Skip to main content
Download PDF

Cognitive health outcomes of fundamental motor skill applications in children through cooperative learning method

BMC Psychology volume 12, Article number: 522 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Previous research has suggests that cooperative learning methods and the development of fundamental motor skills support children's cognitive development, and further studies covering various aspects are recommended. In this study, as an alternative to traditional physical education classes including fundamental motor skill activities, we investigated the impact of cooperative learning methods incorporating these skills on children's visual-motor integration and selective attention.

Methods

A total of 60 boy children in the 10–11 age range were included in the study. Groups; classical method (10.95 ± 0.58age), and cooperative learning group (10.91 ± 0.42age). The study spanned a total of 24 physical education class hours. While the classical method group continued to attend physical education lessons with an FMS-based prepared program for 8 weeks, cooperative learning group participated in an FMS-based program prepared according to the cooperative learning method (40min/3days/8weeks).At the beginning and end of the study, children underwent the Bender-Gestalt test and the d2 test of attention.

Results

Within-group pre-post test comparisons revealed improvement in visual-motor integration and selective attention for both the classical method and cooperative learning groups. In between-group post-test comparisons, the cooperative learning group demonstrated greater improvement in visual-motor integration and selective attention parameters compared to the classical method.

Conclusion

The results support increasing the inclusion of fundamental motor skill activities in physical education classes and advocating for the use of cooperative learning methods in these classes. Enhancements in visual-motor integration and selective attention may contribute to children forming quality relationships, enjoying activities, learning stress management, and developing as a group.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Fundamental motor skills (FMS) are foundational skills that facilitate participation in physical activities (PA) at various levels and influence the execution of dynamic movements [1, 2]. Proficiency in FMS is essential for engaging in complex physical activities [3]. FMS is categorized into three categories: (1) locomotor skills (running), (2) object control (throwing and catching a ball), and (3) balance and stability skills (standing on one foot) [4, 5]. Children who do not engage in sufficient sporting activities may experience developmental delays in acquiring FMS. The development of FMS is directly associated with beneficial health outcomes [6]. While only 11% of children aged 12–13 demonstrate proficiency in FMS [7], it has been noted that over 50% of children generally exhibit inadequacies in FMS [8]. A recent study has demonstrated that developing FMS adequately enables children to function independently in physical, social, and cognitive aspects [9]. Elementery school years are an ideal period for enhancing children's FMS proficiency, establishing physical activity habits, and benefiting from quality education and training related to FMS [10]. Research indicates that effective time spent during childhood is crucial for carrying PA into later years [11]. One of the methods that can be utilized for effective time management is employing different educational models, one of which is collaborative learning [12].

Cooperative learning emerged in response to observed low levels of interaction in classrooms. The learning model has been widely implemented and encouraged in the field of education since its development in the 1980s [13]. One of its main goals was to facilitate relationships among individuals during the educational process [14]. Students learn collaboratively with encouraging positive interactions from and with other students [15]. However, for cooperative learning to be effectively implemented in the classroom, the presence of five essential elements is necessary: interpersonal skills, group processing, positive interdependence, individual accountability, and encouraging interaction. In cooperative learning, students work together in small, heterogeneous groups to support each other collaboratively [16]. Studies on the implementation of cooperative learning in Physical Education (PE) classes suggest contributions to children's self-confidence [17], fundamental motor skills [18], motivation [15], and sensory learning [19] can be made. Legrain et al. (2019) stated that exploring the outcomes of cooperative learning is challenging yet crucial [20]. Gorucu (2016) noted that cooperative learning enhances cognitive skills. Through CL, teachers can motivate students more in PE classes during the development of FMS and guide students towards need-supportive behaviors. Therefore, examining the effects of cooperative learning [21] on children's cognitive skills, including visual-motor integration (VMI) and selective attention (SA), which are necessary for various learning skills, may be important.

VMI is a critical component of acquiring and organizing information from the environment [22]. It is used in the perception, interpretation, and understanding of visual stimuli [23, 24]. Winnick (2005) emphasized that VMI is important not only for skills such as writing and drawing but also for FMS movements such as throwing, jumping, catching, and striking [25]. Deficiencies in VMI can contribute to a lack of control over FMS [26, 27]. The study demonstrated that educational encouragement, particularly in PE classes, can be a suitable way to improve both VMI and FMS [28]. Therefore, if exercise programs are not tailored to the dynamic characteristics of children, basic body position movements (walking/running) and sports-related movements may not develop adequately [29, 30]. VMI also reflects the efficiency of performing cognitive tasks [31]. Cognitive functions such as SA play a significant role in classroom behavior and learning processes, contributing to academic success [32, 33]. Consequently, regularly practicing FMS at school can have immediate positive effects on learning efficiency in the classroom. For example, FMS proficiency has been found to be related to children's working memory [34]. Therefore, children with better FMS respond more appropriately in situations where the cognitive factor (SA) is necessary for performance [34, 35]. The study highlighted a significant difference in VMI among children with inadequate gross motor skills [36, 37]. Thus, using effective FMS programs to understand the connection between VMI, SA, and PA in children may be important [24].

