Education 3-13

International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20

Physical development in the early years: the

impact of a daily movement programme on young
children’s physical development

Pat Preedy , Rebecca Duncombe & Trish Gorely

To cite this article: Pat Preedy , Rebecca Duncombe & Trish Gorely (2020): Physical development
in the early years: the impact of a daily movement programme on young children’s physical
development, Education 3-13, DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2020.1849345

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1849345

Published online: 23 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 203

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rett20
EDUCATION 3-13
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1849345

Physical development in the early years: the impact of a daily

movement programme on young children’s physical
development
a b c
Pat Preedy , Rebecca Duncombe and Trish Gorely
a
Neuroway Limited, Bournemouth, UK; bMove, Listen and Learn Limited, Loughborough University, Loughborough,
UK; cDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Poor physical development in young children has been shown to impact Received 14 October 2020
readiness for school, behaviour, social development and academic Accepted 30 October 2020
achievement. This research sought to explore whether a physical
KEYWORDS
intervention programme (Movement for Learning) can improve Physical development; early
children’s physical development. The Movement Assessment Battery for years education; school
Children (2nd edition, MABC-2) was used to assess 108 children (aged readiness
4–5) from three schools in the UK at the start and end of the Reception
Year (4–5 years). A monitoring and evaluation survey was completed by
37 teachers which highlighted ways in which the programme had
impacted children. Univariate ANOVA using change scores showed
significant changes in favour of the intervention group who had
undertaken the movement programme.

Introduction
Physical Development has been a core component of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS; ages 3–
5) since its revision in 2012. Since 2015, The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) indicates that
c90% of children achieve the expected levels of physical development by the end of the EYFS.
However, Townsend et al. (2015) identified that just nine percent of boys and ten percent of girls
(aged 2–4) were meeting the recommended levels of daily physical activity (180 min). Findings from
the National Childhood Measurement Programme (NHS Digital 2018–2019) indicate that 12.9% of chil-
dren aged 4–5 were overweight in 2018/19 with 9.7% being obese. Concern is also expressed in recent
news reports that children are not ‘ready’ to start school (e.g. Donnelly 2014). Likewise, a study by
Haynes and Haynes (2016) identifies that only 17% of children (aged 4–5) in their study had expected
levels of gross motor skills, 30% had visual tracking problems and 40% had not achieved a pincer grip;
these latter skills are required for reading and writing. Duncombe (2019) cites a project in Leicestershire
involving 78 primary schools. Of the 2363 children tested, a worrying 77% did not pass five or more of
the 12 tests given (e.g. balancing on one leg, crawling and marching) indicating significant delays in
physical development. In addition, data from the Movement for Learning project presented here has
highlighted that children are starting school with levels of physical development 18 percentile points
behind children who were tested ten years before in 2007 (Duncombe and Preedy 2020).
Thus, whilst official EYFSP data illustrates that children are achieving expected levels of physical
development, other data suggests differently. With this in mind, the authors developed Movement
for Learning to see whether a daily intervention programme, based on the developmental move-
ments that children may have missed during their early years and some activities similar to those

CONTACT Pat Preedy drpatpreedy@gmail.com

© 2020 ASPE
2 P. PREEDY ET AL.

found in Physical Education lessons for young children, can have a positive impact on physical devel-
opment during their first year at school.

Literature review
School readiness and physical development
Every year, throughout the world, children enter school for the first time beginning a journey of
formal education. The United Children’s Fund (UNICEF) state that, although historically there has
been reluctance to define school readiness, there has been much debate as to what constitutes
school readiness so that there are now around 150 definitions. The United Nations World Fit for Chil-
dren (WFFC) mission statement 2002 defines school readiness as:
A good start in life, in a nurturing and safe environment that enables children to survive and be physically
healthy, mentally alert, emotionally secure, socially competent and able to learn. (UNICEF 2012, 6)

As well as the child being ready for school, UNICEF (2012) also highlights that schools should be
ready for children by focusing on practices that foster and support a smooth transition into primary
school and advance and promote the learning of children. Further, the concept of ‘ready families’ is
suggested with a focus on parents’ and carers’ involvement in their children’s early learning, devel-
opment and transition to school.
A study of school readiness conducted by Wesley and Buysse (2003) also provides important
insights into what is meant by the term school readiness, highlighting the importance of good phys-
ical development as well as good mental health, effective communication skills, and an approach to
learning characterised as enthusiastic and curious. Good physical development may be defined as
the successful passing through of each developmental stage (Gallahue, Ozmun, and Goodway
2012) which provides the foundations for later, advanced fundamental movement skills (FMS)
that enable the child to achieve control skills such as throwing, catching, striking, leaping,
running and hopping (Lubans et al. 2010). FMS underpin children’s ability to engage in play activities
and early learning including reading and writing. A good level of physical development is thus a vital
component of children being ready for school and for learning.

Neuromotor development
The central nervous system (CNS) should develop in a regular sequence from conception, enabling the
control of thinking and moving. Early movements are reflexive in nature and do not require conscious
control or thought and are referred to as primitive reflexes (Gallahue, Ozmun, and Goodway 2012). In
typical development, these reflexes naturally inhibit in sequential order during the first 12–14 months
of life, and postural reflexes should emerge (more mature patterns of response that control balance,
coordination and sensory motor development). Goddard Blythe (2012) refers to the importance of chil-
dren’s neuromotor readiness for school. Neuromotor readiness is linked to the successful inhibition of
primitive reflexes and the emergence of postural reflexes. Movements such as rolling and crawling that
babies and young children are meant to do as part of early childhood development are designed to aid
inhibition of the primitive reflexes so that the higher-order postural reflexes can take over. Goddard
Blythe (2009) links the presence of primary reflexes beyond their normal time span (12–14 months)
with a range of learning difficulties including reading delay and difficulties with writing.
More than 70 primary reflexes have been identified (Illingworth 1987) and an association between
the inhibition of primitive reflexes and the attainment of gross and fine motor skills is widely recog-
nised (Goddard Blythe 2009; Gallahue, Ozmun, and Goodway 2012; Grigg, Fox-Turnbull, and Culpan
2018). This is of relevance because research has shown that developmental movements (i.e. those
that mimic the movements that the child should have done as a baby) are essential in inhibiting
primitive reflexes and, in turn, in allowing children to reach their physical development potential.
This knowledge underpinned many of the movements delivered through Movement for Learning.
 EDUCATION 3–13 3

