This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 26 December 2013, At: 21:44

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and Care

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

The development of fundamental

motor skills of four‐ to five‐year‐old
preschool children and the effects
of a preschool physical education
curriculum
a a b
S. Iivonen , A. Sääkslahti & K. Nissinen
a
Department of Sport Sciences , University of Jyväskylä ,
Jyväskylä, Finland
b
Department of Languages , University of Jyväskylä , Jyväskylä,
Finland
Published online: 26 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: S. Iivonen , A. Sääkslahti & K. Nissinen (2011) The development of
fundamental motor skills of four‐ to five‐year‐old preschool children and the effects of a
preschool physical education curriculum, Early Child Development and Care, 181:3, 335-343, DOI:
10.1080/03004430903387461

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430903387461

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013
 Early Child Development and Care
Vol. 181, No. 3, April 2011, 335–343

The development of fundamental motor skills of four- to five-year-

old preschool children and the effects of a preschool physical
education curriculum
S. Iivonena*, A. Sääkslahtia and K. Nissinenb
aDepartment
of Sport Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; bDepartment of
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

Languages, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

(Received 5 August 2009; final version received 5 October 2009)
Taylor and Francis
GECD_A_438924.sgm

susanna.iivonen@sport.jyu.fi
Early
10.1080/03004430903387461
0300-4430
Original
Taylor
02009
00
SIivonen
000002009
Childhood
&Article
Francis
(print)/1476-8275
Development(online)
and Care

Altogether 38 girls and 46 boys aged four to five years were studied to analyse the
linear and non-linear development of fundamental motor skills. The children were
grouped into one experimental and one control group to study the effects of an
eight-month preschool physical education curriculum. In the course of one year,
the balance skills of the girls, the running speed of the boys and the standing
broad-jump and manipulative skills of both genders progressed linearly according
to the children’s age. Two weekly 45-minute physical education lessons instructed
by preschool teachers promoted the linear development of the girls’ standing
broad-jump and non-linear development of the boys’ running speed during spring,
compared to the group that did not follow a specific structured programme. We
encourage educators to organise skill-specific practise and to ensure that the
choice of tasks, equipment and environment interact to promote motor
development.
Keywords: fundamental motor skills; preschool; physical education curriculum

Introduction
Preschool years (ages three to six years) are critical in terms of developing fundamen-
tal motor skills (FMS), which are prerequisites to a physically active lifestyle in later
life (Gallahue & Ozmun, 2006; Stodden et al., 2008). FMS such as walking, running,
jumping, throwing, catching and kicking belong in the categories of balance, locomo-
tor and manipulative skills according to their character and quality (Gallahue &
Ozmun, 2006). Scientific evidence supports the dynamic systems theory of motor
development (Gagen & Getchell, 2006), and the link between motor skills, physical
activity and healthy physical, cognitive, emotional and social development during
early childhood (Timmons, Naylor, & Pfeiffer, 2007).
Time spent in physical activity alone is not enough to generate positive changes in
children’s FMS (Fisher, Reilly, Kelly et al., 2005; Sääkslahti et al., 1999). Skill-
specific experiences are needed (Deli, Bakle, & Zachopoulou, 2006; Zachopoulou,
Tsapakidou, & Derri, 2004). The curricular model of developmentally appropriate
physical education (PE) is based on motor development and skill learning in a context
of games, dance and gymnastic activities, and on the concepts of movement, skill and

*Corresponding author. Email:susanna.iivonen@sport.jyu.fi

ISSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online

© 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03004430903387461
http://www.informaworld.com
 336 S. Iivonen et al.

