Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en:
This is an author produced version of a paper published in:
Journal for the Study of Education and Development 43.2 (2020): 443-482 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2019.1653057
Copyright: © 2019 Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje
El acceso a la versión del editor puede requerir la suscripción del recurso Access to the published version may require subscription
English version: pp. 3-17 / Versión en español: pp. 18-35 References / Referencias: pp. 36-39
Translated from English / Traducción del inglés: Alfredo Bautista y Ana Moreno-Núñez Running Head: GROSS MOTOR TEACHING IN SINGAPORE PRESCHOOLS Titulillo: MOTRICIDAD GRUESA EN ESCUELAS INFANTILES DE SINGAPUR
Gross Motor Teaching in Preschool Education:
Where, What, and How do Singapore Educators Teach?
Enseñanza de la Motricidad Gruesa en Educación Infantil:
¿Dónde, Qué y Cómo enseñan las Maestras en Singapur?
Authors
Alfredo BAUTISTA (1,2,*) ORCID: 0000-0002-5878-1888 Ana MORENO-NÚÑEZ (1,3) ORCID: 0000-0002-0397-2513 Poorani VIJAYAKUMAR (1) ORCID: 0000-0002-9453-8703 Erin QUEK (1) ORCID: 0000-0001-5933-1961 Rebecca BULL (1,4) ORCID: 0000-0003-3273-7202 Affiliation
(1) Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education (Singapore)
(2) The Education University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Education and Human Development, Department of Early Childhood Education (Hong Kong)
(3) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Facultad de Psicología, Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación (Spain)
(4) Macquarie University, Department of Educational Studies (Australia)
(Received 1 December 2018; accepted 5 August 2019; published online 26 September 2019) Abstract: Fostering the development of gross motor (GM) skills is important in itself and beneficial for the holistic development of children. While early childhood curriculum
frameworks for GM teaching have been recently articulated, there is limited research on actual pedagogical practices. This study explored GM teaching practices in Singapore Kindergarten 1 classrooms (4-5 years), focusing on where (indoors vs outdoors), what (types of GM skills), and how (teaching strategies and opportunities for practice) preschool educators teach. The study is
part of a longitudinal project where 108 Kindergarten 1 classrooms were observed and videotaped during a full “typical day” (3-4 hours). GM teaching was observed to occur predominantly indoors. Non-locomotor skills were the most frequently taught to children, followed by locomotor and manipulative skills. Many educators were observed using explicit teaching strategies before and during GM activities, with low involvement after activities had been completed. While GM teaching was predominantly teacher-led, opportunities for unguided practice and play were more frequent outdoors. We conclude that Singapore preschool educators need support to better enact the guidelines of the GM curriculum framework. The study enriches the thin classroom-based international literature on GM education.
Keywords: preschool education, gross motor development, curriculum, teaching practices, physical activity
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) under the Education Research Funding Programme (OER 09/14RB) and administered by National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Singapore MOE and NIE. Data for this study were collected while all authors were employed at the NIE. Special thanks to Anisa Rahim for her contributions during the study’s early stages of conceptualization, coding, and data analysis.
Authors’ Address / Correspondencia con los autores: Alfredo Bautista. Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood Education. B3-2/F-34 | 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories. Hong Kong SAR. E-mail: [email protected]
Gross Motor Teaching in Preschool Education:
Where, What, and How do Singapore Educators Teach?
Introduction
The term gross motor (GM) development refers to skills that require using large muscle groups (arms, legs, and torso) and whole body movement (Veldman, Okely, & Jones, 2015). By the time children reach two years of age, almost all are able to master basic motor competencies such as crawling, walking, running, sitting down, standing up, and walking up stairs. GM skills are built upon these basic competencies throughout early childhood. Progressively, children learn how to perform and master more sophisticated locomotor, non-locomotor and manipulative movements, which form the foundation for many complex daily life activities (e.g., dressing, showering) and recreation activities (e.g., sports, games).
Fostering the development of GM skills is also beneficial for the holistic development of the child. Research has shown that regular physical activity has positive effects not only on children’s health (Williams et al., 2008), but also on their proprioceptive, cognitive, socio- emotional and academic outcomes (e.g., Geertsen et al., 2016; Mavilidi, Okely, Chandler, Cliff,
& Paas, 2015; Temple, Crane, Brown, Williams, & Bell, 2016; Tomporowski, Davis, Miller, &
Naglieri, 2008). This is why researchers, policymakers, curriculum designers, and teacher educators have increasingly emphasized the importance of including GM activities in early childhood programs (Gil, Contreras, Roblizo, & Gómez, 2008). While early childhood curriculum frameworks for GM teaching have been recently articulated (e.g., MOE, 2013b), there is limited research documenting what GM pedagogical practices look like in actual classrooms. This study explored GM pedagogical practices in Kindergarten 1 classrooms (children aged 4-5 years), focusing specifically on where, what and how educators teach GM skills to children. The study enriches the limited classroom-based international literature on GM education from the perspective of an Asian nation: Singapore.
Literature Review
Gross Motor (GM) Skill Development in Preschool Education
Fundamental GM skills are those physical abilities that enable children to have balance and stability (non-locomotor skills), move in various ways (locomotor skills), and interact with objects (manipulative skills) (Temple et al., 2016; Veldman et al., 2015). More specifically, non- locomotor skills involve movement of limbs and body parts on the spot, revolving around an axis (i.e., center of the body). These are also known as axial movements. Examples include bending, stretching, balancing, twisting, rocking, swaying, turning, pushing, pulling, rising and sinking.
Locomotor skills refer to fluid and coordinated movements of the body from one point to another, horizontally (e.g., walking, running, galloping, crawling) or vertically (e.g., hopping, leaping, skipping, jumping). Finally, manipulative skills involve controlling specific parts of the body (e.g., hands, feet, fingers) to manage or handle physical objects. Bouncing a ball, throwing and catching a Frisbee, or striking with a foam bat are common examples of manipulative skills.
The practice of locomotor and manipulative skills typically requires large spaces, equipment and/or resources, whereas in non-locomotor skills the person remains in one spot while the body moves (Bilton, 2010; McClintic & Petty, 2015). Most research examining the associations among motor skill acquisition and child outcomes has focused on locomotor and manipulative skills (Loprinzi, Davis, & Fu, 2015).
Currently, it is widely accepted that the teaching of GM skills should commence in early childhood (Gil et al., 2008). There is evidence that young children with better mastery of GM skills and exercise capacity tend to have better health, for example lower levels of obesity and diabetes (Williams et al., 2008), better cognitive skills and academic achievement in areas such as language, reading and mathematics (Mavilidi et al., 2015; Tomporowski et al., 2008), and better socio-emotional skills, including higher self-esteem and confidence (Copeland, Kendeigh, Saelens, Kalkwarf, & Sherman, 2012; Piek, Dawson, Smith, & Gasson, 2008). Moreover, children who develop good GM skills tend to perform significantly better during adolescence in objective measures of cognitive functions and academic performance (Geertsen et al., 2016).
Once children have poor GM skills, the consequences usually persist into adolescence and beyond, hence the need to develop these skills as early as possible to maximize future benefits (Veldman et al., 2015).
