124
3.3.5.3. Determine the composite score to assess the KNVĐCB of preschool children participating in the experiment
From the research results presented in Table 3.31 and Table 3.32, the thesis proceeds to build a standard table for comprehensive assessment and classification in assessing the level of VDCB of preschool children (3-6 years old) participating in the study in Ho Chi Minh City according to 3 levels: Good, Achieved and Unachieved. The standard score for comprehensive assessment and classification of VDCB for preschool children participating in the experiment in the inner and outer areas of Ho Chi Minh City according to each age group is presented in Table 3.33 as follows:
3.33. Criteria for classifying the combination of KNVĐCB skills of preschool children
TT
Classification | Score achieved by age | |||
Baby MG | MG children | Preschool children | ||
(Maximum score 70) | (Maximum score 70) | (Maximum score 60) | ||
1 | Good | > 49.00 | > 49.00 | > 42.00 |
2 | Obtain | 28.00 - 49.00 | 28.00 - 49.00 | 24.00 - 42.00 |
3 | Not achieved | < 28.00 | < 28.00 | < 24.00 |
Maybe you are interested!
-
Identify Rating Levels and Rating Scales
zt2i3t4l5ee
zt2a3gstourism,quan lan,quang ninh,ecology,ecotourism,minh chau,van don,geography,geographical basis,tourism development,science
zt2a3ge
zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts
of the islanders. Therefore, this indicator will be divided into two sub-indicators:
a1. Natural tourism attractiveness a2. Cultural tourism attractiveness
b. Tourist capacity
The two island communes in Quan Lan have different capacities to receive tourists. Minh Chau Commune is home to many standard hotels and resorts, attracting high-income domestic and international tourists. Meanwhile, Quan Lan Commune has many motels mainly built and operated by local people, so the scale and quality are not high, and will be suitable for ordinary tourists such as students.
c. Time of exploitation of Quan Lan Island Commune:
Quan Lan tourism is seasonal due to weather and climate conditions and festivals only take place on certain days of the year, specifically in spring. In Quan Lan commune, the period from April to June and from September to November is considered the best time to visit Quan Lan because the cultural tourism activities are mainly associated with festivals taking place during this time.
Minh Chau island commune:
Tourism exploitation time is all year round, because this is a place with a number of tourist attractions with diverse ecosystems such as Bai Tu Long National Park Research Center, Tram forest, Turtle Laying Beach, so besides coming to the beach for tourism and vacation in the summer, Minh Chau will attract research groups to come for tourism combined with research at other times of the year.
d. Sustainability
The sustainability of ecotourism sites in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes depends on the sensitivity of the ecosystems to climate changes.
landscape. In general, these tourist destinations have a fairly high level of sustainability, because they are natural ecosystems, planned and protected. However, if a large number of tourists gather at certain times, it can exceed the carrying capacity and affect the sustainability of the environment (polluted beaches, damaged trees, animals moving away from their habitats, etc.), then the sustainability of the above ecosystems (natural ecosystems, human ecosystems) will also be affected and become less sustainable.
e. Location and accessibility
Both island communes have ports to take tourists to visit from Van Don wharf:
- Quan Lan – Van Don traffic route:
Phuc Thinh – Viet Anh high-speed boat and Quang Minh high-speed boat, depart at 8am and 2pm from Van Don to Quan Lan, and at 7am and 1pm from Quan Lan to Van Don. There are also wooden boats departing at 7am and 1pm.
- Van Don - Minh Chau traffic route:
Chung Huong high-speed train, Minh Chau train, morning 7:30 and afternoon 13:30 from Van Don to Minh Chau, morning 6:30 and afternoon 13:00 from Minh Chau to Van Don.
f. Infrastructure
Despite receiving investment attention, the issue of infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism on Quan Lan Island is still an issue that needs to be resolved because it has a direct impact on the implementation of ecotourism activities. The minimum conditions for serving tourists such as accommodation, electricity, water, communication, especially medical services, and security work need to be given top priority. Ecotourism spots in Minh Chau commune are assessed to have better infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism because there are quite complete and synchronous conditions for serving tourists, meeting many needs of domestic and foreign tourists.
3.2.1.4. Determine assessment levels and assessment scales
Corresponding to the levels of each criterion, the index is the score of those levels in the order of 4, 3, 2, 1 decreasing according to the standard of each level: very attractive (4), attractive (3), average (2), less attractive (1).
