FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), IDP (Instituto do Desporto de Portugal), AIESEP World Congres

Almeida, K.

Neto, C.

English

UTL Repository

225AIESEP 2005 World Congress. Active Lifestyles: The Impact of Education and SportPhysical activity and children’s independentmobility in different social contextsIntroductionThe experiences children have are dependent on their life contexts, daily rou-tines, community and school [1]. Descriptions of environments can comprise manyforms and can be based upon either the physical characteristics of the environment,the individual’s psychological/behavioral responses to an environment or a combina-tion of the two [2]. The existence of multiple environments will influence the child motordevelopment especially the informal activities performed outdoors, on school play-grounds, with parents and on occupational structured activities [3].The data available about kids’ daily routines show the evidence of the existingrestrictions for kids motor and recreational activities in the present days [3]. In the olddays, the streets used to be the kids chosen arena to play. They could run across thestreets and stay outdoors after dark. Kids used to play all day with no special concerns.Toys were made by themselves or by relatives. Playing games used to happen be-tween groups of children of different ages and gender in public and opened spaceswithout adult supervision. Children used to have a rich and dynamic childhood throughplaying games. Playing was a social phenomenon where everyone participated andonly later (closer to the present days) this activity has lost its community connections.The social and civilization process that guide us to the modern industrial society alsoguide us to the contemporary childhood and playing games. The aspects that contrib-uted for this change were the children segregation to a separate group from the adultsand the institutionalization of children and the use of playing games as a teachinginstrument [4].Therefore, children of the urban areas have less independent mobility that isthe way he or she develops through time a solid representation of the environment(memory, perception, identification) as well as a progressive independence of action inAlmeida, K.1; Neto, C.21 Pressley Ridge. Lusofona University2 Faculty of Human Kinetics, Technical University of Lisbon, PortugalFACULDADE DE MOTRICIDADE HUMANAuniversidade técnica de lisboa226the day by day environment [5]. This independence of action to the physical environ-ment is influenced by the child affordances that allows the development of autonomyand free playing games, the environment discovery, the relationships with the adultsworld, the sense of exploring and problem solving, the development of an healthy andactive lifestyle and the practice of playing games and physical activity both essentialfor both emotional and psychological balance [6].The aim of this study is to present boys and girls independent mobility in twodifferent social contexts of the urban area. For it we’ve studied children’s daily routines,independent mobility and affordances.MethodologySubjectsThe subjects of our study were a group of 42 children, age range between 8 and10 years old. We’ve compared children of a poor social environment (n=21) with chil-dren of a better social environment (n=21), that live in the surrounding urban area ofthe city of Lisbon.The criteria to select the subjects were the geographic area were the childrenlive and the attendance of an After School Program of a Non Governmental Organiza-tion named Prosalis or the attendance of a Private School named Vasco daGama.The children that attended the after school program were considered the kidsfrom the poor social context, because they live in social neighborhoods (Olival doPancas, Azinhaga dos Besouros e Urmeira) with the following problems: poverty, resi-dence with physical structural problems, non-working utilities, safety hazards or sanita-tion problems, streets with traffic and the absence of playing areas for kids. The fami-Table 1. Subjects of the studyPoor Social Context – After School Program Better Social Context – Private School  n % M Min Max n % M Min Max (n=42) 21 50    21 50    Girls 8 38    9 43    Boys 13 62    12 57    Age   9 8 10   8.9 8 10 African-Portuguese 8 38         227AIESEP 2005 World Congress. Active