This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 07 January 2015, At: 23:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & DancePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrd20

Aquatics for the Young ChildStephen Langendorfer a aa The Motor Development Center , Kent State University , Kent , OH , 44242 , USAPublished online: 25 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Stephen Langendorfer (1986) Aquatics for the Young Child, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &Dance, 57:6, 61-66, DOI: 10.1080/07303084.1986.10606169

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1986.10606169

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

AQUATICS FOR THE YOUNG CHILD

STEPHEN LANGENDORFER

D espite the growth innumber and popularity ofaquatic programs for

young children (Hicks-Hughes &Langendorfer, 1986), numerousindividuals and organizations haveissued warnings about potentialdangers and health concerns asso­ciated with young children and thewater (Homan, 1974; Murphy,1983; Nagle, 1984). Warnings havebeen issued by the Council for Na­tional Cooperation in Aquatics(CNCA) and the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics (CNCA,1973; American Academy ofPediatrics, 1982). "Aquatic ActivityPrograms for Children under theAge of Three," was recently pub-

JOPERD-August 1986

lished in the new National AquaticsJournal (CNCA, 1985).

The debate surrounding aquaticissues has been conducted largelyin the popular press and media andhas focused on the opinions andbeliefs of many so-called expertssuch as pediatricians and long timeswimming instructors (Bory, 1971;Murray, 1980; Newman, 1983;Prudden, 1974; Timmermans,1975). In addition, while theACSM's Position Statement resultedfrom extensive research efforts,there has been minimal research tosupport the statements andguidelines issued regarding aqua­tics for young children. The pur­pose of this article is to illustrate

several controversial areas by con­trasting fact with myth and to high­light the need for a comprehensiveresearch effort to answer particularquestions about aquatics for theyoung child.

Myths and facts

For the purpose of this article, amyth will be considered any opin­ion or statement which can be re­butted by established facts from re­search or repeated observations.These myths will be grouped ac­cording to the following areas:health and safety concerns;teaching/learning methods; andaquatic environments/equipment.For each myth or misunderstand-

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

35 0

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

62

ing, a discussion of facts and theneed for research will be examined.

Safety and health concerns

Myth # 1. Young childen can bemade"water safe."

Fact. No person, regardless ofage or skill level, can be completelysafe in the water without supervi­sion. This is especially true foryoung childen who operate at moreprimitive levels of cognitive andmotoric developmental function­ing. The terms used to describemany aquatic programs for youngchildren ("drownproofing," "waterproofing," "water safe") unfortu­nately suggest that the physicalskills acquired by a young child mayguarantee safe participation with­out close and careful parentalsupervision (CNCA, 1985).

The "water safeness" of youngchildren raises several importantissues which are the source ofclaims and counterclaims by manypersons. There has been little em­pirical evidence to support whetherswimming lessons for young chil­dren reduce the incidence ofdrowning among young children.National safety councils of severalnations have extensive statistics onrates and places of drownings ofyoung children. No one has dem­onstrated empirically how a youngchild actually gets into a drowningsituation and whether physicalwater safety skills are sufficient toactually prevent the drowning.One argument suggests that teach­ing young children to swim actuallycontributes to increasing thelikelihood of drowning (e.g.,swimming lessons provide an "at­tractive nuisance") (Homan, 1974).

Comprehensive studies by aqua­tic and public health researchersneed to ascertain whether aquaticprograms increase, decrease, oralter the risk of drowning to youngchildren. Of particular importancewould be studies to discover the ac­tual means by which young chil­dren get into drowning situations.

Myth #2: Children'sfaces and headsmust stay dry during lessons to prevent"water intoxication. "

Fact. There is no evidence as yetthat casual and infrequent submer­sions during lessons can causehyponatremia, or so-called "waterintoxication." Nevertheless,hyponatremia has been labeled bysome as a potentially serious condi­tion resulting from an electrolyteimbalance (Murphy, 1983; Ben­nett, et aI., 1983).

Reported clinical symptoms ininfants and young children haveincluded lethargy, crying, vomit­ing, convulsions, or coma resultingfrom a significant intake of fluid,loss of electrolytes, or both. Bodysize, the number of submersions,amount of water intake, length oftime in the water, and fatigue allmay be precipitating factors in thereported case studies (Stewart,1985). Literature on hyponatremiais limited to a few medical casestudies. There is little empirical re­search to demonstrate whichmechanisms may interact in theswimming environment to precipi­tate a case of hyponatremia. Thereis little information on. how wide­spread the incidence of the condi­tion is, especially in the presence ofthe "soft" signs (e.g., crying,lethargy, irri tability).

