Content uploaded by Vassiliki Pliogou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vassiliki Pliogou on Dec 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rett20
Education 3-13
International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education
ISSN: 0300-4279 (Print) 1475-7575 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rett20
Assessment and pedagogical implications of young
children’s psychomotor development in Greek
kindergarten schools
Harilaos K. Zaragas & Vassiliki Pliogou
To cite this article: Harilaos K. Zaragas & Vassiliki Pliogou (2019): Assessment and pedagogical
implications of young children’s psychomotor development in Greek kindergarten schools,
Education 3-13, DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2019.1684540
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1684540
Published online: 03 Dec 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Assessment and pedagogical implications of young children’s
psychomotor development in Greek kindergarten schools
Harilaos K. Zaragas
a
and Vassiliki Pliogou
b
a
Pedagogical Department of Early Childhood Education, School of Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina,
Greece;
b
Metropolitan College of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to observe record and evaluate the
psychomotor development and its relationship to children’s gender and
age on attending public and private kindergartens in Greece. The
sample consisted of 898 children (487 boys’54% and 411 girls 46%)
aged 64 ± 9 months from 64 kindergarten schools. A set of 18 MOT tests
Zimmer and Volkamer [1987. Motor Test for Children Aged 4 to Six Years
Old: MOT 4–6; Manual/MOT 4–6. Revised and Expanded Edition] was
applied to evaluate psychomotor development. These tests were
presented to children as a structured activity after telling the story of an
adventure in the forest where the children were trying through the
various tests to discover the hidden treasure. The results showed that
the majority of children responded satisfactorily to the requirements of
the game, with a small percentage of children failing to perform
accurately, with a smaller percentage leaving the game without
completing their efforts. No significant differences were found between
boys and girls, but the groups of older children were found to perform
better.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 18 October 2019
Accepted 20 October 2019
KEYWORDS
Psychomotor development;
pedagogical implications;
Greek kindergarten schools
Introduction
In Greece, where the study reported in this article was based, many children go to elementary school
without their motor development having been assessed yet we know that deficits in motor develop-
ment are associated with learning difficulties and behavioural problems.
The purpose of this study was to observe record and evaluate the psychomotor development and
the impact of children’s gender and age on attending public and private kindergartens. The sample
consisted of 898 children (487 boys’54% and 411 girls 46%) aged 64 ± 9 months from 64 kindergar-
ten schools. The selection of kindergartens took place by a random choice and parents and local
authorities were asked permission for the research to take place. In total, the research lasted for
two academic years (2016–2018).
A set of 18 MOT tests (Zimmer and Volkamer 1987) was applied to evaluate psychomotor devel-
opment. These tests were presented to children as a structured activity after telling the story of an
adventure in the forest where the children were trying through the various tests to discover the
hidden treasure.
The results showed that the majority of children responded satisfactorily to the requirements of
the game, with a small percentage of children failing to perform accurately, with a smaller percentage
leaving the game without completing their efforts. No significant differences were found between
boys and girls, but the groups of older children were found to perform better. The method of
© 2019 ASPE
CONTACT Harilaos K. Zaragas hzaragas@gmail.com
EDUCATION 3-13
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1684540
applying appropriate observation tests and the assessment of preschoolers’psychomotor develop-
ment revealed significant pedagogical implications for the work of kindergartens in detecting weak-
nesses in motor learning.
Literature review
Childhood is one of the most critical periods of our lives, because according to Biddle, Gorely, and
Stensel (2004) habits and attitudes are adopted that can affect our health positively or negatively.
Surveys indicate that there are school children with adaptation problems (reduced social behaviour
skills, aggression, isolation, lack of empathy, emotional disturbances) that are associated with obvious
difficulties in their motor performance (Schoemaker and Kalverboer 1994; Smyth and Anderson 2000;
Cummins, Piek, and Dyck 2005; Kanioglou, Tsorbatzoudis, and Barkoukis 2005; Poulsen et al. 2007;
Zimmer 2007; Chen et al. 2009; Sylvestre et al. 2013). Children with low motor skills showed less fre-
quent participation in social play and more frequent social contraction as they were more observers
(Bar-Haim and Bart 2006; Kennedy-Behr, Rodger, and Michan 2011). As far as play is concerned, chil-
dren with coordination difficulties and experienced problems with social behaviour, characterised by
a form of play appropriate in younger age stages mainly in the area of space and material
management.
Sadly, such children are also more likely to be involved in aggressive incidents, either as victims or
as offenders (Kennedy-Behr, Rodger, and Michan 2011; Kennedy-Behr, Rodger, and Michan 2013a;
Kennedy-Behr, Rodger, and Michan 2013b). Such children are less independent and less satisfied
with their participation in games, social interactions and education more widely (Bart et al. 2011).
-In addition, a correlation between motor skills and anxiety-depressive symptoms was found by
(Piek et al. 2008a,2008b) who aimed to examine whether information from kinetic performance
measurements from birth to the fourth year can predict the kinetic and cognitive performance of
school-aged children. Their results also showed that at this age, good motor performance and its
stabilisation were positively correlated with the cognitive ability of information processing and
especially with the speed of processing.
Piek et al. (2008b) also noted that neurodepiction research reveals that common brain structures
are used for both cognitive and kinetic performance, with the simultaneous activation of the cerebel-
lum and the cerebellum primordial crust during cognitive activity.
Moreover, Hernandez and Cacola’s(2015) research examined the relationship of motor performance
and cognitive ability of four-year-old preschoolers. In this study the results showed a positive correlation
of kinetic performance to verbal expression. The overall kinetic performance score and the IQ showed a
positive correlation. Specifically, the dexterity of the upper limbs predicted significantly and determined
the intelligence index and overall score of kinetic performance. The results of many surveys at different
age ranges converge to this research direction of the high relation between cognitive (academic) and
motor performance (Nourbakhsh 2006; Luo et al. 2007;Ericsson2008; Jansen and Heil 2010;Lehmann,
Quaiser-Pohl, and Jansen 2014; Reikeras, Moser, and Tonnessen 2015).
