This document discusses two approaches to assessing fundamental motor skills - the whole body approach and component approach. The whole body approach examines all body parts together in stages of development, while the component approach breaks skills down into individual body parts that may develop at different rates. The author analyzes videos of children performing jumping and catching skills and predicts their development level using both approaches. Their predictions were accurate based on the videos. Both approaches are useful for analyzing motor skill development, but the component approach may be more beneficial as it acknowledges skills can mature separately.

1. Gabriel Wigington
KINE 3500
Dr. Thomas
Fundamental Motor Skill Assessment
In analyzing and evaluating motor skill function there are two
basic approaches which are used. One of them is whole body and the
other is the component approach. The whole body approach describes
all positions of the different body components in one step instead of
breaking them down into three steps like the component method does.
The whole body approach consists of Initial, Elementary, and Mature
stages. The Component approach involves different steps of progression
from least to most proficient in the body areas of arms, legs, and torso.
These steps help us identify how an individual is making the transition
from inefficient to most proficient movement patterns as a progression.
I expect based upon the factors of age, size, skill, and gender for the boy
practicing the skill of jumping in exercise #6 to be at the elementary
stage of development while I expect the young girl in exercise#4 to be in
step 2 of leg action and step 3 of arm action. I think that a young male
would be more proficient at most skills at this young age in childhood
while the body is still developing and maturing. The boy in example #6
also has a larger body frame than the girl does in example #4. I expect
the girl in exercise #11 to be at step 4 of proficiency in arm action, step 3
in hand action, and step 2 of body action in catching the ball. I expect
the little girl in example #4 to be in step 1 of all three body components:
Arm, hand, and body action. The girl in exercise#11 seems to be older
in age and has a larger body size even though they are the same gender,
which is why I predict her to be more proficient in her progressions of
movement patterns. An example of whole-body developmental

2. sequence of movement was proposed in 1938 by Wild. Wickstrom, a
motor development researcher, had studied much of his work. The
development in overhand throwing in children from ages 2-7 is divided
into four stages. Stage one involves elbow flexion and extension with
no change in foot position. In stage two there is no foot movement, but
some transverse trunk rotation along with the elbow flexion and
extension. In stage three there is typically a step on same-side leg along
with arm preparatory movement straight backward. Stage four usually
occurs in children ages 6 ½. This most proficient movement pattern
includes a forward step with the opposite side foot, a downward arm
backswing, trunk rotation, horizontal adduction of upper arm, and elbow
extension. The advantage of this approach is that observers can know
what movements to look for and also what developmental changes to
expect next. Roberton and Halverson studied extensively the
“development of overarm throwing longitudinally and cross-sectionally
with six different body components such as the humerus, forearm, trunk,
backswing, stepping, and stride actions.” Since many different basic
movements are important to many sports, Halverson and Roberton used
the component approach model to assess movements like the tennis
serve which is similar to the overarm throw. The advantage of this
model is that it can be translated to the specific sport skill and also be
broken down into numerous body components. However, the
disadvantage is that it does not point out all factors and sub disciplines
that need to be considered during analysis. Both approaches are
effective in elementary school physical education settings. The latest
research in motor development is catering towards translating basic
motor skill to a specific sport and researchers are also focused on how to
improve skill in older adults as the aging process progresses (Branta,
Seefeldt, and Haubenstricker, 1982).

3. In example #6 of the skill of jumping I used the whole body
approach to assess the proficiency of the skill. The child in this video
was a young boy approximately 8-9 years old and is in the elementary
stage of development. I noticed characteristics in the video of his arms
swinging backward as takeoff occurs, but did not appear to be winging
out to the sides. At takeoff, his arms extended forward but not
exceeding the height of the head. Takeoff angle was greater than 45
degrees and his center of gravity although not completely parallel is near
base of support. With all these characteristics I place him in stage
elementary of his development in jumping. My coaching cues for him
are to improve full extension of arms above the head at takeoff, hip and
knee extension, and thrust forward legs so thigh is parallel to surface at
landing. In example#4, the individual is a young girl who does not have
much muscular development which is a rate limiter. She is taller than
the boy in example#6 though. Young girls tend to perform better than
young boys at times because of earlier time of puberty. She is at step 2
of leg action because I see her extending the knee first before the heel
comes off the ground. This causes her jump to be too vertical and not
achieve enough horizontal distance. She is at step 3 on arm action
development because her arms extend and then flex after takeoff. Arm
swing does not reach overhead position. My cues for her are to get full
arm extension overhead, heels leave ground before knee extends to
avoid tipping forward at takeoff, and extend arms back when legs are
flexed. Next, the young girl in exercise#11 is performing the skill of
catching. She appears average height for her age with a slender
physique. Using the component approach to critique her development I
would say she is at the most proficient step 4 because she extends her
arms to meet the ball with the hands and catches the object in the hands
instead of letting it hit the chest. In the component hand action she
performs well and arrives at step 3 of proficiency. She adjusts her hands

