Research on Educational Sport

Comparison of physical Literacy Games with Two Teacher-Directed and Peer-Directed Approaches on Motor Development and Motor Competence of Elementary School

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

sodabeh manochehrian 1
fatemeh rezaei 2
masomeh aliasghary toyeh 3

1 Master’s Student, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor in Motor Behavior, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

3 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2025.16716.2514
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Background and Purpose
Although the school environment is often perceived as a pivotal context for augmenting children’s physical activity (PA), prevailing evidence from various international contexts reveals a counterintuitive trend: a general decrease in activity levels coinciding with the age of school entry. This paradox raises concerns over the efficacy of school-based physical activity interventions, which have historically shown limited effectiveness in substantially advancing motor development or reversing this decline. Numerous psychological models and behavior change theories have informed interventions targeting PA, yet these programs often yield only marginal improvements, indicating a gap between theoretical frameworks and applied outcomes.
Parallel to psychological models are motor development-based intervention strategies (Renshaw et al., 2010), focusing on child developmental stages and motor skill acquisition; however, these have similarly elicited only incremental gains in PA behavior among youth. Within this landscape, a promising and integrative framework gaining scholarly and practical attention is that of physical literacy (PL). PL reframes physical education (PE) not purely as exercise but as a foundation for nurturing lifelong competence, confidence, and motivation to engage in physical activities.
Motor competence emerges as a central mediator in this framework, encompassing both actual competence—the tangible ability to execute motor tasks—and perceived competence—the individual’s self-assessment of their capability and confidence in performing these tasks. Developmentally, motor competence acquisition signifies mastery across a spectrum of age-appropriate dynamic skills and is critically linked to broader cognitive enhancements, notably improvements in executive functions and higher-order cognitive processes. Conversely, deficits in motor competence are associated with attentional difficulties and diminished self-esteem in children, which cascades negatively to academic performance and quality of life. Recognizing motor competence as intrinsic to physical fitness and activity participation, educational, social, and cultural systems bear the responsibility—and opportunity—to foster its growth both directly through structured play and indirectly via cultural engagement.
Central to conceptualizing motor competence development is the nature of play and the modalities of instruction. The principle of proportionality in play advocates that games designed for children must cater to their developmental needs rather than expecting children to conform to the demands of fixed task environments. Such tailored play facilitates active lifestyle models and advances physical literacy, moving beyond mere exercise to embrace holistic growth. The present investigation capitalized on this approach, utilizing games purposefully constructed to stimulate motor development pathways and enhance motor competence.
 
Methods
Employing a semi-experimental design shaped by a pretest-posttest control group framework, the study engaged 45 female elementary students drawn via cluster random sampling from the fourth through sixth grades in Hamadan city, academic year 2022-2023. Post pretesting, participants were randomized into two intervention cohorts and a control group. Measurement tools employed were the Bruninks-Ozertsky motor proficiency test (1987), Harter’s self-perception scale (1989), and Heather Gardner’s physical literacy games inventory (2017).
Intervention spanned 16 weeks with biweekly sessions adhering to distinct training modalities: a teacher-guided (purposeful) approach involving structured coaching with direct instruction, tactical feedback, monitored skill acquisition, and peer rotation; and a peer-guided (intentional) format wherein participants self-managed all game aspects including decisions, feedback, and training. The control cohort maintained their regular participation in typical school sports without exposure to PL games. Post intervention, all groups were retested using the same standardized evaluations.
 
Results
Analysis through one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences favoring intervention groups over controls in motor development (p = 0.001) and motor competence (p = 0.001). Notably, the teacher-directed approach achieved superior gains in motor development metrics, reflecting stronger acquisition of actual physical skills, including both gross and fine motor capabilities essential for complex sport tasks. In contrast, the peer-directed approach exhibited marked effect on motor competence indices, indicating enhancements in perceived abilities, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy.
These differentiated outcomes underscore the nuanced influence of instructional styles within physical literacy programming. Teacher-guided sessions provide scaffolded learning environments conducive to skill mastery, whereas peer-guided activities foster autonomous learning, social interaction, and motivational growth. The findings thus highlight the complementary roles these methods can play in holistic motor development and the cultivation of physical literacy.
Conclusion
The study’s findings advocate for integrating physical literacy games into school curriculums as a formidable means to promote children’s motor skill development and perceptual competence. The demonstrated differential impacts of teacher versus peer-centered instructional methods suggest strategic customization in PE programs: selecting goal-directed teaching to emphasize motor skill acquisition and fostering peer-led interaction to build confidence and motivation. Considering the inherent variability of children’s sports experiences across different education settings, a blended approach that marries structured coaching with peer motivation emerges as optimal for cultivating physical literacy.
Such comprehensive physical literacy education not only supports children’s immediate engagement in sport and activity but also lays a foundation for lifelong active behaviors—a critical public health objective.
 Article Message
Despite widespread recognition of schools as ideal venues for physical activity promotion, conventional interventions grounded in psychology or motor development models often lack efficacy. This research validates physical literacy games as robust facilitators of motor development and perceptual competence among elementary students. Importantly, it evidences that appropriating the instructional method to the intended developmental target—teacher-driven for skill proficiency and peer-led for confidence—maximizes benefits.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical safeguards in place included informed consent from guardians and students, confidentiality commitments, voluntary participation, and post-study equity by offering the control group access to the intervention. The study adhered rigorously to institutional ethical standards.
Authors’ Contributions
Conceptualization: Fatemeh Rezaei, Sodabeh Manochehrian, Masoumeh Ali Asghari Toyeh
Data Collection: Sodabeh Manochehrian
Data Analysis: Sodabeh Manochehrian, Fatemeh Rezaei
Manuscript Writing and Review: Fatemeh Rezaei
Funding Responsibility: Sodabeh Manochehrian
Project Manager: Fatemeh Rezaei
Conflict of Interest
No conflicts of interest reported.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend heartfelt thanks to all collaborators and participants who generously contributed.

