Search Results

Movement is how we explore our environment—an array of motor behaviors and a degree of skillfulness are required for individuals to move, function, and survive. Metaphorically speaking, Janus, the ancient Roman god, has two faces, one facing into the past and one to the future. Before engaging in future scientific endeavors, researchers should reflect on the historical work in their field to help shape future inquiry. As we continue into the 21st century, motor development research must continue its commitment to conduct translational research in practice while engaging in impactful interdisciplinary research. Areas that warrant future exploration include (a) addressing the motoric needs of special populations; (b) understanding what occurs in the brain during movement—brain–behavior interaction; (c) discovering how our environment affects motor behaviors—gene–environment interaction; (d) exploring the effect of movement across the life span and on various aspects of health—developmental health outcomes; and (e) being cognizant of research design and measurements. Many questions remain to be answered, but motor development is a field with a bright future that awaits discovery.

The continuing U.S. demographic shifts provide a substantial rationale for a corresponding transformation in the culture and climate of academic departments in higher education. In part, the response to the change is to increase the representation of people of color and others who have been historically absent from professional areas fed by the Kinesiology pipeline. However, the greater challenge is to understand and therefore, alter the internal culture. An intentional effort toward a culture of inclusion and full participation provides a working platform to transform existing practices and to cultivate policies from which emerging practices will offer opportunities for success. The understanding of the multiple identities of those within Kinesiology and the society served, the portals and gaps within the systemic architecture, and the methods of creating a multicultural organization—all play significant roles in contributing to change and transformation. Enlightened catalytic change agents must adopt new inclusive paradigms to prepare 21st century professionals with adaptive ideologies and behaviors for resolving future issues and challenges.

This commentary examines the argument for early sport specialization versus sport sampling from a physical growth and motor development perspective. Three developmental frameworks are examined (Mountain of Motor Development, Developmental Model of Sport Participation, Spirals of Engagement Trajectory model) to make the case that a broad base of fundamental motor skill competence is necessary in the early years before sport specialization in the adolescent years. Early sport specialization is criticized from the standpoint of increased risk for overuse injury, concerns about long-term growth, and the fact that early and intense practice schedules often do not differentiate elite versus nonelite athletes. A strong argument is made for early sport sampling to acquire a broad base of fundamental motor skills to apply to different sports, and to allow physical maturity to develop before specializing in sport. Such an approach also better equips a child to be active across the lifespan.

This study examined the acute effects of a 10-min teacher-implemented classroom-based activity break (AB) on physical activity participation and time on-task in a preschool-age population. 118 (M age = 3.80 ± 0.69 years) students from one preschool served as participants. The intervention took place over 4 days: 2 days AB were conducted and 2 days typical instruction occurred. Physical activity was monitored via accelerometry and time on-task was measured by direct observation. Results demonstrated that AB led to a higher percent of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during the AB (M = 29.7%, p > .001). Breaks also promoted more on-task behavior (F _U17 = 18.86, p > .001) following the AB. Specifically, the most off-task students before the break improved on-task behavior by 30 percentage points (p > .001). Percent of school day MVPA was also higher during AB days (i ₁₁₇ = 3.274, p = .001). Findings indicate teachers may improve time on-task postbreak for preschoolers with a short bout of physical activity in the classroom, especially in children who are the most off-task. In addition, classroom-based AB resulted in marginal increases in MVPA during breaks that influenced whole day activity.

A growing body of research has illuminated beneficial effects of a single bout of physical activity (i.e., acute exercise) on cognitive function in school-age children. However, the influence of acute exercise on preschoolers’ cognitive function has not been reported. To address this shortcoming, the current study examined the effects of a 30-min bout of exercise on preschoolers’ cognitive function. Preschoolers’ cognitive function was assessed following a single bout of exercise and a single sedentary period. Results revealed that, after engaging in a bout of exercise, preschoolers exhibited markedly better ability to sustain attention, relative to after being sedentary (p = .006, partial eta square = .400). Based on these findings, providing exercise opportunities appears to enhance preschoolers’ cognitive function.

The purpose of this review is to synthesize the evidence of the relationship between fundamental motor skills (FMS) competence and physical activity by qualitatively describing results from 13 studies that met rigorous inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria: (a) published in a peer-review journal, (b) participants were between the ages of 3–18, (c) participants were typically developing, (d) FMS was measured by a process-oriented assessment, (e) assessed physical activity, (f) related FMS and physical activity through statistical procedures, and (g) printed in English. Databases were searched for relevant articles using key terms related to FMS and physical activity. Evidence suggested low to moderate relationships between FMS competence and physical activity in early childhood (r = .16 to .48; R ² = 3–23%, 4 studies), low to high relationships in middle to late childhood (r = .24 to .55; R ² = 6–30%, 7 studies), and low to moderate relationships in adolescence (r = .14 to .35; R ² = 2–12.3%, 2 studies). Across ages, object control skills and locomotor skills were more strongly related to physical activity for boys and girls, respectively. Future research should emphasize experimental and longitudinal research designs to provide further understanding of the relationship between FMS competence and physical activity.

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.