The Fundamental Movement Skills of a Year 9 Group and a Gifted and Talented Cohort

doi:10.4236/ape.2013.34035

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Advances in Physical Education

2013. Vol.3, No.4, 215-220

Published Online November 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ape) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ape.2013.34035

Open Access 215

The Fundamental Movement Skills of a Year 9

Group and a Gifted and Talented Cohort

Gillian Griffiths, Rebecca Billard

Department of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Email: [email protected]

Received August 1st, 2013; revised September 1st, 2013; accepted September 8th, 2013

tive Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any me-

dium, provided the o riginal work is properly cited.

Physical Education is often viewed as the place where Fundamental Motor Skills (FMS) are developed.

These skills underpin the development of motor competence and perceived competence, therefore im-

pacting on participation and physical literacy. Within education, Gifted and Talented (G & T) and inclu-

sion agendas have been high profile yet research has shown that children across the world are not reach-

ing expected levels of skill mastery at primary level (5 - 11 years). The aim of the research was therefore

to investigate the levels of mastery at secondary level (11 - 16 years) and within a G & T cohort to estab-

lish their levels of mastery, and investigate how this may relate to their participation in physical activities.

Forty five children, 19 Year 9 pupils (13.24 ± 0.2 years) and 26 G & T pupils (13.24 ± 0.2 years) were

evaluated performing a combination locomotor, manipulative (object control) and balance skills (n = 5). 5

trials of each skill were recorded and graded against the performance criteria by one experimenter. Mas-

tery or near mastery were only achieved, if, in 4 out of the 5 trials, 5 of the 6 component criteria were

present. If this was not attained, non-mastery was designated. Results revealed that the G & T pupils had

greater overall mastery of the 5 skills, however they did not master all skills. All G & T had significantly

increased jumping and throwing skills, and males significantly increased kicking skills. In both groups the

majority of participation outside the school curriculum was related to games activities and was dominated

by invasion games however no males participated in “aesthetic” activity outside school. These results in-

dicate that development of FMS may not be occurring in children at KS3 and there is both an invasion

games bias and a gender bias in the activities accessed out of school.

Keywords: FMS; Physical Literacy; G & T; Year 9

Introduction

In the last two decades the recognition and investigation of

Fundamental Movement skills (FMS) has developed and in-

creased. It had been assumed that the development of these

skills was a natural part of maturation however it is actually a

more complex interactive process relating to biological con-

straints and the environment (Clarke, 2007). Happening virtu-

ally in tandem with this developing issue, the identification and

discussion of giftedness within education was a relatively

“new” concept which first arose in USA, DoE (1993) and in

NSW, Australia, Department of Education and Training (DET)

(1991). Following this in the UK, the “Excellence in cities”

scheme (EiC) (DfEE, 2000) sought, in one strand, to promote

and resource education for very able pupils, otherwise known

as the “Gifted and Talented” (Bailey, Tan, & Morley, 2006).

This occurred at a time when the National Curriculum for

Physical Education (NCPE) (2000), promoted inclusion as a

key objective, and unlike the 1992 and 1995 curriculum moved

from a “product” to a more “process” focus. So schools’ role of

supporting elite athlete development has been continually out-

lined by either the NCPE (1992) (DES/WO, 1992) or various

policies, such as “A Sporting Future for All” (DCMS, 2000),

Game Plan (DCSM/Strategy Unit 2002), the National Strategy

for Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links

(PESSCYL) (DfES/DCMS, 2003), the PE and Sport Strategy

for Young People (PESSYP) (DCSF/DCMS, 2008) and to a

lesser extent the Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme (TASS)

(DCMS 2004).

