Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

Physical Literacy and Fundamental Movement Skills: an Introductory critique.

Len Almond

Abstract

In this article I shall identify some problems with the association of physical literacy with fundamental movement skills (FMS). The literature on fundamental movement skills is vast and a thorough examination of this association would need to address both the research underpinning FMS and the comprehensive resources that have sprung up recently. Such a task is a massive undertaking but for the purposes of this article I propose to identify some key issues that immediately spring to mind. My purpose in doing this is to raise awareness of the complexity of an association between FMS with physical literacy and to stimulate a thorough debate and the development of a more informed understanding of what is implied by an association of FMS with physical education. My hope is that such a debate will generate more informed guidance and more clarity in the vision of what constitutes quality physical education and what it can look like.

The Association between Physical Literacy and fundamental Movement Skills

An examination of a number of international sources clearly establishes that in many countries resources are being produced that make a direct association between physical literacy and fundamental movement skills.

On the Physical and Health Education Canada website1 they define physical literacy as:

“Individuals who are physically literate move with competence and confidence in a wide variety of physical activities in multiple environments that benefit the healthy development of the whole person. Physically literate individuals consistently develop the motivation and ability to understand, communicate, apply, and analyse different forms of movement. They are able to demonstrate a variety of movements confidently, competently, creatively and strategically across a wide range of health-related physical activities. These skills enable individuals to make healthy, active choices that are both beneficial to and respectful of their whole self, others, and their environment.”

On the same website, it says:

“To become completely physically literate, children need to master the fundamental movement skills”

So, clearly fundamental movement skills are seen as a central focus for physical literacy. In another source, ‘The Assessment and Measurement of Physical Literacy in Children’ commissioned by Sport Northern Ireland it is proposed that:

“The study should compare a range of representative fundamental movement skills in children who have experienced structured programmes, with a similar number of children who have not experienced such programmes.”2

Once again there is a clear association between physical literacy and fundamental movement skills. In the same way,’ Fundamental movement skills and Physical Literacy’ is the title of a factsheet compiled by Sheelagh Quinn for Coaching Ireland (website www.coachingireland.com) in which she says that:

“To develop physical literacy a child should first master the fundamental movement skills. Having these skills is an essential part of enjoyable participation and a lifelong interest in an active lifestyle. Physical literacy is the foundation of the LISPA framework and provides children with the tools they need to take part in a wide range of physical activity and sports, much in the same way as numeracy and literacy skills prepare a child for a life of work or study” (p.4).

Sport New Zealand introduced ‘Developing Fundamental Movement Skills’ in 2012 as a resource for teachers, coaches, parents, children and others who want to support the development of fundamental movement skills in children aged 5–12 years in a fun and purposeful way.3 Though this resource on fundamental movement skills in New Zealand does not make a direct association with physical literacy, this relationship can be confirmed by Athletics New Zealand when they say on their website 4:

“Through the improvement of physical literacy (fundamental skills such as running, jumping, and throwing), the LTAD model will help develop a lifelong involvement of New Zealanders in physical activity and sport participation as well as producing future athletes.” This confirms a clear association with long-term athlete development.

Keegan (2013) in a recent and significant report (Getting Australia moving: establishing a physically literate and active nation a game plan) says that this report is drawn from popular physical literacy programmess in the UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand. In this report they briefly unpack physical literacy (p.4) and go on to associate the long term athlete development approach with physical literacy and outline six stages in this development beginning with Active Start (0-6).

In Australia, a new draft Australian Curriculum Health and Physical Education: Foundation to Year 10 draft5 has been released for consultation. One of the strands is ‘Movement and Physical Activity’ and within this strand it proposes that:

“The content in this key idea lays the important early foundations of play and fundamental movement skills. It also builds upon these to support lifelong participation and enhanced performance in physical activities” (p.7).

