Opinions on the Development of Motor Abilities in Physical Education Lessons

Abstract

The school curriculum, as a document directing the activity of physical education and sport, is approached by each specialised teacher from different perspectives, according to their personal views. In the operationalization of general and specific competences that should be acquired by pupils, the teacher’s role is essential. For this reason, we think it is important to know how the development of motor abilities is managed during physical education lessons in primary schools, where the foundations of child’s motricity are laid. The aim of this paper is to investigate the opinions of specialists on the development of motor abilities in physical education lessons at the primary education level, with special reference to flexibility, as a motor ability. The research method used was the opinion survey questionnaire, and the interviewed subjects were 313 physical education teachers in pre-university education. The questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the school year 2015-2016 via the Google Forms application within the Google Drive service. There were collected 122 direct responses (at conferences, methodical sessions) and 191 online responses (on social networks dedicated to teachers). The result analysis was performed using the SPSS software program, version 15. The obtained results reveal the specialists’ opinions on the place and importance given to the development of conditional, coordination and intermediate motor abilities in the content of physical education lesson at the primary school level.

Keywords: Primary educationmotor abilitiesflexibilityphysical education lesson

Introduction

The first planning document achieved by the physical education teacher is the annual plan. The methodology for developing this document highlights that, in combining the lesson themes, it is not recommended to approach:

With reference to the development of motor skills, the methodology for preparing the annual plan makes the following recommendations:

Problem Statement

In the physical education lesson aimed at developing the motor abilities of primary school children, the teacher must observe some rules:

The specialist in physical education must act on the coordination abilities in both semesters, and only in certain stages of the year, on the conditional ones. The development of flexibility can be achieved throughout the lesson, even in the 3rd sequence, using exercises for joints, with and without resistance, or stretching exercises performed individually and with a partner (Grigore & Dinţică, 2010, pp. 6-7).

In the literature, there are authors who present differently the durations recommended for the thematic sequences aimed at the development of motor abilities:

Research Questions

How do specialists act to develop motor abilities in general and flexibility in particular during the physical education lesson?

Purpose of the Study

This paper aims to investigate the opinions of specialists in physical education on the development of motor abilities in primary school children.

Research Methods

The method used in this research is the opinion survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed in the summer of 2015 using the Google Forms application within the Google Drive service and was administered between 1 September 2015 and 5 February 2016.

The respondents were 313 physical education teachers in pre-university education. The questionnaire was administered in two ways: directly (122 subjects), at conferences and methodical sessions, and online (199 subjects), on social networks dedicated to teachers.

The items used are presented together with the result analysis. The responses are scaled on five levels, where 1 means to a very small extent, 2 to a small extent, 3 to some extent, 4 to a large extent, 5 to a very large extent or 1 means never, 2 to a small extent, 3 relative agreement with the statement, 4 strong agreement with the statement, 5 in each lesson or 1 means full disagreement with the statement, 2 quite rarely, 3 relative agreement with the statement, 4 strong agreement with the statement, 5 full agreement with the statement.

Findings

The results were tabulated and analysed using the SPSS software program, version 15. The reliability of the questionnaire (which is not standardised), was calculated using the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (Internal consistency), whose value is 0.873, namely higher than 0.70, which confers fidelity (Popa, 2009, p. 11). Table 01 shows the items 1-3 and their statistical analysis.

Item 1. How much attention do you pay in the instructive-educational (teaching) process to the following components of motor ability in the physical education lesson for primary school pupils? (Strength, speed, endurance, coordination abilities, flexibility)

The obtained results show that speed and coordination abilities are the two main components of motor ability that receive the greatest attention: 40.6% for speed and 60.1% for coordination.

Item 2. To what extent do you prepare evaluation sheets for the following components of motor ability after the tests performed in the physical education lesson by primary school pupils?(Strength, speed, endurance, coordination abilities, flexibility)

The responses emphasise that speed and coordination abilities are the two main components of motor ability for which evaluation sheets are prepared.

