Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS CURRICULUM IN THE THIRD CYCLE OF BASIC SCHOOL IN SLOVENIA Maja Bučar Pajek , Ivan Cuk, Marjeta Kovač and Barbara Jakše University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Slovenia Original research article Abstract In physical education curriculum for the basic school, gymnastics is one of the most important contents. In the first and the second three-year cycle of basic school, physical education can be taught by the class teacher or a PE teacher, while in the third cycle only specialised PE teachers are qualified to teach. The aim of our study was to find out how PE teachers comply with the prescribed gymnastics curriculum content. Our sample included 147 PE teachers, stratified by gender, region and urban/rural area. The sample is representative for Slovenia as 36.7% of all PE teachers were included in the survey. Variables were represented by a questionnaire. Data was analysed by SPSS 14.0 and frequencies were calculated. Results show PE teachers spend 9.8 hours on gymnastics per academic year. Mostly they teach easy contents (roll forward, roll backward, cartwheel, handstand, etc.) where supporting assistance is not necessary and the likelihood of falls and injuries is small. At the same time, PE teachers avoid gymnastic elements which include a flight phase, turns or have a small support area as they think such elements are not appropriate for primary school. Keywords: gymnastics, basic school, third three-year cycle. INTRODUCTION Gymnastics offers a great range of locomotive, stability and body control movements which are highly important for the development of children. Gymnastics requires a great diversity of movements: transitions from dynamic to static elements and vice versa, frequent changes of the body position in space. Successful performance of each element requires accurate muscular activity of specific intensity, through the space and at the right moment. Gymnastic elements are classified as typical combined non-cyclic movements and as such they develop the ability of movement in space and body control in the unsupported phase. From the child development perspective, gymnastics is, along with athletics, one of the key sports as it includes elements that can be performed in different directions (forward, sideways and backward), on three levels (head level, hip level and horizontal level) and around three axes (frontal, sagittal and vertical), in the support phase and through no support phase (Novak, Kovač, & Čuk, 2008). Gymnastic contents as part of the PE curriculum in Slovenia have a history of more than one hundred years. They first appeared in the basic school curriculum in 1874 when physical education was first introduced and included the compulsory SPIESS system (Kompara & Čuk, 2006). In the following decades, the curriculum changed and was updated and the one that applies in Slovenia today (M Kovač & Novak, 2001) mandates PE as a compulsory subject in all years of basic school and prescribes its scope and structure, general and operative objectives and knowledge standards for selected sport disciplines. The current curriculum for specific sport contents provides detailed practical and Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 theoretical themes that shall be implemented in all nine years of the basic school. The basic school in Slovenia today takes nine years to complete. Physical education is allocated 834 lessons in total (105 lessons per year from year 1 to year 6, 70 lessons per year in years 7 and 8 and 64 lessons in the final year 9) (Anon., 1998). The current curriculum details some practical and theoretical gymnastic themes that shall be implemented in all nine years of the basic school. The gymnastics programme prescribed by the curriculum aims to provide logical progression and development continuity. The basic school programme is in terms of contents, organisation and teaching methods staged over three three-year cycles and knowledge standards for physical education defined by the curriculum correspond to this structure. The physical education curriculum is open-ended in design, providing the teacher with a relatively high level of autonomy and responsibility to plan one's own lessons. It is the teacher who decides how much of the total amount of time will be spent on a particular activity or content. Such open-ended design ensures better interaction between the teacher, pupils and other factors that impact on the physical