It clearly associates fundamental movement skills with promoting lifelong participation together with enhanced performance. In a similar way many countries now see fundamental movement skills as central to physical education and the foundation to competent and confident participation in a range of physical activities. This appears to be an uncritical assumption in all the sources that I have read, an assumption that the case has been made and there is no need to further debate. This assumption needs to be open to debate and needs to be challenged, especially when it is associated with physical literacy. Has research established that fundamental movement skills model is the best approach for physical education compared with other approaches? It does not appear that convincing evidence has been presented.

Problems with the Connections between fundamental Movement Skills and Physical Literacy

In an analysis of these sources, fundamental movement skills are usually listed under three categories: locomotor, stability (sometimes they are called body management skills) and manipulative skills. So, for example in a recent course6 entitled ‘Early Years PE - Laying the foundations of physical literacy,’ there is a clear reference to b asic movement competence which is seen as developing agility, balance and coordination (the ABCs) through a basic movement framework including locomotion, object control and stability.

This perspective gives the impression that all movement experiences in the early years and the primary school (or elementary school) should be based on these three categories. If this is the case why are dance, adventurous activities and swimming not associated with fundamental movement skills?

The list of fundamental movement skills in three categories creates a special problem because to some teachers or practitioners the list can be seen as a set of ‘I Can “challenges that can be taught in isolation and can be seen as a ready-made physical education programme. This would hardly represent a quality physical education programme. Clearly, this is not what advocates of fundamental movement skills would expect to see but it highlights a potential danger for many inexperienced teachers. It provides clarity about what they have to teach and a list of what they have to cover. However, will this approach provide a range of positive experiences for all young people? It highlights also the possibility that the teaching approach in these circumstances will be didactic and negate creative and self-directed learning.

One of the main problems with traditional forms of teaching games is the separation of learning techniques from playing a game. It was assumed that there would be some form of transfer. This separation also brought about a drill style approach to learning a technique with the learners positioned in regimented rows. This raises a further problem because teachers usually refer to techniques as skills. However, skills refer to the application of techniques to specific game situations and it is only recently that this has been fully realised and practices introduced to match practice with what happens in a game. There is a great danger that this will happen with the way that fundamental movement skills are perceived.

In England the Youth Sport trust has developed a new resource and training programme called Start to Move: developing physical literacy7 aimed at 4-7 year olds. On their website there is a clear association with fundamental movement skills but one of their aims is to “teach PE using the same approach used in literacy i.e. learn an alphabet of movement skills, combine them into movement words (multi-skills), and develop movement stories (e.g. a 2v2 game)”. This raises a key point about physical literacy because an association is being made about movement experiences with words like ‘alphabet’, ‘words’ and ‘stories’. In other words there appears to be a sense in which a movement vocabulary is being established.

Whether there is any evidence to support this position it is difficult to establish but it does appear that the development of movement competence in physical literacy is seen as the same as developing literacy. I would have some doubts about making such a connection and assuming that it is literacy. I believe this is a major problem that needs to be addressed.

One of the crucial features of the recent Whitehead definition (2013) of Physical Literacy is the notion that motivation and confidence are central to making a commitment and maintaining an interest in purposeful physical pursuits. In pursuing a fundamental movement skills approach, the content and pedagogy associated with it may be appropriate for some young people. There may be young people who are already active and recognise a challenge in these sorts of tasks. Other young people may simply love being active and they don’t mind what opportunities they are presented with.

However, there are young people who are cautious and shy, lonely, disinterested or hard to communicate with. There may be others who find the challenges of fundamental movement skills too much for them, as well as those who feel they may be exposed to ridicule. There are always young people lacking in confidence and do not enjoy physical pursuits whilst others have no interest in sports and their interests need to be addressed. This kind of a scenario can be difficult to handle and as a result the pedagogy has to be flexible so that teachers can reach out and connect with a wide variety of interests and capabilities, and enable all young people to identify with a purposeful physical pursuit that gives them confidence and a sense of achievement.