activity (Gallahue & Cleland-Donnelly, 2003). Researchers (Gagen & Getchell, 2006)
emphasise that educators should recognise the relationships between specific
requirements of the movement task, biology of the child and conditions of the learning
environment to ensure that the choice of tasks, equipment and environment interact
(Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2005).
Even though the crucial role of motor skills in young children’s comprehensive
development and the importance of skill practise and quality instruction integrated in
children’s everyday life are widely accepted (Timmons et al., 2007), there are not
many reported research findings concerning the effects of PE programmes for
preschool children. Deli et al. (2006) found a significant relationship between a 10-
week movement programme and locomotor skills in five-year-old children. Balance
and locomotor skills improved in five- to seven-year-old Norwegian children whose
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

preschool PE consisted of playing in a natural environment playground (Fjortoft,

2001). Sääkslahti et al. (1999) found a relationship in four-year-old Finnish children
between a three-year family-based physical activity intervention and locomotor skills,
but no relationship between the intervention and manipulative skills. The dynamic
nature of motor development makes it challenging to achieve the desired positive
outcomes with movement programmes. This study approaches motor development by
firstly describing the development of balance, locomotor and manipulative skills of
four- to five-year-old preschool girls and boys during 12 months, and secondly by
asking if it is possible to promote this development in a preschool setting by means of
an eight-month physical education curriculum (PEC).

Methods
Participants
The participants were 38 girls (mean age 55.4 ± 1.2 months) and 46 boys (mean age
55.9 ± 1.1 months) from four municipal preschools in urban Central Finland. To study
the effects of the PEC, 16 girls and 23 boys from two of the preschools formed the
experimental group, and 22 girls and 23 boys from the other two preschools formed
the control group. All participants attended preschool 8–10 hours daily, five days a
week, in groups of 20 children, with two preschool teachers. The daily routines were:
breakfast, indoor activities (90 minutes), outdoor activities (90 minutes), afternoon
nap (90 minutes), snack and free play (75 minutes) and outdoor activities (120
minutes). The experimental group had 1.5 times as much PE (altogether 2160
minutes) than the control group. Control group attended one 60-minute PE lesson per
week (altogether 1440 minutes), which did not follow a specific structured
programme. Both groups followed the guidelines for early childhood education in
Finland (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2004, 2005). The PE of both groups
was organised by the children’s own preschool teachers in the purpose-designed PE
facilities, sized approximately 50 m2. The study has been approved by the ethical
committee of the University of Jyväskylä and written consent was obtained from the
guardian of each child.

Measurement of fundamental motor skills

The APM Inventory (Numminen, 1995) was used in this study because it caters for
versatile FMS, the results are unambiguous, it can be done in the preschools’ own PE
facilities and it has been confirmed as a valid and reliable method in assessing FMS
 Early Child Development and Care 337

in children younger than eight years (test–retest correlations varied between r = 0.86
and r = 0.94; Numminen, 1991, 1995). The FMS were measured altogether four times
during 12 months: Measurement 1 (baseline) before the beginning of, Measurement 2
in the middle of, Measurement 3 immediately after, and Measurement 4 three months
after the PEC. Eight test items in the APM Inventory (Numminen, 1995) were chosen
for this study: (1) static balance on the right and left foot (maximum time 40.00
seconds), (2) dynamic balance (total time in units of 0.10 second taken to jump side-
ways with feet together over a 25 × 10 cm platform attached to floor), (3) running
speed (0.100 second) over a distance of 10 m, (4) length (1.0 cm) of a standing broad-
jump, (5) sum variable (0–25 points) of three different manipulative skills (throwing-
catching combination, throwing at target and kicking ball at target). The results of the
static balance are reported as a percentage (%) of children who received the maximum
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

score. The trained observer assessed the children in groups of three in the preschool’s
own PE facilities.

The physical education curriculum

The PEC belonged in the Early Steps project (2004–07) of the European Union’s
Comenius programme (Zachopoulou, Tsangaridou, Pickup, Liukkonen, & Gramma-
tikopoulos, 2007). The project created a PEC for four- to five-year-old preschool
children and produced two 3-day training seminars for the preschool teachers imple-
menting the project. The PEC consisted of forty-eight 45-minute lessons taught twice
a week throughout the preschool year. The first 24 lessons took place in autumn and
the rest in spring. A detailed description of each lesson and the Early Steps project
has been published (Zachopoulou et al., 2007).

Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses of the four FMS variables were carried out separately for girls and
boys. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) describe the distribution of the FMS
scores. The normality assumption was satisfied by all variables except dynamic
balance (the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test gave p < 0.01 for girls and p = 0.037 for boys)
and running speed (p < 0.01 for both genders), which showed skewed variation.
The effects of linear age, non-linear age and the PEC on the development of the
FMS variables were studied with a repeated measurements analysis by linear mixed
models (Brown & Prescott, 1999). A linear model was specified for each FMS vari-
able, with measurement (four times) and group (experimental/control) as fixed factors
and the child’s age (in months) on the measurement day as a covariate. Where the
analysis of measurement effect was considered significant, the mean developments
between Measurements 1 and 2 (autumn), 2 and 3 (spring), and 3 and 4 (summer) were
studied carefully for non-linear development. The interaction of group and measure-
ment contained the information of the effect of the PEC that would manifest as signif-
icantly different mean developments in experimental group and control group in the
four measurements. The preschool was added as a random factor and appeared non-
significant. The most suitable repeated measurements covariance structure for each
variable was modelled. The goodness-of-fit was evaluated with the Akaike Informa-
tion Criteria (AIC). For some responses the covariance matrices of the experimental
group and control group were modelled unequal, since the homogeneity assumption
did not hold. The MIXED procedure of the SAS® software was used.
 338 S. Iivonen et al.

Results
The mean results of the four FMS for girls and boys are reported in Table 1.

Girls
The percentage of girls who stayed the maximum time with both feet in the one foot
static balance position was 7% in Measurement 1 (baseline). In Measurements 2, 3
and 4 the percentages were 21%, 41% and 54% respectively. The development of
dynamic balance was significantly affected by linear age (F [1, 20] = 8.71; p =
0.008), but not affected by the measurement (F [3, 34] = 2.08; p = 0.121) or the PEC
(F [3, 27] = 0.64; p = 0.596). The development of running speed was not affected by
linear age (F [1, 38] = 0.14; p = 0.715) or the PEC (F [3, 54] = 1.42; p = 0.248), but
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

it was affected by the measurement (F [3, 68] = 10.59; p < 0.001) showing a signifi-
cant improvement between Measurements 3 and 4 (t [61] = − 4.96; p < 0.001). The
development of standing broad-jump was affected by the measurement (F [3, 93] =
3.67; p = 0.015) showing a significant improvement between Measurements 2 and 3
(t [113] = 2.94; p = 0.004). Standing broad-jump was not directly affected by the PEC
(F [3, 93] = 1.50; p = 0.220), but a significant interaction effect between group and
linear age (F [1, 33] = 4.94; p = 0.033) was found confounding the highly significant
effect of linear age on standing broad-jump (F [2, 33] = 10.75; p = < 0.001). The
mean length of the standing broad-jump increased significantly with linear age in the
experimental group (1.97 cm per month, t [33] = 4.42; p < 0.001), but did not increase
significantly in the control group (0.60 cm, t [34] = 1.40; p = 0.170). The develop-
ment of the sum variable of manipulative skills was significantly affected by linear
age (F [1, 38] = 23.06; p < 0.001) and was not affected by the measurement (F [3, 86]
= 1.58; p = 0.200) or the PEC (F [3, 82] = 0.19; p = 0.904).