Childhood is a period of neurobiological and psychological changes that lay the foundation for health in later life [38]. Therefore, it is important to understand how health and education policies can be positively directed during childhood [39]. Evidence regarding children supports positive relationships between exercise and cognition [40], but the lack of studies on different types of PA, methodologies, and age differences makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Studies have shown that FMS-focused programs (training/classes) can encourage children to engage in a variety of movement skills more than unstructured activities (free play) [41] and can lead to significant improvements in FMS proficiency (i.e., locomotor and object control skills) among school-aged children [42]. Therefore, providing more detailed procedures and information for FMS programs is essential. Pedagogical approaches related to education have rapidly developed over the past 50 years, with some being used in classes [43, 44]. Although these interventions are generally successful, there is still no clear explanation of the most effective pedagogical approach or type of curriculum [45]. Therefore, it is important to identify approaches that will increase children's interest in PA at an early age. The limited time and intensive curriculum in PE classes hinder PE teachers from providing effective and engaging lessons [46]. Consequently, PE classes are often taught by teachers using functional and rigid/classical methods [47]. Until motor skill specialization occurs, movements are broken down into segments, and correct execution is taught with minimal errors. However, this method is not suitable for all children. In this method, children develop an excessive dependence on instructions given by the teacher, limiting their autonomy [48]. Therefore, it is important to determine learning approaches suitable for children's development. Through CL, teachers can motivate students more in PE classes during the development of FMS and guide students towards need-supportive behaviors. This approach provides students with opportunities for choice and initiative (autonomy support), information transfer, feedback (competence support), and an emotional environment (relatedness support) [15]. With this method, regularly practicing FMS at school can have immediate positive effects on learning efficiency in the classroom. This is because motor skill interventions that are open-ended, strategic and sequential in nature are more effective. Environmental stimuli, interpersonal interaction, agility, coordination, and cardiorespiratory fitness can be considered as skill attribute moderators of motor skills to improve cognition [34]. This is because children with more developed FMS respond more appropriately in situations where the cognitive factor is necessary for performance [35]. This study aimed to examine the effects of two different school training models (Classical/Cooperative) incorporating FMS movements over 8 weeks in PE classes on VMI and SA in boys aged 10–11. We hypothesized that: H1) both structured school training models incorporating FMS movements (Classical/Cooperative) would contribute to VMI and SA skills, and H2) the CL model incorporating FMS movements would develop VMI and SA skills better than the CM.

Methods

Design and ethics

This study employed a pre/posttest experimental design with a comparison group. The dependent variables were Visual-Motor Integration, measured using the Bender-Gestalt Test, and Selective Attention, measured using the d2 Test of Attention. Due to demonstrated gender differences in motor skills [49] and cognitive skills [50], the study was conducted with a single-gender sample. Schools where the study would be conducted were pre-selected, and necessary legal permissions were obtained from the Directorate of National Education. Additionally, ethical approval was obtained from the relevant department of Uşak University (Decision: 2023 − 166; Number: E-89784354-050.99-154664). The procedures followed were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The purpose and procedures of the research were explained to the school, parents, and children. Due to the involvement of child participants, signed consent was obtained from both the parents and the children.

Participant recruitment and selection

To determine the sample size required for the hypotheses, a power analysis was conducted using G*Power (3.1.9.6). When the effect size for the study was set at 80% power and the significance level at 0.05, the sample size was calculated as 49 (total). 60 male childeren (30 for each group) were included finally to reduce the impact of possible losses during this study. In studies where similar populations are used and statistical analysis is adjusted accordingly, such numbers are considered sufficient. In order for the study to be applicable to real life, a counterbalanced design with repeated measures to evaluate the participants in two conditions (classical method and cooperative learning) was considered appropriate [51].

The study was designed as a single-blind, randomized, two-arm intervention comparing FMS interventions in Cooperative Learning Group (CL) and Classical Method (CM) groups. A control group (CM) was established against the CL group in the study. Participants meeting the study criteria were allocated into two groups using a block randomization scheme with a 1:1 allocation ratio (4 classes, each with 15 children). Participants were randomized using a minimization method, considering their class, age, height, weight, and health status. Random allocation was ensured, and the statistician was blinded to the assignments. Out of 127 children invited to participate, 60 were deemed eligible for the study. The inclusion criteria for participants were: a) Male, b) Voluntary, c) At the same academic performance and grade level (10–11 years old), d) Without chronic health issues that would prevent physical activity, e) Similar sociodemographic development, f) Regular attendance in classes, and g) Not participating in or planning to participate in any exercise/sporting activities outside of school. Participant demographic information is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 The anthropometric characteristics of study groups
Full size table

In order to align the study schedule with the curriculum, elective class hours were utilized. During this time, children regularly participate in elective activities of their choice (geography, science, volleyball, football, etc.). The participant groups were formed using the elective courses available in the curriculum (4 classes, each with 15 children). The elective classes for each group were scheduled at different times to minimize the risk of contamination between the CL and CM interventions. Outside of the study, children continued their regular curriculum in their classes.

Cooperative learning intervention program

None of the children had previously experienced collaborative learning as a pedagogical model. Each session of the program was designed to incorporate the five essential elements of collaborative learning. The first phase included 1: interpersonal skills (Students encouraged each other. Students deliberately shared resources), 2: group processing (Students reflected individually and together, Students shared ideas to solve the tasks) 3: positive interdependence (The tasks ended when all the classmates have completed it, Students switched from one activity to another when all members were ready) 4: promotive interaction (Students interacted during the tasks to finish them, Students performed the tasks in direct contact with each other) and 5: individual accountability (Each student performed his/her role during the tasks, Each student performed his/her part of the task) [52]. The sessions focused on body awareness, body management, movement concepts, breathing-relaxation, balance, and coordination. The second phase included activities focused on FMS, locomotor skills, and throwing and catching. Various collaborative learning techniques or structures were utilized in each session. Learning Teams: Students worked in groups of four, each taking on a role (teacher, observer, equipment manager) and rotated roles every few trials to learn a new skill. Cooperative Play: Students cooperated to achieve a group goal focused on coordination (e.g., the entire group had to cross the gym stepping only inside hoops). Pairs-Control-Practice: Students worked in pairs to improve their locomotor skills (e.g., jumping over various obstacles), with one acting as the practitioner and the other as an instructor, switching roles every few trials. Think-Share: Students faced challenges while working on throwing and catching skills (e.g., throwing and catching while navigating obstacles), encouraging them to share ideas, negotiate, think, and try different solutions to overcome the problem. Collective Score: The entire class worked together to solve a task to achieve a "class score" (e.g., passing a ball using hands for one minute). In learning teams, students worked in small groups of four to develop their locomotor skills (e.g., crawling, jumping, navigating over/under an obstacle course) by performing only two roles [52].