The importance of early childhood milestones to physical development

Meggitt (2012) and Marlen (2019) highlight a baby’s innate ability to pass through each stage of devel-
opment (frequently referred to as milestones) in order to get their bodies and minds ready for learning
and for life. Marlen (2019) outlines these ‘milestones’ as follows: gaining control of head, hands and
feet whilst on the back; rolling onto the side and back onto the back; rolling onto the tummy; gaining
control of the head from a prone position; supporting the head in a half-arm extension position;
rolling from the back onto the tummy and back again; balancing on the side; belly or commando
crawling; half-sitting; crawling; full sitting; standing whilst supported; standing independently; and
walking. Marlen (2019) emphasises the importance of children being given the correct opportunities
to pass through these milestones. Such opportunities involve ensuring the child has freedom of
movement and opportunities for floortime (on the back and on the front). Goddard Blythe (2008)
and Marlen (2019) highlight that modern devices such as car seats, buggies and baby seats may
hinder movement and the child’s ability to pass through each developmental stage.
Crawling is a particularly important stage of development, where the baby moves from the prone
or supine positions to quadruped (on all-fours). Chapelais and Macfarlane (1984) state that less than
two months of crawling may not be sufficient to develop fully the strength needed in the upper
body for mature skill development. In the early stages, crawling tends to be one-sided (homolateral)
advancing to moving the opposite limbs together (cross-lateral). Crawling develops control over
gravity (balance), weight-bearing and muscle-control in the arms, hands, fingers, legs, and shoulders
– important for later reading, writing and sitting still (O’Connor and Daly 2016). Goddard Blythe
(2008) particularly highlights how the crawling movement is linked to the extension of near-far
vision to the distance required for later reading and writing. Visser and Franzen (2010) describe chil-
dren seen in occupational therapy for pencil grasp and control problems who are often identified,
based on parents’ information, as having omitted crawling milestones. Haynes and Haynes (2016)
explain that this cross-pattern movement encourages the crossing of the mid-line, strengthening
communication between the left and right brain. Children who have not achieved cross-pattern
crawling may have difficulty crossing the mid-line and getting the limbs on either side of the
body to work independently and together (Goddard Blythe 2008). It is for this reason, that we
included opportunities to crawl in Movement for Learning.
Worryingly and, despite the acknowledged relationship between achieving developmental mile-
stones and later physical difficulties, the early learning goals (ELGs) provided within the EYFS for fine
and gross motor skills that children are expected to achieve make no reference to these and, instead,
focus on higher order skills:
Children at the expected level of development will:

. Negotiate space and obstacles safely, with consideration for themselves and others;
. Demonstrate strength, balance and coordination when playing;
. Move energetically, such as running, jumping, dancing, hopping, skipping and climbing.
. Hold a pencil effectively in preparation for fluent writing – using the tripod grip in almost all cases;
. Use a range of small tools, including scissors, paint brushes and cutlery;
. Begin to show accuracy and care when drawing
(DfE 2020, 12).
Assessment to determine whether children are emerging towards these goals or reaching/
exceeding them are based on qualitative judgements made by early years practitioners with
access to exemplification materials and local authority moderation. Preedy, Sanderson, and Ball
(2019) highlight that weaknesses in the reliability and validity of such assessments is masking under-
achievement in the EYFS including children’s physical development.
Moreover, there is currently no coherent system of screening and tracking children’s development
(Blair and Hall 2006; House of Commons Education Committee 2019). Shortly after a baby is born,
checks made by the health visitor are recorded in the child’s health record known as the ‘red book’.
4 P. PREEDY ET AL.

Developmental checks take place at 9–12 months and two years. If the child has started nursery the
two-year check is completed by nursery staff. Parents also receive ‘an ages and stages’ questionnaire
to complete, but the results of these questionnaires are not integrated consistently into children’s
records. There is no prescribed format for the two-year check which covers the Early Years Foundation
Stage (EYFS) areas of learning (Communication and Language; Physical Development; Personal, Social
and Emotional Development; Literacy; Numeracy; Understanding the World; Creativity). The physical
development aspect of the assessment covers: walking and running without falling; ability to walk
up or down at least two steps; jumping; kicking a ball; ability to stack seven or more blocks; ability
to thread beads or pasta on a string; imitating a drawing of a line; ability to use a turning motion
for doorknobs, lids, wind-up toys; ability to turn switches on and off; and ability to turn pages in a
book. There is no check that the key developmental milestones have been reached and there are
no descriptors or standardised measures against which those assessing can base their judgements.

