.

In 1984 I discovered this Report which I have safely kept all these years making comparisons, observing development and do agree with it.

CONDENSATION OF THE RESEARCH REPORT OF THE "LONGITUDINAL SECTION STUDY ABOUT THE EFFECT OF EARLY MOTOR STIMULATION ON THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHILD FROM THE 4TH to 6th YEAR OF LIFE"

• Origin of hypothesis
• Pre-examination
• Random sample selection
• Duration
• Training program of the individual partial samples
• Examination program
• Evaluation of available data
• Results
• Discussion
  

Origin of hypothesis

In 1968 Research into the Swim Behaviour of Infants, of which the results had been partially documented (DIE/BRESGES 1973, BRESGES 1973), BEGAN AT THE Deutsche Sporthochschule Koln (German Sports Academy in Cologne).

These releases referred at first to the findings in support of Developmental Readiness for Swimming according to the Studies by MUMFORD (1897), WATSON (1939), McGRAW (1939) and MAYERHOFER (1952). Contrary to this earlier Research, DIEM/BRESGES not only looked at the indicators of Maturity Dependent Functions, but attempted to influence the Infants ability to learn to swim through specific exercises and assistance.

Aside from the Study of the Effect of this Early Stimulation on Swim Behaviour of Infants, the question about its influence on the Total Development of the children arose.

Since 1971 this question had been systematically pursued. In the framework of an Experiment, a comparison took place between children who, from their 3rd month of life, had been exposed to the STIMULUS of SWIMMING and those who’s STIMULATION began with their 28th month of life. The Experiment encompassed the GRASP OF READINESS for SWIMMING, the GENERAL MOTOR FITNESS, the MENTAL LEVEL of DEVELOPMENT as well as the PARENTAL BEHAVIOUR during SWIMMING.

At the time of the Experiment only Subjective Observations of the Researchers and the Parents of the Studied Children could be cited.

LATER the “SWIM CHILDREN” distinguished themselves over their peers through BETTER ABILITY TO ADAPT TO NEW SITUATIONS, GREATER SELF CONFIDENCE, AND MORE INDEPENDENCE. They felt MORE CAPABLE TO MEET NEW CHALLENGES. 1
Observations during Gymnastics in which “SWIM CHILDREN” as well as “non SWIM CHILDREN” participated, lead to the statement:

“SWIM CHILDREN” are in contrast to children without EARLY STIMULATION, more STRONG WILLED , and INDEPENDENT in their DECISIONS……. They move about more spontaneously, more FEARLESSLY, and with MORE CERTAINTY. They display, in general, greater MOTOR ACTIVITY. They are also SUPERIOR IN THEIR PHYSICAL CONDITION to the non SWIMMERS. They MASTER NEW SITUATIONS MORE QUICKLY and INDEPENDENTLY. 2

1 DIEM, L : Work paper dated 6/16/1975
2 GERHARDUS, H : Work paper dated January 1975

Out of this multiplicity of the suspected connections between MOTOR STIMULATION and its effects make it necessary to look at the question multi-dimensionally.

The Study conducted by us was to provide objective data to answer the question if and in which form “effects of early motor stimulation have an influence on the total development of the child between the 4th and 6th year of life”.

In order to do justice to the multi-dimensional question, the necessity for a Longitudinal Section Study arose i.e. the necessity for a controlled follow-up of the developmental process and the variables which possibly influence them over a period of several years.
This kind of examination is always called for if on one hand one wants to discover something about the processes of change of each individual from one point in time to another and if on the other hand wants to compare each other the individual Random Samples on exact, pre-determined points in time (for example: in view of the indicator of certain influences caused by stimulation).
In this particular Study the important thing was to grasp a broad spectrum of the Psychological Mode of Experience and Behaviour.

Pre-examination

The Pre-Examination, which served mainly to check Questionnaires and Examination Methodology, were started in March 1975.

