Paulo Felipe Ribeiro Bandeira^1,2,*; Mariele Santayana De Souza¹; Larissa Wagner Zanella¹; Nadia Cristina Valentini¹

¹ Federal University do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
² Leão Sampaio University Center (UniLeão), Juazeiro do Norte, Ceará, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

The domain and maintenance of fundamental motor skills are essential for acquisition of more complex skills that are used in sport activities. The aim of this study was review systematically the experimental and quasi-experimental studies which implemented the mastery motivational climate in motor interventions and verify impact in fundamental motor skills of children. A search without language and date restrictions in eight databases was realized. Motor intervention studies that used the mastery motivational climate with focus in strategy for optimize the locomotors and object control skills performance in children 3 to 10 year-old were included. The evaluate of methodological quality was realized by two independents reviewers. Six papers that described motor interventions oriented by mastery motivational climate were included. The participants were children with identified motor delay, with or without cognitive or motor disabilities. All the studies indicated positive effect of intervention programs in locomotor and object control skills. The mastery motivational climate is an efficient methodological proposal teaching to promote development of locomotors and object control skills in children with motor delay.

Keywords: fundamental motor skills; motor intervention; climate motivation; mastery; children; systematic review.

The domain and maintenance of fundamental motor skills are essential for the acquisition of more complex skills, which are used in sports activities (Clark & Metcalfe, 2002; Gallahue, Ozmun, & Goodway, 2013). The competence in fundamental motor skills during childhood is essential for participation in games and sports in adolescence and adulthood (Barnett, Van Beurden, Morgan, Brooks, & Beard, 2008; Robinson et al., 2006; Stodden et al., 2008). Therefore, involvement in physical activities may have a positive effect on increasing physical activity levels and adopting a healthy lifestyle, reducing the problems related to physical inactivity and obesity (Larouche, Boyer, Tremblay, & Longmuir, 2013, Laukkanen, Pesola, Havu, Sääkslahti, & Finni, 2014; Lloyd, Saunders, Bremer, & Tremblay, 2014).

A considerable number of researches in several countries report data from children with delays in fundamental motor skills and below expected competencies in a period of childhood in which they should have a diverse and efficient motor base (Draper, Achmat, Forbes, & Lambert, 2012; Goodway, Robinson, & Crowe, 2010; Hardy, King, Espinel, Okely, & Bauman, 2011; LeGear et al., 2012; Spessato, Gabbard, Valentini, & Rudisill, 2013; Venetsanou & Kambas, 2009). Considering the increasing rates of children with motor delays, researchers and teachers have been concerned with promoting compensatory programs with intervention strategies to minimize motor difficulties. Several studies report that motor interventions with appropriate strategies stimulate development and promote learning of key motor skills (Logan, Robinson, Webster, & Barber, 2013; Lubans, Morgan, Cliff, Barnett, & Okely, 2010; Morgan et al. Myer et al., 2015; Riethmuller, Jones, & Okely; 2009, Robinson et al., 2015, Valentini, 2002).

Researches also report that when methodological strategies that promote the motivation and autonomy of the child in the learning process their gains in motor intervention are optimized (Martin, Rudisill, & Hastie, 2009; Robinson & Goodway 2009; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004, 2002). At the present time, the teaching-learning methodologies implemented in compensatory programs involve less traditional classes with emphasis on the autonomy of the child, such as the motivation climate for mastery (Logan et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2009; Robinson & Goodway; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a; Valentini, 2002)

The TARGET dimensions allow the mapping of strategies related to the characteristics of the task (proposed activity) that the children engage in, the autonomy of the students, the recognition by the efforts, the groups formation with different characteristics, the monitoring of the learning process and the adequate time for the learning of each child (Valentini et al., 1999a, 1999b).

Given the benefits of Mastery Oriented Motivational Climate for learning fundamental motor skills, the aim of the present study was to systematically review the effectiveness of motor based intervention programs based on Motivation for Mastery in the fundamental motor skills of children.

This is a systematic review study. For this study, the PRISMA (Statement) guidelines will be used (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Grp, 2009).

The following inclusion criteria were defined: (1) quasi-experimental or experimental studies with a pre- and post-intervention design with a control group; (2) studies used the first or second edition of the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD), 2000); (3) had a sample aged less than three years or greater than 10 years and 11 months. Studies were excluded when: (1) they did not use validated test batteries for motor performance evaluation in children aged three to 10 years; (2) when they did not present locomotion skills, object control and broad motor quotient (sum of locomotion skills and object control scores); (3) were characterized as abstracts, theses, dissertations and articles of literature review or systematic and meta-analyses; (4) did not present all complete data from one or more groups, as well as studies without a group control.