Research conducted in preschool education settings has shown that children’s level of physical activity tends to differ depending on whether teaching occurs indoors or outdoors (Bilton, 2010; Tonge, Jones, Hagenbuchner, Nguyen, & Okely, 2017). The term ‘indoor education’ is often explicitly contrasted with ‘outdoor education’, with the former referring to educational activities that occur into or inside a building, primarily within classrooms or any other inner spaces (e.g., theatre room, library, activity room), and the latter referring to activities conducted in the open air, outside buildings (e.g., playground, parks, forest) (Quay & Seaman, 2013). In the case of physical education, indoor spaces are typically used for structured and teacher-led GM activities, which tend to require low levels of physical activity (Brown, McIver, Dowda, Addy, & Pate, 2009). Because the provision of opportunities for practice is generally low indoors, the mastery of the GM skill being practiced might be compromised (Lemos, Avigo,
& Barela, 2012). In contrast, outdoor spaces (e.g., the playground) tend to be reserved for
children’s unguided GM practice and free play, where teachers act as rather passive observers of the situation (Bundy et al., 2009; Parish, Rudisill, & St. Onge, 2007). Unstructured GM activities and games are typically characterized by higher levels of physical activity, allowing children to expend excess energy to make them “indoor-ready” (McClintic & Petty, 2015). There is
evidence that children exposed to more outdoor play time, games, and unguided practice develop better GM skills (Brown et al., 2009; Soini et al., 2016; Waller, Sandseter, Wyver, Ärlemalm‐
Hagsér, & Maynard, 2010). However, research also shows that many children aged 3–5 years in center-based childcare and education programs are not obtaining recommended levels of outdoor physical activity (Copeland et al., 2012; Hernández et al., 2008). For example, Brown et al.
(2009) observed that preschool children in South Carolina (USA) spent significantly more time indoors, where the intensity of GM activities was predominantly low.
According to the literature, there are several factors that contribute to determine the quantity and quality of children’s opportunities for GM practice. One such factor is the
availability of outdoor spaces within centers (e.g., courtyard), or at least the easy accessibility to outdoor facilities in the center surroundings (e.g., public playgrounds, parks). Despite their importance, not all preschools have access to these kinds of outdoor environments, especially in urban contexts where space is an issue, which may compromise the practice of certain types of GM skills (McClintic & Petty, 2015; Raustorp et al., 2012; Tonge et al., 2017). This is the case in the densely populated city state of Singapore, where many preschools lack their own outdoor spaces; educators do make use of community resources such as playgrounds located in housing blocks or neighborhood parks (Bull & Bautista, 2018), but the practice of GM skills has
traditionally occurred mainly indoors.
Another factor that strongly determines children’s opportunities for GM practice within center-based programs is the rigidity of schedules due to time restrictions and the existence of competing curriculum priorities. While some preschools allow children to move freely between indoor and outdoor environments throughout the day, or at least during a substantial portion of it, others establish clear separation between indoor time and outdoor time (Hesketh & van Sluijs, 2016). For example, Raustorp et al. (2012) compared children’s levels of physical activity in USA and Swedish childcare centers. Children in the USA were found to spend significantly more time indoors, thus engaging in physical activities that required comparatively less effort and practice than in Sweden, where children spent almost 50% of time outdoors. In Singapore, Lim-Ratnam (2013) has described the pressures many preschool teachers perceive from parents in terms of focusing on academic learning to prepare children for Primary school. Such pressures might contribute to shorten children’s exposure to non-academic learning areas, including GM skill development (Gopinathan & Lee, 2018).
Finally, another factor that influences children’s physical activity in programs is
educators’ beliefs about the importance of GM skill development, given that these beliefs have great impact on actual pedagogical practices (Copeland et al., 2012). The literature on beliefs contains studies with conflicting results. There are studies where educators highly prioritized physical education as a vital area of learning for young children (Abry, Latham, Bassok, &
LoCasale-Crouch, 2015; Hegde, Sugita, Crane-Mitchell, & Averett, 2014). A similar result was recently obtained in a study where Singapore preschool educators (the same participants of the present study) were asked to rank the importance of various learning areas for children’s development and learning (Bautista, Ng, Múñez, & Bull, 2016). The importance of motor skills development was ranked higher than academic learning areas such as numeracy or science.
Paradoxically, the exact opposite result has been found in other studies conducted in the USA, where teachers’ main concern was children’s acquisition of academic knowledge (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2006).
While classroom-based studies in this area have focused on the effects of specific pedagogical interventions on children’s GM learning (e.g., Bjørgen, 2016; Bundy et al., 2009;
Robinson, Webster, Logan, Lucas, & Barber, 2012), there is limited research documenting what GM pedagogical practices look like in actual preschool settings. Preschool educators have a central role in deciding where, what, and how GM skills should be taught to young children (Copeland et al., 2012). This is the overall focus of the present study.
Singapore’s Curriculum Framework for GM Skill Development
In 2013, the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore published the ‘Nurturing Early Learners’ (NEL), a national curriculum framework designed to guide the practice of local
preschool educators (MOE, 2013a). The term preschool in Singapore is used in reference to both kindergarten (half-day programs) and childcare centers (full-day programs) for children aged 4-6 years. The ultimate aim of NEL was to raise teaching quality standards and harmonize
pedagogical practices across the Singapore preschool sector, which is mainly private (Bull &
Bautista, 2018). While preschools are highly encouraged to follow NEL, they are not mandated to do so.
NEL includes Motor Skills Development as one of the six key learning areas towards the aim of children’s holistic development. The four goals established for Motor Skills Development are: (1) to enjoy through participation in a variety of physical activities, (2) to demonstrate control, coordination and balance in gross motor tasks and (3) in fine motor tasks, and (4) to
develop healthy habits and safety awareness at home, in school and at public places. The curriculum guide on Motor Skills Development (MOE, 2013b) offers a flexible framework to guide preschool teachers in the provision of high quality physical educational activities for children aged four to six. The guide presents age appropriate indoors and outdoors activities, pedagogical tips, guidelines to select and use equipment and resources, as well as assessment and documentation strategies. Note that this guide is not a teacher training framework or teacher education manual, but rather a suggested curriculum guideline.
The Motor Skills Development curriculum guide elaborates on the three types of GM skills mentioned above: non-locomotor, locomotor, and manipulative (Temple et al., 2016;
Veldman et al., 2015). These skills are conceptualized as the fundamental types of body movements that allow children to raise their body awareness and control (Mukherjee, Ting Jamie, & Fong, 2017). Educators are therefore encouraged to implement indoor and outdoor activities designed to further develop children’s GM competencies, progressively building upon the skills they have already mastered. NEL acknowledges that “Children show considerable differences in the rate of acquiring motor skills due to a variety of environmental factors such as opportunities for practice and the amount of time exposed to an outdoor setting that encourages movement” (MOE, 2013b, p. 10). However, NEL does not set a minimum time requirement for indoor or outdoor GM practice, nor does it specify the exact proportion of time educators should focus on the different types of skills. To the best of our knowledge, there are no published studies that describe what Singapore preschool educators do in practice.
The teacher in NEL is conceived as a facilitator, mediator, guide of children’s learning, and as the person in charge of establishing the learning goals. Teachers are encouraged to use explicit teaching strategies when implementing GM activities. The curriculum suggests specific strategies for three different time points: before, during, and after the activity.
