The Australian Journal of Scienceand Medicine in Sport

Incorporating the Australian Journal of Sport Sciences andthe Australian Journal of Soorts Medicine and Exercise Science.

EditorDr Robeft MarshallThe University of AucklandAssociate EditorsDr Kieran FallonAustralian Institute oi SoortDr Peter McNairAuckland Institute of TechnologyDr Barry OakesMonash UniversityDr Harry PrapavessisSouthern Cross UniversityDr Robert WithersFlinders UniversityBook Review EditorMr Robert PaddickFlinders UniversityENOUlRIESEditorialArticles and editorial enquiries should be addressed to:Dr Robert MarshallAssociate Professor, Sports ScienceDivision of Science and TechnologyThe University of AucklandPrivate Bag 92019Auckland New ZealandTelephone: 64 I 373 7599 (Ext 6630)Fax: 64 9 373 7043Email: r .marshall @ auckland.ac.nz.OtherA d v e r t i s i n g , p u b l i s h i n g , s u b s c r i p t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n , a d d r e s senquir ies to:Australian Sports Medicine FederalionPO Box 897Belconnen ACT 2616Phone: (06) 251 6944 Fax (06) 253 1489CONTRIBUTIONSIn cal l ing for papers, the editor asks that contr ibutors adhere to theguidelines published in the Journal. Articles wrll be refereed.T h e v i e w s e x p r e s s e d b y c o n t r i b u t o r s a r e t h e i r o w n a n d n o tnecessari ly those of ACHPER, ASMF, AAESS or the Editor.Al l materials copyright. On acceptance of an art icle for publ icat ioncopyright passes to the publisher.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES1 995 Subscription (January-December) A$20.00Overseas (surface mail)Overseas (airmail)

A$28.00AS35.00

Remit all payments in Australian currency with a draft drawn onan Australian bank. In lieu add A$3.00 to cover transfer fees.Single copies A$5.00CHANGE OF ADDRESSRequest for change of address must reach us thirty days betore thedate of issue with which it is to take etfect. Duplicate copies cannot besent to replace those undelivered through failure to send advancenotice, except on receipt of $2.00 handling and postage charge. Dueto unforeseen circumstances copies do go astray in the post. Claimsfor these must be made within six months of the date of publication.After that the back copy tee ol $5.00 will apply.Printed bv:Hvde Par( Press4 beacon AvRichmond SA 5033

The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport is ajoint publ icat ion of the Austral ian Counci l for Health, PhysicalEducat ion and Recreat ion (ACHPER), the Austral ian SportsMedicine Federation (ASMF) and the Australian Association forExercise and Sports Science (AAESS).

Vo lume 27.No.2

CONTENTS

The Limits of the Possible: Models of Power Supplyand Demand in Gycling

Tim Olds, Kevin Norton, Neil Craig,Scott Olive & Elizabeth Lowe........ ..... ... . . . ...29

Children's Readiness for Learning Front CrawlSwimming

B A Blanksby, H E Parker, S Bradleya n d V O n g . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4

lnjury Data Collection in the Rugby CodesTony Lower... .. ... . 38

The Etiology of Paddler's ShoulderT W Pelham, L E Holt and R E Stalker.......... . .43

Con fe rences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

'Acrobats' by lheAustralian sculptor. JohnRobinson, com mi ssioned

for the National SportsCentre, Canberra, rs a

symbol of health andstrength.

Photo: Courlesy of TheDepartment of Territones

and Local Government.Canberra.

The Austra l ran Journal of Scrence and lv ledicrne rn Spor l 27

/t/

i Children's Readiness for Learning FYont Crawl SwimmingB A Blanksby, H E Parker, S Bradley and V Ong

Department of Human Movement, The University of Westem Australia

ABSTRACTBlanhsby, 8.A., Pqrker, H.E., Bradley, 5., & Ong, 5., (1995).Children's Readiness for Leaming Front Crawl Swimming TheAustralian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport27Q):34-37.