Physical activity, sedentary behaviour and physical development

The statistics outlined in the introduction provide evidence that young children are not as physically
active as they should be and that a worrying proportion are obese. Likewise, the amount of time
spent engaging in sedentary activities is of concern. Sigman (2012), for example, describes a pan-
demic of low physical activity with interrelationships between physical activity, free play, sedentary
behaviour, discretionary screen time, sleep, mental illness, body fat and type 2 diabetes. He particu-
larly draws attention to the rapid increase in screen time in less than a decade, so that by the age of
eight, the average child will have spent nearly one full year of 24-hour days looking at a screen. The
disproportionate use of screens is now recognised by the World Health Organisation and Public
Health England as screen dependency disorder.
In response to these concerns, the Department of Health Physical Activity Guidelines (2019) state:
Children and young people should engage in a range of activities to improve their skills such as jumping,
running and catching, as well as building the confidence to be active … children and young people should
aim to limit sedentary time and replace this with light intensity physical activity wherever possible. (Department
of Health and Social Care 2019, 26)

The impact of low levels of physical activity on children’s physical development requires further
research but it stands to reason that a child who does not move as much as government guidelines
recommend, is less likely to develop important physical skills. This relationship is reflected in the
Early Years Foundation Stage Framework where some ‘blurring’ of each term is apparent:
Physical activity is vital in children’s all-round development. Enabling them to pursue happy, healthy and active
lives. Gross and fine motor experiences develop incrementally throughout early childhood, starting with sensory
explorations and the development of a child’s strength, co-ordination and positional awareness through tummy
time, crawling and play movement with both objects and adults. By creating games and providing opportunities
for play both indoors and outdoors, adults can support children to develop their core strength, stability, balance,
spatial awareness-ordination and agility. Gross motor skills provide the foundation for developing healthy
bodies and social and emotional well-being. Fine motor control and precision helps with hand-eye co-ordination
which is later linked to early literacy. (DfE 2020, 8)

What can be done to ensure children’s physical development is sufficient to meet their
learning needs?
Evidence indicates that many children with motor development problems do not ‘catch up’ later
without intervention (Cantell, Ahonen, and Smyth 1994; Henderson et al. 1990). Ideally there
should be no need for corrective intervention programmes if appropriate support and guidance is
in place from when babies are born. The key target for this early support is parents and carers. If
such support is not in place, then the alternative is to intervene later when problems are identified.
Blair and Hall (2006, 4) state strongly that a child’s developmental progress, temperament, and
 EDUCATION 3–13 5

behavioural patterns are not biological givens ‘hard wired’ in the brain – they are the result of an
interaction between the child’s genetic endowment and environmental influences within the
family, neighbourhood, and school. They advocate a shift from surveillance to early intervention
as this can change the life course for disadvantaged children. They argue that the implementation
of such a policy focusing on the under 5s, would benefit all children but particularly those at risk of
educational failure. Its three main aims would be: disease prevention; health promotion; and early
detection/intervention for physical and developmental abnormalities. Provision would include
routine well-child examination schedules, nutritional advice and immunisation. The challenges of
implementing such an approach to screening and intervention are highlighted, including the
most needy children frequently being the most mobile; ability to engage staff with the public
health expertise and leadership qualities to utilise data effectively; and adherence to an agreed pro-
gramme of proven effectiveness with sound training, strong leadership and continued monitoring.
Additionally, parents can have their role to play, for example, The House of Commons Education
Committee (2019) highlights the importance of parents when planning interventions. They conclude
that:
The lack of evidence about interventions to support parents and families in creating a positive home learning
environment is concerning. The Government should commission research on such interventions, so that they
can be based on solid evidence and rigorous evaluation, to ensure that activity and funding is not being
wasted on efforts that may not be effective. (House of Commons Education Committee 2019, 4)

The following are useful examples of interventions intended to improve the physical develop-
ment and achievement of young children. The parents and carers research conducted by Sanderson
and Preedy (2016) provides case studies where parents successfully assume a ‘play partners’ role in
order to engage with their children. Enhanced relationships, language development and physical
activity were observed and filmed indicating that it is possible to train parents to engage more effec-
tively with their children in order to enhance their development and learning. Another study with a
focus on working with parents is the Born to Move project (Haynes 2012) developed in Kent by
health visitors. A key aim of the project was to work with parents to enable more children to
improve their physical, social and emotional skills in the pre-school years enabling them to start
school with the fundamental movement skills and self-esteem needed to improve equity of life
chances. The three key messages of the project were: the importance of awake tummy time from
birth in preparation for crawling; eyes need to move too; and chatter matters. Across the pilot
area district an improvement in crawling rate rose from 30 per cent to 94 per cent and has been sus-
tained for two years indicating the potential positive impact of parents supporting the physical
development of babies and pre-school children.
Alternatively, some interventions have been based in schools such as the ‘Move 2 Learn’ (M2L;
Bedard, Bremer, and Cairney 2020) programme, which was designed to improve movement and
pre-literacy skills in children aged five to six years. The physical aspect of this program focuses on
teaching a specific movement skill each week with the skills increasing in difficulty throughout
the programme. The programme was led by trained staff, consisted of 10 consecutive weeks of
60-minute sessions covering balance, underhand rolling, leaping and galloping, underhand throw-
ing, jumping, overhand throwing, catching, hopping, kicking and striking. Motor proficiency was
measured using the gross motor subtests of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales – 2nd
edition (Folio and Fewell 2000). Overall, the results from the study suggest that the M2L program
seemed to have had a positive impact on the children’s locomotor skills but did not statistically
improve their stationery and object manipulation skills and alphabet knowledge. This research indi-
cates the positive potential for physical intervention programmes led by trained teachers and prac-
titioners rather than specialists (Riethmuller, Jones, and Okely 2009).
There have also been a number of intervention programmes designed to inhibit primitive
reflexes. The original Bobath and Bobath (1975) neuro-developmental treatment (NDT) was first
introduced in the 1940s to treat children with cerebral palsy. A review of published studies on the
6 P. PREEDY ET AL.

