : recension des écrits et discussions méthodologiques

Abstract

Introduction et problématiqueL'étude des effets des stratégies pédagogiques sur le développement de l'apprentissage moteur et la performance motrice suscite, depuis fort longtemps, de vives controverses chez les théoriciens, les chercheurs et les intervenants en activité physique et sportive (Adams, 1971 ;Schmidt et Lee, 2005 ;Weinberg et Gould, 2003). Dans sa théorie des boucles fermées, Adams (1971) stipule que l'exécution de chaque mouvement est dirigée par un programme moteur spécifique. Ce dernier est composé par deux traces : une trace perceptuelle, responsable du contrôle de la précision du mouvement, et une trace mnémonique, qui permet la sélection et la production du mouvement. Bien qu'il ait montré comment l'apprenant * Cette recherche a été rendue possible grâce à une contribution financière de Santé Canada.

Visual versus kinesthetic mental imagery: Efficacy for the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children.

“…From Adams' (1971) closed loop point of view, specific physical practise increases the precision of feedback, which in turn allows the consolidation of a perceptual trace responsible for movement correction. Conversely, when physical practise is associated with other forms of practise (such as mental imagery), the felt feedback is not necessarily the same from trial to trial, which does not allow the perceptual trace to gain rigor and to enhance the movement precision (Adams, 1992; Taktek, in press-a, in press-b; Taktek & Hochman, 2004).…”

“…In his motor schema theory, Schmidt (1975) assumed that variable physical practise led, during the treatment phase, to motor performance lower than that produced by specific physical practise but, during the subsequent transfer phase, to better motor learning performance. Such results could be explained by the fact that variable physical practise allows the formation of a general and flexible motor schema, which has a better potential of adaptation for novel motor task, similar but not identical to that previously executed; namely transfer task (see Taktek, in press-a, in press-b, for more details). This is what probably occurred in the case of the mental imagery combined with physical practise group (KIPPG or VIPPG).…”

“…The task took place in a gymnasium (in each of the three primary schools) where the experimental device was installed. The participant was required to execute with her/his left hand (nondominant hand; as suggested by Schmidt, 1975, 1988) an underarm throw of a ball toward a target (Schmidt, 1975; Shapiro & Schmidt, 1982; Taktek, in press-a, in press-b; Van Rossum, 1987, 1990). Before performing her/his throw, the participant was informed about the nature of her/his motor task and the instructions related to her/his group.…”

“…The experimental phases of the present study were the pretest, treatment, posttest (as suggested by Decety, 1989; Denis, 1985; Hall et al, 1992) and transfer (see Schmidt, 1975, 1988; Taktek, in press-a, in press-b; Taktek et al, 2004; Van Rossum, 1987, 1990, for further details).…”

“…Gallwey (1974) and Adams (1971, 1976) suggested that specific physical practise organised in identical environmental condition represented the best training strategy for the mastery of movements. More specifically, in his closed loop theory, Adams (1971) stipulated that execution of any single movement requires the presence of two traces; the “perceptual trace,” which represents a recognition mechanism allowing the control of the movement precision and the “mnemonic trace,” which refers to a recall mechanism permitting the selection and production of movement (see Schmidt, 1975, 1988; Taktek, in press-a, in press-b; Taktek & Hochman, 2004, for further details).…”