This study ottempted to establish whether an optimal age couldbe identified at which children were ready to learn the frontcrawl swimming stroke. The uariables examined were: thenumber of lessons, the age of commencing lessons and the timeduration for learning to swim l0m front crawl (Leuel 3).Longitudinal records of 326 children, aged between 2 and 8years, were analysed using General Linear Model twoway (Age xSex) analysis of uariance procedures. The main effect for agewas significant (p.0.001) for all three uariables. Post hocanalysis reuealed that the children who started at 5 years of agereceiued signiftcantly fewer number of /essons and took shorterduration compared to those who commenced leaming to suim atan earlier age. Whether pupils started lessons at 2, 3 or 4 years ofoge, they achieued Leuel 3 at approximately the same mean ageof 51t2 years. The optimal readiness period was identified in thisstudy to be between 5 snd 6 years of age. There wos littleeuidence of gender differences for all three uariables.

INTRODUCTIONOptimal readiness is the t ime in l i fe when one is mostfavourab ly ready to learn a g iven sk i l l (Mag i l l 1988) .Knowing the optimal age for children's readiness to learnhow to swim is valuable to parents who enrol their childrenor infants into swimming programs, to aquatic teachers andswimming program directors. ln most cases, predicting thereadiness for children to engage in various sports hasrequired a retrospective prediction of success through theuse of regression equations derived from either cross-sectional studies or computed at the end of longitudinalstudies (Seefeldt 1988). The availability of an optimal ageor duration required to learn swimming skills is not known(Langendorfer 1986).

There is a need for research exploring age and amountof experience as factors in aquat ic learning ef l ic iency(Langendorfer 1986). Seefeldt (1988) noted the paucity olany form of predictive equation to indicate the readiness ofchildren to participate in various sports. Such informationwould be valuable because learning takes place withgreater effectiveness and efficiency during this optimalreadiness period (Magill 1988). The optimal periods lortrying to learn fundamental and complex skills are thosewhen the maximum sensory, motor, motivat ional andpsychological capacit ies exist (Singer 1980). However,successful achievement of skills is not dependent on theearliness of instruction but in the timeliness (Singer 1980).

According to Magill (1988), the determining factors ofr e a d i n e s s a r e t h e l e v e l s o f m a t u r a t i o n , p r e v i o u sexperiences and motivation of the child for the skill to belearned. The importance of each factor in determining theonset of this optimal period is necessarily dependent uponthe skill to be learned as well as the individual concerned.However, Aicienia (1992) suggested that the model failedto provide tangible guidelines for predicting the readinessto participate in youth sport programs. This paper sought toprovide tangible information with regard to the opt imal

starting age for learning front crawl swimming. Thus far,published studies have provided only indirect evidence.

Erbaugh (1978, 1980, 1986) designed an observat ionrating scale based on the American Red Cross learn-to-swim gu ide l ines and ou t l ined spec i f i c per fo rmancecharacteristics during the development of swimming skillsin young children. Erbaugh (1980) established significanta g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e s w i m m i n g p e r f o r m a n c e s o fpreschool chi ldren in front and back locomotion tasks,kicking tasks, diving and ring pick-up tasks. The 5 year oldswere found to perform significantly better than the 2, 3 and4 year olds on these five tasks, and were observed todisplay the gradual emergence of a front crawl pattern.Erbaugh (1980) stated that developmental changes in theswimming skills of young children may be inferred from theswimming characteristics of the children in different agegroups. For example, a human stroke was used for aquaticlocomotion in the prone position by 4 year olds, and thiswas followed by a rudimentary frontcrawl pattern by 5 yearolds. Erbaugh (1980) indicated the limitation of her cross-sec t iona l s tudy to be the var iab i l i t y o f the swimmingperformance within each age group which was largelyre la t i ve to the d i f fe rences be tween the age groups .According to Seefeldt (1988), the rate at which childrenlearn each sequence in fundamental motor skills is greatlyvariable, although the order in which the children learn thesequence is invariant.