Boys
The percentage of the boys who stayed the maximum time with both feet in the one
foot static balance position was 6% in Measurement 1 (baseline). In Measurements 2,
3 and 4 the percentages were 10%, 27% and 35% respectively. The development
of dynamic balance was not significantly affected by linear age (F [1, 10] = 2.91;
p = 0.120), the measurement (F [3, 41] = 0.06; p = 0.982), or the PEC (F [3, 38] =
0.13; p = 0.944). The development of running speed was significantly affected by
linear age (F [1, 49] = 6.86; p = 0.012), but was also affected by the measurement (F
[3, 78] = 3.68; p = 0.016), showing a significant improvement between Measurements
3 and 4 (t [63] = − 2.7; p = 0.010). Moreover, a significant interaction effect of the
PEC and measurement (F [3, 68] = 3.72; p = 0.015) was found in the development of
running speed, showing a significant difference between Measurements 2 and 3 (t [60]
= 2.26; p = 0.028): a significant improvement was found in the experimental group (t
[64] = − 2.33; p = 0.023), while no such improvement was found in the control group
(t [67] = 0.79; p = 0.433). However, it is worth noting that due to the skewed response
the obtained p values may not be exact here. The development of standing broad-jump
was affected by linear age (F [1, 42] = 16.67; p = < 0.001), but was not affected by
the measurement (F [3, 84] = 2.08; p = 0.109) or the PEC (F [3, 66] = 1.21; p = 0.314).
The development of the sum variable of manipulative skills was affected by linear age
(F [1, 36] = 5.93; p = 0.020), but it was not affected by the measurement (F [3,108] =
2.45; p = 0.067), or the PEC (F [3, 97] = 1.05; p = 0.372).
 Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

Table 1. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the boys’ and girls’ FMS and the analysed developmental effects during 12 months.
Group*
Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Measurement 3 Measurement 4 Linear age Measurement Measurement
Variable Group n Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p p p
Dynamic balance (s)
Girls Experimental 16 21.0 (10.7) 19.1 (10.4) 16.3 (8.8) 13.0 (7.0) 0.008 0.121 0.596
Control 22 24.1 (12.8) 22.9 (6.6) 19.6 (8.7) 14.6 (5.2)
Boys Experimental 23 19.1 (7.2) 16.9 (6.6) 15.6 (5.4) 14.2 (6.2) 0.120 0.982 0.944
Control 23 22.6 (8.1) 20.8 (5.8) 18.0 (5.1) 14.2 (4.1)
Locomotor skills
Running (s)
Girls Experimental 16 3.3 (0.5) 3.2 (0.6) 3.0 (0.3) 2.8 (0.2) 0.715 <0.001 0.248
Control 22 3.3 (0.4) 3.0 (0.3) 3.1 (0.3) 2.8 (0.2)
Boys Experimental 23 3.3 (0.4) 3.1 (0.3) 2.9 (0.2) 2.8 (0.2) 0.012 0.016 0.015
Control 23 3.3 (0.4) 2.9 (0.3) 2.9 (0.2) 2.8 (0.1)
Standing broad-jump (cm)
Girls Experimental 16 79.0 (22.0) 82.3 (21.6) 97.9 (20.8) 104.8 (17.8) <0.001 0.015 0.220
Control 22 75.3 (17.0) 78.0 (15.3) 86.4 (13.2) 97.4 (12.7)
Boys Experimental 23 85.0 (21.1) 92.6 (18.8) 102.1 (17.9) 101.3 (21.6) <0.001 0.109 0.314
Control 23 79.5 (19.6) 91.3 (21.2) 100.6 (19.9) 110.6 (14.2)
Manipulative skills’ sum variable (0–25 points)
Girls Experimental 16 10.6 (4.4) 12.5 (4.2) 14.4 (5.4) 16.9 (3.6) <0.001 0.200 0.904
Control 22 9.8 (4.5) 12.0 (5.0) 13.0 (4.6) 16.8 (4.6)
Boys Experimental 23 12.4 (4.2) 14.9 (4.0) 16.2 (4.9) 16.6 (4.9) 0.020 0.067 0.372
Early Child Development and Care

Control 23 12.5 (3.3) 14.6 (4.7) 14.2 (4.1) 17.6 (5.1)

339
 340 S. Iivonen et al.