effectiveness of NDT by Law, Russell, and Pollock (1997) found mixed results. More recent pro-
grammes include Primary Movement (McPhillips, Hepper, and Mulhern 2000), Developmental
Reflexive Rehabilitation (McGlown 1990), and the Institute for Neuro-Physiological Psychology
(INPP) programme (Goddard Blythe 1996). The results from a small-scale study suggest that the
Primary Movement programme had a significant effect on improving the fine motor skills of
primary school-aged children when compared to a control movement intervention. The most strik-
ing feature of the results was the number of children (almost 75%) in the experimental group who
were attaining fine motor scores, post-intervention, above the population mean for their age group.
The study highlighted the importance of providing children with the opportunity to participate in a
movement intervention programme. The implementation of the Primary Movement programme in a
school setting had the advantages of taking relatively little time to complete (10 to 15 minutes per
day) and could be used with the whole class. It did not involve any special equipment and was pre-
dominantly movement-based. It did, however, require specialist training.
The literature review has highlighted the importance of physical development to children’s readi-
ness for school and learning. It underlines the important role of parents, professionals and policy
makers in order that all children have the opportunity to develop balance, gross and fine motor
skills needed for learning and for life. As stated by Weiler et al. (2014):
To continue to focus on traditional academic subjects and grades at the expense of physical literacy is short
sighted, naive and demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic human behaviour and developmental
needs. (Weiler et al. 2014, 1012)

The movement for learning project

The authors of the Movement for Learning project responded to an increasing awareness of the
issues raised in the literature review. They wanted to investigate whether a daily movement pro-
gramme would enable children to improve their balance, fine and gross motor movements as
well as inhibiting any primitive reflexes that may still be present (results from testing children’s primi-
tive reflexes are presented separately from this paper). The following key themes from the literature
were taken into consideration when developing the research project:

. Physical development is an important aspect of school readiness. Many children with motor pro-
blems do not ‘catch-up’ later.
. Children need to go through the early childhood stages of physical development in order to
inhibit primitive reflexes, develop postural reflexes and fundamental movement skills such as
throwing, catching, running, leaping and hopping.
. Reduced physical activity linked to modern living e.g. high instances of screen time is impacting
children’s physical development, weight and mental well-being.
. The EYFS does not support sufficiently the physical development of young children.
. Successful intervention programmes are characterised by:
- taking a manageable time to complete (10–20 minutes per day);
- not requiring specialist equipment;
- minimal training;
- delivery by practitioners.

Drawing upon the expertise and experience of the authors and an occupational therapist working
in schools, the programme was written based upon children’s developmental movements, effective
Physical Education (PE) practice and interventions used by occupational therapists. It was piloted in
two schools in 2015–2016, revised, and then delivered in approximately 20 schools (2016–2017).
The intervention programme is delivered in class time by the class teacher and is designed to be
distinct from and additional to PE. There are six units that are delivered over a school year with each
 EDUCATION 3–13 7

unit lasting four weeks. Each unit consists a warmup, main activities and a cool down with an oppor-
tunity to listen to classical music and to articulate sounds included in this final section. Many of the
warm up activities are designed to allow children to re-visit some of the developmental stages that
they should have passed through as a baby (e.g. rolling and crawling) whilst the main activities
resembled those that might more typically be seen in a PE lesson and allowed the children repeated
opportunities to secure and develop their fundamental movement skills (e.g. jumping, throwing,
catching and running). All activities are undertaken without shoes and socks and the sessions last
approximately 20 minutes each.

Methodology
Overview
A mixed methods approach was used in the study. The Movement Assessment Battery for Children
(2nd edition, MABC-2; Barnett, Henderson, and Sugden 2007) was used to assess reception children’s
physical development shortly after they started formal schooling in the September after their fourth
birthday. Thus, baseline data were collected at the start of the school year. During the academic year,
a developmental movement programme, ’Movement for Learning’, was delivered to approximately
half of the children tested with the remaining children engaging solely in normal, everyday activities
as outlined by the Early Years Foundation Stage Framework. Towards the end of the academic year
(June), the researchers re-assessed the children using the same tests. Thus, it was possible to identify
potential improvements and to compare scores across the two groups (intervention and comparison
groups). Approximately 50 schools expressed an initial interest in running the programme and,
whilst it was only feasible to administer the Movement ABC-2 in three schools, an online monitoring
and evaluation survey was sent to these schools and returned by 37 teachers. Thus, a mixture of
qualitative and quantitative methods was used to evaluate the impact of the Movement for Learning
programme on children’s physical development.

Participants
One hundred and eight children from three schools were assessed using the Movement ABC-2 when
they started school in the reception year. The schools selected were all judged to be good or better
in their recent inspections in order to control as far as possible for variations in school quality and
standards. Further details are as follows:
School A (large state school in an area of high socio-economic status)

. Full data sets obtained for 45 pupils

. Baseline data collected September, 2015
. End data collected June, 2016

School B (medium sized state school in an area of medium socio-economic status)

. Full data sets obtained for 39 pupils

. Baseline data collected September, 2016
. End data collected June, 2017

School C (independent school in an area of medium socio-economic status)

. Full data sets obtained for 24 pupils

. Baseline data collected September, 2016
. End data collected June, 2017
8 P. PREEDY ET AL.

A further 37 teachers participated by completing the online monitoring and evaluation survey.

Methods
Physical development tests
The Movement ABC was selected to assess children’s physical development at the start and end of
the reception year. The following assessments were conducted:
Balance

. Standing on one leg (both legs tested)

. Consecutive jumps along 5 mats
. Walking with heels raised along tape on the floor

Aiming/Catching

. Catching 10 beanbags
. Throwing 10 beanbags onto a mat

Manual Dexterity

. Completing a drawing trail

. Posting coins
. Threading beads

For each assessment, a demonstration was given, the children were allowed a practise and then
they had two formal trials with their best score being recorded (aiming and catching was scored out
of 10 and not repeated). The equipment is all included in the pack along with precise instructions so
that each trial is standardised (as much as is possible). Following the baseline physical development
assessments, the movement programme was delivered to approximately half of the children
assessed in each of the three schools. The remaining children acted as a comparison group and
were offered the programme the following year. Both groups engaged in normal EYFS activities,
but the intervention group also participated in the movement programme.