The aim of the research by Zaragas et al. (2017) was to evaluate the performance of the motor skills
of 369 young children (aged between 4 and 6 years old which is the typical age that Greek preschoo-
lers attend Greek Kindergartens) of different nationalities from Greece, Albania and Sweden. The
results showed that although there were differences in the rate distributions and averages, there
were no significant differences between the children from the three countries, there were no signifi-
cant differences between boys and girls, with the groups with older children showing better rates.
In Varda’s survey (2000), the method of observation during school break was applied –for kinder-
garten and preschoolers’play from 21 public kindergartens in Volos, which showed that kindergar-
teners do not pay attention to the observation of the children’s kinetic behaviour during the break
although they consider it important that children go out and play in the yard. Outdoor playgrounds
and the yard of the kindergarten are a formal and informal learning kinetics workshop in which many
2H. K. ZARAGAS AND V. PLIOGOU
types of social learning take place. This informal form of education uses all senses and constitutes an
ideal complement to class and traditional methods of teaching and learning (Botsoglou 2010).
Dessing et al. (2013), also found that the number of children’s steps (and so, their level of physical
activity) recorded in the school break was much higher on average than the number of steps
recorded in the rest of the day, a fact that demonstrates the importance of the school environment
to the increase of children’s physical activity and motor learning. McCabe (2016), in her research,
observed that the activities that were being used by teachers in Montessori schools included: throw-
ing and grasping the ball, moving an object to a balance beam, bouncing into a hula-hoop after
throwing bead bags, running with ribbons, jump exercising and walking with stilts (McCabe 2016).
A great deal of research has shown that portable gaming equipment (balls, hula-hoops, tricycles),
teacher education and engagement in physical activities, as well as adequate internal and external
space play an important role in the strengthening of motoring behaviour at pre-school age
(Dowda et al. 2004;O’Connor and Temple 2005; Gubbels, Van Kann, and Jansen 2012; Gunter
et al. 2012; Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2012; Gordon et al. 2013; Vanderloo et al. cited in Vanderloo
et al. 2015; De Marco, Zeisel, and Odom 2015).
The policy on physical activity as recommended by the NASPE (National Association for Sport and
Physical Education) (2002 and 2009) provides for preschoolers at least 60 min a day of unorganised
physical activity and no more than 60 min of sedentary behaviour except sleeping (Hu, Kong, and
Roberts 2014).
The school environment (indoor and outdoor space, logistic equipment, pedagogical activities
and curriculum) is associated with the levels of children’s physical activity (Broekhuizen, Scholten,
and de Vries 2014).
It is thus evident that the development of motor skills in early childhood is of outstanding impor-
tance, as weakness in the development and refinement of basic skills leads children to desperation
and failure in adolescence and adulthood in social-adaptive behaviour (Gallahue and Ozmun 1998;
Gallahue 2002). Much of recent discussion has focused on the issue of kinetics and it is useful to delin-
eate the main elements of theory in this area.
Kinetic Skill is the fundamental kinetic motif, which is performed with precision, accuracy, and
control, economy of forces and in the shortest possible time (Gallahue and Ozmun 1998). According
to Schmidt and Weisberg (2009), it is a kinetic requirement (scissor cutting, writing motion) that is
differentiated by a number of characteristic factors (motion organization, kinetic –cognitive, open
–closed). According to Schmidt and Weisberg (2009), the element that makes us understand
motor skills is its dexterity and its effectiveness.
Kinetic development is the lifelong progressive change in kinetic behaviour, which takes place
under conditions of interaction of the requirements imposed by the individual’s actions, individual
biological potentials and environmental conditions (Gallahue and Ozmun 1998).
Kinetic performance, by contrast, is an indicator of motor growth. It is determined by the perform-
ance on different qualitative aspects of coarse and fine kinetic growth (Bruininks 1978;Bruininks and
Bruininks 2005). A kinetic performance grade is the score each child is attaining in the MTT test and it
is equal to the sum of the individual seventeen tests according to the manufacturers.
Sadly, in Greece, it is a fact that many children go from kindergarten to elementary school without
having developed the level of their kinetic behaviour. The children’s psychomotor sector is usually
neglected by parents and teachers, based on the following way of thinking: that the child growing
will develop motor skills, and it is not so necessary to improve kinetic behaviour as much as to
learn kindergarten and elementary school things.
Purpose and assumptions of the survey
The purpose of this study was to observe record and evaluate the psychomotor development, as well
as the effect of gender and age on it, of young children trough kinetic performance in an eighteen
motor test (MOT) test.
EDUCATION 3–13 3
The sample in this research accounts for almost 0.15% of the total population of kindergarten stu-
dents in Greece. The limitation of the research lies on the fact that its results cannot be generalised for
the entire age group of the children due to the small sample and the existence of other intrusive vari-
ables (free time, predisposition, injuries, etc.) which this study did not investigate. However, its results
may reveal findings that are relevant to the scientific literature.
Sample of the survey
Parents, kindergarteners and their respective Directorates of Education of kindergartens that took
part in the survey were aware of the purpose of the survey and gave their permission to do so.
898 (100.00%) young children from 64 kindergartens (56 public and 8 private ones) of Greece, 487
boys and 411 girls (64 ± 9 months) took part in the survey. The sample of the survey was selected
by random sampling by random choice. For research purposes the sample was divided into three
age groups, namely the first age group was 55–59, the second one 60–66 and the third one 67–73
months (Table 1).