3.2.1.5. Determining the coefficients of the criteria
For the assessment of DLST in the two communes of Quan Lan and Minh Chau islands, the students added evaluation coefficients to show the importance of the criteria and indicators as follows:
Coefficient 3 with criteria: Attractiveness, Exploitation time. These are the 2 most important criteria for attracting tourists to tourism in general and eco-tourism in particular, so they have the highest coefficient.
Coefficient 2 with criteria: Capacity, Infrastructure, Location and accessibility . Because the assessment area is an island commune of Van Don district, the above criteria are selected by the author with appropriate coefficients at the average level.
Coefficient 1 with criteria: Sustainability. Quan Lan has natural and human-made ecotourism sites, with high biodiversity and little impact from local human factors. Most of the ecotourism sites are still wild, so they are highly sustainable.
3.2.1.6. Results of DLST assessment on Quan Lan island
a. Assessment of the potential for natural tourism development
For Minh Chau commune:
+ Natural tourism attractiveness is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined as average (2 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of Capacity criterion is 2 x 2 = 4.
+ Exploitation time is long (4 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Exploitation time criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is assessed as good (3 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 3 x 2 = 6 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Minh Chau commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 4 + 12 + 4 + 4 + 6 = 42 points
Similar assessment for Quan Lan commune, we have the following table:
Table 3.3: Assessment of the potential for natural ecotourism development in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of self-tourismof course
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
CommuneMinh Chau
12
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
42/52
Quan CommuneLan
6
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
33/52
b. Assessment of the potential for humanistic tourism development
For Quan Lan commune:
+ The attractiveness of human tourism is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined to be large (3 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Capacity criterion is 3 x 2 = 6.
+ Mining time is average (3 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Mining time criterion is 3 x 3 = 9.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points.
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is rated as average (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Quan Lan commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 36 points.
Similar assessment with Minh Chau commune we have the following table:
Table 3.4: Assessment of the potential for developing humanistic eco-tourism in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of human tourismliterature
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Quan CommuneLan
12
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
39/52
Minh CommuneChau
6
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
36/52
Basically, both Minh Chau and Quan Lan localities have quite favorable conditions for developing ecotourism. However, Quan Lan commune has more advantages to develop ecotourism in a humanistic direction, because this is an area with many famous historical relics such as Quan Lan Communal House, Quan Lan Pagoda, Temple worshiping the hero Tran Khanh Du, ... along with local festivals held annually such as the wind praying ceremony (March 15), Quan Lan festival (June 10-19); due to its location near the port and long exploitation time, the beaches in Quan Lan commune (especially Quan Lan beach) are no longer hygienic and clean to ensure the needs of tourists coming to relax and swim; this is also an area with many beautiful landscapes such as Got Beo wind pass, Ong Phong head, Voi Voi cave, but the ability to access these places is still very limited (dirt hill road, lots of gravel and rocks), especially during rainy and windy times; In addition, other natural resources such as mangrove forests and sea worms have not been really exploited for tourism purposes and ecotourism development. On the contrary, Minh Chau commune has more advantages in developing ecotourism in the direction of natural tourism, this is an area with diverse ecosystems such as at Rua De Beach, Bai Tu Long National Park Conservation Center...; Minh Chau beach is highly appreciated for its natural beauty and cleanliness, ranked in the top ten most beautiful beaches in Vietnam; Minh Chau commune is also home to Tram forest with a large area and a purity of up to 90%, suitable for building bridges through the forest (a very effective type of natural ecotourism currently applied by many countries) for tourists to sightsee, as well as for the purpose of studying and researching.
Figure 3.1: Thenmala Forest Bridge (India) Source: https://www.thenmalaecotourism.com/(August 21, 2019)
3.2.2. Using SWOT matrix to evaluate Quan Lan island tourism
General assessment of current tourism activities of Quan Lan island is shown through the following SWOT matrix:
Table 3.5: SWOT matrix evaluating tourism activities on Quan Lan island
Internal agent
Strengths- There is a lot of potential for tourism development, especially natural ecotourism and humanistic ecotourism.- The unskilled labor force is relatively abundant.- resource environmentunpolluted, still
Weaknesses- Poorly developed infrastructure, especially traffic routes to tourist destinations on the island.- The team of professional staff is still weak.- Tourism products in general
quite wild, originalintact
general and DLST in particularalone is monotonous.
