Adrienne R. Hughes, Avril Johnstone, Farid Bardid and John J. Reilly
Eishin Teraoka, Heidi Jancer Ferreira, David Kirk and Farid Bardid
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.
Ali Brian, Farid Bardid, Lisa M. Barnett, Frederik J.A. Deconinck, Matthieu Lenoir and Jacqueline D. Goodway
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.
Jane E. Clark, Farid Bardid, Nancy Getchell, Leah E. Robinson, Nadja Schott and Jill Whitall
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: ; ; ; ; ; . 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.
Farid Bardid, Floris Huyben, Frederik J.A. Deconinck, Kristine De Martelaer, Jan Seghers and Matthieu Lenoir
The aim of this study was to investigate the convergent and divergent validity between the Body Coordination Test for Children (KTK) and the Motor Proficiency Test for 4- to 6-Year-Old Children (MOT 4-6). A total of 638 children (5–6 yr old) took part in the study. The results showed a moderately positive association between the total scores of both tests (r s = .63). Moreover, the KTK total score correlated more highly with the MOT 4-6 gross motor score than with the MOT 4-6 fine motor score (r s = .62 vs. .32). Levels of agreement were moderate when identifying children with moderate or severe motor problems and low at best when detecting children with higher motor-competence levels. This study provides evidence of convergent and divergent validity between the KTK and MOT 4-6. However, given the moderate to low levels of agreement, either measurement may lead to possible categorization errors. Therefore, it is recommended that children’s motor competence not be judged based on the result of a single test.
Jill Whitall, Nadja Schott, Leah E. Robinson, Farid Bardid and Jane E. Clark
In 1989, Clark and Whitall asked the question, “What is motor development?” They were referring to the study of motor development as an academic research enterprise and answered their question primarily by describing four relatively distinct time periods characterized by changes in focus, theories or concepts, and methodology. Their last period was named the process-oriented period (1970–1989). In hindsight, it seems clear that their last period could be divided into two separate historical time periods: the information-processing period (1970–1982) and the dynamical systems period (1982–2000). In the present paper, we briefly revisit the first three periods defined by Clark and Whitall, and expand and elaborate on the two periods from 1970 to the turn of the century. Each period is delineated by key papers and the major changes in focus, theories or concepts, and methodology. Major findings about motor development are also described from some papers as a means of showing the progression of knowledge.
Jill Whitall, Farid Bardid, Nancy Getchell, Melissa M. Pangelinan, Leah E. Robinson, Nadja Schott and Jane E. Clark
In Part I of this series I, we looked back at the 20th century 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 21st century, 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 20th century has evolved into a Developmental Systems approach in the 21st century. 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.