Before activities, for example when introducing a new GM skill, teachers are
recommended to use clear verbal explanations and demonstrations on how to accurately perform the movement at hand. They need to be visible to all children and clearly emphasize what
children should pay attention to, for example by using short and concise teaching cues to raise children’s awareness of the specific movements required (e.g., Notice how I turn my body as I twist). The curriculum also places strong emphasis on safety awareness, encouraging teachers to clearly explain the safety rules to be followed before activities begin. This is particularly stressed when activities are conducted outdoors, as there is a higher perception of physical risk (Little &
Eager, 2010).
During GM activities, teachers are encouraged to provide children with feedback on their performance. Feedback is regarded as a key component in GM skill development, as it allows children to progressively improve and instills a sense of achievement when children master new skills. Verbal and non-verbal feedback are seen as equally important (Huéscar & Moreno- Murcia, 2012). Preschool educators are also encouraged to provide children with multiple opportunities to practice and apply their newly acquired GM skills, in order to reinforce them.
The curriculum elaborates on the importance of arranging the physical environment to make it conducive for children’s practice, especially within the context of relays, collaborative or
competitive games, and free play (unguided practice). It is argued that children should be able to practice GM skills freely (i.e., without supervision/direction of adults), to ensure they are able to apply their skills autonomously (Boyer, 2006). Moreover, the curriculum elaborates on the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient equipment and resources for all children to practice at the same time, to reduce unnecessary waiting time.
After GM activities, educators are encouraged to offer summaries of what has been learned, along with additional demonstrations, and to invite children to perform cool-down exercises (MOE, 2013b). In light of this framework, this study will examine Singapore preschool educators’ teaching strategies before, during and after GM activities, including the nature of opportunities for practice provided to children, comparing between practices indoors and outdoors.
Goals
This study explores GM teaching practices in Singapore Kindergarten 1 classrooms (4-5 years), focusing on where (indoors vs outdoors), what (types of GM skills), and how (teaching strategies and opportunities for practice) preschool educators teach. More specifically, our investigation was guided by three research goals:
Goal #1 (where) To compare the presence of GM teaching indoors and outdoors,
describing the availability and accessibility to GM equipment and spaces in the classrooms where instances of GM practice were observed;
Goal #2 (what) To examine the presence of the three types of GM skills (non-locomotor, locomotor and manipulative) in the activities posed by educators,
comparing between indoor and outdoor settings;
Goal #3 (how) To analyze educators’ teaching strategies before, during and after GM activities, as well as the nature of opportunities for practice provided to children, also comparing between indoors and outdoors.
Given the limited observational research available, the ultimate aim of the analyses presented here is to explore how the principles outlined in the NEL curriculum framework for Motor Skills Development (MOE, 2013b) are being enacted in practice by a given subset of preschool teachers. Note that we do not aim to make generalizable claims about all preschools in Singapore, but rather to explore the tendencies observed in a specific video database.
Method Context for the research
The study was conducted within the scope of the ‘Singapore Kindergarten Impact Project’ (SKIP), a large-scale project examining preschool education in Singapore. Overall, the aim of SKIP was to examine how the preschool environment and pedagogical practices, together with home factors, influence children’s learning and developmental outcomes and predict their readiness for primary school. The sampling strategy targeted preschool centers from a range of social strata, geographical locations, types of provider (both public and private), and whose fees were affordable to the majority of local families in Singapore. Private preschools charging high fees, therefore, were intentionally excluded. A wealth of data was collected, including a
comprehensive battery to assess changes in children’s academic and non-academic
competencies, questionnaires about the child’s home environment and teacher characteristics, and classroom observations to measure program quality, in which we recorded the same teacher in a variety of classroom situations. The present study draws on the classroom observation data.
Singapore preschools vary widely in terms of location, size, and facilities (Bull, Bautista, Salleh, & Karuppiah, 2018). Some of the most common locations are the ground floor of housing blocks, within shopping malls, community centers, primary schools, religious buildings, or as self-contained buildings. There is wide variability in terms of size and characteristics of indoor facilities. Because very few preschools have the luxury of having private outdoor spaces,
teachers are encouraged to make use of community resources such as playgrounds located within housing blocks and neighborhood parks, and to spend time in the natural environment (Bull et al., 2018).
The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), which serves as Singapore’s regulatory authority for early childhood education and care, offers a general guide to orient preschools in the design of their daily timetable. While this guideline is not mandatory,
preschools offering half-day programs are suggested to include 30 minutes for health checks and breakfast, one hour devoted to learning corners, half hour of outdoor learning to develop their GM and social skills, one hour of formal lessons (numeracy, literacy, creative expression), and finally 30 minutes for dismissal. ECDA recommends preschools delivering full-day programs to provide children with at least one daily hour of physical activity, with a minimum of 30 minutes outdoors, or 30 minutes daily with at least 15 minutes outdoors for half-day programs (Lai, 2017). Note that these recommendations are very recent; at the time of data collection for the current study, ECDA’s guide to setting up a child care center did not specify a minimum provision of GM practice (ECDA, 2015).
To teach children aged 4 to 6 years (K1 and K2 children in Singapore), educators must possess a Diploma, a two-year post-secondary qualification that typically requires 300 practicum hours. Minimum entry requirements are five GCE ‘O’ levels1, including English or any of the Mother Tongues (Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil). There are different types of full-time and part- time Diplomas offered by local polytechnics and private institutions, along with accelerated conversion programs for those making mid-career switches with local tertiary qualifications.
Depending on the specific study program, preschool teachers may or may not study courses specifically devoted to motor skill development. For examples, the Certificate of Early
Childhood Care and Education or the Diploma in Early Childhood Care and Education do not offer courses related to this learning area, although certain institutions include modules on motor skill development within courses such as ‘Child Development and Learning’ and ‘Curriculum Studies and Pedagogy’. In contrast, the Advanced Certificate in Early Childhood Care and Education does include one full course titled ‘Motor Skills Development’, which introduces students to the value of physical play and sports in the early years. The goal of this course is to equip future preschool teachers with the knowledge and skills to plan enjoyable movement and simple sports–related activities aimed at promoting the development of both gross and fine motor, as well as perceptual skills, in young children.
Participants
We videotaped a total of 108 K1 educators (all female) from the 80 recruited preschools Their mean age was 34.2 years (SD = 10.4) and their teaching experience as preschool educators was 6.9 years on average (SD = 5.7). All but four of the teachers indicated that their qualification was specific to early childhood education and/or development. Most teachers (66%) indicated that their highest academic qualification was a Diploma, while the remaining 34% had a higher qualification. A total of 1,537 children (773 males, 764 females) participated in the study. On entry into K1, the mean child age was 4 years 6 months (SD = 3.5 months). Average
child:teacher ratio was 11.57:1 (SD = 3.35). Regulations in Singapore do not stipulate a
minimum class size, but do stipulate that the maximum child:teacher ratio at K1 should be 20:1.
1 GCE “O” levels are examinations taken at 16 years of age after 10 years of formal schooling.
Procedures and Data Sources
Ethics approval was obtained from the authors’ university Institutional Review Board (IRB). Once the center leaders indicated their willingness to participate in SKIP, the educators were invited to participate and provide informed consent. Parental consents were sent to the parents of children whose teacher had agreed to participate. Only children whose parents provided written consent in the first data collection wave were included as SKIP participants.