education. In gymnastics, such open-ended nature is necessary as some schools lack facilities for this type of lessons (apparatus, installations, aids) while pupils in higher years sometimes lack knowledge of gymnastics (Bučar Pajek, 2003; Majerič, 2004; Štemberger, 2003). In such cases, the open-ended nature of curriculum enables the teacher to adjust the programme to the actual working conditions and to plan for a sensible and optimal continuous progression building upon the skills pupils have already mastered. However, the open-ended curriculum has another side which is becoming quite apparent from research results: while teachers hold very positive views on the benefits of gymnastic exercises for the psychosomatic development of children (Medved, 1985; Rogelja, 1985; Turšič, 2007), research studies conducted on students at the Faculty of Sport (Bučar Pajek, 2003; Tome, 1983) show that teachers tend to implement only a small proportion of gymnastic contents recommended by the curriculum. Authors of research studies to date mainly focused on the teaching and mastering of individual gymnastics elements (end product); however, the most important part in learning gymnastic elements is the development of different skills and movements comprising gymnastics knowledge. The learning process must include all seven didactical steps (selection of the element appropriate to the learner's level, selection of the appropriate teaching method, selection of the type of movement content, selection of the type of exercise, detection and correction of errors in the performance and assistance and selection of the supporting method) in which different types of movement content, such as preparatory exercises, pre-exercises and element development exercises, hold a special position. The aim of our study is to establish to what extent the gymnastic content recommended by the physical education curriculum is implemented in the third cycle (Table 1) of the basic school in Slovenia, including preparatory exercises, pre-exercises and element development exercises, which are not part of the curriculum but are nevertheless required as the basis to learn gymnastic exercises. The decision to make the third cycle the focus of our research was based on the fact that PE teachers teaching in the third cycle are specialised PE teachers who have studied the abovementioned subjects at the Faculty of Sport, as part of the course 'Sports Gymnastics Methods and Techniques'. Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 Table 1. Gymnastic contents in the third cycle (Kovac and Novak, 2001) YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 PRACTICAL CONTENT PRACTICAL CONTENT PRACTICAL CONTENT Calisthenics with music Calisthenics Calisthenics Acrobatic: Acrobatic: Acrobatic: - Rolls combined with other - rolls, - rolls, elements - dive roll, - dive roll on soft mats, - Dive roll on soft mat - cartwheel, - cartwheel, - Cartwheel, - handstand. - handstand, - Handstand with assistant's Higher level: - connecting elements into support - handstand and roll exercise. forward, Girls: - roll backward to - Connecting acrobatic and handstand. rhythmic elements. Connecting elements into exercise. Middle high Beam - short Beam: - Beam: short exercise with exercise with walking, one - Connecting walking, walking, jump, turn, hold jump, one turn and dismount. jumps, turns, scales and element and dismount. dismount. Higher level: - Optional exercise on high beam. Vault: Vault: Vault: - Split and squat jump on - Split and squat with - Split and squat jump with soft mats with assistant assistant support. assistant support. support. Mini trampoline: Mini trampoline: Mini trampoline: - Straight jump, split jump, - Straight jump, split jump, - Straight jump, split jump, tucked jump, piked jump, tucked jump, piked jump, tucked jump, piked jump, piked split jump. piked split jump. piked split jump. - Jumps and basketball dunk. Rope and bar climbing. Climbing. Climbing. Bar, Parallel bars, Uneven - Bar, Parallel bars, Uneven Bar, Parallel bars, Uneven bars: bars: elements chosen by bars: optional elements - Swing in hang and pupils' abilities support, felge, one leg side swing in support, half turn in support, dismount from support. SPECIFIC THEORETICAL CONTENT SPECIFIC THEORETICAL CONTENT SPECIFIC THEORETICAL CONTENT Good posture exercises. Strength and movement exercises. Assistance and support - basic grips. Assessment methods in gymnastics._ Composition and conduct of gymnastic exercise clusters. Composition and conduct of calisthenics. Assistance and support - basic grips. Assessment in gymnastics. Composition and conduct of calisthenics. Assistance and support - application of grips. Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 METHODS The test sample includes 147 PE teachers who taught physical education in the third cycle in basic schools in Slovenia in the academic year 2004/2005. This represents 36.7% of all PE teachers who teach in the third cycle in basic schools in Slovenia. The sample was further stratified by the type of settlement (town, country), region (in accordance with the official regional divisions in Slovenia) and by gender; it is hence a representative sample for Slovenia. The variable sample is represented by the questionnaire titled 'Implementation of the curriculum for gymnastics in the third cycle of the basic school' and comprises three clusters: the first cluster includes questions on the number of implemented physical education lessons with gymnastic content; the second cluster includes questions related to the implementation of gymnastic contents and movements and the third cluster focuses on questions relating to the suitability of gymnastic exercises. The respondents were informed of the survey purpose and procedure and gave their written consent to participation in the research project. The respondents answered to closed-ended questions YES or NO and to open-ended questions by writing their reply on the appropriate line. The data was processed using statistics application SPSS 14.0 for Windows. In accordance with the research study goal, we calculated the frequencies and performed t test to analyse the differences between the excecuted and prescribed curriculum content (implementation of the content versus 100% required curriculum implementation). RESULTS Results show that the number of lessons PE teachers use for gymnastic content is low: in year 7, only 15.1% (10.6 lessons) of all PE lessons are dedicated to gymnastics, in year 8 13.8% (9.7 lessons) and in year 9 it is 14.3% of all lessons (9.2 lessons) that are spent on gymnastics (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3). Figure 1. Gymnastics lessons in year 7 Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 2? o c o ^ o n. o 25 20 15 10 0 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 Seriesl 1,4 0,7 2,9 14 2,9 21 6,5 17 4,3 9,4 1,4 6,5 2,2 5,1 1,4 2,2 Number of gymnastics lessons 5 Figure 2. Gymnastics lessons in year 8 Figure 3. Gymnastics lessons in year 9 We were also interested in the implementation of gymnastic content and its suitability to the pupil age level in years 7, 8 and 9. Teachers answered questions with 'yes' (implemented / suitable) or 'no' (not implemented / not suitable). In Table 2, letter 'i' is used for the implementation and letter 's' for the content suitability. Results of our survey show that the percentage of implementation of the gymnastic content decreases from year 7 to year 9 in acrobatics, on the beam and for the vault jump. In all three years of the last cycle in basic schools, PE teachers are least likely to teach elements on the bar, the uneven/parallel bars and on the beam. The least implemented elements include: half turn in support on bars and on the bar (64.4%), cut on the bars and on the bar(47.5%), dismount backward from support on the bars and on the bar (47.3%), jump on the beam (44.6%), swing in support on the bars and on the bar (43.5%), swing in hang on the bars and on the bar (41,3%), Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 scale on the beam (30,3%), dismount from piked split jump on the mini trampoline the beam (29.6%), dive roll forward in (19.6%). acrobatics (24.6%) and straight jump and Table 2. Implementation and suitability of gymnastic elements in years 7, 8 and 9 Element Implementation/Suitability (from the curriculum) Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 N Yes% No% N Yes% No% N Yes% No% ACROBATICS Roll forward_i 14 98.6 1.4 14 97.1 2.9 12 91.9 8.1 2 0 4 Roll forward _s 13 98.5 1.5 13 96.9 3.1 11 95.8 4.2 4 0 8 Roll backward _i 14 97.2 2.8 13 93.5 6.5 12 98.3 10.7 1 9 2 Roll backward _s 13 96.2 3.8 13 92.3 7.7 11 87.9 12.1 1 0 6 Dive roll_i 13 77.7 22.3 14 78.6 21.4 12 69.9 30.1 9 0 3 Dive roll _s 13 85.0 15.0 13 83.6 16.4 12 81.7 18.3 3 4 0 Cartwheel_i 14 95.0 5.0 14 95.8 4.2 12 92.0 8.0 1 2 5 Cartwheel _s 13 95.7 4.3 14 95.7 4.3 12 93.6 6.4 8 0 5 Handstand_i 14 97.1 2.9 14 97.9 2.1 12 98.4 1.6 0 2 5 Handstand _s 13 98.5 