Teacher feedback
An online monitoring and evaluation survey was emailed to teachers who had initially expressed an
interest in running the programme. Of these, 15 had run the programme and 22 had not been able
to (for a variety of reasons as discussed later). The survey had two main purposes: firstly, to gain a
deeper insight into the nature of the impact, if any, the programme had on the young children
who participated; secondly, to identify any issues teachers may have encountered in running the
programme so that improvements could be made in future years.

Ethics
Full ethical approval was granted from the University’s ethics committee prior to the start of the data
collection. As part of this process, information sheets and consent forms were sent to parents prior to
the assessments in school and pupils were asked to show that they were willing to participate (fol-
lowing some brief information being read to them), by placing a smiley face sticker into a circle on
their assent form. Head teacher consent was also gained from each school and anonymity of the
schools and pupils assured. Both the parents and the pupils knew that they did not have to partici-
pate and that they could withdraw at any time.
 EDUCATION 3–13 9

Data analysis
The raw scores from the Movement ABC were entered into Excel and used to create a standard score
for each component (Balance, Aiming or Catching, and Manual Dexterity). These standard scores
were converted into a percentile score using the tables provide in the ABC manual. An overall phys-
ical development standard score was then calculated by summing across the three components and
this was also converted to a percentile score. Differences at baseline and end of intervention were
explored with Chi-square. Univariate ANOVA was used to examine differences between the interven-
tion and control group in changes in percentile scores across the intervention period. All the assump-
tions for ANOVA were met, except there were some outliers in the ABC balance and ABC total PD
measures. Given that other assumptions were met and that ANOVA is fairly robust to violations of
assumptions with group sizes greater than 20, the outlier scores were retained. As a check, we per-
formed the ANOVAs both with and without the outliers, and there was no material difference in
results. We report the results with the outliers included, as this provided the most conservative esti-
mate of effect. SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp. 2017) was used for all statistical analyses. Significance was
set at p < .05.
The responses from the online survey were downloaded into an Excel file for further analysis. As
the purpose of the survey was to provide qualitative examples of how the programme may have
benefited participants and also to identify ways in which the programme might be improved in
future years, the first stage of the analysis was to allocate responses into these two broad categories.
Subsequently, themes for each category were then identified. Key themes for impact were: aca-
demic, physical, social/personal and behaviour. Key themes for the second category were: barriers
to participation; and ways in which the programme had worked well.

Findings
ABC tests
Baseline characteristics of the participants are described in Table 1. At baseline there was
no difference between groups for age, proportion of males, or any of the ABC measures (p
< .05).
Table 2 shows the baseline and end of intervention scores for each of the ABC components and
the overall total score. The intervention group started 20 percentile points below and the compari-
son group started 16 percentile points below the norms established for the test ten years previously
(2007).
Table 2 Univariate ANOVA of the change scores showed significant changes in favour of the inter-
vention group for ABC Balance, ABC Manual Dexterity, and ABC Total PD score. The effect sizes
associated with these changes are classed as medium. Inspection of Table 2 shows that, for these
three aspects, there were mean improvements in the order of 6–18 percentage points for the inter-
vention group, while the comparison group showed either no change or decrements of up to 9 per-
centage points. Both groups improved their ABC aiming and catching scores with there was no
significant difference between the two groups.

Table 1. Description of sample.

Overall (n = 108) Intervention (n = 55) Control (n = 53)
Age (months) 53.96 (3.20) 54.05 (3.10) 53.87 (3.33)
Sex (n, %male) 58 (53.7%) 29 (52.7%) 29 (54.7)
ABC balance percentile 44.09 (31.99) 41.91 (31.34) 46.35 (32.79)
ABC manual dexterity percentile 34.88 (26.36) 32.23 (24.78) 37.64 (27.86)
ABC aiming/catching percentile 31.24 (24.54) 31.86 (23.49) 30.59 (25.81)
Total movement ABC percentile 32.07 (26.39) 32.07 (24.54) 34.49 (28.22)
Note: Data are mean (SD) unless otherwise stated.
10 P. PREEDY ET AL.

Table 2. Baseline and end of intervention scores for ABC components by group.
Group Baseline End of intervention Mean change F df p Effect sizea
ABC balance I 41.91 (31.34) 55.02 (33.98) 13.11 (26.95) 7.24 1, 106 .008 .06
C 46.35 (32.79) 45.08 (31.76) −1.27 (28.62)
ABC manual dexterity I 32.23 (24.78) 38.23 (29.50) 6.00 (32.21) 6.38 1, 106 0.013 .06
C 37.64 (27.86) 28.56 (25.75) −9.08 (29.77)
ABC aiming and I 31.86 (23.49) 55.45 (25.62) 23.60 (29.09) 1.18 1, 106 .281 .01
catching C 30.59 (25.81) 47.89 (27.15) 17.29 (31.34)
ABC total PD score I 29.75 (24.54) 47.63 (30.96) 17.88 (24.33) 13.38 1, 106 <.001 .11
C 34.49 (28.22) 34.04 (27.46) −.45 (27.70)
Note: Effect size = partial eta squared −.01 = small; .09 = medium; .25 = large.

Teacher feedback
Teachers reported improvements across four broad themes: academic, personal/social, physical and
behavioural. There were some overlaps between categories, for example, improvements in hand-
writing were seen to be an academic advantage and also evidence that fine motor skills had
improved. Likewise, the ability to sit still (a physical skill) was seen to have increased the time chil-
dren were able to sit still and listen. It was also noted by three of the 15 teachers that they were not
able to state for certain that it was the programme that had led to these changes. In this regard, the
Movement ABC data is a helpful addition. The following sections provide an overview of the analysis
for each of these four themes and illustrative quotes are provided.