For the purposes of SKIP, a team of 22 research assistants conducted non-participatory observations and videotaped each classroom for three to four hours (depending on the duration of the program). All research assistants held a bachelor’s degree in early childhood, psychology, or a related field. In order to capture instances of the regular operations within the participating preschools, we explained to both center leaders and educators that our observations should be conducted during a “typical day”. Educators were given no instructions or directions regarding the content or the pedagogy of the activities to be conducted that day. The K1 videos were collected between July and August 2015.
Following on-site observations, the raw video footage of each classroom was trimmed into four to six short video clips that contained instances of the same educator in different classroom situations (e.g., morning assembly, mealtime, whole class work, mother tongue lessons, learning center time). We obtained a total of 695 video clips, each being approximately 10 to 20 minutes long, which were subsequently tagged according to the learning areas of the NEL framework (Language & Literacy, Numeracy, Discovery of the World, Motor Skills Development, Aesthetics & Creative Expression, and Social & Emotional Development). The analyses presented in this paper focus exclusively on the video clips that contained evidence pertaining to GM teaching and learning, which totaled 19 hours and 45 min. Duration of video clips ranged from 9 min 49 sec to 20 min 16 sec, with an average length of 17 min 10 sec.
Additionally, the SKIP team conducted live coding of classroom quality using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005), which is a widely used standardized tool used to measure the quality of early childhood
environments. The 22 research assistants in charge of classroom observations attended training and received official certification for the administration and coding of ECERS-R. Reliability was achieved if an observer assigned scores that were within 1 point of a consensus score for 80% of the items across three practice observations in centers. Here we present key findings from the two items related to GM skill development, namely item 7 (Space for Gross Motor Play) and item 8 (Gross Motor Equipment). Note that we do not report the overall ECERS-R findings, as these go beyond the scope of this study.
Data analysis
To address Goal #1 (where), we examined the frequency and percentage of classrooms (out of the total 108) where children were observed engaging in GM activities indoors and outdoors. Based on prior literature (Quay & Seaman, 2013), we designed two mutually exclusive categories: the category indoors was coded when activities occurred in classrooms or any other space inside buildings (e.g., theatre room, library, activity room), while the category outdoors was coded when activities were conducted in the open air (e.g., playground, parks). In addition, focusing exclusively on those classrooms in which GM activities were identified, we present the key findings from ECERS-R item 7 (Space for Gross Motor Play) and item 8 (Gross Motor Equipment). Based on different indicators, items in ECERS-R are rated on a scale that ranges from 1 (Inadequate) to 7 (Excellent). We provide the scores resulting from the standard stop-
scoring method (i.e., the score assigned corresponds to the lowest level for which all the
indicators are fulfilled), followed by a qualitative description of the presence/absence of specific indicators from items 7 and 8. ECERS-R coding was completed by pairs of research assistants during preschool visits, which resulted in all classrooms being double coded. After
independently assigning “Yes” or “No” to each indicator, the two research assistants met to discuss the disagreements in order to reach a consensus (for more information, see Bull, Yao, &
Ng, 2017). Prior to any consensus discussions, inter-rater reliability between the two coders for all classrooms observed ranged from 77.58% to 99.50% (M = 87.99, SD = 4.86).
In Goal #2 (what), we analyzed the GM activities observed in the videos according to the three types of GM skills described in NEL (MOE, 2013b). The three deductive categories used for this analysis were non-locomotor skills (e.g., bending, stretching, flexing, extending), locomotor skills (e.g., running, leaping, jumping), and manipulative skills (e.g., bouncing,
throwing). All codes were conceptualized as binary (observed vs not observed) and non-mutually exclusive, as children could be observed practicing several skills within the same activity, for example walking through a circuit (locomotor skill) while balancing a beanbag on a racket (manipulative skill).
Regarding Goal #3 (how), we used an inductive (bottom-up) process to design a coding scheme on teaching strategies. The scheme was divided into the three moments of interest outlined by the NEL curriculum framework (MOE, 2013b), namely: before the GM activity (for which we determined four analytical codes), during the GM activity (nine codes), and after the GM activity (two codes). Codes focus on a variety of aspects pertaining to the instructional support offered by the educator to children (e.g., use of demonstrations, types of questions asked, provision of feedback, type of vocabulary used to interact with children). Additionally, we analyzed the nature of opportunities for practice according to five indicators: whether the GM activities posed included relay/group games, cooperative games, competitive games, fitness stations, or just unguided practice.
These coding schemes were validated by four of the authors, who assessed the suitability of the analytical categories under consideration. Each scheme was piloted in three phases by using a random selection of 20% of the video clips available. For every piloting phase,
definitions and examples of the codes were further revised and refined in order to increase inter- rater reliability. For the final coding, all videos were independently analyzed by two authors of the paper. Disagreements between the two coders were resolved through discussion until 100%
agreement was achieved.
In Goals #1, #2 and #3, we report the overall total frequencies and percentages of observed instances for each code, followed by the frequencies and percentages in indoor and outdoor settings. In our commentary of the data, for simplicity, percentage of episodes are described as low (<25%), moderate (25-50%), considerable (50-75%), or high (<75%).
Examples are given to illustrate the meaning of the codes. One sample chi square analyses were conducted to determine whether the observed frequency of the instances for each code in indoor and outdoor settings differed from what would be expected by chance. Codes with notable differences between indoor and outdoor settings are discussed.
Results Goal #1. Where: indoors vs outdoors
Of the 108 K1 classrooms observed, children were seen engaging in GM activities in 63 classrooms (58.3%). There were 57 classrooms with one instance and six classrooms with two
instances of GM activities, resulting in a total of 69 video clips for coding. Of these, 46 occurred indoors and 23 outdoors (respectively, 42.5% and 21.2% of the 108 classrooms observed). These 69 video clips represent 9.7% of the total 695 video clips that were trimmed for coding purposes in SKIP.
We examined ECERS-R items 7 (Space for Gross Motor Play) and 8 (Gross Motor Equipment) in the 63 classrooms where instances of GM activities were identified. Utilizing the standard stop-scoring system (i.e., a score is assigned only when all the indicators for that
particular level are met), most classrooms scored in the Inadequate range (item 7 M = 1.35, SD = .63, Min = 1, Max = 4; item 8 M = 1.48, SD = .50, Min = 1, Max = 2). The main reason for these low scores, as described below, was the limited accessibility to space and equipment, as children were rarely allowed to freely use certain spaces and/or use certain resources/materials without the supervision of the educator.
Regarding item 7 (Space for Gross Motor Play), we found that 47/63 classrooms (74.6%) had adequate space outdoors and some space indoors for GM practice. However, space was easily accessible (easy to reach and use) in only 23/63 classrooms (36.5%). We observed a small number of classrooms (9/63, 14.3%) with no outdoor or indoor space used for gross
motor/physical play. There were just 15 classrooms (23.8%) where children were observed using the indoor or outdoor space for gross motor/physical play for a substantial portion of the day (e.g., at least 30 minutes in 4-hour long programs). Regarding item 8 (Gross Motor Equipment), we found that GM equipment was in good repair in almost all classrooms (62/63, 98.4%), and that stationary equipment was appropriate for the age and ability of children in most classrooms (48/63, 76.2%). However, the indicator “Equipment stimulates a variety of skills (e.g.,
balancing, climbing, ball play, steering and pedaling wheel toys)” was only met by 25/63 classrooms (39.7%). Despite having relatively adequate equipment, none of the classrooms observed had equipment accessible to children daily for a substantial portion of the day. Only 9.52% of the classrooms (6/63) were found to provide children with both stationary and portable GM equipment daily, although just for a brief period of time.