Research methodology
The didactic analysis and the training of the project of activities of fine and coarse mobility in the
form of play includes the following pedagogical principles: (a) suitability for children, (b) freedom of
movement and participation of children, (c) free participation of children, (d) experiential orien-
tation, (e) decision-making by children and (f) self-action. Kinetic tests as well as their logistical
infrastructure were presented in the form of a play after telling a short story to bring children
closer together so that children co-operate and maximise their motor performance. For example,
from the first test until the 18th, the story was about a child who had to discover hidden treasure
through an adventurous and symbolic crossing of a mountain, lake, river, bridge, and cave. The
child has to jump on river rocks, cross paths in the woods and make various maneuvers, throw
stones at the target to find the fruit of the forest, carry them, walk on a narrow bridge, pass
through a cave, to help the dwarves gather the trunks of trees that were spirits, to step over
the water lilies of a lake until they discover the hidden treasure that was a box containing a
mirror. When the child completed the game and came in front of the mirror, they essentially
met the 18 tests of the MOT test. When asked to see what the treasure box contained, the
child opened the box and saw a mirror, which he/she was elaborating with his hands and saw
his/her face. At that time there was applause for the child from his peers and feedback from
the kindergarteners and the research team that the treasure was the child himself and the
effort he/she made and managed to complete the adventure.
In order to measure and evaluate the children’skinetic development, an array of kinetic tests ‘MOT
4–6 (Motoriktest für vier-bis sechsjährige Kinder)’were used by Zimmer and Volkamer 1987.
1
This
array consists of 18 kinetic tests that evaluate the motor performance of children aged four to six
Table 1. The sample of the research in relation to gender and age
AGE IN MONTHS
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
f%f%f%
55–59 123 14% 103 12% 226 26%
25% 25%
60–66 154 17% 137 15% 291 32%
32% 33%
67–73 210 23% 19% 381 42%
43% 42%
TOTAL 487 54% 411 46 898 100%
100% 100%
4H. K. ZARAGAS AND V. PLIOGOU
years. In accordance with the manufacturer’s criteria and guidelines (Zimmer and Volkamer 1987),
motor tests evaluate agility and visual kinetics, dynamic equilibrium, reaction speed, motion
speed, kinetic control, the jumping ability representing the three skills in general, the one of move-
ment in space, of balance (static and dynamic) and of the object manipulation.
The motor tests refer to actions the child must perform, namely: 1st test, jump with both feet in a
wreath without touching it and then jump out of it in the same direction. This test is not evaluated
and considered to be a test, 2nd test, walking within a certain distance of length and width (2 m ×
0.1 m), 3rd test, making dots with a marker on a sheet of paper, 4th test, catch a towel with fingers of
the legs, 5th test, make aslant jumps with two legs, 6th test, catch a stick which falls, 7th test, carry
three tennis balls in a box of 4 m distance, 8th test, walk upside down backwards within a certain
distance of length and width (2 m × 0.1 m), 9th test, throw a tennis ball in a target, 10th test, pick
up matchsticks from the table, 11th test, pass through a wreath, 12th test, jump to one leg inside
wreath and stay motionless on one leg, 13th test, catch a ring, 14th test, make puppet jumping,
i.e. legs in dimension, hands raised and then legs and hand closing, (repeated for some time) 15th
test, jump over 35 cm height, 16th test, roll, run, 17th test, to make an upright seat from a squatting
position with a ball holding both hands over the head, and the 18th test, to jump half a spin from
outside into the wreath and then doing the same coming out of the wreath.
Performance in each of the 18 kinetic tests can be attributed in a number of ways. Primary test
results such as the number of jumps made or the seconds needed to complete the test are recorded
and then converted to a three-level rating scale. In this way the individual performance of the child
ranges from 0 (the child did not succeed), at 1 (the child did not fully do it), in two (the child did it).
The kinetic performance score or kinetic performance grade may range from 0 to 34. According to the
manufacturer’s criteria and guidelines (Zimmer and Volkamer 1987), a standard norm of kinetic data
(kinetic quote) is provided which is defined for each age level and based on a standard information
base of 548 children.
Results of the survey
Results on psychomotor development
According to Zimmer and Volkamer (1987) manufacturers of the MOT test, the results are listed in the
following tables:
.(2) Frequencies and corresponding percentages according to gender factor (Table 2)
.(3) Frequencies and corresponding percentages according to the age factor (Table 3)
.(4) Final ranking (Table 4)
Table 2. Frequencies for gender (f= 898, 100%).
SCORE MALE FEMALE Total SCORE MALE FEMALE Total
6 5 1 6 21 12 14 26
8 15 5 20 22 72 82 154
9 3 1 4 23 6 6 12
10 7 4 11 24 39 21 60
11 2 0 2 25 25 14 39
12 12 6 18 26 40 20 60
13 2 4 6 27 50 24 74
15 4 5 9 28 36 16 52
16 8 122029 18 1836
17 11 18 29 30 15 17 32
18 4 6 10 31 13 13 26
19 10 12 22 32 14 17 31
20 30 35 65 33 12 8 20
34 22 32 54
TOTAL 487 411 898
EDUCATION 3–13 5
In Table 4 and according to the manufacturers of the MOT test (Zimmer and Volkamer 1987)we
notice that:
.Excellent performance was achieved by 54 children (6%) only from the older age group (76–73
months) both boys and girls
.Good performance was achieved by 145 children (16%), mainly from the two older age groups
(60–66 and 67–73 months) both boys and girls
.Normal performance was achieved by the majority of the sample of 632 children (70.5%) of the
three age groups both boys and girls
.Below normal performance was achieved by 41 children (5%), both children and boys, mainly from
the two younger age groups (55–59 and 60–66 months)
.Apparent motor weaknesses and problems were reported by 26 children (3%), both boys and girls,
mainly from the two younger age groups (55–59 and 60–66 months)
Results on gender and age factors
In order to detect significant differences on gender and age factors in the children’s performance of
the sample the following tables were produced:
.(5)Descriptive statistics (average, standard deviation) and Figure 1 graphic depiction of the sample
mean percentages
.(6) Analysis of ANOVA, with significance degree (p< .05)
.(7) Multiple comparisons of Post-hoc Tests Tukey HSD and Scheffe (Howitt and Cramer 2001) for
factor of age
Table 3. Frequencies for age (f= 898, 100%).
