**Learning Styles in Physical Education**

Fernando Maureira Cid, Elizabeth Flores Ferro,

**Learning Styles in Physical Education**

#### Fernando Maureira Cid, Elizabeth Flores Ferro, Hernán Díaz Muñoz and Luis Valenzuela Contreras Hernán Díaz Muñoz and Luis Valenzuela Contreras Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72503

#### **Abstract**

The learning styles are cognitive, affective, and physiological traits concerning how students perceive and process information, which is why their knowledge is relevant to enhance the methodologies of classes by teachers and learning strategies by students. Although there are several models that define and evaluate learning styles, a few of them have been used in physical education, highlighting the theories of Alonso, Gallego and Honey, the Kolb model, Herrmann's theory of brain dominance and Model VAK. The few studies carried out in this sample show a preference for reflexive, divergent, dominated B (organized) and D (holistic) styles and for a kinesthetic style. Further studies are required on how students perceive and process information in various areas of education, with the aim of contributing with one more tool to improving the teaching-learning process.

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72503

**Keywords:** learning styles, physical education, reflective, diverging, dominance, kinesthetic

#### **1. Introduction**

The term learning style refers to the fact that people use different methods to learn. Although these strategies vary according to what one wants to know, each one develops and enhances cognitive traits, preferences, and tendencies to face a knowledge process, aspects that are defined as a learning style [1]. In 2007, Camargo and Hederich [2] defined the concept of style, explaining that its origin does not correspond to the educational context, but comes from the arts, referring to the characteristics of an esthetic trend identifiable and distinctive. According to Camargo and Hederich, the term style begins to be used in psychology toward the decade of 1950 to talk about certain differentiating or individualizing traits in the characterization of a person.

Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

According to Camargo and Hederich, a definition of learning styles is described as the cognitive, affective and physiological traits that serve as stable indicators of how students perceive, interact, and respond to their learning environments, that is, they have to do with the way students structure content, form and use concepts, interpret information, solve problems, select means of representation, and so on. The affecting traits are linked to the motivations and expectations that influence learning, while the physiological traits are related to gender and biological rhythms [3].

temporal thinking, with analytical processes such as language comprehension-production, sequential reception of information, sequence numbers, logical analysis and rationality [10].

Learning Styles in Physical Education http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72503 245

The existence of these functional differences between the two hemispheres and their independence in regard to perception, apprehension, memories, and feelings, including the argument that the surgical separation of the brain divides the mind into two distinct spheres of knowledge and opens the possibility of dual knowledge in a normal brain [11]. This has led to the idea of the existence of two modes of thought and learning styles, which implies the need for two ways of teaching since a left hemispheric student would have abstract thinking, while a right hemispheric student would be the possessor of a more concrete logical thought [10].

The VAK model (Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic) was proposed in 1978. The characteristics

**a. Visual style:** Learn more if you do it through the visual channel. He/she likes to get the most visual stimulation possible, prefers reading and studying graphs. Oral lectures, conversations, and instructions without visual support can produce anxiety and confusion. These learners require the visual stimulation of information boards, videos, film, words written on the board, a book or notepad, as they will better remember and understand the information and instructions they receive through the visual channel. If you attend a

**b. Auditory style:** This type of student learns better through hearing, for example, with oral explanations. You can better remember and understand the information if you read aloud or if you move your lips while reading especially when it comes to new material. You can benefit by listening to electromagnetic tapes, lectures, class discussions, teaching other

**c. Kinesthetic style:** This type of student learns best through experience, making more profit by engaging in physical activities in the classroom. Your active participation in the different tasks, trips and role played in the classroom will help you remember the information better. Sitting at a desk for many hours is uncomfortable, needs frequent rest and, above

Currently, there are several instruments for measuring VAK learning styles, one of which has five dimensions: immediate environment, own emotionality, sociological needs, physical needs, and psychological needs, evaluated through Dunn's Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) and Dunn composed of 104 items with three alternative answers each: true, false, and I do not know. This instrument was designed for children between 3 and 12 of the US educational system [13].

On the other hand, the Kolb's model defines learning as the process of creating knowledge through experience, that is, learning is generated from subjective experiences and based on it

and together with other authors schematized the process in four stages [14]:

conference or receive instructions verbally, you should take note.

**2.2. Model VAK**

**2.3. Kolb's model**

of these learners are as follows [12]:

peers, or conversing with the teacher.

all, physical action in games and dramatic activities.

Another definition states that the expression learning styles have to do with how the mind processes information, learning strategies to work content and how this process is influenced by perceptions [4]. It can also be defined as sets of behaviors and attitudes in relation to the learning context [5]. Some principles about learning styles have been identified, among which the following criteria stand out: (a) styles are preferences in the use of skills, but are not skills in and of themselves; (b) a relationship between styles and skills generates a synergy more important than the simple sum of the parts; (c) people have profiles or patterns of styles, not a single style; (d) styles are variable according to tasks and situations; and (e) people differ in their stylistic flexibility [6].

On the other hand, Woolfolk [7] chooses the concept of preferences, on learning styles, and defines it as the preferred way of studying and learning such as using images instead of text, working alone or in groups, learning in structured or unstructured situations and in other relevant conditions such as an environment with or without music, the type of chair used, and so on. The preference for a particular style may not always guarantee that the use of that style will be effective. Hence in these cases, certain students can benefit by developing new ways of learning. Finally, one of the most widespread definitions in the scientific community is that of Keefe [8] who proposes that learning styles are physiological, cognitive, and emotional modes of how human beings receive and process information.

This chapter addresses the main theories concerning learning styles (CHAEA, Kolb, VAK, Brain Dominations, etc.) with their characteristics. Afterward, we summarize the findings of different scientific works in this area, in Spanish, between 2010 and 2017, made by students of physical education or of related study.

### **2. Models of learning styles**

Since the 1960s of the last century, different models have emerged to explain and classify learning styles, while some focused on the selection of information and others on how to acquire knowledge. The most relevant model in the field of education is given in the following section.

### **2.1. Divided brain model**

Sperry [9] generates a model known as a divided brain, which relates the right hemisphere to spatial reasoning, visualization, creativity, musical aptitudes, and the simultaneous and satisfactory processing of information. This hemisphere is identified with a nonverbal, imaginative, and holistic thinking style. For its part, the left hemisphere is related to sequential and temporal thinking, with analytical processes such as language comprehension-production, sequential reception of information, sequence numbers, logical analysis and rationality [10].

The existence of these functional differences between the two hemispheres and their independence in regard to perception, apprehension, memories, and feelings, including the argument that the surgical separation of the brain divides the mind into two distinct spheres of knowledge and opens the possibility of dual knowledge in a normal brain [11]. This has led to the idea of the existence of two modes of thought and learning styles, which implies the need for two ways of teaching since a left hemispheric student would have abstract thinking, while a right hemispheric student would be the possessor of a more concrete logical thought [10].

### **2.2. Model VAK**

According to Camargo and Hederich, a definition of learning styles is described as the cognitive, affective and physiological traits that serve as stable indicators of how students perceive, interact, and respond to their learning environments, that is, they have to do with the way students structure content, form and use concepts, interpret information, solve problems, select means of representation, and so on. The affecting traits are linked to the motivations and expectations that influence learning, while the physiological traits are related to gender

244 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

Another definition states that the expression learning styles have to do with how the mind processes information, learning strategies to work content and how this process is influenced by perceptions [4]. It can also be defined as sets of behaviors and attitudes in relation to the learning context [5]. Some principles about learning styles have been identified, among which the following criteria stand out: (a) styles are preferences in the use of skills, but are not skills in and of themselves; (b) a relationship between styles and skills generates a synergy more important than the simple sum of the parts; (c) people have profiles or patterns of styles, not a single style; (d) styles are variable according to tasks and situations; and (e) people differ in

On the other hand, Woolfolk [7] chooses the concept of preferences, on learning styles, and defines it as the preferred way of studying and learning such as using images instead of text, working alone or in groups, learning in structured or unstructured situations and in other relevant conditions such as an environment with or without music, the type of chair used, and so on. The preference for a particular style may not always guarantee that the use of that style will be effective. Hence in these cases, certain students can benefit by developing new ways of learning. Finally, one of the most widespread definitions in the scientific community is that of Keefe [8] who proposes that learning styles are physiological, cognitive, and emotional modes

This chapter addresses the main theories concerning learning styles (CHAEA, Kolb, VAK, Brain Dominations, etc.) with their characteristics. Afterward, we summarize the findings of different scientific works in this area, in Spanish, between 2010 and 2017, made by students of

Since the 1960s of the last century, different models have emerged to explain and classify learning styles, while some focused on the selection of information and others on how to acquire knowledge. The most relevant model in the field of education is given in the following section.

Sperry [9] generates a model known as a divided brain, which relates the right hemisphere to spatial reasoning, visualization, creativity, musical aptitudes, and the simultaneous and satisfactory processing of information. This hemisphere is identified with a nonverbal, imaginative, and holistic thinking style. For its part, the left hemisphere is related to sequential and

and biological rhythms [3].

their stylistic flexibility [6].

of how human beings receive and process information.

physical education or of related study.

**2. Models of learning styles**

**2.1. Divided brain model**

The VAK model (Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic) was proposed in 1978. The characteristics of these learners are as follows [12]:


Currently, there are several instruments for measuring VAK learning styles, one of which has five dimensions: immediate environment, own emotionality, sociological needs, physical needs, and psychological needs, evaluated through Dunn's Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) and Dunn composed of 104 items with three alternative answers each: true, false, and I do not know. This instrument was designed for children between 3 and 12 of the US educational system [13].

#### **2.3. Kolb's model**

On the other hand, the Kolb's model defines learning as the process of creating knowledge through experience, that is, learning is generated from subjective experiences and based on it and together with other authors schematized the process in four stages [14]:

**a. Concrete experience:** the world is experienced through the senses such as sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste, and these senses generate learning.

**2.4. Model by Ned Hermann**

these learning styles are as follows:

organized structures.

alistic. They learn by reasoning and using logic.

tions involving emotions and feelings.

and to evaluate the behavior of others.

**2.5. Model by Alonso and Gallego y Honey**

and look well before acting.

From the split-brain model [9] and the triune brain [16, 17] which posits the existence of three brain layers, each representing an evolutionary state called the reptilian brain that would be responsible for control muscular, respiratory, cardiac, balance, and so on. A second layer that is named as a paleo-mammalian brain or limbic brain that manages the emotions, instincts, ingestion, confrontation, flight, sexual behavior, and the tendency to gregariousness. The third layer is called neo-mammalian brain or neo-cortex brain where the invention and the abstract thought are located. Based on these two theories, Herrmann [18] elaborates a model of the brain constituted by four quadrants that represent different ways of operating, of thinking, of creating, of learning and, in sum, of coexisting with the world. The characteristics of

Learning Styles in Physical Education http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72503 247

**a. Dominance A:** corresponds to the left-cortical hemispheric mixture. They are analytical, logical, quantitative, based on facts, intelligent, distant, ironic, competitive and individu-

**b. Dominance B:** corresponds to the left-limbic hemispheric mixture. They are organized, sequential, retail, and introverted people. They learn from experience through routine and

**c. Dominance C:** corresponds to the hemispheric right-limbic mixture. They are original, independent, with a good sense of humor, who like interpersonal relationships and situa-

**d. Dominance D:** corresponds to the right-cortical hemispheric mixture. They are intuitive, holistic, integrative, extroverted, and emotive people. They like to listen and ask, to share,

The author of this model elaborated the Herrmann Inventory of Brain Dominance that consists of 40 adjectives that describe the types of behaviors organized in 10 columns with four concepts each. The evaluated should weigh the adjectives of each column with values between 1 = less dominant and 4 = more dominant [19]. The results give scores on dominance A (logical), dominance B (organized), dominance C (interpersonal), and dominance D (holistic).

This model was based on the instrument of Honey and Munford, elaborated for professionals of companies of the United Kingdom, which has been adapted and validated by Catalina

**a. Assets:** Like new experiences, they are open-minded, nonskeptical, and willing to under-

**b. Reflective:** They like to observe the experiences from different perspectives. They gather data to analyze them carefully before reaching any conclusions. They prefer to be cautious

Alonso. The classification given by this model has the following characteristics [3]:

take new tasks. They are people who live in the here and now.


These four stages work in the same way, becoming a cycle, in which experience is transformed into action, and each cycle perfects and helps to generate understanding. Kolb argues that if a cycle is skipped, learning is incomplete so it will generate a slower, more limited process with little group impact. In the **Figure 1** are observed the different dimensions of this model.

From this, it poses and describes the following learning styles:


Kolb designed an instrument to evaluate learning styles that consist of 12 sets of 4 words (where each represents a style) and the evaluated one must number between 1 and 4 each concept based on which characteristics define him/her better.

**Figure 1.** Learning styles Kolb's model [15].

#### **2.4. Model by Ned Hermann**

**a. Concrete experience:** the world is experienced through the senses such as sight, hearing,

**b. Reflective observation:** reflections on personal experiences are analyzed and sought to

**c. Abstract conceptualization:** the extent to which the analysis of experiences is integrated

**d. Active experimentation:** when theories are tested in daily reality, a new knowledge and

These four stages work in the same way, becoming a cycle, in which experience is transformed into action, and each cycle perfects and helps to generate understanding. Kolb argues that if a cycle is skipped, learning is incomplete so it will generate a slower, more limited process with little group impact. In the **Figure 1** are observed the different dimensions of this model.

**a. Divergents:** capture information through real and concrete experiences and process them

**b. Convergents:** perceive abstractly by way of conceptual formulation and actively process

**c. Accommodators:** capture information from concrete experiences and actively process them.

Kolb designed an instrument to evaluate learning styles that consist of 12 sets of 4 words (where each represents a style) and the evaluated one must number between 1 and 4 each

and synthesized, inferences are created about why things are as they are.

touch, smell and taste, and these senses generate learning.

246 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

understanding are generated that can be applied in life.

From this, it poses and describes the following learning styles:

**d. Assimilators:** perceive abstractly and process it reflexively.

concept based on which characteristics define him/her better.

understand their meaning.

reflexively.

this information.

