No.44 May 2005 |
|||
This study is about children’s motor skills, attention and academic
achievements. The aim is to attribute to more knowledge about relations
between motor skills and cognition. Effects of an extension of Physical
Education and motor training in school are being studied in two intervention
groups and one control group during a period of three years.
Earlier research (Thorsteinsdottir, 1999; Pless, 2001) shows that there
is a need for repeated measuring of pupil’s motor skills in order
to be able to make comparisons and to study changes over time. However,
there is no agreement about what tests should be used to evaluate co-ordination
qualities. Another aim with the motor observations carried out in this
study is to develop a test, which could be useful in charting motor
skills of Swedish pupils. The test MUGI observationsschema (Ericsson,
1998), which is being used in this study could also bring about valuable
information for planning motor training in smaller groups and for individual
programs of motor remediation. The purpose of motor skill observations,
by the time children start school, is to make possible early identifications
of deficits in motor control, so that pedagogical remediation programs
can start before motor deficits become a problem to the children. Background
An education program, called MUGI - Motorisk
Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning (Ericsson, 1985-87)
started in Lund in the beginning of the 1980s. In co-operation with the
school all six-year-old children from three preparatory schools took part
in motor training programmes 60 minutes per week in the school under the
supervision of the school’s teacher in Physical Education. When
starting school, children who needed extra motor training were offered
to come and practise with the PE teacher in a smaller group one hour per
week as long as they needed it.
An evaluation of the MUGI project showed that extra motor training
had positive effects on children’s motor control, perception and
ability of remembering details (Ericsson & Lindström, 1987).
MUGI in the Bunkeflo Project
In 1999 an intervention project started in Malmö
called The Bunkeflo Project – for a healthy way of living
(1999). Physical Education has been made a daily compulsory subject for
all pupils starting school since 1999 at the school involved in the project.
Ängslättskolan is the first school in Sweden to put physical
activity on the schedule one lesson every day. The goal is to have one
lesson with physical activity daily for all pupils in school year 1–9.
Another important goal with the intervention is that the pupils feel motivation
and experience joy when taking part in physical activities.
The Bunkeflo Project involves different research studies, this study
being one of them (Ericsson, 2000). When starting school all pupils
take part in motor skill observations made by the school nurse and the
children’s teachers. The aim is to identify children with any
problems or difficulties in motor skills in order to give those help
and to stimulate their development in motor skills. Children who need
extra motor training are offered to come and practise with the P.E.
teacher in a smaller group one hour per week as long as they need too.
This means that some pupils have physical activities on the schedule
six times per week in the Bunkeflo project.
In order to study development of motor skills in relation to physical
activity in school, motor skill observations with MUGI observations-
schema are made every year until school year three. How children with
difficulties in motor skills and attention are affected by the intervention
is being studied with special interest. With better motor skills the
pupils hopefully will improve in self-esteem, attention ability and
social qualities. Also school results in Swedish and Mathematics are
being studied in relation to motor skills. Research questions and hypotheses
The following questions serve as starting points in this study:
The study is hypothetic-deductive and has three hypothesis:
Method and Design
All pupils in three school years at one school are being studied until
school year three. The pupils are in two groups of intervention (group
1 and 2) and one control group (group 3). The two intervention groups
1 and 2 have Physical Education and physical activities on the schedule
five lessons per week and also if needed one extra lesson of motor training
per week. The control group has only the school’s regular Physical
Education two lessons per week. As the project started in the autumn
of 1999 group 1 consisted of three classes in school year one, group
2 of four classes in school year two and group 3 of five classes in
school year three. In total the study comprises 251 pupils.
Data collecting
The data collecting started in the spring term of 1999 and has been
going on four three years. The Bunkeflo project and the intervention
with extended physical activity started in group 1 and 2 in the autumn
of 1999 and extra motor training in these groups started directly after
the motor skill observations had been carried out. A survey of the data
collecting is presented in figure 1.
![]() Figure 1. Survey of data collecting in intervention groups and control
group Results and conclusions
Collected data has been analysed in the program Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences SPSS (Aronsson, 1994). Because most of the measurements
used in the study give data on ordinal scales and mostly the collected
data is not normally divided, non parametric tests have been used to
study differences in motor skills, attention and academic achievements
between the different groups. The sample in the study is not randomised,
which means that the sample is not strictly representative. But since
base line data concerning motor skills and attention show good consistency
to other studies the results may still be considered to give some knowledge
about how similar populations might be affected by a similar intervention.
According to this analyses of significance have also been used to study
differences between intervention and control group. An alpha level of
0.05 has been used for all statistical tests. In order to get a conception
of the sizes in any differences between the groups Cramér´s
index and values of eta squares have been used. Motor skills
The results from motor skill observations confirm the first hypotheses
of the study that children’s motor skills improve with extended
physical activity and extra motor training in school. Already after
one year there are rather large differences between intervention and
control group (Cramér’s index 0.24). In school year three
the differences are very large (Cramér’s index 0.37) and
largest in the variable balance/bilateral co-ordination. As the project
started the pupils in the control group had better motor skills than
the pupils in the intervention group (which is logical since they then
were older than the pupils in the intervention groups).
