International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Gender Differences in the Level of Achievement of
Gymnastic and Acrobatic Skills
M.ª Alejandra Ávalos-Ramos and Lilyan Vega-Ramírez *
Department of General and Specific Didactics, Faculty of Education, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante,
Spain; sandra.avalos@ua.es
* Correspondence: lilyan.vega@ua.es; Tel.: +00-34-965903400-2099
Received: 19 August 2020; Accepted: 30 September 2020; Published: 2 October 2020
Abstract: Physical education should provide the opportunities to progressively integrate motor tasks
with different levels of complexity from early ages to adolescence. The objective of this research
was to analyze gender differences in the level of achievement of basic acrobatic skills of students of
physical activity sciences in their non-university stages. This cross-sectional study with descriptive
design was carried out with a total of 675 first-year Spanish university students distributed over eight
academic years. An initial test of two acrobatic skills was performed. The instruments used for data
collection were a video camera and observation templates. The SPSS 26.0 computer program was
used for data analysis. The main results show a poor and insufficient level of technical achievement
by both genders, but more pronounced for men. The most deficient phases were those related to
extension movements of different segments of the body and movements that require coordination and
stability in the descent phases of acrobatics, and men were less flexible in both phases. Non-university
training of the content associated with basic gymnastic and acrobatic skills is being deficient within
the subject of physical education with a downward trend of not only the development of sports skills
but also of physical abilities such as flexibility and strength.
Keywords: university students; gymnastics skills; motor learning; physical education
1. Introduction
The practice of different sports disciplines associated with gymnastics and acrobatic skills such as
artistic, rhythmic and acrobatic gymnastics, among others, involves developing a series of exercises
that require components of strength, flexibility, agility and coordination, thus providing countless
benefits. In this vein, the usual practice of gymnastics by boys and girls contributes to improving
postural control in bipedal positions, where stability and orientation skills become very important
in the development of the individual, along with locomotive and object control skills [1]. Practicing
gymnastic and acrobatic skills at an early age will create a background of motor exercises in situations
of rotation, body investment and body sustainability, using all body segments. Rudd et al. [2] showed
that the implementation of an eight-week gymnastics program for children significantly improved
overall coordination, fundamental movement skills and physical self-concept compared to students
who continued with the standard physical education program in which gymnastic activity was not
present. In addition, significant improvements in abdominal strength, flexibility, aerobic fitness and
strength have been demonstrated after gymnastics programs were implemented for children and
adolescents during 12 weeks of intervention [3].
Motor learning is considered to be the set of internal processes related to practice, and motor
experience should lead to relatively lasting changes in the ability to produce motor activities, not being
considered an aide to short-term changes [4–6]. A well-learned skill is maintained over time after a
period without practice [5,7], and in gymnastics practice is imperative [8]. There are many factors
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216; doi:10.3390/ijerph17197216 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216 2 of 9
that can influence motor learning and the learning of gymnastic skills. In this sense, it is necessary to
develop basic skills in order to later introduce more complex elements, and it is essential to control
the amount and variety of gymnastic experiences in physical education classes in order to adequately
learn these skills. In addition, aspects associated with students such as motivation, a predisposition
towards the practice the initial level of learning skill and/or the feedback received can be decisive in
the learning process [9]. In the case of interests in the practice of physical and sports activity, this is
different depending on gender. In relation to participation in after-school sports, for example, girls are
less involved than boys, with the curve declining mainly from adolescence [10,11]. Boys practice more,
for a longer time and do so in the company of others, opting for cooperative or competitive activities
in the framework of competitions and tournaments [12]. Instead, girls are more drawn to individual
sports associated with disciplines such as dance, gymnastics or skating and set long-term goals [13].
