Active Play vs. Skill-Based Learning: Preschool Motor Skills

Article
Skill-Based and Planned
Active Play Versus
Free-Play Effects on
Fundamental
Movement Skills in
Preschoolers
Perceptual and Motor Skills
0(0) 1–18
! The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0031512518773281
journals.sagepub.com/home/pms
Lindsay Roach1 and Melanie Keats1
Abstract
Fundamental movement skill interventions are important for promoting physical
activity, but the optimal intervention model for preschool children remains unclear.
We compared two 8-week interventions, a structured skill-station and a planned
active play approach, to a free-play control condition on pre- and postintervention
fundamental movement skills. We also collected data regarding program attendance
and perceived enjoyment. We found a significant interaction effect between intervention type and time. A Tukey honest significant difference analysis supported a
positive intervention effect showing a significant difference between both interventions and the free-play control condition. There was a significant between-group
difference in group attendance such that mean attendance was higher for both the
free-play and planned active play groups relative to the structured skill-based
approach. There were no differences in attendance between free-play and planned
active play groups, and there were no differences in enjoyment ratings between the
two intervention groups. In sum, while both interventions led to improved fundamental movement skills, the active play approach offered several logistical advantages.
Although these findings should be replicated, they can guide feasible and sustainable
fundamental movement skill programs within day care settings.
1
School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Melanie Keats, Dalhousie University, 6230 South Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4R2.
Email: [email protected]
2
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
Keywords
child motor development, intervention, early childhood, physical activity, active
play, skill
Introduction
A wealth of evidence has demonstrated that higher physical activity (PA) is
positively associated with a number of health benefits in young children and
across the life span (Hinkley, Crawford, Salmon, Okely, & Hesketh, 2008;
Janssen & Leblanc, 2010; Timmons et al., 2012; Tucker, 2008; Warburton,
Nicol, & Bredin, 2006). Although recent data show that most Canadian
preschool-aged children (3–4 years old) meet current daily PA guidelines (i.e.,
180 minutes of total daily activity at any intensity; Tremblay et al., 2012), as few
as 7% of children 5–11 years of age meet the recommended guidelines of 60
minutes of daily moderate-to-vigorous PA (Colley et al., 2013; Tremblay et al.,
2011). Of interest, Colley et al. (2013) found that when using the minimum
criteria of 60 minutes of moderate intensity activity versus 180 minutes of
total PA, only 11% of children 3–4 years of age would meet guidelines as the
bulk of their waking hours (41%) are spent engaged in light activity. As higher
PA rates in school-aged youth correlate with greater adult PA participation rates
(Telama et al., 2005, 2014), the preschool developmental period is critical for
promoting PA (Goldfield, Harvey, Grattan, & Adamo, 2012; Telama, 2009).
Parents and care providers have more control over a child’s social and physical
environment during the developmentally malleable preschool years than later in
development, thus presenting a timely opportunity to intervene and cultivate
positive health behaviors and lifestyle choices (Goldfield et al., 2012).
Early development of fundamental movement skills (FMS; i.e., basic movement skills including locomotor skills, such as running and jumping, and object
control skills, such as catching and throwing) focuses on what Stodden et al.
(2008) have termed the ABC’s of movement. The development of these skills has
been shown to predict future PA participation, as they form the basis of the
specialized movement skills required to participate in recreational and organized
activities/sport (Barnett, van Beurden, Morgan, Brooks, & Beard, 2009; Cliff,
Okely, Smith, & McKeen, 2009; Cohen, Morgan, Plotnikoff, Callister, &
Lubans, 2014; Fisher et al., 2005; Holfelder & Schott, 2014; Williams et al.,
2009). Importantly, research has shown that children with superior locomotor
skills are more likely to spend more time engaged in nonsedentary behaviors and
moderate-to-vigorous levels of PA than children with poorer locomotor skill
performance (Williams et al., 2008). Similarly, early development of object control skills has been associated with higher perceived sport competence, increased
PA and sport participation, and physical fitness (Barnett et al., 2009).
Roach and Keats
3
As many as 33% of Canadian (Sinha, 2014) and 58% of American (United
States Department of Education, 2012) parents of children under five years of
age rely on day care services, making the day care setting a viable and developmentally appropriate context for fostering FMS acquisition and improvement
and for promoting PA (Bower et al., 2008; Goldfield et al., 2012; Ward, 2010).