Younger and less experienced children show predictable,r u d i m e n t a r y a q u a t i c m o v e m e n t s e q u e n c e s b e f o r eprogressing to more advanced forms of aquatic movementw i th t ime and exper ience (Erbaugh 1978, 1980, 1986;Langendorfer 1990). An electromyographic study of rnfantsand children by Oka, Okamoto, Yoshizawa, Tokuyama andKumamoto (1978) revealed progressive di f ferences inmuscular discharge patterns in learning the f lut ter k ick.They found that 2 year olds who were beginning to learn toswim used "pedalling" movements, while 6 year olds whowere trained with appropriate instruction demonstrated amuch more advanced form of f lut ter k ick. Harrod andLangendorfer (1990) used a scalogram analysis to matchthe teaching order and ski l ls found within the AmericanRed Cross beginning level swimming instrument. Theirscalogram matched more accurately the skill acquisitionshown by the children. To demonstrate that the order wasnot all that it might be, they highlighted the ability of somechildren to perform the beginner stroke (ranked tenth onthe order) belore being able to do underwater breathholding for ten seconds (ranked second).

Studies have been directed towards understanding theprocesses of development relating to children's readinessto learn motor skills (Seefeldt 1988), providing a model todetermine the readiness (Magill 1988; Aiciena 1992), andidentifying the intra-skill (Erbaugh 1986; Oka et al. 1978)and inter-skill (Hanod & Langendorfer 1990) sequences inswimming by infants and preschool chi ldren. However,these studies have not linked the child's age to optimalreadiness to learn how to swim. Few studies attempt toprovide this.

Hogg, Ki lpatr ick and Ruddock (1983) suggested thatmany, if not most, children could achieve both water safetytraining and a 'recognisable' swimming technique at threeo r f o u r y e a r s o f a g e . E r b a u g h ( 1 9 8 6 ) f o u n d t h a t , o n

34 The Austral ian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

average, a year of instruction was required before childrenwere able to swim independently using a human strokeand two years in order to develop a rudimentary frontcrawl. Children about a year old can display rudimentaryforms of aquatic locomotion as in a beginner or humanstroke, or a "dog paddle" (Langendorfer 1986). However,Erbaugh (1980) argued that only the S-year-olds in herstudy demonstrated emerging ability to acquire a moreformal front crawl pattern.

To identify an age of readiness is dilficult as Seefeldt(1988) suggested that there is little evidence to show thatchronological and maturat ional age could ident i fy thereadiness to learn specific motor skills. He recommendedthat a more pragmatic way to ensure the readiness of achild to learn motor skills requires both a task analysis ofthe skills to be learned and allowing the learner to acquirethe requisite antecedent skills.

Few studies have dealt with the quest ion of genderdifferences in childhood swimming. Erbaugh (1980) foundthat preschool children aged 2 to 6 years revealed littleev idence o f any gender d i f fe rences in sw immingperformance with the exception of the girls performing theflutter kick tasks at a more advanced level than boys of thesame age. Erbaugh (1980) speculated that the slightlygreater buoyancy and the earlier maturity of the preschoolgirls, as compared to the boys, to be the reasons for thesedifferences. In a separate study, 2-12 year old girls havebeen found to be more buoyant than boys of the same age(Cotton and Newman, 1978). Whether these ditferences inphysical characteristics affect readiness to learn front crawlswimming is unknown.

Th is s tudy examined long i tud ina l da ta o f ch i ld renbetween 2 and 9 years of age who were learning to swimin one 30 minute formal lesson per week. l t sought toestablish whether there was a chronological age and timeduration for children to be optimally ready to acquire frontcrawl swimming skills and whether any gender differencesexisted within each starting age group. The number oflessons received; and the age and the time duration atwhich formal front crawl swimming stroke using arms, legsand breathing for a distance of 10 metres was achieved,were the three dependent variables which were examined.

METHODSamplingData were collected from longitudinal records on individualchildren enrolled in a swimming school in Perth, WesternAustralia. The records, from 1987 to 1993, included thename, age and swim level at which the child enrolled, sex,and the number of lessons and the age at which the childachieved the subsequent swimming level(s). Incompleterecords were excluded from the sample and only recordsof ch i ld ren who f i rs t enro l led in the swimming schoo lbetween the ages of 2-9 years were included.

SubjectsSubjects were 326 children (180 boys, 146 girls) who weredivided into 7 age groups based upon the age at which thechildren started the swimming lessons. There were 24 twoto three year olds (16 boys, 8 girls), 39 three lo four yearolds (20, 19),60 four to five year olds (30, 30),74 five tosix year olds (44, 30), 64 six to seven year olds (35, 29), 42seven to eight year olds (23, 19) and 23 eight to nine yearolds (12, 11). The mean ages for each age group were3 2 . 1 , 4 2 . 2 , 5 3 . 7 , 6 5 . 1 , 7 7 . 7 , 8 8 . 5 a n d 1 0 1 . 2 m o n t h s ,respectively.