Academic impact
Within this section, comments highlighted: improved writing, listening skills, ability to follow instruc-
tions and greater stamina to complete written tasks. The following quotes from teachers illustrate
these improvements:
Children’s writing levels have improved since we started the programme and their physical readiness to write.

Greater stamina when working on learning tasks; this has been especially evident in writing this term.

We did the programme first thing in the morning – children displayed good listening skills after the sessions,
settling well for the school day and ready to learn.

Personal/social skills
Responses were fewer than in other themes, perhaps suggesting that this was an area where the
programme had the least impact. For example, nine out of the fifteen teachers did not provide a
response in this area. Three teachers did, however, identify that opportunities for children to work
together had proved beneficial:
Yes … working together and sharing and taking turns. Praising each other when they learnt a new skill. Saying, I
can’t do it yet (which I like).

The children did work well together and often helped each other in the sessions.

Children were encouraged to work with different partners during the sessions; this helped to form new friend-
ships and reinforce expected social values.

Physical skills
The following physical skills were identified as having improved: coordination, handwriting, cutting,
balance, gross/fine motor skills and agility. One teacher also commented that children were moving
more freely and confidently and that their ability to move around in a space had improved. Interest-
ingly, children were expected to take their shoes off to participate and their ability to do so was
 EDUCATION 3–13 11

identified as one area where they had improved as a cohort. The following comments provide further
insight:
They became noticeably more agile and when we had a Year 2 group join us in a session, they were not as able
to do some of the exercises.

Children visibly improved at specific skills, e.g. balancing over the course of each unit. The programme gave chil-
dren who needed lots of physical development an allotted time to make sure that they had some structured
movement every day.

We had an increase in the amount of children achieving an expected level of development.

Behaviour
Four teachers did not identify any behavioural improvements as a result of children’s participation.
Those teachers who had noticed improvements in behaviour often cited improved behaviour
immediately following the session. Others noted that their classes were more independent earlier
on in the year; that the children seemed calmer; were more alert; and seemed more ‘ready to
learn’, as illustrated in their comments:
Possibly the timing of the session at the start of the day was helpful in getting the children focussed for the
classroom.

Children more ready to learn and tuned into listening more.

Pupils more alert after their session. Improvement and ability to follow and listen to instructions.

A second reason for administering this survey was to establish what worked well about the pro-
gramme. The teacher comments above have given some insight into what teachers liked and, in par-
ticular, they seemed to find the programme especially helpful at the start of the day as this seemed
to ready the children for learning. Some teachers felt that the repetitive nature of the programme
was especially effective as it allowed time for children to catch up but two teachers felt that it
was too repetitive. The notion that ‘we can’t do it yet’ was put forward by one teacher who explained
that her class appeared more willing to give things ‘a go’ and not be put off by early failure. Teachers
also liked that the resource was provided free of charge as a set of lesson plans and that no training
was required to deliver it (i.e. school staff delivered as part of the EYFS curriculum). The resources
required were largely available in schools, but some teachers did comment that they had been
unable to run all activities because they were short of some resources.
The final reason for the survey was to gain insight into what teachers had found effective or
challenging about the programme in order to improve the programme in the future but also to
gain a deeper understanding of the challenges associated with delivering Movement for Learning.
In this regard, reasons for why 22/37 teachers had not been able to implement the programme,
despite expressing an interest, are especially enlightening. Some schools had not delivered the
programme because they had not had time to implement it that year but were hoping to run it
in the future; this suggests that plenty of warning is given to schools before introducing similar
programmes so that they have time to plan. Indeed, another common reason given by teachers
was that there were timetabling issues which meant they were unable to have adequate hall
time allocated to them and/or other curriculum pressures meant that the class teacher did not
feel able to prioritise time for Movement for Learning over and above other curriculum areas.
Some schools were already running other initiatives or similar programmes and some had
different priorities (often decided by management or as a result of recent or upcoming Ofsted
inspections). A lack of staff or changes to staffing were also given as reasons. One school had
found their year group particularly challenging whilst another had three reception classes and
did not feel able to deliver the programme because of this. It would seem that commonly cited
reasons for PE not being delivered to older age groups in primary schools (time, space, curriculum
12 P. PREEDY ET AL.

pressures and staff) are also problematic for reception teachers trying to incorporate a movement
programme into their daily timetable (Duncombe, Cale, and Harris 2018).