**Figure 1.** Learning styles Kolb's model [15].

From the split-brain model [9] and the triune brain [16, 17] which posits the existence of three brain layers, each representing an evolutionary state called the reptilian brain that would be responsible for control muscular, respiratory, cardiac, balance, and so on. A second layer that is named as a paleo-mammalian brain or limbic brain that manages the emotions, instincts, ingestion, confrontation, flight, sexual behavior, and the tendency to gregariousness. The third layer is called neo-mammalian brain or neo-cortex brain where the invention and the abstract thought are located. Based on these two theories, Herrmann [18] elaborates a model of the brain constituted by four quadrants that represent different ways of operating, of thinking, of creating, of learning and, in sum, of coexisting with the world. The characteristics of these learning styles are as follows:


The author of this model elaborated the Herrmann Inventory of Brain Dominance that consists of 40 adjectives that describe the types of behaviors organized in 10 columns with four concepts each. The evaluated should weigh the adjectives of each column with values between 1 = less dominant and 4 = more dominant [19]. The results give scores on dominance A (logical), dominance B (organized), dominance C (interpersonal), and dominance D (holistic).

#### **2.5. Model by Alonso and Gallego y Honey**

This model was based on the instrument of Honey and Munford, elaborated for professionals of companies of the United Kingdom, which has been adapted and validated by Catalina Alonso. The classification given by this model has the following characteristics [3]:


**c. Theorists:** They tend to be perfectionists. They usually seek to integrate facts into coherent theories. They like to analyze and synthesize. For them, rationality and objectivity are priority issues.

response (a or b). Each dimension is represented with 11 questions, whose score is calculated

Learning Styles in Physical Education http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72503 249

Another model of learning styles that has drawn particular attention in recent years is the one proposed by Grasha. This theory is based on the observation of patterns of behavior related to students' preferences when it comes to interacting with their classmates and their teachers in the classroom. The author [24] postulated six styles of learning based on three dimensions of bipolar character: (a) student's attitudes toward learning (participatory vs. elusive); (b) perspectives on peers and teachers (competitive vs. collaborative); (c) reactions to classroom teaching procedures (dependent vs. independent). According to Grasha, although these styles in each dimension are bipolar, it does not mean that they cannot be complemented since they only represent extremes, among which different types of profiles can be formed. The charac-

**a. Participatory:** They are good elements in classes, enjoy the session, and try to be outstand-

**b. Elusive:** They do not show enthusiasm in class. They do not participate and remain isolated. They are apathetic and disinterested in school activities. They do not like to be in

**c. Competitive:** They study to demonstrate their supremacy in terms of the use or qualification of others. They like to be the center of attention and receive recognition for their

**d. Collaborative:** They like to learn by sharing ideas and talents. They like to work with their

**e. Dependent:** They show little intellectual curiosity and only learn what they have to learn. They visualize teachers and their peers as guiding figures and/or authority to carry out

**f. Independent:** They like to think about themselves. They are autonomous and confident in their learning. They decide what is important and what is not, and enjoy working alone.

The Grasha-Riechmann Learning Styles Scale [25] consists of 60 items, with five response scores ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree, to 5 = Strongly Agree. To know the predominant style of learning the scores corresponding to each style are added and divided by 10, to find

A review of the works published between the years 2010 and 2017 shows few studies on the learning styles in students or professionals of the Physical Education, a situation that happens in many of the careers of education, being the areas of health and engineering that present

by subtracting the answers b from the answers a.

teristics of the proposed styles are described as follows:

ing most of the time. They have a lot of readiness for school work.

**2.7. The Grasha's model**

the classroom for long.

classmates and teachers.

They avoid teamwork.

the average of the items assigned to each style.

**3. Research on learning styles in physical education**

achievements.

their activities.

**d. Pragmatics:** Its main feature is related to the practical application of ideas. They are realistic when it comes to making a decision or solving a problem. His philosophy is: if it works, it is good.

The Honey-Alonso Questionnaire on Learning Styles (CHAEA) consists of two parts: one about socio-academic data that consist of 19 questions; the second one consists of 80 items on learning styles, randomly arranged, corresponding 20 questions to each style, and only the positive responses to the sentence are counted.

#### **2.6. Model of Felder-Silverman**

The first model proposed by Felder and Silverman [20] had five dimensions: understanding, processing, perception, reception, and organization; later, the latter was eliminated. Each dimension is evaluated by a scale ranging from 11 to −11. The different dimensions of this theory are described in **Table 1**.

In 1992, Soloman developed the Inventory of Learning Styles using the dimensions of the Felder-Silverman model. The instrument has 28 items [22]. Subsequently, Felder and Soloman [23] created the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) consisting of 44 items with two possibilities of


response (a or b). Each dimension is represented with 11 questions, whose score is calculated by subtracting the answers b from the answers a.

#### **2.7. The Grasha's model**

**c. Theorists:** They tend to be perfectionists. They usually seek to integrate facts into coherent theories. They like to analyze and synthesize. For them, rationality and objectivity are

**d. Pragmatics:** Its main feature is related to the practical application of ideas. They are realistic when it comes to making a decision or solving a problem. His philosophy is: if it

The Honey-Alonso Questionnaire on Learning Styles (CHAEA) consists of two parts: one about socio-academic data that consist of 19 questions; the second one consists of 80 items on learning styles, randomly arranged, corresponding 20 questions to each style, and only the

The first model proposed by Felder and Silverman [20] had five dimensions: understanding, processing, perception, reception, and organization; later, the latter was eliminated. Each dimension is evaluated by a scale ranging from 11 to −11. The different dimensions of this

In 1992, Soloman developed the Inventory of Learning Styles using the dimensions of the Felder-Silverman model. The instrument has 28 items [22]. Subsequently, Felder and Soloman [23] created the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) consisting of 44 items with two possibilities of

material used to learn.

applying, or explaining it.

retain and understand information through activities.

Active students learn by working with the material, applying it and testing things. They like to work in groups to discuss what has been learned, tend to

Reflective students prefer to work alone and they like to think about the

They also prefer to think carefully about information rather than discussing,

Sensory students like to learn facts, use sensory experiences as a source of

Intuitive students like theoretical rather than fact, are creative, innovative, like

The visual students remember better what they have seen (drawings, graphs,

Sequential students have a linear progress of their learning, since they learn

Global students learn great leaps, absorbing information from many things at once, with difficulty in understanding connections between them and with

information, are careful and detailed, realistic and practical.

to relate things, abstractions and mathematical formulas.

Verbal students prefer words, written or oral explanations.

with accumulation of information, are logical and retail.

interest in extensive knowledge spanning many areas.

figures, etc.), the pleasure of reading the slate, books or manuals.

priority issues.

works, it is good.

**2.6. Model of Felder-Silverman**

theory are described in **Table 1**.

(1) Preference to process: this is divided into active and reflective.

(2) Preference to perceive: this is divided into sensory and intuitive.

(3) Preference to receive: this is divided into verbal and visual

(4) Preference to understand: this is divided into sequential and global

**Table 1.** Dimensions of Felder and Silverman's theory [20, 21].

**Dimension. Characteristics**

positive responses to the sentence are counted.

248 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

Another model of learning styles that has drawn particular attention in recent years is the one proposed by Grasha. This theory is based on the observation of patterns of behavior related to students' preferences when it comes to interacting with their classmates and their teachers in the classroom. The author [24] postulated six styles of learning based on three dimensions of bipolar character: (a) student's attitudes toward learning (participatory vs. elusive); (b) perspectives on peers and teachers (competitive vs. collaborative); (c) reactions to classroom teaching procedures (dependent vs. independent). According to Grasha, although these styles in each dimension are bipolar, it does not mean that they cannot be complemented since they only represent extremes, among which different types of profiles can be formed. The characteristics of the proposed styles are described as follows:


The Grasha-Riechmann Learning Styles Scale [25] consists of 60 items, with five response scores ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree, to 5 = Strongly Agree. To know the predominant style of learning the scores corresponding to each style are added and divided by 10, to find the average of the items assigned to each style.

### **3. Research on learning styles in physical education**

A review of the works published between the years 2010 and 2017 shows few studies on the learning styles in students or professionals of the Physical Education, a situation that happens in many of the careers of education, being the areas of health and engineering that present more inquiries about this subject. We used Dialnet, Redalyc and Scielo databases, in addition to the scientific collaboration network Researchgate. The search yielded a total of 2220 articles on learning styles (Dialnet = 911; Redalyc = 86; Scielo = 203; Researchgate = 1020), 13 of them met the following criteria: (a) Published since January 1, 2000 until July 31, 2017; (b) Spanish language; (c) research articles; (d) university population; (e) career in physical education or related.

The studies found included samples of students from Spain (2 studies); Spain-Venezuela (1 study); Costa Rica (1 study); and Chile (9 studies). Honey-Alonso questionnaire (CHAEA) was used in eight studies; Kolb's inventory in two studies; Brain Dominance Inventory in one study; and the visual–auditory-kinesthetic (VAK) research in two papers.

A research carried out at the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Spain, where the CHAEA was applied to evaluate learning styles for 315 students of physical education, shows that the predominant style is the Reflexive (44.01%), then Active (23.44%), theoretical (19.01%) and finally the Pragmatic (13.54%). When comparing between males and females, the former presented higher scores in the Reflexive and Pragmatic styles [26]. Another study using the same instrument was carried out at the University of Concepción in Chile, evaluating 65 students of physical education, revealing that the Reflexive style has the highest score with 15.1 of 20 possible. It follows the Pragmatic style with 13.1 points, Theoretical style with 12.7 and the Active with 11.9. When comparing between women and men, the latter have higher scores in the four styles [27].

In another study using the CHAEA, 227 students of Physical Education of the University of Granada and Alicante in Spain were evaluated, obtaining an average of 15.37 points in the Reflective style, 14.29 in Theoretical style, 13.08 in the Pragmatic style and 11.73 in the Active style [28]. An investigation at the Universidad de Los Andes-Táchira in Venezuela and the University of Valladolid in Spain evaluated 124 and 107 students of physical education, respectively, showing in the Venezuelan institution scores of 14.78 points in the Reflexive style, 12.89 points in Theoretical style, 12.79 in the Pragmatic style and 11.86 in the Active style. The Spanish students presented scores of 14.24 in the Reflective style, 12.77 in the Active style, 12.44 in Theoretical style and 12.42 in the Pragmatic style. Both groups do not present differences in learning style scores by academic institution [29].

a higher score, with averages of 6.98 and 6.38 points, respectively [32]. Another study using CHAEA-36 evaluated 122 physical education students at the Universidad Católica de Temuco in Chile, showing predominance in two combined styles with 56% and Active with a 21% [33]. In relation to studies using the model of learning styles of Kolb was found a research carried out in 2013 in the Metropolitan University of Education Sciences (UMCE) and the University SEK (USEK) both in Santiago de Chile. At the UMCE, first-year students of physical education are preferably Divergent with 48% of cases, then Assimilator with 22%, Resident with 17% and Convergent with 13%. In the same institution in the fourth year students are Divergent in 62% of the respondents, then Assimilator in 18%, Accommodation in 12% and Convergents in 8%. Meanwhile, in the USEK 1st year students are Acclimatizers in 32% of cases, Divergent in 27%, Assimilators in 26% and Convergents in 15%. In the fourth year, 59% of students are Divergent, 18% Assimilator, 16% Resident and 7% Convergent [34]. Another study carried out with 192 students of physical education at SEK University in 2015 shows that 42.2% of them have a Convergent learning style, 27.6% are Assimilator, 21.9% are Accommodator and the 8.3% is Divergent [35]. Using the model of Ned Herrmann, 102 physical education students from a private university in Santiago de Chile were evaluated, showing higher scores in the (organized) and D (holistic) brain dominance, while the dominance A (logical) and C (Interpersonal) have less develop-

**Instrument. Authors Year Predominant style**

2013 2015

2012 2015 Reflexive Reflexive Reflexive Reflexive Reflexive Reflexive Reflexive

Learning Styles in Physical Education http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72503 251

Combined and active

Divergent Convergent

Kinaesthetic Kinaesthetic

Gil et al. [26] Madrid et al. [27] Belasco et al. [28] Gutiérrez et al. [29] Salas-Cabrera [30] Maureira et al. [31] Maureira et al. [32] Serra-Olivares et al. [33]

Maureira et al. [35]

Flores et al. [38]

**Table 2.** Sample on some research on learning styles in students of physical education.

Ned Herrmann's Inventory Maureira et al. [36] 2016 Dominances B y D

In relation to learning styles based on the Visual, Auditory or Kinaesthetic (VAK) model, 227 students from the SEK University of Chile were evaluated, the kinesthetic style being the predominant in all career years, followed by the visual style and finally the auditory [37]. Another study from 2015 that evaluated 127 students of the 1st and 4th year of physical education at a

ment [36].

Honey-Alonso Learning Styles Questionnaire (CHAEA)

Kolb's Learning Styles Inventory Maureira et al. [34]

VAK Inventory Maureira et al. [37]

A study of 2014 in Costa Rica [30] tested 204 high school students in the Teaching of Physical Education of Sport and Recreation, of Bachelor in Promotion of Physical Health and of the Degree in Sports Performance of the National University. In all three races, students scored higher in the Reflective style (14.40; 14.34 and 14.48, respectively), then in the theoretical (13.45, 13.50 and 13.37, respectively), in the Pragmatic style (13.26, 13.85 and 12.42, respectively) and finally the lowest scores correspond to the Active style (12.35, 12.83 and 11.90, respectively).

An investigation of 2014 in Santiago, Chile, evaluated 151 students of physical education of the SEK University, showing that the preferred style is the Reflective with 14.33 points, followed by the Active with 13.64, then the Theoretic with 13.63 and finally, the Pragmatic with 13.53 points [31].