Swimming LevelsA general description of the performance criteria for Levels1, 2 or 3 of swimming are listed in Table 1. To be water

confident (Level 1), the children must be able to performthe basic aquat ic ski l ls of buoyancy, submerging andblowing bubbles before progressing. Rudimentary ski l ls(Level 2) requires self propulsion through the water usinglimb movements. For the purpose of this study, Level 3was considered to be the stage which indicated that thechild had learnt to swim. In this stage, formal front crawlstroke with a regular breathing pattern for 10 metres wasachieved. At this stage the child has to coordinate botharms and legs , and s ideways head movements fo rbreathing, to perform the traditional front crawl in a basic,recognisable manner. The other skills identified in Level 3(backstroke, breaststroke) required use of buoyancy aidsfor achieving the stroke patterns or emphasised mainlykicking and were considered at the rudimentary stage forthese strokes.

Table 1: Levels of perlormance to be achieved by the childrenenrolled in the swimming program.

LEVEL 1. Water/Teacher confidence - Be totally happy in the water. Buoyancy - Able to kick with kickboard by sell with or without bubble.. Submerging - Complete submersion on own without hesitation.. Blowing bubbles - Blow bubbles with whole face in water.

LEVEL 2. Back tloat - Slretched body. Front float - Stretched body. Kicking with board (10 m) - back and front - On tront incorporating

breathing - lifling head up and down, while keeping shoulders inwaIer.

. Swim 5 metres - Preferably lifting head once for breath.

. Torpedo - Reasonably straight legs.

LEVEL 3. Freestyle with breathing ( 10 m) - Regular uni-lateral breathing. Kicking on back (10 m) - Good bodyline, arms by side' Backstroke swim (5 m) - Basic, displaying good kick. Breaststroke kick on back with board (5 m) - Looking more for turned

oul feet than propulsion.

Lessons were taught in groups of no more than fourchi ldren by teachers having qual i f ied for the Austswimnat iona l learn- to -swim competency cer t i f i ca te . Mostteachers were long- te rm, par t - t imers who fo rmed arelatively stable work force and consistency of instruction.All teachers received further training from the director ofthe swimming school on the swimming pedagogy used bythe organisation. The type of lesson structure was similarfor the different age-groups with shifts of emphasis in tunewith student progress. Promotion into the next swimminglevel was evaluated by the teacher and the swimmingschool supervisor, and the number of lessons taken andthe age of the child were then entered into the swim schoolrecords.

Data AnalysisGeneral Linear Model (GLM) two-way analysis of varianceprocedures (Age x Gender) were conducted on the threedependent variables: the number of lessons the childrenreceived to achieve Level 3, the age at which Level 3 wasachieved and the time duration from the first lesson to theachievement of Level 3.

Tukey post hoc analyses were carr ied out to clar i fysignificant main effects revealed in Age or Gender. Thep<0.05 level of significance was adopted for all statisticalanaryses.

RESULTSTable 2 illustrates the means and standard deviations forthe number of lessons, t ime durat ion and age at which

/

The Austral ian Journal of Science and Medicine in SDort 3l

//

Level 3 was achieved. Results are presented for each ofthe three dependent variables separately.

Number of LessonsFor the number of lessons required to reach Level 3, asignificant main effect was revealed for Age (p<0.001).rueitner Gender (p=0.+1 1) nor Gender x nle interactioir(p=0.867) were significant. Post hoc analysis revealed thatthe number of lessons decreased significantly with age. Asthe commencement age increased, the 2, 3 and 4 yearolds required significantly fewer lessons to achieve Level 3(p<0.05). The 5, 6, 7 and 8 year olds also were shown toneed even fewer lessons to achieve Level 3 with increasingage (Tab le 2 ) . There were , however , no s ign i f i can tdifferences between these age groups except that the 5year olds required a greater number of lessons than dideither the 7 or 8 year olds (p<0.05) but not the 6 year otds.The 2 year olds needed the highest number of lessons toachieve Level 3 (p<0.05) (see Table 2).

