Abstract

In the 19th century, the improvements in the two approaches became apparent, they further developed into bodily-oriented physical education and non-professional general physical education. The purpose of the article is to lighten the sources of the fundamental differences in the approaches to the orientation and the content of those physical education systems for children and youth, which are presently shaped into educational issues. The research methods are relevant literature study, data abstraction, analysis, research synthesis, idealization and generalization. Results. Both the theory and the practice of physical education fail to timely describe the phenomenon of the soviet person consumerism and poor organization, determine the unfavorable consequences of such dependence behavior (we mean the dependence on person who conducted the training), which led to the situation when after completing the course of the organized training the students were inclined to become passive in terms of physical education. The need in the educational constituent for the physical education, oriented to maturing the conscious and active doer in the sphere of physical culture, gave the birth to the phenomenon called physical culture education of the person. The contribution of P. F. Lesgaft is that it was he who focused on the significance of education to play its role in physical exercise training inclusion. The problem of the education in the context of inclusion into the physical culture heritage is becoming obvious, provided that we regard this education from the standpoint of competencies building required for self-directed and efficient physical culture trainings.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call