Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36011930›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Effect of Teaching Methods on Motor Efficiency, Perceptions and Awareness in Children.

Gaetano Raiola, Tiziana D'Isanto, Felice Di Domenico, Francesca D'Elia

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Multiteaching style and active reflection for swimming.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gaetano RaiolaDepartment of Political and Social Studies, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7659-1674
Tiziana D'IsantoDepartment of Human, Philosophical and Education Sciences, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7151-7486
Felice Di DomenicoDepartment of Political and Social Studies, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5897-9704
Francesca D'EliaDepartment of Human, Philosophical and Education Sciences, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1441-8101
University of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, physical inactivity and sedentariness in children are becoming increasingly common, resulting in children’s poor ability to perform basic motor patterns. It is important to find strategies that instructors can adopt to improve awareness of the importance of physical activity for health and wellness, as well as motor efficiency. Two teaching methods can be used: prescriptive teaching and heuristic learning. The aim of this study was to compare these two methods to determine which is the most suitable for developing motor efficiency. An additional aim was to verify the children’s level of enjoyment and self-efficacy through questions on perceptions and, subsequently, on awareness of the activity performed distinctly from perception. The sample consisted of 28 children randomly divided into two groups: HEUR-L, performing activities using heuristic learning, a basic method in ecological approach; and PRES-T, using prescriptive teaching, a basic cognitive method. A motor-efficiency test (TEM) and a survey were administered. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to test differences in motor efficiency. A Chi-square (χ2) test was used to compare differences between groups in terms of perceptions in enjoyment and self-efficacy and, on a second test, awareness of the activity performed. The results were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Both teaching methods improved motor efficiency, although HEUR-L did so to a greater extent. Differences in perception were found in terms of enjoyment and self-efficacy (p < 0.05), whereas there was no difference in terms of awareness (p > 0.05). Although both methodologies led to improvements in motor-pattern development, heuristic learning was found to be the most effective method to improve motor efficiency, relationships and self-efficacy.

Indexed as

ExerciseLearningChildHumansSelf EfficacySurveys and QuestionnairesTeachingextracurricular activitiesmotor patternsPAsedentarinessteaching methods

Identifiers

PMID36011930
PMCPMC9408595
OpenAlexW4293512101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.