The Control group with children 3 to 10 who participated in other methods of motor intervention different from the climate of motivation to mastery were considered in the present study. The variables investigated were performance in locomotion skills, object control and the broad motor quotient, characterized as continuous variables.

The search for the articles occurred in the Academic Search Premiere databases, CINAHL, PsycArticles, PsicINFO, Pubmed, Scopus, Sport Discus and Web of Science. In addition, a manual search was carried out in the references of the studies found to verify the existence of more studies that were not found in the search strategy, as well as known studies not located by the databases. The search for the data occurred until April 15, 2015. From a review of the literature, from the consultation to Descriptors in Health Sciences (DeCS) and search terms, Mesh and not Mesh (Pubmed) the following were defined Terms "children" "motor skill", "intervention", "mastery climate" and associated terms. Boolean operators AND and OR were used. The search terms were combined according to the characteristics of each database. There were no language restrictions on the search.

The Initially, two independent reviewers selected the studies. The stages of independent selection followed the order: step 1: electing studies evaluating titles and abstracts; Step 2: reading the article in full when the title and abstract were not enough. After the independent evaluation processes, the reviewers will compare individually chosen studies to identify decision-making differences, and therefore to establish a consensus in the selection of the studies. After defining the included studies, the reviewers read the complete articles selected for data extraction. The eligibility criteria assumed in the survey were considered in this process. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, using a standardized form considering the main characteristics of the studies: participants, type of intervention and variables, methodological characteristics.

Study Overview

The organization and selection of studies was careful and respected the process that can be observed in Figure 1.

The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated by the scale proposed by Goodson, Buhi, and Dunsmore (2006) adapted by Spessato (2012). The studies presented an average of 9.5 points out of a total of 14. In the study design, in the use of theory or model, and in the methods of analysis, 100% of the studies had a maximum score (Table 1).

Characteristics of Studies and Participants

From the 6 articles analysed, 4 were conducted in the United States (Logan et al., 2013, Martin et al., 2009, Robinson & Goodway, 2009) and 2 were carried out in Brazil (Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a, 2004b; Valentine, 2002). In relation to the methodological design, five studies were characterized as experimental (randomized) with a pre and post-intervention design with group control (Logan et al., 2013, Robinson & Goodway, 2009; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a, 2004b; Valentine, 2002); a study was characterized as quasi-experimental with group control (Martin et al., 2009). The children in the studies were between four and 10 years old, in one study, children in a subgroup of intervention and control had physical and cognitive deficits (Valentini & Rudisill, 2004b), in the other studies the children had a typical development (Logan et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2009; Robinson & Goodway 2009; Valentini, 2002; Valentine & Rudisill, 2004a). All studies selected children according to motor performance, children with delays were included in the research, after that stage the children were randomized, except for the study by Martin et al. (2009) in intervention and control groups. The characteristics of the Studies are described in Table 2.

Characteristics of Motor Interventions

In all studies, the intervention groups were submitted to motor intervention programs using the Motivation Climate for Mastery with the TARGET structure for the design of strategy in the classroom dimensions (Logan et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2009; Robinson & Goodway, 2009; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a, 2004b; Valentini, 2002). In the studies by Valentini (2002), Valentini & Rudisill (2004a) and Valentini & Rudisill, (2004b) the interventions were conducted in 12 weeks with 24 class sessions lasting between 60 and 70 minutes. In the study by Logan et al. (2013) the intervention lasted nine weeks with 18 sessions lasting 30 minutes; in the study by Martin et al. (2009) were 30 sessions in five weeks and in the study by Robinson & Goodway (2009) were 18 sessions in nine weeks with an average duration of 30 minutes. All interventions were conducted by experienced physical education teachers or by the researchers themselves with the assistance of trainees.

Test Batteries, Variables and Statistical Procedures

Impact of interventions on locomotion and object control skills

The studies that evaluated the impact of motor intervention based on motivation climate for mastery reported a significant effect of the program on locomotion and object control skills in the children who participated in the intervention (Logan et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2009; Robinson & Goodway, 2009; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a, 2004b; Valentini, 2002). From six studies four evaluated the impact of the intervention on locomotion skills and object control (Martin et al., 2009; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a, 2004b; Valentini, 2002), studies by Robinson and Goodway (2009) and Logan et al. (2013) evaluated only the impact of the intervention on object control skills. It is noteworthy that in the latter similar study changes resulting from the intervention program were reported in the intervention and group control.