Another determining factor in learning gymnastic skills is the influence it has on the selection
of content to be developed in teaching programs within the subject of physical education, as well
as strategies used for learning and the form of communication [14,15]. In countries such as the
United States and the United Kingdom, content developed in physical education classes often favors
the interests and preferences of boys rather than girls, which is harmful in terms of participation in and
motivation for activities proposed by teachers [16]. It is important to note that teaching programs in
physical education curriculum in the secondary education stage focus on developing and acquiring
sports skills, among others [17]. In this line, gymnastic and acrobatic skills are directly and indirectly
integrated into the curriculums of different educational stages, such as in Spain in primary education,
compulsory secondary education and baccalaureate and in the educational systems of countries such
as England, Germany and Canada [18,19].
Considering all the above, the aim of this study was to identify and analyze gender differences
from eight academic years different in the level achieved in two basic acrobatic skills after previous
stages of training by first-year students in the Sciences of Physical Activity and Sport (SPAS).
2. Materials and Methods
This cross-sectional, quantitative and descriptive study included 675 volunteer participants
(501 men and 174 women) selected for convenience and availability, aged 18–34, with a mean age of
20.2 years (SD = 3.638; women aged 18–28 with a mean age of 19.52, SD = 2.400; men aged 18–34 with
a mean age of 20.48, SD = 3.948). The students were informed that the data from the initial evaluation
could be used for research purposes, obtaining informed consent, following the guidelines of the data
projection law and the approval of the Ethics Committee of the University of Alicante (UA-2020-08-29).
Students were enrolled from academic year 2010–2011 to 2017–2018 in the gymnastic and artistic
skills class, part of the first course of the SPAS degree at a Spanish university (Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of students throughout the academic years analyzed, according to gender.
Academic
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Total
Years
Participants 87 79 85 87 87 87 87 76 675
Women 21 18 28 26 21 20 21 19 174
Men 66 61 57 61 66 67 66 57 501
2.1. Instrument
The instruments used for diagnostic evaluation of skill were a video camera and two observation
templates [20,21], which were designed to evaluate two basic stunts: cartwheel and handstand.
The templates described the technical phases and specified the assignment of a numeric value
according to the importance of the phase of movement, with a total value of 10 points for the acrobatic
element. A pilot test was conducted with 50 students, where two expert gymnastics evaluators
contrasted the results recorded on the students’ observation templates. To check the internal reliability
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216 3 of 9
of the proposed instruments, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for each skill, with the
following results: cartwheel alpha = 0.71 and handstand alpha = 0.85.
2.2. Cartwheel Phases
1. Wide step forward: up to 1 point
2. Alternate hand support: up to 2 points
3. Legs open and straight down the vertical: up to 4 points
4. Alternate foot support: up to 2 points
5. Finish standing and extend arms: up to 1 point
6. Does not perform the skill: 0 points
2.3. Handstand Phases
1. Hands support away from the forward foot: up to 1 point
2. Simultaneous support of hands on the ground and separated at shoulder height: up to 1 point
3. Extended body alignment of the trunk–arm segments: up to 2 points
4. Extended body alignment of the arm–trunk–leg segments: up to 2 points
5. Keeps the inverted position for 2 s without help: up to 3 points
6. Reception of alternate legs: up to 1 point
7. Does not perform the skill: 0 Points
In addition, the overall achievement level was established as follow: outstanding (OS; 9–10 points),
remarkable (RM; 7–8 points), not bad (NB; 6 points), enough (EN; 5 points), insufficient (INS; 3–4 points),
poor (P; 1–2 points), very poor (VP; 0 points) and does not perform the acrobatic movement (NE).
2.4. Procedure
After the observation templates for the diagnostic evaluation were designed, all students in the
initial session took a technical execution test where they had two attempts to perform the corresponding
stunts while being assessed for technical execution. The protocol carried out during the eight academic
years (from 2010–2011 to 2017–2018) was analyzed as follows:
• Students were informed about the need to take a diagnostic test, the content of the test and its
recording procedure.
• There was a 10-min specific warm-up period prior to the test.
• Students were individually evaluated in the technical test.
• The professors in situ carried out the evaluation, with support in the observational templates.
