In primary school children learning javelin throwing, PS-I did not outperform I-PS on throwing distance or movement-feature execution¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? PS-I did not result in greater improvement of throwing distance compared to I-PS in primary school children. → Christian Leukel 2025
q3 i? PS-I did not result in greater gains in movement-feature execution compared to I-PS. → 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 · i? · causal · r1
Repeated measures ANCOVA (ball shooting distance as covariate) comparing PS-I and I-PS fourth-graders found no significant TIME x GROUP interaction for throwing distance (F(1,32) = 0.25, p =.62); Bayesian analysis gave "moderate evidence for the null-effect" (BF01 = 3).
"Contrary to hypothesis 1a, PS-I did not result in a greater improvement of throwing distance compared to I-PS. This outcome was further supported by a Bayesian repeated measure ANCOV A which provided moderate evidence for the null-effect"
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
Repeated measures ANOVA on movement features in PS-I vs I-PS showed a significant TIME effect (ηp2 = 0.15) but no TIME x GROUP interaction (p =.94); "Contrary to hypothesis 1b, PS-I did not result in greater performance gains compared to I-PS."
"For movement features, the repeated measures ANOV A yielded a significant effect for TIME ( F(1,33) = 6.0, p =.02, η p 2 = 0.15), but not for GROUP ( F(1,33) = 2.0, p =.17, ηp 2 = 0.06) and TIME X GROUP ( F(1,33) = 0.005, p =.94, ηp 2 < 0.001)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Declarative knowledge of movement features was not significantly related to actual improvements in physical execution of those features
- Primary school children improved execution of movement features but showed no improvement in javelin throwing distance across all conditions
- Adding a practice phase after instruction (PS-I + P) did not improve javelin throwing performance over PS-I alone — related
- PS-I effects did not replicate in all domains: null sequence effects in Bayesian reasoning, javelin throwing, and inquiry-skill sequencing — a broader claim this one bears on
- 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
ps-i-no-advantage-primary-motor-learning |
title |
In primary school children learning javelin throwing, PS-I did not outperform I-PS on throwing distance or movement-feature execution |
description |
In primary school children learning javelin throwing, PS-I did not outperform I-PS on throwing distance or movement-feature execution |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — christian-leukel-2025, christian-leukel-2025-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.