A study using the CHAEA-36 questionnaire in 102 students of physical education from a private university in Santiago de Chile shows that the reflective and theoretical style are those that present


**Table 2.** Sample on some research on learning styles in students of physical education.

more inquiries about this subject. We used Dialnet, Redalyc and Scielo databases, in addition to the scientific collaboration network Researchgate. The search yielded a total of 2220 articles on learning styles (Dialnet = 911; Redalyc = 86; Scielo = 203; Researchgate = 1020), 13 of them met the following criteria: (a) Published since January 1, 2000 until July 31, 2017; (b) Spanish language; (c) research articles; (d) university population; (e) career in physical education or related. The studies found included samples of students from Spain (2 studies); Spain-Venezuela (1 study); Costa Rica (1 study); and Chile (9 studies). Honey-Alonso questionnaire (CHAEA) was used in eight studies; Kolb's inventory in two studies; Brain Dominance Inventory in one study; and the visual–auditory-kinesthetic (VAK) research in two papers. A research carried out at the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Spain, where the CHAEA was applied to evaluate learning styles for 315 students of physical education, shows that the predominant style is the Reflexive (44.01%), then Active (23.44%), theoretical (19.01%) and finally the Pragmatic (13.54%). When comparing between males and females, the former presented higher scores in the Reflexive and Pragmatic styles [26]. Another study using the same instrument was carried out at the University of Concepción in Chile, evaluating 65 students of physical education, revealing that the Reflexive style has the highest score with 15.1 of 20 possible. It follows the Pragmatic style with 13.1 points, Theoretical style with 12.7 and the Active with 11.9. When comparing between women and men, the latter have higher scores in

250 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

In another study using the CHAEA, 227 students of Physical Education of the University of Granada and Alicante in Spain were evaluated, obtaining an average of 15.37 points in the Reflective style, 14.29 in Theoretical style, 13.08 in the Pragmatic style and 11.73 in the Active style [28]. An investigation at the Universidad de Los Andes-Táchira in Venezuela and the University of Valladolid in Spain evaluated 124 and 107 students of physical education, respectively, showing in the Venezuelan institution scores of 14.78 points in the Reflexive style, 12.89 points in Theoretical style, 12.79 in the Pragmatic style and 11.86 in the Active style. The Spanish students presented scores of 14.24 in the Reflective style, 12.77 in the Active style, 12.44 in Theoretical style and 12.42 in the Pragmatic style. Both groups do not

A study of 2014 in Costa Rica [30] tested 204 high school students in the Teaching of Physical Education of Sport and Recreation, of Bachelor in Promotion of Physical Health and of the Degree in Sports Performance of the National University. In all three races, students scored higher in the Reflective style (14.40; 14.34 and 14.48, respectively), then in the theoretical (13.45, 13.50 and 13.37, respectively), in the Pragmatic style (13.26, 13.85 and 12.42, respectively) and finally the lowest scores correspond to the Active style (12.35, 12.83 and 11.90, respectively). An investigation of 2014 in Santiago, Chile, evaluated 151 students of physical education of the SEK University, showing that the preferred style is the Reflective with 14.33 points, followed by the Active with 13.64, then the Theoretic with 13.63 and finally, the Pragmatic with

A study using the CHAEA-36 questionnaire in 102 students of physical education from a private university in Santiago de Chile shows that the reflective and theoretical style are those that present

present differences in learning style scores by academic institution [29].

the four styles [27].

13.53 points [31].

a higher score, with averages of 6.98 and 6.38 points, respectively [32]. Another study using CHAEA-36 evaluated 122 physical education students at the Universidad Católica de Temuco in Chile, showing predominance in two combined styles with 56% and Active with a 21% [33].

In relation to studies using the model of learning styles of Kolb was found a research carried out in 2013 in the Metropolitan University of Education Sciences (UMCE) and the University SEK (USEK) both in Santiago de Chile. At the UMCE, first-year students of physical education are preferably Divergent with 48% of cases, then Assimilator with 22%, Resident with 17% and Convergent with 13%. In the same institution in the fourth year students are Divergent in 62% of the respondents, then Assimilator in 18%, Accommodation in 12% and Convergents in 8%. Meanwhile, in the USEK 1st year students are Acclimatizers in 32% of cases, Divergent in 27%, Assimilators in 26% and Convergents in 15%. In the fourth year, 59% of students are Divergent, 18% Assimilator, 16% Resident and 7% Convergent [34]. Another study carried out with 192 students of physical education at SEK University in 2015 shows that 42.2% of them have a Convergent learning style, 27.6% are Assimilator, 21.9% are Accommodator and the 8.3% is Divergent [35].

Using the model of Ned Herrmann, 102 physical education students from a private university in Santiago de Chile were evaluated, showing higher scores in the (organized) and D (holistic) brain dominance, while the dominance A (logical) and C (Interpersonal) have less development [36].

In relation to learning styles based on the Visual, Auditory or Kinaesthetic (VAK) model, 227 students from the SEK University of Chile were evaluated, the kinesthetic style being the predominant in all career years, followed by the visual style and finally the auditory [37]. Another study from 2015 that evaluated 127 students of the 1st and 4th year of physical education at a private university in Santiago de Chile shows that the preferred style is kinesthetic, followed by the visual and after these the auditory, a situation that occurs in both the levels [38].

university students of physical education between 2000 and 2017, only 13 articles, similar situation that occurs when all the studies on learning styles are reviewed in educating students in their diverse disciplines [48]. Therefore, this situation leaves us with a very important task to develop in the coming years as experts in physical education, to proposing and structuring appropriate methodologies for each style of learning, enhancing the self-knowledge and

1 Escuela de Educación en Ciencias del Movimiento y Deportes, Universidad Católica Silva

[1] Cazau P. Estilos de aprendizaje: Generalidades. [Internet]. 2004. Available from: http:// www.rmm.cl/biblio/doc/200411291631190.ESTILOS%20DE%20APRENDIZAJE\_

[2] Camargo A, Hederich C. El estilo de enseñanza, un concepto en búsqueda de precisión.

[3] Alonso C, Gallego D, Honey J. Los estilos de aprendizaje: Procedimientos de diagnóstico

[4] Revilla D. Estilos de aprendizaje. [Internet]. 1998. Available from: http://www.pucp.edu.

[5] Riechmann S. Their Role in Teaching Evaluation and Course Design. Vol. 10. Ann Arbor,

[7] Woolfolk A. Psicología Educativa. 1st ed. Prentice Hall Hispanoamericana: México, DF;

[8] Keefe J. Aprendiendo perfiles de aprendizaje. 1st ed. Asociación Nacional de Escuelas

[6] Sternberg R. Thinking Styles. 1st ed. Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press; 1997

, Hernán Díaz Muñoz<sup>3</sup>

and

Learning Styles in Physical Education http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72503 253

\*, Elizabeth Flores Ferro2

2 Programa de Doctorado en Educación, Universidad SEK, Santiago, Chile

3 Instituto de Medicina Natural en Honor a Linus Pauling (ILPA), Santiago, Chile

\*Address all correspondence to: maureirafernando@yahoo.es

Generalidades.doc. [Accessed: Sep 6, 2015]

Revista Pedagogía y Saberes. 2007;**26**:31-40

y mejora. 1st ed. Ediciones Mensajero: Bilbao; 1994

pe/~temas/estilos.html. [Accessed: Jun 3, 2013]

Michigan: ERIC Ed; 1979. pp. 12-16

Secundarias: Reston, VA; 1988

learning of these students.

Fernando Maureira Cid<sup>1</sup>

Luis Valenzuela Contreras<sup>1</sup>

Henríquez, Santiago, Chile

**References**

1995

**Author details**

In summary, it is possible to notice that in 7 out of 8 studies using the CHAEA questionnaire, students showed a preference for reflective style, in samples of students from Spain, Costa Rica and Chile (**Table 2**). These students like to analyze the information, they are cautious and look out the experiences from many points of view.

Kolb, Cerebral dominance, and VAK models have been tested in samples with students of physical education of Chile, so will be interesting to carry out measurements in other countries, to test these models with similar samples but with different social and cultural realities.

### **4. Conclusions**

In addition to the theory of learning styles, there are different cognitive factors that influence this process, such as intelligence, creativity, personality, motivation, among others [39], so it would be utopian to ask teachers to control all these variables, since each subject is different, but it is possible to try to measure them, obtaining a more objective description of the group of students, to know where to start, not only in knowledge but rather a diagnosis of who we are going to educate and how these people prefer to learn.

Knowing the theory of learning styles is imperative for the educator, in addition to using the most appropriate strategies according to the characteristics of each individual [40]. For example, Dunn and Dunn indicate that children should be educated using methods that fit their perceptual preferences [41].

On the other hand, it is not only necessary to know the learning styles of the students by the teachers, but also it is the task of the educator to adapt the style of teaching to the way of learning of its students, where the teaching process and learning will be significantly improved [42]. This does not mean that the teacher needs to plan four or five different strategies to face the challenge but to incorporate in the teaching strategy didactic elements that cope with the diversity of participants and find the way to explain the main key and core concepts or ideas from more than one point of view, perspective, *and/or* example, ranging from several intellectual and practical approaches.

Another important point is to separate the academic success from the qualifications because there are several investigations of learning styles measuring and correlating these variables [43–47], some with some degree of correlation and most with negative results. Researchers reached the conclusion that the student not knowing his style of learning does not know how to use it to study. Therefore, it is not only necessary to measure learning styles but also to teach them how to use them appropriately.

Finally, and insisting on the relevance of using learning styles as a tool that will facilitate the teacher and the learner in the learning process, it is surprising to see that in a review with the main theories of learning styles (CHAEA, Kolb Inventory, Brain Dominance, VAK, etc.) in university students of physical education between 2000 and 2017, only 13 articles, similar situation that occurs when all the studies on learning styles are reviewed in educating students in their diverse disciplines [48]. Therefore, this situation leaves us with a very important task to develop in the coming years as experts in physical education, to proposing and structuring appropriate methodologies for each style of learning, enhancing the self-knowledge and learning of these students.

### **Author details**

private university in Santiago de Chile shows that the preferred style is kinesthetic, followed by the visual and after these the auditory, a situation that occurs in both the levels [38].

In summary, it is possible to notice that in 7 out of 8 studies using the CHAEA questionnaire, students showed a preference for reflective style, in samples of students from Spain, Costa Rica and Chile (**Table 2**). These students like to analyze the information, they are cautious and

Kolb, Cerebral dominance, and VAK models have been tested in samples with students of physical education of Chile, so will be interesting to carry out measurements in other countries, to test these models with similar samples but with different social and cultural realities.

In addition to the theory of learning styles, there are different cognitive factors that influence this process, such as intelligence, creativity, personality, motivation, among others [39], so it would be utopian to ask teachers to control all these variables, since each subject is different, but it is possible to try to measure them, obtaining a more objective description of the group of students, to know where to start, not only in knowledge but rather a diagnosis of who we

Knowing the theory of learning styles is imperative for the educator, in addition to using the most appropriate strategies according to the characteristics of each individual [40]. For example, Dunn and Dunn indicate that children should be educated using methods that fit

On the other hand, it is not only necessary to know the learning styles of the students by the teachers, but also it is the task of the educator to adapt the style of teaching to the way of learning of its students, where the teaching process and learning will be significantly improved [42]. This does not mean that the teacher needs to plan four or five different strategies to face the challenge but to incorporate in the teaching strategy didactic elements that cope with the diversity of participants and find the way to explain the main key and core concepts or ideas from more than one point of view, perspective, *and/or* example, ranging from several intel-

Another important point is to separate the academic success from the qualifications because there are several investigations of learning styles measuring and correlating these variables [43–47], some with some degree of correlation and most with negative results. Researchers reached the conclusion that the student not knowing his style of learning does not know how to use it to study. Therefore, it is not only necessary to measure learning styles but also to

Finally, and insisting on the relevance of using learning styles as a tool that will facilitate the teacher and the learner in the learning process, it is surprising to see that in a review with the main theories of learning styles (CHAEA, Kolb Inventory, Brain Dominance, VAK, etc.) in

look out the experiences from many points of view.

252 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

are going to educate and how these people prefer to learn.

**4. Conclusions**

their perceptual preferences [41].

lectual and practical approaches.

teach them how to use them appropriately.

Fernando Maureira Cid<sup>1</sup> \*, Elizabeth Flores Ferro2 , Hernán Díaz Muñoz<sup>3</sup> and Luis Valenzuela Contreras<sup>1</sup>

\*Address all correspondence to: maureirafernando@yahoo.es

1 Escuela de Educación en Ciencias del Movimiento y Deportes, Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez, Santiago, Chile

2 Programa de Doctorado en Educación, Universidad SEK, Santiago, Chile

3 Instituto de Medicina Natural en Honor a Linus Pauling (ILPA), Santiago, Chile

### **References**


[9] Sperry R. Lateral specialization of cerebral function in the surgically separated hemispheres. In: McGuigan FJ, editor. The Psychophysiology of the Thinking. 1st ed. New York: Academic Press; 1973

[23] Felder R, Soloman B. Index of Learning Styles [Internet]. 2004. Available from: http://

Learning Styles in Physical Education http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72503 255

[24] Grasha A. Teaching with Style. A Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by Understanding Teaching and Learning Style. 1st ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers; 1996

[25] Grasha A, Riechmann R. Learning Style Diagnostics: The Grasha-Riechmann Student

[26] Gil P, Contreras O, Pastor J, Gómez I, González S, García L, et al. Estilos de aprendizaje de los estudiantes de magisterio: Especial consideración de los estudiantes de educación física. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado. 2007;**11**(2):1-19

[27] Madrid V, Acevedo C, Chiang M, Montecinos H, Reinicke K. Perfil de estilos de aprendizaje en estudiantes de primer año de dos carreras de diferentes áreas en la universidad

[28] Belasco J, Romero C, Mengual S, Fernández-Revelles A, Delgado M, Vega L. Estilo de aprendizaje de los estudiantes de magisterio de educación física y de ciencias del deporte de las universidades de Granada y Alicante. Cultura y Educación. 2011;**23**(3):371-383

[29] Gutiérrez M, García-Cué J, Vivas M, Santizo J, Alonso C, Arranz M. Estudio comparativo de los estilos de aprendizajes del alumnado que inicia sus estudios universitarios en diversas facultades de Venezuela, México y España. Revista Estilos de Aprendizaje.

[30] Salas-Cabrera J. Estilos de aprendizaje en estudiantes de la Escuela de Ciencias del Movimiento Humano y Calidad de Vida, Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica. Revista

[31] Maureira F, Aravena C, Gálvez C, Cea S. Independencia de los estilos de aprendizaje con la atención, memoria y función ejecutiva de los estudiantes de pedagogía en educación

[32] Maureira F, Flores F, Gálvez C, Cea S, Espinoza E, Soto C, et al. Relación entre el coeficiente intelectual, inteligencia emocional, dominancia cerebral y estilos de aprendizaje Honey-Alonso ene estudiantes de educación física de Chile. Revista de Psicología Iztacala.