• The professors and two professors who specialized in gymnastics reviewed and subsequently
evaluated the recordings of the technical test.
2.5. Data Analysis
IBM SPSS 26.0 for Windows software was used for data analysis, applying descriptive
statistics across cross-tables and percentages. For verification of the normality of the sample,
the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used, and, for comparison of nonparametric variables of ordinal
data, the Mann–Whitney U-test and chi2 (X2 ) were used; a significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was established.
3. Results
Hereafter, we explain the results obtained after analyzing the tests, which are expressed in
percentages. The result of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed that the distribution of the sample
does not follow normality in the level of achievement of the cartwheel (Z = 0.201, p = 0.001) and the
handstand (Z = 0.146, p = 0.001).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216 4 of 9
3.1. Cartwheel
For the level of achievement in the execution of the cartwheel (Table 2), a very high percentage of
students executed the skill insufficiently throughout the eight academic years (women n = 82, 47.1%;
men n = 342, 68.2%). The Mann–Whitney test indicated that the values of achieving the skill was
greater for women (n = 93, 54.4%) than men (n = 159, 31.6%) (U = 32.491, p = 0.001). A small percentage
of students did not take the test because they showed an inability to perform the movement (women n
= 11, 6.3%; men n = 36, 7.2%).
Table 2. Level of achievement of cartwheel, according to academic years, temporary totality and gender.
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Total
Level
W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M
Ne 9.5 4.5 11.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.5 10.0 16.4 14.3 18.2 10.5 10.5 6.3 7.2
Vp 0.0 6.1 5.6 8.2 14.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 9.5 3.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 5.3 1.8 5.2 3.2
P 14.3 16.7 16.7 11.5 14.3 14.0 0.0 18.0 4.8 12.1 5.0 9.0 4.8 13.6 10.5 15.8 8.6 13.8
Ins 52.4 51.5 27.8 40.9 0.0 64.9 30.8 40.9 23.8 45.5 35.0 31.3 23.8 34.9 21.1 47.4 25.8 44.3
En 0.0 6.1 16.7 14.8 0.0 7.0 0.0 1.6 4.8 7.6 5.0 16.4 19.0 19.7 0.0 8.8 5.2 10.4
Nb 0.0 3.0 5.6 4.9 17.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.0
Rm 14.3 4.5 5.6 11.5 0.0 7.0 50.0 19.7 33.3 18.2 30.0 16.4 23.8 4.5 47.4 12.3 25.3 11.8
Os 9.5 7.5 11.1 6.6 53.6 7.7 15.3 11.4 23.8 9.0 15.0 9.0 14.3 4.5 5.3 3.5 20.1 7.4
W, women; M, men; Ne, not execute; Vp, very poor; P, poor; Ins, insufficient; En, enough; Nb, not bad; Rm,
remarkable; Os, outstanding.
Table 3 shows the analysis results of the execution of the cartwheel. We observe that Phases 2
and 4, which are related to alternating hand and foot supports were achieved by a large majority of
students. The same is not true of the main phase of movement (Phase 3), which requires a greater
technical scope. This phase was achieved by a small group of students, along with Phases 1 and 5,
the start and end of the movement related to postural control of the exercise. There was also a group of
students who did not execute the skill.