Only two studies evaluated the impact of the intervention at other times (follow-up). The study by Valentini and Rudisill (2004b) reported that gains from intervention in locomotion and object control skills were maintained after six months in the intervention group. In the group control there was no change from pre to post intervention after this period and performance was similar to pre and post test performance. The study by Robinson and Goodway (2009) reported that in the follow-up were found significant improvements in the gross locomotion score in the children of the intervention group and the low-autonomy group.

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidences on the impact of motor interventions with the Motivation Climate for Mastery in the motor skills of locomotion and object control of children. The strategies used in the Motivation Climate for Mastery lead children to a motivating and challenging environment, experiencing diversified activities with different levels of difficulty, the child has autonomy to choose its tasks, is recognized by the efforts, works in groups and has strategies of self-evaluation. All these strategies of the Motivation Climate for Mastery allow meaningful and contextualized learning (Ames & Bell, 1990; Ames, 1992).

When the child has significant learning, persistence in motor activities and adequate perceived competence are guaranteed (Kirk, 2005; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a, 2004b; Valentini, 2002). Following the methodological proposal implemented in the reviewed studies, the more the child performs an activity in a varied way, the more competent it can become; even more, if she is aware that success in the task depends on her work, the possible failures are perceived as an impulse to work harder (Valentini, 2002; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a, 2004b). The feeling of competence can be strengthened when the child is faced with moderate levels of challenges, which with effort can overcome; perceive itself competent, therefore, it is possible when performing tasks with the objective of self-overcoming (Píffero & Valentini, 2010) factors that contribute to achieving motor proficiency.

It is fundamental that children achieve motor proficiency at the appropriate age. All studies reviewed reported improvement in scores or percentiles of locomotion and object control skills in children undergoing motor intervention. These results are consistent and follow a positive trend of studies that used the Motivation Climate for Mastery as an interventional approach that have generated positive impact, such as increased physical activity levels (Wadsworth, Robinson, Rudisill, & Getchell, 2013); improvement in eating habits and more controlled physical activity practices (Papaioannou, Milosis, Kosmidou, & Tsigilis, 2007) strengthening the perception of competence (Valentini & Rudisill, 2004a); greater proficiency in specialized tennis skills (Píffero & Valentini, 2010), decreased anxiety (Barkoukis, Tsorbatzoudis, & Grouios, 2008); and more frequent use of competitive athletic learning strategies (Morgan & Carpenter, 2002).

However, few studies are devoted to investigating the gains of motor intervention after the period of its implementation. Of all the studies reviewed, only two studies investigated whether gains were maintained over time after the end of the (follow-up) (Robinson & Goodway, 2009; Valentini & Rudisill, 2004b). In the study by Robinson and Goodway (2009) the gains from the intervention group remained in the follow-up, however the post-follow-up interval was only one week, considered a relatively short time to check changes in movement patterns. The study by (Valentini & Rudisill, 2004b) re-evaluated the children who participated in the intervention and group control. The authors reported that even after six months the gains from the intervention were still present in the intervention group. This information allows us to better understand the effects of this Climate of Motivation over time which probably has generated in children greater meanings in the skills learned. But little is known whether these gains remain and evolve over time.

None of the interventions reported the time of practice and engagement of children in fundamental motor skills, this information would be important since some theories of motor development indicate that one of the central points of development is related to engagement (Robinson et al., 2015; Silverman, 1991) Interventions from the reviewed studies lasted from six to 12 weeks, suggesting the need for longer interventions that go along with development of the children for a longer period as well.

All interventions assessed total scores or percentiles of total scores on locomotion and object control skills, and no assessed study investigated the impact of interventions on specific motor skills (running, galloping, jumping, kicking, throwing, bouncing, receiving the ball). This information would be important for teachers and researchers to plan interventions based on the most difficult skills and in the future, it would be important for the Physical Education area to plan a curriculum based on age, gender and level of development.

The motivational climate for mastery is an efficient methodological proposal of teaching to promote the motor skills of locomotion and control of objects in children with motor delays. The following highlights the strengths, limitations of the study and implications for practice.

It were not evaluated other variables related to motor skills, such as the perception of competence, level of physical activity and nutritional status

Implications for practice

Assess specifically the impact of interventions in motor skills not only the total scores or percentages of the total scores of locomotion and control of object; Assess the impact of the intervention over time, and to evaluate whether children proficient remain engaged in physical activities and sports; To include parents in motor interventions; Implement motor intervention programs in school contexts and with a greater period of time.