Both boys and girls have improved in motor skills and the differences
between them have decreased with extended physical activity and extra
motor training in school. In the control group, which only has had the
school’s ordinary Physical Education two lessons per week, differences
between boys and girls motor skills increased from school year two to
school year three. But in the intervention group there are no measurable
differences, neither in balance/bilateral co-ordination nor in eye-hand
co-ordination between boys and girls in school year three. Then 90%
of the boys and 94% of the girls have good motor skills. The corresponding
values in the control group are 46% and 83% respectively.
Environmental factors such as positive attitudes towards being part
of the Bunkeflo project, among pupils and their parents, might have
stimulated the pupils to be more physical active even during spare time,
which may have affected their development in motor skills. But the only
difference between intervention groups and control group concerning
their school situation has been the extended physical activity and the
extra motor training. Hence the intervention has led to these positive
effects for the pupils in the intervention groups as the results of
this study show, concerning motor skills according to MUGI observationsschema.
The results indicate that extended physical activity and extra motor
training in school are of great importance to pupils with small and
large deficits in motor skills, but also to pupils with small and large
difficulties in attention when it comes to their development in motor
skills. In both intervention group pupils with difficulties in attention
improved in motor skills, while motor skills for pupils with similar
difficulties in the control group did not improve noteworthy.
In the control group, which have had the school’s ordinary Physical
Education, there were no measurable differences between pre and post
test for pupils with small and large deficits in motor skills. This
indicates that motor skill problems do not disappear by themselves,
and that the school’s two lessons of Physical Education per week
are not sufficient to make improvements in motor skills for these pupils.
These results are in line with other studies (Cratty, 1997; Cantell,
1998; Kadesjö & Gillberg, 1999 and SEF, 2000), which confirm
that without any remediation program many children with deficits in
motor skills will keep these problems for many years.
Motor skills and attention
The results in this study show that among pupils
with good motor skills there are also a great many having good attention.
The same relationship also goes for pupils with deficits in motor skills
and attention. The results show that 68% of pupils having small or large
difficulties inattention also have small or large deficits in motor skills.
Relations between motor skills and attention are being illustrated in
figure 2. ![]()
Figure 2. Relations between attention according to Conners’
questionnaire (teachers’ opinions) and motor skills according to
MUGI observationsschema in school year two.
The second hypothesis of the study that children’s attention will
improve by extended physical activity and extra motor training in school
cannot be confirmed by results in this study. The pupils in both intervention
groups have better attention after one and two years of intervention,
according to teachers, than the pupils in the control group. This goes
for both pupils with good attention and pupils with small or large difficulties
in attention at the start of the project. In school year two there are
differences between intervention and control group, in both variables
attention/hyperactivity and impulse control as well as in attention
totally. But the differences are small and do not remain in school year
three, which makes it hard to draw any conclusions about whether the
pupil’s attention has been affected by the intervention or not.
However for girls there is a positive change in attention according
to parents’ opinions. In school year three there are no differences
between girls in intervention and control group, although girls in the
intervention groups had a worse base line value for attention when the
project started than the girls in the control group.
Motor skills and academic achievements
The third hypothesis of the study that children’s academic achievements
in Swedish and Mathematics will improve with extended physical activity
and extra motor training in school can be confirmed by several parts
of results in this study. The pupils in both intervention groups have
better results than the pupils in the control group in the national
tests of Swedish in school year two, especially when it comes to writing
and reading. In reading and writing ability there are clear connections
(Cramér’s index 0.27) between result and group belonging,
which means that the pupils in the intervention groups perform better
than the pupils in the control group. Also in Swedish the difference
between results for pupils in intervention groups and control groups
are rather large (Cramér’s index 0.29).
Pupils who have had extended physical activity and extra motor training
in school also have better results in national tests of Mathematics
than pupils who have had only the school’s ordinary Physical Education.
This is especially true concerning room conception and number conception/thinking
proficiency, where the differences are significant. The largest difference
between intervention and control group is in the results concerning
room conception (Cramér’s index 0.22). Also in Mathematics
totally the differences are significant (Cramér’s index
0.21).
For boys the results indicate that extended physical activity and extra
motor training in school could be of importance for achievements in
Mathematics. Apart from room conception and number conception/thinking
proficiency also in the abilities of logical thinking and creativity,
which means all parts of the national tests of Mathematics being investigated
in this study.
Also to pupils with deficits in motor skills the results show significant differences between the groups. Pupils with small and large deficits in motor skills at project start, who have had extended physical activity and extra motor training in school have better results in all measured parts of the national tests of Mathematics and in three of four measured parts of the national tests of Swedish than pupils in the control group having similar deficits, but who have had only the school’s ordinary Physical Education. Motor training seems to be more important the larger deficits in motor
skills the pupils have, also when it comes to academic achievements
in Swedish and Mathematics. Differences in results in school year two
between intervention and control group are larger the larger deficits
in motor skills the pupils have at start of the project.
