Outdoor Education (OE) refers to organized experiential education that takes place in the outdoor, characterized by action-centered and thematic learning processes. Literature shows how OE may have beneficial effects on different areas of child development, including cognitive abilities, social skills and motor development. This relationship is not necessarily linear, but moderated by different variables. Until now, few studies have examined, using rigorous methods, the role of OE in children’s development and studies of preschool aged children remain lacking. The current study (...) aimed to explore teachers’ perceptions of children’s developmental trajectories over 2 school years, investigating whether teachers’ perceptions differed between two kindergartens, one characterized by a consolidated OE approach and the other one characterized by a more traditional method of education. The sample was composed of 20 teachers, evaluating 93 children aged 3-5 (M= 46.95 months, SD= 6.73; 42 males): 13 teachers were from a traditional kindergarten (Traditional Group- TG) and evaluated 52 children; 7 teachers were from an OE kindergarten (Outdoor Group – OE) and observed 41 children. All the teachers completed the Kuno Beller Developmental Tables (Beller, 1995), in order to describe specific child developmental areas in 4 consecutive moments during 2 school years (T1-T2: January-May 2014; T3-T4: October 2014-May 2015). The 20 teachers also completed the “Outdoor Activities/Trips Diary”, an instrument created for this study to collect qualitative data on the characteristics of outdoor activities. Results showed that, in all the developmental areas, OE teachers perceived higher scores over time were found for the Outdoor Group compared to the Traditional one. Specifically, GLM ANOVAs Repeated Measures revealed a significant interaction of the 2 variables Time and Groups (p<0.001): contrast analyses showed that OE children, compared to the TG children, were perceived by their teachers with higher levels in all developmental areas at T1 and T2, but not at T3 and T4. The findings suggest that the OE activites, compared to indoor ones and according to teachers' perceptions, offer greater opportunities to promote the child’s development at different levels. especially when children are younger. Future studies are recommended analyzing possible moderating variables and long term effects of OE. (shrink)

This study investigated whether 6 weeks of basketball combined with mathematics once a week in physical education lessons could improve children's motivation for mathematics. Seven hundred fifty-seven children were randomly selected to have either basketball combined with mathematics once a week or to have basketball sessions without mathematics. Children in BM and CON motivation for classroom-based mathematics were measured using the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire before and after the intervention. Among the BM, levels of intrinsic motivation, feelings of competence, and autonomy (...) were measured using the Post-Experimental Intrinsic Motivation Inventory questionnaire acutely after a basketball session combined with mathematics and immediately after a session of classroom-based mathematics. BM had significantly higher acute levels of perceived autonomy, competencies, and intrinsic motivation during basketball sessions combined with mathematics compared to when having classroom-based mathematics. A significant decrease in the mean for intrinsic motivation was observed from T0 to T1 for CON, but not for BM. BM had a more positive development in intrinsic motivation compared to CON from T0 to T1, meaning that BM had a positive influence on children's intrinsic motivation for classroom-based mathematics. This study indicates that basketball combined with mathematics is an intrinsically motivating way to practice mathematics, which also has a positive influence on children's general intrinsic motivation for mathematics in the classroom. (shrink)