Level3 Achievement AgeFor the age at which Level 3 was achieved, a significantmain effect was also revealed for Age (p<0.001), butneither Gender (p=O.AeS) nor Gender x Age interact ion(p=0.739) were significant. Post hoc analysis indicated thea g e s a t w h i c h L e v e l 3 w a s a c h i e v e d i n c r e a s e d f o rsuccessively older age groups (p<0.05). However, nodifference was found between the ages at which thosecommencing as 2, 3 and 4 year olds reached Level 3 (seeTable 2).

Time Duration to Achieve Level 3As with the other two dependent variables, time durationshowed a significant main effect for Age (p<0.001), butneither Gender (p=O.ggO) nor Gender x Age interaction(p=O.SgO) were s ign i f i can t . Pos t hoc ana lys is aga inrevealed the same age-related results as for the number ollessons. That is, the t ime durat ion to achieve Level 3decreased significantly with age. Each of the 2, 3 and 4y e a r o l d g r o u p s t o o k s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o n g e r t h a n t h esuccessively older one year age band (p<0.05) and for allthe other age groups; namely, 5, 6, 7 and 8 year olds. The5, 6, 7 and 8 year olds required less time to achieve Level3 with age (Table 2). As with the number of lessonsreceived, no significant differences were found between the5, 6, 7 and 8 year age groups. However, the 5 year oldsneeded significantly longer time than 7 and 8 year olds toachieve Level 3 (p<0.05)

DISCUSSIONA clear finding in these longitudinal data was that boys andgir ls showed no di f ferences in their readiness to learnformal front crawl. Therefore, both genders may he treatedsimilarly. From the results of this study, several inferencesmay be drawn regarding the optimal age at which childrenare ready to learn how to swim. Not surpr is ingly, theyounger the start ing age of the chi ld, the greater thenumber of lessons required to learn to swim. The childrenstarting earliest, at 2 years of age took the greatest numberof lessons (X = 110.63) to reach the criterion level at 10mof formal front crawl using arms, legs, and breathing.Fur ther , the mean age ,a t wh ich the Leve l 3 fo rmalstrokework with breathing was achieved by the childrenintroduced to the swimming program at ages 2, 3 and 4years swim, were 67.4,67.1 and 69.2 months. respectively.There was strong evidence that children who started theswimming lessons at 5 years of age received significantlyfewer number of lessons and took less time than did the 2,3 and 4 year olds to reach Level 3 (p<0.05).

Thus, while it is apparent that children can learn basicwater skills at an early age this study suggests that thecomplex skill of combining arms, legs and breathing used

Table 2: Means and standard deviations for the number oflessons, age (months) and durat ion (months) inachieving Level 3 swimming competency by childrenstarting swimming lessons at ditferent ages.

in the front crawl stroke is learned more efficiently at amean age of around five and a half years. lt would seemthat there is no advantage in learning at an earlier age inso far as the complex skills of formal stroking is concerned.From the ages of 5 to 8 years, the ditferences between 4gegroups are not as disparate. However, the 5 year qlds (X =38.6) required more_lessons than the 7 year olds (X = 18.0)and I year olds (X = 14.7), suggest ing that perhaps alevelling off in learning rate commences between the agesof5 and6years .

Although children appear to learn faster as they becomeolder , the capac i ty to learn swimming w i l l be ev identearlier. As Magill (1988) argues, the readiness period inwhich the appropriate levels of maturat ion, antecedentexperiences and motivation needed will precede the actualdate of achieving the nominated standard because onedoes not learn instantaneously. Since 2 to 4 year oldsreached Level 3 at about 5122 !e6rS of age, the readinessperiod should lie between the ages of 4 to 512, years. Thissuggests tha t ch i ld ren in t roduced in to the swimmingprogram younger than 4 years of age generally might notbe able to achieve formal stroking much earlier than 512years of age.