Discussion
The findings support the views that motor development consists of multiple time
scales (Gagen & Getchell, 2006; Newell, Liu, Mayer-Ktress, 2001) and that the PEC
promotes children’s FMS.
As was expected (Toole & Krezschmar, 1993), the girls’ balance skills developed
positively. The amount of girls who received a maximum result in static balance
increased an average of 15.8% during the measurements. They also demonstrated
linear development of dynamic balance skills. Perhaps the low active play (Butcher &
Eaton, 1989) and activities such as dance, gymnastics and household chores that are
typical for girls (Telford et al., 2005) promote perceptual motor skills, the necessary
precursors for developing versatile balance skills (Assaiante & Amblard, 1995). The
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

boys did not demonstrate significant improvement in their static or dynamic balance.
Children may demonstrate limited dynamic balance development because their visual
perception is not yet fully matured (Assaiante & Amblard, 1995). The difference
between genders in balance skills is more a consequence of environmental than
biological factors (Gallahue & Ozmun, 2006; Toole & Krezschmar, 1993). We could
not significantly support the development of dynamic balance skills since the current
PEC did not focus on skill-specific practise.
Contrarily to earlier studies (Deli et al., 2006; Hands, 2008) the girls did not show
linear development of running speed, but as was expected (Toole & Krezschmar,
1993), the boys did. Their running velocity may increase due to their high active phys-
ical play (Butcher & Eaton, 1989) and interaction with parents (Sääkslahti et al.,
1999). Perhaps girls spent more time in low active activities (Butcher & Eaton, 1989;
Sääkslahti et al., 1999) and therefore the abilities and coordination needed in swift
running did not increase as much. The positive direction of the girl’s running speed
development would show more clearly if the distance in the running speed test was
increased (Deli et al., 2006; Hands, 2008). The only positive effect of the PEC on boys
was observed in their running speed development in spring. Why the effect emerged
in the last 24 lessons of the PEC, where the main goal was to teach the children co-
operation and respect for individual differences, rather than specific running skills,
remains unknown. One explanation might be that in spring, when children’s total
physical activity is usually lower than in other seasons (Fisher, Reilly, Montgomery
et al., 2005), the boys who participated in the PEC had more opportunities to run in
PE settings than the control boys. Encouragingly, both genders increased their running
speed significantly during summer. Usually children spend more time outdoors
(Telama et al., 1985) and are more likely to engage in moderately vigorous physical
activity in summer than in other seasons (Fisher, Reilly, Montgomery et al., 2005),
and they are able to experiment with variations of effort, space and relations when
running (Sääkslahti et al., 1999).
The significant interaction effect of linear age and group on the girls’ standing
broad-jump reveals the important fact that especially the girls benefited from regu-
lar PE lessons. This is essential because the fundamental movement pattern of
jumping is needed in games, dance and gymnastics (Gallahue & Cleland-Donnelly,
2003) – the most popular activities among girls (Telford, Salmon, Timperio, &
Crawford, 2005). One reason why a similar effect was not found in the boys might
be that the PEC’s social learning environment did not allow for the competitive and
egocentric behaviour typical for boys when learning FMS (Garcia, 1994). The girls
demonstrated non-linear improvement of standing broad-jump in spring. One
 Early Child Development and Care 341

explanation for the timing might be the maturity-associated advancement in

strength-related performance caused by the mid-growth spurt (Malina, Bouchard, &
Bar-Or, 2004, pp. 83–100, 195–233). The result is, however, surprising, as spring is
a period when children spend more time indoors than in other seasons and therefore
have less opportunities for improving their swift, strength-related jumping skills
(Telama et al., 1985). As was expected (Toole & Krezschmar, 1993), the boys
showed linear development in standing broad-jump. One reason for the absence of
non-linear development may be the boys’ limitedly developed dynamic balance
skills: a skilful standing broad-jump requires well-developed anticipation skills
(Gallahue & Cleland-Donnelly, 2003).
The significant effect of linear age on both girls’ and boys’ manipulative skills
indicate that the fundamental gross motor skills of throwing, catching and kicking
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

