Creative Teaching and Learning

Supporting Physical Development In Young Children Critical For Learning – Research

Physical activity is undertaken in schools mainly as a non-core health project. But new research finds it is absolutely critical for learning. Megan Lucas explains.

The Covid-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on young children’s health and physical development. For example, following the partial school closures, Ofsted14 reported some children were unable to hold a pencil, when they had previously been able to do this successfully. Similarly, 73 per cent of teachers responding to a national survey in autumn 2020 said they were concerned about the physical development of young children in their school3.

Extended periods of remote learning at home reduced some children’s opportunities to practise fine motor skills like using pencils or scissors, while others have had limited access to outdoor space and lost confidence in skills such as jumping from large-scale equipment14. This makes it more important than ever to understand more about children’s physical development and how to support it.

The International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study (IELS) explored the physical development of over 2,300 five-year-olds in England by asking teachers to rate children’s fine and gross motor skills (their ability to control movements of the small muscles in the hands as well as larger muscles of the body).

Our recent analysis of the 2018 IELS data10 found evidence of positive relationships between children’s physical and cognitive development, and provides insights into the relationships between children’s motor skills and other areas of development (including numeracy and language).

What factors are related to children’s fine and gross motor skills?

Our analysis explored a range of factors that could be related to children’s fine and gross motor skills, including gender, age and deprivation (parental socio-economic status). We found that having parents who were strongly or moderately involved with activities in their child’s school was associated with better fine and gross motor skill development.

We also found that being a boy and being from a deprived background were associated with worse fine motor development, while being older (closer to six years 0 months than four years 11 months) was associated with better fine motor development.

Surprisingly though, it was children’s persistence (their ability to continue with their plans in spite of difficulties) that had the strongest positive relationship with both fine and gross motor skills at age five, after taking all these other factors into account.

Children whose teachers identified them as always persistent had better fine and gross motor development than children who were never persistent. For fine motor development, the difference was approximately 24 months. (Age was not statistically significantly related to gross motor skills, so it is not possible to report associations with gross motor development in terms of months of development.)

We also found that children’s ability to pay attention and distractibility were associated with better motor skill development, especially fine motor skills. Children who were rated as not at all distracted during the IELS tasks had greater fine and gross motor development than children who were largely distracted. This difference was equivalent to about nine months of development.

Similarly, children who were rated as largely on-task during the IELS tasks had greater fine motor development than children who were not at all on-task and this difference was equivalent to about 12 months.

Figure 1 Key factors related to strong fine and gross motor development

Source: IELS assessment of 2,302 children, age 5, England

This is striking when you consider that children’s ability to be persistent and pay attention have also been negatively impacted by the pandemic. When children returned to school after the Covid-19 lockdowns, teachers found that some of them needed to re-learn the basics of how to be resilient, concentrate and stay on task14,17 .

How does physical development relate to special educational needs?

We found that having a special educational need (SEN) is a risk factor for both fine and gross motor development after taking other characteristics in account. Children with a SEN had lower fine and gross motor development than their peers – for fine motor development the gap was equivalent to about nine months. This was the case even though most of the children with an identified SEN in IELS had difficulties with communication and interaction (such as speech and language difficulties or autistic spectrum disorder) rather than a physical disability or need.

Being able to move in precise and controlled ways is cognitively demanding and the evidence suggests that having an intellectual disability can have a negative effect on children’s motor skills2,15. For example, children with SEN such as developmental co-ordination disorder (DCD, also known as Dyspraxia), ADHD, or autism spectrum disorder, commonly have motor difficulties too.

In fact, motor skill difficulties are often evident before other signs of cognitive delay or impairment, which means that a young child with movement difficulties could have an undiagnosed SEN11.

How does physical development relate to other learning outcomes?

Our analysis found that fine and gross motor development are both associated with better development in four other key learning outcomes at age five, after taking other characteristics into account. These key learning outcomes are: early numeracy, early language, emotion identification (a child‘s ability to identify emotions) and their mental flexibility (i.e. the child’s ability to shift between mental ‘rules’ according to changing circumstances).

Figure 2 Relationship between strong fine and gross motor development and children’s learning outcomes

Source: IELS assessment of 2,302 children, age 5, England

Fine motor development had stronger relationships with each of the four learning outcomes than gross motor development. Having greater fine motor development compared to lower fine motor development was associated with a difference of five months in early numeracy and early literacy outcomes and a difference of four months in emotion identification and mental flexibility outcomes. Having greater gross motor development compared to lower gross motor development was associated with differences of three months in early numeracy and early literacy, two months in emotion identification and four months in mental flexibility.