SCORE
55–59
Months 60–66 Months 67–73 Months Total SCORE
55–59
Months 60–66 Months 67–73 Months Total
6 3 3 6 21 8 10 8 26
8 14 6 20 22 48 54 52 154
9 3 1 4 23 4 4 4 12
10 9 2 11 24 14 18 28 60
11 1 1 2 25 8 13 18 39
12 11 7 18 26 12 20 28 60
13 4 2 6 27 17η25 32 74
15 5 4 9 28 9 14 29 52
16 10 8 20 29 8 28 36
17 14 12 3 29 30 5 27 32
18 4 5 1 10 31 17 9 26
19 8 10 4 22 32 4 27 31
20 20 27 18 65 33 11 9 20
34 54 54
TOTAL 226 291 381 898
Table 4. Final ranking table with frequencies and reasonable quantities, according to gender and age factors for the entire sample
of the survey f= 898, 100% (according to Zimmer and Volkamer 1987).
WELL NORMAL
UNDER
NORMAL PROBLEM TOTAL
f%f%f%f%f%
72 8 347 38.5 26 3 20 2 487 54
73 8 285 32% 15 2 6 0.5 411 46
145 16% 632 70.5% 41 5% 26 3% 898 100
181 20 28 3 17 2 226 26
45 5 224 25 13 2 9 1 291 32
100 11 227 25.5 381 42
145 16% 632 70.5% 41 5% 26 3% 898 100
6H. K. ZARAGAS AND V. PLIOGOU
Noticing Table 5 and Figure 1 it appears that older children achieve even greater performance in
the kinetic development tests. From the observation of the table 6 it appears that in the kinetic tests
girls (Mean = 24 and St. Dev. = 5.99 see Table 5) have achieved a relatively higher average overall per-
formance than boys (Mean = 23 .77 and St. Dev. = 6.39, see Table 5) but this difference is not signifi-
cant (F= 1.212 df = 1 and p= 0.271, see Table 6).
Table 6 shows that there are significant differences between age groups (F= 152.307 df = 2 and
p= 0.001 see Table 6). In order to detect significant differences between age groups, multiple
comparisons Post-hoc Tests Tukey HSD and Scheffe (Howitt and Cramer 2001) were made and
Figure 1. Graphical representation of sample mean percentages for gender and age factors in the dependent variable of psycho-
motor growth (f= 898, 100%).
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of psychokinetic development (f= 898, 100%).
GENDER AGE Mean Std. Deviation f
MALE 55–59 MONTHS 18.78 6.177 123
60–66 MONTHS 23.21 6.104 154
67–73 MONTHS 27.10 4.118 210
Total 23.77 6.309 487
FEMALE 55–59 MONTHS 20.43 5.357 103
60–66 MONTHS 22.54 5.391 137
67–73 MONTHS 27.33 5.072 171
Total 24.00 5.999 411
TOTAL 55–59 MONTHS 19.53 5.863 226
60–66 MONTHS 22.89 5.779 291
67–73 MONTHS 27.20 4.566 381
TOTAL 23.88 6.167 898
EDUCATION 3–13 7
table 7 was constructed. There are statistically significant differences between age groups with
older children in the group (67–73 months) performing better (Mean = 27.20 and St. Dev. =
4.566 see Table 5,F= 152.307 df = 2 and p= 0.001 see table 6, and p= 0.001 see Table 7) com-
pared to the children of the groups (55–59 and 60–66 months). Also, the age group (60–66
months) performs better (Mean = 22.89 and St. Dev. = 5.779 see Table 5,F= 152.307 df = 2 and
p= 0.001 see Table 6 and p= 7) with a statistically significant difference than the youngest age
group (55–59 months).
Discussion
The purpose of this work was to observe record and evaluate psychomotor development and its
characteristics, as well as its interaction with children’s gender. The results of this study showed
that the majority of children in the sample had presented good levels of psychomotor growth. A per-
centage of children showed performance below normal, which means that these children are in a risk
condition, that is, if these children are not subsequently supported by motor activities then they are
likely to remain locked up in this disadvantaged state with whatever this means for their daily routine
but also for the development of their personality. According to Zimmer (2006,2007), children with
deficient motor growth are trapped in a vicious circle that leads them to isolate themselves from
the game and the children’s company and all this results into the negative situation to be continued.
The same is true for the problem situation that requires immediate intervention with motor activities
for the restoration of motor deficits.
In relation to the age variable, it was found that older children attained better performance. This is
because older children have experienced more motoring activities and games in both quantity and
quality than younger children. The results with gender are in agreement with other surveys (Kambas
Table 7. Multiple comparisons of Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD and Scheffe) for factor of age ( f= 898, 100%).
Post –hoc
tests AGE AGE Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Tukey HSD 55–59 MONTHS 60–66 MONTHS .001 −4.47 −2.26
67–73 MONTHS .001 −8.72 −6.63
60–66 MONTHS 55–59 MONTHS .001 2.26 4.47
67–73 MONTHS .001 −5.28 −3.34
67–73 MONTHS 55–59 MONTHS .001 6.63 8.72
60–66 MONTHS .001 3.34 5.28
Scheffe55–59 MONTHS 60–66 MONTHS .001 −4.52 −2.21
67–73 MONTHS .001 −8.77 −6.58
60–66 MONTHS 55–59 MONTHS .001 2.21 4.52
67–73 MONTHS .001 −5.32 −3.30
67–73 MONTHS 55–59 MONTHS .001 6.58 8.77
60–66 MONTHS .001 3.30 5.32
Table 6. Analysis of variance for the factors of age, gender and the interaction between gender and age (testsof Between-Subjects
Effects for the dependent variable ‘psychokinetic development ‘) for the children of the sample (f= 898, 100%).