4. to the flight and size of the ball with little fingers close to one another
preparing to catch the object. In the body action component, she is in
step 2 in the developmental sequence because there is an awkward
adjustment while the feet do not move much toward the ball. The arms
and trunk move, but head remains erect and an attempt to remain
balanced seems to prevent proper form. My cues for her are to move her
feet toward the flight of the ball along with trunk and arms in order to
have all body component function optimally for catching. In example
#4 I see a very little girl practicing the catching skill. She appears
several years younger than the girl in exercise #11. She appears small in
stature and around age 3-6. Using the component approach to assess
development in catching, this individual is currently at step 1 of arm
action since there is little response to adapt to ball’s flight and the ball is
trapped against the chest also. Hand action is at step 1 of proficiency
also because the palm of her hands are facing upward and not toward
each other. The component of body action is at step 1 since there is no
visible body adjustment to move towards the object being thrown. The
feet, trunk, and arms appear to be stagnant while allowing the ball to
make contact with the body without moving in the ball’s direction. This
is the least proficient of all the movements I observed. I recommend for
her to attempt to improve gradually one step at a time becoming more
proficient each time the skill is practiced. My cues are to extend arms
forward and meet the object with your hands, bring fingers closer
together with palms facing inward, and move foot and trunk towards the
object as it is released. Seeing as how there are two different theoretical
methods to assessing motor development skill, it’s important to
understand the differences in order to decide which approach is best for
what we hope to accomplish in a certain setting. The whole body
approach which is associated with Seefeldt and Haubenstricker, is global
in the fact that all body movements are described by stage. “All body

5. components progress together as they move toward better efficiency in a
skill. People who have researched this method show there are
descriptors for each body part on each stage of learning (Seefeldt,
Haubenstricker, 1982).” In contrast, “Roberton gets credit for
developing the component theory in 1977 which describes how
components in the body do develop at different rates and his belief is
that they should be critiqued separate from each other (Roberton,
1977).” Not only does Roberton’s approach show that different
components develop at different times, but also that within a single body
component there can be differences in physiological development as
well.
In looking at whether my predictions of the outcomes in the skills
of jumping and catching line up what I saw, I was correct in predicting
the outcomes. Using the whole body approach method, I accurately
predicted the elementary stage of development for the young boy
practicing the skill of jumping. The component approach seems to be
most beneficial for most purposes of analyzing functional daily skills
because it realizes that our human bodies were created to mature at
different progressions over our lifespan. Researching and taking a look
at what is happening in our body along with learning why is it happening
is what motor development essentially is about. We can’t know how to
improve until we learn how parts function and the complicated processes
that go on everyday inside of us. The research shows that both
approaches have valid points and definitely have importance in
evaluation of motor skill today! There will always be different schools
of thought and preference based on background of researchers in the
field. It shows that a person can receive solid instruction from a teacher
or coach regardless of which method is presented. The goal is to
improve the functionality for everyday life in humans. When talking
about developmental issues related to skills, many variables come into

6. play such as ball size, trajectory, speed, shape, gender, age, and skill
level of the individual. It is more challenging to identify the
developmental sequences for catching than it is for the majority of
locomotor or ballistic skills due to these specific conditions involved
(Lifespan Motor Development, Haywood, Getchell, 2009). In the text,
the research says that with catching older children over 8 years of age
are better at hand and body positions towards the oncoming ball thrown
at them. This gives evidence to why the girl in catching example #11
was successful in being more proficient than the younger girl was at this
particular skill. However, the text reveals that the percentage of
successfully adjusting to the object decreases when the ball is not thrown
directly to them and they must adjust hands to their side.
In a study done in the journal of Medicine and Science in sport and
exercise, they were attempting to find out whether there is a relationship
between being involved in organized or non-organized physical activity
and fundamental motor skills among children and adolescents. In the
study, they used children between the ages of 13-15 and assessed these
children performing skills of running, jumping, over hand throw,
catching, kicking, and forehand striking. Students self-reported the time,
duration, and frequency of their participation in organized and non-
organized physical activity during a typical week. The results show us
that fundamental movement skills did significantly influence time that
the children spent engaged with organized physical activity throughout
their week, but no such correlation exist for unorganized activity. It was
a stronger predictor for boys than girls though (Medicine and Science of
sport and exercise, 2001). This particular research tells us that we can
expect an increase in the amount of time young people spend engaged
with physical activity and a greater desire to live an active lifestyle if we
teach them proper fundamental motor skill starting at a young age.
There definitely is an important interaction among the development of

7. motor skill, physical fitness engagement, and the patterns of activity in
the lives of children and adolescents of today. As we continue to teach
the next generations how vital to your overall quality of life that regular
physical activity is, and encourage kids today, I believe we will see a
dramatic shift in the behaviors and relationships for the better as time
moves forward.
To sum up, we have observed fundamental motor skills in young
boys and girls while using two different approaches to critique their
movements. The whole body approach is based on looking at the
various parts of body as they develop through stages while the
component approach theorists believe that our human body matures at
different times throughout the development process. How we give
honest feedback and correction to an individual who is trying to improve
their skills and elevate to higher level of performance is crucial. This is
very important for a person desiring to be a coach on any level. Both of
these methods allow for an honest assessment whether it be a collegiate
athlete or a young child just learning to walk or run. These basic
functions are important because we use them as our body ages
throughout the life span. If biomechanics are not proper, then structural
problems could take place. One thing is for certain, we as human beings
were definitely created to move!

8. WORKS CITED
A.D. Okely, M.L. Booth, J.W. Patterson. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 2001: Volume 33, Issue: 11, pages: 1899-1904. “Relationship of
Physical Activity to fundamental movement Skills among adolescents.”
www. Fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2002/achper/Hands2.pdf
Haywood, K, Getchell, N. 5th edition. (2009.) Life Span Motor Development, pgs.
125-129, 177-180.