1.5 14 98.6 1.4 12 99.2 0.8 7 0 5 BEAM Walk_i 12 78.4 21.6 12 74.4 25.6 11 71.8 28.2 5 5 0 Walk_s 12 87.6 12.4 12 85.1 14.9 10 85.0 15.0 1 1 7 Jump_i 12 58.5 41.5 12 55.3 44.7 10 52.3 47.7 3 3 9 Jump_s 11 75.0 25.0 11 73.5 26.5 10 68.3 31.7 6 7 4 Turn_i 11 76.5 23.5 11 75.6 24.4 10 71.4 28.6 9 9 5 Turn_s 11 84.3 15.7 11 83.6 16.4 10 81.6 18.4 5 6 3 Scale_i 11 70.6 29.4 11 69.7 30.3 10 68.6 31.4 9 9 5 Scale_s 11 81.4 18.6 11 83.3 16.7 10 82.2 17.8 3 4 1 Dismount_i 11 72.0 28.0 11 69.7 30.3 10 69.5 30.5 8 9 5 Dismount_s 11 83.3 16.7 11 85.3 14.7 10 83.5 16.5 4 6 3 Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 VAULT Split jump_i 14 96.5 3.5 14 96.4 3.6 12 94.4 5.6 6 0 5 Split jump_s 13 97.8 2.2 13 97.1 2.9 12 96.8 3.2 9 9 5 Squat jump_i 14 95.0 5.0 14 95.0 5.0 12 93.6 6.4 1 1 5 Squat jump_s 13 97.1 2.9 14 95.7 4.3 12 94.4 5.6 9 0 6 MINI TRAMPOLINE Straight jump_i 14 82.9 17.1 14 81.0 19.0 12 84.1 15.9 0 2 6 Straight jump _s 13 97.8 2.2 13 97.1 2.9 12 96.0 4.0 8 9 5 Piked split jump_i 13 79.0 21.0 13 79.1 20.9 12 82.9 17.1 8 9 3 Piked split jump _s 13 94.9 5.1 13 94.9 5.1 12 95.2 4.8 7 8 4 BAR/PARALLEL. UNEVEN BARS Swing in hang_i 13 59.4 40.6 13 56.8 43.2 12 59.8 40.2 8 9 2 Swing in hang _s 13 89.5 10.5 13 89.5 10.5 11 89.8 10.2 3 8 8 Swing in support_i 13 54.8 45.2 13 57.8 42.2 12 56.7 43.3 5 5 0 Swing in support _s 12 80.5 19.5 12 86.7 13.3 11 86.0 14.0 8 8 4 Felge_i 13 72.7 27.3 14 70.0 30.0 12 71.2 28.2 9 0 5 Felge_s 13 90.4 9.6 13 90.5 9.5 12 91.9 8.1 6 7 3 Leg side swing in 13 52.2 47.8 13 51.4 48.6 12 53.7 46.3 support_i 6 8 1 Leg side swing in 12 80.6 19.4 13 83.8 16.2 11 85.2 14.8 support _s 9 0 5 Half turn in 13 34.6 65.4 13 35.0 65.0 11 37.0 63.0 support_i 6 7 9 Half turn in support 12 67.2 32.8 12 71.7 28.9 11 72.6 27.4 _s 8 8 3 Dismount from 13 49.6 50.4 13 53.3 46.7 12 55.0 45.0 support_i 7 7 0 Dismount from 13 77.7 22.3 13 80.0 20.0 11 84.3 15.7 support_s 0 0 5 XA (implementation) SD SE XA + 1.96 SE XA (suitability) 74.92 18.71 4.29 83.33 87.95 74.17 18.39 4.22 82.44 88.24 73.63 17.78 4.08 81.62 87.55 Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 SD 9.13 7.89 8.14 SE 2.09 1.81 1.86 XA + 1.96 SE 92.05 91.79 91.21 XA - 1.96 SE 83.84 84.69 83.88 p(t-test) < < < implementation- 0.000 0.000 0.000 suitability_ Legend: i - implementation; s - suitability, XA- average, SD - standard deviation, SE -standard error, p - probability Teachers in general believe that the suitability of exercises is lower than it is in curriculum and suitability is higher than their implementation. Under less suitable elements for the third three-year cycle they list dive roll forward in acrobatics, jump on the beam and half turn in support on bars and on the bar. We also examined to what extent gymnastic content and movements (preparatory exercises, pre-elements and element development exercises) that are not prescribed by the curriculum were implemented (Table 3). Teachers answered 'yes' (implemented) and 'no' (not implemented). Pre-exercises are implemented in a high percentage in all three years of the last cycle (in years 7 and 8 70% and in year 9 67%). However, results also show a significant decrease in some preparatory exercises (vertical bar climbing, rope climbing, ladder climbing and bunny jumps). Table 3. Implementation of gymnastic content and movements (preparatory exercises, pre-elements and element development exercises) that is not prescribed by the curriculum IMPLEMENTATION Gymnastics content, not included in the Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 curriculum N Yes% No% N Yes% No% N Yes% No% PREPARATORY EXERCISES Bar climbing 14 91.5 8.5 14 84.4 15.6 12 77.9 22.1 1 1 2 Monkey bars 13 39.7 60.3 13 33.1 66.9 11 30.1 69.9 climbing 1 0 3 Rope climbing 13 57.2 42.8 13 54 46 11 52.5 47.5 8 7 8 Ladder climbing 14 87.1 12.9 13 80.6 19.4 11 31.1 68.9 0 9 9 Wall climbing 13 31.6 68.4 13 30.1 69.9 11 31.1 68.9 6 6 9 Bunny jumps 13 91.4 8.6 13 86.2 13.8 12 85.0 15.0 9 8 0 PRE-ELEMENTS Shoulder stand Jumping to arms support Jump into knee support on box Jump into squat 14 1 13 8 13 7 13 96.5 83.3 77.4 84.9 3.5 16.7 22.6 15.1 14 1 13 8 13 6 13 90.8 83.3 70.6 80.4 9.2 16.7 29.4 19.6 12 1 11 9 11 7 11 86.8 83.2 67.5 76.5 13.2 16.8 32.5 23.5 Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 support on box Runway. roll forward on high soft mat Hang bar/bars 9 8 9 13 76.3 23.7 13 73.4 26.6 11 68.9 31.1 9 9 9 13 75.2 24.8 13 73.7 26.3 11 72.6 27.4 7 7 7 ELEMENTS DEVELOPMENT Roll backward to 14 29.3 70.7 14 handstand 0 1 