Goal #2. What: relative presence of the three types of GM skills
Table 1 presents the frequencies and percentages of episodes in which the three types of GM skills were observed being taught to and/or practiced by children. Overall, the most
frequently identified category was non-locomotor skills, which were seen in a considerable number of episodes, followed by locomotor skills and finally manipulative skills, which were observed in a moderate number of episodes. Regarding the indoors-outdoors comparison, we found that non-locomotor and manipulative skills were taught and/or practiced in a slightly higher number of indoor episodes, whereas locomotor skills were more commonly seen
outdoors. We used one sample chi square analyses to examine whether the observed number of episodes differed from what would be expected. For example, taking account of the fact we observed more instances of GM skills indoor than outdoors, if non-locomotor skills occurred with equal relative frequency in each location, we would expect approximately 28 instances indoor and 14 instances outdoors. The observed frequencies of 32 (indoors) and 11 (outdoors) are close to this, resulting in the conclusion that observed frequencies do not differ significantly from what we would expect (p = .33). The same conclusion was reached for frequency of locomotor skills (p = .25) and frequency of manipulative skills (p = .63).
Table 1
Types of GM skills observed in the 69 episodes Types of GM skills
Overall (%) (N=69)
Indoor (%) (n=46)
Outdoor (%) (n=23)
Non-locomotor 43 (62.3) 32 (69.6) 11 (47.8)
Locomotor 34 (49.3) 19 (41.3) 15 (65.2)
Manipulative 26 (37.7) 19 (41.3) 7 (30.4)
The range of specific GM skills observed within each of these three categories was rather limited. In the 43 episodes where non-locomotor skills were identified, stretching was the skill most frequently observed (32.6%), followed by turning and rotating (23.3% each), swinging and shaking (18.6% each), balancing and bending (16.3% each), and clapping (14.0%). Other non- locomotor skills such as rising, pulling, twisting or swaying were observed in less than 5% of these episodes. Within the 34 episodes involving locomotor skills, running was the skill most commonly identified (38.2%), followed by jumping (20.6%), walking (17.6%), body balancing (14.7%), and leaping and crawling (11.8% each). Other skills such as galloping or skipping were seen in less than 3% of these episodes. Finally, within the 26 episodes where manipulative skills were observed, the skills most frequently practiced were balancing objects (26.9%), striking (15.4%) and throwing (11.5%). Other manipulative skills such as bouncing, dribbling and kicking were identified in less than 8% of this category’s episodes.
Goal #3. How: teaching strategies and opportunities for practice
Our third goal included an examination of the teaching strategies used by educators before, during and after GM activities. Table 2 presents the four indicators considered for the before time. We found a considerable number of episodes where educators provided children with instructions prior to the GM activity (e.g., You are going to hold the ball in front of you and walk together). This was followed by demonstrations of the skill performance (e.g., teacher leaps while giving instructions on how to leap) and establishment of safety rules (e.g., Please don’t push your friends!), which were observed in a moderate percentage of episodes. The use of warm-up exercises prior to GM activities (e.g., prompting children to stretch their legs before running) was observed in a low number of videos. Comparing practices indoors and outdoors, provision of instructions was observed more frequently indoor and less frequently outdoors than expected (χ2 (1) = 3.87, p = .049). Establishment of safety rules was observed more frequently outdoors than expected, χ2 (1) = 6.34, p = .012. Indoor versus outdoor observed frequencies of the two remaining indicators did not differ from expected (chi-square p’s > .75).
Table 2
Indicators observed before GM activities Before the GM activity
Overall (%) (N=69)
Indoor (%) (n=46)
Outdoor (%) (n=23)
Provision of instructions 44 (63.8) 36 (78.3) 8 (34.8)
Skill demonstrations 31 (44.9) 22 (47.8) 9 (39.1)
Establishment of safety rules 19 (27.5) 7 (15.2) 12 (52.2)
Warm-up exercises 14 (20.3) 9 (19.6) 5 (21.7)
The nine indicators considered for the during time are presented in Table 3. Educators were observed using terms related to specific GM skills in a high percentage of episodes (e.g., You are going to step sideways like this, it is called sliding, and then one of you will crawl through). In a considerable percentage of episodes, educators were seen reminding children about safety rules (e.g., Remember the rules of the playground; please don’t push your friends and please go slowly) and providing children with relevant feedback to complete the task at hand (e.g., Swing your arms before jumping, so that you can jump further!). Five of the indicators were observed in a moderate percentage of videos: the usage of open-ended questions (e.g., How is leaping different from jumping?), the integration of the GM activity with children’s prior knowledge (e.g., It’s like a jump but you leap off one foot and land on the other, instead of leaping and landing on both feet), the promotion of children’s responsibility (e.g., giving them roles to organize the equipment and materials in class), and the usage of GM-specific questions (e.g., Do you remember how to use the hockey stick?). Finally, educators were observed inviting children to demonstrate GM skills to help their peers in a low percentage of videos (e.g., Do you want to come and show your friends how to skip?).
Table 3
Indicators observed during the GM activity
Comparing practices indoors and outdoors, recall of safety rules was observed more frequently outdoors and less frequently indoors than expected, χ2 (1) = 3.75, p = .05. Integration with prior knowledge was observed less frequently outdoors than expected, χ2 (1) = 6.94, p = .008. Indoor versus outdoor observed frequencies of the remaining indicators did not differ from expected (p’s > .13).
The two indicators considered after the GM activity (see Table 4), namely cool-down exercises and summaries with demonstrations, were observed in a low percentage of episodes.
Cell sizes in this case were too small to conduct meaningful analyses comparing observed versus expected frequencies in indoor and outdoor settings.
During the GM activity
Overall (%) (N=69)
Indoor (%) (n=46)
Outdoor (%) (n=23)
Use of GM-specific terms 58 (76.8) 37 (80.4) 16 (69.6)
Recall of safety rules 41 (59.4) 21 (45.6) 20 (87.0)
Provision of feedback 38 (55.1) 28 (60.9) 18 (43.5)
Use of open-ended questions 29 (42.0) 18 (39.1) 11 (47.8) Use of cues and demonstrations 28 (40.6) 23 (50.0) 5 (21.7) Integration with prior knowledge 22 (31.9) 21 (45.6) 1 (4.3) Promotion of children’s
responsibility 22 (31.9) 15 (32.6) 7 (30.4)
Use of GM-specific questions 18 (26.1) 14 (30.4) 4 (17.4) Allowing children to demonstrate
a skill 15 (21.7) 11 (23.9) 4 (17.4)
Table 4
Indicators observed after the GM activity
Our third goal also included analyzing the provision of opportunities for practice. Table 5 presents the five indicators that were considered. GM activities involving relay/group games (e.g., baton relay, children kicking a ball to one another in a circle) and cooperative games (e.g., two children balancing a ball between their chests while walking) were observed in a moderate percentage of videos. This was followed by unguided practice (e.g., children playing at the playground without teacher instruction), competitive games (e.g., Dog-and-Bone) and fitness stations (e.g., circuit course of different activities), which appeared in a low number of videos.
The only indicator for which indoor versus outdoor observed frequencies differed from expected was unguided practice, which was identified significantly more frequently outdoors and
significantly less frequently indoors, χ2 (1) = 25.64, p < .001.