Discussion
Data from the Movement ABC-2 and the teacher survey demonstrate the positive impact that Move-
ment for Learning had for children in a range of areas. Statistical analysis of the Movement ABC data
highlighted improvements in manual dexterity, balance and overall physical development, whilst
the teacher survey provided a deeper understanding of what this looked like in the classroom
with teachers identifying ways in which they felt the programme had contributed to improvements
in four areas: academic, personal/social, behavioural and physical. The literature review identified
why a good level of physical development is important for academic and physical success and,
with this in mind, the effectiveness of Movement for Learning in improving a range of outcomes
is noteworthy. Physical development scores for the intervention group improved by almost 18 per-
centile points but reduced slightly for the comparison group who were following the prescribed
EYFS; this is worrying and we would suggest that the physical development component of this fra-
mework is reviewed and adequate support provided for teachers.
Key components of physical development, as adopted by the Movement ABC, are identified as:
manual dexterity, balance and aiming/catching. Clearly, this is just one way of assessing overall phys-
ical development and we acknowledge that this approach provides a snapshot in time rather than a
context-specific observation of a broader range of both fine and gross motor skills over time. The
teacher comments are helpful in this regard but this research may have benefited from the use of
additional research tools (primitive reflex scores were also measured and supported our overall
findings but this data will be reported elsewhere). Taking each component of the Movement ABC
scores is, however, helpful. Children in this research, for example, began Reception with balance
scores close to the norm of 50 (Intervention group: 41.91; comparison group: 46.35). The balance
score for the comparison group declined to 45.08 whilst in the intervention group improved to
55.02. It may be that play opportunities in nursery settings and homes, such as using trikes and
climbing apparatus enabled children to develop their balance close to established norms.
However, the decline in Reception is concerning and may be linked to more sitting and formalised
learning. Both dynamic and static balance is measured by the Movement ABC and future research
might shed light on whether children struggled more with one than the other; it is possible that chil-
dren are able to compensate for poor balance by moving at speed but this would require further
analysis.
The low manual dexterity scores for both groups at the start of reception are particularly concern-
ing: (intervention group: 32.23; comparison group: 37.64). Again, at the end of the 12-month inter-
vention, the intervention group had improved to 38.23 (still considerably below the percentile score
of 50), and the comparison group had declined to 28.56. Although there are several exercises in the
programme requiring fine motor movements it would be interesting to see if scores improved if this
aspect was increased in the programme. Given the focus in the EYFS on the development of literacy
and the core skills of reading and writing, it is not surprising that many children are not developmen-
tally able to cope with the fine motor tasks expected of them. Consideration needs to be given as to
whether young children are given sufficient opportunities for developing their fine motor skills
through play with items such as jigsaws, building blocks, scissors and playdough.
Whilst improvements for the intervention are noted in all other areas, this was not the case for
aiming and catching. The Aiming and Catching scores for the intervention and comparison
groups were both below the percentile score of 50 (intervention group: 31.86; comparison group:
30.59) but at the end of the project both groups had improved to be near the norm of 2007 (inter-
vention group 55.45; comparison group: 47.89). It may be that the curriculum in school (including
physical education) provides greater opportunities for activities and games involving throwing
and catching.
 EDUCATION 3–13 13

Although the movement project had a clear impact on the children, staff and schools in the
project, the research is limited to 108 children from three schools, and therefore, our data may
have been strengthened by a larger sample size. However, the Movement ABC-2 findings were con-
sistent across the schools in the study and confirmed by teachers who participated in the survey. It
would be interesting in future studies to compare data from a wider range of schools and local auth-
orities. Funding for the research was extremely limited restricting both the research methods and
sample size. A wider research project could include detailed contextualised observations of the chil-
dren and information from parents. Likewise, longitudinal research to track physical development
and academic achievement would have been valuable additions to the research project.
Feedback from teachers indicated that the Movement for Learning programme was straightfor-
ward and cost-effective to implement. In particular, they felt they could manage 20 minutes a day to
implement the programme alongside all of the other pressures they were encountering including
inspection. The positive impact of the movement programme was measurable and observable in
the children both in terms of their physical development and the motor skills needed for learning
– particularly handwriting. Wider implementation of the project would require funding and
support at local and national levels.

Conclusion
Movement for Learning was successful in improving scores of physical development for those who
participated when compared to children who engaged solely in EYFS activities and, as such, may be a
useful intervention for teachers wanting to improve the physical skills of the children in their classes.
We can, however, see from the data that, although improvements were made, this alone, is not
enough (children in the intervention group did improve but, on the whole, only improved to a
level that was seen as the norm in 2007); clearly there is still much room for improvement and,
whilst a daily movement programme such as this can help it is not, on its own, sufficient. It is also
of concern that many of these children were starting school with delays in their physical develop-
ment (as discussed in more detail in another paper: authors, 2020).
It is interesting that the children who completed the movement programme significantly improved
their scores on the ABC test whilst the comparison group showed either no change or decrements of
up to 9 percentile points indicating that the EYFS may not provide sufficiently for children’s physical
needs and development. Keys to the success of the project are the manageable amount of time that
needs to be allocated each day (20 minutes), the delivery of the programme by committed school staff
(not specialists) and the use of everyday resources available in school; as well as measurable and
observable positive impact on children’s physical development and learning.
It is clear that parents and professionals working with young children need a greater understand-
ing of physical development and ways in which children can be supported in developing their phys-
ical skills. Moving forward, an understanding of children’s physical development and the impact of
interventions is required if policy makers, professionals and parents are to provide what babies and
young children need in order to put in place, coherently and consistently, the physical building
blocks needed for successful learning. As highlighted by UNICEF (2012) schools and families also
need to be ready for children. Until the early experiences of children enable them to go through
the required milestones and develop physical readiness for school, it would seem that a physical
intervention programme, (such as Movement for Learning), based on reliable and valid research
should become an integral part of early childhood provision and the early years’ curriculum. Ways
in which this might work best in schools would need further investigation.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support received from an occupational therapist during the developmental
stage; Loughborough University during the research process and to the academics and researchers who gave their time
14 P. PREEDY ET AL.

during the data collection phase. We would also like to acknowledge the teachers, parents and children who
participated.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Pat Preedy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8317-2777
Rebecca Duncombe http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5009-6253
Trish Gorely http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7367-0679