Several carefully controlledstudies which identify factors con­tributing to hyponatremia and itsfrequency are needed im­mediately. These should be con­ducted in concert with trainedmedical and pediatric physiologicalpersonnel.

Myth # 3. Submersion ofinfants andyoung children is not dangerous sincethe epiglottal or "breathholding" reflexprevents water from entering the lungs.

Fact. While an epiglottal reflexindeed does exist and permits eventhe youngest infant to swallow foodwithout choking or aspirating foodor fluids, it functions neither toprevent drowning nor to controlthe amount of water swallowed [seeMyth # 2]. The epiglottal reflexmay be elicited either consciouslyor unconsciously by submersion ofboth mouth and nose areas of theface. The unconscious reflex mayfollow a developmental course ofinhibition over the first six months

and comes under relatively volun­tary control.

Regardless of whether the reflexis stimulated unconsciously (in ayoung infant) or consciously (in anolder child) and regardless of howeffectively the breath is held, theyoung child can swallow largeamounts of water and/or lose con­sciousness without demonstratingany coughing or distress that wouldmark inhalation of water. Evenadults who have drowned oftenhave little if any quantities of waterin their lungs, indicating that theepiglottal reflex works all too well(Langendorfer, 1985).

Since the developmental courseand function of primitive reflexeslike the epiglottal are still poorlyunderstood, further research suchas that currently being conductedby Esther Thelen at Indiana Uni­versity is needed. In addition, thespecific role of the epiglottal andswimming reflexes in acquisition ofaquatic skills needs to be investi­gated carefully.

Myth # 4: Infants will contract seri­ous diseases in swimming pools.

Fact. There is little evidence thatyoung children and infants are anymore susceptible to disease fromswimming than persons of otherages. Despite occasional referencesto increased susceptibility to coldsor inner ear infections due to expo­sure to swimming programs,swimming in chlorinated pools (asopposed to fresh water) cannot belinked to increased prevalence ofotitis externa (Springer & Shapiro,1985) or the acquisition of othercommon infections such as en­teroviruses (common viral infec­tions) (D'Allessio, et aI., 1981) orparasites (giardiasis) (Harter et aI.,1984).

Obviously, it is vitally importantthat swimming facilities be main­tained according to proper operat­ing procedures including adequatelevels of residual chlorine, pH bal­ance, and sufficient circulatoryturnover rates. In addition, it isrecommended that individualswith obvious illness symptoms(runny nose, rash, fever) be ex­cluded from swim ming groups.

JOPERD-August 1986

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

35 0

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

The standard institutional swimming poolusually is too deep, too cold, too noisy, and toocrowded for optimal aquatic learning by mostinfants and young children. The homebathtub or small backyard pool can provide asignificantly superior learning environment.

There is, however, no indicationthat well maintained swimmingpools are "disease carriers." Mostviruses and other common infec­tions are spread through the airthrough group contact and not

. from the pool water.There is a need for some com­

prehensive public health educationprograms related to disease trans­mission, especially as related topublic swimming facilities and withyoung children. It will be crucialfor aquatic professionals to havecommand of the existing medicalinformation about the likelihoodof disease transmission throughgroup contact (and not the wateritself) in order to combat rumors orcharges.

Myth # 5: Infants and young chil­dren contaminate swimming pools andthrow off the chemical balance.

Fact. According to Dave Thomas,a pool. chemistry expert, infantsand young childen have a relativelysmall potential output of urea andfecal matter in relation to the totalwater volume of a large institu­tional pool and they "would have anegligible influence on the poolchemistry" (Thomas, 1975). Hesaid, "the most important questionis not what the infants do to thewater, but what the water does tothe infant."

There appears to be divergentopinions about desirable poolchemistry such as residual chlorinelevels, total alkalinity, pH, waterand air temperature, and relativehumidity. Studies focusing onthese factors as they interact withthe age, skill, and activity levels ofswimming participants are neededto resolve the differences of opin­ion.

Teaching/Learning concerns

Myth # 6: Young children are unableto learn to really swim.