Handstand. roll 13 71.2 28.8 14 forward 9 0 One leg turns 13 56.5 43.5 13 1 1 Leaps 13 62.9 37.1 13 2 2 Connecting elements 13 83.9 16.1 13 on floor 7 7 Connecting acrobatic 13 48.9 51.1 13 and rhythmic 3 4 element on floor Short exercise on 13 74.6 25.4 13 floor 4 6 Connecting elements 12 55.9 44.1 12 on beam 7 8 Short exercise on 12 51.2 48.4 12 beam 5 5 Dunking from mini 13 25.9 74.1 13 trampoline 9 9 Changing front and 13 24.8 75.2 13 back hang on 3 3 bar/bars Connecting elements 13 48.2 51.8 13 on bar/bars 7 8 Short exercise on 13 39.1 60.9 13 bar/bars 8 9 37.6 78.6 58.8 64.4 85.4 48.5 72.1 56.3 49.6 33.8 26.3 62.4 21.4 41.2 35.6 14.6 51.5 27.9 43.8 50.4 66.2 73.7 50.0 50.0 43.2 56.8 12 1 12 0 11 3 11 4 11 8 11 4 11 6 11 0 10 7 11 8 11 2 11 6 11 9 45.5 82.5 56.6 62.3 83.9 50.9 76.7 53.6 51.4 36.4 28.6 53.4 48.7 54.5 17.5 43.4 37.7 16.1 49.1 23.3 46.4 48.6 63.6 71.4 46.6 51.3 DISCUSSION Gymnastic contents have been part of the PE curriculum ever since physical education was first introduced in the education system. As open-ended curricula provide teachers with a higher level of autonomy, it often happens that contents that require more management and where injuries are more likely are not allocated enough lessons in the annual work plan (Kovač, 2006). In recent discussions among physical education teachers, 12 lessons have often been mentioned as the minimum number (Pecek & Dezman, 2003). Our survey has shown that the actual number is even lower (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3) as gymnastics accounts for 10.6 lessons in year 7 (15.1%), 9.7 lessons (13.8%) in year 8 and 9.2 lessons (9.2%) in year 9. In the study titled 'Views of physical education teachers from Ljubljana basic schools on the role of the gymnastics programme in the upper basic school', M. Medved (1985) made an assessment that PE teachers on average spent 20% of all PE lessons on gymnastic exercises. According to the curriculum of the time, physical Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 education was allocated 105 lessons per year which means that teachers on average spent around 20 lessons on this sport discipline. D. Rogelja (1985) who also researched on the situation in Ljubljana basic schools, came to the conclusion that 56% of PE teachers dedicated 16-30% of all lessons to gymnastics, 29.7% of teachers spent 0-15% of lessons on gymnastics and 14.3% spent more than 31% of lessons on gymnastic exercises. When external assessment was introduced nation-wide at the end of the nine-year basic school program, authors Kovač, Dežman & Lorenci (2002) were interested in examining the extent to which teachers followed the curriculum in the last three-year cycle and which types of contents were paid more attention than others. Even though all teachers claimed they followed and fully implemented the recommended curriculum, their responses did not correspond with their statements. Using range analysis (the first selection was given weight function 3, the second 2 and the third 1), the authors discovered that teachers paid most attention to track and field sports (46 points) and ball games (45 points), and considerably less to gymnastics (20 points). This raises the question of whether it is possible to successfully teach, reinforce and monitor knowledge gained in the ten lessons allocated to gymnastics and then assess it at the end of each cluster. Teachers may want to consider the proposal that they can implement gymnastic contents (some preparatory exercises - climbing, push-ups, scales, basic gymnastic vertical jumps; and pre-elements) in the introductory part of the lesson or its conclusion, regardless of the lesson's main objective. By continuously including gymnastic elements in the curriculum, teachers will be able to improve or at least maintain the level of movement abilities in their pupils throughout the year. For children, the period between the ages of ten and fifteen is a very sensitive period in their development characterised by fast growth, especially of extremities. The accelerated development of the body unbalances the established movement patterns leading to temporary stagnation or even decline in the movement development process (Strel, Kovač, Jurak, & Bednarik, 2001). This is a perfectly normal and understandable phenomenon; nevertheless, children sometimes find it hard to accept it (Horvat, 1994) and this diminished movement efficiency often turns them away from sports. This stage in their development is probably the