So whilst NCPE (2000) clearly aimed to be inclusive other

policies and initiatives sought to support and develop elite ath-

letes within the PE arena. Croston (2012: 61) points out

“merging the aims of PE and sport in policy added to the dis-

cursive…about what is actually educationally worthwhile prac-

tice in PE” and criticism highlights the shift towards “elite de-

velopment, competition, and school sport”. This, alongside the

somewhat conflicting rhetoric of “inclusion” and “talent id”

could be seen to place physical educationalists in a confusing

predicament. This is perhaps likely to be further compounded

by the recent National Curriculum in England framework

document for consultation (DoE, 2013) with one stated aim to

ensure all pupils “develop competence to excel in a broad r ange

of physical activities” (DoE, 2013: 179). Previously the DCSF

(2007) stated talented students were encompassed by the ability

to excel in sport and artistic performance, which seems very

similar to the more recent statement (DoE, 2013) outlined,

which relates to all pupils and not talented pupils alone. Clearly

the statements and aspirations conflict and it is perhaps ques-

tionable whether all pupils can be competent enough to excel in

G. GRIFFITHS, R. BILLARD

a range of activities. Regardless, this competence is based on

gross motor development which has been “overlooked” in early

education due to misconceptions that this naturally occurs

(Clarke, 2007).

To facilitate competence pupils need to develop certain

movement patterns, the key being breadth and balance of ex-

perience and a range of activity settings. Whitehead (2010: 3)

continues, “there is a great deal of empirical research, for ex-

ample, in cognitive science, that supports the fundamental im-

portance of movement development”. PE in school is the main

place where young people are assured of having experiences for

physical skill development (Bailey, 2006; Whitehead, 2013), it

is the place where PE teachers have the unique position of all

pupils available (Williams, 2008). It represents perhaps the one

opportunity for every young person to develop their motivation,

confidence and competence in a balanced and breadth activities.

Individuals who perform a broad range of movement compe-

tencies within their own physical capacity, applying these dif-

ferently and understanding how they can develop further, en-

compass the term physical literacy (Whitehead, 2001). This

literacy is built on blocks of movement termed Fundamental

Movement Skills (FMS) which begin to develop in early child-

hood years (Stodden, Goodway, Langendorfer, Roberton, Rud-

isill, Garcia, & Garcia, 2008) and are generally categorised into

three different areas: locomotor, object control and manipulat-

ive skills. However Croston (2012) points out that talent identi-

fication in PE may undermine the participatory teaching prac-

tices which work toward developing the physically literate in-

dividuals (Whitehead, 2001) outlined previously. However this

integration has perhaps been longstanding and is not aided by

the often competitive bias of extra-curricular activities (Kirk,

2013).

There is a growing body of evidence (van Beurden, Zask,

Barnett, & Dietrich, 2002; Stratton, McWhannell, Foweather,

Henaghan, Graves, Ridgers, & Hepples, 2009; Lemos, Avigo,

& Barela; 2012; Stodden et al., 2008) that many children are

delayed, or do not obtain proficiency in FMS development.

This contrasts previous opinion, supporting the notion that

children do not naturally learn FMS (Clarke, 2007) and it has to

be nurtured. Development of these competences is a primary

underlying mechanism that promotes engagement in physical

activity whilst reduced development of motor competence cor-

responds to lower perceived motor skill competence and less

physical activity (Stodden et al., 2008; Breslin, Murphy, Mc-

Kee, Delaney, & Dempster, 2012). Supporting these findings

Okely and Booth (2004) found that the prevalence of mastery

and near mastery in primary school children (aged 7.3 yrs) was

low, with boys performing better in object control tasks and

girls better in skipping. Using a similar method in children aged

9 - 10 yrs, Stratton et al. (2009) found that boys prevalence of

mastery did not exceed 60% and in girls only the hop exceeded

30%. This highlights a real concern as the expected age for

mastery of FMS is 8/9 yrs (Gallahue & Cleland, 2007). Whilst

there are clear concerns about the overall FMS of our children,

it might be expected that within the UK, given the support re-

ceived through the PESSCYL strategy, at least those identified

within schools as Gifted and Talented (G & T) individuals and

those who participate outside school PE lessons would have

developed to mastery level. Given previous findings at KS2 it

would be interesting to quantify FMS at KS3 and compare the

abilities to G and T pupils. The aims of the study are to 1)

quantify and compare the FMS skills of a Year 9 cohort and a

Year 9 G & T cohort and 2) consider the influence participation

out of the school curriculum having on these skills.