Ames, A., & Bell, H. (1990). Motivation: What Teachers Need to Know, 91(3). Teachers College Record, 409-421.         [ Links ]

Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and classroom motivacional climate. In J. Meece & D. Schunk (Eds.), Students perceptions in the classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 327-348.         [ Links ]

Barkoukis, V., Tsorbatzoudis, H., & Grouios, G. (2008). Construct validity of the physical Education State Anxiety Scale: a multitrait-multimethod approach. Perceptual And Motor Skills, 107(3), 651–662.         [ Links ]

Barnett, L. M., Van Beurden, E., Morgan, P. J., Brooks, L. O., & Beard, J. R. (2008). Does childhood motor skill proficiency predict adolescent fitness? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(12), 2137–2144. http://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818160d3        [ Links ]

Clark, J. E., & Metcalfe, J. S. (2002). A montanha do desenvolvimento motor - Jane Clark. Motor Development: Research and Reviews, 2, 163–190.         [ Links ]

Draper, C. E., Achmat, M., Forbes, J., & Lambert, E. V. (2012). Impact of a community-based programme for motor development on gross motor skills and cognitive function in preschool children from disadvantaged settings. Early Child Development and Care, 182(1), 137–152. http://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2010.547250        [ Links ]

Gallahue, D. L., Ozmun, J. C., & Goodway, J. D. (2013). Compreendendo o Desenvolvimento Motor: Bebês, Crianças, Adolescentes e Adultos (7^a Ed.). Porto Alegre: ARTMED.         [ Links ]

Goodson, P., Buhi, E. R., & Dunsmore, S. C. (2006). Self-esteem and adolescent sexual behaviors, attitudes, and intentions: a systematic review. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 38(3), 310–9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.05.026        [ Links ]

Goodway, J. D., Robinson, L. E., & Crowe, H. (2010). Gender differences in fundamental motor skill development in disadvantaged preschoolers from two geographical regions. Research Quartely for Exercise and Sport, 81(1), 17–24.         [ Links ]

Hardy, L. L., King, L., Espinel, P., Okely, A. D., & Bauman, A. (2011). Methods of the NSW schools physical activity and nutrition survey 2010 (SPANS 2010). Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14(5), 390–396. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.03.003        [ Links ]

Kirk, D. (2005). Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation: the importance of early learning experiences. European Physical Education Review, 11(3), 239–255. http://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X05056649        [ Links ]

Larouche, R., Boyer, C., Tremblay, S. M., & Longmuir, P. (2013). Physical fitness, motor skill and physical activity relationships in Grade 4 to 6 children. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 39(5), 553–559.         [ Links ]

Laukkanen, A., Pesola, A., Havu, M., Sääkslahti, A., & Finni, T. (2014). Relationship between habitual physical activity and gross motor skills is multifaceted in 5 to 8-year-old children. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 24(2), 102–111. http://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12116        [ Links ]

LeGear, M., Greyling, L., Sloan, E., Bell, R. I., Williams, B. L., Naylor, P. J., & Temple, V. a. (2012). A window of opportunity? Motor skills and perceptions of competence of children in Kindergarten. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 29. http://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-29        [ Links ]

Lloyd, M., Saunders, T. J., Bremer, E., & Tremblay, M. S. (2014). Long-term importance of fundamental motor skills: A 20-year follow-up study. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 31(1), 67–78. http://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2013-0048        [ Links ]

Logan, S., Robinson, L., Webster, E. K., & Barber, L. (2013). Exploring preschoolers’ engagement and perceived physical competence in an autonomy-based object control skill intervention: A preliminary study. European Physical Education Review, 19(3), 302–314. http://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X13495627        [ Links ]

Lubans, D. R., Morgan, P. J., Cliff, D. P., Barnett, L. M., & Okely, A. D. (2010). Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: Review of associated health benefits. Sports Medicine, 40(12), 1019–1035. http://doi.org/10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000        [ Links ]

Martin, E. H., Rudisill, M. E., & Hastie, P. A. (2009). Motivational climate and fundamental motor skill performance in a naturalistic physical education setting. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 227–240.         [ Links ]

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Grp, P. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (Reprinted from Annals of Internal Medicine). Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873–880. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097        [ Links ]