Table 3. Analysis of technical execution of cartwheel, according to movement phase and gender.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Women: √ √ √ √ √ Not Execute
X X X X X
2010/11 9.5 81.0 90.5 0.0 23.8 66.7 71.4 19.0 14.3 76.2 9.5
2011/12 27.8 61.1 83.3 5.6 16.7 72.2 66.7 22.2 11.1 77.8 11.1
2012/13 25.0 75.0 85.7 14.3 71.4 28.6 53.6 46.4 53.6 46.4 0.0
2013/14 11.5 88.5 96.2 3.8 65.4 34.6 96.2 3.8 7.7 92.3 0.0
2014/15 28.6 71.4 81.0 19.0 61.9 38.1 85.7 14.3 14.3 85.7 0.0
2015/16 10.0 80.0 90.0 0.0 45.0 45.0 85.0 5.0 15.0 75.0 10.0
2016/17 14.3 71.4 85.7 0.0 38.1 47.6 76.2 9.5 28.6 57.1 14.3
2017/18 5.3 84.2 84.2 5.3 52.6 36.8 73.7 15.8 0.0 89.5 10.5
Men:
2010/11 16.7 78.8 86.4 9.1 12.1 83.3 75.8 19.7 7.6 87.9 4.5
2011/12 27.9 70.5 90.2 8.2 18.0 80.3 77.0 21.3 8.2 90.2 1.6
2012/13 8.8 91.2 100 0,0 14.0 86.0 63.2 36.8 28.1 71.9 0.0
2013/14 9.8 86.9 91.8 4.9 32.8 63.9 73.8 23.0 6.6 90.2 3.3
2014/15 16.7 81.8 95.5 3.0 28.8 69.7 80.3 18.2 9.1 89.4 1.5
2015/16 7.5 76.1 82.1 1.5 25.4 58.2 73.1 10.4 19.4 64.2 16.4
2016/17 16.7 65.2 75.8 6.1 12.1 69.7 59.1 22.7 21.2 60.6 18.2
2017/18 14.0 75.4 86.0 3.5 15.8 73.7 71.9 17.5 0.0 89.5 10.5
√
, correct; X, wrong.
Analyzing the total percentage of the eight academic years and gender (Table 4), after applying
the chi2 test, it was observed that there were significant differences (X2 (2, 675) = 55.033, p = 0.001) in
Phase 3, the main phase of the movement, and women were the best performers.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216 5 of 9
Table 4. Gender differences in achievement level of cartwheel over eight academic years.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 * Phase 4 Phase 5
Gender √ √ √ √ √ Not Execute
X X X X X
Women 16.7 77.0 87.4 6.3 48.9 44.8 75.9 17.8 19.5 74.1 6.3
Men 14.8 78.0 88.2 4.6 20.0 72.9 71.9 21.0 12.6 80.2 7.2
√
, correct; X, wrong. * Significant difference (p ≤ 0.05).
3.2. Handstand
In classifying the level of achievement in the execution of the handstand (Table 5), we can see
that over the period analyzed, a very small percentage of students executed the skill with more than
five points out of 10. Segregating the data by gender, we note that, over the eight academic years,
men had a lower percentage (n = 116, 23.1%) than women (n = 62, 36.1%) for total achievement.
A very high percentage of students executed the skill insufficiently throughout the eight academic
years (women n = 90, 51.7%; men n = 324, 64.7%), with a significant difference (U = 37.970, p = 0.019;
p ≤ 0.05). There was a small percentage of students who did not perform the test because they were
unable to perform the movement (women n = 22, 12.6%; men n = 61, 12.1%).
Table 5. Level of achievement of handstand according to academic years, temporary totality and gender.
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Total
Level
W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M W M
Ne 23.8 7.6 16.7 4.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 18.0 19.0 9.1 15.0 23.9 14.3 10.6 15.8 22.8 12.6 12.2
Vp 14.3 10.6 5.6 9.8 14.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 9.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.4
P 33.3 25.8 33.4 46.0 46.4 85.9 23.1 32.4 9.5 30.3 20.0 25.4 23.8 36.4 10.5 21.1 25.9 37.4
Ins 14.3 36.4 16.7 18.1 0.0 7.0 38.5 19.7 14.3 21.2 10.0 23.9 33.3 36.4 31.6 28.1 19.5 24.2
En 9.5 10.6 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.6 0.0 1.5 10.0 7.5 9.5 4.5 36.8 24.6 8.0 6.8
Nb 4.8 7.6 16.7 6.6 0.0 7.0 7.7 4.9 4.8 4.5 20.0 6.0 4.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 5.0
Rm 0.0 0.0 11.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 11.5 9.9 14.3 19.7 10.0 7.5 0.0 4.5 5.3 3.5 6.3 6.8
Os 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.6 39.3 0.0 11.5 11.5 28.5 13.6 15.0 3.0 14.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 4.4
W, women; M, men; Ne, not execute; Vp, very poor; P, poor; Ins, insufficient; En, enough; Nb, not bad; Rm,
remarkable; Os, outstanding.