Classical method intervention program (traditional method)

Physical Education lessons based on linear pedagogy were designed following the principles of information processing theory and direct instruction concepts: (1) Teacher-led Dynamic Warm-up, (2) Implementation of FMS, (3) Performance/Game Activity to Apply Learned FMS, (4) Cool-down. During the early learning of a movement skill, teachers were encouraged to review previously learned material and provide corrective feedback, paying particular attention to recurring mistakes made by the children during each activity. The children were instructed to perform and repeat the FMS previously demonstrated by the educators. When the skill showed signs of automatization, they were encouraged to practice independently in increasingly open environments. Gentile's classification principles and the Challenge Point framework were utilized by teachers to facilitate the progression of skill practice toward more open environments [48].

Implemented FMS activities

The study spanned a total of 24 PE class hours (40 minutes/session, 3 days/week, for 8 weeks). Each intervention session lasted 40 minutes and included three activity segments: (1) a 5-minute dynamic warm-up, (2) 30 minutes of FMS training, and (3) a 5-minute cool-down. During the 30-minute FMS training, participants were engaged in activities according to their proficiency levels. The same PE teacher conducted all sessions in both classes. The implementing teacher had over 10 years of theoretical and practical experience in the pedagogical model. The FMS intervention included 12 fundamental motor skills: jumping, running, galloping, hopping, leaping, sliding, kicking, striking, catching, dribbling, underhand rolling, and overhand throwing. The 24-session (3x8) program was adjusted according to previously conducted and recommended programs. 1. Runing: 2. Underhand Rolling: 3. Jumping: 4. Striking: 5. Galloping: 6. Catching: 7. Sliding: 8. Kicking: 9. Hopping: 10. Dribbling: 11. Leaping: 12. Overhand throwing: 13. Galloping & Sliding: 14. Catching & Kicking: 15. Jumping & Hopping: 16. Striking & Dribbling: 17.Running & Leaping: 18. Underhand Rolling & Overhand throwing: 19. Galloping & Sliding: 20. Catching & Kicking: 21. Jumping & Hopping:22. Striking & Dribbling: 23. Running & Leaping: 24. Underhand rolling & Overhand throwing [40].

Bender-Gestalt Test

The Bender-Gestalt Test (BGT) was developed by Bender to assess principles related to visual-motor integration. It is widely used and correlates with general cognitive ability, intellectual development, fine motor skills, and short-term memory [53, 54]. The test is considered valid and reliable for evaluating visual-motor integration. The scoring reliability (re-scoring) is estimated at 0.92, and the interscorer reliability is 0.89. The BGT consists of 9 figures printed on 8.5–11 inch cards, with increasing difficulty levels. In standard administration, participants are shown the cards in a specific order, and they are required to draw each figure on an A4-sized paper. The first card is labeled as "A," and subsequent cards are numbered from 1 to 8. The most commonly used scoring system for children is the developmental Koppitz scoring system, where each error in the figures is given a score of "1" point. The maximum score that can be obtained from the test is 30. Normative values for Turkish children have been established. A lower score on the test indicates healthier performance by the child [55, 56].

d2 Attention Test

The d2 Attention Test was used to measure the selective attention of children in our study. This test is applicable across the age range of 9–60 years (Brickenkamp, 2002) and is widely used internationally [57]. The d2 Test assesses the capacity to focus on a stimulus while ignoring distractor letters. It demonstrates high test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from .95 to .98 for all parameters [57,58,59,60]. The test consists of 14 lines, each containing 47 characters with the letters "p" and "d", where each has one, two, three, or four dashes. Participants are instructed to scan each line and mark all instances of the letter "d" with two dashes while ignoring other characters. The d2 Test provides 5 main outcomes (parameters): (a) TN-processing speed, (b) TN-E/Focused attention, (c) CP-Concentration performance, (d) Accuracy-E% /Learning Ability, and (e) Fluctuation rate (sustained attention-FR) [58, 59].

Accuracy (E%) and Concentration Performance (CP) are not inflated by excessive skipping as they are based on the number of target and non-target characters cancelled as opposed to processing speed which can be influenced by test strategies. In our study, we therefore used Accuracy and CP as dependent variables due to their resistance to falsification. Processes of selective attention are required for successful completion since not only the letter d is orthographically similar to the letter p, but there are many distracting letters with more or less than two dashes. High scores on the test indicate symptoms of attention deficits, while low scores reflect normal attention levels.

Test administration details

The tests were administered face-to-face by experts trained in test procedures. Each test session included groups of 15 participants (1 class). Testing took place in a quiet classroom with a room temperature of 21°C, during the school's first lesson period. The test procedures were explained to the children in their native language. Children were motivated to take the tests seriously. They were informed that their test responses were confidential and did not contain any personal data. Tests were administered simultaneously to the entire class, and results were collected simultaneously for later evaluation.