Lifestyles: The Impact of Education and SportPHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND CHILDREN’S INDEPENDENT MOBILITY IN DIFFERENT SOCIAL CONTEXTSAlmeida, K.; Neto, C.lies are disruptive with few or any studies and most have addictive problems. Mostparents have financial difficulties and don’t have a work contract.The children that attended the Private School Vasco da Gama most live on theMunicipalities of Sintra and Mafra. These children live in apartment buildings, privatecondominiums or houses with yards. These families don’t have any financial difficul-ties, most have a college degree and work contracts.MeasuresThe daily routines were studied by a diary of activities (adapted from Kittä, 1995& Arez, 1999). During a week long (7 days) children wrote down their diaries describingthe daily trajectories, the destination, if anyone walked them or if they went by them-selves, how the trajectory was made (walking, using a vehicle…) and for how longthey’ve stayed on the destination. Each day was divided by morning, afternoon andnight to allow more detail on this analysis. By the means of the daily trajectories wewere able to identify the different activities done by the children.The independent mobility was studied through the diary of activities, a ques-tionnaire for children aged between 8 and 10 years old about their daily routines inde-pendent mobility (adapted from Hillman et al., 1990; Kyttä, 1995 & Arez, 1999) and aquestionnaire for parents about their children independent mobility (Hillman et al., 1990;Kyttä, 1995 & Arez, 1999). Both questionnaires allow us to determine the level of au-tonomy of children on the daily situations, on the trajectory home-school, the autonomyon different situations and the aspects that limited children’s independent mobility. Theparents questionnaire also allowed us to match parents answers with their childrenresponses.The affordances were studied by conducting individual structured interviewswith the children based on Heft’s (1988) functional taxonomy.ResultsDaily routinesChildren from the after school program perform more activities especially dur-ing the afternoon and at night and go to more places in their daily routines.Children from the after school program perform more group activities and out-door activities (specially the boys). Children from the private school play more institu-tionalized/organized activities that doesn’t require necessarily the interaction with peers.FACULDADE DE MOTRICIDADE HUMANAuniversidade técnica de lisboa228Independent MobilityThe children from the after school program have more independent mobility –we’ve found significant differences between both groups on the amount of places theygo to with their peers and by themselves.Table 2. Mean of the diversity of activities performed during the morning, afternoon and at nightby the childrenAfter School Program  Private School  morning afternoon night  morning afternoon night Boys 4.86 7.14 3.07  4.60 3.80 2.00 Girls 4.13 6.88 3.00  3.70 3.60 2.10 Table 3. Total percentage of activities performed during the morning, afternoon and night  After school program  Private school   Boys Girls  Boys Girls Watch TV  64.29% 57.14%  75.00% 66.70% Playstation  50.00% 57.14%  25.00% 11.11% Watch a sportive event  7.14% 14.29%  8.33% 0.00% Formal school activities  85.71% 85.71%  100.00% 100.00% Playing Soccer  71.43% 14.29%  33.33% 25.00% Playing other team sports  78.50% 57.14%  25.00% 11.11% Playing  57.14% 71.43%  100.00% 100.00% Playing with peers  28.57% 57.14%  25.00% 23.00% Playing with animals  14.29% 0.00%  16.67% 55.56% Swimming  0.00% 14.29%  41.67% 22.22% Playing “hide and seek”  28.57% 14.20%  0.00% 0.00% Riding a bicycle  21.43% 0.00%  0.00% 0.00% Table 4. Average of mobility permission of childrenAfter school program  Private school   Boys Girls  Boys Girls By himself* 6.64 5.75  1.30 1.10 With adults 7.07 7.75  9.20 13.20 With his/her peers** 9.60 12.33  2.50 2.40 (*F=5.836; p=0.004; ** F=3.428; p=0.027)229AIESEP 2005 World Congress. Active Lifestyles: The Impact of Education and SportPHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND CHILDREN’S INDEPENDENT MOBILITY IN DIFFERENT SOCIAL CONTEXTSAlmeida, K.; Neto, C.When we analyzed the independent mobility of children daily routines, we’veconcluded that children from the after school program have more autonomy