Methods

Participants

Twenty six G & T pupils participating in a Junior Athlete

Education (JAE) day and nineteen pupils from a local secon-

dary school volunteered to take part in the study. Their ages

ranged from 13 - 14 yrs, girls (n = 23) and boys (n = 22). Con-

sent was gained from the Head teacher/G and T co-ordinator

and the right to withdraw at any time was re-iterated at the be-

ginning of filming. The study was approved by Edge Hill Uni-

versity Ethics C o mmittee.

Assessment of Fundamental Movement Skills

Each skill was assessed against 6 components considered

essential to mastery of the skill. The skills were assessed using

a process orientated measure focused on how the skill is

performed (Knudson & Morrison, 2002). Each skill was broken

in to 6 components which afforded measurement a level of

objectivity beyond that of a single score (van Beurden et al.,

2002). Assessment was by video analysis of the specific criteria

using a checklist derived from an existing assessment tool

(Department of Education and Training, NSW, 2000) and with

established validity and reliability (Okely & Booth, 2000). The

assessment tool enabled direct comparison to previous research.

(Foweather, McWhanell, Henaghan, Lees, & Stratton, 2008;

Beurden et al., 2002).

The five skills that were assessed were vertical jump, hop,

throw, kick and balance. The skills were considered due to their

relative simplicity and variety. Recordings of each skill were

taken from identical angles, with optimised image size and with

separate cameras set up for the right/left handed throws and

kicks. Data was taken from SD card converted to DVD for ana-

lysis. One trained assessor conducted all fundamental move-

ment skill assessments. Groups were tested on separate days

which limited any interaction. Children were given a verbal

instruction and a single demonstration of each skill before they

completed five trials. Children were grouped (n = 5) and moved

between stations where the specific skills were filmed. Each

subject rested whilst the group undertook their trial giving each

participant a similar rest period between each trial. Additionally

the children were given a questionnaire which was used to un-

derstand the amount and type of activity they regularly partici-

pated in outside of the school.

Data Analysis

Each skill was rated either 0 = non-mastery or 1 = mastery.

Mastery/near Mastery was deemed to be 5 out of the six criteria

being successfully demonstrated, whilst failure was deemed as

demonstrating 4 or less. Frequency statistics were used to cal-

culate overall, skill and criteria mastery from which group

comparisons were analysed. Statistics, chi2 with continuity cor-

rection was used.

Results

Mastery Levels

Figures 1 and 2 show the mastery levels of both groups in

Open Access

216

G. GRIFFITHS, R. BILLARD

each of the five skills. Mastery levels are separated by gender

showing mastery and non-mastery.

Participation in Activities

Table 1 reveals the participation rates of the pupils outside

their classroom experience. This has been further categorized

into the type of activity. Where a pupil engages in more than

one activity area they have been included in both/all of the

areas. The table shows that within both groups invasion games

was the area in which the majority participated out of school. It

also highlighted that only female participated in aesthetic ac-

tivities out of school.

In both groups invasion games are the predominant activities

participated in outside the curriculum. Aesthetic activities

Figure 1.

Mastery and non-mastery of G & T males and females.

100

MFMFMFMFMF

KickThrowHopV JumpBalance

%Mastery

Non-Mastery

Figure 2.

Mastery and non-mastery of males and fem ales in Yr 9.

Table 1.

Involvem ent in extra-curricular activities.

Activity Boys Girls

Total Year 9 G & T Total Year 9G & T

Invasion 21 9 12 15 6 9

S & F 2 2 0 1 0 1

N & W 6 6 0 3 1 2

Aesthetic 0 0 0 9 3 6

Athletics 1 0 1 5 4 1

Other 2 1 1 0 0 0

(dance, gym and cheerleading) are only experienced by the

females.

Group Compariso n

Significant differences between the G & T group and Year 9

cohort occur in both the Throw (2 =4.148, p < 0.05) and the V.

Jump (2 = 11.135, p < 0.001).

Gender Comparison

Significant differences between males and females occur in

the kick (2 = 3.870, p < 0.05). Whilst not significant, near sig-

nificant differences (2 = 3.736, p = 0.053) occur in throwing

highlighting gender differences in object control skills.