Random sample selection

Approximately 300 Parents living in the Cologne area were then contacted, of which 80% agreed in principle to participate in this Study.
To begin, the Parents were provided with a questionnaire which made it possible for us to group the Random Samples. Thus credence was given to the comparability of our individual Random Samples regarding the child’s sex, order of birth, age, residence, size of household, financial situation, etc.

Out of the 240 original responses we were able to select 70 “Study Twins” (children who, according to the above criteria, matched, yet were assigned to a different Sample Group), so that we arrived at the total number of 189 examined children (ages 2;3 to 4;0 : 87 boys and 102 girls).

Duration

Since the number of children dropped from 189 to 165 over the course of three Examination Phases (in internationally known Longitudinal Section Examinations a certain reduction in Study participants is quite common), this Report is based on the results of the 495 children and mothers who were interviewed 3 times between November 1975 and June 1977.

During the two years of observation, the Motor (kinetic) Program was carried out weekly in one-hour Training Sessions. The children were always accompanied by either Mother or Father. Twice a year Controlled Observations and/or Surveys were conducted on every child so that Development Curves of Motor Ability could be charted.

Training program of the individual partial samples

The most important form of Motor Stimulation was the stimulus SWIMMING. It seemed important to us to open to the child the water as a place for movement, a challenge to movement and a playground with its manifold possibilities for Experience and Behaviour. To this stimulus SWIMMING was added a KINETIC LEARNING PROGRAM as a further possible stimulant.
This did not in the more narrow sense of the term consist of Programmed Instructions, but was purposely directed “to make available to the child situations open to Learning in which he could unfold CREATIVITY and GAIN CONFIDENCE IN MOVEMENT….” 3

3 DIEM, L. / GERHARDUS, H. 1973

In line with the hypothesis various forms of Motor Stimulation were selected in which the largely comparable Partial Samples were exposed to the following -

PARTIAL SAMPLE 1:	Consisted of children who were allowed to participate in INFANT SWIMMING from the 3rd month on.
PARTIAL SAMPLE 2:	Was made up of some of those EARLY SWIMMERS who from 3;6 years on were additionally stimulated through a KINETIC LEARNING PROGRAM.
PARTIAL SAMPLE 3:	Consisted of those children who at 2;4 years started their SWIM TRAINING.
PARTIAL SAMPLE 4:	Encompassed, like PARTIAL SAMPLE 2, EARLY SWIMMERS with an additional KINETIC LEARNING PROGRAM (both groups 2 and 4 could not for methodical reasons be included in the evaluation).
PARTIAL SAMPLE 5:	Consisted of those children who received instructions in GYMNASTICS and EXERCISES at 3;6 years of age. The very carefully put together
PARTIAL SAMPLE 6:	Served as Control Group which received NO STIMULATION whatsoever.

At the outset of the Examination of the just mentioned Individual Groups we determined the Kinetic Level of Development whereby categories such as BALANCING, SPRINTING, DASHING, BROAD JUMPING, GAMES OF DEXTERITY, TRAMPOLINE JUMPING etc were taken into consideration (the evaluation was done according to tested and statistically ascertained evaluation criteria).

The PRIMARY CONCLUSION of the Examination can be anticipated:

In MOTOR STIMULATED children the PSYCHO-PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT EVOLVES IN MANY AREAS DIFFERENTLY (mostly at an accelerated pace) from that of NON-STIMULATED children.
This is curious because so far, for whatever reason, Research in Psychological Development has hardly touched the different Courses of Development at distinct phases of childhood (comparison between single individuals).
So far it has only been documented that each individual from early childhood through late adulthood experiences sometimes very rapid, at other times rather slowed down development. According to modern Developmental Psychologists, individuals differ slightly during the course of these Developmental Phases.
The results of this Study are reflected in the different areas as follows:

SOCIAL SPHERE

• It could be proven that MOTOR STIMULATED CHILDREN SHOWED GREATER READINES FOR SOCIAL CONTACT, BETTER ABILITY TO BE INTEGRATED INTO THE PEER GROUP, MORE WILLINGNESS TO VISIT OTHER CHILDREN AWAY FROM HOME AND PLAY OUTDOORS, AND WERE MORE ABLE TO TOLERATE AND REACT CALMLY TO DISAPPOINTMENTS INFLICTED BY CHILDREN IN THE PEER GROUP THAN THE CHILDREN WHO HAD NOT BEEN MOTOR STIMULATED.
  