Source Type III Sum of Squares df
Mean
Square F p
Corrected Model 8958.267
a
5 1791.653 63.537 .001
Intercept 459,950.432 1 459,950.432 16,311.198 .001
GENDER 34.191 1 34.191 1.212 .271
AGE 8589.627 2 4294.814 152.307 .001
GENDER * AGE 170.097 2 85.049 3.016 .049
Error 25,153.013 892 28.198
Total 546,045 898
Corrected Total 34,111.280 897
a. R Squared = .263 (Adjusted R Squared = .258).
8H. K. ZARAGAS AND V. PLIOGOU
et al. 2003; Lam et al. 2003; Papadopoulos, Fatouros, and Taxildaris 2008; Morano, Colella, and Caroli
2011; Castetbon and Andreyeva 2012; Zaragas et al. 2017).
For the gender variable there were no differences in the performance of the kinetic tests that
characterise the psychomotor development of the time at which the measurements were made,
as in other researches (Morano, Colella, and Caroli 2011; Papadopoulos, Fatouros, and Taxildaris
2008).
Manipulation is the way you handle an object game or its body or part of it. According to Dave
(1968), to detect the psychomotor characteristic of the child’s personality such as the manipulation,
the child is called to perform oral or written or cryptographic instructions without the help of a kinetic
model. So the child is called upon to try, to compare possible versions and possibly to be helped by
peers or educators. The following actions were recorded as positive actions in the game: if the child
performs a knee action at the suggestion of a peer or a teacher, if the execution was done in the
appropriate way (the child passes through the crown in the shortest way along the sagittal axis
and not the transverse), and whether the movements were performed with stability or instability.
The results showed that the majority of children are in the play (object, body) in the game either
when this is done using game-object (marker, ball, wreath, piece of paper) or done with body
expression (the whole body or part thereof). Older children showed even higher rates of handling
than younger children. This can be interpreted by the greatest amount of corresponding motor
stimuli that may have experienced older children about the smallest.
Execution accuracy refers to the successful execution (successive series of moves) as well as the
exact final result, such as going through a narrow aisle and throwing balls then achieving a goal.
They were recorded as positive events of the accuracy of play performance when each of the two
conditions existed (a successful series of successive moves, fulfilment of a game purpose). The
results showed that the majority of children succeed in fulfilling the purpose of the game. Older chil-
dren also showed higher frequencies of successful accuracy and performance of the game compared
to younger children. The concern at this point is the occurrence of frequencies of unsuccessful moves
and fulfilment of the purpose of the game. This may be due to the low levels of the experienced
motor experience of these children and to the factor of pure luck.
Coordination is the operation of the central nervous system in which the sensory organs (sensory
integration) and the mechanism of perception are put into operation in order to perceive specific
stimuli, which are required for further reactive kinetic reactions (visual –acoustic –touching –
kinetic coordination). The perceptual mechanism is triggered to control the functioning of competi-
tive muscles so as to support each other in relation to the purpose of deliberate behaviour instead of
preventing or forestalling it. The co-ordination process can be inherent or acquired and can be acti-
vated consciously or unconsciously, while it refers to the execution of a series of motor operations
with precision, control, velocity and rhythm when it is necessary (Papandreou 2001; Vainas 2012).
Coordination requires a limitation of the number of degrees
2
of freedom in order to reduce the com-
plexity of motor activity in order to achieve the goal. They are recorded as positive events of coordi-
nation in the game, when for each child there was control, accuracy and speed of execution, such as
when the child jumped from a wreath to a wreath and turned the body without coming out of the
wreath but also didn’t press on its plastic perimeter. The research team noted as a very good coordi-
nation the cases of children who made successful jumps or passed through the wreaths and did not
strike them in their plastic perimeter and as unsuccessful coordination the cases of those children
who touched the plastic perimeter of the wreath or went out from it. Another game of practice
before the trials used in the present study was the ‘watch’. This game puts a lot of emphasis on
the body’s visual and emotional coordination. At the centre of a circle of twelve children, each
child symbolises every hour, the kindergarten teacher moves the clock that is a rope that is as
long as the radius of the circle and reaches to the toes. Initially moving slowly and then quickly
the nursery rope the children had to jump in order not to touch the rope. The rope must not
touch them, and they are bound every time the rope reaches below their feet to jump high. If the
EDUCATION 3–13 9
rope touches them then the child is shouting the number if he remembers it and symbolises the time
the watch hits.
An important task of the kindergarten teacher is the scientific monitoring of the physical and psy-
chomotor development of the students and the pedagogical intervention in the process of this devel-
opment. Numerous studies on the psychomotor development of young children have shown that the
potential for this development is strongly influenced by opportunities for physical activity in both kin-
dergarten and leisure time. In particular, researchers such as Schoemaker and Kalverboer (1994),
Smyth and Anderson (2000), Kanioglou, Tsorbatzoudis, and Barkoukis (2005), Chen et al. (2009),
Jams et al. (2011), Sylvestre et al. (2013) have found that children with impairments in their psycho-
motor development lag in developing their interpersonal relationships, in learning performance com-
pared with their peers who have normal psychomotor development. The foregoing implies that the
systematic examination and evaluation of psychomotor development is an important part of the kin-
dergartener’s pedagogical work.
The lack of data on psychomotor development may be the reason for the manifestation of anti-
pedagogical behaviour by the kindergartener. For example, a child who seems perfectly normal indi-
cates a reluctance to participate in motorised play activities, it is easily tired, fails, abandons the effort,
and generally avoids playing. The cause of the reduced motor efficiency may be the reduced kinetic
coordination (see Table 1). The kindergarten teacher, ignoring this child’s impaired motor coordi-
nation, attributes this behaviour to diminished interest and laziness. Thus, the kindergartener may
psychologically put pressure on the child to participate in the game.