Analyzing the results obtained for the execution of a handstand by movement phase (Table 6),
we observe that Phase 2 (support of hands with separation by the width of the shoulders) was
performed correctly by a large percentage of students. Phase 6 (alternate leg reception), which refers to
movement recovery, was achieved by about half of the students. The other phases, which relate to
more technical aspects of execution such as postural control and strength, were executed correctly by a
smaller percentage of students. There was a small number of students who did not perform this skill.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216 6 of 9
Table 6. Analysis of technical execution of handstand according to movement phases and gender.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6
Women: √ √ √ √ √ √ Not Execute
X X X X X X
2010/11 4.8 71.4 52.4 23.8 28.6 47.6 9.5 66.7 0.0 76.2 28.6 47.6 23.8
2011/12 22.2 61.1 77.8 5.6 22.2 61.1 33.3 50.0 5.6 77.8 66.7 16.7 16.7
2012/13 39.3 60.7 85.7 14.3 39.3 60.7 39.3 60.7 39.3 60.7 53.6 46.4 0.0
2013/14 19.2 76.9 92.3 3.8 65.4 30.8 30.8 65.4 15.4 80.8 80.8 15.4 3.8
2014/15 47.6 33.3 71.4 9.5 61.9 19.0 42.9 38.1 33.3 47.6 42.9 38.1 19.0
2015/16 35.0 50.0 85.0 0.0 60.0 25.0 45.0 40.0 25.0 60.0 60.0 25.0 15.0
2016/17 9.5 76.2 85.7 0.0 61.9 23.8 23.8 61.9 14.3 71.4 61.9 23.8 14.3
2017/18 68.4 15.8 84.2 0.0 47.4 36.8 5.3 78.9 0.0 84.2 84.2 0.0 15.8
Men:
2010/11 39.4 53.0 37.9 54.5 53.0 39.4 15.2 77.3 4.5 87.9 42.4 50.0 7.6
2011/12 37.7 57.4 75.4 19.7 21.3 73.8 16.4 78.7 9.8 85.2 47.5 47.5 4.9
2012/13 0.0 100 100 0.0 14.0 86.0 7.0 93.0 0.0 100 56.1 43.9 0.0
2013/14 21.3 60.7 77.0 4.9 39.3 42.6 21.3 60.7 23.0 59.0 47.5 34.4 18.0
2014/15 36.4 54.5 90.9 0.0 56.1 34.8 27.3 63.6 28.8 62.1 51.5 39.4 9.1
2015/16 13.4 62.7 65.7 10.4 44.8 31.3 10.4 65.7 13.4 62.7 38.8 37.3 23.9
2016/17 4.5 84.8 87.9 1.5 48.5 40.9 15.2 74.2 9.1 80.3 37.9 51.5 10.6
2017/18 50.9 26.3 75.4 1.8 36.8 40.4 1.8 75.4 3.5 73.7 57.9 19.3 22.8
√
, correct; X, wrong.
Data on the total percentage of the eight academic years analyzed by phase and gender (Table 7)
show that there are significant differences (X2 (3, 675) = 21.812, p = 0.001) in Phase 4 (extended body
alignment of the arm–trunk–legs segments) of 0.04 (p ≤ 0.05) and in Phase 6 (alternate leg reception)
are significant differences (X2 (2, 675) = 9.280, p = 0.010) of 0.024 (p ≤ 0.05), with women getting the
best results.
