Can active play replace skill-oriented physical education in enhancing fundamental movement skills among preschool children? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active play emphasizes the enjoyment of physical activity, it is affordable and unconstrained. In contrast, skill-oriented physical education, a mainstream physical activity intervention, is more formalized. However, the comparative effects of these interventions on fundamental movement skills in preschool children remain a subject of debate. PURPOSE: Determine the effectiveness of active play and compare it with skill-oriented physical education on fundamental movement skills. METHODS: We searched four databases (MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus) from January 2004 to March 2024. Included studies assessed FMS in children aged 2-6 years, with active play interventions lasting ≥ 4 weeks. The effects of active play and skill-oriented physical education on total fundamental movement skills, locomotor skills, object control, and balance were calculated within random effects models (weighted SMD) in meta-analysis. RESULTS: This systematic review included 23 studies involving 2201 preschool children, with 15 eligible for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the effects of active play compared to skill-oriented physical education on total FMS, locomotor skills, object control, balance (p > 0.05). Subgroup analyses indicated that skill-oriented physical education marginally outperformed unstructured active play in total fundamental movement skills and locomotor skills (SMD=-1.0172, 95% CI -1.6748~ -0.3595, p = 0.0073; SMD=-1.6956, 95% CI -3.3511~ -0.0401, p = 0.0471). CONCLUSIONS: Both structured active play and skill-oriented physical education are comparable effective in improving fundamental movement skills. However, unstructured active play is less effective. In resource-limited educational settings, structured active play may serve as a viable complement to partial skill-oriented physical education programming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".