Activating Bodies of Knowledge: Improvisation, Cognition, and Sports Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While researchers in diverse fields have begun using improvisation as a conceptual metaphor for collaborative means of negotiating indeterminacy, little work has related these theoretical perspectives to physical education. In this paper, I argue that improvisation provides a frame for understanding the cognitive benefits of sports play, and presents learning opportunities for developing skills in tactical and strategic thinking, problem solving, and the enactment of procedural knowledge. I begin by drawing upon the work of Varela et. al.(1991) and Lakoff and Johnson (1999) to discuss perspectives which have effected a significant shift in the understanding of the role that embodiment plays in cognition, perspectives which emphasize the interdependence of the organism and its environment. I then discuss the ways in which context-dependent action is fundamental to improvisation, and means by which improvisation-based curricula effectively promote the integration of cognitive, affective and embodied forms of learning. The importance of enactive perspectives is evident in recent curricular theorizing in physical education. I discuss the possible pedagogical application of these perspectives by looking at one model, Teaching Games for Understanding (Light and Fawns 200, Griffin and Butler 2005), which shifts the focus of game playing from skill execution to situated cognition. In schools, physical education class is the primary context in which students have the opportunity to improvise, with group sports as a structured context that utilizes improvisation as a constitutive element in game playing. In contrast to learning environments that are divorced from immediate exigencies in the topics under discussion, sports play encourages players to “think on their feet,” both literally and figuratively. I conclude that, rather than consigning physical education to a marginal position in schools, work needs to be done to foreground the cognitive dimension in sports play and the ways in which cognitive and metacognitive skills in physical education classes may be further enhanced. I suggest that a pedagogical approach that incorporates understandings from improvisation may lead to a more holistic understanding of embodied learning and a reconceptualization of the role that physical education plays in education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".