Table 5
Indicators observed for children’s opportunities to practice
Discussion
This study was conducted within the scope of a large outcomes-based longitudinal project in Singapore (SKIP). In our dataset of K1 classroom observations, GM activities were observed in only 63 of the 108 classrooms analyzed (58.3%). Considering that videotaping sessions were scheduled during a “typical day”, this finding suggests that GM activities may not occur on a daily basis in the observed classrooms. Similar to children in other nations (e.g., Copeland et al., 2012; Hernández et al., 2008), children in the current study might not be obtaining the minimum levels of physical activity recommended by public agencies and organizations, such as ECDA in Singapore (Lai, 2017).
Our video database reveals a rather marginal emphasis on GM skill development as compared to other learning areas. Indeed, the presence of Motor Skills Development (observed in 9.7% of the K1 video clips) was lower than Language and Literacy (51.7%), Aesthetics and Creative Expression (22.4%) and Numeracy (15.5%), and only higher than the presence of Discovery of the World (7%) (Bautista, Moreno-Núñez, Bull, Amsah, & Koh, 2018). It is interesting to note that the very same sample of preschool educators who participated in this study ranked Motor Skills Development as one of the most important learning areas (see Bautista et al., 2016). However, the time spent working with children on GM activities seems one of the lowest in practice.
After the GM activity
Overall (%) (N=69)
Indoor (%) (n=46)
Outdoor (%) (n=23)
Cool-down exercises 2 (2.9) 1 (2.2) 1 (4.3)
Summaries with demonstrations 2 (2.9) 2 (4.3) 0 (0.0)
The GM session included… Overall (%)
(N=69) Indoor (%)
(n=46) Outdoor (%) (n=23)
Relay/group games 23 (33.33) 16 (34.78) 7 (30.43)
Cooperative games 18 (26.09) 14 (30.43) 4 (17.39)
Unguided practice 17 (24.64) 1 (2.17) 16 (69.57)
Competitive games 10 (14.49) 5 (10.87) 5 (21.74)
Fitness stations 3 (4.35) 2 (4.35) 1 (4.35)
This finding is concerning because it suggests that children’s degree of exposure to physical activity could be insufficient, which might have negative consequences on their mastery of GM skills, an area of development that is highly important in itself (Temple et al., 2016;
Veldman et al., 2015). In fact, there is evidence that fundamental motor skill proficiency of 6- to 9-year-old Singaporean children is behind children in Western countries. In the study conducted by Mukherjee et al. (2017), most Singaporean children were rated “average” to “below average”
for locomotor skills, and “below average” to “poor” for object control (manipulative) skills.
These lower Primary Singaporean children failed to exhibit age-appropriate GM skills, and their proficiency was considerably behind the normative sample from the USA. As seen in the
Literature Review, research suggests that regular physical exercise plays a key role in fostering children’s holistic development, contributing to health (Dwyer, Coonan, Leitch, Hetzel, &
Baghurst, 1983), cognitive (Geertsen et al., 2016; Mavilidi et al., 2015; Tomporowski et al., 2008), and socio-emotional skills (Copeland et al., 2012; Piek et al., 2008). One might therefore argue that the limited exposure to GM activities in certain preschools could potentially limit the holistic development of children attending them. This conjecture should be further investigated in local follow-up studies looking at child developmental outcomes as a function of GM provision.
Regarding Goal #1 (where), we found that the rather limited GM practice observed in our database occurred predominantly indoors. While most classrooms had adequate spaces and equipment for both indoor and outdoor GM activity, the majority of children in these classrooms were not provided sufficient time and opportunities for GM practice throughout the day. The apparent low provision of outdoor GM practice is particularly striking, given the important role of unguided practice and play in the NEL curriculum framework (MOE, 2013b). In certain centers, this could be due to issues related to difficult accessibility to outdoor environments such as courtyards, playgrounds, or parks (McClintic & Petty, 2015; Raustorp et al., 2012; Tonge et al., 2017). The limited provision of outdoor GM practice could be also due to factors such as the rigidity of schedules (especially in half-day programs of 3-4 hours), the complex demands of the NEL curriculum framework, and the high expectations from parents regarding academic
achievement, which might lead some preschool educators to focus primarily on academic learning goals (Lim-Ratnam, 2013). Another possible contributing factor to the higher provision of indoor GM activities might be the hot and humid weather. Singapore is situated near the equator and has a typically tropical climate, with high and uniform temperatures and high humidity all year. Weather variations across months are minor.
Focusing on Goal #2 (what), the type of GM skill most frequently observed in our database was non-locomotor, followed by locomotor and manipulative skills. The differential degree of exposure to the three types of GM skills is concerning, as children might eventually experience difficulties to master those skills they rarely practice (Hardy, Reinten-Reynolds, Espinel, Zask, & Okely, 2012). Similarly, we found that while certain GM skills appeared in many of our video clips, others were rarely (or never) observed. The three skills most commonly identified within each category were stretching, turning and rotating (non-locomotor), running, jumping, and walking (locomotor), and balancing objects, striking, and throwing (manipulative).
Based on the curriculum guidance provided in the NEL framework (MOE, 2013b), we argue that a more balanced exposure to different skills would be desirable.
Finally, regarding Goal #3 (how), we found that the educators’ level of involvement was high before and during GM activities, while they tended to adopt a more passive role after.
Consistent with prior studies (Bilton, 2010; Brown et al., 2009), the indoor GM activities
observed in our videos were more structured and teacher-led, with more explicit teaching strategies and teacher talk (e.g., instructions, integration with prior knowledge) than in outdoors GM activities. The educators’ level of involvement was considerably lower outdoors, as the activities posed were relatively more unstructured, unplanned, and children-led (McClintic &
Petty, 2015), and educators exercised less control over children’s actions (Bundy et al., 2009;
Parish et al., 2007). Perhaps for these reasons, the establishment and reminder of safety rules was more commonly observed outdoors, both before and during GM activities. Consistent with NEL, it seems that educators were mindful of the need to raise children’s knowledge of the guidelines to be followed, given the higher perception of risk (Boyer, 2006; Brown et al., 2009). Teaching strategies after GM activities (e.g., summarizing activities, proposing cool down exercises) were observed in only a handful of episodes. This suggests that preschool educators might be unaware of the importance given by the NEL framework to this teaching moment (MOE, 2013b).
The provision of opportunities for practice was overall limited, similar to findings from prior studies (Lemos et al., 2012), which may compromise children’s GM skill proficiency (Brown et al., 2009). Activities involving relay/group games and cooperative games were observed in a moderate percentage of videos, followed by unguided practice, which was much more common outdoors. As in other international studies (Bundy et al., 2009; Parish et al., 2007), Singapore preschool teachers also tend to act as passive observers outdoors, allowing children more flexibility and freedom for unstructured GM practice and play (McClintic & Petty, 2015). Competitive games and fitness stations were rarely observed in our videos. In general, this lack of opportunities for practice indicates that GM teaching tends to be teacher-led, prescriptive and repetitive in nature, and that children are not given sufficient opportunities to apply what they learn in other contexts or situations (i.e., games, play).