Data analysis

All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package (IBM, SPSS, Version 25.0). The pre- and posttest data related to Cognitive health outcomes (VMI and SA) were analyzed. Descriptive statistics, mean, standard deviation and prevalence were reported. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used as goodness-of- fit test. The normality test of the distributions was examined by means of skewness and kurtosis tests. Data analyses included (pretest, posttest) 2×2 (CL ve CM) mixed factor ANOVA tests for the VMI and SA measures, followed by an independent samples t-test using difference scores (pretest-posttest score). These tests were run separately for the VMI and SA measures. When significant F values were determined (p ≤ 0.05), the Bonferroni post-hoc test was performed to check type 1 errors. Finally, Cohen’s was calculated for the independent samples t-test, for which sizes of null (0.0–0.19), small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79), and large (≥ 0.80) [61].

Results

Based on the study results, there was a significant difference between the pre- and post-test scores of VMI for the CM and CL groups (p < 0.05). Both educational models were effective on VMI, with CL demonstrating a higher level of effectiveness (Effect Size .519medium/ .928large). There was also a significant difference in Accuracy (E%) and CP between the pre- and post-test values of CM and CL. Accuracy and CP scores improved in both groups, but CL showed a higher effect size (Accuracy Effect Size .449small/.746medium–CP .438small/.793medium). The results indicate that both FMS-based methods (CM and CL) improved Visual Motor Integration and Selective Attention, with CL showing a greater effect (Table 2).

Table 2 Pre- and post-test values for visual motor perception and attention
Full size table

When comparing the post-test values of the CM and CL groups in the study, there was a significant difference in favor of CL for VMI, Accuracy, and CP (p < 0.05). Examining the effect sizes (CM/CL), CL had a higher effect size in VMI (.853large), Accuracy (.473small), and CP (.604medium). The results indicate that the FMS-based CL method is more effective on VMI and SA (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of visual motor integration and selective attention post-test results
Full size table

Discussion

Our study results indicate that both FMS-based teaching methods (CM/CL) are effective on Visual Motor Integration (VMI) and Selective Attention (SA) based on within-group pre-post test parameters. However, it was found that CL supported greater improvement in VMI and SA. It is evident that these results should be interpreted in two different ways: 1) the effect of FMS movement exercises; 2) the effect of the method.

The positive effect of FMS intervention on VMI and SA

Our results support the idea that the components of VMI and FMS do not function separately. VMI and FMS are interconnected. FMS develops in conjunction with how the body deciphers the environment and responds to stimuli [62,63,64]. VMI is the ability to perceive visual input, process information, and coordinate motor responses. VMI skills encompass hand-eye coordination, execution, visual perceptual skills, and gross and fine motor coordination. VMI is essential for numerous activities (academic and otherwise) [64, 65]. While FMS enables a child to perform PA and daily functions, VMI helps them make sense of and manipulate surrounding objects. The study showed that developing skills like FMS and VMI together ensures optimal development of sports skills [49]. Similarly, Bonifacci (2004) found a positive correlation between children's FMS and VMI skills [36]. Desoete et al. (2012) demonstrated in their study that children's visual perceptual and motor coordination abilities are directly related to their level of VMI skills [66]. Evidence of a connection in brain activity between FMS and VMI when performing any FMS skill supports the findings of our current study. The VMI scores of the intervention group in the study improved significantly, and the improvement in FMS had an impact on children's VMI skills. This may be because the same areas of the brain are activated when performing FMS and using VMI [67, 68]. VMI processes occur in the posterior parietal and premotor cortex, where specific parts of the body are selected to perform different movements. This brain area is activated when relationships form between motor movements effective on specific objects. FMS movements activate this brain area because these skills require appropriate motor responses to perform actions on specific objects [69].

There is evidence that children who participate in FMS-based PA show improvements in SA [70]. Another study demonstrates a correlation between FMS and SA [2]. Regular PA among children aged 13–14 has been shown to positively influence attention [71]. Sports involving FMS movement patterns, such as Karate and Football, have been highlighted as leading to better SA performance in children compared to those who prefer passive activities [72, 73]. A study focusing on PA outside the school environment found that PA participation increased SA in children aged 10–11 [74]. Budde et al. (2008) concluded that exercises involving FSM might activate brain regions responsible for executive functions such as attention [75]. Research by Chang et al. (2013) revealed that FSM-based exercise interventions provided better attention [76]. Even a single 12-minute aerobic exercise session improved children's SA. The study also noted the positive effects of both regular and irregular exercise [77]. These findings are supported by research on cognitive flexibility showing that cortical transcranial magnetic stimulation can manipulate subcortical cognitive functions [78]. As outlined above, various intervention trials confirm the beneficial effect of FMS-based PA on SA.

The effect of the method (CM & CL) on VMI and SA

Research in motor learning and sports pedagogy has shown that task-appropriate learning methods enhance FMS learning and performance [79]. Teachers have noted that cooperative learning approaches in PE are appropriate activities that promote skill development and student engagement [80]. In our study, key elements in the CL group (VMI and SA) significantly increased, indicating the successful application of the method. A study clearly indicated [81] that all core elements of CL must be fully implemented in the study, and failed applications were short and fragmented [12]. This study included the five core elements of CL and was applied beyond the recommended time (8 weeks/24 lessons) [52]. This is because it has been shown that CL does not produce the same positive results if not structured at the right level and content [82]. The increase in CL elements from pre-test to post-test in this study demonstrates that the FMS-based exercise model was sufficiently used and that the results can be evaluated as derived from this. Similarly, a study examined the impact of a CL-compatible movement education program on children's VMI development. This study found greater VMI development and noted that it was influenced by cooperative education. It was indicated that using motor functions as a tool to teach children various behaviors like cooperative performance increased VMI levels [83].

