Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

Promoting Physical Literacy in the Early Years Through Project SKIP

Jacqueline D. Goodway , Ali Brian & Seung Ho Chang , Ruri Famelia, Emi Tsuda & Leah E. Robinson

"Lack of activity destroys the good condition of every human being,
while movement and methodical physical exercise save it and preserve it."
Plato

Developing the Physically Literature Young Child

Physical literacy can be described as the “motivation, confidence, physical competence, understanding & knowledge to maintain physical activity at an individually appropriate level, throughout life” (Whitehead, 2010). Developing movement competence during the early years is paramount and if children have insufficient opportunities to develop their physical literacy during early childhood it can lead to devastating life consequences (Whitehead, 2010). The World Health Organization (2011b), as well as many other agencies world-wide, suggest “All children and youth should be physically active daily as part of play, games, sports, transportation, recreation, physical education, or planned exercise, in the context of family, school, and community activities. (page 18). Like the majority of other countries, 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day are recommended to help children and youth maintain a healthy cardiorespiratory and metabolic risk profile. (WHO, 2011b, page 19).

The USA is the only place we know where national physical activity guidelines have been developed for children aged 0-5 years. These “Active Start” guidelines recommend “All children birth to age 5 should engage in daily physical activity that promotes movement skillfulness and foundations of health-related fitness (NASPE, 2009). The guidelines are split into three age groups: infants (birth to onset of walking), toddlers (1-3 years), and preschoolers (3-5 years). For each age group there are five guidelines tied to promoting 60 minutes of structured and 60 minutes and up to several hours of unstructured physical activity per day, promoting fundamental motor skill competence, providing safe movement environments, and educating caregivers about the importance of movement (NASPE, 2009).

So how do children learn how to move and develop the foundations (0-4 years) and fundamentals (early childhood & primary school) of physical literacy? In this paper we will focus on the importance of fundamental motor skill (FMS) competence along with perceptions of motor competence that reflect the motivation and confidence to move. We will share with you our evidenced-based physical literacy program for young children called SKIP – Successful Kinesthetic Instruction for Preschoole

.

Importance of Developing Physical Competence in Fundamental Motor Skills

One of the most critical skill sets children need to begin to acquire in early childhood is competence in FMS (Gallahue, Ozmun & Goodway, 2012). FMS are the building blocks to future physical activities and sport and are the movement equivalent to the ABCs in reading literacy. However it needs to be understood that FMS are not ends in themselves but means to facilitate effective participation in physical activities/sport. FMS consist of two groups of skills including locomotor (e.g. run, skip, jump) and manipulation skills (e.g. throw, catch, kick) and must be developed during early childhood. Without these as a base for physical competence children are unlikely to develop the motivation and confidence that will encourage life long participation in physical activity. A number of prominent models of motor development suggest that FMS are critical and the foundation (Gallahue, et al., 2012; Seefeldt, 1980) or basecamp (Clark & Metcalfe, 2003) to the mountain of motor development and thus the attainment of physical literacy in the early years and across the lifespan. Seefeldt (1980) suggested that if children did not attain FMS competence they would not break through a hypothetical proficiency barrier and thus would be unsuccessful in applying FMS to lifelong participation in sports and other physical activities. Similarly, Clark and Metcalfe (2002) referred to FMS as the “base camp” of the mountain of motor development and provide the basis for later “motor skillfulness” (p. 17). Unlike other models, Clark & Metcalfe recognize that each individual is unique and their journey up the mountain peaks (sports and physical activities) will be different based upon the nature of their experiences and support of their emergent physical literacy.

Recently Stodden, Goodway, and colleagues developed a Synergistic Developmental Trajectory model (Stodden et al., 2008; Stodden & Goodway, 2007) suggesting that the development of motor competence in the early years influences lifelong physical activity behaviors. Children who are more highly skilled and motor competent will self-select higher levels of physical activity. Across time their perceived motor competence will be strong (as they are good at movement and know it) and their fitness levels will also be good. The interaction of all of these factors results in a positive spiral of engagement in sport and physical activity across the lifespan. The opposite is true for our less motor competent children who get drawn into a negative spiral of disengagement in sport and physical activity. Those children who are in the positive spiral of engagement are will be physically literate, engage regularly in sport/activity, and see themselves as “movers”. Overall, these models highlight the importance of FMS development during the early childhood years and how FMS competence is critical to physical literacy and physical activity.

