Document Type : Original Article
Author
Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University), Moscow, Russia Vyatka State University, Kirov, Russia Vyatka State Agrotechnological University, Kirov, Russia
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The background is to determine the influence of speed and strength training of
schoolchildren aged 13–14 on the indicators of the ability of children with different nervous system
strength to switch attention.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross‑sectional study conducted on sixty schoolchildren
in a class 7, located in the city of Kirov, in Russia. The data were collected using an independent
pedagogical experiment. Physical education at the school was held two times a week for 40 min
each lesson. Children from class 7a (20 people) were engaged in the usual program and formed a
control group. Children from class 7b (20 people) formed an experimental group, they performed an
additional set of physical exercises at each lesson, aimed at developing speed and strength abilities.
The strength of the nervous system was determined by tapping test, and the indicators of switching the
attention of schoolchildren were determined by the test «Method of Numbers». T‑student was used.
RESULTS: After the pedagogical experiment, the indicators of attention switching in the control
group improved. In children with a strong nervous system, the indicator was higher by 7%, and in
children with a weak nervous system, the indicators increased from 33.7 ± 3.1 s to 32.0 ± 2.9 s. At
the same time, in the experimental group, in both subgroups, the indicators increased significantly.
Children with a strong nervous system improved performance by 14%, and children with a weak
nervous system improved performance from 34.4 ± 3.9 s to 29.2 ± 3.3 s.
CONCLUSION: The indicators of switching the attention of children aged 13–14 years will improve
if they perform physical exercises at each physical culture lesson at school, which are aimed at
developing speed and strength abilities. The components of the load for the development of abilities
should be differentiated taking into account the strength of the schoolchildren nervous system.
Keywords
Epidemiologic assessment of self‑concept and academic
self‑efficacy in Iranian High School Students: Multilevel analysis.
J Edu Health Promot 2020;9:315.
2. Jha N, Bhadoria AS, Bahurupi Y, Gawande K, Jain B, Chaturvedi J,
et al. Psychosocial and stress‑related risk factors for abnormal
menstrual cycle pattern among adolescent girls: A case‑control
study. J Educ Health Promot 2020;9:313.
3. Khzami SE, Razouki A, Selmaoui S, Agorram D. Determinants
of well‑being of middle‑school students in Moroccan urban and
rural areas: A comparative study. J Edu Health Promot 2020;9:271.
4. Shuba LV. Modern approach to implementation of health related
technology for primary school children. Pedagogics, psychology,
medical‑biological problems of physical training and sports.
Pedagogics, psychology, medical‑biological problems of physical
training and sports 2016;20:66‑71.
5. Donnelly J, Hillman C, Castelli D, EtnierJ, Lee S, Tomporowski P,
et al. Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic
achievement in children: A systematic review. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2016;48:1197‑222.
6. De Giorgio A, Kuvacic G, Milic M, Padulo J. The brain and
movement: How physical activity affects the brain. Montenegrin
J Sports Sci Med 2018;7:63‑8.
7. Bas H, Mark DS. Sensitive periods to train general motor abilities
in children and adolescents: Do they exist? A critical appraisal.
Strength Cond J 2020;42:7‑14.
8. Solum M, Lorås H, Pedersen AV. A golden age for motor skill
learning? Learning of an unfamiliar motor task in 10‑year‑olds,
Young adults, and adults, when starting from similar baselines.
Front Psychol 2020;11:538.
9. Ford P, De Ste Croix M, Lloyd R, Meyers R, Moosavi M, Oliver J,
et al. The long‑term athlete development model: Physiological
evidence and application. J Sports Sci 2011;29:389‑402.
10. Georgiy P. The development of speed‑power qualities of
schoolchildren with different typologies applying coordination
training. Pedagogics Psychol Med Biol Probl Phys Train Sports
2019;23:43‑6.
11. Kainov AN, Kuryerova GI. Working Programs. Physical Culture.
Grades 1‑11. Comprehensive Program of Physical Education of
Schoolchildren. Teacher; 2019. p. 169.
12. Gavin C, Tony P, Christine J, Starla MC. Differentiating Instruction
in Physical Education: Personalization of Learning. J Phys Educ
Recreat Dance 2017;88:44‑50.
13. van Munster MA, Lieberman LJ, Grenier MA. Universal design
for learning and differentiated instruction in physical education.
Adapt Phys Activ Q 2019;36:359‑77.
14. Jarvis JM, Pill SA, Noble AG. Differentiated pedagogy to address
learner diversity in secondary physical education. J Phys Educ
Recreat Dance 2017;88:46‑54.
15. Bidzan‑Bluma I, Lipowska M. Physical activity and cognitive
functioning of children: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res
Public Health 2018;15:800.
16. Pietsch S, Böttcher C, Jansen P. Cognitive motor coordination
training improves mental rotation performance in primary
school‑aged children. Mind Brain Educ 2017;11:176‑80.
17. Gerber M, Kalak N, Lemola S, Clough PJ, Pühse U, Elliot S, et al.
Adolescents’ exercise and physical activity are associated with
mental toughness. Mental Health Phys Act 2012;5:35‑42.
18. Book J, Shirn C. Almanac of psychological tests. Moscow: KSP;
1997. p. 320.
19. Ruiz‑Ariza A, Grao‑Cruces A, Marques De Loureiro NE,
Martinez‑Lopez EJ. Influence of physical fitness on cognitive and
academic performance in adolescents: A systematic review from
2005–2015. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2016;10:108‑33.
20. Chaddock‑Heyman L, Hillman CH, Cohen NJ, Kramer AF. The
importance of physical activity and aerobic fitness for cognitive
control and memory in children. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev
2014;79:25‑50.
)