develop positively to some extent by virtue of maturation, without specific interven-

tions (Gallahue & Cleland-Donnelly, 2003). Both the absence of significant non-linear
improvement and the absence of positive effect of the PEC (not based on skill-specific
practise of gross motor manipulative skills) on manipulative and balance skills testify
that for a preschool-aged child, whose neural representations of limb dynamics are not
yet precise and stable, skilful gross motor manipulation is a notable developmental
achievement (Konczak, Jansen-Osman, & Kalveram, 2003). A curriculum that closely
matches children’s developmental needs and specificity of practise requires
(Goodway, Crowe, & Ward, 2003; Numminen, 1991; Sääkslahti et al., 1999) a maxi-
mum amount of instructionally appropriate practise in throwing, catching and kicking,
accompanied with repetitive cue words and accurate demonstration (Goodway et al.,
2003). The environment needs to be organised and the equipment selected to fit the
goal of the task and the size, strength and capability of the child (Gagen & Getchell,
2006). In general, preschool teachers may not have sufficient education and
experience in teaching PE to children to appropriately instruct such FMS that meet the
children’s motor developmental needs. Previous studies indicate the necessity of
professional physical educators if children are to practise versatile FMS and demon-
strate significant improvement (Gagen & Getchell, 2006; Goodway et al., 2003;
Zachopoulou et al., 2004).
Similar future studies with larger sample sizes should identify possibilities for
integrating quality PE into the daily routines of various childcare settings. Conse-
quently, studies must observe objectively and systematically the PE situations of
preschool children in order to determine the best-fitting curricula and the educational
support needed by preschool teachers to encourage the development of children’s
FMS. Adults should encourage children to spend several hours outdoors and in
similar, versatile physical environments daily in order to promote their motor skills
development by means of physical play (Timmons et al., 2007).

Practical implications

● Although children’s FMS develop positively with age, adults still need to create
plenty of versatile skill practise situations for all seasons.
● Children would benefit from an increase in organised PE in preschools and from
better PE skills of preschool teachers.
● Two weekly lessons of preschool PE are enough to improve children’s locomo-
tor skills but not their balance or manipulative skills.
 342 S. Iivonen et al.

Acknowledgement
We thank Professor Beatrix Verejken for critical comments.

Notes on contributors
S. Iivonen, PhD, is a junior departmental researcher in the University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
This article is based on her PhD thesis ‘The associations between an Early Steps physical
education curriculum and the fundamental motor skills development of 4–5-year-old preschool
children’ defended on December 2008.

A. Sääkslahti, PhD, supervised Susanna Iivonen’s PhD thesis. Sääkslahti is a senior departmen-
tal researcher in the Department of Sport Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. She is a
well-known lecturer among Finnish researchers and teachers. Most of her publications deal
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

with preschool-aged children’s physical activities, fundamental motor skill development or

children’s health. She has also published physical education curriculums for preschool, and for
Grades 1 and 2.

K. Nissinen, PhD, is a statistician in the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. His specialties are
in longitudinal intervention studies.