Studies conducted (Bart et al. 2011; Kennedy-Behr, Rodger, and Michan 2011; Zaragas et al. 2017)
in recent years both in Greece and internationally show that 5% to 10% of young children present
deficiencies in motor coordination. This means that in every kindergarten of twenty-five children
there are two or three children with psychomotor developmental disabilities. If every kindergartener
just sent a child with impaired psychomotor development to specialists each year and this resulted in
the restoration of the deficit, then thousands of children in Greece and our fellow citizens would com-
plete their development free from many problems. This simple reasoning shows that it is pedagogi-
cally beneficial for kindergarteners to devote time from their programme to examining and
evaluating psychomotor development. The fact that there are many children with reduced motor
performance constitutes a necessary moral and pedagogical motivation for kindergarten teachers
to integrate the measurement and evaluation of psychomotor development in their work.
Conclusions
The results showed that the majority of children have good visual-kinetic coordination. Older children
also showed higher frequencies of successful accuracy and performance of the game compared to
younger children. Poor coordination rates were reported in both younger children. This may be
due to the low levels of the experienced motor experience of these children and to the factor of
pure luck.
The process of psychomotor development evolves day by day, week by week, month by
month. Psychomotor development is concerned with both quantitative (precision, see table 1)
and qualitative (naturality, coordination, see table 1) changes in motor skills and abilities, but
also the stabilisation of these changes. The rate of improvement of motor performance
depends on the development period (maturity), the social environment, the genotype and
many other factors. The information provided to us about kinetic performance from the use of
the motor test array (MOT-test, Zimmer and Volkamer 1987) through respect and pedagogic
attention of preschoolers is valuable. This information helps the educator to methodically
promote the development of psychomotor development in order to meet its normal limits,
according to the current needs of both the individual and social life of preschoolers. This particu-
lar kinetic assortment seems to be appropriate, easy to use but also short-term to assess the
degree of motor learning in the Greek Kindergarten School.
10 H. K. ZARAGAS AND V. PLIOGOU
Measuring, comparing and evaluating psychomotor development in kindergarten is part of a mul-
tidimensional approach that begins with the view that children can benefit to the fullest from kinetic
programmes in kindergarten. Evaluation of motor learning is crucial because it describes the degree
of impact on the academic course and progression of kindergarten programmes and at the same
time it highlights their effectiveness. The measurement, comparison and assessment of psychomotor
development in kindergarten is a complex dynamic process aiming at: (a) identifying the appropriate
programmes that will support the function of kindergarten, (b) identifying the appropriate environ-
ment, (c) applying appropriate methods for supporting kinetic programmes to lead to the achieve-
ment of objectives, (d) identification of appropriate logistical infrastructure and safe spaces; and
(e) detection, identification of any difficulties and weaknesses (e.g. diffuse kinetic developmental dis-
orders, spinal disorders) that children face.
Pedagogical involvement of the kindergarten teacher is the consideration and assessment of psy-
chomotor development; in essence we examine and evaluate an important parameter of human
health. A great pedagogical value is the knowledge of kindergarten teachers about psychomotor
development when they are applied to address each child individually. The kindergarten, in order
to effectively fulfil pedagogical work with scientific ethics –away from practicalism and empiricism
–must help in the right direction of development through the involvement of children by appropri-
ate methods (open programmes of motor activities, gymnastics, kinetic group play, intense motor
activity) as well as by informing and teaching children and parents about lifelong exercise.
Notes
1. Zimmer, R., and M. Volkamer. 1987. Motoriktest für Vier- bis Sechsjährige Kinder: Mot 4-6; Manual / MOT 4-6. 2. Uber-
arbeitete und Erweiterte Auflage. Weinheim: Beltz-Test. The Test of Motor Development [«ΜΟΤ 4–6 (Motoriktest
für Vier- bis Sechsjährige Kinder)» Zimmer and Volkamer 1987] has been used several times in the Greek scientific
field of psychomotor research in preschool age:
.Kambas, A., F. Venetsanou, D. Giannakidou, I. Fatouros, A. Avloniti, A. Chatzinikolaou, D. Draganidis, and
R. Zimmer. 2012. The Motor- Proficiency–Test for Children Between 4 and 6 Years of Age (MOT 4-6): An Inves-
tigation of its Suitability in Greece. Research in Developmental Disabilities 33: 1626–1632.
.Zaragas, H., D. Sarris, V. Pliogou, D. Ntella, A. Panagiotopoulou, and O. Zioga. 2017. Motor Efficiency and Com-
parison of Children in Early Childhood from Greece, Albania and Sweden. Journal of Sport Science 5: 96–106.
doi:10 1726/2332–7839/2017.02.004.
2. Degrees of freedom: is the number of independent elements at the level of joints, bones, muscles and neurons that
need to be limited to produce coordinated movement (Bernstein 1967).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Vassiliki Pliogou http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1009-0287
References
Bar-Haim, Y., and O. Bart. 2006.“Motor Function and Social Participation in Kindergarten Children.”Social Development 15
(2): 296–310.
Bart, O., T. Jams, Y. Erez, and L. Rosenberg. 2011.“How Do Young Children with DCD Participate and Enjoy Daily
Activities?”Research in Developmental Disabilities 32: 1317–1322.
Bernstein, N. 1967.The Coordination and Regulation of Movement. London: Pergamon Press.
Biddle, S. J. H., T. Gorely, and D. J. Stensel. 2004.“Health-Enhancing Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Children
and Adolescents.”Journal of Sports Sciences 22: 679–701.
EDUCATION 3–13 11
Botsoglou, K. 2010.Outdoor Spaces of Game and Children. Quality, Safeness, Pedagogical Applications. Athens: Gutenberg
Publications. [In Greek].
Broekhuizen, K., A. Scholten, and S. de Vries. 2014.“The Value of (Pre)School Playgrounds for Children’s Physical Activity
Level: A Systematic Review.”International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 11 (59): 1–28.