Gender and FMS Competence

Gender differences can be found in FMS performance starting as young as the preschool years (Seefeldt & Haubenstricker, 1982; Thomas & French, 1985). Both boys and girls have similarities in locomotor skills such as running and jumping; however, boys regularly outperform girls in manipulation skills (Seefeldt & Haubenstricker, 1982; Goodway, Robinson, & Crowe, 2010). It is not clear from the developmental literature why this might be but some scholars have pointed to biological factors such as strength or sociocultural factors such as unequal opportunities to be active, modeling, and feedback (Thomas & French, 1985). Williams, Haywood and Painter (1996) suggested that gender differences are present because boys practice these skills more than girls, which leads boys to be more proficient movers. Gender differences in manipulation skills raise concerns that girls will not have the necessary physical competence to engage in youth sports that involve such skills.

Recent data on the FMS of low-income preschool children also found differential gender effects between locomotor and manipulative skills across ethnicity (African American/Hispanic) and region within the USA (Goodway, Robinson, & Crowe, 2010). We have consistently found there were no gender differences in locomotor skills but boys had significantly better manipulation skills than girls (Goodway & Branta, 2003; Goodway, Crowe, & Ward, 2003; Goodway, et al., 2010; Robinson & Goodway, 2009). Locomotor skills are considered to be more phylogenetic (based upon neurological/genetic factors) than manipulative skills. The opportunity to practice locomotor skills requires available space to run, gallop and jump but does not require equipment. Thus, it may be that girls and boys had equal opportunities to engage in locomotor skills within their respective communities. In contrast, potential explanations as to gender differences in manipulation skills may be differential access to equipment, role models, and motivation to engage in manipulation skills. Other alternative explanations for gender differences in manipulation skills may be that girls tend to be driven by more social factors (e.g. pleasing the teacher, receiving verbal encouragement, and smiles) in the learning environment; while boys are more motivated by competition and the product of performance (Garcia, 1994; Garcia & Garcia, 2002).

Disadvantaged Preschoolers Demonstrate Developmental Delays in FMS

Establishing habits that foster proficient levels of FMS and healthy levels of physical fitness are critical events that take place during the early childhood years. However, there are disparities in the opportunity to do this. A growing body of research shows that young children who come from disadvantaged and poor environments show significant developmental delays in their FMS, including locomotor (10th-17th percentile) and manipulation (16th percentile) skills (Goodway & Branta, 2003; Goodway, Crowe, & Ward, 2003; Goodway, et al., 2010; Hamilton, Haubenstricker, & Goodway, 1999; Robinson & Goodway, 2009). This has been found true for African American and Hispanic children, across geographic region, and urban and rural environments (Goodway & Branta, 2003; Goodway et al., 2003; Goodway, et al., 2010; Hamilton et al., 1999; Robinson & Goodway, 2009). Like the findings above, locomotor skills of the girls and boys were equally delayed, but the girls had significantly worse manipulation skills than boys (Goodway, et al., 2010). It is no wonder that by adolescence, girls from these populations have some of the lowest physical activity rates of all children and youth (USDHHS, 1996; 2004). It is clear from the research evidence that motor skill programs are needed to remediate the developmental delays reported. Little evidence is available to explain why such delays exist in the motor skills of disadvantaged children. However, some qualitative work conducted (Goodway & Smith, 2005) has shown that “In disadvantaged urban communities fundamental barriers exist which obstruct a child’s ability to engage in physical activity & develop motor competence and physical literacy.” Factors that have been identified are: lack of safety of the outside environment; promoting sedentary inside behaviors in children; the influence of poverty on opportunities to be active; cultural values & beliefs that do not support girl’s physical activity and; the nature of stressed, single family dynamics.

