Aquatic Physical Literacy: The Effectiveness of Applied Pedagogy on Parents’ and Children’s Perceptions of Aquatic Motor Competence

Abstract

The goal of swimming school during early school age is to promote physical literacy. According to linear or non-linear pedagogy, a linear or non-linear approach teaching style can be used. The aim of our study was to investigate whether a different teaching methodology, as in using a teacher-centered approach (linear pedagogy), or a student-centered approach (non-linear pedagogy), could differently influence the perceptions of aquatic activity of children and parents. Parents of 100 children (53 females and 47 males, age 5.9 ± 0.3 years old) participating in the study were previously interviewed to ascertain their expectations regarding the swimming course. Participants were in a medium-high social context. Subsequently, considering the data of the incoming aquatic motor competence’s tests, children were divided into a linear (LI) and non-linear (NL) pedagogy group. A total of 4 instructors were enrolled. Upon completing the swimming course, the aquatic motor competence’s test was repeated, a pictorial scale of perceived motor competence was administered, and a questionnaire regarding the course was proposed to children’s parents. Physical development and learn to swim resulted two of the most important reasons leading parents to choose swimming courses. LI achieved greater progress than the NL in actual motor competence (A.M.C.), while NL perceived a higher aquatic motor competence (P.M.C.) in 7 out of 10 items of the pictorial scale. Parents of children in LI, gave greater importance to the teacher’s role, while NL’s parents pointed the acquisition of children’s abilities as pivotal. In conclusion, NL approach was more appreciated by children, while LI method was more rewarding for parents because initial expectations were satisfied.

Building the Foundation of Aquatic Literacy in 4–6 Years-Old Children: A Systematic Review of Good Pedagogical Practices for Children and Parents

“…Twenty-one studies were selected for this review. Table 1 (1 study [43]), Table 2 (13 studies [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]), and Table 3 (7 studies [22,[57][58][59][60][61][62]) show the main characteristics of the interventions in terms of objective, level of confidence, theoretical framework used, population, intervention description, measurement tools, and outcomes domains for studies including children and their parents, only children and only parents, respectively. Figure 2 shows a summary of the AL domains concerned in the outcomes of the studies, and Figure 3 shows the risk of bias analysis.…”

“…Among the 21 studies reviewed, there was one instance of a concerned chil ated with their parents (Table 1) and 13 instances of concerned children exclusive 2). The samples built for the studies ranged between 12 [56] and 5129 [46] child duration of the interventions ranged from 90 min [46] to 2-year weekly lessons nine studies were explicitly anchored in a theoretical framework [43][44][45]47,49,50,5 Intervention methods were assessed by measuring the effects of different pedago environmental teaching variables: the types of pedagogy (linear pedagogy vs. n pedagogy [43], playful pedagogy [44]; the depth of the swimming pool [45,52] quency [49] and amount [47,50,55] of swimming sessions, the use of in-school inte [46,48,51,53,56] and the use of information technology [54]. Over the 21 studies e only 5 used a control group to strengthen the evidence analysis [47,48,50,53,55].…”

“…Over the 21 studies explored, only 5 used a control group to strengthen the evidence analysis [47,48,50,53,55]. The methodological strategies to conduct the designs included six studies using validated motor tests [43][44][45]47,49,52], two studies using unvalidated motor tests [50,55], one study using validated questionnaires [43], six studies using questionnaires created specifically for the study [46,48,51,53,55,56], and one study using video analysis [54].…”

“…The duration of the programs is variable: single campaigns [58] up to a 6-week campaign [60], instructions or feedback about children during their swimming teaching ranging from 10 weeks of teaching [62] to 8 months of teaching [22], and training ranging from 20 min [59] to 1 h [61]. Five studies were explicitly anchored in a theoretical framework [43,[58][59][60][61]. Intervention methods were assessed by measuring effects of different communicational and pedagogical variables: drowning prevention campaign [58], presence during the children swimming lessons [22,43], effect of close-call drowning [57], receiving feedback about children improvement [57], parental self-instructional programs [59], and parental water safety programs [60][61][62].…”

“…Five studies were explicitly anchored in a theoretical framework [43,[58][59][60][61]. Intervention methods were assessed by measuring effects of different communicational and pedagogical variables: drowning prevention campaign [58], presence during the children swimming lessons [22,43], effect of close-call drowning [57], receiving feedback about children improvement [57], parental self-instructional programs [59], and parental water safety programs [60][61][62].…”