Bruininks, R. H. 1978.The Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency: Examiner’s Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Bruininks, R., and B. Bruininks. 2005.Bruininks –Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Second Edition (BOTTM-2).
Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.
Castetbon, K., and T. Andreyeva. 2012.“Obesity and Motor Skills among 4 to 6 –Year –Old Children in the United States:
Nationally –Representative Surveys.”BioMed Central Pediatrics 15: 12–28. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-12-28.
Chen, Y. W., M. H. Tseng, F. C. Hue, and S. A. Cermak. 2009.“Psychosocial Adjustment and Attention in Children with
Developmental Coordination Disorder Using Different Motor Tests.”Research in Developmental Disabilities 30: 1367–1377.
Cummins, A., J. P. Piek, and M. J. Dyck. 2005.“Motor Coordination, Empathy, and Social Behaviour in School-Aged
Children.”Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 47: 437–442.
Dave, R. H. 1968.“Eine Taxonomie Pädagogischer Ziele und Ihre Beziehung zur Leistungsmessung.”In Möglichkeiten und
Grenzen der Testanwendung in der Schule, edited by K. Ingenkamp and T. Marsolek, 225–239. Weinheim: Beltz.
De Marco, A. C., S. Zeisel, and S. L. Odom. 2015.“An Evaluation of a Program to Increase Physical Activity for Young
Children in Child Care.”Early Education and Development 26 (1): 1–21.
Dessing, D., F. Pierik, R. Sterkenburg, P. van Dommelen, J. Maas, and S. de Vries. 2013.“Schoolyard Physical Activity of 6-
11-Year-Old Children Assessed by GPS and Accelerometry.”International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity V: 10–97.
Dowda, M., R. R. Pate, S. G. Trost, M. J. C. Almeida, and J. R. Sirard. 2004.“Influences of Preschool Policies and Practices on
Children’s Physical Activity.”Journal of Community Health 29: 183–196.
Ericsson, I. 2008.“Motor Skills, Attention and Academic Achievements. An Intervention Study in School Years 1-3.”British
Educational Research Journal 34 (3): 301–313.
Gallahue, L. D. 2002.Developmental Physical Education for Today’s Children. Translated by Chr. Evangelinou, and A. Pappa.
Thessaloniki: University Studio Press. [In Greek].
Gallahue, D., and J. Ozmun. 1998.Understanding Motor Development: Infants, Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Singapore:
Mc Graw Hill.
Gordon, E. S., P. Tucker, S. M. Burke, and A. V. Carron. 2013.“Effectiveness of Physical Activity Interventions for
Preschoolers: A Meta-Analysis.”Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 84: 287–294.
Gubbels, J. S., D. H. H. Van Kann, and M. W. J. Jansen. 2012.“Play Equipment, Physical Activity Opportunities, and
Children’s Activity Levels at Childcare.”Journal of Environmental and Public Health Article ID 326520. doi:10.1155/
2012/326520.
Gunter, K. B., K. R. Rice, D. S. Ward, and S. G. Trost. 2012.“Factors Associated with Physical Activity in Children Attending
Family Child Care Homes.”Preventive Medicine 54: 131–133.
Hernandez, A. M., and P. Cacola. 2015.“Motor Proficiency Predicts Cognitive Ability in Four-Year-Olds.”European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal 23 (4): 573–584.
Howitt, D., and D. Cramer. 2001.Statistics with SPSS 10 for Windows. Athens: Klidarithmos. [In Greek].
Hu, B. Y., Z. Kong, and S. K. Roberts. 2014.“The Policies and Practice of Preschoolers’Outdoor Play: A Chinese Perspective
on Greeting the Millennium.”Childhood Education 90 (3): 202–211.
Jams, T., Y. Lourie-Gelberg, B. Engel-Yeger, and O. Bart. 2011.“Participation Patterns of School-Aged Children With and
Without DCD.”Research in Developmental Disabilities 32: 1323–1331.
Jansen, P., and M. Heil. 2010.“The Relation between Motor Development and Mental Rotation Ability in 5-to 6-Year-Old
Children.”European Journal of Developmental Science 4 (1): 67–75.
Kambas, A., I. Fatouros, N. Agelousis, V. Gourgoulis, and K. Taxildaris. 2003.“The Effect of Gender and Age on Associative
Abilities in Childhood.”Searches in Physical Education and Sport 1 (2): 152–158.
Kambas, A., F. Venetsanou, D. Giannakidou, I. Fatouros, A. Avloniti, A. Chatzinikolaou, D. Draganidis, and R. Zimmer. 2012.
“The Motor- Proficiency–Test for Children between 4 and 6 Years of Age (MOT 4-6): An Investigation of its Suitability in
Greece.”Research in Developmental Disabilities 33: 1626–1632.
Kanioglou, A., H. Tsorbatzoudis, and V. Barkoukis. 2005.“Socialization and Behavioral Problems of Elementary School
Pupils with Developmental Coordination Disorder.”Perceptual and Motor Skills 101: 163–173.
Kennedy-Behr, A., S. Rodger, and S. Michan. 2011.“Physical and Social Play of Preschool Children with and Without
Coordination Difficulties: Preliminary Findings.”British Journal of Occupational Therapy 74 (7): 348–354.
Kennedy-Behr, A., S. Rodger, and S. Michan. 2013a.“A Comparison of the Play Skills of Preschool Children with and
Without Developmental Coordination Disorder.”OTJR 33 (4): 198–208.
Kennedy-Behr, A., S. Rodger, and S. Michan. 2013b.“Aggressive Interactions During Free-Play at Preschool of Children
with and Without Developmental Coordination Disorder.”Research in Developmental Disabilities 34: 2831–2837.
Lam, D., E. Watkins, P. Hayward, J. Bright, K. Wright, N. Kerr, G. Par- Davis, and P. Sham. 2003.“A Randomized Controlled
Study of Cognitive Therapy for Relapse Prevention for Bipolar Affective Disorder: Outcome for the First Year.”Archives
of General Psychiatry 60: 145–152.
