Background: Motor learning is central to domains such as sports and rehabilitation; however, often terminologies are insufficiently uniform to allow effective sharing of experience or translation of knowledge. A study using a Delphi technique was conducted to ascertain level of agreement between experts from different motor learning domains (i.e., therapists, coaches, researchers) with respect to definitions and descriptions of a fundamental conceptual distinction within motor learning, namely implicit and explicit motor learning. Methods: A Delphi technique was embedded in multiple rounds of a survey designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions of 49 international respondents with expertise related to motor learning. The survey was administered via an online survey program and accompanied by feedback after each round. Consensus was considered to be reached if $70% of the experts agreed on a topic. Results: Consensus was reached with respect to definitions of implicit and explicit motor learning, and seven common primary intervention strategies were identified in the context of implicit and explicit motor learning. Consensus was not reached with respect to whether the strategies promote implicit or explicit forms of learning. Discussion: The definitions and descriptions agreed upon may aid translation and transfer of knowledge between domains in the field of motor learning. Empirical and clinical research is required to confirm the accuracy of the definitions and to explore the feasibility of the strategies that were identified in research, everyday practice and education.
Background: Motor learning is central to domains such as sports and rehabilitation; however, often terminologies are insufficiently uniform to allow effective sharing of experience or translation of knowledge. A study using a Delphi technique was conducted to ascertain level of agreement between experts from different motor learning domains (i.e., therapists, coaches, researchers) with respect to definitions and descriptions of a fundamental conceptual distinction within motor learning, namely implicit and explicit motor learning. Methods: A Delphi technique was embedded in multiple rounds of a survey designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions of 49 international respondents with expertise related to motor learning. The survey was administered via an online survey program and accompanied by feedback after each round. Consensus was considered to be reached if $70% of the experts agreed on a topic. Results: Consensus was reached with respect to definitions of implicit and explicit motor learning, and seven common primary intervention strategies were identified in the context of implicit and explicit motor learning. Consensus was not reached with respect to whether the strategies promote implicit or explicit forms of learning. Discussion: The definitions and descriptions agreed upon may aid translation and transfer of knowledge between domains in the field of motor learning. Empirical and clinical research is required to confirm the accuracy of the definitions and to explore the feasibility of the strategies that were identified in research, everyday practice and education.
The closing of schools and sports clubs during theCOVID-19 lockdown raised questions about thepossible impact on children’s motor skilldevelopment. Therefore we compared motorcompetence development over a one-year periodamong four different cohorts of primary schoolchildren. A total of 992 children from 9 primaryschools participated in this study (age 5 – 7; 47,5%boys) and were assessed two times, in grade 3 (T1)and in grade 4 (T2). Children in control group 1 and lockdown group 1 were assessed a third time aftertwo years (T3). Motor competence was measuredusing the 4-Skills Test. The mixed factorial ANOVAwith post hoc tests shows no significant differencesin motor development over the study period betweenthe lockdown groups and control groups (p > 0.05),but does show a difference between the twolockdown groups from T1 to T2 (p = 0.008). Whilesocioeconomic status (SES) was a modifier, sex andmotor ability did not modify the effects of thelockdowns. Our data show that the COVID-19lockdowns in the Netherlands did not generallyaffect motor development of young children. Incontrast, many studies have confirmed clear effectsof the pandemic lockdowns on physicalactivity1,2,3. Our study highlights the complexity ofboth motor skill development and the factors relatedto the pandemic lockdowns. We therefore suggestthat children’s motor skill development should beclosely monitored in the upcoming years.Specifically, we should pay attention to individualdifferences since it is still possible that certainchildren are impacted by the pandemic lockdowns.Moreover, long-term effects might emerge in thefuture.References1. de Sá, C. dos S. C., Pombo, A., Luz, C.,Rodrigues, L. P., & Cordovil, R. (2021). Covid-19social isolation in brazil: effects on the physicalactivity routine of families with children. RevistaPaulista de Pediatria, 39, e2020159.2. Hurter, L., McNarry, M., Stratton, G., &Mackintosh, K. (2022). Back to school afterlockdown: The effect of COVID-19 restrictions onchildren’s device-based physical activity metrics.Journal of Sport and Health Science, 11(4), 530–536.3. Moore, S. A., Faulkner, G., Rhodes, R. E.,Brussoni, M., Chulak-Bozzer, T., Ferguson, L. J.,Mitra, R., O’Reilly, N., Spence, J. C., Vanderloo, L.M., & Tremblay, M. S. (2020). Impact of theCOVID-19 virus outbreak on movement and playbehaviours of Canadian children and youth: Anational survey. International Journal of BehavioralNutrition and Physical Activity, 17(1), 85.
