Today, in KIN 262 (Motor, Growth, and Development), the topic was skill acquisition. When learning motor skills such as walking, running, hopping, skipping, throwing, catching, striking (batting counts as this)...etc, what determines how well these skills mature?
I'm sure when an infant has his/her first steps, it's still pretty noobsauce McNuggets. The infant's gait will be very flat-footed, arms are out or up to help with balance, and steps are small and slow. Now compared to our gait patterns, we step from heel-to-toe, our arms are comfortably at our sides, and are steps can be long and quick but still very precise.
"OH!! I see!! It's because we're older!! We're better at walking because we're older!!"
How about a skill such as throwing? I think for throwing, it's really unfair to compare the throwing ability of an infant to one of an adolescent or teenager, but does throwing ability necessarily reach mature levels as you age?
For some people, it may seem obvious to assume that skills mature because we mature...age-wise, but it gets more complicated when we examine other skills such as throwing and catching...or batting.
Of course, while you age, your central nervous system continues to develop and that makes coordinating your movements and actions more efficient because your neurons are able to communicate better, but that won't get you that far. It's practice, buddy. The more one practices a skill, the better he/she will become at it. And coincidentally with walking, age goes hand-in-hand with practice. Or it should be. If a toddler has taken more steps than a perfectly able nineteen year old, I'll be worried. Skills emerge through stages. It's a progression of a skill going from an immature stage to mastery level. So with more and more practice, skill ability will continue to improve through the stages.
HA! So there's my excuse for why my batting is so suck...I just don't have enough practice.
Ooh ooh ... I just randomly thought of something. Back then, when my little cousins and I were all younger, they would always associate me being better at stuff because I'm "older." I call bull-spit on them now! It's only because I had more practice.
Ooh ooh ... I just had another thought. So the other day, I was playing volleyball with Eileen, and we tried to serve with our left hand. In the pathetic attempts, I found that my left hand didn't really know what it was doing. With my right hand, it's very clear how to coordinate proper form to execute a basic overhand serve. However, my left hand would get everything wrong. My torso is twisting with it instead of just facing my target, my elbow is very close to my side instead of freely away from my body, and instead of an overhand motion swinging all the way through I had a crouched-arm-shooting-upward-to-catch-a-fly motion. This may be due to lack of practice as well. Just as my right hand was in its infantile stages when first learning the skill, my left hand is at that stage because, for it, this is when it's first learning the overhand serve. Before I can perform the skill well with my left hand, it has to go through the stages of skill development too...with practice.
UH....CAMEL!!
"Noobsauce McNuggets" hehehehe. I do have one question, isn't there's still a limit to our abilities? Like two people could practice the same amount but something about them genetically makes them less able to do certain things. Right?
ReplyDeleteWow... I never addressed this question. And I don't know if it's too late. But, you are right, genetics will put limits on people. For example, someone may never be able to do a split while others can easily learn that skill. However, in the example, I'm referring to more fundamental skills such as throwing and catching as opposed to very coordinated skills.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, in regards to your question looking at a fundamental skill like throwing, two people COULD practice the same amount and one may be better than the other. However, the skill cannot develop fully without any practice...even if someone is older.
A teenager may learn a skill faster than an adolescent because their motor neurons that control their movements are more mature and learned to work more efficiently over the years, but it's not a definite. Age does not determine level of skill. Age, practice, genetics all go into it.
Did I go on a lot of tangents? Also, I don't know if I typed all this out on the post because I didn't re-read it, but it was fun elaborating again.