For speed, as a motor ability, 36.4% of respondents mention that they prepare such sheets to a very large extent, and 38.3% to a large extent. For coordination abilities, 36.4% of respondents report that they prepare such sheets to a very large extent, and 32.6% to a large extent.

Item 3. To what extent are the following categories of skills important, from your point of view, for the physical development, motor skill learning, exercise capacity development and facilitation of integration into the natural and social environments, in the physical education lesson for primary school pupils? (Motor, psychomotor and psychological skills)

The responses put motor skills (63.3%) and psychomotor skills (61.3%) on the 1^st place as importance, and only 46.0% of respondents give very much importance to the psychological aspects.

Table 02 shows the results for items 4-5, which aim to find out the teachers’ opinions on the moment of using means specific to joint mobility and stability within the physical education lesson.

Item 4. Do you use means specific to body expression activities in the physical education lesson? (1 - Never; 2 - To a small extent; 3 - Relative agreement with the statement; 4 - Strong agreement with the statement; 5 - In each lesson)

It is noted that 23.0% of respondents use body expression means in each physical education lesson, and 42.2% express their strong agreement with the statement.

Item 5. Do you use means involving joint mobility and stability in the physical education lesson? (1 - Never; 2 - To a small extent; 3 - Relative agreement with the statement; 4 - Strong agreement with the statement; 5 - In each lesson)

The means involving joint mobility and stability are used in each lesson by 41.1% of the interviewed teachers.

Table 03 shows the results for item 6, aiming to find out the teachers’ opinions on the moment of using means specific to joint mobility and stability within the physical education lesson.

Item 6. In what instruction sequence do you use means specific to joint mobility and stability? (1 - Preparing the body for effort; 2 - Selective influencing of musculoskeletal system; 3 - Addressing the learning units scheduled as lesson themes; 4 - Body recovery after exercise; 5 - Other)

The obtained responses indicate that the means specific to joint mobility and stability are mainly used in the 2^nd instruction sequence, Selective influencing of the musculoskeletal system (72.5%), followed by the 1^st sequence, Preparing the body for effort (18.5%).

This assertion is supported by the results shown in Figure 01 , where it can be noted the number of respondents who use these means in each sequence of instruction.

Table 03 shows that a relatively close, but lower percentage (13.4%) of specialists use means specific to joint mobility and stability in the 4^th sequence, Body recovery after exercise.

Figure 01 shows that 24 out of the 313 surveyed specialists use means specific to joint mobility and stability in the 3^rd instruction sequence, Addressing the learning units scheduled as lesson themes.

See Full Size >

Table 04 shows the items 7-10 and the results of statistical processing.

Item 7. Do you think that joint mobility and stability are synonymous with the concept of flexibility? (1 - Full disagreement with the statement; 2 - Quite rarely; 3 - Relative agreement with the statement; 4 -Strong agreement with the statement; 5 - Full agreement with the statement)

The results demonstrate that several respondents believe that joint mobility and stability are synonymous with the concept of flexibility. Thus, 16.6% of respondents fully agree with the statement, and 32.6% express their strong agreement with the statement.

Item 8. Should flexibility be treated, in the physical education lesson, to the same extent as other components of motor ability? (1 - Full disagreement with the statement; 2 - Quite rarely; 3 - Relative agreement with the statement; 4 - Strong agreement with the statement; 5 - Full agreement with the statement)

The responses highlight that, in the physical education lesson, flexibility should be treated to the same extent as other components of motor ability. Thus, 28.8% of respondents fully agree with the statement, and 34.5% strongly agree with the statement.

Item 9. Do you consider it necessary to introduce means specific to flexibility, as an intermediate ability, in the thematic content for primary schools? (1 - Full disagreement with the statement; 2 - Quite rarely; 3 - Relative agreement with the statement; 4 - Strong agreement with the statement; 5 - Full agreement with the statement)

The results show that most respondents consider it necessary to introduce means specific to flexibility, as an intermediate ability, in the thematic content for primary schools. Fewer respondents express their full agreement with the statement (24.6%), compared to those who strongly agree with the statement (35.1%).