External agents
Opportunity- Tourism is a key industry in the socio-economic development strategy of the province and Van Don economic zone.- Quan Lan was selected as a pilot area for eco-tourism development within the framework of the green growth project between Quang Ninh province and the Japanese organization JICA.- The flow of tourists and especially ecotourism in the world tends toincreasing
Challenge- Weather and climate change abnormally.- Competition in tourism products is increasingly fierce, especially with other localities in the province such as Ha Long, Mong Cai...- Awareness of tourists, especially domestic tourists, about ecotourism and nature conservation is not high.
Through summary analysis using SWOT matrix we see that:
To exploit strengths and take advantage of opportunities, it is necessary to:
- Diversify products and service types (build more tourism routes aimed at specific needs of tourists: experiential tourism immersed in nature, spiritual cultural tourism...)
- Effective exploitation of resources and differentiated products (natural resources and human resources)
div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s3 { color: #0D0D0D; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -3pt; } div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -2pt; } div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -1pt; } div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s10 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s12 { color: black; font-family:Symbol, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s13 { color: black; font-family:Wingdings; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s14 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s15 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s16 { color: black; font-family:Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s17 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s18 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s19 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s20 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; } div.maincontent .s21 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s22 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s23 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s24 { color: #212121; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; tex -
Determining the price of residential land for compensation when the State recovers land according to current Vietnamese law - 2 -
Organize training activities for preschool teachers according to professional standards -
Completing the organization of accounting for revenue, sales costs and determining business results at Hai Phong Paint Joint Stock Company - 1 -
Model system to assess the suitability of Vietnam's population-economic development process - 21

3.3.6. Evaluation of the development of practical skills of preschool children in the experimental group
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed BTVĐ for the experimental group in the two inner-city and suburban areas, and at the same time, to study the growth rate of the children's KNVĐCB in the two groups above after the experimental period. The thesis conducted a test and compared the KNVĐCB level of the experimental group and the control group in the two inner-city and suburban areas after 6 months of conducting the experiment through comparing the achievements of the KNVĐCB assessment tests for preschool children according to each age group presented in section 3.1. The comparison results are presented in the table
3.34 to table 3.39 as follows:
front and back area TN (=50)