Table 7. Gender differences in achievement level of handstand over eight academic years.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 * Phase 5 Phase 6 * Not Execute
Gender √ √ √ √ √ √
X X X X X X
Women 30.5 56.9 79.9 7.5 48.9 38.5 29.3 58.0 17.8 69.5 59.8 27.6 12.6
Men 25.5 62.5 75.8 12.0 39.9 47.9 13.8 73.3 11.8 76.0 47.1 40.7 12.2
√
, correct; X, wrong. * Significant difference (p ≤ 0.05).
4. Discussion
The objective of this study was to analyze gender differences in the gymnastic competence of
first-year SPAS students prior to their university education through an initial evaluation process that
there were from eight academic years different.
The overall results obtained for both genders over almost a decade show a trend of poor and
insufficient level of technical achievement of the selected skills. Although the acrobatic skills evaluated
are considered to be within the basics and can be developed naturally and through practice at an early
age, the minimal development of gymnastic competition of young people during their schooling years
remains evident. In this sense, Davis [22] argued that gymnastics skills are developed inappropriately
or, more directly, are not developed at all because of the lack of training of students in gymnastics, due
to the lack of understanding of educational gymnastics as an area of knowledge or the lack of training
of physical education teachers to teach gymnastics in different contexts (educational, recreational
and competitive). This situation can lead to a lack of skill by students training in physical education
when the time comes to develop such contents, since previously they did not work on them or did
so insufficiently.
In relation to gender, we note that the deficiencies were detected in the analysis of the level of
acrobatic achievement; men were less competent than women in both skills, the cartwheel and the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216 7 of 9
handstand. In the case of the cartwheel, the most deficient phase for men was the one that involved
body extension, highlighting the alignment and extension of the legs at the moment of balance and
turning with the legs open in a lateral spagat, typical of this activity, indicating that the flexibility of these
segments is poor for men. As pointed out by Delaš et al. [23], there is a positive correlation between
better flexibility and correct lateral cartwheel execution. In this vein, Lopez et al. [24] determined
that women have better flexibility than men and this may be related to genetic, structural and/or
environmental factors. As for the handstand, the movements that require coordination and stability in
the descent phases of the activity, with a separation of the legs in a spagat completely extended with a
slow and controlled movement, are also less developed in men. A study [25] indicated that boys have
less postural control and balance than girls. These findings reinforce the possible gender differences in
fundamental motor skills, with men showing better fundamental motor skills such as quick motions
and jumping, and women better flexibility, agility and balance [26,27], qualities that at the ages of 5–6
are similarly developed [28,29].
Another factor to note, and that may be related to the low levels of achievement by students of
both genders, is the poor physical condition of adolescents [30,31]. These deficiencies could influence
the insufficient performance of the acrobatic movements analyzed.
Gymnastic skills can be complex, and most require a high level of neuromuscular coordination for
execution and longer practice time and experience to be acquired [5]. Gymnastic skills need time for
training and preparation, and, according to the time available in the school year, it can make it difficult
to teach [32]. However, it is shown that gymnastics in general could be a tool to improve the motor
skills of children and adolescents, as evidenced by various studies [22,33,34], but it requires a lasting
approach over time, an issue that does not seem to be addressed in reality.
Our study has some limitations, since some variables were not taken into account, such as the
type of center where the secondary school students carried out their studies, the students’ previous
experience with these abilities, and their affinity with or interest in this type of content.
As a future line of study, we propose mainly to investigate the possible causes that could generate
these deficiencies in the learning of gymnastic skills. In addition, considering the role of physical
education teachers in these issues will be fundamental for the analysis of this problem.
5. Conclusions
This study contributes to the literature in the field of gymnastic and acrobatic skills with a study
of the acquisition of gymnastic skills in stages over eight years prior to university and the influence
of gender. The results show that in the initial evaluation, the level of execution of cartwheel and
handstand skills is insufficient in both genders. However, there are significant differences in favor of
girls in some stages that require greater flexibility and postural control.