Despite these promising possibilities, systematic research reviews have unveiled
few studies examining the day care-based FMS interventions (Riethmuller,
Jones, & Okely, 2009; Veldman, Jones, & Okely, 2016). Moreover, while FMS
interventions are important for promoting PA (Figueroa & An, 2017) and
related health outcomes (Cohen, Morgan, Plotnikoff, Barnett, & Lubans,
2015; Hinkley et al., 2014; Tremblay et al., 2012), no optimal intervention
model has emerged (Veldman et al., 2016). As FMS must be learned, practiced,
and reinforced (Goodway, Crowe, & Ward, 2003; Logan, Robinson, Wilson, &
Lucas, 2012), it is not surprising to discover that higher doses of early intervention efforts may play a key role in overall FMS effectiveness (Veldman et al.,
2016). Moreover, as studies have shown that ‘‘free-play’’ is often insufficient for
fostering FMS development (Logan et al., 2012), most research has emphasized
traditional, direct skill-based instruction. Much less is known about planned,
active play with instructor encouragement. As traditional motor skill interventions may become repetitive and less enjoyable over time, children may be more
likely to abandon skill-based intervention activities (Logan et al., 2012). As play
(Pellegrini & Smith, 1998) and activity enjoyment (Allender, Cowburn, &
Foster, 2006; Bremer & Cairney, 2016) has been shown to be critical to a
child’s development and continued PA participation, this study examined the
effectiveness of different day care-based instructional approaches for improving
FMS and for eliciting program adherence and perceived enjoyment. Specifically,
we compared (a) a traditional structured, skill-station approach (i.e., direct
instruction), (b) a planned, active play approach with instructor encouragement,
and (c) a free-play control group while also assessing children’s adherence to and
enjoyment of each of the interventions.
Method
Study Design and Participants
The current study employed a cluster-randomized design and observed pre- to
postintervention effects at the participant level. We invited participation from a
convenience sample of attendees at three day care centers affiliated with the same
day care academy. The day cares were selected based on their standardized daily
curriculum, weekly meal plans, and adoption of an active, play-based learning
environment. Following approval from the day care director, we randomly
allocated each of the three centers to one of the three study arms: skill-station,
4
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
planned active play, or free-play control. Two hundred potentially eligible children and their parents/guardians were sent a letter of invitation to participate
from the Directors of each participating center. Children were eligible to participate if they were 3–5 years of age at the time of study initiation, had sufficient
understanding of English to comprehend study instructions, and had no preexisting motor impairment that would limit their ability to safely participate or
adversely affect motor skill testing. Only those children whose parents gave
informed written consent were included in the study intervention and assessments. A total of 68 children were enrolled in the study. After accounting for
drop-out and missed testing sessions, 19 children (10 males and 9 females) were
included in the free-play control group (M ¼ 3.62; SD ¼ 0.41 years), 16 (10 males
and 6 females) completed the skill-station-based intervention (M ¼ 4.0;
SD ¼ 0.53 years), and 16 (6 males and 10 females) completed the planned,
active play intervention (M ¼ 4.29; SD ¼ 0.78 years; see Figure 1 for a participant flowchart).
Invited to Participate (n=200)
Received Parental Consent (n=68)
Not Eligible (n=6)
Center Randomization
Free-Play Control (n=24)
Skill Station Group (n=24)
Structured Play Group (n=24)
Missed Baseline
Testing (n=1)
Missed Baseline
Testing (n=1)
Missed Baseline
Testing (n=1)
Drop Out (n=3)
Drop Out (n=2)
Drop Out (n=1)
Missed Final
Testing (n=1)
Missed Final
Testing (n=1)
Analyzed (n=19)
Figure 1. Participant flow.
Analyzed (n=16)
Analyzed (n=16)
Roach and Keats
5
Procedures
This study was reviewed and approved by the University Research Ethics Board.
Both intervention protocols consisted of two, 45-minute training sessions per
week over an 8-week period (totaling 16 training sessions). Total instructional
time (i.e., excluding warm-up/cool-down activities) for both interventions was
approximately 560 minutes (35 minutes/session; 70 minutes/week). Sessions were
held during the predetermined outdoor (weather permitting) gross-motor play
periods, and kinesiology student volunteers were recruited and trained to assist
with program delivery. All participating children were asked to assent to participate at each biweekly training session; thus giving them the option to choose
not to take part in the investigator-led activities on any given day. Attendance at
each session was recorded. The free-play control group continued with their
standard daily curriculum, permitting children to select and engage in any activity of their choosing without specific instruction. Children in the control group
had access to an outdoor play area with free space, ample toys, and loose parts
to facilitate unstructured free-play. The lead researcher was present at one
45-minute session per week to observe play behaviors and obtain attendance
from the day care director for the second 45-mintute period.
We assessed baseline FMS proficiency using the second edition of the Test of
Gross Motor Development (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000). We collected and scored
raw scores (for each subtest and overall score) according to the TGMD-2
manual to enable comparison of our participants to standardized age and sexrelated norms. Following the 8-week interventions, these measurements were
repeated for comparison. All TGMD-2 assessments were completed by an
experienced investigator with the help of two trained research assistants. Each
assessment required approximately 15 to 20 minutes per child to administer.