[33] Sierra-Olivares J, Muñoz C, Cejudo C, Gil P. Estilos de aprendizaje y rendimiento aca-

[34] Maureira F, Bahamondes V.Estilos de aprendizaje de Kolb de los estudiantes de educación física de la UMCE y UISEK de Chile. Revista Estilos de Aprendizaje. 2013;**11**(11):139-150

[35] Maureira F, Duran F, Pasten S, Herrera M, Urquejo P, Opazo L. Independencia de los estilos de aprendizaje de Kolb y las inteligencias múltiples en estudiantes de educación física de la USEK de Chile. Gaceta de Psiquiatría Universitaria. 2015;**11**(2):209-215

démico de universitarios de educación física chilenos. Retos. 2017;**32**:62-67

física de la USEK de Chile. Revista de Psicología Iztacala. 2014;**17**(4):1559-1579

www.ncsu.edu/felderpublic/ILSpage.html,2004 [Accessed: May 5, 2012]

Learning Style Scales. 1st ed. Washington, DC: CASC; 1975

de Concepción. Revista Estilos de Aprendizaje. 2009;**3**(2):57-69

2011;**4**(7):35-62

2016;**19**(4):2106-1220

Electrónica Educare. 2014;**18**(3):159-171


[23] Felder R, Soloman B. Index of Learning Styles [Internet]. 2004. Available from: http:// www.ncsu.edu/felderpublic/ILSpage.html,2004 [Accessed: May 5, 2012]

[9] Sperry R. Lateral specialization of cerebral function in the surgically separated hemispheres. In: McGuigan FJ, editor. The Psychophysiology of the Thinking. 1st ed. New York:

[10] Muñoz J, Gutiérrez P, Serrano R. Los hemisferios cerebrales: Dos estilos de pensar, dos modos de enseñar y aprender [Internet]. 2012. Available from: https://www.google.cl/ url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiE3q q6yZfTAhVKHJAKHfqLAJMQFghJMAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdialnet.unirioja.es% 2Fdescarga%2Farticulo%2F4664049.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFfMi0sDMWsAa6Ryh11oLnl0-

[11] Flores E. Relación de los estilos de aprendizaje de Ned Herrmann con el coeficiente intelectual en estudiantes de pedagogía en educación física de una universidad privada de Santiago de Chile [thesis]. Santiago: Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Uni-

[12] Dunn R, Dunn K. Teaching Students Throught their Individual Learning Styles: A

[13] Rayner S. Profiling learning performance. In: Riding J, Rayner S, editors. Cognitive

[14] Kolb D. Inventario de los estilos de aprendizaje: Inventario autoevaluativo y su interpre-

[15] Kolb D. Experiential Learning: Experience at the Source of Learning and Development.

[16] MacLean PD. The triune brain, emotion, and scientific bias. In: Schmitt FO, editor. The Neurosciences: Second Study Program. 1st ed. New York: The Rockefeller University

[17] MacLean PD. Triune brain. In: Adelman G, editor. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. 1st ed.

[18] Herrmann N. The Creative Brain. 1st ed. Lake Lure, NC: The Ned Herrmann Group; 1989

[19] Flores E, Maureira F. Propiedades psicométricas del inventario de dominancia cerebral en estudiantes de educación física. EmasF, Revista Digital de Educación Física.

[20] Felder R, Silverman L. Learning styles and teaching styles in engineering education.

[21] Paredes P. Una propuesta de incorporación de los estilos de aprendizaje a los modelos de usuario en sistema de enseñanza adaptativa. [thesis]. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma

[22] Soloman B. Inventory of Learning Style. 1st ed. North Carolina: State University; 1992

ToYg&bvm=bv.152174688,d.Y2I [Accessed: Mar 5, 2017]

254 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

Practical Aproach. 1st ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1978

tación. 1st ed. Boston: TRG Hay/Mc Ber; 1981

1st ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1984

Cambridge: Birkhauser Boston; 1987

Engineering Education. 1998;**78**(79):674-681

Styles. 1st ed. Conneticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation; 2000

Academic Press; 1973

versidad Central; 2015.

Press; 1970

2015;**6**(36):81-91

de Madrid; 2008


[36] Maureira F, Flores E, Gálvez C, Cea S, Espinoza E, Soto C, et al. Relación entre coeficiente intelectual, inteligencia emocional, dominancia cerebral y estilos de aprendizaje Honey-Alonso en estudiantes de educación física de Chile. Revista de Psicología Iztacala. 2016; **19**(4):1206-1220

**Chapter 15**

**Provisional chapter**

**Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical**

**Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical** 

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70832

One of the main objectives of physical education and sport (PES) pedagogy in schools is to develop motor competence in children. While many schoolchildren practice sports, there is a group of children that does not receive the educational opportunities to be competent. These children show low motor competence and poor motor coordination. International agencies have called this condition as developmental coordination disorders (DCD) and its definition in short is "poor motor performance in daily activities that is not consistent with the child's age and intelligence, and is not due to medical condition." Physical education and sport teachers are the first interventionist with these children. They have the first opportunity of providing primary care to these children. In this chapter, motor coordination problems in school, its prevalence, how these children learn, how physical education and sport teachers can detect them, and why physical education

and sport pedagogy must be concerned with this problem, will be analyzed.

**Keywords:** low motor coordination, motor learning difficulties, teaching, education,

Children and youth receive numerous physical health benefits from practicing physical education and sport (PES) in school, including better fitness and cardiovascular function, better metabolic function and health, and psychosocial benefits. Despite these benefits, many children continually fail to meet PES recommendations. Physical education should help all children acquire the basic movement foundation needed to access a wide range of physical activities across their lifespan, and without this foundation, children will find it difficult to

> © 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**Education and Sport Pedagogy**

**Education and Sport Pedagogy**

Luis M. Ruiz-Pérez and Miriam Palomo-Nieto

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Luis M. Ruiz-Pérez and Miriam Palomo-Nieto

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

**Abstract**

schoolchildren

choose an active way of life [1].

**1. Introduction**


**Provisional chapter**

### **Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy Education and Sport Pedagogy**

**Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical** 

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.70832

Luis M. Ruiz-Pérez and Miriam Palomo-Nieto Luis M. Ruiz-Pérez and Miriam Palomo-Nieto Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

#### **Abstract**

[36] Maureira F, Flores E, Gálvez C, Cea S, Espinoza E, Soto C, et al. Relación entre coeficiente intelectual, inteligencia emocional, dominancia cerebral y estilos de aprendizaje Honey-Alonso en estudiantes de educación física de Chile. Revista de Psicología Iztacala. 2016;

256 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

[37] Maureira F, Gómez A, Flores E, Aguilera J. Estilos de aprendizaje VAK de los estudiantes de educación física de la UISEK de Chile. Revista de Psicología Iztacala. 2012;**15**(2):405-415

[38] Flores E, Maureira F. Estilos de aprendizaje VAK de los estudiantes de educación física y otras pedagogías de la Universidad Internacional SEK de Chile. Revista de Educación

[39] Armenteros A. Factores que influyen en el aprendizaje. Revista Digital Enfoques Educa-

[40] Esquivel P, González M, Aguirre D. Estilos de aprendizaje. La importancia de reconocerlos en el aula. [Internet]. 2013. Available from: http://eprints.uanl.mx/8036/1/a4\_2.pdf

[41] Dunn R, Dunn K. La enseñanza y el estilo de aprendizaje. 1st ed. Madrid: Anaya; 1984 [42] Valdivia-Ruiz F. Estilos de aprendizaje en la Educación Primaria. 1st ed. Málaga: Dykin-

[43] Cantú-Hinojosa I. El estilo de aprendizaje y la relación con el desempeño académico de los estudiantes de arquitectura de la UANL. Ciencia Universidad Autónoma de Nueva

[44] Esguerra G, Guerrero P. Estilos de aprendizaje y rendimiento académico en estudiantes

[45] Garay J. Estilos y estrategias de aprendizaje en el rendimiento académico de los estudiantes de la universidad peruana "Los Andes" de Huancayo – Perú. Revista Estilos de

[46] Pierart C, Pavés F. Estilos de aprendizaje, género y rendimiento académico. Journal of

[47] Suazo I. Estilos de aprendizaje y su correlación con el rendimiento académico en anatomía humana normal. International Journal of Morphology. 2007;**25**(2):367-373

[48] Maureira F, Flores E. Estilos de aprendizaje en estudiantes de educación: Una revisión

del 2000 al 2015. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala. 2015;**19**(1):74-91

de Psicología. Diversitas: Perspectivas en Psicología. 2010;**6**(1):97-109

**19**(4):1206-1220

Física VIREF. 2015;**4**(2):14-24

tivos. 2011;**73**:17-33

[Accessed: Apr 3, 2017]

León. 2004;**7**(1):72-79

Aprendizaje. 2011;**8**(8):149-184

Learning Styles. 2011;**4**(8):71-84

son; 2002

One of the main objectives of physical education and sport (PES) pedagogy in schools is to develop motor competence in children. While many schoolchildren practice sports, there is a group of children that does not receive the educational opportunities to be competent. These children show low motor competence and poor motor coordination. International agencies have called this condition as developmental coordination disorders (DCD) and its definition in short is "poor motor performance in daily activities that is not consistent with the child's age and intelligence, and is not due to medical condition." Physical education and sport teachers are the first interventionist with these children. They have the first opportunity of providing primary care to these children. In this chapter, motor coordination problems in school, its prevalence, how these children learn, how physical education and sport teachers can detect them, and why physical education and sport pedagogy must be concerned with this problem, will be analyzed.

**Keywords:** low motor coordination, motor learning difficulties, teaching, education, schoolchildren

#### **1. Introduction**

Children and youth receive numerous physical health benefits from practicing physical education and sport (PES) in school, including better fitness and cardiovascular function, better metabolic function and health, and psychosocial benefits. Despite these benefits, many children continually fail to meet PES recommendations. Physical education should help all children acquire the basic movement foundation needed to access a wide range of physical activities across their lifespan, and without this foundation, children will find it difficult to choose an active way of life [1].

Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

Physical education teachers describe children who look awkward as clumsy, poorly coordinated, or low-skilled. These children have difficulties acquiring and performing basic motor skills such as running, jumping, catching, or throwing. Most physical education classes present children with these problems, and many of them have learned that they will never improve this condition by practice, effort, or instructions [2]. Clumsy children often abdicate responsibility of their performance with "I can't" statements becoming increasingly frequent [3].

literature were analyzed to allow a better understanding of this problem: (1) literature about the concept of clumsiness, low-skilled children, or developmental coordination disorders; (2) literature dealing with the identification of the low-skilled children in physical education and sport classes; and (3) literature reporting how clumsy children learn motor skills and the role

Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

259

Currently there is some concern for clumsy children in physical education and sport classes. Many times, teachers consider that children are clumsy when they are less able in a single or a group of motor tasks, simply based on their low performance in comparison with peers of the same age. These children can experience continued failure in classes, playground, and physical education activities, and it is probable that they manifest a deficit in movement understanding, organization, and control too. There are many terms that physicians, educators, and therapists have been used to characterize these children until arriving at the agreed term of *developmental coordination disorders* (DCD). Terms such as developmental dyspraxia, perceptual-motor impairment, perceptual-motor dysfunction, minimal brain dysfunction, motor development retardation, motor clumsiness, motor coordination problems, or awkward child syndrome have been employed in the scientific and pedagogical literature. Physical education

of physical education and sport programs in increasing their motor competence.

teachers have known them as low-skilled students or simply as clumsy children.

ascribe the following characteristics:

liated and what PE teachers can do.

their daily activities.

The American Psychiatric Association [9] in its Statistical Manual and Diagnostic of Mental Problems, DSM-5, has called it as developmental coordination disorders (DCD) to which they

• The presence of other associated problems that affect their functioning in school life or in

Some physical education researchers [16, 17] define clumsy children as those individuals who have motor learning difficulties and display asynchronous and inefficient motor behavior when attempting to carry out motor tasks that they would commonly be expected to accomplish under reasonable circumstances. Others [19] highlight the cultural component of this clumsiness and consider that these children do not perform culturally normative motor skills with acceptable proficiency. It is considered that children are clumsy when they show real difficulties to coordinate the movements that affect their school life both in the classroom and especially in their activities in the gymnasium or the playground. It is necessary to emphasize the danger of labeling a schoolboy as awkward, as well as the etiquette that it is necessary to show parents who wish to know their opinion about these movement problems that they observe in their children [20]. An idea must be clear; in all physical education classes, there are children who show different degrees of movement difficulties, and the question is to know to what extent they can be pal-

• Problems with the organization of the movement and its spatial-temporal structure. • Qualitative differences in their movements compared to those made by their peers.

**3. Clumsy children and physical education and sport classes**

In the last few decades, the research related to children's motor clumsiness and their effects on development have increased [4–8], to the extent that this problem has been included in the Statistical Manual and Diagnostic of Mental Problems, DSM-5 [9]. One of the paradoxes of this problem is that children, who have it, do not present a disease or a medically diagnosed difficulty as the cause of it [10, 11] although there are efforts to discover the neurological and brain's connection [6]. They are children who present difficulties in learning motor skills like those that are part of the programs of physical education and sport and show an inefficient and asynchronous motor behavior when they carry out motor tasks, which are usually done by the rest of the people without problems, both at work and leisure [11].

Regarding the prevalence of this condition, and taking into account the existing problems of its identification and use of different measuring instruments, the estimate varies between 5% and 18% in children aged between 4 and 11 years with more boys than girls [6, 7, 10, 11], although the gender differences are still controversial and their effect on adulthood persists. By the time that these children reach adulthood, they may no longer have the desire to participate in physical and healthy activities, and this condition affects their lifestyle and healthy habits [10–14].

There are still controversial aspects surrounding the identification of these children and the ability of different professionals to identify them [15]. This controversy is reflected in the different results of different studies around the world and the different tools that researchers use. This difficulty causes inactive lifestyles, because these children do not develop the motor skills necessary for participation in physical activities and sports, as well as in professional activities that claim the use of the body and movement coordination. All this may affect their social interactions and their health and physical vitality [14]. This physical vitality is clearly diminished and may present risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular diseases in adulthood [13–15]. The problem is that many children will never acquire the skill level necessary to advance to a higher level of motor competence, and they will be children with a deficit of practice and without motor skill experience, manifesting delays in fundamental motor skill development.