Fact. The term "swimming"should not be limited solely to tra­ditional swimming strokes, butshould include any form of inten­tional aquatic locomotion (i.e., anybody movements that purposefullypropel the body through the wa­ter). Some children as young as one

JOPERD-August 1986

year or so can demonstraterudimentary forms of aquaticlocomotion (e.g., beginner orhuman stroke, "dog paddle," backfloat). Certainly before age threemost children with sufficient expe­rience can demonstrate someelementary modes of aquaticlocomotion. This physical profi­ciency should not be confused withthe "water safe" claim in Myth # 1.

Motor skill acquisition, particu­larly aquatic skills, is still poorlyunderstood. The existence of anoptimal age or amount of time re­quired to learn swimming skills isunknown.

Studies exploring age andamount of experience as factors inaquatic learning efficiency are des­perately needed. Are there rela­tionships between terrestrial motordevelopment and acquisition ofaquatic skills? Is it more beneficialfor young childen to begin aquaticexperiences at certain ages?

Myth # 7: Young children have areflex that allows them to swim.

Fact. The existence of a swim­ming reflex in newborn infants wasdemonstrated by Myrtle McGraw(1935; 1939) over 50 years ago.However, the swimming reflexseems to operate only in very younginfants and, importantly, does notfit our definition for "intentional"aquatic locomotion (Myth # 6).

The movement behavior of aswimming reflex displays alternat­ing flexion and extension of thearms and legs with concomitant lat­eral trunk flexion when an infant isplaced prone in the water. This ac­tivity is controlled involuntarily at a

primitive level of the nervous sys­tem similar to the level which con­trols breathing, sucking, arid eyeblinking. However, the infant isunable to lift his or her head andcannot get a breath. The behaviorgenerally disappears over the firstthree to six months of life and hasno survival value for either the in­fant or the young child. Althoughthe infant is displaying the reflex-

ive movement; he or she is notswimming in any actual sense.

The research evidence is dividedregarding whether early experi­ence and elicitation of the swim­ming reflex can integrate thereflexive movement into later in­tentional swimming behaviors. Re­search to determine the actual pro­cess through which an infant oryoung child acquires aquatic andother motor skills is needed. Par­ticular emphasis on the role of re­flexes in the control of later volun­tary movements is of interest.

Myth # 8: Proper techniques are cru­cial in teaching infants and young chil­dren advanced swimming strokes andwater srifety techniques.

Fact. Acquisition of aquatic skillsis primarily the function of the ac­tive learning of the individual, notthe specific teaching techniqueemployed. Swimming instructorsuse a great variety of methods andtechniques and yet childern learnto swim under all of them. Proba­bly, they learn to swim in spite of themethods rather than because ofthem! Current motor developmentresearch suggests that motor skills(including swimming) are acquiredin gradual developmentally-

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

35 0

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

Children can learn on their own and in play situations withoutformal teaching.

64

ordered sequences of change(Bruya, Langendorfer, & Reid,1986). Each sequence level ishierarchically prior to and less wellintegrated than later levels. Noknown teaching or behavioraltechniques can override the se­quence order, although well­founded techniques can acceleratethe rate of acquisition of the se­quence levels (Bruya, et aI., 1986).

Little is known about the de­velopmental sequences throughwhich aquatic skills pass as a youngchild or any-aged person acquiresthem. Serious cross-sectional andlongitudinal studies need to beconducted to observe how childrenactually learn to swim. These

studies need to be conducted bothindependently of and in conjunc­tion with existing programs andmethods of instruction in order todetermine how robust the de­velopmental sequences actuallyare.

Myth # 9: The focus oflessonsshouldbe on the work of strokes and watersafety, not onfun and play.

Fact. Contrary to some opinions,children very definitely can learnon their own and in play situationswithout formal teaching. Manychild development experts feel thework of childhood is play. Thefocus of the swimming lessonsprobably reflects the instructor'sconcept oflearning and teaching as

well as his or her philosophy on thepurpose of swimming lessons. Theinstructor or parent who feels in­fant swimming lessons areprovided for accelerating the com­petitive swimming potential for thechild, drownproofing the child, orimproving the child's status in rela­tion to her or his peers is likely toadopt a strict work ethic in relationto lessons (Bruya, et aI., 1986).

In contrast, instructors and par­ents who see the aquatic experienceas enhancing the child's totalmovement repertoire or as a placefor important parent-child interac­tions are more likely to adopt theplay philosophy within lessons.Several theories in physical educa­tion suggest that the young childneeds a wide variety of movementexperiences of which the aquaticenvironment is but one. Movementexploration in a variety of situa­tions can provide a strong andbroad foundation of movementupon which to later specialize.Early specialization in movementproduces not an athletic prodigy,but an easily-frustrated and poorlyeducated individual.