Research staff were not blinded to group allocation. Following the completion
of the study, all participating centers received a summary of study results and
copies of all intervention tools and resources.
Movement Interventions
Skill-based. The skill-based station intervention was based on the previously validated Successful Kinesthetic Instruction for Preschoolers program designed
to foster the development of FMS in preschool-aged children (Goodway &
Branta, 2003; Goodway et al., 2003). A direct instruction approach was
used, and each station was supervised by a trained volunteer instructor. We
delivered the program outdoors in a sectioned-off portion of the common
play area.
We modified the Successful Kinesthetic Instruction for Preschoolers program
to include an equal emphasis on balance, locomotor, and object control
6
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
skills over the course of the 8-week intervention. The program consisted of a
circuit of four skill stations completed in smaller groups (4–5 children/station).
Children rotated through all four stations during each session and received task
instruction/demonstration, encouragement, and feedback from the trained volunteers. Each week consisted of two different lesson plans, focusing on a specific
skill or set of skills. Weeks 1 and 2 focused on balance tasks, Weeks 3 and 4
emphasized locomotor skills, and Weeks 5 and 6 targeted object control skills.
Weeks 7 and 8 included a variety of activities with a mix of balance, locomotor,
and object control skills (see Appendix for an outline of the intervention).
Planned active play. We developed the planned active play intervention using the
Active for Life lesson plan builder which incorporates a bank of age-appropriate
games developed to improve balance, locomotor, and object control skills
(Active for Life, n.d.; see Appendix for an outline of the intervention.)
Sessions were conducted in either an indoor gymnasium (weather dependent)
or an outdoor recreational field located in close proximity to the center. Two
volunteer instructors assisted with the delivery of the intervention (i.e., task
demonstration, verbal cueing—‘‘gallop like a horse,’’ and encouragement).
Instrumentation
FMS development. We used the TGMD-2 (Ulrich, 2000) to measure pre- and postintervention gross motor ability. The TGMD-2 is a highly reliable and valid
tool, ideal for identifying delays or improvement in development and for evaluating the success of motor skill interventions. It also uses a qualitative, processoriented approach, considered essential when working with such young children
(Goshi, Demura, Kasuga, Sato, & Minami, 1999). Twelve skills are observed,
including six object control (stationary strike and dribble, catch, kick, underhand roll, and overhand throw), and six locomotor skills (run, hop, gallop, leap,
horizontal jump, and slide). Following demonstration and verbal description of
the task, children were allowed a practice trial followed by two test trials. We
used the age-referenced composite score of the locomotor and object control
subtests (i.e., gross motor quotient: GMQ) as the representative score for all
participants, as it has been judged the most reliable method of interpreting
TGDM-3 cores (Ulrich, 2000). Baseline and post-intervention GMQ results
for all participants were determined, and values were compared to normative
percentile scores.
Activity enjoyment. Children’s enjoyment in the intervention activities was assessed
with a 7-point self-report Likert scale, adapted from the patient mood assessment scale by Lorish and Maisiak (1986) which incorporates various levels of
Roach and Keats
7
enjoyment, ranging from a very happy (1) to a very unhappy (7) face. The original
20-face ‘‘Face Scale’’ demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity
and test–retest reliability (0.81) in previous research (Lorish & Maisiak, 1986).
Although more precise tools to assess PA enjoyment are available (Imms, 2008;
Kendzierski & De Carlo, 1991), they have not been designed for very young
children. This simple and visual representation of enjoyment was face valid and
easily understood. In cases where the children misunderstood the task (e.g.,
colored the entire scale), a member of the research team assisted the child in
completing the scale. We assessed enjoyment each week for both intervention
groups and have reported results as a group average.
Statistical Analyses
Data management and analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for
Windows Version 23. We used a one-way analysis of variance to explore differences in program attendance. A three-group, mixed factorial analysis of variance
examined the impact of group assignment on GMQ scores over time, and we ran
a follow-up Tukey honest significant difference post hoc comparison and computed and reported effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) to further explore between group
effects. We compared enjoyment ratings between the two intervention groups
with a Kruskal–Wallis H test.
Results
We detected a significant between-group difference, F(2, 48) ¼ 7.037, p ¼ .002) in
group attendance. Post hoc Tukey honest significant difference testing showed
that the mean attendance for the free-play (M ¼ 14.58; SD ¼ 2.24; p ¼ .002) and
planned active play groups (M ¼ 13.43; SD ¼ 2.66; p ¼ .03) were significantly
higher than those for the structured skill-based approach (M ¼ 11.63;
SD ¼ 2.31). Attendance for the free-play and planned active play groups did
not differ significantly.