### **2. Method**

There are a lot of research and information about developmental coordination disorders in therapeutic contexts; however, this body of research is scarce in physical education. The review of available research included here promotes an understanding of the subject area and the criticisms that have been made on the topic with special attention given to physical education and sport pedagogy [18]. The purpose of this chapter was to describe the behaviors of clumsy children in physical education and sport classes, how they learn motor skills, and the role of physical education and sport pedagogy in their motor competence. Three areas of literature were analyzed to allow a better understanding of this problem: (1) literature about the concept of clumsiness, low-skilled children, or developmental coordination disorders; (2) literature dealing with the identification of the low-skilled children in physical education and sport classes; and (3) literature reporting how clumsy children learn motor skills and the role of physical education and sport programs in increasing their motor competence.

### **3. Clumsy children and physical education and sport classes**

Physical education teachers describe children who look awkward as clumsy, poorly coordinated, or low-skilled. These children have difficulties acquiring and performing basic motor skills such as running, jumping, catching, or throwing. Most physical education classes present children with these problems, and many of them have learned that they will never improve this condition by practice, effort, or instructions [2]. Clumsy children often abdicate responsibility of their performance with "I can't" statements becoming increasingly frequent [3].

In the last few decades, the research related to children's motor clumsiness and their effects on development have increased [4–8], to the extent that this problem has been included in the Statistical Manual and Diagnostic of Mental Problems, DSM-5 [9]. One of the paradoxes of this problem is that children, who have it, do not present a disease or a medically diagnosed difficulty as the cause of it [10, 11] although there are efforts to discover the neurological and brain's connection [6]. They are children who present difficulties in learning motor skills like those that are part of the programs of physical education and sport and show an inefficient and asynchronous motor behavior when they carry out motor tasks, which are usually done

Regarding the prevalence of this condition, and taking into account the existing problems of its identification and use of different measuring instruments, the estimate varies between 5% and 18% in children aged between 4 and 11 years with more boys than girls [6, 7, 10, 11], although the gender differences are still controversial and their effect on adulthood persists. By the time that these children reach adulthood, they may no longer have the desire to participate in physical and healthy activities, and this condition affects their lifestyle and healthy habits [10–14]. There are still controversial aspects surrounding the identification of these children and the ability of different professionals to identify them [15]. This controversy is reflected in the different results of different studies around the world and the different tools that researchers use. This difficulty causes inactive lifestyles, because these children do not develop the motor skills necessary for participation in physical activities and sports, as well as in professional activities that claim the use of the body and movement coordination. All this may affect their social interactions and their health and physical vitality [14]. This physical vitality is clearly diminished and may present risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular diseases in adulthood [13–15]. The problem is that many children will never acquire the skill level necessary to advance to a higher level of motor competence, and they will be children with a deficit of practice and with-

out motor skill experience, manifesting delays in fundamental motor skill development.

There are a lot of research and information about developmental coordination disorders in therapeutic contexts; however, this body of research is scarce in physical education. The review of available research included here promotes an understanding of the subject area and the criticisms that have been made on the topic with special attention given to physical education and sport pedagogy [18]. The purpose of this chapter was to describe the behaviors of clumsy children in physical education and sport classes, how they learn motor skills, and the role of physical education and sport pedagogy in their motor competence. Three areas of

**2. Method**

by the rest of the people without problems, both at work and leisure [11].

258 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

Currently there is some concern for clumsy children in physical education and sport classes. Many times, teachers consider that children are clumsy when they are less able in a single or a group of motor tasks, simply based on their low performance in comparison with peers of the same age. These children can experience continued failure in classes, playground, and physical education activities, and it is probable that they manifest a deficit in movement understanding, organization, and control too. There are many terms that physicians, educators, and therapists have been used to characterize these children until arriving at the agreed term of *developmental coordination disorders* (DCD). Terms such as developmental dyspraxia, perceptual-motor impairment, perceptual-motor dysfunction, minimal brain dysfunction, motor development retardation, motor clumsiness, motor coordination problems, or awkward child syndrome have been employed in the scientific and pedagogical literature. Physical education teachers have known them as low-skilled students or simply as clumsy children.

The American Psychiatric Association [9] in its Statistical Manual and Diagnostic of Mental Problems, DSM-5, has called it as developmental coordination disorders (DCD) to which they ascribe the following characteristics:


Some physical education researchers [16, 17] define clumsy children as those individuals who have motor learning difficulties and display asynchronous and inefficient motor behavior when attempting to carry out motor tasks that they would commonly be expected to accomplish under reasonable circumstances. Others [19] highlight the cultural component of this clumsiness and consider that these children do not perform culturally normative motor skills with acceptable proficiency. It is considered that children are clumsy when they show real difficulties to coordinate the movements that affect their school life both in the classroom and especially in their activities in the gymnasium or the playground. It is necessary to emphasize the danger of labeling a schoolboy as awkward, as well as the etiquette that it is necessary to show parents who wish to know their opinion about these movement problems that they observe in their children [20].

An idea must be clear; in all physical education classes, there are children who show different degrees of movement difficulties, and the question is to know to what extent they can be palliated and what PE teachers can do.

But who are these children? Which are their main characteristics? How do their problems manifest in physical education classes? An analysis of the different studies carried out on these children shows that globally they possess at least four global characteristics:

**6.** They fall easily after jumping, throwing, or kicking a ball.

**10.** They can have problems to plan their actions.

the actions they have to perform [6, 7].

children can do helps the teacher to know:

these children.

their performances.

outside.

**7.** When they move, incorporate strange movements that give an awkward appearance to

Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

261

**8.** They are not able to follow rhythms especially when the rhythm is imposed from the

**9.** They show lack of control of the strength when they pass too strong the ball that can hit

Clumsy children problems, far from having a defined profile, can be manifested differently and before different tasks and situations. This makes the identification as well as the establishment of its possible causes complex, since while some children may present problems of a kinesthetic or visual nature [23], for others the problems may lie in the slowness of processing, the difficulties to retain visual patterns in short periods of time or in their low knowledge of

Children progress through the various stages of motor development, and clumsy children tend to lag their peer's motor competence and learning sport skills. These children have not reached the level of desirable motor development to be able to practice with competence in physical education classes. His fundamental skills are in a stage very elementary for his age. Its functionality is clearly delayed with respect to the rest of his class. This difficulty makes them constantly watched and criticized by their peers and, in many cases, by their teachers and parents who think that their problem is due to their lack of interest in the subject, because they do not pay due attention to what must be performed. But sometimes, the teacher is presented with the difficulty of not being able to easily identify the possible causes of this condition, accepting that the child will grow out of it and implementing *a wait and see* policy.

One of the serious issues that emerge from the lack of knowledge and training of physical educators is that this group of at risk children is left without the educational support that they need [24]. A good assessment would be essential and more information and training would be desirable.

Knowing what children can do is basic if teachers who want to evaluate their motor competence and if they develop within the margins of the desirable for their age. Knowing what

• What affects motor development of children and what influence their motor coordination. • What to do and get informative feedback of the effect of the pedagogical interventions with

**4. How to detect these children in PE and sport classes**

• The current situation of children and their evolution over time.

his partner, which no longer will choose them as a couple in the next class.


Their movements in the gym are uncoordinated and ineffective, not having the resources, or the competence, necessary to respond to the requirements of the physical education or sport learning classes. Their fundamental motor skills tend to be behind the rest of his peers, being aware of this situation, which further aggravates his condition. Physical education classes are a source of tension and anxiety for him because of the difficulty in being able to carry out the motor tasks as proposed by the teacher or when he must play with their peers. In the gym, they feel disoriented; they do not know when they should act, and when they do, it is too soon or too late, and their peers scold them, when they do not laugh at him. This situation can cause them to end up hating the subject [2, 3].

PES teachers need to have a more concrete idea of what really characterizes a clumsy child because his difficulties could be shown in some tasks, but not in others. Thus, some schoolchildren may find manual tasks very difficult, while for others, difficulties arise when they must move globally to meet the requirements of the class. While for some it is difficult to perform ball games, for others it is to maintain balance and control in space. This mosaic of difficulties makes it difficult to establish a single profile [21].

Different authors [21, 22] emphasized the existence of a series of characteristics among the students with these problems of coordination:


But who are these children? Which are their main characteristics? How do their problems manifest in physical education classes? An analysis of the different studies carried out on

• They have a psychophysical integrity that makes them normal for all purposes, hence the

• They have difficulties in carrying out and learning the motor skills of the physical educa-

• Its condition does not have to be a global awkwardness, but rather shows a great hetero-

Their movements in the gym are uncoordinated and ineffective, not having the resources, or the competence, necessary to respond to the requirements of the physical education or sport learning classes. Their fundamental motor skills tend to be behind the rest of his peers, being aware of this situation, which further aggravates his condition. Physical education classes are a source of tension and anxiety for him because of the difficulty in being able to carry out the motor tasks as proposed by the teacher or when he must play with their peers. In the gym, they feel disoriented; they do not know when they should act, and when they do, it is too soon or too late, and their peers scold them, when they do not laugh at him. This situation can

PES teachers need to have a more concrete idea of what really characterizes a clumsy child because his difficulties could be shown in some tasks, but not in others. Thus, some schoolchildren may find manual tasks very difficult, while for others, difficulties arise when they must move globally to meet the requirements of the class. While for some it is difficult to perform ball games, for others it is to maintain balance and control in space. This mosaic of

Different authors [21, 22] emphasized the existence of a series of characteristics among the

**1.** These children show a high variability from one trial to another when they carry out mo-

**3.** Sometimes they are unable to separate their performances from those made by a model,

**4.** They seem to manifest problems of integration of the different parts of the body, and when they are going to jump, and need the coordinated action of the two arms to make the jump, one of the arms acts while the other remains rigid and does not collaborate in the action. **5.** They can have problems of dynamic balance, instability, and tremor, especially in those

**2.** They continue to act in the same way even if the situation no longer requires it.

tasks that demand a certain control and precision in the performance.

these children shows that globally they possess at least four global characteristics:

difficulty of establishing the causes of such difficulties.

260 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

• They show a delay in fundamental motor skills.

cause them to end up hating the subject [2, 3].

students with these problems of coordination:

tor tasks.

becoming its mirror.

difficulties makes it difficult to establish a single profile [21].

tion program.

geneity and specificity.

Clumsy children problems, far from having a defined profile, can be manifested differently and before different tasks and situations. This makes the identification as well as the establishment of its possible causes complex, since while some children may present problems of a kinesthetic or visual nature [23], for others the problems may lie in the slowness of processing, the difficulties to retain visual patterns in short periods of time or in their low knowledge of the actions they have to perform [6, 7].

Children progress through the various stages of motor development, and clumsy children tend to lag their peer's motor competence and learning sport skills. These children have not reached the level of desirable motor development to be able to practice with competence in physical education classes. His fundamental skills are in a stage very elementary for his age. Its functionality is clearly delayed with respect to the rest of his class. This difficulty makes them constantly watched and criticized by their peers and, in many cases, by their teachers and parents who think that their problem is due to their lack of interest in the subject, because they do not pay due attention to what must be performed. But sometimes, the teacher is presented with the difficulty of not being able to easily identify the possible causes of this condition, accepting that the child will grow out of it and implementing *a wait and see* policy.

One of the serious issues that emerge from the lack of knowledge and training of physical educators is that this group of at risk children is left without the educational support that they need [24]. A good assessment would be essential and more information and training would be desirable.

### **4. How to detect these children in PE and sport classes**

Knowing what children can do is basic if teachers who want to evaluate their motor competence and if they develop within the margins of the desirable for their age. Knowing what children can do helps the teacher to know:


Teachers have difficulty with the identification of clumsy children. The limited emphasis placed on motor development in their graduate training contributes to this limited knowledge of motor skill learning difficulties [24].

**5. How clumsy children learn motor and sport skills**

and (3) an approach explicitly centered on the children [43].

**1.** The child receives a clear idea of what is to be learned. **2.** The child receives key information about the movement.

**3.** The child receives specific feedback from his actions.

**5.** The child perceives success in 80% of the occasions.

not have the knowledge and skills necessary to teach clumsy children [39].

Unless poorly coordinated children have been previously referred by their parents and consequently identified by a medical practitioner or therapist, the first interventionist with these children is the PES teachers. They have the first opportunity of providing primary care to these children, but unfortunately, they do not offer adequate help probably because they do

Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

263

In the last decade, there have been numerous efforts to develop intervention procedures to alleviate or solve the effects of coordination problems among school-aged children. These procedures are highly related to the training and experiences of their authors; hence they can be classified differently. We could say that they move between two poles, between those focused on the processes involved that need to be improved or remedied, and those focused in developing specific functional skills so that children can interact in a competent way in the social and cultural context in which they grow and develop [24, 40]. When teachers instruct clumsy children, they need to answer several questions over what to teach and how to teach, which teaching style is the most appropriate for clumsy children or which are the true needs of these children [41]. These questions demand the teachers to know in depth the children's motor development [19]. Professionals and researchers call for the development of intervention programs that help these students overcome their coordination problems [16, 17, 41, 42]. School-based physical education programs are of a more general nature than clinical interventions. It is common that in studies in which intervention programs have been developed with clumsy children, too little attention was paid to the teacher's competence to teach and develop the tasks under study. Sport pedagogues have usually addressed the teaching of physical education and sport programs with at least three instructive procedures, namely (1) the most direct procedure, (2) a procedure in which they have allowed the participation of the students in different decisions,

One of the intervention models that has received special attention for its favorable results and which has great potential in PES classes is the so-called task-centered approach [44, 45]. In this approach, children perform in a specific way those functional motor tasks that the teacher considers more important, since they allow the learning of more complex skills and permit interactions with other members of the class, but also it has its disadvantages, since the child

It is necessary to consider several aspects when choosing a task-centered approach in the

many times does not actively participate in any of the instructional decisions.

teaching of specific tasks [46] and that supposes organizing everything so that:

**4.** The child receives an abundant practice for the learning of these skills.

There are many tools that physical education professionals have developed to know how their students move and develop in the classes [25], but many of them do not have the qualities of measurement that offer the security to the professional that with their employment they will obtain valid and reliable information. Therefore, it is necessary, in a systematic, simple, and useful way, to determine if the process of developing motor competence is being carried out reasonably and within healthy margins.