The motivation and confidence to engage with purposeful physical pursuits and maintain an interest in them comes from the way content is presented and the interactions with the teacher. If a young person can learn to love being active and the tasks they encounter are manageable, realistic and stimulate progressive development, this will reinforce a love of being active. This is central to motivation, however if confidence is to be gained, it is important that content is selected that is within a young person’s capabilities.

If fundamental movement skills were associated with a pedagogy that can deliver these features for all young people and provide convincing evidence, this would be a major step forward and counteract many criticisms. This would involve also a consideration of personal learning journeys and the immediate relevance of fundamental movement skills to each young person rather than simply a pathway to sport. There must be an intrinsic satisfaction linked to their engagement. According to a recent report from Sport England (Sport England, 2012) emotional engagement or attachment to sport at age 11-16 is linked to forming a sporting habit for life.

Nevertheless, the key to unravelling concerns with fundamental movement skills should be the aspirations of a teacher’s pedagogy and its link to a robust understanding of what physical literacy entails. Understanding must be based on a thorough reading of the literature together with an opportunity to test their understanding and tease out any concerns. At the present moment, much of the literature surrounding fundamental movement skills reveals an inadequate grasp of physical literacy and what it entails.

What does Research say about fundamental Movement Skills?

Mark Tremblay (2010) has suggested that:

“If physical literacy is to become a key outcome of physical education curricula, which we firmly believe should be the case, appropriate metrics must be in place to evaluate the key domains of physical literacy” (p.26).

In a later paper concerning major initiatives in childhood obesity and physical inactivity (Tremblay, 2012) he goes on to elaborate further this proposal in more detail: He says:

“The aim of physical education, community sport and active living initiatives is to systematically develop physical competence so that children are able to move efficiently, effectively and safely and gain an understanding of what they are doing.” (p.167).

This an acceptable statement but he goes on to say:

“The outcome – “Physical Literacy” – is as fundamentally important to children’s education and development as numeracy and literacy. “

This association with numeracy and literacy may be one reason why physical education and sport have seen the idea of physical literacy as a convenient term to add an educational justification to the value of sport in the community and physical education in schools. However, Tremblay goes to say:

“Physical literacy is a construct that captures the essence of what a quality physical education or a quality community sport/activity program aims to achieve.”

I have no problem with this statement. However, he enters into a more complex debate when he makes a claim about physical literacy that:

“It is the foundation of characteristics, attributes, behaviours, awareness, knowledge and understanding related to healthy active living and the promotion of physical recreation opportunities”

His claim becomes even more problematic when he suggests that:

“Physical literacy is deemed to have four core domains: a) physical fitness (cardio-respiratory, muscular strength and flexibility), b) motor behaviour (fundamental motor skill proficiency), c) physical activity behaviours (objectively-measured daily activity), and d) psychosocial/cognitive factors (awareness, knowledge and understanding).”

I find these claims difficult to accept because they fail to address some of the key features of physical literacy such as making decisions about the role of purposeful physical pursuits in people’s lives, the role of agency and empowerment, learning to take responsibility and how young people (as well as adults) come to value these pursuits (which may be central to maintaining an active lifestyle). The current list represents a lack of understanding about physical literacy (Whitehead, 2013) and represents a Canadian perspective that has some major limitations. Tremblay does not raise any criticisms about fundamental movement skills, it is almost a taken-for-granted premise, and this is typical of a very worrying trend within most of the research literature on this topic that needs to be addressed. A concerted effort must be made to challenge current thinking.

Assessment of physical literacy in Tremblay’s article appears to focus on a narrow range of specific items in which researchers have objective assessment procedures. However, this approach neglects how a young person’s individual physical literacy journey develops over time. This would involve a portrayal from an insider’s perspective and attempt to unravel the components of change, the different motivations, unfolding and emerging interests, the challenges faced and the type of decisions made, together with the impact and relevance of significant others. This is a very different agenda.