TT
Test stone price | Customer | Before practice | After practice | d | W% | t | P | |||||||
X | S | | CV | X | S | | CV | |||||||
1 | 10m run out high output(s) | TN | 4.87 | 0.48 | 0.03 | 10% | 4.50 | 0.45 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.37 | 7.90% | 13.29 | < 0.001 |
Address | 4.94 | 0.46 | 0.03 | 9% | 4.89 | 0.49 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.05 | 1.02% | 1.13 | > 0.05 | ||
2 | Walk on the line available(s) | TN | 5.38 | 0.57 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.1 | 0.52 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.28 | 5.34% | 5.06 | < 0.001 |
Address | 5.37 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 8% | 5.36 | 0.5 | 0.03 | 9% | 0.01 | 0.19% | 0.39 | > 0.05 | ||
3 | Crawl in the direction straight | TN | 15.01 | 0.78 | 0.01 | 5% | 14.73 | 0.91 | 0.02 | 6% | 0.28 | 1.88% | 9.29 | < 0.001 |
Address | 15.13 | 0.56 | 0.01 | 4% | 15.29 | 0.62 | 0.01 | 4% | -0.16 | -1.05% | 2.84 | > 0.01 | ||
4 | Cow through 03 gates(s) | TN | 8.88 | 0.79 | 0.03 | 9% | 8.45 | 0.8 | 0.03 | 9% | 0.43 | 4.96% | 12.82 | < 0.001 |
Address | 8.82 | 0.54 | 0.02 | 6% | 8.91 | 0.63 | 0.02 | 7% | -0.09 | -1.02% | 1.6 | > 0.05 | ||
5 | Climb 3 ladder steps (s) | TN | 10.13 | 0.95 | 0.03 | 9% | 9.58 | 1.00 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.55 | 5.58% | 22.87 | < 0.001 |
Address | 9.92 | 0.86 | 0.02 | 9% | 10.02 | 0.99 | 0.03 | 10% | -0.1 | -1.00% | 1.16 | > 0.05 | ||
6 | Jumping far on the spot (cm) | TN | 43.8 | 4.47 | 0.03 | 10% | 53 | 4.52 | 0.02 | 9% | 9.2 | 19.01% | 10.83 | < 0.001 |
Address | 43.5 | 3.68 | 0.02 | 8% | 51.3 | 5.03 | 0.03 | 10% | 7.8 | 16.46% | 11.6 | < 0.001 | ||
7 | One-handed throw (cm) | TN | 155.2 | 11.47 | 0.02 | 7% | 172.1 | 12.38 | 0.02 | 7% | 16.9 | 10.33% | 16.92 | < 0.001 |
Address | 154.8 | 10.74 | 0.02 | 7% | 162 | 10.93 | 0.02 | 7% | 7.2 | 4.55% | 5.4 | < 0.001 | ||
pre- and post-TN area (n=50)
TT
Test stone price | Customer | Before practice | After practice | d | W% | t | P | |||||||
X | S | | CV | X | S | | CV | |||||||
1 | 10m run out high output(s) | TN | 4.91 | 0.5 | 0.03 | 10% | 4.54 | 0.46 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.37 | 7.83% | 14.65 | < 0.001 |
Address | 4.97 | 0.47 | 0.03 | 10% | 4.86 | 0.49 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.11 | 2.24% | 3.1 | < 0.005 | ||
2 | Walk on the line available(s) | TN | 5.39 | 0.57 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.12 | 0.53 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.27 | 5.14% | 4.28 | < 0.001 |
Address | 5.42 | 0.41 | 0.02 | 8% | 5.31 | 0.5 | 0.03 | 9% | 0.11 | 2.05% | 2.41 | < 0.02 | ||
3 | Crawl in the direction straight | TN | 15.08 | 0.8 | 0.02 | 5% | 14.79 | 0.92 | 0.02 | 6% | 0.29 | 1.94% | 9.66 | < 0.001 |
Address | 15.21 | 0.55 | 0.01 | 4% | 15.24 | 0.64 | 0.01 | 4% | -0.03 | -0.20% | 0.37 | > 0.05 | ||
4 | Cow through 03 gates(s) | TN | 8.95 | 0.79 | 0.03 | 9% | 8.53 | 0.8 | 0.03 | 9% | 0.42 | 4.81% | 13.25 | < 0.001 |
Address | 8.88 | 0.55 | 0.02 | 6% | 8.87 | 0.61 | 0.02 | 7% | 0.01 | 0.11% | 0.27 | > 0.05 | ||
5 | Climb 3 ladder steps (s) | TN | 10.23 | 0.96 | 0.03 | 9% | 9.67 | 1.01 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.56 | 5.63% | 23.46 | < 0.001 |
Address | 10.01 | 0.86 | 0.02 | 9% | 9.96 | 0.97 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.05 | 0.50% | 0.73 | > 0.05 | ||
6 | Jumping far on the spot (cm) | TN | 43 | 4.29 | 0.03 | 10% | 52.6 | 4.97 | 0.03 | 9% | 9.6 | 20.08% | 12.1 | < 0.001 |
Address | 43.4 | 4.22 | 0.03 | 10% | 51.7 | 5.01 | 0.03 | 10% | 8.3 | 17.46% | 14.71 | < 0.001 | ||