Discussion

It is expected that the majority of FMS should be achieved

by the age of seven years (Clarke, 2007). However in this study,

which only looked at 5 FMS, mastery of the skills is only

achieved by 67% (males) and 21% (female) of G & T pupils

and 10% (male), 22 % (female) of Yr 9 pupils. As the skills

viewed were a mixture of object control, balance and locomotor

skills it was apparent that at the age of 13 - 14 yrs young people

may lack a range of movement skills and within both of the

groups observed, do not achieve mastery in all of these basic

skills. This finding reflects those of previous studies looking at

younger children (van Buerden et al., 2002; Stratton et al.,

2009). The results show that, whilst the groups differ in their

FMS proficiency levels the G & T have a 27% increased over-

all mastery, however not all the G & T pupils were proficient at

the five FMS skills tested. Whilst this might be explained

within specific object control skills, it is perhaps not expected

in basic locomotor skills e.g. hopping which has at best 40%

mastery in both groups. This poor mastery might suggest ex-

perience of hopping is limited both within and outside of school

perhaps being viewed as of limited pedagogical importance.

However care must be taken when interpreting this result as

Barnett, van Beurden, Morgan, Lincoln, Zask and Beard (2009)

found this test to be the least reliable of all the tests. However it

is clear that mastery of hopping is relatively poor.

The occurrence of significant FMS differences and the

ac hievement of some high levels of mastery are anomalous. Both

groups have a similar mastery of the football kick (G & T 60%,

Yr 9 53%) an object control skill. Table 2 shows that whilst

92% of G & T have mastered the vertical jump, which could be

Table 2.

Group comparison: FMS differences between the G & T and Yr 9

groups.

Difference s between G & T and Y r 9

Skill Chi2 Significance

Kick 0.001 0.915

Throw 4.148 0.042*

V. Jump 11.135 0.001**

Balance 0.861 0.654

Hop 0.011 0.915

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Open Access 217

G. GRIFFITHS, R. BILLARD

termed a relatively basic, perhaps non-specific skill, signifi-

cantly, 58% of Yr 9 have not. This kicking ability reflects the

overall high participation rate in invasion games and more spe-

cifically football (50%), which in turn is influenced by the cul-

tural values of society (Gallahue & Ozman, 2006). The signifi-

cant group differences in jumping mastery, as seen in Table 2,

seem to indicate a lack of this activity, related activity or spe-

cific skill activity within the curriculum. In contrast to kicking,

reduced Yr 9 jumping mastery was observed even when out of

school activities that require some basic jumping (netball/bas-

ketball) were well represented, indicating that “related” sport

participation may not influence FMS. Additionally, there is

decreased throwing mastery (compared to jumping) and a sig-

nificant difference between groups, which is perhaps accounted

for by this being an object control skill (Stratton et al., 2009;

Booth, Okely, McLellan, Phongsavan, Macaskill, Patterson,

Wright, & Holland, 1999). This explanation should reflect a

difference in the activities the groups experienced out of school

however it does not, with the Yr 9 participating in more

“throwing related activities”. However the FMS test for kicking

reflects the sport specific skill more closely than the throwing

and jumping tests which may influence results. Looking at both

throwing and jumping it could be argued that, 1) sport specific

development does not assist (even detracts from) the develop-

ment of certain FMS, 2) that the sport specific skills required

may not be similar to the FMS tested or, 3) perhaps both. The

lack of hopping mastery in both groups suggests it is neither

encountered in the school curriculum by the groups nor experi-

enced within the activities engaged in outside of school hours.

Within kicking, Table 3 highlights females significantly re-

duced kicking mastery and within throwing reduced mastery,

34% compared to 64% in males. Whilst not significant this is a

clear gender difference in throwing ability reflecting the find-

ings of Stratton et al. (2009). These gender and object control

differences reflect the findings of Booth et al. (2006) and Bar-

nett, van Beurden, Morgan, Brooks and Beard (2000). Signifi-

cant gender differences do not occur in the hop, vertical jump

and balance.