Item 10. Do you consider it necessary to introduce flexibility, as an intermediate ability, in the specialised syllabus and implicitly in the thematic content for lower secondary schools? (1 - Full disagreement with the statement; 2 - Quite rarely; 3 - Relative agreement with the statement; 4 - Strong agreement with the statement; 5 - Full agreement with the statement)

The obtained results emphasise that the respondents consider it necessary to introduce flexibility in the specialised syllabus and implicitly in the thematic content for lower secondary schools. 27.8% of them fully agree with the statement, 31.0% strongly agree with the statement, and 29.4% relatively agree with the statement.

Conclusion

Analysing the responses to items 1 and 2, we find out that, in the primary education lesson, fewer specialists pay very much attention to flexibility, as an intermediate ability, compared to other motor abilities. We note that the interviewed teachers pay very much attention to coordination abilities, this age period being optimum to widen the gestural repertoire and movement ability, develop coordination, etc. (Epuran & Stănescu, 2010, pp. 192-193; Golu, 2010, p. 144; Horghidan, 2000, p. 62).

We argue the need for paying very much attention to flexibility, as an intermediate ability, in the primary education lesson, through the results of the study achieved by Arnould (2009). The study had as research subjects professional football players and proved that, with the increase in the level of flexibility, their technique has also improved significantly. Thus, starting from this premise, we assert that, in physical education too, the motor repertoire can be enriched if we develop flexibility.

According to the analysis of items 4-5, an increased number of specialists use means specific to body expression activities and involve joint mobility in most lessons.

Analysing the results for item 6, we note that many specialists (72.5%) use means specific to joint mobility and stability within the instruction sequence called Selective influencing of musculoskeletal system. It is surprising for us that very few specialists (7.7%) introduce as a theme, in the instructive-educational process, learning units specific to the development of flexibility, as an intermediate ability. Thus, we can state that not all teachers pay the same attention to flexibility, as an intermediate ability, as to other components of motor ability, which is also confirmed by the analysis of responses to items 8, 9 and 10.

Based on the obtained results on the relevance and consistency of the questionnaire, all supported by the statistical analysis, we can draw the following conclusions:

Acknowledgments

We thank the specialists in physical education for their kindness of completing our opinion questionnaire.

References

• Arnould, L. (2009). Football et mémoire de fin d’étude de kinésithérapie. Retrieved from http://norbert.grau.pagesperso-orange.fr/pages-sports/etirements-football.htm
• Bota, A., & Teodorescu, S. (2010). Educaţia fizică – disciplină în planul de învăţământ. Bucureşti: Discobolul.
• Dragnea, A., Bota, A., Stănescu, M., Teodorescu, S., Şerbănoiu, S., & Tudor, V. (2006). Educaţie fizică şi sport – Teorie şi didactică. Bucureşti: FEST.
• Epuran, M., & Stănescu, M. (2010). Învăţarea motrică - aplicaţii în activităţile corporale. Bucureşti: Discobolul.
• Golu, F. (2010). Psihologia dezvoltării umane. Bucureşti: Editura Universitară.
• Grigore, Gh., & Dinţică, G. (2010). Metodica dezvoltării calităţilor motrice la copiii de 7-11 ani. Bucureşti: Discobolul.
• Horghidan, V. (2000). Problematica psihomotricităţii. Bucureşti: Globus.
• Popa, M. (2009). Analiza de itemi din perspectiva teoriei clasice a testului. Bucureşti: Universitatea din Bucureşti. Retrieved from http://www.mpopa.ro/statistica_licenta/sem_2/statm_08_an_itemi.pdf
• Stănescu, M. (2012). Didactica educaţiei fizice. Bucureşti: Editura Universitară.