• These children who had been able to participate in BABY SWIMMING during their FIRST YEAR OF LIFE evidenced even during our First Interview a MORE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT in their SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (they were then in their 4th year of life).

PERSONALITY

• The DEVELOPMENT of the child’s PERSONALITY could be documented mainly in the areas of SELF-RELIANCE (vs. dependence, fear), the PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION as well as the DIFFERENTIATION, ADAPTATION (to task); also STIMULATION (because of the task) and MOTIVATION.
  
• In children of each group an INCREASING DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENCE became evident, a GENERAL BROADENING OF THE ENVIRONMENT; however, INCREASED SELF-RELIANCE and INDEPENDENCE were especially brought out in children who had experienced MOTOR STIMULATION.
  Interestingly enough the Initial Results were HIGHEST WITH THE EARLY SWIMMERS even during the First Interview.
  
• The data allows for certain supplements in regard to the changes DEPENDENCE and/or FEARFULNESS.
  (Here to it is becoming evident that MOTOR STIMULATED children quite obviously are able to handle CONFRONTATIONS with NEW and STRANGE SITUATIONS relatively BETTER and more EFFORTLESSLY, without a so plainly effective (fearful) component, than the children of the Control Group (without MOTOR STIMULATION).
  
• The same trend was evident in the data regarding the child’s CONTROL OF HIS OWN BEHAVIOUR pertaining to his ABILITY TO DIFFERENTIATE, to ADAPT (to a task), and to a lesser degree, to those of STIMULATION and MOTIVATION.
  
• The PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION too rose in all children during the Observed Developmental Period; however, in GROUPS 3 and 5 the effects were especially noticeable.

The EARLY SWIMMERS (PARTIAL SAMPLE 1) showed a rise in PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION throughout the entire Examination Period.

IN A GENERALISED SUMMARY all these Results regarding PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT it must be pointed out that the STIMULATION conditions as experienced by GROUPS 3 and 1 (stimulation through SWIMMING lessons and, at a lesser extent, the Kinetic Learning Program from age 3;6 years) seem to have positive effects on the here stated PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS.

It was ascertained at this point also that in PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT – looked at simply according to their extent – the MOTOR STIMULATED PARTIAL SAMPLE surpassed the CONTROL GROUP.

The REACTION TIME for example generally rose distinctly in all children during the Developmental period included by us; the effects of MOTOR STIMULATION through SWIMMING and/or the KINETIC LEARNING PROGRAMME however were additionally effective.

In regard to the development of CONCENTRATION ABILITY it can be noted that objectively observed, the improvements in children who have been STIMULATED through SWIMMING and GYMNASTICS, again surpassed the CONCENTRATION INTENSIFICATION of children belonging to the Control Group. Here it seems the STIMULATION through SWIMMING or GYMNASTICS instruction also influences the PRECISION in this TEST OF CONCENTRATION in a positive way.

To begin with, it can be noted that relative to the DEVELOPMENT of INTELLECTUAL CAPABILITIES, the EARLY SWIMMERS in NEARLY ALL sub-tests of the INTELLIGENCE TESTS used by us (Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intelligence – WPPSI – and Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest fur Kinder – HAWIK) exhibited high I.Q. at the start of the two year Examination Period than the children who were STIMULATED at a later age, or from the CONTROL GROUP.

The children from PARTIAL SAMPLE 1 (EARLY SWIMMERS) still SURPASSED the CONTROL GROUP in the Third Study Phase, however, less often supported statistically. In the MOTOR STIMULATED Groups 3 and 5 significant IMPROVEMENTS IN INTELLIGENCE PERFORMANCE COMMENCED WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Looking at the rates of increase in both of these Groups, it becomes evident that each exhibited very distinct improvements; expressed in absolute values, the rate of increase surpasses the analogical values of the Control Group in most cases (PARTIAL SAMPLE 6).