A summary of pre- and postintervention TGMD-2 subscale and GMQ data is
presented in Table 1. A significant main GMQ effect for time, F(1, 48) ¼ 58.4,
p < .05, 2p ¼ 0.55, was evident. A main effect for intervention on GMQ scores
approached (but did not reach) statistical significance, F(2, 48) ¼ 3.11, p ¼ .054,
2p ¼ 0.12. There was a statistically significant interaction effect between intervention type and time, F(2, 48) ¼ 14.4, p < .005, ¼ 0.38. A Tukey honest significant difference critical value of 5.37 demonstrated no significant difference in
baseline GMQ scores (Table 1) and supported a positive intervention effect
showing a significant difference between both interventions and the free-play
control condition (p < .05). We found no significant differences between the
8
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
Table 1. Baseline and Postintervention LM, OC, and GMQ Scores.
Baseline
LM
Group
OC
Mean SD Mean SD
Postintervention
GMQ
Mean
SD
LM
OC
Mean SD Mean SD
GMQ
Mean
SD
Free-play
9.68 1.80 10.68 1.83 101.11 9.29 10.32 1.70 10.16 1.17 101.42 7.71
Skill-based
10.06 2.08 10.75 1.95 102.44 10.17 12.56 1.93 11.81 1.60 113.13 9.35
Planned
10.50 1.83 9.63 1.36 100.38 8.26 12.19 1.72 12.00 1.67 112.56 9.18
active play
Note. LM ¼ locomotor; OC ¼ object control; GMQ ¼ gross motor quotient.
two intervention groups. Analyses of enjoyment scores revealed no significant
differences between the skill (M ¼ 2.45; SD ¼ 0.43) and planned active play
(M ¼ 2.33; SD ¼ 0.57) intervention groups, 2(1) ¼ 0.934, p ¼ .334.
Discussion
Although most research to date has endorsed the use of structured skill-based
learning, no study has systematically compared this intervention with a planned
active play-based intervention for improving FMS ability in preschoolers.
The current study addressed this comparison while also controlling for time
spent in PA between groups.
In brief, using structured, age-appropriate movement-based games (Active
for Life, n.d.), we found the planned active play intervention to be equally
effective to the skill-based station approach for improving FMS among preschool-aged children. Consistent with the literature and as hypothesized, the
free-play control group total TGMD-2 GMQ scores remained essentially
unchanged over the duration of the 8-week study (Goodway & Branta, 2003;
Ignico, 1991; Jones et al., 2011). Although no improvements in movement ability
in the free-play group were found, we do not intend to trivialize the value of freeplay. Free-play provides a multitude of benefits for children’s development,
ranging from improved social interaction to increased creativity and problemsolving abilities (Ginsburg, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on
Communications, & American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on
Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2007; Maxwell, Mitchell, &
Evans, 2008). Thus, although free-play may not improve FMS, it remains vital
to children’s overall development and should not be completely sacrificed in
favor of more structured activities.
Roach and Keats
9
Although both of our interventions fostered equivalent FMS improvements,
the relative ease of delivery between the two approaches was notably different.
Specifically, the planned active play intervention required a minimum of two
trained individuals, while four were required to execute the skill-based lesson
plans. Moreover, fluctuations in child attendance had a minimal impact on the
group-based activities in the planned active play group, whereas inconsistent
participant numbers for the skill-based station groups required activities to be
modified at the last minute. When considering the overall feasibility of implementing any new program, staffing requirements must be considered. Day care
staff who are already very busy meeting the children’s basic care needs are
unlikely to support changes that would require a significantly increased workload. Moreover, the additional help required to fully implement the skill-based
station approach would require doubling the minimum student to staff ratio
from 8:1 to 4:1 (Province of Nova Scotia, 2016), creating challenging, if not
impossible, new demands on day care staff.
Bremer and Cairney (2016) recently reviewed the health-related outcomes
associated with FMS ability. In addition to highlighting the importance of
FMS ability for PA participation, fitness, and a healthy body composition,
they also emphasized the significance of participant enjoyment for sustained
PA participation. Specifically, children are less likely to remain engaged if
they do not enjoy the motor skill activities, particularly in their younger years
(Bremer & Cairney, 2016). Although our modified Likert scale was a simplistic
means of assessing participant enjoyment, it offered a useful exploration of this
variable in a young preschool population. In contrast to our stated hypotheses
that planned active play would be perceived as more enjoyable than skill-based
programming, we observed no significant differences between our two intervention groups. Although both groups displayed high enjoyment ratings overall,
it was interesting to note that children in the planned active play group attended
significantly more sessions than those in the skill-based station group. Although
attendance is not a direct measure of enjoyment, it is plausible that children who
agreed to participate in the weekly sessions may have found the programming
more enjoyable than those children who remained with their regular class. Thus,
although average enjoyment ratings were similar, it is possible that more children in the skill stations stopped participating. Perhaps, if attendance were made
mandatory, the overall enjoyment of this group may have been lower or may
have decreased over time. Future and improved efforts to understand participant
enjoyment in different types of movement interventions are needed.