breaking point when teachers find it especially hard to maintain a positive attitude to sports and movement in their pupils. In terms of implementation of gymnastic content (Table 2), teachers belive curriculum is to difficult and they do not introduce the whole curriculum content to the pupils, teachers seem to implement those elements which are technically easier to perform, for example exercises in which the body never enters a phase of no support (roll forward, roll backward, handstand, handspring to the side, walking on the beam, etc.). Elements which include a flight phase, a turn or a reduction in the support surface are more difficult to teach and teachers also find them less suitable. The least implemented are exercises on the bar and the parallel/uneven bars where only one exercise, felge, of the six listed is implemented in high percentage. Interestingly enough, felge is the hardest to perform among the six listed exercises. Based on different examinations of implementation of gymnastic content in basic schools, different authors have noticed different reasons for their nonimplementation. Šturm & Strel (2002) see poor results in the development of muscular strength in arms and shoulders as a consequence of negligent attitude toward gymnastic elements in training programmes and superficial attitude toward systematic and holistic development of basic movement abilities. Strel, Kovač & Jurak (2004) have found that in recent decades there has been a very significant decline in the arm and shoulder strength, specifically 20% per decade. Exercises on bars are especially effective in building up strength in arms and shoulders. Kovač (2006, pp. 11- Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 18) has noticed that teachers apparently do not teach certain contents or teach them on a very limited scale as pupils do not meet the standards recommended by the curriculum (Kovač & Novak, 2001). Some authors (Majerič, 2004; Šturm & Strel, 2002) note that teaching is not systematic and results of some research studies show that teachers in the first and the second three-year cycle spend too few lessons on gymnastics which leads to very modest knowledge of gymnastics in children (Majerič, 2004; Štemberger, 2003). Teachers in the third cycle also spend too few lessons on gymnastics (Turšič, 2007). Children find it easiest to learn gymnastic elements in the first years of school, whereas later they need many repetitions to automate more complex movements (Tušak, 1994). This can only be achieved if the learning process is appropriately organised with sufficient number of lessons, optimal teaching techniques and appropriate methodical procedures (Kovač, 2006). Results (Table 2) also show that there are fewer performances of elements on the beam. Elements on the beam in the current curriculum are only aimed at girls which is a serious deficiency as the beam works as a key apparatus in the learning of body control and correct posture regardless of the child's sex (Bučar Pajek, 2009). In sports today, proprioceptive training is performed in order to improve muscular coordination, posture and balance, to improve body awareness in the space and to subsequently become less prone to injuries. All current training programs for adults are based on proprioceptive training and body stabilization as this type of training counterbalances the consequences of the modern sedentary lifestyle and prevents lower back pain (Bučar Pajek & Pajek, 2009). In its narrow sense, proprioception is defined as the ability of the body to consciously and subconsciously recognise the relative position of neighbouring parts of the body in the space (Enoka, 1994). This type of training consists of various balancing exercises. On the beam, the supporting surface is reduced and the body finds itself in unstable positions. By devising exercises that enable advancement from easy to more demanding and from known to unknown, training can remain interesting while broadening the pupil's movement skills. Balancing exercises can be very effective, low energy and great fun and can be used in the preparatory, main or the final part of a physical education lesson. It is therefore highly recommended that teachers teach balancing exercises both to girls and to boys. They can be used in the introductory or the end part of the lesson regardless of the objective of the main part of the lesson (track and field, basketball, gymnastics, volleyball, handball, football, dance, etc.). In our survey, special