The Influence of Project SKIP on the FMS of Disadvantaged Children

A growing number of scholars such as our research team have begun to examine the influence of motor skill interventions on the FMS of disadvantaged preschool children. At The Ohio State University we have developed a motor skill intervention called SKIP, Successful Kinesthetic Instruction for Preschoolers with over 20 years of research driving the content and pedagogy of the curriculum. The SKIP program is a FMS and physical literacy program designed for young children (preschool to 3rd grade). The goals of SKIP are to promote FMS competence and physical fitness, improve individual perceptions of motor competence, engage in and increase the amount of structured and unstructured MVPA (moderate to vigorous physical activity), develop an understanding of the body’s response to movement and the importance of physical activity as part of an active and healthy lifestyle. The curriculum is made-up of locomotor and manipulation skills along with non-locomotor skills, movement concepts and health-related fitness. One of the key concepts of SKIP is individualized, differentiated instruction where the tasks and feedback are aligned with each child’s unique developmental level. This is critical in promoting motivation and confidence. Child success is promoted by ensuring an array of developmental tasks so that each child can be challenged at an appropriate level of challenge for his/her own development. We focus on a child’s understanding of their own emerging kinesthesis allowing children to focus on the proprioceptive feedback his/her body provides. We call this “muscle munchkins” to our young children and tell the children to listen carefully to their “muscle munchkins” to talk to them about their body (emerging embodiment). Another core concept is a child’s self evaluation of his/her own improvement and that task persistence will lead to movement acquisition and task success.

Overall, studies on motor skill interventions such as SKIP show that when motorically delayed preschool children received well designed structured motor skill instruction, significant improvements in their FMS resulted which to remediated these delays (Goodway & Branta, 2003; Goodway et al., 2003; Hamilton et al., 1999; Martin, Rudisill, & Hastie, 2009; Robinson & Goodway, 2009). The timeframe of these programs has typically been somewhere between 8 to 12 weeks (16 to 24 lessons) with 30-45 minutes per session. The majority of these programs have focused on manipulation skills although some have also included locomotor skills. A variety of instructional approaches have been utilized to deliver the motor skill programs including: 1) direct instruction (Connor-Kuntz & Dummer, 1996; Goodway & Branta, 2003; Goodway, et al., 2003); 2) mastery motivational climate (Martin, et al., 2009; Robinson & Goodway, 2009; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004); and 3) parents as teachers (Hamilton, et al., 1999).

“Direct instruction” involves a teacher-led approach where the teacher instructs each element of the lesson, clearly describes and demonstrates the task to be performed, and the children respond accordingly. “Mastery motivational climate” (MMC) involves a more student-centered approach in which the teacher plans the lesson elements, but the children are allowed to choose the tasks and activities based upon their preferences (Valentini & Rudisill, 2004; Robinson & Goodway, 2009). MMC lessons are planned around manipulating six “TARGET” structures within the lesson where the acronym TARGET stands for: Task, Authority, Reward, Grouping, Evaluation, Time (see Valentini, Rudisill & Goodway, 1999 for a detailed explanation). The rationale behind the MMC approach is that the instructional climate promotes students’ motivation to engage in tasks and regulate their own pace of learning. “Parents as teachers” trains parents to instruct their child on FMS while a lead teacher develops the lesson plans and acts as the facilitator during lesson implementation (Hamilton, et al. 1999).

All the motor skill intervention approaches identified above have been successful in significantly impacting the FMS competence of disadvantaged preschoolers. Many of these programs have been provided at the state-funded preschool programs in which the children are enrolled. In all of these interventions high quality instruction was provided along with maximum opportunities for practice. Sufficient equipment was available and tasks were individualized to the child’s own developmental needs. In many cases, the developmental changes were substantial going from the 10th-15th percentile to the 60th-80th(Goodway & Branta, 2003; Goodway, et al., 2003; Goodway, et al., 2010; Hamilton et al., 1999; Robinson & Goodway, 2009).