On a further point, what kind of cues can practitioners use to develop an understanding of how a personal physical literacy journey unfolds so that they support young people and enable them to energise their lives and open up possibilities for enriching their life. This would represent a new research agenda but an important one and it would be of real significance for practitioners and teachers.

McKean (2013) explores the concept of physical literacy in children and raises some key questions.

“Physical education in schools has become an important issue in the fight against obesity and maintenance of general health. The concept of physical literacy is not a new one and has become a key aspect of modern philosophies underpinning physical education. ….. There has been much published on the importance of physical literacy, however the common definitions of physical literacy fail to include the ability of the individual to move their body in the way it was designed to move” (p.1).

He goes on to make a connection between physical literacy and what he calls the fundamentals:

“Current research suggests physical education in schools should have a physical literacy approach inclusive of the Fundamentals including body control skills, locomotors skills, as well as sending-receiving skills, and object manipulation skills” (p. 1)

But, later he suggests that:

“Those movement competencies underpinning this capability certainly require further research and suggest the scientific community involved in physical literacy need to more clearly define such movement competencies”.

In his conclusion, he makes a plea to all researchers involved in fundamental movements and physical literacy:

“Researchers should consider the importance of understanding underpinning movement competencies and developing research to firstly better define such movement competencies and secondly to determine the role they may play in establishing guidelines for school based physical education and long term health.”

This is an important word of caution.

Conclusion

In raising awareness about the way that fundamental movement skills are associated with physical literacy, I have tried to show that there is considerable confusion and misunderstanding in the way that people think about this connection. By quoting from a number of texts, it is clear that the connection is simply assumed.

Within these assumptions I have identified a number of difficulties: associating physical literacy with the alphabet, words and sentences can be misleading and can create a false link. By listing a number of skills within different categories, this move has the potential to reduce teaching to a series of ‘I Can’ challenges and a rather simplistic approach to quality teaching.

In the research field, physical literacy presents a new challenge by opening up the possibility that we can explore the concept in ways that are relevant to a person’s physical literacy journey. It could also provide cues for practitioners to support young people.

In this short article, it is impossible to address many shortcomings in the literature, so only a small number of problems have been identified. However, this may stimulate colleagues to respond and generate a real debate. I shall await such news with great eagerness. Nevertheless, a comprehensive critique is needed.

1 This can be accessed on http://www.phecanada.ca/

2 This can be accessed at http://www.sportni.net/

3 This can be accessed at http://www.sportnz.org.nz/

4 This can be accessed at http://coaching.athletics.org.nz/

5 This can be accessed at:http://consultation.australiancurriculum.edu.au

6 This can be seen on: http://www.independentcoacheducation.co.uk/

7 See the Youth Sport Trust Start to Move website http://www.starttomovezone.com/

References

1. Keegan, R. Keegan, S. Daley, S. Ordway, C. Edwards, A. (2013) Getting Australia moving establishing a physically literate and active nation (game plan).

2. Australia: University of Canberra.

3. http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/items/

4. McKean, M. (2013) Physical Literacy in Children – The Underpinning Movement Competencies? J. Sports Med Doping Stud 3 (2) e135.

5. http://www.omicsonline.org/2161-0673/pdfdownload

6. Tremblay, M.S. and Lloyd, M (2010) Physical Literacy Measurement – The Missing Piece. Physical and Health Education. 76 (1) 26-30.

7. Sport England (2012) How to Develop a Sporting Habit for Life: Final report. This can be accessed at: http://www.sportengland.org/media/39266/sporting-habit-for-life-full-report.pdf

8. Tremblay, M.S. (2012) Major Initiatives Related to Childhood Obesity and Physical Inactivity in Canada. Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique. 103 (3) 167-

9. Whitehead, M. (2013) The definition of Physical Literacy (July 2013). This can be accessed at http://www.physical-literacy.org.uk/definitions.php

Contact

Len Almond
6 Cottesmore Drive
Loughborough
LE11 2RL
United Kingdom

http://www.icsspe.org/