Expected timing of FMS mastery differs between skills but

there are expected ages between 5 to 9 years by which specific

skill criteria should be mastered (DoE, 1996). In specific skills

certain criteria proved more difficult to master. Within object

control skills in kicking particularly G & T girls, struggled to

“forward and sideward swing of arm opposite swing leg” and

“Hip extension and knee flexion of at least 90 degrees during

preliminary kicking movement”. In throwing “arm nearly

Table 3.

Gender comparison: FMS differences between males and females.

Difference s between male and females

Skill Chi2 Significance

Kick 3.870 0.049*

Throw 3.736 0.053

V. Jump 0.009 0.924

Balance 0.000 1.000

Hop 0.000 1.000

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

straightened behind the body” and “marked sequential hip to

shoulder rotation during the throw” were poorly mastered. In

the vertical jump between 55% - 60% could not “crouch with

knees bent and arms behind the body” and “forceful upward

thrust of arms as legs straighten to take off”. In hopping, “takes

off and lands on forefoot” and “able to hop on both right and

left legs”. This reflects the findings of Scott, Williams and Horn

(2003) that use of the open kinetic chain occurred as technique

became more mature. All being mastered later reflecting the

model of expected criteria mastery (DoE, 1996). So whilst

some of the basic criteria are mastered, more complex, co-ordi-

nated criteria are not.

As the expectation is that this occurs before KS3 this implies

that at a crucial developmental time children are not experienc-

ing, certainly not in any depth, activities which would encour-

age this development (Hardy, King, Farrell, Maciver, &

Howlett, 2010). Given the influence of perceived competence

on participation and achievement it is also perhaps unlikely

then that a policy promoting competition is going to be more

successful if basic skills are not being achieved. The lack of

FMS mastery is likely to have an effect on the development of

physical literacy, participation throughout life and long term

athlete development (LTAD). At a time when health, competi-

tion and achievement are high on Government agendas, re-

duced FMS development and its’ long term influence on moti-

vation and participation needs to be addressed if physical edu-

cation targets are to be achieved. Interestingly Koshy, Pin-

heiro-Torres and Portman-Smith (2010) found the topic of

younger children was mainly ignored when auditing confer-

ences and courses on G & T education between 2007 and 2009,

nor could they find training courses to support teachers of the

younger age group. This would clearly disadvantage instruction

of the younger age group at a time when many are arguing for

more specialist input. Kirk (2005: 2013) has argued that PE

specialism teachers should preferably be based at primary level,

when pupils are initially receptive to motor skill development

(Clark, 2007). Strengthening this argument Lemos, Avigo and

Barela (2012: 20) found “at the end of a school year, children

enrolled in physical education activities, provided by specialists,

showed better performance than children enrolled in recrea-

tional activities”. Whilst the new NCPE guidelines highlight

competition as important and primary school PE/sport invest-

ment is to be re-introduced, it is questionable, considering the

past investment and the findings outlined, whether this alone is

the answer. As Lemos et al. (2012) found and Hardy et al.

(2010) concluded that provision by specialist teachers at pri-

mary/kindergarten level providing regular physical activity

would promote better development of gross motor skills.

Conclusion

This research highlights that skill development is not as

“rounded” as it could be for pupils and even with identification

and investment of our “talented” pupils; skill development may

be specific activity. Many children are not achieving the levels

of expectations particularly the more complex FMS criteria

perhaps, in part, due to a lack of balance and depth in funda-

mental movement skills within our schools but also possibly as

a result of specific sport practice within clubs at a young age.

Mastery in some skills, particularly object control skills, may

benefit and be influenced by sport specialization at young age.

However this specialization may detract from FMS develop-

Open Access

218

G. GRIFFITHS, R. BILLARD

ment and, in the long term, may limit overall physical devel-

opment for life compromising both the ability to excel across

activities and overall sporting excellence. Even with overt in-

clusion policies and G & T policies being prevalent within

schools and PE, it appears that those skills which are suggested

as the building bricks for movement, and therefore in part

physical literacy, are not being fully developed in our children.

It is perhaps time to look carefully at the construction and in-

struction of the “physical” provision in our primary schools to

ensure these building blocks are developed.