Although we often think of physical and cognitive development as separate, recent research suggests that children’s cognitive and physical development are much more inter-related than previously thought and the so-called ‘executive function’ of the brain may be an important link between them.

Executive function refers to the processes that enable us to plan, focus attention, remember instructions and work on multiple tasks21. This could be why we found a positive relationship between attention, persistence and children’s physical development19,22. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that physical activity has benefits for both children’s motor skills and their cognitive development23.

These findings underline the importance of focusing on young children’s physical development as well as their academic skills as part of the Covid-19 recovery, because focusing exclusively on cognitive skills runs the risk of less development in that area than a balanced focus on physical, cognitive and social-emotional skills. It is also important for children’s wellbeing17.

What does this mean for nurseries and schools?

Physical development is an important part of the curriculum and fine and gross motor skills have a more explicit focus in the revised Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum being implemented in September.

As well as giving children the opportunity to be physically active during free play, the available evidence highlights the importance of teaching children motor skills deliberately with specific steps and adequate equipment9,20. For example, Livonen and Sääkslahti9 found that preschool programmes that sought to develop motor skills, lasting over 8 weeks with at least 2 structured sessions per week, improved children’s gross motor skills.

These types of interventions appear to have a moderate impact and can be implemented at very low cost6. While some nurseries and schools have already begun prioritising opportunities for children to develop their motor skills in response to the impact of the pandemic13,14, they may wish to consider using specific classroom interventions.

There is growing evidence that by supporting children’s physical development, schools may also benefit other areas of children’s learning. For example, Van der Fels and others19 found that motor skill interventions that encourage children to undertake increasingly complex movements as quickly as possible aid the development of both cognitive and motor skills.

In addition to developing motor skills directly, schools and nurseries can also influence the factors associated with motor development. For example, staff can encourage children’s persistence and attention span through specific activities (such as Simon Says, Granny’s Footsteps and Kim’s Game) as well as through their words and actions8. For example, they can do this by demonstrating tasks, setting expectations, telling pupils when tasks will be challenging and explaining the value of putting in effort8. They can also support executive function through strategies such as semi-structured play with other children1,4,16.

Similarly, targeted interventions and approaches can be used to support the needs of children with SEN. For example, the Dyspraxia Foundation5 recommend children with DCD can be better supported if they are not given more than two instructions at once and are allowed additional time to complete tasks. There is evidence that approaches of this kind have the potential to benefit many children, not just those with an identified SEN7,12.

Valentini and others18 found that a mastery intervention based on six core pedagogical approaches improved motor skill outcomes for children with and without SEN. These approaches include: providing feedback and encouragement; providing opportunities for decision-making and setting goals for their motor development; including parents when recognising achievement; creating opportunities for leadership and self-pacing; guiding children using verbal cues and modelling gross motor skills; and providing demonstrations of motor skills and teaching children to monitor their own progress.

This reinforces the value of specific motor skill instruction as well as encouraging physical activity for developing children’s motor skills.

In summary, our research suggests that physical development warrants attention in its own right as a key area of young children’s development that also appears to support other cognitive and non-cognitive areas. Having an awareness and understanding of motor skill development, its risk and protective factors, and the relationships between motor skills and other learning outcomes, may help teachers intervene earlier to support children’s physical development in both the early years and KS1.

The research also suggests that by providing opportunities for physical activity and specific skills training, teachers can play an important role in helping children to recover from the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on their health, wellbeing and learning.

Megan Lucas is a quantitative and mixed-methods research manager within NFER’s UK policy and practice team. Megan was recently lead author on research looking at young children’s physical development using data from the International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study on behalf of the Department for Education

References:

1. Ackerman, D.J. and Friedman-Krauss, A.H., 2017. Preschoolers' executive function: importance, contributors, research needs and assessment options. ETS Research Report Series, [e-journal] 10.1002/ets2.12148.

2. Bhat, A., Landa R. and Galloway J., 2011. Current perspectives on motor functioning in infants, children, and adults with autism spectrum disorders. Physical Therapy, [e-journal] 91(7), pp.1116–1129. [pdf]. Available at: <current perspectives on motor functioning in infants, children, and adults with autism spectrum disorders> [Accessed 25 February 2021].

3. Bowyer-Crane, C., Bonetti, S., Compton, S., Nielsen, D., D’Apice, K. and Tracey, L., 2021. The impact of Covid-19 on school starters: Interim briefing 1. [pdf] Available at <the impact of Covid-19 on school starters: Interim briefing 1> [Accessed 24 April 2021].