In view of the KINETIC ABILITIES and CAPABILITIES, the MOTOR STIMULATED children – and here especially GROUP 1 (stimulation through EARLY SWIMMING).

Examination program

Besides thorough questioning of the Mother about the CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT, the RESEARCH PROGRAM consisted of DEVELOPMENTAL TESTS, CAPABILITY and PERFORMANCE TESTS, PROCEDURES TO VERIFY ATHLETIC MOTOR CAPABILITIES as well as SOCIAL INTERACTION and PERSONALITY EVALUATION.
Not only the CHILDREN but also the PARENTS themselves were included in the Research. Consciousness Raising about Parental Child rearing was stressed with all Fathers and Mothers.
Above and beyond that, the Mothers provided other insights (for example, GOALS IN CHILD REARING, the MOTHER’S CONCEPT OF HER ROLE AND HER CONTENTMENT with it, and MORE) and the Mother-Child interaction could be observed and evaluated in concrete situations. These Tests were conducted THREE TIMES by the SAME METHOD and the SAME PROJECT LEADERS whenever possible.

Evaluation of available data

Collectively the repeated Tests produced extensive data which was evaluated following proper procedure and calculated statistically.
In order to enable independent Judges to do Intensive Behaviour Observation of the children even after the Psychological and Kinetic Testing, more than 70 Video Tapes were recorded.
Per child there are 39 punch cards available with almost 2 000 characteristics each, stemming from those three Examination Sessions.

Results

Here only some of the highlights, which are part of a very Comprehensive Palette of CONCLUSIONS shall be emphasized.
The children’s most important Developmental Processes in the SOCIAL SPHERE, PERSONALITY, as well as CAPABILITIES and PERFORMANCE (in comparing the Samples with one another) shall be stated briefly. Followed striking differences in the QUALITY OF MOVEMENT, ACCURACY OF MOVEMENT, BALANCING ABILITY and ABILITY TO REACT in comparison with the CONTROL GROUP.
Generally it can be said that because of EARLY SWIMMING, to a lesser degree also because of the Kinetic Learning Program – QUALITATIVE IMPROVEMENTS in the abovementioned areas can be noted especially.

Discussion

The Study has shown that EARLY MOTOR STIMULATION has an effect on the TOTAL DEVELOPMENT of the CHILD between the 4th and 6th year of life. Certainly the question arises to what extent effects of that nature can be interpreted solely in the sense of a CAUSE-AND-EFFECT relation.

It appears quite plausible to suspect more numerous and integrating factors of responsibility in Stimulating the child’s DEVELOPMENT through SPORTS, which can be looked for in the situative STIMULATION CONDITIONS, the therefore altered interactions between the child and parents, as well as a changed INNER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSIMILATION PROCESS in the child himself.
It can be presumed that MOTOR STIMULATION in early childhood takes hold in a AREA OF FUNCTIONING which is available to the child relatively well developed, or rather, in which he can EXPERIENCE HIS COMPETENCE at a relatively young age.
The encouragement of such activities naturally supports the development of AUTONOMY (independence, among others), a “Entwicklungsaufgabe” (developmental task), the solution of which ERIKSON 1967 puts between the ages of 2 and 4 years.

At the same time the MOTOR STIMULATION seems to provoke and INTERACTION between parents and children, in which parents concede even urge upon the CHILD INDEPENDENCE (be it Kinetic Behaviour, Social Conduct with peers, Overcoming of his own Fears, aligning his own behaviour with the reaching of Farther-reaching Goals, etc).

At the same time the child is in a position to attribute his growing autonomy to his own exertion and his own proficiency when mastering a given task.

COLLECTIVELY, THE MOTOR STIMULATION offers a framework for the kind of PARENTAL BEHAVIOUR which ENCOURAGES striving for INDEPENDENCE on the child’s part, which allows for CREDITING HIS SUCCESS to his OWN PROFICIENCY and, at the same time, has in store enough “reinforcement and reward” for parents and children.

AMEN (A long yet interesting read)