7 | One-handed throw (cm) | TN | 154.2 | 10.12 | 0.02 | 7% | 171.7 | 12.6 | 0.03 | 7% | 17.5 | 10.74% | 18.85 | < 0.001 |
Address | 153.6 | 8.98 | 0.02 | 6% | 163.23 | 11.17 | 0.02 | 7% | 9.63 | 6.08% | 8.3 | < 0.001 | ||
pre- and post-TN area (n=50)
TT
Test stone price | Customer | Before practice | After practice | d | W% | t | P | |||||||
X | S | | CV | X | S | | CV | |||||||
1 | 15m start run high | TN | 5.57 | 0.56 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.06 | 0.52 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.51 | 9.60% | 4.56 | < 0.001 |
Address | 5.54 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 8% | 5.12 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 7% | 0.42 | 7.88% | 6.42 | < 0.001 | ||
2 | Go straight on gym chair(s) | TN | 5.71 | 0.59 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.16 | 0.56 | 0.03 | 11% | 0.55 | 10.12% | 5.39 | < 0.001 |
Address | 5.72 | 0.55 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.49 | 0.41 | 0.02 | 7% | 0.23 | 4.10% | 2.81 | < 0.01 | ||
3 | Crawl through 3 gates(s) | TN | 15.28 | 0.91 | 0.02 | 6% | 14.65 | 0.87 | 0.02 | 6% | 0.63 | 4.21% | 4.29 | < 0.001 |
Address | 15.36 | 0.78 | 0.01 | 5% | 15.23 | 0.75 | 0.01 | 5% | 0.13 | 0.85% | 1.07 | > 0.05 | ||
4 | Crawl through 5 gates(s) | TN | 6.38 | 0.67 | 0.03 | 0% | 5.94 | 0.59 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.44 | 7.14% | 4.13 | < 0.001 |
Address | 6.41 | 0.53 | 0.02 | 8% | 6.11 | 0.59 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.3 | 4.79% | 3.03 | < 0.005 | ||
5 | Climb 5 steps | TN | 15.62 | 0.85 | 0.02 | 5% | 14.86 | 1.07 | 0.02 | 7% | 0.76 | 4.99% | 5.07 | < 0.001 |
Address | 15.57 | 0.49 | 0.01 | 3% | 15.04 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 4% | 0.53 | 3.46% | 7.04 | < 0.001 | ||
6 | Jumping far on the spot (cm) | TN | 52 | 5.15 | 0.03 | 10% | 73.8 | 5.94 | 0.02 | 8% | 21.8 | 34.66% | 18.96 | < 0.001 |
Address | 51.8 | 5.42 | 0.03 | 10% | 62.9 | 6.32 | 0.03 | 10% | 11.1 | 19.35% | 10.75 | < 0.001 | ||
7 | Throw far with 2 hands (cm) | TN | 213 | 23.08 | 0.03 | 11% | 245 | 14.98 | 0.02 | 6% | 32 | 13.97% | 7.81 | < 0.001 |
Address | 214.2 | 22.48 | 0.03 | 10% | 230.22 | 19.66 | 0.02 | 9% | 16.02 | 7.21% | 4.01 | < 0.001 | ||
anterior and posterior TN ( =50)
TT
Test | Customer | Before practice | After practice | d | W% | t | P | |||||||
X | S | | CV | X | S | | CV | |||||||
1 | 15m start run high | TN | 5.61 | 0.59 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.04 | 0.53 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.57 | 10.70% | 5.05 | < 0.001 |
Address | 5.59 | 0.49 | 0.03 | 9% | 5.19 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 7% | 0.4 | 7.42% | 5.35 | < 0.001 | ||
2 | Go straight on gym chair(s) | TN | 5.72 | 0.57 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.28 | 0.55 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.44 | 8.00% | 4.5 | < 0.001 |
Address | 5.75 | 0.58 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.58 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 8% | 0.17 | 3.00% | 1.85 | > 0.05 | ||
3 | Crawl through 3 gates(s) | TN | 15.31 | 0.95 | 0.02 | 6% | 14.84 | 0.89 | 0.02 | 6% | 0.47 | 3.12% | 3.09 | < 0.005 |
Address | 15.38 | 0.81 | 0.01 | 5% | 15.39 | 0.71 | 0.01 | 5% | -0.01 | -0.06% | 0.15 | > 0.05 | ||
4 | Crawl through 5 gates(s) | TN | 6.41 | 0.69 | 0.03 | 11% | 6.06 | 0.61 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.35 | 5.61% | 3.18 | < 0.005 |
Address | 6.44 | 0.54 | 0.02 | 8% | 6.24 | 0.61 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.2 | 3.15% | 2.03 | < 0.05 | ||
