BackgroundThis review investigated the influence of scaling sports equipment and play area (e.g., field size) on children’s motor skill acquisition.MethodsPeer-reviewed studies published prior to February 2015 were searched using SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE. Studies were included if the research (a) was empirical, (b) involved participants younger than 18 years, (c) assessed the efficacy of scaling in relation to one or more factors affecting skill learning (psychological factors, skill performance and skill acquisition factors, biomechanical factors, cognitive processing factors), and (d) had a sport or movement skills context. Risk of bias was assessed in relation to selection bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias.ResultsTwenty-five studies involving 989 children were reviewed. Studies revealed that children preferred using scaled equipment over adult equipment (n = 3), were more engaged in the task (n = 1) and had greater self-efficacy to execute skills (n = 2). Eighteen studies demonstrated that children performed skills better when the equipment and play area were scaled. Children also acquired skills faster in such conditions (n = 2); albeit the practice interventions were relatively short. Five studies showed that scaling led to children adopting more desirable movement patterns, and one study associated scaling with implicit motor learning.ConclusionMost of the studies reviewed provide evidence in support of equipment and play area scaling. However, the conclusions are limited by the small number of studies that examined learning (n = 5), poor ecological validity and skills tests of few trials.

This study demonstrated the benefits for young children playing with scaled racquets and low-compression balls. The findings are discussed with regards to their relevance to theories of skill acquisition.

The purpose of this article was to examine the effect of equipment scaling, through the modification of tennis ball compression, on elite junior tennis players (aged 10 years) within a match-play context. The two types of ball compressions that were compared were the standard compression (the normal ball) and 75% compression (termed the modified ball). Ten boys and 10 girls participated in the study. Participants were stratified into pairs based on their Australian Age Ranking and gender. Each pair played two two-set matches: one match with standard compression balls and one match with modified balls. The characteristics of each match were analysed and compared. The results showed that the use of the modified ball increased rally speed, allowed players to strike the ball at a lower (more comfortable) height on their groundstrokes and increased the number of balls played at the net. Ball compression had no effect on the relative number of winners, forehands, backhands, first serves in and double faults. The results are discussed in relation to skill acquisition for skilled junior tennis players.

Background: There is a need for interdisciplinary research to better understand how pedagogical approaches in primary physical education (PE) can support the linked development of physical, cognitive and affective aspects of physical literacy and physical activity behaviors in young children living in deprived areas. The Skill Acquisition Methods fostering Physical Literacy in Early-Physical Education (SAMPLE-PE) study aims to examine the efficacy of two different pedagogies for PE, underpinned by theories of motor learning, to foster physical literacy. Methods: SAMPLE-PE will be evaluated through a cluster-randomized controlled trial targeting 5-6 year old children from schools located in areas of high deprivation in Merseyside, NorthWest England. Schools will be randomly allocated to one of three conditions: Linear Pedagogy, Non-linear Pedagogy, or Control. Non-linear and Linear Pedagogy intervention primary schools will receive a PE curriculum delivered by trained coaches over 15 weeks, while control schools will follow their usual practice. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), immediately post-intervention (T1), and 6 months after the intervention has finished (T2). Children's movement competence is the primary outcome in this trial. Secondary outcomes include physical activity, perceived competence, motivation, executive functions, and self-regulation. An extensive process evaluation will