Promoting Children’s Psychomotor Development with Multi-Teaching Didactics

Pietro Luigi Invernizzi, Gabriele Signorini, Marta Rigon, Alin Larion, Gaetano Raiola, Francesca D’Elia, Andrea Bosio and Raffaele Scurati ()
Additional contact information
Pietro Luigi Invernizzi: Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20129 Milan, Italy
Gabriele Signorini: Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20129 Milan, Italy
Marta Rigon: Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20129 Milan, Italy
Alin Larion: Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Ovidius University of Constanta, 900527 Constanta, Romania
Gaetano Raiola: Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy
Francesca D’Elia: Department of Humanities, Philosophy and Education, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy
Andrea Bosio: Human Performance Laboratory, Mapei Sport, 21057 Olgiate Olona, Italy
Raffaele Scurati: Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20129 Milan, Italy

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 17, 1-22

Abstract: This group randomized control trial examined the dose-response effect of varied combinations of linear and nonlinear pedagogy (enriched physical education with specific program led by specialist vs. conventional physical education led by generalist) for improving first-grade children’s motor creativity, executive functions, self-efficacy, and learning enjoyment. We led three physical education classes per group through 12 weeks of combined instruction, based on linear and nonlinear pedagogy: mostly linear (ML; 80% linear, 20% nonlinear; n = 62); mostly nonlinear (MNL; 20% linear, 80% nonlinear; n = 61); and control (C; conventional teaching from generalists; n = 60). MNL improved in (a) motor creativity ability (DMA; 48.7%, 76.5%, and 47.6% for locomotor, stability, and manipulative tasks, respectively); (b) executive functions (working memory and inhibitory control) for RNG task (14.7%) and task errors (70.8%); (c) self-efficacy (5.9%); and (d) enjoyment (8.3%). In ML, DMA improved by 18.0% in locomotor and 60.9% in manipulative tasks. C improved of 10.5% in enjoyment, and RNG task worsened by 22.6%. MNL improvements in DMA tasks, executive functions, and self-efficacy were significantly better than those in C. ML was better than C in DMA task and in executive functions’ task errors. Overall, ML and MNL approaches were more effective than conventional generalist teaching (C), and the MNL combination of 80% nonlinear and 20% linear pedagogy was optimal. We recommend that educators favor the MNL approach.

Keywords: teaching; styles; motor learning; physical education (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10939/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/17/10939/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:17:p:10939-:d:904510

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().