This trend was maintained throughout the eight academic years analyzed, showing us an
educational reality, where in pre-university training the content associated with basic gymnastic and
acrobatic skills is not well developed in physical education curriculums. This subject should provide
the opportunity to integrate motor tasks with different levels of complexity progressively from the
early ages to adolescence, as well as the attitudes and emotions associated with motor behavior and
individual interests, thus allowing it to be formed integrally and according to their needs.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed substantially to the conceptualization and design of the study;
data curation, L.V.-R.; formal analysis, M.A.Á.-R. and L.V.-R.; methodology, M.A.Á.-R.; and Writing—original
draft, M.A.Á.-R. and L.V.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216 8 of 9
References
1. Rudd, J.R.; Barnett, L.M.; Butson, M.L.; Farrow, D.; Berry, J.; Polman, R.C. Fundamental movement skills are
more than run, throw and catch: The role of stability skills. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140224. [CrossRef]
2. Rudd, J.R.; Barnett, L.M.; Farrow, D.; Berry, J.; Borkoles, E.; Polman, R. The Impact of Gymnastics on
Children’s Physical Self-Concept and Movement Skill Development in Primary Schools. Meas. Phys. Educ.
Exerc. Sci. 2017, 21, 92–100. [CrossRef]
3. Trajkovia, N.; Madia, D.; Spori, G.; Aleksia, A.K. Impact of gymnastics program on healthrelated fitness in
adolescents pupils. Sci. Gymnast. J. 2016, 8, 157–166.
4. Magill, R.A.; Anderson, D. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications, 11th ed.; McGraw Hill:
New York, NY, USA, 2017.
5. Schmidt, R.A.; Lee, T. Motor Learning and Performance: From Principles to Application, 6th ed.; Human Kinetics:
Champaign, IL, USA, 2019.
6. Schmidt, R.A.; Wrisberg, C.A. Motor Learning and Performance: A Problem-Based Approach, 3rd ed.; Human
Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2004.
7. Payne, V.; Isaacs, L. Human Motor Development: A Lifespan Approach, 9th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA,
2017.
8. Delaš, S.; Miletic, D.; Bozanic, A. Gender-based progression and acquisition of gymnastic skills in physical
education. Croat. J. Educ. 2011, 13, 4–24.
9. Kangalgil, M. Use of feedback in physical education and sports lessons for student point of view. Univers. J.
Educ. Res. 2018, 6, 1235–1242. [CrossRef]
10. Argoelles, I.; Campos, A.; López, J.A. Analysis of extracurricular activities based on the gender variable in
the primary school pupils of the province of Granada. Eur. Sci. J. 2015, 11, 480–498. [CrossRef]
11. Eime, R.M.; Casey, M.M.; Harvey, J.T.; Sawyer, N.A.; Symons, C.M.; Payne, W.R. Socioecological factors
potentially associated with participation in physical activity and sport: A longitudinal study of adolescent
girls. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2015, 18, 684–690. [CrossRef]
12. Ahedo, R.; Macua, A. Characteristics of the significant physical-sports leisure practices of young Spaniards.
Sports Psychol. Rev. 2016, 25, 67–72.
13. Chacon, R.C.; Arufe, V.A.; Chacon, J.C.; Zagalaz, M.L.Z.; Castro, D.C. Relational study of sports practice in
schoolchildren according to gender. SPORT TK 2016, 5, 85–92. [CrossRef]
14. Asun, S.; Friar, A.; Aparicio, J.L.; Romero, M.D. Difficulties in the use of feedback in the training of physical
education teachers. Challenges 2020, 37, 85–92.
15. Kok, M.; Komen, A.; van Capelleveen, L.; van der Kamp, J. The effects of self-controlled video feedback
on motor learning and self-efficacy in a Physical Education setting: An exploratory study on the shot-put.
Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2020, 25, 49–66. [CrossRef]
16. Kirk, D.; Oliver, K.L. The same old story: The reproduction and recycling of a dominant narrative in research
on physical education for girls. Apunts. Educ. Phys. Sports. 2014, 116, 7–22.
17. Proios, M. Effects of practice style on a complex gymnastics skill performance of high-, medium-,
and low-skilled learners. Sci. Gymnast. J. 2019, 11, 77–90.