The PE teaching approach should be learning-oriented. Therefore, how sports are taught in PE is as important as the content of the sport. Sports exercises often focus on the technical element while other approaches are neglected [84]. This indicates the presence of deficiencies in cognitive structures in the teaching-learning process [52]. Moreno et al. (2010) stated that declarative knowledge includes theoretical knowledge covering both the technical-tactical aspects and the rules, while procedural knowledge refers to decisions (cooperation) made in concrete game situations [85]. Chatzipanteli et al. (2016) noted that students need sufficient declarative knowledge to develop procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge should precede problem-solving and decision-making [86]. García-Ceberino et al. (2020) stated that declarative and procedural knowledge are acquired through sports practices and that the structured memory and specific knowledge acquired through sports practices differentiate expert students from novices [84]. Therefore, MacPhail et al. (2008) emphasized the importance of teaching sports with CL rather than focusing on teaching technical skills [87]. During sports practices, students make decisions based on their existing knowledge structures and ability to process new information [88]. Considering the effects on decision-making and learning transfer, cooperative teachings are of greater importance for VMI and SA factors [89].

Limitation

This study had several strengths and limitations. The sample was well-balanced in terms of age, height, weight, and academic achievement, representing a substantial child population suitable for FMS application. This study is among those that examine the impact of FMS-based PA on CL within BE courses. Additionally, it is the first intervention study evaluating the effects of this pedagogical model on students' VMI and SA. The significant increases previously emphasized in the study's content have been validated. Therefore, the findings from this study can be considered a substantial contribution to scientific and pedagogical knowledge concerning behavioral outcomes related to CL usage. However, interpreting the results of this study requires consideration of certain limitations. Due to internal validity concerns, only 10-11-year-old male children were targeted as participants, limiting generalizability to other age groups and genders benefiting from FSM and cognitive functions. Another limitation is that all children were from the same school. The study was conducted only in two groups, further restricting its generalizability. Therefore, future research should aim to confirm these results using more diverse samples across different schools, larger groups, and employing more contemporary and comprehensive longitudinal methods for comparison. Teacher efficacy could have been calculated in the study. Future researchers may consider adding third-level variables (e.g., teacher motivation, exercise types) to their studies.

Conclusion

The results indicate improvement in VMI and SA skills in both CM and CL intervention programs involving FMS activities. Hence, teachers should consider developing and designing structured FMS-based programs incorporating goal-setting strategies to support children's psychomotor, cognitive, and affective learning outcomes. Importantly, administrators should recognize the importance of enhancing FMS proficiency in children, as it forms the foundation for physical development. There was a difference in outcomes between groups based on teaching method. CL applied in BE classes increased students' VMI and SA more than the CM approach. This can be considered a significant contribution to the scientific and pedagogical literature, potentially leading to adaptive motivation patterns among children. Through the development of VMI and SA, children can enhance their ability to form quality relationships, enjoy activities, learn stress management, and develop as a group [90]. Therefore, we call upon policymakers in the education sector to recognize the benefits of CL. We recommend informing teachers about the positive effects of CL and integrating CL into education and instruction.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Wang JW, Qu S, Zhu ZC, Zhao X, Song WJ, Li X, Chen WD, Luo DM. Global hotspots and trends in research on preschool children’s motor development from 2012 to 2022: a bibliometric analysis. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1118674. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpubh.2023.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Top E. Fine motor skills and attention level of individuals with mild intellectual disability getting education in inclusive classrooms and special education schools. Int J Dev Disabil. 2021;69(2):248–55. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/20473869.2021.1953940.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Top E, Akkoyunlu Y, Akıl M. Analysis of the influence of a twelve month swimming exercise on mentally disabled individuals’ physical fitness level. Int J Phys Educ Sports Health. 2015;2:315–22.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Top E, Akil M. Effects of a 3-month recreative exercise applied to individuals with intellectual disability on their electromyogram (EMG) variations and balance performance. Int J Dev Disabil. 2018;64(4–5):282–7. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/20473869.2017.1317459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Brien W, Khodaverdi Z, Bolger L, Murphy O, Philpott C, Kearney PE. Exploring recommendations for child and adolescent fundamental movement skills development: a narrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(4):3278. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph20043278.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Tompsett C, Sanders R, Taylor C, Cobley S. Pedagogical approaches to and effects of fundamental movement skill interventions on health outcomes: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2017;47(9):1795–819. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s40279-017-0697-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brien WO, Belton S, Issartel J. Fundamental movement skill proficiency amongst adolescent youth. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2016;21:557–71. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/17408989.2015.1017451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bolger LE, Bolger LA, O’Neill C, Coughlan E, O’Brien W, Lacey S, Burns C, Bardid F. Global levels of fundamental motor skills in children: A systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2021;39(7):717–53. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/02640414.2020.1841405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Legarra-Gorgoñon G, García-Alonso Y, Ramírez-Vélez R, Alonso-Martínez L, Izquierdo M, Alonso-Martínez AM. Assessing basic motor competences, physical fitness, and executive function in 4-5-year-old children: a longitudinal study in a primary care setting. Ital J Pediatr. 2024;50(1):108. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13052-024-01674-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Martinez-Lopez N, Estevan I, Candia-Cabrera P, Aguilar-Farias N, Carcamo-Oyarzun J. Motor competence and compliance with physical activity recommendations in Chilean schoolchildren. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1371766. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1371766