Limitations
A primary limitation of the current study was constrained staff involvement.
Research shows that the policies and practices implemented within a childcare
10
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
setting play a major role in children’s development (Bower et al., 2008; Pate,
Pfeiffer, Trost, Ziegler, & Dowda, 2004). This is of particular importance at
young ages as a child’s behavior is fluid and habits may not be fully formed.
By implementing positive health behaviors early these habits may be more likely
to solidify and persist throughout life (Goldfield et al., 2012). Within the
day care setting, directors and teachers have control over this behavioral malleability; therefore their level of involvement in the intervention substantially
influences the long-term sustainability of any positive effects from the intervention. Future research should attend to Increased staff participation and involvement, critical to the successful implementation and evaluation of these
programs.
Despite high-level administrative support, individual staff support in our
study varied. Goldfield et al. (2012) touched on this issue, highlighting how
personal beliefs or attitudes toward the importance of PA may affect how willing
individual staff members are to facilitate PA participation or the implementation
of similar movement interventions. It has been suggested that early childhood
educator training may benefit from additional knowledge related to the importance of promoting PA, reducing sedentary behaviors and ways to effectively
assist movement development throughout each stage of the preschool years
(McGuire, 2012). Interestingly, a recent study by Adamo et al. (2016) found
improvements in children’s movement ability solely through increasing teacher
involvement and education regarding the importance of PA participation when
staff were also provided with additional resources and activity plans to assist
implementation.
Practical Implications
Increasing levels of physical inactivity within the general preschool population
pose an immediate and long-term threat to children’s health and well-being. As
FMS skills have been associated with increased PA rates both in the short and
long term, finding ways to improve FMS ability within the preschool population
is essential. Findings from this study better inform physical literacy and movement development for the preschool population. The discovery that free-play
alone is insufficient to foster proper movement skill development is not novel,
but the discovery that planned active play can provide improvements in movement development that are equal to those created by a structured skill-stationbased approach is significant. An equally important finding was the relative ease
with which the planned active play approach could be implemented in the day
care daily routine and its reduced requirements for teachers and equipment.
These discoveries are extremely important for such a program’s feasibility and
successful implementation.
Roach and Keats
11
Appendix
Table A1. Planned Play Intervention Outline.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
Lesson
Focus
Equipment
Lesson 1
Balance
Bean bags, benches, buckets, cones, hoops, and
low beams
Lesson 2
Balance
Lesson 1
Balance
Balance beams, bean bags,
chalk (outdoor), cones,
foam blocks, mats, ribbons, ropes, skipping
ropes, strings, tape, and
thin mats
Balance beams, foam
blocks, skipping ropes,
tape, and thin mats
Lesson 2
Lesson 1
Balance
(best-of)
Locomotion
Bean bags and 2 hoops
Lesson 2
Locomotion
Bean bags and 2 hoops
Lesson 1
Locomotion
Bean bags and hoops
Lesson 2
Locomotion
(best-of)
Object
control
Lesson 1
Baskets, bean bags, bowling pins, foam blocks,
and hoops
Games
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Connect it
Freeze and thaw
Feed the shark
Animal balance
One-foot hot potato
Follow the leader
One-foot hot potato
Cross the river
Line statues
Animal balance
–
–
–
–
–
Simon says
Cross the river
Balance tag
Connect it
Traffic light
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Simon says
Head and shoulders
Animal walk/warm-up
Move and grab
Be free and do like me
Bean bag body freeze
Move and grab
Animal walk
Head and shoulders
Making shapes
Simon says
Bean bag body freeze
Statue game
Island hopping
– Follow my throw
– Target throwing
overhand
(continued)
12
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
Table A1. Continued
Week
5
6
7
8
Lesson
Lesson 2
Lesson 1
Focus
Object
control
Object
control
Equipment
Baskets, bean bags, bowling pins, foam blocks,
hoops, inflatable pool,
large box, and large
container
Bean bags, bowling pins,
foam blocks, and hoops
Lesson 2
Mixed
Baskets, bean bags, cones,
and hoops
Lesson 1
Mixed
Lesson 2
Mixed
Balance beams, bean bags,
bowling pins, chalk
(outdoor), foam blocks,
ribbons, ropes, skipping
ropes, strings, tape,
tape (indoor), thin
mats, and wood slats
Bean bags, benches, buckets, hoops, inflatable
pool, large box, large
container, and low
beams
Lesson 1
Mixed
Lesson 2
Mixed
(best-of)
Bean bags and hoops
Games
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Fruit basket
Through the hoop
Circle bowling
Overhand throw to
partner’s hoop
Target throwing
overhand
Musical hoops
Fill the pool
Circle bowling
Follow my throw
Overhand throw to
partner’s hoop
Hoop elimination
Fruit basket
Musical hoops
Space bubble
Head and shoulders
Balance tag
One-foot hot-potato
Island hopping
Target throwing
overhand
Line statues
Cross the river
Statue game
Bean bag body freeze
Circle bowling
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Simon says
Feed the shark
Animal walk warm-up
Animal walk
Through the hoop
Fill the pool
Traffic light
Freeze and thaw
Making shapes
Move and grab
Hoop elimination
Musical hoops
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Roach and Keats
13
Table A2. Structured Skill Station Approach Intervention Outline.