To predict academic achievements from motor observations
Results from earlier research (Frisk, 1996; Cratty, 1997; Ericsson,
1997; Cantell, 1998 and Kadesjö & Gillberg, 1999) have shown
that many children having deficits in motor skills as they start school
also have problems with learning how to read and write later in school.
The results from this study also show that the degree of deficits in
motor skills could be of importance to academic achievements during
the first three school years. There are differences in academic achievements
between pupils with good motor skills and pupils with deficits in motor
skills in both intervention and control group, but the differences are
larger in the control group. Hence one may assume that motor skill observations
at the school start could be a useful pedagogic instrument to predict
academic achievements in Swedish and also in Mathematics the first three
school years. Furthermore the results indicate that differences in academic
achievements between pupils with good motor skills and pupils with deficits
in motor skills may decrease with extended physical activity and extra
motor training in school.
Discussion and educational implications
To summarise the reported results in this study it can be pointed out
that the interpretation is very optimistic and positive. The results
are scientifically interesting. However the studied groups of pupils
are not randomised samples and therefore not strictly representative
of a larger population. We also don’t know whether the positive
effects in academic achievements noticed in this investigation are persistent
or not. Therefore more controlled studies are required in order to be
able to make general conclusions about the effects of motor training
in school.
To read and write one learns by practising reading and writing. But
children have different qualifications in learning new things and it
is these qualifications, which possibly could be affected by motor training.
However it could be difficult to conclude how much of positive changes
that are caused by the training and how much that could be explained
by the child’s general development and other factors during the
same period. Such a factor could be that more physical activity and
movement joy in school have led to a spirit of community and a general
increase in comfort with school work, which could have had positive
effects also for the pupil’s academic achievements. Furthermore
it cannot be excluded that the teachers have expected a positive intellectual
development and therefore been more attentive and encouraging to the
pupils in the intervention groups than usual. This positive attention
could have made the pupils more motivated so that they also learnt more.
In this case the teachers’ expectations are still caused by the
intervention, which then have had an indirect effect on the pupil’s
academic achievements.
The positive results that we can see on motor skills in the Bunkeflo
project should give reasons enough to politicians and headmasters to
make decisions about much more Physical Education and motor training
in school. The following pedagogic implications are worth special attention:
More information concerning research results from
the Bunkeflo project can be found on http://www.bunkeflomodellen.com
and on http://www.go.to/Mugi. References
Aronsson, Å. (1994). SPSS för Windows
– En introduktion. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Bunkefloprojektet (1999). Bunkefloprojektet
– en hälsofrämjande livs-stil. www.bunkefloprojektet.malmo.se
Cratty, B. (1997). Coordination Problems Among
Learning Disabled, in: B. Cratty & R. Goldman (Eds) Learning
Disabilities, Contemporary Viewpoints. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic
Publishers.
Conners, C. K. (1999). Clinical use of rating scales
in diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit disorder, in A. Morgan
(Ed) The paediatric clinics of North America, vol. 46, (5),
857-869.
Cantell. M. (1998). Developmental coordination
disorder in adolescence: perceptual-motor, academic and social outcomes
of early motor delay. (Doctoral Thesis, University of Lancaster,
England). Jyväskylä: Foundation for Sport and Health Sciences.
Ericsson, E. & Lindström, E. (1987). Uppföljning
och utvärdering av MUGI-projektet. Lund: Institutionen för
tillämpad psykologi, Lunds universitet.
Ericsson, I. (1985-87). Lokal skolutveckling
i Lund: MUGI Motorisk Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning.
Lund: Skolkansliet i Lund, rapport 1-4.
Ericsson, I. (1998). Pedagogik och motorik
– Motorikobservationer av 204 skolbarn. Malmö: Institutionen
för pedagogik och specialmetodik, Lärarhögskolan i Malmö.
Ericsson, I. (2000). Låt barnen hoppa,
klättra och gunga! MUGI i Bunkefloprojektet. http://www.bunkeflomodellen.com.
Frisk, M. (1996). Läs- och skrivsvårigheter
samt dyslexi, in B. Ericson, (Red.) Utredning av läs- och skrivsvårigheter
(ss. 37-61). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Kadesjö, B. & Gillberg, C. (1999). Developmental
co-ordination disorder in Swedish 7-year-old children. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 820-828.
Pless, M. (2001). Developmental Co-Ordination
Disorder in Pre-School Children. Effects of Motor Skill Intervention,
Parents´Descriptions, and Short-Term Follow-Up of Motor Status.
(Doctoral Thesis). Uppsala: Medicinska fakulteten, Uppsala universitet.
SEF Statens råd for ernæring og fysisk
aktivitet. (2000). Fysisk aktivitet og helse, anbefalinger.
Oslo: Sosial- og helsedepartementet, rapport nr 2.
Thorsteinsdottir, M. (1999). Motor proficiency
of 6-7 old children. Nordic Move, Special Issue World Confederation
of Physical Therapy, WCPT, 32-34.
Ingegerd Ericsson
Senior Lecturer of Sport Sciences Teacher Education Malmö University S-205 06 Malmö Sweden ![]() http://www.icsspe.org/portal/bulletin-may2005.htm |