Some general conclusions may be drawn from the studies identified above: 1) disadvantaged preschool children are delayed in their motor skills and in need of intervention; 2) when provided with structured, developmentally appropriate motor instruction children can make significant and often large gains in their FMS remediating their prior delays, and 3) the children in the control groups who received the typical preschool curricula where physical activity opportunities were often non-facilitated and play-based, resulted in no improvements to FMS development. In other words, current educational practice in these programs is not meeting the needs of these children. In addition the young children who received the SKIP curriculum not only improved their actual motor competence but also improved their perceptions of motor competence whereas the control children stayed the same. This is of major long term concern as the children will not have the requisite skills , nor the motivation and confidence, to be physically active as adolescents and adults, and it is this very demographic (poor, African American and Hispanic) that goes on to demonstrate the lowest levels of physical activity and the highest levels of obesity as adolescents and adults (USDHHS, 1996;2004).

Implications to Practice

As we reflect on the data above we have considered the implications to the promoting physical literacy in the early years. The following are a number of implications:

- Develop national physical activity guidelines for preschool - There is a need to develop physical activity guidelines for children in preschools and early elementary schools. For the preschool child we need to recognize the important role of their caregivers and ensuring safe places to be active.

- Prepare physical education teachers to teach children from preschool to secondary school. Across the world there is little attention paid to preparation of physical educators in teaching our preschool and early elementary-aged children. Many of our teacher training programs and elementary physical education curricula focus on team sports and not physical literacy. We need to ensure specialist physical education teachers are provided in all preschools and that we train such specialists to teach FMS competence, promote physical literacy, and differentiate instruction and curricula that are developmentally appropriate for the young child.

- Implementation of evidence-based early years physical literacy curricula. Often the programs that are implemented in schools are not based upon empirical evidence. We need to ensure that evidence-based programs such as SKIP are implemented in our schools so we are guaranteed as to the effectiveness of such programs for young children.

- Develop specific strategies to engage girls. Girls constitute a particularly vulnerable population in achieving physical literacy with girls having worse manipulation skills than boys. We need to develop specific pedagogical practices and programs that engage and motivate girls to achieve motor competence. Often girls get lost in the motor environment and subsequently drop out of activity and sport at higher levels than boys.

- Develop specific strategies to promote perceptions of motor competence. The evidence on the importance of perceived motor competence is overwhelming. If children have low perceptions of motor competence as they shift from childhood to adolescence, they will be more likely to be inactive and disengaged from sport. We need to capitalize on young children’s inflated sense of motor competence in the early years using this as a valuable resource to keep children engaged in our motor settings. However, as children get older and more capable of evaluation it will be actual competence that will drive a child’s perceived motor competence. As we work with our children we should not compare children’s performance against each rather, rather get the child to focus on his/her individual journey up the mountain of motor development and nurture their motivation to continue the climb.

In conclusion, the development of FMS competence in the early years is critical if children are to be physically active and physically literate across the lifespan. Yet many of our poorest children start the early childhood years with developmental delays in motor skills. Access to safe places to play, be physically active, and engage in youth sports is a common problem in our cities. It is clear we need to develop policies, programs and environments that promote FMS competence and physical activity for all children providing children with the foundations and fundamentals of physical literacy for life.

References

1. Clark, J. E., & Metcalfe, J. S. (2002). The mountain of motor development: A metaphor. In. J.

2. E. Clark & J. H. Humphrey (Eds.), Motor Development: Research and Review: Vol. 2 (pp. 163-187). Reston, VA: NASPE Publications.

3. Conner-Kuntz, F., Dummer, G. (1996). Teaching across the curriculum: Language–enriched

4. physical education for preschool children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 302-315.

5. Gallahue, D.L., Ozmun, J.C., & Goodway, J. D. (2012). Understanding Motor Development:

6. Infants, children, adolescent and adults (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

7. Garcia, C. (1994). Gender differences in young children’s interaction when learning

8. Fundamental motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 65, 213-225.

9. Garcia, C. & Garcia, L. (2002). Examining developmental changes in throwing. In. J. E. Clark

10. & J. H. Humphrey (Eds.), Motor Development: Research and Review: Vol. 2 (pp. 62-95). Reston, VA: NASPE Publications.

