Liu Bei, Yan Yiping, Jia Jingjing, Liu Yang
School of Physical Education, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, 200438, China.
Shanghai Research Center for Physical Fitness and Health of Children and Adolescents, Shanghai, 200438, China.
BMC Public Health. 2025 Apr 14;25(1):1399. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-22398-9.
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.
Determine the effectiveness of active play and compare it with skill-oriented physical education on fundamental movement skills.
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.
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).
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.
主动游戏强调身体活动的乐趣，成本低且不受限制。相比之下，以技能为导向的体育教育作为一种主流的身体活动干预方式，更为形式化。然而，这些干预措施对学龄前儿童基本运动技能的比较效果仍是一个有争议的话题。
确定主动游戏的有效性，并将其与以技能为导向的体育教育在基本运动技能方面进行比较。
我们检索了2004年1月至2024年3月的四个数据库（MEDLINE、ERIC、科学网和SPORTDiscus）。纳入的研究评估了2至6岁儿童的基本运动技能，主动游戏干预持续时间≥4周。在荟萃分析中，通过随机效应模型（加权标准化均值差）计算主动游戏和以技能为导向的体育教育对总基本运动技能、 locomotor技能、物体控制和平衡的影响。
本系统评价纳入了23项研究，涉及2201名学龄前儿童，其中15项符合荟萃分析的条件。荟萃分析表明，与以技能为导向的体育教育相比，主动游戏在总基本运动技能、 locomotor技能、物体控制、平衡方面的效果无显著差异（p>0.05）。亚组分析表明，在总基本运动技能和 locomotor技能方面，以技能为导向的体育教育略优于非结构化主动游戏（标准化均值差=-1.0172，95%置信区间-1.6748-0.3595，p=0.0073；标准化均值差=-1.6956，95%置信区间-3.3511-0.0401，p=0.0471）。
结构化主动游戏和以技能为导向的体育教育在提高基本运动技能方面同样有效。然而，非结构化主动游戏效果较差。在资源有限的教育环境中，结构化主动游戏可作为部分以技能为导向的体育教育课程的可行补充。