Week
Lesson(s)
1
1 and 2
Balance
Balance disks, tape, and
bean bags
2
3 and 4
Balance
3
5 and 6
Locomotion
Balance boards, balance
disks, exercise balls,
skipping ropes, bean
bags, and tape
Tape, animal cut-outs,
hoops, ropes, blocks,
(objects to jump over),
and bean bags
4
7 and 8
Locomotion
Tape, jump ropes, balance
beams, hoops, and
objects to jump over
5
9 and 10
Object
control
6
11 and 12
Object
control
7
13
Mixed
Balloons, balls to throw,
bowling pins/balls, and
batting tees with bat
and ball
Balls to dribble, balls to
throw, tape and Bristol
board (targets), soccer
balls, pylons, and bean
bags
Balance disks, tape, bean
bags, and batting tees
with bat and ball
14
Mixed
Balance boards, bowling
pins/balls, balloons, and
jump ropes
15
Mixed
Bean bags, exercise balls,
soccer balls, and pylons
8
Focus
Equipment
Skill Stations
1: Balance disk games
2: Imaginary balance beam
3: One-foot stand
challenge
4: Bean bag balance
1: Balance boards
2: Exercise ball challenge
3: Balance obstacle course
4: Hop scotch
1: Imaginary beep test
(basic)
2: Move like a . . .
3: Jumping obstacle course
4: Follow the Leader
1: Imaginary beep test
(advanced)
2: Jump rope
3: Locomotor obstacle
course
4: Egg races
1: Balloon kicks
2: Catch and throw
3: Bowling
4: Striking practice
1: Dribble tag
2: Target practice
3: Pairs soccer
4: Bean bag catch
1:
2:
3:
4:
1:
2:
3:
4:
1:
2:
3:
4:
Balance disk games
Imaginary beep test
Hop scotch
Striking practice
Balance boards
Bowling
Balloon kicks
Jump rope
Bean bag catch
Exercise ball challenge
Simon says
Pairs soccer
(continued)
14
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
Table A2. Continued
Week
Lesson(s)
16
Focus
Mixed
Equipment
Balls to dribble, bean bags,
animal cut outs, tape,
and Bristol board
(targets)
Skill Stations
1:
2:
3:
4:
Dribble tag
Bean bag balance
Move like a . . .
Target practice
Acknowledgments
We thank the day care academy, the parents, and children who participated in this study.
Without their enthusiasm and support, this project would have not been possible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Roach was supported by a Nova Scotia
Innovation and Research Entrance Graduate Scholarship.
Ethical Approval Statement
This study was approved by the researchers’ institutional Research Ethics Review Board
(REB # 2016-3787). All study guardians provided written informed consent for their child
to participate in this study. Child participants provided oral assent.
ORCID iD
Melanie Keats
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3111-5324
References
Active for Life. (n.d.). Lesson plan builder. Retrieved from http://activeforlife.com/lessonplans-and-resources/
Adamo, K. B., Wilson, S., Harvey, A. L., Grattan, K. P., Naylor, P. J., Temple, V. A., &
Goldfield, G. S. (2016). Does intervening in childcare settings impact fundamental
movement skill development? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48(5),
926–932. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000838
Allender, S., Cowburn, G., & Foster, C. (2006). Understanding participation in sport and
physical activity among children and adults: A review of qualitative studies. Health
Education Research, 21(6), 826–835.
Roach and Keats
15
Barnett, L. M., van Beurden, E., Morgan, P. J., Brooks, L. O., & Beard, J. R. (2009).
Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(3), 252–259. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.07.004
Bower, J. K., Hales, D. P., Tate, D. F., Rubin, D. A., Benjamin, S. E., & Ward, D. S.
