Current Issues
No.44
May 2005
 
    

Motor skills, attention and academic achievements.
An intervention study in school year 1-3
Ingegerd Ericsson, Sweden
 

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:
  • Will children’s motor skills (balance and co-ordination) improve with extended physical activity and motor training in school?
  • Will extended physical activity and motor training in school affect children’s attention?
  • Will extended physical activity and motor training in school affect children’s academic achievements?
  • How will extended physical activity and motor training in school affect children with deficits in motor control and attention?
  • Will boys and girls be affected differently by the intervention?
The study is hypothetic-deductive and has three hypothesis:
  1. 1. Children’s motor control will improve with extended physical activity and extra motor training in school.
  2. 2. Children’s attention will improve by extended physical activity and extra motor training in school.
  3. 3. Children’s academic achievements in Swedish and Mathematics will improve with extended physical activity and extra motor training in school.
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.
  • The teachers of special education at the school document every pupil’s reading development in school year 1 and 2. Results from Reading development tests (Lus) for pupils in the control group were obtainable already from autumn term in 1997 when the pupils in the control group started school.
  • Results from the national tests in Swedish and Mathematics are collected during spring term in school year 2.
  • In school year 3 the pupils are given a word test and a reading test.
  • Motor skill observations with MUGI observationsschema (Ericsson, 1998) are made at the project start, in school year 2 and in school year 3.
  • Conners’ questionnaire (Conners, 1999) concerning the pupils’ attention is being answered by the teachers every year and by the parents at the project start and in school year 3.
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:
  • The school both could and ought to make more to stimulate all pupils’ development of motor skills. Physical Education two lessons per week are not enough.
  • Special education in motor skills ought to be self-evident for all pupils in need of it, before deficits in motor skills become a problem to them. Motor skill observations carried out at school start give opportunities of early identification of children who might need special motor training.
  • All teachers who teach Physical Education should be educated in observing and stimulating children’s motor development.
  • All adults working in school should get some Physical Education and positive experiences of physical activities for themselves, in order to make them able to influence pupils to a healthy life long lasting appreciation of physical activity.
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