The time duration to achieve Level 3 revealed similar agedif ferences as for the number of lessons required. Theresults also suggest that, after the ages of 5-6 years, thechi ldren are learning dist inct ly faster than their youngercounterpar ts and the s tandard dev ia t ion is becomingn a r r o w e r . P e r h a p s t h i s i s i n d i c a t i v e t h a t a g r e a t e rp r o p o r t i o n o f c h i l d r e n h a v e t h e m o t o r d e v e l o p m e n tnecessary to master the skills and in a shorter time. Thosewho mature earlier may well have the size and strengthrequired to learn at an earl ier chronological age, whi lstt h o s e w h o a r e s k e l e t a l l y s l o w e r t o g r o w w o u l d b echronologically disadvantaged for an equivalent skill level.The factor of fear could also be a deterrent to learnino,

Age of NCommencement

_ in yrs(X in months)

Number of Age at DurationLessons Level 3 to Level 3

(months) (months)

J O . I

1 1 . 0

25.2'10 .1

1 q q '

1 0 . 1

Y , J

7.9

6.0

4.64.1

3.02.9

Note: Significance at p < 0.05' A significant difference between this age group and successive I

year olcler groups." The 5 year olds were significantly diflerent kom the 7 and 8 year

otos.". The 2-4 year olds were significantly ditferent lrom the 5-8 year

groups.

q q 7

565.1

77.7

a

32.1

J

42.2

788.5

Btot.2

2 4 XSD

3 9 XSD

6 0 x5U

7 4 iSD

6 4 XSD

4 2 XJ U

2 3 XSD

I 10.6' 67 .4" '40.8 11.2

84.3- 67.1 "-31 .1 9 .6

54.1. 69.2'--27.9 10.8

38.6" 75.3'25.0 7.5

28.7 85.3'19 .7 6 .5

18.0 93.0'1 5 . 1 5 . 1

14.7 103.712.5 4.4

Although not analysed, a subject ive view is that i t wasmore prevalent initially with 5-6 year olds than with 2-3 yearolds; but that it disappeared quite quickly, usually after 5 or6 lessons.

I n s u m m a r y , t h e a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e a g e o fintroduct ion into the swimming program, and both thenumber of lessons received and the time duration to learnto swim indicates the optimal age to start is between 5 and6 years. At that age, the child is likely to learn faster thanthose who start younger. lt is important to note that theoptimal age for commencing children's swimming lessonsis dependent upon the i r purpose. Water conf idence,rudimentary self-propulsion and general exercise benefitsare achievable at ages earlier than 5-6 years. However,parents should not expect that ear l ier introduct ion tos w i m m i n g l e s s o n s w i l l r e s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y e a r l i e racquisition of formal stroking skills. lf parents enrol theirchildren at around 5-6 years or older they will learn to swimfas ter . The capac i ty to learn fo rmal s t rokework w i thbreathing and cope with the complexity of the skill seemsto evolve about a year earlier. Therefore, introducing achild any younger than 4 years of age generally might notresult in learning the complexities of formal strokework anyearlier. Singer (1980)described this optimal learning periodto be when the minimal abilities that are essential to learnthe skills are present in the learner.

Erbaugh's (1980) cross-sectional study revealed similartrends in age-related development. The f ive year oldsshowed better aquatic skills than 2-4 year olds and alsogradually demonstrated the front crawl pattern. Apart fromkicking tasks, no gender differences were found (Erbaugh1980). Another observation from Erbaugh's (1980) studywas the large variability within each age group. Tnis couldb e d u e t o t h e g e n e t i c e n d o w m e n t r a t h e r t h a n t h echronological age influences over the range of ages atwhich the skills are learnt (Seefeldt 1988). However, in thiss tudy , the var iab i l i t y reduced w i th age, a l though theteaching progressions in achieving swimming proficiencyappear biased towards acquiring the complete front crawlpattern in preference to backstroke or breaststroke. Thisprogression may not have matched individual children'ss k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n o r d e r a s i n d i c a t e d b y H a r r o d a n dLangendorfer (1990). Other factors contributing to the highvariability in the younger age groups could be the previousswimming experiences, general motor ability, fear or loveof water by the children prior to enrolment.

A c c o r d i n g t o H o g g e t a l . ( 1 9 8 3 ) , m a t u r a t i o n o fneuromuscular pathways is necessary before the complexactions may be acquired for youth sport skills. Maturationalvar iat ion may contr ibute to the observed variabi l i ty inswimming achievement as well.