especiallyon the situations of going and returning from school and playing outside by themselves(boys= 90%; girls= 85.71%). From all the daily routines, children from the private schoolhave more autonomy on riding the bicycle by themselves. Girls in general, have lessindependent mobility than boys.About the autonomy on the trajectories home-school we’ve concluded that allchildren from the after school program live less than 2 km away from school. Most ofthem walk this distance by themselves or with colleagues of the same age/younger orwith siblings.Most children from the private school live more than 2 km away from school andgo to school by car, with their parents. This is also one of the reasons why the mean oftrajectories on their daily routines is lower than for the other kids.About the autonomy on the daily situations, again the kids from the after schoolprogram have more independent mobility.Girls in both groups have permission earlier than boys to start having autonomyon the situations described above. We think that this is due to social expectationsabout women’s role on our society.Parents were asked about their concerns for their kids’ independent mobility, onthe main reasons for their kids not to go and return by themselves from school. Parentsfrom kids from the after school program, pointed out as the main reasons the childbeing too young or irresponsible (for boys) and being afraid of assaults or being mo-lested by adults (for girls).Table 5. Percentage of autonomy on the daily activitiesAfter school program  Private school  Boys Girls  Boys Girls Go to school by him/herself 38.46% 25.00%  0.00% 11.11% Return from school by him/herself 53.85% 25.00%  0.00% 22.22% Cross the main streets by him/herself 54.55% 28.57%  27.27% 10.00% Ride the bicycle on the street 87.50% 75.00%  66.67% 44.44% Play outside by him/herself 90.00% 85.71%  45.45% 20.00% Take a public transportation 16.67% 12.50%  0.00% 22.22% Go out after dark 18.18% 0.00%  9.09% 0.00% Go to recreational activities by him/herself 72.73% 14.29%  40.00% 40.00% FACULDADE DE MOTRICIDADE HUMANAuniversidade técnica de lisboa230Table 6. Distance home-school, who walks the child to school and type of transportation usedAfter school program Private school  Boys Girls Boys Girls < 500 m 23,08% 50,00% 0,00% 0,00% 500 m – 1 Km 61,54% 50,00% 16,67% 25,00% 1 – 2 Km 15,38% 0,00% 8,33% 0,00% Distance home-school + 2 Km 0,00% 0,00% 75,00% 75,00% Parents 37,50% 16,67% 72,73% 85,71% Other adults 12,50% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Older school colleagues 0,00% 16,67% 9,09% 0,00% Colleagues of the same age/younger 25,00% 16,67% 9,09% 0,00% Who walks the child to school Siblings 25,00% 50,00% 9,09% 14,29% Walking 92,31% 100,00% 0,00% 11,11% Car 7,69% 0,00% 83,33% 88,89% Type of transportation used School Bus 0,00% 0,00% 16,67% 0,00% Table 7. Age from when the child started having autonomy for several situationsAfter school program Private school  Boys Girls Boys Girls Less than 5 years 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5 -7 years  66,66% 100,00% 0,00% 33,33% 8 – 9 years 0,00% 0,00% 33,33% 33,33% Cross the main streets by themselves + 9 years 33,33% 0,00% 66,66% 33,33% Less than 5 years 66,67% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5 -7 years 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 8 – 9 years 33,33% 100,00% 0,00% 0,00% Take public transportation by themselves + 9 years 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% Less than 5 years 10,00% 16,67% 0,00% 0,00% 5 -7 years 90,00% 83,33% 20,00% 0,00% 8 – 9 years 0,00% 0,00% 40,00% 100,00% Play outside by themselves + 9 years 0,00% 0,00% 40,00% 0,00% Less than 5 years 0,00% 0,00% 20,00% 22,22% 5 -7 years 85,72% 100,00% 40,00% 55,55% 8 – 9 years 14,29% 0,00% 40,00% 22,22% Ride the bicycle on the street + 9 years 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 231AIESEP 2005 World Congress. Active Lifestyles: The Impact of Education and SportPHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND CHILDREN’S INDEPENDENT MOBILITY IN DIFFERENT SOCIAL CONTEXTSAlmeida, K.; Neto, C.As for the parents for the kids from the private school they’ve pointed out asmain reasons the distance between home and school and traffic.AffordancesBoth groups have more affordances for sociality (actions of social games, suchas: action games, roleplaying