Keywords

Purposeful Games
Deliberate Games
Motor Competence
Physical Literacy
Teaching Method

Subjects

1.       Aktop, A., & Karahan, N. (2012). Physical education teacher's views of effective teaching methods in physical education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1910-1913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.401
2.       Barnett, L. M., Ridgers, N. D., & Salmon, J. (2015). Associations between young children's perceived and actual ball skill competence and physical activity. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(2), 167-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.03.001
3.       Biddle, S. J., Ciaccioni, S., Thomas, G., & Vergeer, I. (2019). Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: An updated review of reviews and an analysis of causality. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 146-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.011
4.       Bremer, E., Graham, J. D., & Cairney, J. (2020). Outcomes and feasibility of a 12-week physical literacy intervention for children in an afterschool program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093129
5.       Cairney, J., Dudley, D., Kwan, M., Bulten, R., & Kriellaars, D. (2019). Physical literacy, physical activity and health: Toward an evidence-informed conceptual model. Sports Medicine, 49, 371-383.
6.       Casey, A., & Goodyear, V. A. (2015). Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest, 67(1), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2014.984733
7.       Castelli, D. M., Barcelona, J. M., & Bryant, L. (2015). Contextualizing physical literacy in the school environment: The challenges. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 156-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.04.003
8.       Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2007). Practice and play in the development of sport expertise. Handbook of Sport Psychology, 3(1), 184-202.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118270011   
9.       Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
10.    Edwards, L. C., Bryant, A. S., Morgan, K., Cooper, S.-M., Jones, A. M., & Keegan, R. J. (2019). A professional development program to enhance primary school teachers’ knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38(2), 126-135.
11.    Engel, A. C., Broderick, C. R., van Doorn, N., Hardy, L. L., & Parmenter, B. J. (2018). Exploring the relationship between fundamental motor skill interventions and physical activity levels in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48, 1845-1857.
12.    Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363.
13.    Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2012). Fostering mathematical thinking through playful learning. Contemporary Debates on Child Development and Education, 1, 81-92.
14.    Ford, P. R., Ward, P., Hodges, N. J., & Williams, A. M. (2009). The role of deliberate practice and play in career progression in sport: the early engagement hypothesis. High Ability Studies, 20(1), 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130902860721
15.    Gabbard, C. (2021). Lifelong motor development. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
16.    Gacek, M., Pilecka, W., & Fusińska-Korpik, A. (2014). Psychometric properties of Self-Perception Profile for Children in a Polish sample. Polish Journal of Applied Psychology, 12(3), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjap-2015-0016
17.    Gallahue, D. L., & Ozmun, J. C. (2006). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults.
18.    Gardner, H. (2017). Physical literacy on the move: Games for developing confidence and competence in physical activity. Human Kinetics.
19.    Gehris, J., Myers, E., & Whitaker, R. (2012). Physical activity levels during adventure-physical education lessons. European Physical Education Review, 18(2), 245-257.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X12440365   
20.    Goodway, J. D., Ozmun, J. C., & Gallahue, D. L. (2019). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents, adults. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
21.    Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 1, 87-97.
22.    Jefferies, P., Ungar, M., Aubertin, P., & Kriellaars, D. (2019). Physical literacy and resilience in children and youth. Frontiers in public health, 7, 346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00346
23.    Lester, S., & Russell, W. (2008). Play for a change: Play, policy and practice: A review of contemporary perspectives. National Children's Bureau London.
24.    Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2010). Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4), 738-749. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903111839
25.    Marsh, H. W., & Seaton, M. (2015). The big-fish–little-pond effect, competence self-perceptions, and relativity: Substantive advances and methodological innovation. In Advances in motivation science (Vol. 2, pp. 127-184). https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903111839  
26.    Martin, E. H., Rudisill, M. E., & Hastie, P. A. (2009). Motivational climate and fundamental motor skill performance in a naturalistic physical education setting. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980801974952
27.    Mielke, G. I., da Silva, I. C. M., Kolbe-Alexander, T. L., & Brown, W. J. (2018). Shifting the physical inactivity curve worldwide by closing the gender gap. Sports Medicine, 48, 481-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0754-7