18. Robinson, D.B.; Randall, L.; Andrews, E. Physical education teachers’ (lack of) gymnastics instruction:
An exploration of a neglected resume requirement. Curric. Stud. Health Phys. Educ. 2020, 11, 67–82.
[CrossRef]
19. Sloan, S. An investigation into the perceived level of personal subject knowledge and competence of a group
of pre-service physical education teachers towards the teaching of secondary school gymnastics. Eur. Phy.
Educ. Rev. 2007, 13, 57–80. [CrossRef]
20. Vernetta, M.; López -Bedoya, J.; Baker, F. Didactic Units for Secondary XI. Gymnastic Skills: Minicirquenes,
1st ed.; Inde: Barcelona, Spain, 2000.
21. Estapé, E. The Acrobatics in Artistic Gymnastics, 1st ed.; Inde: Barcelona, Spain, 2002.
22. Davis, L. ComPETEnce in educational gymnastics: Shaping students PETE’ attitudes. J. Phys. Educ.
Recreat. Danc. 2018, 89, 41–46. [CrossRef]
23. Delaš, S.; Zagorac, N.; Katia, R. Effects of biomotor structures on performance of competitive gymnastics
elements in elementary school male sixth-graders. Coll. Anthropolyl. 2008, 32, 443–449.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7216 9 of 9
24. Lopez, F.; Lara, A.; Mirror, N.J. Influence of gender, age and level of physical activity over physical condition
of students in Primary Education. Challenges 2015, 129–133. [CrossRef]
25. Jastrz-bska, A.D. Gender Differences in Postural Stability among 13-Year-Old Alpine Skiers. Int. J. Environ.
Beef. Public Health 2020, 17, 3859. [CrossRef]
26. Boaani, A.; Kalinski, S.D.; Auvela, F. Changes in fundamental movement skills caused by a gymnastics
treatment in preschoolers. In Proceedings of the Physical Education in the 21st Century—Pupils’
Competencies, 6. Congress FIEP-a Europe, Poreč, Croatia, 18–21 July 2011; pp. 89–94.
27. Hsieh, S.S.; Lin, C.C.; Chang, Y.K.; Huang, C.J.; Hung, T.M. Effects of childhood gymnastics program on
spatial working memory. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2017, 49, 2537–2547. [CrossRef]
28. Fisher, A.; Reilly, J.J.; Kelly, L.A.; Montgomery, C.; Williamson, A.; Paton, J.Y.; Grant, S. Fundamental
movement skills and habitual physical activity in young children. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2005, 37, 684–688.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Aalaj, S.; Milai, L.I. Differences in motor skills of selected and nonselected group of children in artistic
gymnastics in the context of their motor development. Kinesiology 2019, 51, 133–140.
30. Charlton, R.; Gravenor, M.B.; Rees, A.; Knox, G.; Hill, R.; Rahman, M.; Jones, K.; Christian, D.;
Baker, J.S.; Stratton, G.; et al. Factors associated with low fitness in adolescent—A mixed methods
study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 764. [CrossRef]
31. Fonseca, F.; Valley, J.; Cowboy, M.; Orr, S.; Llorente, F. Physical fitness as an indicator of health status and
its relatinalship to academic performance during the prepuberal period. Health Promot. Perspect. 2017, 7,
197–204. [CrossRef]
32. Coelho, J. Gymnastics and movement instruction: Fighting the decline in motor fitness. J. Phys. Educ.
Recreat. Danc. 2010, 81, 14–18. [CrossRef]
33. Karachhle, N.; Diana, A.; Venetsanou, F. Effects of a recreational gymnastic program on the motor proficiency
of young children. Sci. Gymnast. J. 2017, 9, 17–25.
34. Yilmaz, S.; Sicim-Sevim, B. The examination of the differences in the motor proficiency skills of children
practising gymnastic vs. non sportive children. Early Child Dev. Care 2018, 190, 1455–1462. [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
