Primary school children improved execution of movement features but showed no improvement in javelin throwing distance across all conditions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Across all three groups, movement-feature execution improved significantly from pre- to post-test (ηp2 = 0.18). → Christian Leukel 2025 q3 i? Throwing distance did not improve significantly from pre- to post-test in any condition. → Christian Leukel 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Christian Leukel 2025¶

Christian Leukel, Katharina Loibl. (2025). Problem-solving prior to instructional explanations when learning javelin throwing in primary school. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09700-9

q3 · i3 · causal · r1

Omnibus repeated measures ANOVA across I-PS, PS-I, and PS-I + P groups (N = 50 fourth-graders) showed significant TIME (ηp2 = 0.18) and GROUP (ηp2 = 0.14) effects on summed movement features, with no TIME x GROUP interaction. Figure 4 points to javelin-shoulder parallelism and arm positioning as features that improved in all groups.

"For movement features, the repeated measures ANOV A yielded a significant effect for TIME (F(1,47) = 10.34, p =.002, η p 2 = 0.18) and for GROUP (F(2,47) = 3.69, p =.03, ηp 2 = 0.14), but not for TIME X GROUP (F(2,47) = 0.008, p =.99, η p 2 < 0.001)."

Christian Leukel 2025 (2)¶

Christian Leukel, Katharina Loibl. (2025). Problem-solving prior to instructional explanations when learning javelin throwing in primary school. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09700-9

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Omnibus repeated measures ANCOVA across all three conditions found no significant TIME effect on javelin throwing distance; a Bayesian ANCOVA gave moderate evidence for the null (BF01 = 5).

"For throwing distance, the repeated measures ANCOV A (with ball shooting distance as covariate) yielded no significant effect for TIME (F(1,46) = 0.28, p =.60, ηp 2 < 0.01), no significant effect for GROUP (F(2,46) = 1.36, p =.27, ηp 2 = 0.06), and no significant interaction for TIME x GROUP (F(2,46) = 0.37, p =.69, ηp 2 = 0.01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Declarative knowledge of movement features was not significantly related to actual improvements in physical execution of those features
• Adding a practice phase after instruction (PS-I + P) did not improve javelin throwing performance over PS-I alone
• In primary school children learning javelin throwing, PS-I did not outperform I-PS on throwing distance or movement-feature execution
• PS-I effects did not replicate in all domains: null sequence effects in Bayesian reasoning, javelin throwing, and inquiry-skill sequencing
• Movement-feature performance predicted javelin throwing distance, with the bracing step contributing most — related
• Working memory capacity did not moderate learning gains in PS-I and I-PS, but digit recall correlated with declarative knowledge of the features — related
• The three groups did not differ significantly in prior knowledge, working memory capacity, spatial ability, learning motivation, or baseline eye-movement measures — related