games, making noise, helping adults, being with friends,playing sports, sportive games), actions in nature (such as playing with animals, plants,running with no restrictions) and actions in flat surfaces (such as running, riding abicycle, roller-skating and playing games).Discussion/ConclusionsThe main transformations that occurred on human life on the last century aretremendous. Children’s life style on urban areas is influenced by population densityassociated to traffic density. If we ad the increasing violence and lack of safety weunderstand why the independent mobility of children in urban areas is lower than forkids in rural areas [8].The decreasing independent mobility of children is also related to a decreasedmotor mobility, because kids spend less time on the streets by themselves (e.g., trajec-tories home-school) or with peers on playing situations. There is a direct relationshipbetween the independent mobility and the cognitive representation that the child hasfrom the environment, games, physical activity and social interactions [5, 6].Table 8. Mean of the affordances perceived by the children After school program  Private school  Boys Girls  Boys Girls Categories      Actions on flat surfaces 3,50 2,29  3,50 3,50 Actions with manipulation of objects and materials 1,89 2,75  1,56 1,88 Actions with permanent non rigid objects 1,20 1,40  1,00 1,14 Actions on climbing surfaces 1,40 1,25  2,13 1,29 Shelter 1,67 1,80  2,56 1,83 Actions with moldable objects 1,43 1,50  1,25 1,33 Actions with water 1,00 1,00  1,22 1,75 Actions on nature 2,23 2,50  2,73 2,89 Actions of social games 6,57 8,00  7,58 7,00 FACULDADE DE MOTRICIDADE HUMANAuniversidade técnica de lisboa232Our conclusions are similar to some recent studies that compare children inde-pendent mobility in rural and urban areas [9]. What we found is that children of theprivate school, have less independent mobility than the children from the after schoolprogram. This last group has a lot of similarities with the groups described on thestudies for the rural areas for the independent mobility and our findings for the childrenof the private school are similar to the findings on previous studies for the childrenliving in urban areas [9]. Girls in general have less independent mobility than boys. Theenvironments, the parents’ expectations and concerns, the daily routines, the livingconditions and the amount of time that children spend involved in institutionalized ac-tivities are some of the major aspects that contribute for the lack and decrease of theindependent mobility in children of the private school. At the same time, in the poorurban social environment (after school program kids) due to the same reasons, kidstend to have a lot more independent mobility. The urban life and the different socialcontexts coexisting in the cities are major areas of study that might contribute on alarge scale to the decrease of physical activity, independent mobility and social inter-action.References[1] Bronfrenbrenner U. (1992). Six theories of child development revised formulations and cur-rent issues. Bristol, Jessica Kingsley Publisher.[2] Clar C. & Uzzell D. (2002). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 95-108.[3] Neto C. (1997). O Jogo e o Desenvolvimento da Criança. Lisboa, Edições FMH, 10-22.[4] Neto C. (2004). Encontro Ser Criança...Crescer na Cidade. Lisboa, Instituto de Apoio à Criança,29-31.[5] Neto C. (2004). Educação física: intervenção e conhecimento científico. Piracicaba, Brasil,Ed Unimep.[6] Neto C. (1999). Perspectivas para o desenvolvimento infantil. Santa Maria, Brasil, EdiçõesSIEC,49-66.[7] Kittä M. (1995). Building Identities – Gender Perspectives on Children and Urban Space.Amsterdam, Gender Studies Department of the Royal Dutch Geographical Society.[8] Arez A. & Neto  C. (2000). Play and Community. Proceedings of XIV 1999 IPA World Confer-ence. Lisboa, Edições CML (admitido para publicação).[9] Kittä M. (2004). Journal of environmental psychology, 24, 179-198

Physical activity and children's independent mobility in different social contexts

Universidade Técnica de Lisboa

https://www.repository.utl.pt/bitstream/10400.5/1548/1/CD-25.pdf

Physical activity and children's independent mobility in different social contexts

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UTL Repository

Universidade Técnica de Lisboa