References
Barnett, A., S. E. Henderson, and D. A. Sugden. 2007. Movement Assessment Battery for Children. 2nd ed. London: Pearson.
Bedard, C., E. Bremer, and J. Cairney. 2020. “Evaluation of the Move 2 Learn Program, a Community-Based Movement
and Pre-Literacy Intervention for Young Children.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 25 (1): 101–117. doi:10.
1080/17408989.2019.1690645.
Blair, M., and D. Hall. 2006. “From Health Surveillance to Health Promotion: The Changing Focus in Preventive Children’s
Services.” Archives of Disease in Childhood 91 (9): 730–735. doi:10.1136/adc.2004.065003.
Bobath, B., and K. Bobath. 1975. Motor Development in the Different Types of Cerebral Palsy. London: William Heinemann
Medical.
Cantell, M., P. Ahonen, and M. Smyth. 1994. Clumsiness Adolescence: Educational, Motor, and Social Outcomes of Motor
Delay Detected at 5 Years. Findland: Humen Kinetics.
Chapelais, J. D., and A. Macfarlane. 1984. “A Review of 404 Late Walkers.” Archives of Disease in Childhood 59: 512–516.
doi:10.1136/adc.59.6.512.
Department of Health and Social Care. 2019. UK Chief Medical Officers’ Physical Activity Guidelines. London: Department
of Health and Social Care.
DfE (Department for Education). 2020. Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for
Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. London: DfE.
Donnelly, L. 2014. “Half of Children Are Not Ready to Start School.” The Telegraph, September 23. http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/news/uknews/11113837/Half-of-children-are-not-ready-to-start-school.html.
Duncombe, R. 2019. The Physical Development Needs of Young Children. Oxon: Routledge.
Duncombe, R., L. Cale, and J. Harris. 2018. “Strengthening ‘the Foundations’ of the Primary School Curriculum.”
Education 3-13 46 (1): 76–88. doi:10.1080/03004279.2016.1185137.
Duncombe, R., and P. Preedy. 2020. Physical Development in the Early Years: Exploring its Importance and the Adequacy of
Current Provision in the United Kingdom. Education 3–13. doi:10.1080/03004279.2020.1817963.
Folio, M., and R. Fewell. 2000. Peabody Developmental Motor Scales – Second Edition (PDMS-2): Examiner’s Manual. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Gallahue, D. L., J. C. Ozmun, and J. Goodway. 2012. Understanding Motor Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents,
Adults. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goddard Blythe, S. 1996. The INPP Screening Test and Developmental Movement Programme for Use in Schools with
Children with Specific Learning Difficulties. Restricted Publication. INPP Chester.
Goddard Blythe, S. 2008. What Babies and Children Really Need. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn.
Goddard Blythe, S. 2009. Attention, Balance and Coordination – The A,B,C of Learning Success. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Goddard Blythe, S. 2012. Assessing Neuromotor Readiness for Learning: The INPP Developmental Screening Test and School
Intervention Programme. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Grigg, T., W. Fox-Turnbull, and I. Culpan. 2018. “Retained Primitive Reflexes: Perceptions of Parents Who Have Used
Rhythmic Movement Training with Their Children.” Journal of Child Health Care 22 (3): 406–418. doi:10.1177/
1367493518760736.
Haynes, J. 2012. Born to Move. Kent: NHS.
Haynes, J., and L. Haynes. 2016. “Born to Move: The Importance of Early Physical Activity and Interaction.” Community
Practitioner 89 (8): 37–41.
Henderson, S., D. Sugden, R. Geuze, and A. Losse. 1990. Test of Motor Impairment, Second Henderson Revision. London:
The Psychological Corporation Limited.
House of Commons Education Committee. 2019. Tackling Disadvantage in the Early Years. London: House of Commons.
IBM Corp. 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Illingworth, R. 1987. The Development of the Infant and the Young Child. California: Harcourt India.
 EDUCATION 3–13 15

Law, M., D. Russell, and N. Pollock. 1997. “A Comparison of Intensive Neurodevelopmental Therapy Plus Casting and a
Regular Occupational Therapy Program for Children with Cerebral Palsy.” Medicine and Child Neurology 39 (10): 664–
670.
Lubans, D. R., P. J. Morgan, D. P. Cliff, L. M. Barnett, and A. D. Okely. 2010. “Fundamental Movement Skills in Children and
Adolescents.” Sports Medicine 40 (12): 1019–1035. doi:10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000.
Marlen, D. 2019. “Natural Physical Development in the First Year: Learning from the Pikler Approach.” In The Physical
Development Needs of Young Children, edited by R. Duncombe, 75–89. Oxford: Routledge.
McGlown, D. 1990. Developmental Reflexive Rehabilitation. New Jersey: Eribaum Associates.
McPhillips, M., P. G. Hepper, and G. Mulhern. 2000. “Effects of Replicating Primary Reflex Movements on Specific Reading
Difficulties in Children. A Randomised, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial.” Lancet 355 (2): 537–541.
Meggitt, C. 2012. Child Development: An Illustrated Guide. Essex: Pearson.
O’Connor, A., and A. Daly. 2016. Understanding Physical Development in the Early Years: Linking Bodies and Minds. Oxford:
Routledge.
Preedy, P., K. Sanderson, and C. Ball. 2019. Early Childhood Education Redefined. Oxon: Routledge.
Riethmuller, A. M., R. A. Jones, and A. D. Okely. 2009. “Efficacy of Interventions to Improve Motor Development in Young
Children: A Systematic Review.” Pediatrics 124 (4): e782–e792. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0333.
Sanderson, K., and P. Preedy. 2016. “Supporting Parents of Parents of Preschool Children to Develop Strategies for
Schema-Based Play Activities to Enhance Attachment and Well-Being.” Fire Forum for International Research 3 (2):
25–40.
Sigman, A. 2012. “Time for a View on Screentime.” Archives of Disease in Childhood 97: 935–942.
Townsend, N., K. Wickramasinghe, J. Williams, P. Bhatnagar, and M. Rayner. 2015. Physical Activity Statistics 2015. London:
British Heart Foundation.
UNICEF (United Nations Children Fund). 2012. School Readiness: A Conceptual Framework. New York: UNICEF.
Visser, M. M., and D. Franzen. 2010. “The Association of an Omitted Crawling Milestone with Pencil Grasp and Control in
Five and Six Year Old Children.” South African Journal of Occupational Therapy 40 (2): 19–23.
Weiler, R., S. Allardyce, P. Whyte, and E. Stamatakis. 2014. “Is the Lack of Physical Activity Strategy for Children Complicit
Mass Child Neglect?” British Journal of Sports Medicine 24 (13): 1010–1013.
Wesley, P. W., and V. Buysse. 2003. “Making Meaning of School Readiness in Schools and Communities.” Early Childhood
Research Quarterly 18: 352–375.