Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to carry out a systematic review of intervention programs that have addressed affective learning outcomes within physical education and to explore pedagogical practices in alignment with teaching, lesson content, and learning outcomes. Method: The literature search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Included were 26 peer-reviewed pedagogical studies of physical education programs that addressed affective outcomes and reported fidelity of implementation. Results and Discussion: Affective outcomes were grouped into four themes: motivation, emotional responses, self-concept, and resilience. The findings showed that offering choice, encouraging peer feedback, asking deductive questions, focusing on personal improvement, and differentiating are effective teaching strategies that were widely used to support affective learning in children and adolescents. This review highlights the importance of fidelity of implementation to understand how intervention programs are delivered.

In Part I of this series I, we looked back at the 20thcentury and re-examined the history of Motor Development research described in Clark & Whitall’s 1989 paper “What is Motor Development? The Lessons of History”. We now move to the 21stcentury, where the trajectories of developmental research have evolved in focus, branched in scope, and diverged into three new areas. These have progressed to be independent research areas, co-existing in time. We posit that the research focus on Dynamical Systems at the end of the 20thcentury has evolved into a Developmental Systems approach in the 21stcentury. Additionally, the focus on brain imaging and the neural basis of movement have resulted in a new approach, which we entitled Developmental Motor Neuroscience. Finally, as the world-wide obesity epidemic identified in the 1990s threatened to become a public health crisis, researchers in the field responded by examining the role of motor development in physical activity and health-related outcomes; we refer to this research area as the Developmental Health approach. The glue that holds these research areas together is their focus on movement behavior as it changes across the lifespan.

Motor development research has had a rich history over the 20th century with a wide array of scientists contributing to a broad and deep body of literature. Just like the process of development, progress within the field has been non-linear, with rapid periods of growth occurring after the publication of key research articles that changed how we conceptualized and explored motor development. These publications provided new ways to consider developmental issues and, as a result, ignited change in our theoretical and empirical approaches within the field of motor development and the broader field of developmental psychology. In this paper, we outline and discuss six pioneering studies that we consider significant in their impact and in the field’s evolution, in order of publication: Halverson, 1931; Wild, 1938; Gibson & Walk, 1960; Connolly, Brown, & Bassett, 1968; Thelen & Fisher, 1982; Thelen & Ulrich, 1991. We have limited this review to empirical papers only. Together, they offer insight into what motor development research is, where it came from, why it matters, and what it has achieved.

The United Kingdom and Ireland have a well-established research base in motor competence (MC) research, ranging from reporting and monitoring levels of MC, developing assessment tools for MC, providing innovative curriculum and intervention design to support learning and development, as well as providing advocacy for particular groups, such as those with motor impairments. This expert statement, on behalf of the International Motor Development Research Consortium, draws together what is currently known about levels of MC in the United Kingdom and Ireland as well as current approaches to intervention in both countries. Subsequently presented are recommendations for researchers and practitioners to advance the field of MC for the benefit of children and youth in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and worldwide.

Purpose:The present study examined the motor competence of preschool children from Belgium and the United States (US), and the influence of perceived motor competence on actual motor competence. A secondary objective was to compare the levels of motor competence of Belgian and US children using the US norms of the Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition (TGMD-2).Methods:All participants (N = 326; ages 4–5 years) completed the TGMD-2 and the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence for Young Children.Results:Belgian children performed significantly higher on actual object control and locomotor skills than US children. However, both Belgian and US children scored significantly worse on the TGMD-2 when compared to the US norm group from 1997–1998. Furthermore, perceived motor competence was significantly related to actual object control skills but not locomotor skills.Conclusion:The present study showed cross-cultural differences in actual motor competence in young children. The findings also indicate a secular downward trend in childhood competence levels, possibly due to a decrease in physical activity and increase in sedentary behavior. Future research should consider conducting an in-depth exploration of physical activity contexts such as physical education to better understand cross-cultural differences in motor competence.

Introduction The development of motor competence in early childhood substantially contributes to successful engagement in sports and other physical activities. In view of the decreasing levels of physical activity and motor skills in children over the past decades, an appropriate assessment and monitoring of motor competence in early childhood is invaluable, for both research and practice [1] . The purpose of this study was to investigate the convergent validity between two motor competence assessment tools: the KorperkoordiantionsTest fur Kinder (KTK) and the Motoriktest fur Vier- bis Sechsjahrige Kinder (MOT 4-6). Methods Five hundred and thirty 5- and 6-year-old children (277 ♂ and 253 ♀; mean age = 5.95; SD = 0.57) were tested by practiced assessors on the KTK and MOT 4-6 during the same day. From the raw scores, a Motor Quotient was calculated based on normative data of the KTK and MOT 4-6. Results A Pearson correlation demonstrated a moderately strong positive association between KTK Motor Quotient and MOT 4-6 Motor Quotient (r = 0.605). Crosstabs showed a fair level of agreement between the two tests (K = 0.313; P Conclusion These findings provide some but limited evidence of convergent validity between KTK and MOT 4-6. The explanation for the lack of stronger associations probably lies in the different concepts that are evaluated in each test battery. The implication of this moderate level of agreement between KTK and MOT 4-6, is that practitioners and/or clinicians should be aware of possible categorisation errors when using the KTK or MOT 4-6 test to detect motor impairments.

In the article by Bardid F., Huyben F., Deconinck F.J.A., De Martelaer K., Seghers J., & Lenoir M., “Convergent and Divergent Validity Between the KTK and MOT 4-6 Motor Tests in Early Childhood, ” in Adapted Pyhsical Activity Quarterly, 33(1), the wrong DOI was printed. The DOI for this article is http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2014-0228. The online version has been corrected.