There are numerous benefits in the knowledge of theoptimal readiness age. lt can provide a more purposefuland effect ive pedagogical object ive for the swimmingprogram. There would be a more objective expectation andevaluation of what the children can achieve. lt may reducethe 'drop out' or'burn-out' rate of children's participation inearly childhood swimming programs that emphasise theformal strokework too early. This is because excessiveexpectat ions and demands would not be made by thet e a c h e r s a n d p a r e n t s . T h e f i n a n c i a l a d v a n t a g e s i nintroducing the child to swimming at a time when he/shehas a greater chance of being successlul at achievingprogress in a cont inuous manner appears even moredesirable. To push a child too early could create a fear,dislike or frustration in what is an important motor skill forsafety, fitness and social reasons.

CONCLUSIONIn summary, this study has identified the ages between 5

and 6 years to be the optimal readiness period for formal

swimming competency. The minimal abilities necessary tolearn the formal strokework with breathing were evidentafter 4 years.

Although identification of the chronological age when thechild appears to be optimally ready to learn motor skillsmay not be precise, the implications and guidelines it offersin dec id ing the age o f in t roduc t ion , the pedagogy o fswimming and the structuring of the swimming programsare helpful.

Finally, there is a need to replicate this study using datafrom other swim schools. Such reolication will validate theidentification of age of optimal readiness for formal strokingand encourage further research into readiness in othermotor ski l ls (Singer, 1980; Langendorfer, 1986; Magi l l ,1 988).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe authors wish to thank Austswim - WA for funding thisresearch.

REFERENCESAiciena, S. (1992). Youth sport readiness: A predict ive model for

success. The Physical Educator 49(2): 58-66.Cotton, C.E. & Newman, V.A. (1978). Buoyancy characterist ics of

chi ldren. Journal of Human Movement Studies 4: 129-143.Erbaugh, S .J . (1978) . Assessment o { sw imming per fo rmance o f

preschool children. Perceptual and Motor skills 47: 1 179-1 182.E r b a u g h , S . J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s w i m m i n g s k i l l s o f

preschool chi ldren. ln Nadeau, C. (Ed). Psychology of MotorBehav iour and Spor t - 1979 (pp . 324-335) Human K ine t ics :Champaign, lL.

Erbaugh, S.J. (1986). Effects of aquatic lraining on swimming ski l ldevelopment of preschool children. Perceptual and Motor Skills62: 439446.

Harrod, D.L. & Langendorfer, S. (1990). A Scalogram analysis of itemorder in the American Red Cross Beginner Swimming Program.National Aquatics Journal 6(2): 1 0:1 6.

Hogg, N. , K i lpa t r i ck , J . , & Ruddock , P . (1983) . The teach ing o fswimming: An Austral ian approach. Landmark EducationalSupplies: Victoria.

Langendor le r , S . (1986) . Aquat ics to r young ch i ld ren : Fac ts andmyths. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance57: 61 -66.

Langendorfer, S. (1990) Conlemporary trends in inlanvpreschoolaquat ics - in to the 1990s and beyond. Journa l o f Phys ica lEducation, Recreation and Dance 61(5): 36-39

Magil l , R.A. (1988). Crit ical periods of optimal readiness lor learningsport ski l ls. In Smoll , F.L., Magil l , R.A. & Ash, M.J. (Eds). Childrenin Sport (pp. 535) Human Kinetics: Champaign, lL.

Oka, H,, Okamoto, T., Yoshizawa, M., Tokuyama, H. & Kumamoto, M.(1978) . E lec t romyograph ic and c inematograph ic s tudy o t theflutter kick in intants and chi ldren. In Terauds, J. & Bedingfield,E.W. (Eds). lnternational Series on Sport Sciences (Vol. 8)Swimming i i i , (pp. 167-172). University Park Press: Balt imore, MD.

Seefeldt, V. (1988). The concept o{ readiness applied to motor ski l la c q u i s i t i o n . I n S m o l l , F . 1 . , M a g i l l , R . A . & A s h , M . V . ( E d s ) .Children in Sport (pp. a5-52) Human Kinetics: Champaign, lL.

Singer, R.N. (1980). Motor learning and human performance: Anapplication to motor skills and movement behaviors (3rd ed)McMil lan Co.: Londorr.

ffi7ila^6r:tr" rlqaaal,ean Spaal -

Sal& Spn*

The Austral ian Journal ol Scrence and Medicine in Sport 37