Conclusion
In summary, within the scope of our video database, GM activities were not observed in all classrooms on a typical day, suggesting that not all children have opportunities for GM activities on a daily basis. In the classrooms where GM activities were conducted, these were much more likely to occur indoors than outdoors. The type of skills most frequently taught to children were non-locomotor skills, followed by locomotor and manipulative skills. As suggested by NEL, many educators used explicit teaching strategies (e.g., instructions, demonstrations) before and during GM activities, yet their involvement after was low. While GM teaching was predominantly teacher-led, opportunities for unguided practice and play were slightly more frequent outdoors. Based on these results, we conclude that there is a large gap between the intended and the enacted curriculum pertaining to GM skills development in many of the Singapore preschool classrooms observed.
Limitations and future research
The study has several limitations, which should be considered in further research. Firstly, while the sampling strategy used in SKIP accounted for factors such as social strata,
geographical locations, and type of provider, we exclusively focused on centers charging fees that were affordable for the majority of families in Singapore. Thus, the findings presented above are not representative of private and commercial preschools charging high fees, which may have more physical space and resources for GM activities. Future studies in such centers would be necessary to ascertain the generalizability of our results. Second, the fact that GM was absent in approximately 40% of the classrooms in our study does not necessarily mean that educators in
these classrooms neglect the importance of GM skills development. Perhaps they simply did not conduct GM activities on that particular day, which could be due to a variety of reasons (e.g., lack of time in the daily schedule due to different priorities, lack of indoor and/or outdoor space due to other concurrent activities, inclement weather). Follow-up studies should investigate the reasons behind limited GM activity in certain classrooms. Moreover, future studies aiming to gain a deeper insight into GM pedagogical practices should ensure more prolonged timing for classroom observations, as the educators featured in this paper were only observed at one time point. Third, as this study was not conducted to investigate the impact of GM teaching on children’s outcomes, follow-up studies looking at the child as a function of the quantity and quality of GM practice are warranted.
Implications and significance
It seems clear that more needs to be done to ensure that young children in Singapore achieve the learning goals established for Motor Skills Development (MOE, 2013b). There is the need to guarantee the availability of and/or easy accessibility to adequate environments for GM practice (both indoors and outdoors), to regulate and supervise the quantity and quality of GM daily provision in centers, and to enhance the awareness of educators about the importance of physical exercise in children’s holistic development and learning (Huéscar & Moreno-Murcia, 2012). It would be also important to increase the level of preparation of preschool educators in motor skills development, in order to enhance their knowledge, pedagogical skills, and
confidence in this area of learning (Robinson et al., 2012). More pre-service and in-service courses should be conducted to support Singapore preschool educators in the domains where they seem to struggle (e.g., locomotor and manipulative skills, GM teaching outdoors, use of explicit teaching strategies after GM activities, provision of opportunities for practice and free play). In fact, in a prior study, the same teachers featured in this paper expressed that Motor Skills Development was one of the areas in which they had the highest need for professional development support (Bautista et al., 2016).
This study enriches the limited classroom-based international literature on GM teaching in early childhood. Results presented here may be interpreted as exploratory, preliminary data on how Singapore’s NEL curriculum framework for Motor Skills Development is being enacted at the classroom level. Findings have, therefore, the potential to inform the work of local
curriculum designers, teacher educators, professional development providers, and policymakers (Bascia, Carr-Harris, Fine-Meyer, & Zurzolo, 2014). Moreover, the comparison of our findings with others from different countries might be of interest for international early childhood researchers.
Enseñanza de la Motricidad Gruesa en Educación Infantil:
¿Dónde, Qué y Cómo enseñan las Maestras en Singapur?
Resumen: Fomentar el desarrollo de la motricidad gruesa (MG) es importante en sí mismo y beneficioso para el desarrollo holístico de los niños. Pese a que recientemente se han diseñado currículos de educación infantil centrados en la MG, existe poca investigación sobre prácticas pedagógicas en contextos educativos. En este estudio, exploramos las prácticas de enseñanza de habilidades de MG en clases de Kindergarten 1 (4-5 años) en Singapur, centrándonos en dónde (interior vs exterior), qué (tipos de habilidades de MG), y cómo (estrategias de enseñanza y oportunidades para la práctica) enseñan las maestras. El estudio es parte de un proyecto longitudinal en que se observaron y filmaron 108 clases de Kindergarten 1 durante un “día típico” (3-4 horas). Se encontró que la enseñanza de la MG tiende a ocurrir generalmente en contextos de interior. Las habilidades no locomotrices fueron las observadas más
frecuentemente, seguidas de las habilidades locomotrices y de manipulación. Observamos que muchas maestras utilizaban estrategias de enseñanza explícita antes de y durante las actividades de MG, con poca implicación una vez las actividades eran finalizadas. Mientras que la práctica de la MG era generalmente guiada por las maestras, las oportunidades para el juego y la práctica no guiada eran más frecuentes al aire libre. Concluimos que las maestras de infantil en Singapur necesitan apoyos de desarrollo profesional para implementar las propuestas del currículo de MG vigente. El estudio enriquece la limitada literatura internacional sobre enseñanza de la MG.
Palabras clave: educación infantil, desarrollo de la motricidad gruesa, currículo, prácticas de enseñanza, actividad física
Agradecimientos
Este estudio fue financiado por el Ministerio de Educación (MOE) de Singapur, bajo el programa Education Research Funding Programme (OER 09/14RB) administrado por el National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapur. Las opiniones, resultados, conclusiones o recomendaciones expresadas en este artículo provienen de los autores y no reflejan necesariamente la visión del MOE o del NIE. Cuando los datos del estudio fueron recogidos, todos los autores estaban afiliados al NIE. Agradecemos la ayuda de Anisa Rahim durante las fases iniciales de conceptualización del estudio, codificación y análisis de datos.
Introducción
El termino motricidad gruesa (MG) se refiere a habilidades que requieren el uso de grandes grupos musculares (brazos, piernas y torso) y el movimiento de todo el cuerpo
(Veldman, Okely, & Jones, 2015). Cuando los niños alcanzan la edad de dos años, casi todos son ya capaces de dominar competencias motoras básicas como gatear, caminar, correr, sentarse, levantarse y subir escaleras. Las habilidades de MG se construyen sobre dichas competencias básicas durante la infancia temprana. Progresivamente, los niños adquieren y perfeccionan sofisticadas habilidades locomotoras, no locomotoras y movimientos de manipulación, que constituyen las bases de complejas acciones cotidianas (e.g., vestirse, ducharse) y actividades recreativas (e.g., deportes, juegos).
Fomentar el desarrollo de habilidades de MG es también beneficioso para el desarrollo holístico del niño. La investigación muestra que una actividad física regular tiene efectos
positivos no solo sobre la salud de los niños (Williams et al., 2008), sino también sobre sus habilidades propioceptivas, cognitivas, socio-emocionales, e incluso sobre sus resultados
académicos (e.g., Geertsen et al., 2016; Mavilidi, Okely, Chandler, Cliff, & Paas, 2015; Temple, Crane, Brown, Williams, & Bell, 2016; Tomporowski, Davis, Miller, & Naglieri, 2008). Es por ello que investigadores, políticos educativos, planeadores curriculares y formadores de maestros han venido enfatizando la importancia de incluir la enseñanza de la MG en programas de
educación infantil (Gil, Contreras, Roblizo, & Gómez, 2008). Aunque recientemente se han diseñado currículos de educación infantil centrados en la MG (e.g., MOE, 2013b), existe poca investigación sobre las prácticas pedagógicas que se llevan a cabo en contextos educativos. Este estudio explora las prácticas de enseñanza de habilidades de MG en clases de Kindergarten 1 (4- 5 años), centrándonos en dónde, qué y cómo enseñan las maestras de educación infantil a los niños. El estudio enriquece la limitada literatura internacional sobre enseñanza de la MG desde la perspectiva de una nación asiática: Singapur.