Morgan, K., & Carpenter, P. (2002). Effects of manipulating the motivational climate in physical education lessons. European Physical Education Review, 8(3), 207–229.         [ Links ]

Morgan, P. J., Barnett, L. M., Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., Scott, H. A., Cohen, K. E., & Lubans, D. R. (2013). Fundamental Movement Skill Interventions in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132(5), e1361–e1383. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-1167        [ Links ]

Myer, G. D., Faigenbaum, A. D., Edwards, N. M., Clark, J. F., Best, T. M., & Sallis, R. E. (2015). Sixty minutes of what? A developing brain perspective for activating children with an integrative exercise approach. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-093661        [ Links ]

Papaioannou, A. G., Milosis, D., Kosmidou, E., & Tsigilis, N. (2007). Motivational Climate and Achievement Goals at the Situational Level of Generality. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 38–66. http://doi.org/10.1080/10413200601113778        [ Links ]

Píffero, C. M., & Valentini, N. C. (2010). Habilidades especializadas do tênis : um estudo de intervenção na iniciação esportiva com crianças escolares. Rev. Bras. Fís. Esporte, 24(2), 149–163.         [ Links ]

Riethmuller, A. M., Jones, R. A., & Okely, A. D. (2009). Efficacy of Interventions to Improve Motor Development in Young Children: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics, 124(4), e782-792. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0333        [ Links ]

Robinson, L. E., & Goodway, J. D. (2009). Instructional climates in preschool children who are at-risk. Part I: object-control skill development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(3), 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599591.         [ Links ]

 Robinson, L. E., Stodden, D. F., Barnett, L. M., Lopes, V. P., Logan, S. W., Rodrigues, L. P., & D’Hondt, E. (2015). Motor Competence and its Effect on Positive Developmental Trajectories of Health. Sports Medicine, 45(9), 1273–1284. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0351-6        [ Links ]

Silverman, S. (1991). Research on teaching in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(4), 352–364.         [ Links ]

Spessato, B. C. (2012). Competencia motora, atividade fisica e percepcao de competencia: Uma relacao que se fortalece ao longo da infancia (Tese de Doutoramento). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.         [ Links ]

Spessato, B. C., Gabbard, C., Valentini, N., & Rudisill, M. (2013). Gender differences in Brazilian children’s fundamental movement skill performance. Early Child Development and Care, 183(7), 916–923. http://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.689761        [ Links ]

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 Relationship. Quest, 60(2), 290–306. http://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582        [ Links ]

Ulrich, D. A. (1985). Test of Gross Motor Development, TGMD. Austin: Prod-Ed.         [ Links ]

Ulrich, D. A. (2000). Test of Gross Motor Development (2ª Ed.). Austin: Prod-Ed.         [ Links ]

Valentini, N. C. (2002). A influência de uma intervenção motora no desempenho motor e na percepção de competência de crianças com atrasos motores. Revista Paulista de Educação Física, 16(1), 61–75.         [ Links ]

Valentini, N. C. (2002). Influência e uma intervenção motora e desempenho motor e na percepção de competência de crianças com atrasos motores. Revista Paulista de Educação Física, 16(1), 61–75.         [ Links ]

Valentini, N. C., & Rudisill, M. E. (2004a). Effectiveness of an inclusive mastery climate intervention on the motor skill development of children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 21, 330–347.         [ Links ]

Valentini, N. C., & Rudisill, M. (2004b). Motivational Climate, Motor-Skill Development, and Perceived Competence : Two Studies of Developmentally Delayed Kindergarten Children. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 216–234.         [ Links ]

Valentini, N. C., Rudisill, M. E., & Goodway, J. D. (1999a). Incorporating a mastery climate into physical education : It’s developmentally appropriate ! Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(7), 28–33.         [ Links ]

Valentini, N. C., Rudisill, M. E., & Goodway, J. D. (1999b). Mastery Climate: Children in Charge of their own learning. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 10, 6–10.         [ Links ]

Venetsanou, F., & Kambas, A. (2009). Environmental Factors Affecting Preschoolers’ Motor Development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 319–327. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0350-z        [ Links ]

Wadsworth, D. D., Robinson, L. E., Rudisill, M. E., & Getchell, N. (2013). The Effect of Physical Education Climates on Elementary Students’ Physical Activity. Journal of School Health, 83(5), 306–313.         [ Links ]

Acknowledgments:
Nothing to declare.
Conflict of interests:
Nothing to declare.
Funding: ]]> This research was supported by CNPq and CAPES from the granting of scholarships to researchers.