There are different tools and instruments (batteries, checklists, and tests) that permit confirmation of a teacher's intuitions. However, it is important to know what to evaluate and what kind of instruments is more appropriate. There are different assessment tools available [26]. On the one hand, there are tests or batteries developed to compare the performance of schoolchildren with respect to previously established norms in a set of physical and motor skills [27]. On the other hand, there is another set of tests or batteries based on the existence of a series of performance criteria based on the research and the opinion of the experts, which establishes which are the most relevant morphological characteristics of the tasks evaluated in every age group. In this case, there are no norms but levels of performance and a series of criteria.

Each type of instrument demands a competence of the teachers. They must know in depth how to present and organize the application of the test or battery, apply it, and interpret the individual results with respect to the norm. In the second type of instruments, an adequate knowledge of the child motor development and about the characteristics of the fundamental motor skills is demanded.

Among these instruments, we would highlight batteries and tests such as Body Coordination Test for Children (KKTK) [28], the Movement ABC-2 Battery [29], Bruininks-Oseretsky-2 of Motor Performance [30], or the MAND motor test [31]. These comprehensive tests use product and/or process forms of assessment. They require more time for administration and more skill in the movement domain for a competent interpretation, something that many PE teachers do not have.

In this sense, motor tests like the stay in step gross motor test [32] or the GRAMI-2 Motor Test [33] are short motor tests developed with the objective of a quick screening of children and being able to detect those children with motor coordination problems in physical education and provide information to teachers for the adaptation of programs and intervention. These tests have a group of tasks with a great power of clumsiness prediction like hopping, bouncing, or lateral jumps. It has the advantage of being easily administered by the PE teacher in the class schedule.

Some of these batteries or motor tests are accompanied by observation sheets or motor checklists that can be used by teachers. This is the case of the observation checklist accompanying the MABC-2 battery [29, 34], scales for the assessing the motor performance [35], the Coordination Disorders Questionnaire (DCDQ) [36], ECEF Motor Competence Scale [37], or the Fine Motor Competence Questionnaire [27]. There are also different scales, inventories, or questionnaires to be used by parents to detect coordination problems in childhood [38].

### **5. How clumsy children learn motor and sport skills**

Teachers have difficulty with the identification of clumsy children. The limited emphasis placed on motor development in their graduate training contributes to this limited knowl-

There are many tools that physical education professionals have developed to know how their students move and develop in the classes [25], but many of them do not have the qualities of measurement that offer the security to the professional that with their employment they will obtain valid and reliable information. Therefore, it is necessary, in a systematic, simple, and useful way, to determine if the process of developing motor competence is being

There are different tools and instruments (batteries, checklists, and tests) that permit confirmation of a teacher's intuitions. However, it is important to know what to evaluate and what kind of instruments is more appropriate. There are different assessment tools available [26]. On the one hand, there are tests or batteries developed to compare the performance of schoolchildren with respect to previously established norms in a set of physical and motor skills [27]. On the other hand, there is another set of tests or batteries based on the existence of a series of performance criteria based on the research and the opinion of the experts, which establishes which are the most relevant morphological characteristics of the tasks evaluated in every age group. In this case, there are no norms but levels of performance and a series of criteria.

Each type of instrument demands a competence of the teachers. They must know in depth how to present and organize the application of the test or battery, apply it, and interpret the individual results with respect to the norm. In the second type of instruments, an adequate knowledge of the child motor development and about the characteristics of the fundamental

Among these instruments, we would highlight batteries and tests such as Body Coordination Test for Children (KKTK) [28], the Movement ABC-2 Battery [29], Bruininks-Oseretsky-2 of Motor Performance [30], or the MAND motor test [31]. These comprehensive tests use product and/or process forms of assessment. They require more time for administration and more skill in the movement domain for a competent interpretation, something that many PE teach-

In this sense, motor tests like the stay in step gross motor test [32] or the GRAMI-2 Motor Test [33] are short motor tests developed with the objective of a quick screening of children and being able to detect those children with motor coordination problems in physical education and provide information to teachers for the adaptation of programs and intervention. These tests have a group of tasks with a great power of clumsiness prediction like hopping, bouncing, or lateral jumps. It has the advantage of being easily administered by the PE teacher in the class schedule. Some of these batteries or motor tests are accompanied by observation sheets or motor checklists that can be used by teachers. This is the case of the observation checklist accompanying the MABC-2 battery [29, 34], scales for the assessing the motor performance [35], the Coordination Disorders Questionnaire (DCDQ) [36], ECEF Motor Competence Scale [37], or the Fine Motor Competence Questionnaire [27]. There are also different scales, inventories, or questionnaires to be used by parents to detect coordination problems in childhood [38].

edge of motor skill learning difficulties [24].

262 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

carried out reasonably and within healthy margins.

motor skills is demanded.

ers do not have.

Unless poorly coordinated children have been previously referred by their parents and consequently identified by a medical practitioner or therapist, the first interventionist with these children is the PES teachers. They have the first opportunity of providing primary care to these children, but unfortunately, they do not offer adequate help probably because they do not have the knowledge and skills necessary to teach clumsy children [39].

In the last decade, there have been numerous efforts to develop intervention procedures to alleviate or solve the effects of coordination problems among school-aged children. These procedures are highly related to the training and experiences of their authors; hence they can be classified differently. We could say that they move between two poles, between those focused on the processes involved that need to be improved or remedied, and those focused in developing specific functional skills so that children can interact in a competent way in the social and cultural context in which they grow and develop [24, 40]. When teachers instruct clumsy children, they need to answer several questions over what to teach and how to teach, which teaching style is the most appropriate for clumsy children or which are the true needs of these children [41]. These questions demand the teachers to know in depth the children's motor development [19].

Professionals and researchers call for the development of intervention programs that help these students overcome their coordination problems [16, 17, 41, 42]. School-based physical education programs are of a more general nature than clinical interventions. It is common that in studies in which intervention programs have been developed with clumsy children, too little attention was paid to the teacher's competence to teach and develop the tasks under study.

Sport pedagogues have usually addressed the teaching of physical education and sport programs with at least three instructive procedures, namely (1) the most direct procedure, (2) a procedure in which they have allowed the participation of the students in different decisions, and (3) an approach explicitly centered on the children [43].

One of the intervention models that has received special attention for its favorable results and which has great potential in PES classes is the so-called task-centered approach [44, 45]. In this approach, children perform in a specific way those functional motor tasks that the teacher considers more important, since they allow the learning of more complex skills and permit interactions with other members of the class, but also it has its disadvantages, since the child many times does not actively participate in any of the instructional decisions.

It is necessary to consider several aspects when choosing a task-centered approach in the teaching of specific tasks [46] and that supposes organizing everything so that:


This procedure has nothing to do with a teaching by command style or a militarized approach of teaching, in which all is done in the same way and at the same time. This procedure does not avoid the development of an atmosphere of achievement, effort, and personal progress [47]. Taskspecific interventions provide a practical option to deal with the heterogeneity of these problems.

these children and their difficulties. It is likely that new synergies and coordination will emerge as a solution to the proposed task and that they will collide with what is expected; it is interesting to contemplate them and assess their functionality in these children.

Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

265

**3.** *Manipulate the constraints related to the subject*, *environment*, *and task*. The teacher can handle the most relevant variables of the learning situation so that children can exercise its possibilities of action. It means, on the one hand, to vary certain dimensions of the task, the context, and even the child and, on the other, to assume that there is not a single correct solution to achieve the established objective but that there are different possibilities and that all have their potential to be exploited in the dynamics of each session. This is of great interest for clumsy children who feel cornered by the idea that there is only one way to carry out the tasks.

**4.** *Provide appropriate instructional support*. If in previous steps the concern was to establish the most favorable conditions of practice, this step refers to the need to offer the necessary supports to children. It is very likely that they will have difficulty understanding tasks in the first trials and that it will be necessary to offer them support and keep going. It is necessary to find a balance between excessive direction that limits and a lack of direction that causes

Teachers know that until they have mastered a task, they go through a series of stages in which motivation, information, and feedback as well as attention progress in a variable way [44, 50]. These children show limitations in their ability to attend to the relevant aspects of the tasks. Managing information and moving simultaneously are very problematic for them; hence teachers should select the information to be transmitted and not to exceed the attentional capacity of these students. These children can learn to attend and to listen properly and to look in the right direction; hence teachers must know what information will be needed to

Probably one of the concerns of teachers is to ensure that students have a high willingness to learn and practice. The students bring with them a whole series of expectations about what will be developed in the classroom, the teaching context, the material, the teacher, and the tasks themselves, and in the case of clumsy children, these previous expectations often lead them to not want to go to class because they hope they will fail again, their classmates will laugh, and their teachers will not give them the necessary attention. They have always been adjusting to the level of the class, a level that they are not able to achieve, which has undermined their confidence in a very remarkable way. Teachers must be sensitive to the needs of these students and do so in a positive way, as they are always poorly viewed in class and are likely to begin to show signs of learned helplessness, reacting aggressively and with inappropriate behaviors [3, 40].

Clumsy children in physical education and sport classes do not perceive as meaningful the tasks they practice, and therefore, they are not motivated. It is necessary to consider the interests and needs of these students. To choose key fundamental motor skills that allow them to play and participate with their peers in other activities is a way of giving meaning to the practice. The motor learning process in physical education and sport classes entails putting into action all sensory-perceptual channels of children, which in the case of clumsy children

help direct their attention to the area of greatest information relevance [51].

insecurity and loss of motivation.

could be the origin of their difficulties.

There are other proposals in which students are asked to explore their perceptual and motor space of work, so that they try to perceive affordances and discover the procedure of action that better solves the problem. These are procedures that some scholars have called nonlinear pedagogy and others ecological task analysis. In these approaches value is given to discovery and exploration, and the teacher does not need to use so abundantly the explanations and establish the contexts of practice that favor these processes [48, 49]. Teaching clumsy children in physical education must adapt to the individuals' needs of these children. Teaching those specific cultural skills necessary for being involved in the activities of the class needs to concentrate in the movement skill and practice until they can execute them with sufficient proficiency.

Many pedagogues have proposed different teaching methods depending on the nature of the task and the peculiarities of the children [44]. It is important to remember that many clumsy children do not excel at almost anything and that they may have certain desires that fit properly which could be a source of proposals for the teacher.

To the schoolboy who would like to play ball with his teammates, he demands that we teach him to catch, pass, and throw, specific skills that can constitute the program of work of a specific period. Performing a developmental task analysis of fundamental skills may be a good decision to work with these students. With this type of analysis, the teacher can develop a wide range of tasks and learning experiences, as well as being able to use it as an individualized evaluation tool, since it allows the elaboration of a performance profile with interesting nuances of complexity for the follow-up of the progress [40]. Ecological task analysis (ETA) [49] has established different classifications of motor tasks from a functional point of view, i.e., according to their functional objective, establishing four categories: locomotion, manipulation of objects, projection and trapping of objects, and maintenance and orientation of the posture.

The pedagogical research in which this perspective has been adopted in working with awkward children is very scarce. For its proponents, there are four steps that should be taken [49]:


these children and their difficulties. It is likely that new synergies and coordination will emerge as a solution to the proposed task and that they will collide with what is expected; it is interesting to contemplate them and assess their functionality in these children.

This procedure has nothing to do with a teaching by command style or a militarized approach of teaching, in which all is done in the same way and at the same time. This procedure does not avoid the development of an atmosphere of achievement, effort, and personal progress [47]. Taskspecific interventions provide a practical option to deal with the heterogeneity of these problems.

There are other proposals in which students are asked to explore their perceptual and motor space of work, so that they try to perceive affordances and discover the procedure of action that better solves the problem. These are procedures that some scholars have called nonlinear pedagogy and others ecological task analysis. In these approaches value is given to discovery and exploration, and the teacher does not need to use so abundantly the explanations and establish the contexts of practice that favor these processes [48, 49]. Teaching clumsy children in physical education must adapt to the individuals' needs of these children. Teaching those specific cultural skills necessary for being involved in the activities of the class needs to concentrate in the movement skill and practice until they can execute them with sufficient proficiency.

Many pedagogues have proposed different teaching methods depending on the nature of the task and the peculiarities of the children [44]. It is important to remember that many clumsy children do not excel at almost anything and that they may have certain desires that fit prop-

To the schoolboy who would like to play ball with his teammates, he demands that we teach him to catch, pass, and throw, specific skills that can constitute the program of work of a specific period. Performing a developmental task analysis of fundamental skills may be a good decision to work with these students. With this type of analysis, the teacher can develop a wide range of tasks and learning experiences, as well as being able to use it as an individualized evaluation tool, since it allows the elaboration of a performance profile with interesting nuances of complexity for the follow-up of the progress [40]. Ecological task analysis (ETA) [49] has established different classifications of motor tasks from a functional point of view, i.e., according to their functional objective, establishing four categories: locomotion, manipulation of objects, projection and trapping of objects, and maintenance and orientation of the posture.

The pedagogical research in which this perspective has been adopted in working with awkward children is very scarce. For its proponents, there are four steps that should be taken [49]:

**1.** *Establish objectives by structuring the physical and social context*. This will be the first decision to be made, which involves asking questions such as what do my students need to master? What kind of skills should they use? How should I structure the environment? What modifications should be made to reach the goal? How should I present skills to help them to understand it and feel motivated to reach them? Undoubtedly the interests and desires of children are a great clue to establish the objectives. This introduces emotional variables in the process, and this emotional dimension has a significant influence in clumsy children

**2.** *Allow the student to look for possible solutions to the problems raised*, *and take advantage of these solutions to consolidate these patterns of movement and move toward more complex ones.* This search can give the teacher a high number of keys to understand the motor dynamism of

erly which could be a source of proposals for the teacher.

264 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

when they are learning motor skills.


Teachers know that until they have mastered a task, they go through a series of stages in which motivation, information, and feedback as well as attention progress in a variable way [44, 50]. These children show limitations in their ability to attend to the relevant aspects of the tasks. Managing information and moving simultaneously are very problematic for them; hence teachers should select the information to be transmitted and not to exceed the attentional capacity of these students. These children can learn to attend and to listen properly and to look in the right direction; hence teachers must know what information will be needed to help direct their attention to the area of greatest information relevance [51].