11. Goodway, J. D., & Smith, D. W. (2005). Keeping all children healthy: Challenges to leading an

12. active lifestyle for preschool children qualifying for at-risk programs. Family & Community Health, 28, 142-155.

13. Goodway, J. D. & Branta, C. F. (2003). Influence of a motor skill intervention on fundamental

14. motor skill development of disadvantaged preschool children. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 74, 36-47.

15. Goodway, J. D., Crowe, H., & Ward, P. (2003). Effects of motor skill instruction on

16. Fundamental motor skill development. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 298-314.

17. Goodway, J.D., Robinson, L. E., & Crowe, H. (2010). Developmental delays in fundamental

18. motor skill development of ethnically diverse and disadvantaged preschoolers. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 81, 17-25.

19. Hamilton, M., Goodway, J. D., & Haubenstricker, J. (1999). Parent-assisted instruction in a

20. motor skill program for at-risk preschool children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16, 415-426.

21. Martin, E. H., Rudisill, M. E. & Hastie, P., (2009). The effectiveness of a mastery motivational

22. climate motor skill intervention in a naturalistic physical education setting. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14, 227- 240.

23. National Association for Sport and Physical Education (2009). Active Start: A statement of

24. physical activity guidelines for children birth to five years, (2nd ed.). Oxon Hill, MD: AAHPERD Publications.

25. Robinson, L. E., & Goodway, J. D. (2009). Instructional climates in preschool children who are at risk. Part I: object control skill development. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 80, 533-542.

26. Seefeldt, V. (1980). The concepts of readiness applied to motor skill acquisition. In R. A.

27. Magill, M. J. Ash, & F. L. Smoll (Eds.), Children in Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

28. Seefeldt, V., & Haubenstricker, J. (1982). Patterns, phases, or stages: An analytic model for the study of developmental movement. In J.A.S. Kelso & J.E. Clark (Eds.). The Development of Movement Control and Co-Ordination, pp. 309-318. New York: Wiley.

29. Stodden, D. F. & Goodway, J. D (2007). The dynamic association between motor skill development and physical activity. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 78, 33-49.

30. Stodden, D. F., Goodway, J. D., Langendorfer, S. J., Roberton, M. A., Rudisill, M. E, Garcia, C., &

31. Garcia L. E. (2008). A Developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60, 290-306.

32. Thomas, J. R., & French, K. E. (1985). Gender differences across age in motor performance:

33. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 260-282.

34. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

35. USDHHS, 1994; 2004)

36. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). (2004) Physical Activity and Fitness. Retrieved from: http://www.healthypeople.gov/data/2010prog/focus22/PhysicalFitnessPR.pdf

37. Valentini, N. C., & Rudisill, M. E., (2004). An inclusive mastery climate intervention and the

38. motor skill development of children with and without disabilities. Adapted Physical

39. Activity Quarterly, 21, 330- 347.

40. Valentini, N. C., Rudisill, M., & Goodway, J. D. (1999). Incorporating a mastery climate into

41. physical education: It’s developmentally appropriate. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 7, 28-32.

42. Williams, K., Haywood, K. M., and Painter, M. A. (1996). Environmental versus biological influences on the on gender differences in the overarm throw for force: Dominant and non-dominant arm throws. Women in Sport and Physical Activity, 5, 29-48.

43. Whitehead, M.E. (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse. Routledge:
    London &New York.

44. World Health Organization (2011a) Obesity and overweight factsheet. Retrieved from:

45. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/index.html. March 15th, 2012.

46. World Health Organization (2011b) Global recommendations on physical activity for health.

47. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/leaflet-physical-activity-recommendations.pdf . March 17, 2012.

Contact

Jackie Goodway
Kinesiology Section, Department of Human Sciences
The Ohio State University
305 W.17th Ave
Columbus. OH. 43026.
USA
Email Goodway.1@osu.edu

http://www.icsspe.org/