Since most of the existing swim­ming methods and programs arebased upon teaching strokes andare teacher-centered, new methodsand techniques are needed.Methods for encouraging childento explore the aquatic environmentsafely are urgently needed to helpteachers shift the emphasis ofaqua­tic programs for young childenfrom "teaching swimming strokes"to "learning watermanship."

Aquatic environments/equipment

Myth # 10: The best place for aninfant or young child to learn to swim isin a standard swimming pool.

Fact. The standard institutionalswimming pool usually is too deep,too cold, too noisy, and toocrowded for optimal aquatic learn­ing by most infants and young chil­dren (Shank, 1983). While mostswimming programs for infants andyoung children have been orga­nized by swimming instructors inconjunction with a public pool,these facilities are far from optimal,

JOPERD-August 1986

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

35 0

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

or even desirable, for learning. Thehome bathtub or small backyardpool can provide a significantlysuperior learning environment forthe young child. The cleanliness,clarity, and temperature of thewater often can be better controlledwhile keeping the child in closeproximity to the parent.

Because the home environmentis better known to the young childthan a public facility, she or he ismore likely to actively explore andlearn on her or his own. This homeaquatic environment does radicallyalter the traditional notions sur­rounding swimming lessons. It is,however, an excellent site for ac­quiring such basic aquatic conceptsand skills as breath control, flota­tion, and relaxation in an explora­tory manner. Books like CarolynShank's A Child's Way to Water Play,(1983) can provide many excellentactivities for home fun. Parents alsomust be cautioned about the dan­gers of home water environmentsand the need for extra vigilance.

The effect of water depth, waterand air temperature, noise level,and chemicals are factors that havereceived little attention by re­searchers. They would appear to berelatively easy factors to investigatein current programs and facilities.In such studies, age and skill shouldbe carefully controlled since infantsand young children may be affectedin radically different ways thanolder children or adults.

Myth # 11. Young children becomedependent upon flotation devices andthey should not be used in swimminglessons.

Fact. Like any teaching methodor piece oflearning equipment, flo­tation devices have their place.They should not be substitutes for agood teacher, teaching pro­gressions, or parental supervision.On the other hand, they canprovide the instructor with an av­enue for demonstrating waterbuoyancy to a fearful young childand a means for the unskilled childto practice arm and leg locomotormovements without submerging.Any supposed dependency is onlytemporary and can be controlled by

JOPERD-August 1986

a skillful teacher and parent.Methods for using flotation de­

vices effectively with other teachingmethods are always needed. Con­trolled studies comparing the useof flotation devices with methodsnot using them also are needed.Studies comparing the effective-

ness of different types of flotationsuch as inflatable cuffs and the newflotation suits also will be helpfulfor teachers.

Myth # 12: Early aquatic experienceleads to superior cognitive and motordevelopment.

Fact. There is little evidence

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

35 0

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

15

66

about the effect of early experi­ence, including aquatics, on theoverall development of youngchildren. Diem (1982) has demon­strated enhanced development dueto early aquatic and movement ex­periences. On the other hand,Langendorfer (1974) was unable toshow any enhanced developmentaleffects resulting from either earlymovement or aquatic experience.While many aquatic professionalsand parents fervently believe thatearly experience enhances de­velopment, the research evidence islacking.

Long-term developmentalstudies of infants and young chil­dren who have experienced aquaticprograms are needed to answerthis most crucial question: doesearly aquatic and/or movement ex­perience really enhance the totaldevelopment of the young child?

Summary

It is evident from the examplesof myths discussed that opinionsboth on the pro and con sides ofaquatics for young children oftenare based on little factual informa­tion. This area desperately needscomprehensive research efforts byaquatic professionals, and de­velopmental and medical research­ers. The Executive Board of theCouncil for National Cooperationin Aquatics recently formed a Na­tional Advisory Committee onAquatics for Young Children. Thepurpose of the National AdvisoryCommittee (NAC) is to address thenumerous unresolved issues inaquatics for young children, to en­courage research in the area, and,perhaps, to update and/or reaffirmexisting guidelines. The desiredend is to provide accurate, factualinformation to instructors and par­ents so that aquatic programs forthe young child may be the bestpossible.