References
Assaiante, C., & Amblard, B. (1995). An ontogenic model for the sensorimotor organization
of balance control in humans. Human Movement Science, 14, 13–43.
Brown, H., & Prescott, R. (1999). Applied mixed models in medicine. Chichester: Wiley.
Butcher, J., & Eaton, W. (1989). Gross motor proficiency in preschoolers: Relationships
with free play behavior and activity level. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 16,
27–36.
Deli, E., Bakle, I., & Zachopoulou, E. (2006). Implementing intervention movement programs
for kindergarten children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(1), 5–18.
Fisher, A., Reilly, J.J., Kelly, L.A., Montgomery, C., Williamson, A., Paton, J.Y., et al.
(2005). Fundamental movement skills and habitual physical activity in young children.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(4), 684–688.
Fisher, A., Reilly, J.J., Montgomery, C., Kelly, L.A., Williamson, A., Jackson, D.M., et al.
(2005). Seasonality in physical activity and sedentary behavior in young children. Pediatric
Exercise Science, 17, 31–40.
Fjortoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of
outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 29(2), 111–117.
Gagen, L.M., & Getchell, N. (2006). Using ‘constraints’ to design developmentally appropri-
ate movement activities for early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(3),
227–232.
Gallahue, D.L., & Cleland-Donnelly, F. (2003). Developmental physical education for all
children. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gallahue, D.L., & Ozmun, J.C. (2006). Understanding motor development: Infants, children,
adolescents, adults. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Garcia, G. (1994). Gender differences in young children’s interactions when learning funda-
mental motor skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65(3), 213–225.
Goodway, J.D., Crowe, H., & Ward, P. (2003). Effects of motor skill instruction on funda-
mental motor skill development. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 298–314.
Hands, B. (2008). Changes in motor skill and fitness measures among children with high and
low motor competence: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Science and Medicine
in Sport, 11, 155–162.
Konczak, J., Jansen-Osman, P., & Kalveram, K. (2003). Development of force adaptation
during childhood. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35(1), 41–52.
Malina, R.M., Bouchard, C., & Bar-Or, O. (2004). Growth, maturation, and physical activity
(2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
 Early Child Development and Care 343

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. (2004). Early childhood education and care in Finland.
Helsinki: Brochures of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2004, 14.
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. (2005). Recommendations for physical activity in early
childhood education. Helsinki: Brochures of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health
2005, 17.
Newell, K.M., Liu, Y., & Mayer-Ktress, G. (2001). Timescales in motor learning and
development. Psychological Review, 108(1), 57–82.
Numminen, P. (1991). The role of imagery in physical education (Studies in Sport, Physical
Education and Health, 27). Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Numminen, P. (1995). Alle kouluikäisten lasten psykomotorisia ja motorisia perustaitoja
mittaavan APM-testistön käsikirja [APM-Inventory: Manual test booklet for assessing
preschool children’s perceptual and fundamental motor skills]. Jyväskylä: LIKES.
Stodden, D.F., Goodway, J.D., Langendorfer, S.J., Stephen, J., Roberton, M.A., Rudisill,
M.E., et al. (2008). A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 21:44 26 December 2013

physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60, 290–306.

Sääkslahti, A., Numminen, P., Niinikoski, H., Rask-Nissilä, L., Viikari, J., Tuominen, J., et al.
(1999). Is physical activity related to body size, fundamental motor skills, and CHD risk
factors in early childhood? Pediatric Exercise Science, 11, 327–340.
Telama, R., Viikari, J., Välimäki, I., Siren-Tiusanen, H., Åkerblom, H., Uhari, M., et al.
(1985). Atherosclerosis precursors in Finnish children and adolescents. X. Leisuretime
physical activity. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica(Suppl. 318), 169–180.
Telford, A., Salmon, J., Timperio, A., & Crawford, D. (2005). Examining physical activity
among 5 to 6 and 10 to 12-year-old children: The children’s leisure activity study.
Pediatric Exercise Science, 17, 266–280.
Timmons, B.W., Naylor, P.-J., & Pfeiffer, K. (2007). Physical activity for preschool children:
How much and how? Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism, 32(Suppl. 2E),
S122–S134.
Toole, T., & Krezschmar, J. (1993). Gender differences in motor performance in early child-
hood and later adulthood. Women Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 2, 41–71.
Zachopoulou, E., Tsangaridou, N., Pickup, I., Liukkonen, J., & Grammatikopoulos, V. (2007).
‘Early Steps’: Promoting healthy lifestyle and social interaction through physical educa-
tion activities during preschool years. Socrates program Comenius action 2.1. Alexandrio
Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki. Retrieved August 5, 2009, from
http://earlysteps.teithe.gr
Zachopoulou, E., Tsapakidou, A., & Derri, V. (2004). The effects of a developmentally appro-
priate music and movement program on motor performance. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 19, 631–642.