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Silva GC, Tebar WR, Lemes IR, Sasaki JE, Mota J, Ritti-Dias RM, Vanderlei LCM, Christofaro DGD. Can sports practice in childhood and adolescence be associated with higher intensities of physical activity in adult life? A retrospective study in community-dwelling adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(22):14753. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph192214753.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Casey A, Goodyear V. Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest. 2015;67:56–72. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/00336297.2014.984733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhou T, Wang H, Li D. Focusing on the value of cooperative learning in physical education: a bibliometric analysis. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1300986. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1300986.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson DW, Johnson RT. An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ Res. 2009;38:365–79. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3102/0013189X09339057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fernández-Rio J, Méndez-Giménez A. Cooperative learning: Pedagogical model for physical education. Retos. 2016;29:201–6.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Arufe-Giráldez V, Sanmiguel-Rodríguez A, Ramos-Álvarez O, Navarro-Patón R. News of the pedagogical models in physical education-A quick review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):2586. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph20032586.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Schulze C. Cooperative learning ın physical education increases self-esteem in fourth graders. Eur J Phys Educ Sport Sci. 2022;8(3):20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Altinkok M. The effect of movement education based on cooperative learning method on the development of basic motor skills of primary school 1st grade learners. J Balt Sci Educ. 2017;16:241–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vazou S, Mavilidi MF. Cognitively engaging physical activity for targeting motor, cognitive, social, and emotional skills in the preschool classroom: The move for thought preK-K program. Front Psychol. 2021;12:729272. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.729272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Legrain P, Escalié G, Lafont L, Chaliès S. Cooperative learning: A relevant instructional model for physical education pre-service teacher training? Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2019;24:73–86. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/17408989.2018.1561838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gorucu A. The investigation of the effects of physical education lessons planned in accordance with cooperative learning approach on secondary school students’ problem solving skills. Educ Res Rev. 2016;11:998–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sortor JM, Kulp MT. Are the results of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and its subtests related to achievement test scores? Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80(11):758–63. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1097/00006324-200311000-00013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sherrill C. Adapted physical activity, recreation and sport: Cross disciplinary and lifespan. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sajedi F, Barati H. The effect of Perceptual Motor Training on Motor Skills of preschool children. Iran Rehabil J. 2014;12(1):14–7.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Winnick JP. Adapted physical education and sport. 4th ed. New York, NY: Human Kinetics; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  26. van der Walt J, Plastow NA, Unger M. Motor skill intervention for pre-school children: A scoping review. Afr J Disabil. 2020;9:747. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.4102/ajod.v9i0.747.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph19127162Ramos-Álvarez O, Arufe-Giráldez V, Sanmiguel-Rodríguez A, Navarro-Patón R. Variations in manual dexterity in 11- and 12-Year-old children in the north of Spain in the SARS-CoV-2 lockdown. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(12):7162. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph19127162.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Pentón CB, Piñeda ME. Metodología para desarrollar la motricidad fina de las manos en alumnos entre 8 y 9 años. Lect Educ Físic Deportes. 2018;23:239.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zeng N, Ayyub M, Sun H, Wen X, Xiang P, Gao Z. Effects of physical activity on motor skills and cognitive development in early childhood: A systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:2760716. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1155/2017/2760716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Jylänki P, Mbay T, Hakkarainen A, Sääkslahti A, Aunio P. The effects of motor skill and physical activity interventions on preschoolers’ cognitive and academic skills: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2022;155:106948. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106948.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hill LJ, Shire KA, Allen RJ, Crossley K, Wood ML, Mason D, Waterman AH. Large-scale assessment of 7-11-year-olds’ cognitive and sensorimotor function within the Born in Bradford longitudinal birth cohort study. Wellcome Open Res. 2022;6:53. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16429.2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Rohde TE, Thompson LA. Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence. 2007;35(1):83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stevens C, Bavelier D. The role of selective attention on academic foundations: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2012;2(Suppl 1):S30-48. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.dcn.2011.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shi P, Feng X. Motor skills and cognitive benefits in children and adolescents: Relationship, mechanism and perspectives. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1017825. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Páez-Maldonado JA, Reigal RE, Morillo-Baro JP, Carrasco-Beltrán H, Hernández-Mendo A, Morales-Sánchez V. Physical fitness, selective attention and academic performance in a pre-adolescent sample. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17):6216. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph17176216.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bonifacci P. Children with low motor ability have lower visual-motor integration ability but unaffected perceptual skills. Hum Mov Sci. 2004;23(2):157–68. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.humov.2004.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhou Y, Tolmie A. Associations between Gross and Fine Motor Skills, Physical Activity, Executive Function, and Academic Achievement: Longitudinal Findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Brain Sci. 2024;14(2): 121. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/brainsci14020121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Foulkes L, Blakemore SJ. Studying individual differences in human adolescent brain development. Nat Neurosci. 2018;21(3):315–23. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1038/s41593-018-0078-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dorn LD, Hostinar CE, Susman EJ, Pervanidou P. Conceptualizing puberty as a window of opportunity for impacting health and well-being across the life span. J Res Adolesc. 2019;29(1):155–76. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/jora.12431. PMID: 30869846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee J, Zhang T, Chu TLA, Gu X, Zhu P. Effects of a Fundamental motor skill-based afterschool program on children’s physical and cognitive health outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):733. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph17030733.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Coppens E, Rommers N, Bardid F, Deconinck FJA, De Martelaer K, D’Hondt E, Lenoir M. Long-term effectiveness of a fundamental motor skill intervention in Belgian children: a 6-year follow-up. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021;31(Suppl 1):23–34. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/sms.13898. PMID: 33270288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lander N, Morgan PJ, Salmon JO, Barnett LM. Improving early adolescent girls’ motor skill: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49(12):2498–505. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Haerens L, Kirk D, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Toward the development of a pedagogical model for health-based physical education. Quest. 2011;63:321–38. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Casey A, MacPhail A. Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2018;23(3):294–310. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/17408989.2018.142958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tompsett C, Sanders R, Taylor C, Cobley S. Pedagogical approaches to and effects of fundamental movement skill interventions on health outcomes: A systematic review. Sports Med. 2017;47(9):1795–819. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s40279-017-0697-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wendt J, Scheller DA, Flechtner-Mors M, Meshkovska B, Luszczynska A, Lien N, Forberger S, Banik A, Lobczowska K, Steinacker JM. Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of physical activity policies in elementary schools from the perspective of principals: An application of the consolidated framework for implementation research-A cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. 2023;11:935292. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpubh.2023.935292.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Neil-Sztramko SE, Caldwell H, Dobbins M. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9(9):CD007651. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/14651858.CD007651.pub3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Crotti M, Rudd J, Roberts S, Fitton Davies K, O’Callaghan L, Utesch T, Foweather L. Physical activity promoting teaching practices and children’s physical activity within physical education lessons underpinned by motor learning theory (SAMPLE-PE). PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0272339. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1371/journal.pone.0272339.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Hamilton M, Liu T, ElGarhy S. The relationship between body weight and motor skill competence in hispanic low-SES preschool children. Early Child Educ J. 2017;45:529–35. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10643-016-0785-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. González-Fernández FT, Delgado-García G, Coll JS, Silva AF, Nobari H, Clemente FM. Relationship between cognitive functioning and physical fitness in regard to age and sex. BMC Pediatr. 2023;23(1):204. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12887-023-04028-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Kang H. Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18:17. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Rivera-Pérez S, Fernandez-Rio J, Iglesias Gallego D. Effects of an 8-week cooperative learning intervention on physical education students’ task and self-approach goals, and emotional intelligence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18(1): 61. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph18010061.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Piotrowski C. Bender-gestalt test usage worldwide: A review of 30 practice-based studies. SIS J Proj Psy Ment Health. 2016;23:73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Samuel P. Visual motor and executive functioning in adult patients with primary generalized epilepsy: A pilot study. J Epilepsy Res. 2020;10(2):62–8. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.14581/jer.20010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Uluç S, Gülüm V, Çalışır M. Bender-Geştalt Görsel Motor Koordinasyon Testi-II'nin (BGT-II) Global, Koppitz ve Geri Çağırma Puanlamaları için Yargıcılar Arası Güvenirliğin Değerlendirilmesi, Inter-rater Reliability of the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Coordination Test (Second Edition) for Global, Koppitz and Recall Scoring Systems. Klinik Psikiyatri. 2012;15:71–9.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Korkmaz M, Sapmaz-Yurtsever S, Kaçar-Başaran S, Demiral N, Çabuk T, Bender-Gestalt II, Test. Psychometric Properties with Global Scoring System on a Turkish Standardization Sample. Child Neuropsychol. 2023;29(4):607–27. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/09297049.2022.2104237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rivera D, Salinas C, Ramos-Usuga D, Delgado-Mejía ID, Vasallo Key Y, Hernández A, et al. Concentration Endurance Test (d2): normative data for Spanish-speaking pediatric population. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;41(3):661–71. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3233/NRE-172248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brickenkamp R. The d2 test of attention 10th expanded and revised edition. 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bates ME, Lemay EP Jr. The d2 Test of attention: construct validity and extensions in scoring techniques. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004;10(3):392–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Gall S, Müller I, Walter C, Seelig H, Steenkamp L, Pühse U, du Randt R, Smith D, Adams L, Nqweniso S, Yap P, Ludyga S, Steinmann P, Utzinger J, Gerber M. Associations between selective attention and soil-transmitted helminth infections, socioeconomic status, and physical fitness in disadvantaged children in Port Elizabeth, South Africa: An observational study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017;11(5):e0005573. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005573.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Dunlap WP, Cortina JM, Vaslow JB, Burke MJ. Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(2):170–7. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Di Dio C, Ardizzi M, Massaro D, Di Cesare G, Gilli G, Marchetti A, Gallese V. Human, nature, dynamism: the effects of content and movement perception on brain activations during the aesthetic judgment of representational paintings. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;9:705. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00705.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Axford C, Joosten AV, Harris C. iPad applications that required a range of motor skills promoted motor coordination in children commencing primary school. Aust Occup Ther J. 2018;65(2):146–55. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/1440-1630.12450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Carsone B, Green K, Torrence W, Henry B. Systematic review of visual motor integration in children with developmental disabilities. Occup Ther Int. 2021;2021:1801196. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1155/2021/1801196.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Cornhill H, Case-Smith J. Factors that relate to good and poor handwriting. Am J Occup Ther. 1996;50(9):732–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.5014/ajot.50.9.732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Desoete A, Pieters S, Roeyers H, Vanderswalmen R, Van Waelvelde H. Behind mathematical learning disabilities: What about visual perception and motor skills? Learn Individual Differences. 2012;22(4):498–504. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Drew T, Marigold DS. Taking the next step: cortical contributions to the control of locomotion. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015;33:25–33. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.conb.2015.01.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Marigold DS, Drew T. Posterior parietal cortex estimates the relationship between object and body location during locomotion. Elife. 2017;6:e28143. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.7554/eLife.28143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Liu S, Chen ST, Cai Y. Associations between gross motor coordination and executive functions: considering the sex difference in Chinese middle-aged school children. Front Psychol. 2022;13:875256. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.875256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Korkusuz S, Top E. Does the combination of physical activity and attention training affect the motor skills and cognitive activities of individuals with mild intellectual disability? Int J Dev Disabil. 2023;69(5):654–62. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/20473869.2021.1995640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kubesch S, Walk L, Spitzer M, Kammer T, Lainburg A, Heim R, Hille KA. 30-min physical education program improves students’ executive attention. Mind Brain Educ. 2009;3:235–42. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01076.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Alesi M, Bianco A, Padulo J, Luppina G, Petrucci M, Paoli A, Palma A, Pepi A. Motor and cognitive growth following a Football Training Program. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1627. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01627.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Alesi M, Bianco A, Padulo J, Vella FP, Petrucci M, Paoli A, Palma A, Pepi A. Motor and cognitive development: the role of karate. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2014;4(2):114–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Janssen M, Chinapaw MJM, Rauh SP, Toussaint HM, van Mechelen W, Verhagen EALM. A short physical activity break from cognitive tasks increases selective attention in primary school children aged 10–11. Ment Health Phys Act. 2014;7:129–34. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.mhpa2014.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Budde H, Voelcker-Rehage C, Pietrabyk-Kendziorra S, Ribeiro P, Tidow G. Acute coordinative exercise improves attentional performance in adolescents. Neurosci Lett. 2008;441(2):219–23. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.neulet.2008.06.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Chang YK, Tsai YJ, Chen TT, Hung TM. The impacts of coordinative exercise on executive function in kindergarten children: an ERP study. Exp Brain Res. 2013;225(2):187–96. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s00221-012-3360-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Tine MT, Butler AG. Acute aerobic exercise impacts selective attention: an exceptional boost in lower-income children. Educ Psychol. 2012;32:821–34. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/01443410.2012.723612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. van Schouwenburg MR, O’Shea J, Mars RB, Rushworth MF, Cools R. Controlling human striatal cognitive function via the frontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2012;32(16):5631–7. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6428-11.2012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Kermarrec G, Regaieg G, Clayton R. Mixed-methods approaches to learning strategies and self-regulation in Physical Education: a literature review. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2022;27(2):172–85. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/17408989.2021.1999916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Salters D, Scharoun Benson SM. Perceptions and use of teaching strategies for fundamental movement skills in primary school physical education programs. Childre (Basel). 2022;9(2):226. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/children9020226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Bores-García D, Hortigüela-Alcalá D, Fernandez-Rio FJ, González-Calvo G, Barba-Martín R. Research on cooperative learning in physical education: Systematic review of the last five Years. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2021;92(1):146–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Cecchini JA, Fernandez-Rio J, Mendez-Gimenez A, Gonzalez C, Sanchez-Martínez B, Carriedo A. High versus low-structured cooperative learning. Effects on prospective teachers’ regulation dominance, motivation, content knowledge and responsibility. Eur J Teach Educ. 2020;1–16. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/02619768.2020.1774548.