28.    Morgan, P. J., Barnett, L. M., Cliff, D. P., Okely, A. D., Scott, H. A., Cohen, K. E., & Lubans, D. R. (2013). Fundamental movement skill interventions in youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132(5), e1361-e1383. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-1167 
29.    Naylor, P.-J., & McKay, H. A. (2008). Prevention in the first place-schools a setting for action on physical inactivity. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2008.053447
30.    Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. Motor development on children: Aspects of coordination and control.
31.    Nowrozi, K., Khalji, H., Sheikh, M., & Akbari, H. (2011). The effect of a selected movement program on the manipulative skills of 4-6-year-old boys. Journal of Sports and Movement Development and Learning, 3(1), 5-21. [In Persian].
32.    Payne, V. G., & Isaacs, L. D. (2017). Human motor development: A lifespan approach. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032697147   
33.    Qadiri, H., Qadiri, F., and Bahram, A. (2017). The effect of teacher-centered and child-centered approaches on real and perceived motor competence of elementary school girls. Motor Behavior, 10(31), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2017.1049  [In Persian].
34.    Quitério, A. L. (2018). Assessment for learning in Physical education: Its emergent relationships with motor competence development and intrinsic motivation toward physical literacy. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte, 20(2-3), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.24197/aefd.2-3.2018.213-234
35.    Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Cortisol reactivity to a teacher’s motivating style: The biology of being controlled versus supporting autonomy. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9204-2
36.    Renshaw, I., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010). A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: a basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980902791586
37.    Rezaei, F., Bagherzadeh, F., Sheikh, M., Homaytalab, R., and Manshani, D. (2020). The effect of two child-centered and teacher-centered methods on the development of gross motor skills of third grade elementary school students. Motor Behavior, 12(42), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2018.5164.1602
38.    Rhodes, R. E., Janssen, I., Bredin, S. S., Warburton, D. E., & Bauman, A. (2017). Physical activity: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychology & Health, 32(8), 942-975. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2017.1325486
39.    Roetert, E. P., & MacDonald, L. C. (2015). Unpacking the physical literacy concept for K-12 physical education: What should we expect the learner to master? Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 108-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.03.002
40.    Sampaio, D. F., & Valentini, N. C. (2015). Gymnastics rhythmic'youth sport: traditional approach and mastery motivational climate approach. Revista da Educação Física/UEM, 26, 1-10.
41.    Silverman, S., & Mercier, K. (2015). Teaching for physical literacy: Implications to instructional design and PETE. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(2), 150-155. https://doi.org/10.4025/reveducfis.v26i1.22382
42.    Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). American Scientist. Scientist, 61(4), 394-403.
43.    Stodden, D. F., Goodway, J. D., Langendorfer, S. J., Roberton, M. A., Rudisill, M. E., Garcia, C.,
44.    Garcia, L. E. (2008). A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60(2), 290-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582
45.    Stordy, C.-A. (2013). Engaging children in early numeracy through play: a purposeful play approach. Library and Archives Canada= Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, Ottawa.
46.    Telford, R. M., Olive, L. S., Keegan, R. J., Keegan, S., Barnett, L. M., & Telford, R. D. (2021). Student outcomes of the physical education and physical literacy (PEPL) approach: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention to improve physical literacy in primary schools. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 26(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1799967
47.    Van Den Bergh, B. R., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Children: Factor structure, reliability, and convergent validity in a Dutch-speaking Belgian sample of fourth, fifth and sixth graders. Psychologica Belgica, 39(1), 29-47.
48.    Van der Fels, I. M., Te Wierike, S. C., Hartman, E., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Smith, J., & Visscher, C. (2015). The relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills in 4–16 year old typically developing children: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(6), 697-703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.09.007
49.    Whitehead, A., Umeh, K., Walsh, B., Whittaker, E., & Cronin, C. (2019). Back to netball: Motivations for participation in a female-focused netball sport program. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 27(1), 21-29.
50.    Whitehead, M. (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse. London: Routledge.
51.    Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Cardozo, P. L. (2014). Additive benefits of autonomy support and enhanced expectancies for motor learning. Human Movement Science, 37, 12-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.06.004
Research on Educational Sport
Volume 13, Issue 40
Autumn 2025
Pages 79-100

  • Receive Date 24 April 2024
  • Revise Date 06 March 2025
  • Accept Date 04 May 2025

Home

Publication Ethics

Submit Manuscript

News

Journal Metrics

Contact Us