Effectiveness of motor skill intervention varies based on implementation strategy

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackground: Young children from disadvantaged settings often present delays in fundamental motor skills (FMS). Young children can improve their FMS delays through developmentally appropriate motor skill intervention programming. However, it is unclear which pedagogical strategy is most effective for novice and expert instructors.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a motor skill intervention delivered by expert and novice teachers via direct or indirect pedagogical strategy on the object control and locomotor skills of young children.Participants and setting: Participants included children (N = 109) aged 40–67 months (Mage = 54 months, SD = 7 months) enrolled in an early years center for children who are socioeconomically disadvantaged in the United States.Data collection: Children participated in one of five instructional conditions (expert-led direct, expert-led indirect, novice-led direct, novice-led indirect, and control). Expert and preservice physical education teachers implemented the Successful Kinesthetic Instruction for Preschoolers (SKIP) motor skill program twice weekly for 6 weeks (360 min of instruction). Children in all experimental conditions (n = 69) received ‘business as usual’ free play on nonintervention days. Children in the control condition (n = 40) received the ‘business as usual’ free play 5 days weekly throughout the entirety of the intervention. Children completed the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 during the pretest and the posttest.Data analysis: For object control and locomotor skills, we conducted two, separate, one-way ANOVAs at the pretest to determine condition differences. We then calculated two separate, five conditions × two times repeated-measures ANOVAs to determine the effects of SKIP on both object control and locomotor skills. Tukey post hoc analyses confirmed posttest differences among the conditions.Findings: There were no significant differences among conditions at the pretest (locomotor, p = .347–.969; object control, p = .143–.918). For object control skills, there were significant main effects for time (F[1, 104] = 83.92, p < .001, η2 = .45) and condition (F[4, 104] = 6.39, p < .001, η2 = .20) as well as a significant time by condition interaction (F[4, 104] = 22.36, p < .001, η2 = .45). For locomotor skills, there was a significant main effect for time (F[1, 104] = 41.25, p < .001, η2 = .28) but not for condition (F[4, 104] = 2.20 p < .074, η2 = .08). There was a significant time by condition interaction (F[1, 104] = 18.68, p < .001, η2 = .42). Experts, regardless of strategy, showed significantly greater improvements (p < .001) than novice and control conditions for locomotor skills. For object control skills, experts (all conditions) and novice-direct demonstrated significantly (p < .001) greater gains than the control and novice-indirect conditions.Conclusion: Young children from disadvantaged settings demonstrated developmental delays with FMS. Motor skill intervention was effective with remediating their delays. Novice teachers with limited physical education experience should begin teaching object control skills via direct instruction. Experts can choose either direct or indirect instructional strategies. Future research should investigate the implications of scaffolding locomotor skills and indirect pedagogical strategies for novice teachers.