Probably one of the concerns of teachers is to ensure that students have a high willingness to learn and practice. The students bring with them a whole series of expectations about what will be developed in the classroom, the teaching context, the material, the teacher, and the tasks themselves, and in the case of clumsy children, these previous expectations often lead them to not want to go to class because they hope they will fail again, their classmates will laugh, and their teachers will not give them the necessary attention. They have always been adjusting to the level of the class, a level that they are not able to achieve, which has undermined their confidence in a very remarkable way. Teachers must be sensitive to the needs of these students and do so in a positive way, as they are always poorly viewed in class and are likely to begin to show signs of learned helplessness, reacting aggressively and with inappropriate behaviors [3, 40].

Clumsy children in physical education and sport classes do not perceive as meaningful the tasks they practice, and therefore, they are not motivated. It is necessary to consider the interests and needs of these students. To choose key fundamental motor skills that allow them to play and participate with their peers in other activities is a way of giving meaning to the practice. The motor learning process in physical education and sport classes entails putting into action all sensory-perceptual channels of children, which in the case of clumsy children could be the origin of their difficulties.

Adopting a multisensory approach is very appropriate for the child to relate what he sees with what he listens to and with what he feels when mobilized. With practice and patience, these children learn to feel the movement; however, when it is decided to mobilize kinesthetically to the students, it is necessary to consider not only the spatial reference and its trajectory in the correct orientation; the child's participation in the mobilization is very important, since guiding in excess does not favor motor retention [52].

The message must be to help these children to understand what they are going to practice. It is also appropriate to remember the difficulties of attention and retention that these children can manifest, which leads them to focus their efforts on what it is not relevant, hence the impor-

Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

267

It seems logical to think that the work in large groups does not favor learning for these students; hence individual work or small groups are the best alternative. This work in small groups helps these children to participate in physical education classes, if teachers organize their classes properly and do not leave these decisions to children who will always ignore their more clumsy classmates. Small groups not only allow the child to practice with other peers with different levels of competence but also favor the process of socialization and relationship among them, inciting cooperation and acceptance of other less competent [61–63].

Providing feedback on what is being practiced is an essential aspect of progress [53]. Clumsy children need informational support to progress, but it is not necessary to give supplementary information in each stage because of the danger of making the child dependent on teacher's interventions. It is important for the teacher to show interest in children's learning. One of the most remarkable aspects of the narratives of clumsy adults is that when they were children, teachers did not pay attention to them [12, 13]. Pedagogical research is showing how effective it is to create an atmosphere of work in which children are recognized for their effort and dedication and where teachers offer feedback on good achievements [64] and when their students request them.

**6. Why physical education and sport pedagogy must be concerned** 

teaching methods that can be used to work to improve their motor skills.

As already indicated in the first sections of this chapter, the first professionals who meet these children in school are the classroom and physical education and sport teacher. The movement difficulties presented by these children represent a great challenge for them when discussing

But, why must PE teachers be concerned with this problem? The main objective of physical education in schools is to develop motor competence in all children, not only in skillful children. To be competent it is necessary to begin being incompetent, and PES teachers must provide their children with the tasks and experiences that help them to improve their motor coordination. The identification and teaching of these children are the responsibility of these teachers. If physical education teachers do not care about clumsy children in school, who will?

These children, boys and girls, need more attention and more patience from their teachers. Why? Because they do not follow the same pace of learning than that of their classmates, and because the physical education environment generates feelings of failure in these children [63]. Clumsy children often feel they do not have control over the environment and are unable to prevent motor failure. It is in this situation when they begin to develop what has been called learned helplessness [65, 66]. Teachers need to be aware of these circumstances and establish a pedagogical atmosphere where these children could practice without being

**with this problem**

tance for teachers to analyze tasks before presenting to children [55, 56].

But last, *what kind of practice will be most appropriate for these students? How much practice will they need to improve their motor competence? Which organization of practice will be the most appropriate?*

It is common in physical education and sport classes to practice the tasks in a global way, as they are, focusing the teacher overall and less on the details of it, but for many clumsy children, many of these tasks presented in class are very difficult to grasp globally; they have problems remembering the parts that compose them, so it is appropriate to think of more analytical procedures and its combinations.

Procedures like part-whole learning can be effective with different tasks and different children. For some specialists, the progressive part learning procedure has proved to be very effective with children with clumsiness since it progressively allows the components of a motor task to be mastered and combined to show the skill as it is globally [46, 53, 54]. Children with clumsiness present peculiarities in their way of conceiving the organization of the task and of representing it, which makes it necessary to switch constantly back and forth between the components of the skill [55, 56].

An important aspect in the work with these students is to assume that their physical condition is far below that of the rest of the classmates. They have a deficit of activity, which makes them vulnerable to fatigue [57]. Clumsy children showed lower explosive power, muscle strength and endurance, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Overall, these children had lower levels of physical fitness, even with normal body mass index [58]. These children need to repeat tasks that they are learning many times, but this consumes energy that in many cases they do not have, which leads them to be in a situation that even their safety can be compromised.

Teachers should be aware of this situation, hence the importance of providing rest periods, which can also avoid boredom and deterioration of their performance. It is important to consider that the same tasks can be done in different ways [59], suggesting that variability of practice can be a good resource for teachers. This procedure can help children to learn and being motivated but, sometimes to begin a class directly with a variable practice approach, can be uncertain to clumsy children who seek to establish a relatively stable motor pattern that gives them confidence [60].

Repeating the same action many times in the same way, to progressively introduce variations of the same task, can be an excellent way to promote the application of what has been learned to a similar situation and to promote the process of transference. Clumsy children while practicing need to be given feedback on improvements and progress they are achieving, as well as how to overcome the difficulties they are encountering. These children have less motor experience, which means that their knowledge is less and that teachers often make the mistake of offering too imprecise or too precise feedback.

The message must be to help these children to understand what they are going to practice. It is also appropriate to remember the difficulties of attention and retention that these children can manifest, which leads them to focus their efforts on what it is not relevant, hence the importance for teachers to analyze tasks before presenting to children [55, 56].

Adopting a multisensory approach is very appropriate for the child to relate what he sees with what he listens to and with what he feels when mobilized. With practice and patience, these children learn to feel the movement; however, when it is decided to mobilize kinesthetically to the students, it is necessary to consider not only the spatial reference and its trajectory in the correct orientation; the child's participation in the mobilization is very important, since

But last, *what kind of practice will be most appropriate for these students? How much practice will they need to improve their motor competence? Which organization of practice will be the most appropriate?* It is common in physical education and sport classes to practice the tasks in a global way, as they are, focusing the teacher overall and less on the details of it, but for many clumsy children, many of these tasks presented in class are very difficult to grasp globally; they have problems remembering the parts that compose them, so it is appropriate to think of more

Procedures like part-whole learning can be effective with different tasks and different children. For some specialists, the progressive part learning procedure has proved to be very effective with children with clumsiness since it progressively allows the components of a motor task to be mastered and combined to show the skill as it is globally [46, 53, 54]. Children with clumsiness present peculiarities in their way of conceiving the organization of the task and of representing it, which makes it necessary to switch constantly back and forth between

An important aspect in the work with these students is to assume that their physical condition is far below that of the rest of the classmates. They have a deficit of activity, which makes them vulnerable to fatigue [57]. Clumsy children showed lower explosive power, muscle strength and endurance, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Overall, these children had lower levels of physical fitness, even with normal body mass index [58]. These children need to repeat tasks that they are learning many times, but this consumes energy that in many cases they do not have, which leads them to be in a situation that even their safety can be compromised. Teachers should be aware of this situation, hence the importance of providing rest periods, which can also avoid boredom and deterioration of their performance. It is important to consider that the same tasks can be done in different ways [59], suggesting that variability of practice can be a good resource for teachers. This procedure can help children to learn and being motivated but, sometimes to begin a class directly with a variable practice approach, can be uncertain to clumsy children who seek to establish a relatively stable motor pattern

Repeating the same action many times in the same way, to progressively introduce variations of the same task, can be an excellent way to promote the application of what has been learned to a similar situation and to promote the process of transference. Clumsy children while practicing need to be given feedback on improvements and progress they are achieving, as well as how to overcome the difficulties they are encountering. These children have less motor experience, which means that their knowledge is less and that teachers often make the mistake of

guiding in excess does not favor motor retention [52].

266 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

analytical procedures and its combinations.

the components of the skill [55, 56].

that gives them confidence [60].

offering too imprecise or too precise feedback.

It seems logical to think that the work in large groups does not favor learning for these students; hence individual work or small groups are the best alternative. This work in small groups helps these children to participate in physical education classes, if teachers organize their classes properly and do not leave these decisions to children who will always ignore their more clumsy classmates. Small groups not only allow the child to practice with other peers with different levels of competence but also favor the process of socialization and relationship among them, inciting cooperation and acceptance of other less competent [61–63].

Providing feedback on what is being practiced is an essential aspect of progress [53]. Clumsy children need informational support to progress, but it is not necessary to give supplementary information in each stage because of the danger of making the child dependent on teacher's interventions. It is important for the teacher to show interest in children's learning. One of the most remarkable aspects of the narratives of clumsy adults is that when they were children, teachers did not pay attention to them [12, 13]. Pedagogical research is showing how effective it is to create an atmosphere of work in which children are recognized for their effort and dedication and where teachers offer feedback on good achievements [64] and when their students request them.

## **6. Why physical education and sport pedagogy must be concerned with this problem**

As already indicated in the first sections of this chapter, the first professionals who meet these children in school are the classroom and physical education and sport teacher. The movement difficulties presented by these children represent a great challenge for them when discussing teaching methods that can be used to work to improve their motor skills.

But, why must PE teachers be concerned with this problem? The main objective of physical education in schools is to develop motor competence in all children, not only in skillful children. To be competent it is necessary to begin being incompetent, and PES teachers must provide their children with the tasks and experiences that help them to improve their motor coordination. The identification and teaching of these children are the responsibility of these teachers. If physical education teachers do not care about clumsy children in school, who will?

These children, boys and girls, need more attention and more patience from their teachers. Why? Because they do not follow the same pace of learning than that of their classmates, and because the physical education environment generates feelings of failure in these children [63]. Clumsy children often feel they do not have control over the environment and are unable to prevent motor failure. It is in this situation when they begin to develop what has been called learned helplessness [65, 66]. Teachers need to be aware of these circumstances and establish a pedagogical atmosphere where these children could practice without being judged by their peers. These will then ensure that their clumsiness can be kept at a minimum and provide them with tasks, motivation, and confidence that permit them to achieve success.

**Author details**

**References**

p. 283-315

09.005

Chapter 5

Luis M. Ruiz-Pérez\* and Miriam Palomo-Nieto

Papers in Education. 2009;**24**(1):1-27

Teaching in Physical Education. 1995;**14**:467-477

\*Address all correspondence to: luismiguel.ruiz@upm.es

Faculty of Sport Sciences (INEF), Technical University of Madrid, Spain

dent. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1995;**14**:454-466

Education. The ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal. 1995;**150**:6-8

Clinique. 2014;**44**:13-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.neucli.2013.10.133

Mentales DSM-5. España: Panamericana; 2014

praxia. Research in Teacher Education. 2013;**3**(1):5-10

[1] Bailey R, Armour K, Kirk D, Jess M, Pickup I, Sandford R, BERA Group. The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review. Research

Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

269

[2] Carlson TB. We hate the gym: Student alienation from physical education. Journal of

[3] Walling MD, Martinek TJ. Learned helplessness: A case student of a middle school stu-

[4] Carlson TB. "Now, I Think I Can". The reaction of eight low-skilled students to Sport

[5] Wall AE, Reid G, Paton J. The syndrome of physical awkwardness. In: Reid G, editor. Problems in Movement Control. North Holland: Elsevier Publishers B.V.; 1990.

[6] Vaivre-Douret L. Developmental coordination disorders: State of art. Neuropshyisologie

[7] Visser J. Developmental coordination disorder: A review of research on subtypes and comorbidities. Human Movement Science. 2003;**22**:479-493. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2003.

[8] Hyde C, Rigoli S, Piek J. Developmental coordination disorder. In: Rinehart N, Bradshaw J, Enticott P, editors. Developmental Disorders of the Brain. New York: Routledge; 2017.

[9] American Psychiatric Association. Manual de Diagnóstico y Estadístico de Trastornos

[10] Edmonds C. Why teachers need to hear the voice and experience of the child with dys-

[11] Parker HE, Larkin D. Children's co-ordination and developmental movement difficulty. In: Savelsberg G, Davids K, Vander Kamp J, Bennett SI, editors. Development of

Movement Co-ordination in Children Londres. Routledge; 2003. pp. 107-137

These children need a learning environment that considers the difference, a warmer teaching context where peers can understand that everybody has their own process of learning. They are able to acquire specific motor skills, but they have problems to transfer general aspects from one skill to another [67]. This problem can be solved by a task approach that first selects skills that are nuclear and necessary to learn other skills, to apply to different situations and to permit participation in play and games, and, second, breaks skills down into easier steps and offers multiple opportunities of practice and feedback [68]. Clumsy children need extensive teaching and continual reinforcement. PES teachers have to assume that with these children, it is necessary to reteach fundamental skills (catching, running, landing, throwing, etc.). These children avoid playing and practicing outside classes and have a lack of motor experiences and a deficit of practice [55]. Physical education and sport is for all children regardless of their level of motor competence, and if teachers are aware of clumsy children, their pedagogical strategies can be designed to help them to be more competent and enhance their experiences in class.

### **7. Concluding remarks**

Physical education and sport pedagogy must be more concerned with this problem than it has been until now. It should consider what professionals should do with children with coordination problems in the class. It should investigate what teaching methods are most appropriate and how to achieve a climate of learning and teaching appropriate for these students with these specific needs.

It must be considered how to train teachers so that they are able to direct their eyes not only toward those who are competent but also toward those who have a low motor competence and developmental motor coordination problems. Identification of these children is not an easy task, which is the reason for developing objective assessment tools for PES teachers for early recognition of this "at-risk" group. Quick and simple screening devices like checklists or motor test like GRAMI-2 motor tests are appropriate for PES teachers given the limitations of their training in motor development, the difficulty to identify motor coordination problems, and the time constraints.