12 H. K. ZARAGAS AND V. PLIOGOU
Lehmann, J., C. Quaiser-Pohl, and P. Jansen. 2014.“Correlation of Motor Skill, Mental Rotation, and Working Memory in 3-
to 6-Year-old Children.”European Journal of Developmental Psychology 11 (5): 560–573.
Luo, Z., P. E. Jose, C. S. Huntsinger, and T. D. Pigott. 2007.“Fine Motor Skills and Mathematics Achievement in East Asian
American and European American Kindergartners and First Graders.”British Journal of Developmental Psychology 25
(4): 595–614.
McCabe, D. H. 2016.“Purposeful Movement in an Early Childhood Classroom.”Journal of Masters of Arts in Education
Action Research Papers. 145: 1–34. https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/145.
Morano, M., D. Colella, and M. Caroli. 2011.“Gross Motor Skill Performance in a Sample of Overweight and Non –
Overweight Preschool Children.”International Journal of Pediatric Obesity 6 (2): 42–46. doi:10.3109/
17477166.2011.613665. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21923296.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. 2002.Active Start: A Statement of Physical Activity Guidelines for
Children Birth to Five Years. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. 2009.Active Start: A Statement of Physical Activity Guidelines for
Children from Birth to Age 5. 2nd ed. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance.
Nourbakhsh, P. 2006.“Perceptual-motor Abilities and Their Relationships with Academic Performance of Fifth Grade
Pupils in Comparison with Oseretsky Scale.”Kinesiology 35 (1): 40–48.
O’Connor, J. P., and V. A. Temple. 2005.“Constraints and Facilitators for Physical Activity in Family Day Care.”Australasian
Journal of Early Childhood 30 (4): 1–9.
Papadopoulos, D., I. Fatouros, and K. Taxildaris. 2008.“Motor Proficiency, Physical Activity and Body Mass Index in Preschool
Aged Children.”European Psychomotricity Journal 1(1):61–66. http://www.psychomotor.gr/contents/archive-vol1,-2008/
special-issue/35-motor-proficiency-physical-activity-and-body-mass-index-in-preschool-aged-children.html.
Papandreou, Α.2001.Methodology of Teaching. Athens: Grigoris Publications. [In Greek].
Piek, J. P., G. S. Bradbury, S. C. Elsley, and L. Tate. 2008a.“Motor Coordination and Social-Emotional Behaviour in
Preschool-Aged Children.”International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 55 (2): 143–151.
Piek, J. P., L. Dawson, L. M. Smith, and N. Gasson. 2008b.“The Role of Early Fine and Gross Motor Development on Later
Motor and Cognitive Ability.”Human Movement Science 27 (5): 668–681.
Poulsen, A. A., J. M. Ziviani, M. Cuskelly, and R. Smith. 2007.“Boys with Developmental Coordination Disorder: Loneliness
and Team Sports Participation.”American Journal of Occupational Therapy 61: 451–462.
Reikeras, E., T. Moser, and F. E. Tonnessen. 2015.“Mathematical Skills and Motor Life Skills in Toddlers: Do Differences in
Mathematical Skills Reflect Differences in Motor Skills?”European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,1–17.
doi:10.1080/08856257.2017.1306964.
Schmidt, R. A., and C. Weisberg. 2009.Motor Learning and Performance an Applied Approach. Edited by M. Michalopoulou.
Athens: Athletics. [In Greek].
Schoemaker, M. M., and A. F. Kalverboer. 1994.“Social and Affective Problems of Children Who Are Clumsy: How Early Do
Bey Begin?.”Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 11 (2): 130–140.
Smyth, M. M., and H. I. Anderson. 2000.“Coping with Clumsiness in School Playground: Social and Physical Play in
Children with Coordination Impairments.”British Journal of Developmental Psychology 18: 389–413.
Sylvestre, A., L. Nadeau, L. Charron, N. Larose, and C. Lepage. 2013.“Social Participation by Children with Developmental
Coordination Disorder Compared to Their Peers.”Disability and Rehabilitation 35 (21): 1814–1820.
Vainas, Κ.2012.Placement of Education and Teaching. Teaching of Goals at all Levels of Pedagogical and Didactic Action.
Athens: Ellin. [In Greek].
Van Cauwenberghe, E., V. Labarque, J. Gubbels, I. de Bourdeaudhuij, and G. Cardon. 2012.“Preschooler’s Physical Activity
Levels and Associations with Lesson Context, Teacher’s Behavior, and Environment During Preschool Physical
Education.”Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27: 221–230.
Vanderloo, L. M., P. Tucker, A. M. Johnson, S. M. Burke, and J. D. Irwin. 2015.“Environmental Influences on Preschoolers’
Physical Activity Levels in Various Early-Learning Facilities.”Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 86 (4): 360–370.
Varda, A. 2000.The Break and Use of Kindergarten School Space by Young Children’s. Postgraduate Thesis at the School of
Humanities. Volos: University of Thessaly. [In Greek].
Zaragas, H., D. Sarris, V. Pliogou, D. Ntella, A. Panagiotopoulou, and O. Zioga. 2017.“Motor Efficiency and Comparison of
Children in Early Childhood from Greece, Albania and Sweden.”Journal of Sport Science 5: 96–106. doi:10 1726/2332–
7839/2017.02.004.
Zimmer, R. 2006.Handbuch der Psychomotorik: Theories und Praxis der Psycomotorischen Förderung von Kinder. Freiburg:
Herber.
Zimmer, R. 2007.Kinetic Therapy Manual. From Theory to Practice. Edited by A. Kampas. Athens: Athlotypo. [In Greek].
Zimmer, R., and ΜVolkamer. 1987.Motor Test for Children Aged 4 to Six Years Old: MOT 4-6; Manual/MOT 4-6. Revised and
Expanded Edition.
EDUCATION 3–13 13