  83. Duman G, Ozkur F. Analyzing the embedded learning-based movement education program’s effects on preschool children’s visual-motor coordination and self-regulation. J Educ Learn. 2019;8(5):193–202. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.5539/jel.v8n5p193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. García-Ceberino JM, Gamero MG, Feu S, Ibáñez SJ. Experience as a determinant of declarative and procedural knowledge in school football. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):1063. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/ijerph17031063.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Moreno A, Moreno P, García-González L, Gil A, Del Villar F. Desarrollo y validación de un cuestionario para la evaluación del conocimiento declarativo en voleibol. Mot Eur J Hum Mov. 2010;25:183–95.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Chatzipanteli A, Digelidis N, Karatzoglidis C, Dean R. A tactical-game approach and enhancement of metacognitive behaviour in elementary school students. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2016;21:169–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. MacPhail A, Kirk D, Griffin L. Throwing and catching as relational skills in game play: Situated learning in a modified game unit. J Teach Phys Educ. 2008;27:100–15. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1123/jtpe.27.1.100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Starkes JL, Ericsson KA. Expert Performance in Sports: Advances in Research on Sport Expertise. Champaign, IL, USA: Human Kinetics; 2003.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  89. Viciana J, Mayorga-Vega D. Innovative teaching units applied to physical education-changing the curriculum management for authentic outcomes. Kinesiology. 2016;48(1):142–52. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.26582/k.48.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Fernández-Rio J, Sanz N, Fernández-Cando J, Santos L. Impact of a sustained Cooperative Learning intervention on student motivation. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2017;22:89–105. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/17408989.2015.1123238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank all the participants in the study.

Funding

This study received no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Uşak, Uşak, Türkiye

    Mustafa Akil & Bekir Tokay

  2. Graduate Education Institute, Uşak University, Uşak, Türkiye

    Melek Gülem Güngör

Authors
  1. Mustafa Akil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bekir Tokay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melek Gülem Güngör
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MA and BT conceptualised this study; MA and BT contributed to methodology of this study; MA and BT carried out formal analysis; MA and MGG contributed to data curation; MA carried out original draft preparation; MA, BT, MGG contributed to writing-review and editing; MA and BT looked after project administration. All authors have read andagreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Akil.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was in accordance with the principles as outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The experimental protocol was approved by the The Second Uşak University institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akil, M., Tokay, B. & Güngör, M.G. Cognitive health outcomes of fundamental motor skill applications in children through cooperative learning method. BMC Psychol 12, 522 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-024-02006-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-024-02006-y

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us