The Relationship, Motor Ability and Social Behavior in Children of Age 4-6 Years

  • Elton Bano Sport Department, Science Movement Faculty,Sport University Tirana
  • Edison Ikonomi Sport Department, Science Movement Faculty,Sport University Tirana
  • Enkelejda Muka 3Department Health and Sports, Health and Recreation Faculty,Sport University Tirana

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to understand the relationship between the motor
and social ability after the gymnastic program intervention in preschool children.
The children have their needs to move and to do exercises. They should
exercise everyday to coordinate limbs and body muscles to move in the best
way their body. This is one of the reasons why physical activity represent an
essential part of the children education program.Methods.For the realization
of our study, have selected 60 children from four Tirana’s preschools city,
age 4 to 6. The children are separated in two equal groups.Collected data
begin, middle and in the end of tests and questionnaires were under a statistical
processing by IBM SPSS package, version number 22. T-test is used to
see if there are significant changes between control and experiment group
skills along the tests phases.Pearson’s Product-Moment coefficients is used to
evaluate all the relations between dependent variables.Results.Dynamic balance
skills has a negative direction correlation with social action. (r= -.36**,
p=.00); social independence (r= -.48**, p=.00), and general social behavior
evaluation (r= -.37**, p=.00). Static balance skill has a positive direction correlation
with social interaction (r=.41**,p=.00); social action(r=.37**, p=.00);
social independence (r=.39**, p=.00) and general social behavior evaluation
(r=.11**, p<0.01).Conclusions.Study results shows that gymnastic program 

has an impact in motor abilities education and development, but this impact
in not the same in all abilities.

References

Cooper, P., Trnka, M., & Frederick, B. (1989). Teaching Basic

Gymnastics: a coeducational approach. New York. p. 17.

Berk, L. (2002). Infants, children, and adolescents. Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

S chmidt, R.A., & Wrisberg, C.A. (2008). Motor learning and

performance: a situation-based learning approach. Human Kinetics,

,p. 160-184

Harrell, J., Pearce, P., Markland, E., (2003). Assessing physical

activity in adolescents: common activities of children in 6th -8th

grades. J Am Acad Nurse Prac,15,p. 170–178.

Johnston, J., & Nahmad-Williams, L. (2009). Early childhood

studies. New York : Pearson Longman.

Gallahue, D., & Ozmun, J. (2006). Understanding motor development,

Infants, children, Adolescents,Adults. (6th ed.) Mc-

Graw-Hill. p. 248 -270.

Zachopoulou E.,Liukkonen J., Pickup I., &Tsangaridou N. Eds.

(2010). Early Steps Physical Education Curriculum: Theory

and Practice for Children under 8 Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

LaFreniere P, Masataka N, Butovskaya M, et al. (2002).Crosscultural

analysis of Social Competence and Behavior Problems

in Preschoolers. Early Education & Development. 13, p. 201–

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate

practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC:

National Association for the Education of YoungChildren.

S igelman, C.K., &Rider, E.A. (2009). Life-Span Human. Development.

th. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Cengage Learning.

Hay DF, Payne A, Chadwick A. (2004) Peer relations

in childhood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 45, p.84–

[PubMed]

Duncan, J., McLeod, P., & Phillips, L.H. (2005). Measuring

the mind: speed, control, and age. Oxford University Press. p.

Malina, R.M., Bouchard, C., & Bar-Or. (2004). Growth, Maturation,

and Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,

,p. 215-220.

S kinner, R. A., & Piek, J. P. (2001). Psychosocial implications

of poor motor coordination in children and adolescents. Human

Movement Science,20, p.73-94.

Pruitt, D. (1998). Your child: Emotional, behavioral, and cognitive

development from birththrough preadolescence. New York,

NY: Harper Collins.

Published
2019-05-02