REFERENCES

Bailey, R., Tan, J. E. C., & Morley, D. (2004). Talented pupils in

physical education: A national survey of policy and practice in Eng-

land. Physical Education a nd Sport Pedagogy, 14, 59-72.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408980701712007

Bailey, R. (2006). Physical Education and Sport in Schools: A review

of benefits and outcomes. Journal of School Health, 76, 397-401.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00132.x

Barnett, L., van Beurden, E., Morgan, P. J., Lyndon, O., & Beard, J. R.

(2010). Gender differences in motor skill proficiency from childhood

to adolescence. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81,

162-170.

Barnett, L., van Beurden, E., Morgan, P. J., Lincoln, D., Zask, A., &

Beard, J. (2009). Interrater objectivity for field-based fundamental

motor skill assessment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

80, 363-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599571

Booth, M. L., Okely, T., McLellan, L., Phongsavan, P., Macaskill, P.,

Patterson, J., Wright, J., & Holland, B. (1999). Mastery of funda-

mental motor skills among New south wales school students: Preva-

lence and sociodemographic distribution. Journal of Science and

Medicine in Sport, 2, 93-105.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1440-2440(99)80189-3

Booth, M., Okely, A. D., Denney-Wilson, E., Hardy, L., Yang, B., &

Dobbins, T. (2006). NSW schools physical activity and nutrition

survey (SPANS). Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Health.

Breslin, G., Murphy, M., McKee, D., Delaney, B., & Dempster (2012).

The effects of teachers trained in a fundamental movement skills

programme on children’s self-perceptions and motor competence.

European Physical Education Review, 18, 114-126.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356336X11430657

Clarke, J. E. (2007). On the problem of motor skill development. Jour-

nal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 78 , 39-44.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2007.10598023

Croston, A. (2012). “A clear and obvious ability to perform physical

activity”: Revisiting physical education teachers’ perceptions of tal-

ent in PE and sport. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18,

60-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.631001

DCMS (2000). A sporting future for all. London, UK: Department for

Culture, Media & Sport.

DCMS (2004). The talented athlete scholarship scheme. London, UK:

Department for Culture, Media & Sport.

DCMS & Sport/Strategy Unit (2002). Game plan: A strategy for deliv-

ering government’s sport and physical activity objectives. London,

UK: Department for Culture, Media & Sport/St rategy Unit.

DCSF (2007). Effective provision for gifted and talented students in

secondary education. London, UK: Department for Children, Schools

and Families.

DCSF/DCMS (2008). The Physical Education and school sport strat-

egy for young people. London, UK: Department for Children,

Schools and Families/Department for Cult ure, Media and Sport.

DES/WO (1992). Physical education in the national curriculum. Lon-

don, UK: Department of Education and Science/Welsh Office.

DET (1992). Policy and implementation strategies for the education of

gifted and talented students. State of NSW, Australia: Department of

Education and Training, Curriculum K-12.

DET (2000). Get skilled: Get active. A K-6 resource to support the

teaching of fundamental movement skills State of NSW. Australia:

Department of Educa tio n an d Training.

DfEE (2000) Excellence in Cities; Report March 1999-September 2000.

London, UK: Department for Education and Employment.

DfES/DCMS (2003). The national strategy for physical education,

school sport and club links (PESSCL). Learning through PE and

sport. London, UK: Department for Education and Skills/Department

for Culture, Media and Sport.

DoE (1993). National Excellence: A case for developing America’s

Talent. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Im-

provement.

DoE (1996). Fundamental Motor Skills: A Manual for Classroom Tea-

chers. Melbourne, Victoria: Department of Education.

DoE (2013). Physical Education: Programmes of study for Key Stages

1-4. A consultation document. London, UK: Department for Educa-

tion.

Foweather, L., Mc Whann ell, N., Hen ag han , J., Lees, A., Stratton, G., &

Batterham, A. (2008) Effect of a 9-wk. after-school multiskill’s club

on fundamental movement skill proficiency in 8 to 9 yr old children:

an exploratory trial. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 106, 745-754.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.106.3.745-754

Gallahue, D., & Cleland-Donnelly, F. (2007). Developmental physical

education for all children (4th ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Gallahue, D. L., & Ozmun, J. C. (2006). Understanding Motor Devel-

opment: Infants, Children, Adolescents, Adults (6th ed). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Hardy, L. A., Kingl, Farrell, L., Macniven, R., & Howlett, S. (2010).