Approaches to foster motor creativity differ according to whether creative movements are assumed to be enacted creative ideas, or solutions to emerging motor problems that arise from task and environmental constraints. The twofold aim of the current study was to investigate whether an enriched physical education intervention delivered with a joint constraints-led and cognitive stimulation approach fosters motor creativity, and the responsiveness to the intervention is moderated by baseline motor and cognitive skills and sex; the intervention may benefit motor creativity (...) through gains in motor coordination, executive function, and creative thinking. Ninety-five children, aged 6–9 years, participated in a 6-month group randomized trial with specialist-led enriched PE vs. generalist-led conventional PE. Before and after the intervention, Bertsch’s Test of Motor Creativity, Movement Assessment Battery for Children, Random Number Generation task and Torrance Test of Creative Thinking were administered. Linear mixed models were run accounting for the random effects of data clusters. Multiple mediation analysis was performed to assess whether motor coordination, executive function and creative thinking mediated any improvement of motor creativity. Results showed that specialist-led enriched PE, compared to generalist-led conventional practice, elicited a more pronounced improvement in all motor creativity dimensions independently of baseline levels of motor and cognitive skills and sex; and improved motor creativity was partially mediated by improved motor coordination and, as regards motor flexibility, also by improved inhibitory ability. In conclusion, enriching PE with tailored manipulations of constraints and variability may enhance the ability to create multiple and original task-pertinent movements both directly and through indirect paths. The results are discussed extending to motor creativity a theoretical framework that distinguishes different creativity modes. The intervention may have fostered the generation of creative movements directly through the exposure to variation in constraints, activating the sensorimotor ‘flow’ mode of creativity that bypasses higher-order cognition, but also indirectly through a systematic and conscious convergence on solutions, activating the ‘deliberate’ mode of creativity that relies on inhibition to reject common or task-inappropriate movement categories. (shrink)

BACKGROUND: There is a need for interdisciplinary research to better understand how pedagogical approaches in primary physical education (PE) can support the linked development of physical, cognitive and affective aspects of physical literacy and physical activity behaviours in young children. The Skill Acquisition Methods fostering Physical Literacy in Early-Physical Education (SAMPLE-PE) study aims to examine the efficacy of two different pedagogies for PE, underpinned by theories of motor learning, to foster physical literacy, especially for children living in disadvantaged areas. METHODS: (...) SAMPLE-PE will be evaluated through a cluster-randomised controlled trial targeting 5-6 year old children from schools located in areas of high deprivation in Merseyside, North-West England. Schools will be randomly allocated to one of three conditions: Linear Pedagogy, Nonlinear Pedagogy or Control. Nonlinear and Linear Pedagogy intervention primary schools will receive a PE curriculum delivered by trained coaches over 15 weeks, while control schools will follow their usual practice. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), immediately post-intervention (T1) and six months after the intervention has finished (T2). Children’s movement competence is the primary outcome in this trial. Secondary outcomes include physical activity, perceived competence, motivation, executive functions, and self-regulation. An extensive process evaluation will also examine implementation factors such as intervention context, reach, dose, fidelity and acceptability. DISCUSSION: The SAMPLE-PE project will enable better understanding surrounding how to operationalise physical literacy through enrichment of PE practices in early PE. The study will provide robust scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of underpinning PE pedagogy with theories of motor learning to promote the development of physical literacy. (shrink)

Aim: Participation in classroom physical activity breaks may improve children’s cognition, but few studies have involved adolescents. The primary aim of this study was to examine the effects of classroom-based resistance training with and without cognitive training on adolescents’ cognitive function.Methods: Participants were 97 secondary school students. Four-year 10 classes from one school were included in this four-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Classes were randomly assigned to the following groups: sedentary control with no cognitive training, sedentary with cognitive training, resistance (...) training without cognitive training, and resistance training with cognitive training. Sessions varied in levels of both cognitive demand and resistance training and were administered three times per week for 4 weeks. Inhibition, cognitive flexibility, episodic memory, on-task behavior, and muscular fitness were assessed at baseline and post-test. Linear mixed models were used to examine changes within and between groups.Results: In comparison with the control group, episodic memory improved significantly in the resistance training without cognitive training group. There were no group-by-time effects for inhibition or cognitive flexibility. Classroom activity breaks both with and without cognitive demand improved participants’ on-task behavior in comparison with the control and sedentary group. The resistance training programs did not lead to improvements in muscular fitness.Conclusion: Participation in body weight resistance training without cognitive training led to selective improvements in episodic memory. No training effects were found for inhibition or cognitive flexibility. A longer study period may be necessary to induce improvements in muscular fitness and associated changes in inhibition and cognitive flexibility.Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621001341819.aspx, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry—ACTRN12621001341819. (shrink)