(2008). The childcare environment and children’s physical activity. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 34(1), 23–29. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.022
Bremer, E., & Cairney, J. (2016). Fundamental movement skills and health-related outcomes: A narrative review of longitudinal and intervention studies targeting typically
developing children. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1559827616640196
Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., Smith, L. M., & McKeen, K. (2009). Relationships between
fundamental movement skills and objectively measured physical activity in preschool
children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 21(4), 436–449.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, K. E., Morgan, P. J., Plotnikoff, R. C., Barnett, L. M., & Lubans, D. R. (2015).
Improvements in fundamental movement skill competency mediate the effect
of the SCORES intervention on physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness in children. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(18), 1908–1918. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.
1017734
Cohen, K. E., Morgan, P. J., Plotnikoff, R. C., Callister, R., & Lubans, D. R. (2014).
Fundamental movement skills and physical activity among children living in lowincome communities: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11(1), 49. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-11-49
Colley, R. C., Garriguet, D., Adamo, K. B., Carson, V., Janssen, I., Timmons, B. W., &
Tremblay, M. S. (2013). Physical activity and sedentary behavior during the early
years in Canada: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 54. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-54
Figueroa, R., & An, R. (2017). Motor skill competence and physical activity in preschoolers: A review. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(1), 136–146.
doi:10.1007/s10995-016-2102-1
Fisher, A., Reilly, J. J., Kelly, L. A., Montgomery, C., Williamson, A., Paton, J. Y., &
Grant, S. (2005). Fundamental movement skills and habitual physical activity in young
children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37(4), 684–688.
Ginsburg, K. R., & American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communications, &
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and
Family Health. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191.
doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2697
Goldfield, G. S., Harvey, A., Grattan, K., & Adamo, K. B. (2012). Physical activity
promotion in the preschool years: A critical period to intervene. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(4), 1326–1342. doi:10.3390/
ijerph9041326
Goodway, J. E., & Branta, C. F. (2003). Influence of a motor skill intervention on fundamental motor skill development of disadvantaged preschool children. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(1), 36–46. doi:10.1080/02701367.2003.10609062
16
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
Goodway, J. E., Crowe, H., & Ward, P. (2003). Effects of motor skill instruction on
fundamental motor skill development. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20,
298–314.
Goshi, F., Demura, S., Kasuga, K., Sato, S., & Minami, M. (1999). Selection of effective
tests of motor ability in preschool children based on pass-or-fail criteria: Examination
of reliability, objectivity, and rate of passing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88(1),
169–181. doi:10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.169
Hinkley, T., Crawford, D., Salmon, J., Okely, A. D., & Hesketh, K. (2008). Preschool
children and physical activity: A review of correlates. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 34(5), 435–441. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.02.001
Hinkley, T., Teychenne, M., Downing, K. L., Ball, K., Salmon, J., & Hesketh, K. D.
(2014). Early childhood physical activity, sedentary behaviors and psychosocial wellbeing: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 62, 182–192. doi:10.1016/
j.ypmed.2014.02.007
Holfelder, B., & Schott, N. (2014). Relationship of fundamental movement skills and
physical activity in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 15, 382–391.
Ignico, A. A. (1991). Effects of a competency-based intruction on kindergarten children’s
gross motor development. Physical Educator, 48(4), 188–191.
Imms, C. (2008). Review of the children’s assessment of participation and enjoyment and
the preferences for activity of children. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics,
28(4), 389–404.
Janssen, I., & Leblanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical
activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. The International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 40. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-7-40
Jones, R. A., Riethmuller, A., Hesketh, K., Trezise, J., Batterham, M., & Okely, A. D.
(2011). Promoting fundamental movement skill development and physical activity in
early childhood settings: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatric Exercise
Science, 23(4), 600–615.
Kendzierski, D., & De Carlo, K. L. (1991). Physical activity enjoyment scale: Two validation studies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 50–64.
Logan, S. W., Robinson, L. E., Wilson, A. E., & Lucas, W. A. (2012). Getting the
fundamentals of movement: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of motor skill interventions in children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38(3), 305–315.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01307.x
Lorish, C. D., & Maisiak, R. (1986). The face scale: A brief, nonverbal method for
assessing patient mood. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 29(7), 906–909.
Maxwell, L. E., Mitchell, M. R., & Evans, G. W. (2008). Effects of play equipment and
loose parts on preschool children’s outdoor play behavior: An observational study and
design intervention. Children Youth and Environments, 18(2), 36–63.