Fundamental movement skills among australian preschool children.

Journal of Science and M e d i c i n e in Sport, 13, 503-50 8.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2009.05.010

Kirk, D. (2005). Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participa-

tion: the importance of early learning experience. European Physical

Education Review, 11, 239.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356336X05056649

Kirk, D. (2013). What is the future for physical education in the twenty-

first century? In S. Capel, & M. Whitehead (Eds.), Debates in physi-

cal education (pp. 220-231). Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.

Koshy, V., Pinheiro-Torres, C., & Portman-Smith, C. (2010). The land-

scape of gifted and talented education in england and wales: How are

teachers implementing policy? Research Papers in Education, 27,

167-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2010.509514

Knudson, V., & Morrison, S. (2002). Qualitative analysis of human

movement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Lemos, G. A., Avigo, E. L., & Barela, J. A. (2012) Physical education

in kindergarten promotes fundamental movement skills. Advances in

Physical Education, 2, 17-21.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ape.2012.21003

Okley, A. D., & Booth, M. L. (2000). The development and validation

of an instrument to assess children’s fundamental movement skill

ability. 2000 Pre-Olympic Congress Sports Medicine and Physical

Education Internal C o ng r e ss on Sport Science, Brisbane, Australia.

Okely, A. D., Booth, M. L., & Patterson, J. W. (2001) Relationship of

physical activity to fundamental movement skills among adolescents.

Medicine and Science in Sports a n d Exercise, 33, 1899-1904.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200111000-00015

Okley, A. D., & Booth, M. L. (2004). Mastery of fundamental move-

ment skills among children in new south wales: prevalence and so-

ciodemographic distribution. Journal of Science and Medicine in

Sport, 7, 358-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1440-2440(04)80031-8

Scott, M. A., Williams, M. A., & Horn, R. R. (2003). The co-ordination

of kicking techniques in children. In G. Savelsbergh, K. Davids, J.

van der Kamp, & S. J. Bennett (Eds.), Development of movement

co-ordination in children:Applications in the Fields of Ergonomics,

Health Sciences and Sport (pp. 241-250). L ondon: Routledge.

Stodden, D. F., Goodway, J. D., Langendorfer, S. J., Roberton, M. A.,

Rudisill, M. E., Garcia, C., & Garcia, L. E. (2008). A developmental

perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity:

An emergent re lationsh ip. Quest, 60, 290-306.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582

Stratton, G., McWhan nell, N., Foweather, L., Henaghan, J., Graves, L.,

Ridgers, N. D., & Hepples, J. (2009) The A-CLASS project research

findings: Summary Report. Liverpoo, UK : Spo rtslinx.

Open Access 219

G. GRIFFITHS, R. BILLARD

Open Access

220

van Beurden, E., Zask, A., Barnett, L., & Dietrich, U. (2002) Funda-

mental movement skills—How do primary school children perform?

The “Move it Groove it” program in rural Australia. Journal of Sci-

ence & Medicine in Sport, 53, 244-252.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1440-2440(02)80010-X

van Beurden, E., Barnett, L. M., Zask, A,. Dietrich, U. C., Brooks, L.

O., & Beard, J. (2003). Can we skill and activate children through

primary school physical education lessons? Preventive Medicine, 36,

493-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0091-7435(02)00044-0

Whitehead, M. E. (2001). The concept of physical literacy. European

Journal of Physical E d uc a t io n , 2, 127-138.

Whitehead, M. E. (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse.

Abingdon. Oxford: Routledge.

Whitehead, M. E. (2013). What is physical literacy and how does it

impact on physical education? In S. Capel, & M. Whitehead (Eds.),

Debates in Physical Education (pp. 37-52). Abingdon, Oxford: Rout-

ledge.

Williams, G. (2008). Gifted and talented in physical education… or is it

sport? Physical Educ ation Matters, 3, 19- 22.