The NAC will attempt to en­courage and coordinate activitiesby many aquatic organizations(such as AAHPERD's AquaticCouncil, the YMCA of the USA,American Red Cross, the UnitedStates Swimming Foundation, and

the National Recreation and ParksAssociation) to promote as manyunified efforts as possible for thebenefit of aquatics for young chil­dren. Persons interested in this ef­fort are urged to contact the NACvia the CNCA, 901 W. New YorkSt., Indianapolis, IN.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics(1982). Aquatic activity programs forchildren under the age of three.Pediatrics, 58.

American College of Sports Medicine(1978). Position statement on therecommended quantity and qualityof exercise for developing and main­taining fitness in healthy adults.N!.edicine in Science and Sports, 10,VII-X.

Bennett, H. J., Wagner, T., &Fields, A. (1983). Acute hypona­tremia and seizures in an infant afterswimming. Pediatrics, 72, 125-127.

Bory, E. (1971). Teaching children toswim. Sydney, Australia: Paul Ham­Iyn.

Bruya, L. D., Langendorfer, S., &Reid, A. (in press) Facilitating aqua­tic motor development: A review ofdevelopmental and environmentalvariables. Current Selected Research inMotor Development.

CNCA (1973). CNCA Statement andGuiding Principles on pre-school swim­ming. Virginia: CNCA.

CNCA (1985). Aquatic activity pro­grams for children under the age ofthree. National Aquatic Journal, 1(2),12-13.

D'AlIessio, D., Minor, T. E., Al­len , C. 1., Tsiatis, A. A., Nel­son, D. B. (1981). A study of theproportions of swimmers among wellcontrols and children withenterovirus-like illness shedding ornot shedding an enterovirus. Ameri­can Journal of Epidemiology, 113(5),533-41.

Diem, L. (1982). Early motor stimula­tion and personal development.

Journal of Physical Education, Recrea­tion and Dance, 53(9), 23-25.

Harter, L., Frost, F., Grunenfel­der, G., Perkins-Jones, K., & Lib­by,]. (1984). Giardiasis in an infantand toddler swim class. AmericanJournal ofPublic Health, 74(2), 155-6.

Hicks-Hughes, D., & Langendorfer, S.(1986). Aquatics for the young child:A survey of selected programs. Na­tional Aquatics Journal, 2( 1).

Homan, W. E. (1974, July 9). Infantsshould be wary of the water. SundayNew York Times.

Langendorfer, S. (1974). The effect oftactile stimulation using water and grossmotor exercise upon the motor develop­ment of 6-9-month-old infants. Unpub­lished masters thesis, Purdue Uni­versity.

Langendorfer, S. (1985). Health andsafety concerns in preschool aqua­tics. National Aquatics Journal 1(3),8-9.

McGraw, M. B. (1935). Growth, A studyof Johnny and Jimmy. New York: D.Appleton-Century.

McGraw, M. B. (1939). Swimming be­havior of the human infant. Journalof Pediatrics, 15(4),485-490.

Murphy, M. M., & Firke, C. (1983).Concern grows over infant swim­ming. Discovery YMCA, 1(4), 22-23.

Murray,]. L. (1980). Infaquatics: Teach­ing kids to swim. West Point, NY: Lei­sure Press.

Nagle, M. (1984, August 6). How safeare swimming classes for your baby.USA Today, p. D-l.

Newman, V. H. (1983). Teaching an in­fant to swim (2nd ed.). San Diego:Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.

Prudden, B. (1974). Teach your baby toswim. New York: Dial Press.

Shank, C. (1983). A child's way to waterplay. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Springer, G. L., & Shapiro, E. D.(1985). Fresh water swimming as arisk factor for otitis externa: A casecontrol study. Archives of Environ­mental Health, 40(4), 202-6.

Stewart, R. D. (1985). Submersion in­cidents: Drowning and near­drowning. In P. S. Auerbach andE. C. Geehr, (Eds.), Management ofwilderness and environmental emergen­cies, (pp. 189-212). New York: Mac­millan.

Timmermans, C. (1975). How to teachyour baby to swim. New York: Stein &Day.

Thomas, J~. G. (1975). Pool chemistryand preschool swimming programs.Paper presented to the CNCAClosed Workshop, Nova University,Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

Stephen Langendorfer is assistant pro­fessor of physical education and assist­ant director ofThe Motor DevelopmentCenter at Kent State University, Kent,OH 44242.

JOPERD-August 1986

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

35 0

7 Ja

nuar

y 20

15