If these children are not correctly identified, they are not going to receive the educational opportunities and support to alleviate the effects of their condition. Well-developed physical education and sport programs can contribute to the motor skill learning of poorly coordinated children and alleviate their social problems.

### **Acknowledgements**

We would like to acknowledge the support of the Cathedra Real Madrid and The European University of Madrid (Spain) in the elaboration of this chapter.

### **Author details**

judged by their peers. These will then ensure that their clumsiness can be kept at a minimum and provide them with tasks, motivation, and confidence that permit them to achieve success. These children need a learning environment that considers the difference, a warmer teaching context where peers can understand that everybody has their own process of learning. They are able to acquire specific motor skills, but they have problems to transfer general aspects from one skill to another [67]. This problem can be solved by a task approach that first selects skills that are nuclear and necessary to learn other skills, to apply to different situations and to permit participation in play and games, and, second, breaks skills down into easier steps and offers multiple opportunities of practice and feedback [68]. Clumsy children need extensive teaching and continual reinforcement. PES teachers have to assume that with these children, it is necessary to reteach fundamental skills (catching, running, landing, throwing, etc.). These children avoid playing and practicing outside classes and have a lack of motor experiences and a deficit of practice [55]. Physical education and sport is for all children regardless of their level of motor competence, and if teachers are aware of clumsy children, their pedagogical strategies can be designed to help them to be more competent and enhance their experiences in class.

268 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

Physical education and sport pedagogy must be more concerned with this problem than it has been until now. It should consider what professionals should do with children with coordination problems in the class. It should investigate what teaching methods are most appropriate and how to achieve a climate of learning and teaching appropriate for these students with

It must be considered how to train teachers so that they are able to direct their eyes not only toward those who are competent but also toward those who have a low motor competence and developmental motor coordination problems. Identification of these children is not an easy task, which is the reason for developing objective assessment tools for PES teachers for early recognition of this "at-risk" group. Quick and simple screening devices like checklists or motor test like GRAMI-2 motor tests are appropriate for PES teachers given the limitations of their training in motor devel-

If these children are not correctly identified, they are not going to receive the educational opportunities and support to alleviate the effects of their condition. Well-developed physical education and sport programs can contribute to the motor skill learning of poorly coordi-

We would like to acknowledge the support of the Cathedra Real Madrid and The European

opment, the difficulty to identify motor coordination problems, and the time constraints.

nated children and alleviate their social problems.

University of Madrid (Spain) in the elaboration of this chapter.

**7. Concluding remarks**

these specific needs.

**Acknowledgements**

Luis M. Ruiz-Pérez\* and Miriam Palomo-Nieto

\*Address all correspondence to: luismiguel.ruiz@upm.es

Faculty of Sport Sciences (INEF), Technical University of Madrid, Spain

### **References**


[12] Ruiz LM, Palomo M, Gomez-Ruano MA, Navia JA. El efecto de los problemas evolutivos de coordinación motriz en las conductas saludables y estilo de vida en la adultez. Research Report. Cátedra Real Madrid: Universidad Europea de Madrid; 2017

[28] Kiphard EJ, Schilling VF. Körper-koordinations-test für kinder KTK: Manual. Von

Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

271

[29] Herdenson SE, Sudgen DA, Barnett S. Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2.

[30] Bruininks R, Bruininks B. Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. 2nd ed.

[31] McCarron LT. McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development. MAND. 3rd ed.

[32] Larkin D, Revie G. Stay in Step: A Gross Screening Test for Children K-2. Authors:

[33] Ruiz LM, Rioja N, Graupera JL, Palomo M, García V. GRAMI-2: Desarrollo de un test para evaluar la coordinación motriz global en la educación primaria. Revista Iberoamericana

[34] Wright HC, Sugden DA, Ng R, Tan J. Identification of children with movement problems in Singapore: Usefulness of the movement ABC checklist. Adapted Physical Activity

[35] Liljestrand P, Jeremy R, Wu IW, Ferreiro DM, Escobar GJ, Newman TB. Use of the motor performance checklist to study motor outcomes in 5-year-olds. Journal of Pediatrics and

[36] Wilson BN, Kaplan BJ, Crawford SC, Campbell A, Dewey D. Reliability and validity of a parent questionnaire on childhood motor skills. The American Journal of Occupational

[37] Ruiz LM, Mendez MA, Graupera JL. Observar la Competencia de los Escolares de 6 a 8 años en Educación Física: La Escala ECEF 6-8. Revista Pedagógica ADAL. 2015;**17**(29):6-12

[38] Schoemaker MM, Flapper BCT, Reinderes-Messelink HAR, de Kloet A. Validity of the motor observation questionnaire for teachers as a screening instrument for children at risk for developmental coordination disorder. Human Movement Science. 2008;**27**:190-

[39] Miyahara M, Wafer A. Clinical intervention for children with developmental coordination disorder: A multiple case study. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 2004;**21**:281-300

[40] Ruiz LM. Moverse con dificultad en la escuela. Introducción a los problemas evolutivos

[41] Miyahara M. A meta-analysis of intervention studies on children with developmental

[42] Sigmundsson H, Pedersen AV, Whiting HTA, Ingvaldsen RP. We can cure your child's clumsiness! A review of intervention methods. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation

coordination disorder. Corpus, Psyche et Societas. 1996;**3**(1):11-18

Fridhelm Schilling. Weinhein: Beltz Test; 1974

Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson; 2005

McCarron-Dial Systems: Dallas, TX; 2011

de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte. 2014;**10**(1):103-111

Madrid: Pearson; 2010

Sydney; 1994

Quarterly. 1994;**11**:150-157

Child Health. 2009;**45**:368-374

Therapy. 2000;**54**(5):484-493

Medicine. 1998;**30**:101-106

199. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2008.02.003

de coordinación motriz. Sevilla: Wanceulen; 2005


[28] Kiphard EJ, Schilling VF. Körper-koordinations-test für kinder KTK: Manual. Von Fridhelm Schilling. Weinhein: Beltz Test; 1974

[12] Ruiz LM, Palomo M, Gomez-Ruano MA, Navia JA. El efecto de los problemas evolutivos de coordinación motriz en las conductas saludables y estilo de vida en la adultez.

[13] Fitzpatrick DA, Watkinson EJ. The lived experience of physical awkwardness: Adults'

[14] Cousins M, Smyth MM. Developmental coordination impairments in adulthood. Human

[15] Cairney J. Developmental Coordination Disorders and its Consequences. Toronto:

[16] Arheim D, Sinclair W. El niño torpe. Un programa de terapia motriz. Buenos Aires:

[17] Revie G, Larkin D. Screening for movement intervention. The ACHPER National

[18] Hart C. Doing a Literature Review. Releasing the Social Science Research. London:

[19] Wall AE. Physical awkward children. A motor development perspective. In: Das JP, Mulcahy RF, Wall AE. Theory and Research in Learning Disabilities. New York: Springer+

[20] Henderson S. Motor development and minor handicap. In: Kalverboer A, Hopkins B, Geuze R. Motor Development in Early and Later Childhood. Cambridge: Cambridge

[21] Hoare D. Subtypes of developmental coordination disorder. Adapted Physical Activity

[22] Haubenstricker JL. Motor development in children with learning disabilities. Journal of

[23] Gómez M, Ruiz LM, Mata E.Los problemas evolutivos de coordinación en la adolescencia: Análisis de una dificultad oculta. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte. 2006;**3**:44-54. DOI: 10.5232/ricyde2006.00303 [24] Revie G, Larkin D. Looking at movement: Problem with teacher identification of poorly

[25] Gärtner H, Hirtz P. On coordinative motor efficiency at school age. In: Haag H, editor. Physical Education and Evaluation. Schorndorf: Verlag K. Hofmann; 1979. pp. 198-200

[26] Burton WA, Miller ED. Movement Skill Assessment. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1998 [27] Chin-Kai L, Ling-Fu M, Ya Wen Y, Che-Kuo C, Kuan-Hua L. Factor analysis of the contextual fine motor questionnaire in children. Research in Developmental Disabilities.

Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 1982;**52**(5):41-44

2013;**35**:512-519. DOI: 10.1016/j.rdd.2013.11.007

coordinated children. The ACHPER National Journal. 1993;**40**:4-9

Research Report. Cátedra Real Madrid: Universidad Europea de Madrid; 2017

retrospective views. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 2003;**20**:279-297

Movement Science. 2003;**22**:433-459. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2003.09.003

270 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

University of Toronto Press; 2015

Business Media, LLC; 1980. pp. 253-268

University Press; 1993. pp. 287-306

Quarterly. 1994;**11**:158-169

Panamericana. 1976

Journal. 1995;**42**(1):4-7

SAGE; 2007


[43] Mosston M, Asworth S. Teaching Physical Education. First online edition. London: Pearson Education; 2008. http://www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org/pdfs/ebook/Teaching\_ Physical\_Edu\_1st\_Online\_old.pdf

[59] Ruiz LM. Competencia Motriz. Elementos para comprender el aprendizaje motor en

Clumsiness and Motor Competence in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70832

273

[60] Bonney E, Jelsma D, Ferguson G, Smits-Engelsman B. Variable training does not lead to better motor learning compared to repetitive training in children with and without DCD when exposed to active video games. Research in Developmental Disabilities.

[61] Betts M, Underwood GL. The experience of three low motor ability pupils in infant

[62] Whitehall C, Underwood GL. A case study of the behavior of pupils with high and low motor ability in primary school games lessons. The Bulletin of Physical Education.

[63] Goodway JD, Crowe H, Ward P. Effects of motor skill instruction on fundamental motor

[64] Chiviakowsky S, Wulf G. Feedback after good trials enhances learning. Research

[65] Ruiz LM. Aprender a ser incompetente en educación física: Un enfoque psicosocial.

[66] Whitehead J. Teacher/pupil interaction in PE-the key of success. The Bulletin of Physical

[67] Keogh JF, Oliver JNA. Clinical study of physically awkward educationally subnormal

[68] Martinek T, Crowe PB, Rejeski WJ. Pygmalion in the Gym: Causes and Effects of

Expectations in Teaching and Coaching. New York: Leisure Press; 1982

physical education. The Bulletin of Physical Education. 1992;**28**(3):45-56

skill development. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 2003;**20**:298-314

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2007;**71**(1):40-47

boys. The. Research Quarterly. 1968;**39**:301-307

Revista Apunts de Educacion Física y Deporte. 2000;**60**:20-25

educación física. Madrid: Gymnos; 1995

2017;**62**:124-136

1991;**27**(3):24-33

Education. 1990;**26**(2):27-30


[59] Ruiz LM. Competencia Motriz. Elementos para comprender el aprendizaje motor en educación física. Madrid: Gymnos; 1995

[43] Mosston M, Asworth S. Teaching Physical Education. First online edition. London: Pearson Education; 2008. http://www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org/pdfs/ebook/Teaching\_

[44] Larkin D, Hoare D.Out of Step. Coordinating Kid's Movement. Nedlands: The University

[45] Revie G, Larkin D. Task-specific intervention with children reduces movement prob-

[46] Rink J. Teaching Physical Education for Learning. 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2014 [47] Graham G, Hale H, Ann S, Parker M. Children Moving: A Reflective Approach to Teaching Physical Education. Mountain View, Calif: Mayfield Publishing Company; 1993

[48] Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Shuttelworth R, Renshaw I, Araujo D. The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research. 2007;**77**(3):251-

[49] Davis WE, Broadhead GD. Ecological Task Analysis and Movement. Human Kinetics:

[50] Missuna Ch, Mandich A. Integrating motor learning theories in practice. In: Cermak SA, Larkin D, editors. Development Coordination Disorder. Australia: Delmar; 2002. pp. 221-233

[51] Sudgen DA, Chambers ME. Models of intervention: Towards an eco-developmental approach. In: Sudgen D, Chambers M, editors. Children with Developmental Coordina-

[52] Loftesnes LM, Ingvaldsen RP, Sigmundsson H. Children with developmental coordination disorder: Can underlying perceptual disability be remediated through specific training? Psychological Reports. 2017;**120**(2):1-13. DOI: 10.1177/0031512517689972 [53] Ruiz LM. Deporte y aprendizaje. Procesos de adquisición y desarrollo de habilidades.

[54] Cratty BJ. Clumsy Child Syndromes: Descriptions, Evaluation, and Remediation.

[55] Larkin D, Parker HE. Teaching landing to children with and without developmental

[56] Ghorbani S, Bund A. Throwing skills: Analysis of movement phases in early motor learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2017;**124**(2):1-12. DOI: 10.1177/0031512517689972

[57] Rivilis I, Hay J, Cairney J, Klentrou P, Liu J, Faught BE. Physical activity and fitness in children with developmental coordination disorder: A systematic review. Research in

[58] Hiragai CY, Higassiaraguti PR, Ferracioli RM, Gama DT, Pellegrini M. Physical fitness in children with probable developmental coordination disorder and normal body mass index. Revista Brasileira Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano. 2014;**16**(2):182-190

coordination disorder. Pediatric Exercise Science. 1998;**10**:123-136

lems. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 1993;**10**:29-41

272 Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

tion Disorder. London: Whurr Publishers; 2005. pp. 189-211

Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers; 1994

Developmental Disabilities. 2011;**32**:894-910

Physical\_Edu\_1st\_Online\_old.pdf

278. DOI: 10.3102/003465430305615

Champaign; 2007

Madrid: Visor; 2002

of Western Australia; 1991


*Edited by Núria Llevot-Calvet and Olga Bernad Cavero*

In a plural, complex, and diverse society, the school faces many challenges. Teachers must prepare their students for future professions, unthinkable nowadays, and the digital competences of teachers and students are one of the axes of an advanced school. This book presents a set of works rigorously elaborated by authors of different disciplines, on the role of information and communication technologies (ICT) in educational centers and on the use of digital resources in the initial and continuing teacher training to improve them, as well as in the teaching of different subjects to achieve a better academic and social performance of students. Besides, the reader will find some innovative experiences in physical education to achieve a better physical, emotional, and social performance of students.

Published in London, UK © 2018 IntechOpen © ktsimage / iStock

Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments - Innovation, Contents and Methods

Advanced Learning and

Teaching Environments

Innovation, Contents and Methods

*Edited by Núria Llevot-Calvet* 

*and Olga Bernad Cavero*