McGuire, S. (2012). Institute of Medicine (IOM) early childhood obesity prevention
policies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. Advances in
Nutrition, 3(1), 56–57. doi:10.3945/an.111.001347
Pate, R. R., Pfeiffer, K. A., Trost, S. G., Ziegler, P., & Dowda, M. (2004). Physical
activity among children attending preschools. Pediatrics, 114(5), 1258–1263.
doi:10.1542/peds.2003-1088-L
Roach and Keats
17
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). The development of play during
childhood: Forms and possible functions. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 3(2),
51–57.
Province of Nova Scotia. (2016). Day care regulations. Retrieved from http://www.novascotia.
ca/just/regulations/regs/dayregs.html
Riethmuller, A. M., Jones, R., & Okely, A. D. (2009). Efficacy of interventions to
improve motor development in young children: A systematic review. Pediatrics,
124(4), e782–e792. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0333
Sinha, M. (2014). Child care in Canada (Catalogue No. 89-652, No. 005). Ottawa,
Canada: Statistics Canada.
Stodden, D. F., Goodway, J. D., Langendorfer, S. J., Roberton, M. A., Rudisill, M. E.,
Garcia, C., & Garcia, L. E. (2008). A developmental perspective on the role of motor
skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60(2), 290–306.
Telama, R. (2009). Tracking of physical activity from childhood to adulthood: A review.
Obesity Facts, 2(3), 187–195. doi:10.1159/000222244
Telama, R., Yang, X., Leskinen, E., Kankaanpaa, A., Hirvensalo, M., Tammelin,
T., . . . Raitakari, O. T. (2014). Tracking of physical activity from early childhood
through youth into adulthood. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 46(5),
955–962. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000181
Telama, R., Yang, X., Viikari, J., Valimaki, I., Wanne, O., & Raitakari, O. (2005).
Physical activity from childhood to adulthood: A 21-year tracking study. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(3), 267–273. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.12.003
Timmons, B. W., Leblanc, A. G., Carson, V., Connor Gorber, S., Dillman, C., Janssen,
I., . . . Tremblay, M. S. (2012). Systematic review of physical activity and health in the
early years (aged 0-4 years). Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 37(4),
773–792. doi:10.1139/h2012-070
Tremblay, M. S., Leblanc, A. G., Carson, V., Choquette, L., Connor Gorber, S.,
Dillman, C., . . . Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (2012). Canadian physical
activity guidelines for the early years (aged 0-4 years). Applied Physiology, Nutrition,
and Metabolism, 37(2), 345–369. doi:10.1139/h2012-018
Tremblay, M. S., Warburton, D. E., Janssen, I., Paterson, D. H., Latimer, A. E., Rhodes,
R. E., . . . Duggan, M. (2011). New Canadian physical activity guidelines. Applied
Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 36(1), 36–46; 47–58. doi:10.1139/H11-009
Tucker, P. (2008). The physical activity levels of preschool-aged children: A systematic
review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 547–558.
United States Department of Education. (2012). Enrollment of 3-, 4-, and 5-year old
children in preprimary programs by level of program, control of program, and attendance
status: Selected years 1965 through 2011. Washington, DC: Author.
Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of gross motor development: Examiners manual (2nd ed.).
Austin, Texas: Pro-ED Inc.
Veldman, S. L., Jones, R. A., & Okely, A. D. (2016). Efficacy of gross motor skill interventions in young children: An updated systematic review. BMJ Open Sport &
Exercise Medicine, 2(1), e000067. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000067
Warburton, D. E., Nicol, C. W., & Bredin, S. S. (2006). Health benefits of physical
activity: The evidence. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174(6),
801–809. doi:10.1503/cmaj.051351
18
Perceptual and Motor Skills 0(0)
Ward, D. S. (2010). Physical activity in young children: The role of child care.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42(3), 499–501. doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e3181ce9f85
Williams, H. G., Pfeiffer, K. A., Dowda, M., Jeter, C., Jones, S., & Pate, R. R. (2009).
A field-based testing protocol for assessing gross motor skills in preschool children:
The CHAMPS motor skills protocol (CMSP). Measurement in Physical Education and
Exercise Science, 13(3), 151–165. doi:10.1080/10913670903048036
Williams, H. G., Pfeiffer, K. A., O’Neill, J. R., Dowda, M., McIver, K. L., Brown, W. H.,
& Pate, R. R. (2008). Motor skill performance and physical activity in preschool
children. Obesity, 16(6), 1421–1426. doi:10.1038/oby.2008.214.
Author Biographies
Lindsay Roach, MSc, completed this project for her thesis research in the School of Health and
Human Performance, Division of Kinesiology at Dalhousie University. She is currently completing
her graduate degree in physiotherapy at Dalhousie University.
Melanie Keats, PhD, is an associate professor in the School of Health and Human Performance,
Division of Kinesiology at Dalhousie University.