4. Diamond, A., 2012. Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, [e-journal] https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412453722.

5. Dyspraxia Foundation, 2016. Dyspraxia/DCD in early years. [pdf] Available at: <dyspraxiafoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Early-year-s-dyspraxia-factsheet.pdf> [Accessed 19 February 2021].

6. Education Endowment Foundation, 2019. Physical development approaches [online] Available at: <physical development approaches> [Accessed 19 February 2021].

7. Education Endowment Foundation (2021). Teaching and Learning Toolkit: Mastery Learning. [online]. Available: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/mastery-learning/ [28 July, 2021].

8. Leonard, J., Garcia, A. and Schulz, L., 2019. Practice what you preach: how adults’ actions, outcomes, and testimony affect preschoolers’ persistence. Child Development, [e-journal] 2019, pp.1–18. [pdf] Available at: practice what you preach: how adults’ actions, outcomes, and testimony affect preschoolers’ persistence [Accessed 30 April 2021].

9. Livonen, S. and Sääkslahti, A.K., 2013. Preschool children's fundamental motor skills: a review of significant determinants. Early Child Development and Care, [e-journal] pp.1107-1126. 10.1080/03004430.2013.837897.

10. Lucas, M., Hope, C and Sharp, C., 2021. IELS thematic report: Young children’s physical development in England [online] Available at: <IELS thematic report: Young children's physical development in England> [Accessed 30 June 2021].

11. Macintyre, C., 2009. Dyspraxia in the early years: Identifying and supporting children with movement difficulties (2nd ed.). [online] Available at: 10.4324/9780203458006 [Accessed 22 February 2021].

12. Office for Standards in Education (2019). School Inspection Update January 2019 Special Edition [online]. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/772056/School_inspection_update_-_January_2019_Special_Edition_180119.pdf [28 July 2021].

13. Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, 2020a. COVID-19 series: briefing on early years, November 2020. [pdf] Available at: <COVID-19 series: briefing on early years> [Accessed 22 February 2021].

14. Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, 2020b. COVID-19 series: briefing on schools, November 2020. [pdf] Available at: <COVID-19 series: briefing on schools> [Accessed 22 February 2021].

15. Piek, J., Pitcher, T. and Hay, D., 1999. Motor coordination and kinaesthesis in boys with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, [e-journal] 41(3), pp. 159-165. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1999.tb00575.x

16. Serpel, Z.N. and Esposito A. G., 2016. Development of executive functions: implications for educational policy and practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, [e-journal] 3(2), pp.203-210. 10.1177/2372732216654718.

17. Sharp, C. and Nelson, J. (2021). Recovering from Covid-19: What Pupils and Schools Need Now. Slough: NFER 

18. Valentini, N., Pierosan, L., Rudisill, M. and Hastie, P., 2016. Mastery and exercise play interventions: motor skill development and verbal recall of children with and without disabilities. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, [e-journal] 22(4), pp.349-363. 10.1080/17408989.2016.1241223.

19. Van der Fels, I., Te Wierike, S., Hartman, E., Elferink-Gemser, M., Smith, J. and Visscher, C., 2015. The relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills in 4–16 year old typically developing children: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, [e-journal] 18(6), pp.697-703.10.1016/j.jsams.2014.09.007.

20. Venetsanou, F. and Kambas, A., 2010. Environmental factors affecting preschoolers’ motor development. Early Childhood Education Journal, [e-journal] 37, 319–327. 10.1007/s10643-009-0350-z.

21. Verdine, B. N., Irwin, C. M., Golinkoff, R. M. and Hirsh-Pasek, K., 2014. Contributions of executive function and spatial skills to preschool mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, [e-journal] 126, pp.37–51. 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.02.012.

22. Vitiello, V., Greenfield, D., Munis, P. and George, J., 2011. Cognitive flexibility, approaches to learning and academic school readiness in head start preschool children. Early Education & Development, [e-journal] 22(3), pp.388 – 410. 10.1080/10409289.2011.538366

23. Zeng, N., Ayyub, M.A., Haichun, S., Wen X., Xiang, P. and Gao, Z., 2017. Effects of physical activity on motor skills and cognitive development in early childhood: A systematic review. BioMed Research International, [e-journal] 2017, Article ID 2760716. 10.1155/2017/2760716.

Howard Sharron is the editor of Creative Teaching and Learning