attention was paid to the implementation of gymnastic contents and movements (Table 3) which are not included in the PE curriculum in the third cycle - they are, however, included in the curriculum for the first years of basic school and play an important role in the methods by which some gymnastic elements are taught. Preparatory exercises can significantly impact the child's movement abilities which are important for teaching gymnastic contents. Pre-exercises, on the other hand, can teach pupils exercises related to the structure or part of the structure of the chosen element and are selected by the teacher as a means of teaching new contents. Gymnastics offers a wealth of locomotive, stability and control movements. Pupils in all three cycles learn basic elements that are important, especially for one's orientation in the space (jumps and leaps, hanging and supporting oneself, rotating, crawling, rolling; elements can be performed in different directions and on different levels). These elements can later be upgraded by more complex movements on apparatus and by using different aids. Gymnastic contents in school programmes do not only entail learning elements of acrobatics, exercises on apparatus, elements of rhythmic gymnastics and jumps on small trampoline, but also learning about gymnastic exercises and their importance Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 for the development and maintenance of human movement abilities and good posture (Kovač, 2006). The presence of zero curriculum is noticeable in a dramatic decline in the implementation of preparatory exercises in years 7 to 9 (vertical bar climbing, rope climbing, ladder climbing and bunny jumps) and indicates that as children grow and become older, teachers progressively leave out certain elements from the gymnastic content. They probably think that children have already mastered such elements and therefore find them too easy (ladder climbing, bunny jumps) or too difficult (rope and vertical bar climbing) at this age. The objective of preparatory exercises is to maintain or improve children's movement ability levels (Čuk, Bolkovic, Bučar Pajek, Turšič, & Bricelj, 2006). Climbing demands from the child the highest degree of good physical condition. Climbing requires strength of the flexing muscles in the arms and a certain level of movement coordination as the child needs to wrap the rope around his or her feet or to find support on the vertical bar and coordinate the movement of legs and arms while climbing; climbing requires courage and perseverance to reach the top and then safely climb down the vertical bar or the rope. The problem occurs when children, due to insufficient strength in the arms and shoulders, are unable to climb. They are usually able to hang onto the rope or the vertical bar for a moment and then, due to insufficient strength or fear of falling, give up in this position rather than make an attempt to climb higher. In such cases, the teacher must distinguish between exercises for arm flexing and extending. For muscles that flex arms, the following preparatory exercises should be selected: vertical bar climbing, ladder climbing, wall climbing or rope climbing. Muscles that extend arms can be strengthened by preparatory exercises which require support: bunny jumps, cartwheel, standing front and back support walking moving forward and backward (perhaps as a catch-up game), etc. In this age group, it is particularly important that teachers insist on the performance of simple organic forms of movements, preparatory exercises and exercises to strengthen specific groups of muscles as this is the only way to successfully maintain or even improve the level of children's movement abilities. Gymnastics in basic school positively impacts on specific dimensions of psychosomatic status of children and adolescents only if the training is well planned, professionally managed, pedagogically conducted and goal oriented. The teacher must be able to guide children's interests and to align them with educational premises and objectives of physical education in particular in order to provide quality education. In order to facilitate successful learning, the teacher must continuously update his or her knowledge. Understanding the importance of gymnastics for the development of a school child is not enough; in order to realise educational objectives it is necessary to implement the gymnastics programme in such a way that gymnastic contents are implemented in all stages. The teacher is the one who can adapt, in accordance with his or her knowledge and understanding of a particular sport discipline, the training programme to the given conditions, situation and the child's abilities. This is how children learn to understand a specific sport discipline as a whole, adopt it and implement it in their own free time. REFERENCES Anon. (1998). Predmetnik devetletne osnovne šole. Retrieved 23 April 2010, from http://www.see- educoop.net/education in/pdf/predmetnik 9 letke-slo-svn-t06.pdf Bučar Pajek, M. (2003). Dejavniki uspešnosti programa akrobatike za študentke na Fakulteti za šport. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. Bučar Pajek, M. (2009). Pilates v šoli. Paper presented at the 22. posvet zveze društev športnih pedagogov Slovenije. Bučar Pajek, M., & Pajek, J. (2009). Lower back pain and the possible role of Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal Bučar Pajek M., Čuk I., Kovač M. , Turšič B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GYMNASTICS:... Vol. 2 Issue 3: 15-27 pilates in artistic gymnastics. Science of Gymnastics Journal, 1(1), 51-57. Čuk, I., Bolkovic, T., Bučar Pajek, M., Turšič, B., & Bricelj, A. (2006). Teorija in metodika športne gimnastike - vaje (1st ed.). Ljubljana: Fakulteta za Šport. Enoka, R. M. (1994). Neuromechanical Basis of Kinesiology. Champain: Human Kinetics. Horvat, L. (1994). Motorični in kognitivni razvoj v starostnem obdobju med 6. in 19. letom. In A. Cankar & M. Kovač (Eds.), Cilji šolske športne vzgoje - Uvodna izhodišča. Ljubljana: Zavod republike Slovenije za šolstvo in šport. Kompara, A., & Čuk, I. (2006). Športna gimnastika v učnih načrtih osnovnih šol od leta 1874 do leta 1941. Šport - priloga, 54(2), 30-43. Kovač, M. (2006). Gimnastično znanje učencev v slovenskih osnovnih šolah ter njegovo preverjanje in ocenjevanje. Šport, 54(2), 11-18. Kovač, M., Dežman, B., & Lorenci, B. (2002). Mnenja športnih pedagogov o zunanjem preverjanju znanja iz športne vzgoje. Paper presented at the 15. strokovni posvet Zveze društev športnih pedagogov Slovenije - Razvojne smernice športne vzgoje. Kovač, M., & Novak, D. (2001). Učni načrt za osnovno šolo. Ljubljana: Urad za šolstvo. Majerič, M. (2004). Analiza modelov ocenjevanja športnih znanj pri športni vzgoji. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. Medved, B. (1985). Stališča učiteljev telesne vzgoje ljubljanskih osnovnih šol o vlogi programa športne gimnastike na predmetni stopnji. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. Novak, D., Kovač, M., & Čuk, I. (2008). Gimnastična abeceda. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport. Peček, P., & Dežman, B. (2003). Vpliv trinajsturnega programa vadbe košarke na izboljšanje tehnično-taktičnih spretnosti učenk v 7. razredu osnovne šole. Paper presented at the 16. strokovni posvet pedagogov Slovenije - Ocenjevanje pri športni vzgoji. Rogelja, D. (1985). Nekatera stališča učiteljev telesne vzgoje o programu športne gimnastike v procesu šolske telesne vzgoje ter vpliv delavnih pogojev na njihova stališča. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. Strel, J. (2004). Pomen športa in izobraževanja pri preprečevanju sedečega načina življenja in oblikovanju zdravega življenjskega stila otrok in mladine - Primer Slovenije. In M. Bučar Pajek (Ed.). Ljubljana: Faculty of Sport. Strel, J., Kovač, M., Jurak, G., & Bednarik, J. (2001). Primerjava telesnega in gibalnega razvoja šolske mladine med leti 1990-2000. Paper presented at the 14. strokovni posvet Zveze društev športnih pedagogov Slovenije, Kranjska Gora -Uvajanje novosti pri šolski športni vzgoji. Tome, J. (1983). Realizacija šolske telesne vzgoje v SR Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za telesno kulturo, Inštitut za kineziologijo. Turšič, B. (2007). Izpeljava gimnastičnih vsebin, ki so v učnem načrtu tretjega triletja osnovne šole. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. Tušak, M. (1994). Psihološki vidiki učenja plavanja. Paper presented at the Prvi slovenski posvet o učenju plavanja in varnosti pred utapljanjem. Štemberger, V. (2003). Zagotavljanje kakovosti športne vzgoje v prvem vzgojno-izobraževalnem obdobju devetletne osnovne šole. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. Šturm, J., & Strel, J. (2002). Gibalni in telesni razvoj osnovnošolcev Slovenije v obdobju od 1970/71-1983. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za Šport. Science of Gymnastics Journal 1 5 Science of Gymnastics Journal