Revisión de la Literatura
El Desarrollo de Habilidades de Motricidad Gruesa (GM) en Educación Infantil Las habilidades motoras gruesas fundamentales, o de motricidad gruesa (MG), son aquellas que permiten al niño tener balance y estabilidad (habilidades no locomotoras), moverse en diversas direcciones (habilidades locomotoras), e interactuar con objetos (habilidades de manipulación) (Temple et al., 2016; Veldman et al., 2015). Más específicamente, las habilidades no locomotoras implican movimientos de las extremidades y otras partes del cuerpo en un mismo lugar, rotando sobre un eje fijo (i.e., el centro del cuerpo). Estos movimientos también se
conocen como movimientos axiales. Algunos ejemplos son inclinarse, estirarse, balancearse, torcerse, mecerse, alzarse y agacharse. Las habilidades locomotoras implican movimientos fluidos y coordinados del cuerpo desde un punto hasta otro, horizontalmente (e.g., caminar, correr, galopar, gatear) o verticalmente (e.g., saltar a la pata coja, saltar a la comba). Finalmente, las habilidades de manipulación implican controlar partes específicas del cuerpo (e.g., manos, pies, dedos) para manejar o dominar objetos físicos. Botar una pelota, lanza y recibir un Fribee, o golpear con un bate de goma son ejemplos comunes de habilidades de manipulación. La
práctica de habilidades locomotoras y de manipulación típicamente requiere de espacios amplios, equipamiento y/o recursos materiales, mientras que en las habilidades no locomotoras la persona se mantiene en el mismo lugar mientras el cuerpo se mueve (Bilton, 2010; McClintic & Petty, 2015). La mayor parte de la investigación que analiza las asociaciones entre la adquisición de las habilidades de MG y el aprendizaje infantil se ha centrado en habilidades locomotoras y de manipulación (Loprinzi, Davis, & Fu, 2015).
En la actualidad, está ampliamente aceptado que la enseñanza de habilidades de MG ha de comenzar durante la infancia temprana (Gil et al., 2008). Existe evidencia de que los niños con mejor dominio de dichas habilidades y que realizan frecuente ejercicio físico tienden a tener mejor salud, por ejemplo niveles más bajos de obesidad y diabetes (Williams et al., 2008), mejores competencias cognitivas y rendimiento académico en áreas como el lenguaje, la lectura y las matemáticas (Mavilidi et al., 2015; Tomporowski et al., 2008), y mejores competencias socio-emocionales, incluyendo niveles más altos de autoestima y confianza (Copeland, Kendeigh, Saelens, Kalkwarf, & Sherman, 2012; Piek, Dawson, Smith, & Gasson, 2008).
Además, los niños que desarrollan buenas habilidades de MG tienden a puntuar
significativamente mejor en medidas objetivas de funciones cognitivas y rendimiento académico durante la adolescencia (Geertsen et al., 2016). Cuando los niños desarrollan habilidades de MG
pobres durante su infancia, las consecuencias suelen persistir hasta la adolescencia e incluso más allá; de ahí la necesidad de desarrollar dichas habilidades tempranamente, para maximizar los futuros beneficios (Veldman et al., 2015).
Investigaciones realizadas en contextos de educación y cuidado infantil han mostrado que el nivel de actividad física de los niños tiende a diferir dependiendo de si las actividades se llevan a cabo dentro del aula o al aire libre (Bilton, 2010; Tonge, Jones, Hagenbuchner, Nguyen,
& Okely, 2017). Los términos ‘educación en clase’ y ‘educación al aire libre’ se ponen en contraste de forma explícita con frecuencia, el primero en relación con actividades que ocurren en espacios interiores, sobre todo dentro de clases o cualquier otro tipo de espacio dentro de un edificio (e.g., aula de teatro, biblioteca, salón de actos), y el segundo en relación con actividades llevadas a cabo en el exterior (e.g., patios, parques, bosques) (Quay & Seaman, 2013). En el caso de la enseñanza de la MG, los espacios interiores son típicamente utilizados para actividades estructuradas y guiadas por las maestras, y dichas actividades suelen requerir niveles bajos de actividad física (Brown, McIver, Dowda, Addy, & Pate, 2009). Llegar a dominar ciertas
habilidades de MG puede ser complicado si solo se practican en espacios interiores, dado que las oportunidades para practicar en dichos espacios suelen ser escasas (Lemos, Avigo, & Barela, 2012). En contraste, los espacios exteriores (e.g., patios) tienden a utilizarse para la práctica no guiada y para el juego libre, donde las maestras generalmente actúan como observadoras más bien pasivas de la situación (Bundy et al., 2009; Parish, Rudisill, & St. Onge, 2007). Las
actividades no estructuradas de MG y los juegos se caracterizan por requerir niveles de actividad física más elevados, permitiendo a los niños gastar la energía que les sobra y preparándoles para el trabajo en el aula (McClintic & Petty, 2015). Existe evidencia de que los niños expuestos a más tiempo de juego al aire libre, juegos competitivos y práctica no guiada tienden a desarrollar mejores habilidades de MG (Brown et al., 2009; Soini et al., 2016; Waller, Sandseter, Wyver, Ärlemalm‐Hagsér, & Maynard, 2010). No obstante, la investigación también muestra que los niños de 3-5 años en centros con programas de educación y cuidado infantil suelen no obtener los niveles recomendados de actividad física al aire libre (Copeland et al., 2012; Hernández et al., 2008). Por ejemplo, Brown et al. (2009) observaron que los niños en escuelas infantiles en Carolina del Sur (Estados Unidos) tendían a pasar significativamente más tiempo en espacios interiores, donde la intensidad de las actividades de MG era predominantemente reducida.
La literatura indica que existen varios factores que contribuyen a determinar la cantidad y calidad de las oportunidades para la práctica de la MG que se ofrecen a los niños. Uno de estos factores es la disponibilidad de espacios exteriores en las propias escuelas (e.g., patios privados), o al menos la fácil accesibilidad a espacios al aire libre en sus inmediaciones (e.g., patios o parques públicos). Pese a su importancia, no todas las escuelas infantiles tienen acceso a este tipo de espacios exteriores, especialmente en contextos urbanos donde el espacio es limitado, lo cual puede poner en riesgo el correcto desarrollo de ciertos tipos de habilidades de MG (McClintic &
Petty, 2015; Raustorp et al., 2012; Tonge et al., 2017). Este es el caso en ciudades con alta densidad de población, como la ciudad-estado de Singapur, donde muchas escuelas infantiles no tienen su propio espacio exterior; aunque muchas maestras hacen uso de los parques infantiles y patios que existen en las inmediaciones de los centros (Bull & Bautista, 2018), la enseñanza y la práctica de las habilidades de MG tradicionalmente se ha venido realizando en espacios
interiores.
Otro importante factor que determina la posibilidad de practicar las habilidades de MG en centros de educación infantil es la rigidez de sus horarios, debido a restricciones de tiempo, así como la existencia de otras prioridades curriculares. Mientras que en ciertas escuelas infantiles se