Comparative physical fitness analysis of 1-4 grade chinese versus russian schoolchildren

Фотографии: 

Postgraduate I. Van1
PhD, Associate Professor G.A. Kuzmenko1
1Moscow State Pedagogical University, Moscow

Progress of the national school physical education systems in China and Russia may be rated by the trainees’ physical fitness and functionality tests among other progress factors that show how efficient the learning process is as a result of the teacher-pupil cooperation. Objective of the study was to analyze the similarities and differences in the 1-4 grade schoolchildren’s physical development and physical fitness indices in China versus Russia. The Russian versus Chinese samples’ physical qualities rated by a set of assessment criteria on the relevant scales were scored as follows: (1) movement coordination, design and sequencing qualities were scored 0:0; the motor skills versatility required to respond to the situation was scored 0:0; movement control (spacing, timing and dynamics) qualities were scored 4:5; static/ dynamic body balancing qualities were scored 0:0; movement energy cost efficiency was scored 0:0; (2) active and passive flexibility was scored 1:1; (3) psychomotor qualities were rated as follows: simple motor response was scored 3:4, complex motor response was scored 0:0; choice response was scored 0:0; (4) speed qualities were rated as follows: single movement speed was scored 0:1; and the movement pace was scored 1:2; (5) speed-strength abilities were scored 6:7; (6) speed capacity including the relative force and strength endurance was scored 1:2; (7) endurance included: speed strength endurance scored 1:1; and total endurance scored 0:1. It should be noted that the body build harmony is presently rated by the body mass and height index only in China, and the rating procedure is highly recommendable for the Russian test system. The valid Chinese physical education system gives preference to the exercise reiteration versus the movement control and sequencing skills in proportion of 5:2 – versus the Russian proportion of 9:4; with the comparisons showing benefits, drawbacks and progress challenges of both of the physical education systems.

Keywords: China, Russia, primary schoolchildren, physical education, physical fitness, performance standards, prospects for improvement.

References

  1. Kim T.K. Iskhodnye predposylki realizatsii spetsificheskikh funktsiy fizicheskoy kultury v usloviyakh semeynogo byta [Initial prerequisites for implementation of specific functions of physical education in family life]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2009, no. 9, pp. 58-62.
  2. Kitayskie gosudarstvennye normy fizicheskogo zdorovya uchashchikhsya (Peresmotreny v 2016 godu) [Chinese State Physical Health Standards for Students (Revised 2016)]. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Beijing: Vysshee Obrazovanie publ., 2016, 89 p.
  3. Kontrolnye normativy po fizicheskoy kulture dlya uchenikov 1-4- kh klassa [Control standards in physical education for 1-4-grade students]. [electronic resource] Available at: http:Kontrolnye-normativy-po-fizicheskoj-kulture-dlya-uchenikov-1-4-klas... (Accessed: 04.08.2018).
  4. Matveev L.P. Teoriya i metodika fizicheskoy kultury [Theory and methods of physical education]. Textbook for physical education institutions. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport, SportAkademPress publ., 2008, 544 p.
  5. Otchet o fizicheskoy podgotovke i nablyudenii za zdorovem kitayskikh shkolnikov v 2014 godu [Report on physical training and monitoring of health of Chinese schoolchildren in 2014]. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Beijing: Vysshee Obrazovanie publ., 2016, 125 p.