5 | Climb 5 steps | TN | 15.63 | 0.87 | 0.02 | 6% | 15.09 | 1.09 | 0.02 | 7% | 0.54 | 3.52% | 3.18 | < 0.005 |
Address | 15.56 | 0.49 | 0.01 | 3% | 15.18 | 0.5 | 0.01 | 3% | 0.38 | 2.47% | 4.65 | < 0.001 | ||
6 | Jumping far on the spot (cm) | TN | 51.4 | 4.95 | 0.03 | 10% | 73.5 | 5.83 | 0.02 | 8% | 22.1 | 35.39% | 19.79 | < 0.001 |
Address | 51.7 | 5.21 | 0.03 | 10% | 61.05 | 6.55 | 0.03 | 11% | 9.35 | 16.59% | 9.19 | < 0.001 | ||
7 | Throw far with 2 hands (cm) | TN | 214.3 | 21.57 | 0.03 | 10% | 242.7 | 13.22 | 0.02 | 5% | 28.4 | 12.43% | 8.74 | < 0.001 |
Address | 215.3 | 22.53 | 0.03 | 10% | 225.6 | 19.05 | 0.02 | 8% | 10.3 | 4.67% | 2.89 | < 0.01 | ||
Table 3.38. Assessment of the level of motor skills in preschool children (5-6 years old) of the experimental group and the primary school before and after the experiment (n=50)
TT
Test stone price | Customer | Before practice | After practice | d | W% | t | P | |||||||
X | S | | CV | X | S | | CV | |||||||
1 | 18m high start run (s) | TN | 6.27 | 0.66 | 0.03 | 11% | 5.21 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 3% | 1.06 | 18.47% | 12.26 | < 0.001 |
Address | 6.28 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 7% | 5.8 | 0.37 | 0.02 | 6% | 0.48 | 7.95% | 6.51 | < 0.001 | ||
2 | Go on the gym bench sandbag head(s) | TN | 7.75 | 0.61 | 0.02 | 8% | 6.08 | 0.54 | 0.03 | 9% | 1.67 | 24.15% | 23.11 | < 0.001 |
Address | 7.64 | 0.62 | 0.02 | 8% | 7.50 | 0.71 | 0.03 | 9% | 0.14 | 1.85% | 1.77 | > 0.05 | ||
3 | Crawl through 05 gates (S) | TN | 9.12 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 5% | 7.38 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 5% | 1.74 | 21.09% | 31.72 | < 0.001 |
Address | 9.08 | 0.42 | 0.01 | 5% | 8.9 | 0.47 | 0.01 | 5% | 0.18 | 2.00% | 2.67 | < 0.025 | ||
4 | Zigzag through 4 point(s) | TN | 6.38 | 0.29 | 0.01 | 5% | 5.54 | 0.52 | 0.03 | 9% | 0.84 | 14.09% | 8.88 | < 0.001 |
Address | 6.35 | 0.4 | 0.02 | 6% | 5.98 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 7% | 0.37 | 6.00% | 5.79 | < 0.001 | ||
5 | Jumping far on the spot (cm) | TN | 84.3 | 8.57 | 0.03 | 10% | 101.6 | 10.52 | 0.03 | 10% | 17.3 | 18.61% | 12.48 | < 0.001 |
Address | 84.1 | 8.67 | 0.03 | 10% | 97.8 | 5.36 | 0.02 | 5% | 13.7 | 15.06% | 10.6 | < 0.001 | ||
6 | Throw far with 2 hands (cm) | TN | 262 | 9.89 | 0.01 | 4% | 306.4 | 12.58 | 0.01 | 4% | 44.4 | 15.62% | 16.19 | < 0.001 |
Address | 262.8 | 10.11 | 0.01 | 4% | 286.2 | 10.08 | 0.01 | 4% | 23.4 | 8.52% | 13.92 | < 0.001 | ||
Table 3.39. Assessment of the level of cognitive ability of preschool children (5-6 years old) of the TN group and the extracurricular activities before and after the experiment (n=50)
TT
Test stone price | Customer | Before practice | After practice | d | W% | t | P | |||||||
X | S | | CV | X | S | | CV | |||||||
1 | 18m high start run (s) | TN | 6.25 | 0.66 | 0.03 | 10% | 5.22 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 3% | 1.03 | 17.96% | 11.97 | < 0.001 |
Address | 6.27 | 0.44 | 0.02 | 7% | 5.83 | 0.36 | 0.02 | 6% | 0.44 | 7.27% | 6.09 | < 0.001 | ||
2 | Go on the gym bench sandbag head(s) | TN | 7.71 | 0.64 | 0.02 | 8% | 6.13 | 0.56 | 0.03 | 9% | 1.58 | 22.83% | 23.03 | < 0.001 |
Address | 7.61 | 0.66 | 0.02 | 9% | 7.49 | 0.71 | 0.03 | 10% | 0.12 | 1.59% | 1.82 | > 0.05 | ||
3 | Crawl through 05 gates (S) | TN | 9.09 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 5% | 7.44 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 5% | 1.65 | 19.96% | 32.27 | < 0.001 |
Address | 9.07 | 0.42 | 0.02 | 5% | 8.92 | 0.46 | 0.01 | 5% | 0.15 | 1.67% | 2.36 | < 0.025 | ||
4 | Zigzag through 4 point(s) | TN | 6.39 | 0.34 | 0.02 | 5% | 5.56 | 0.52 | 0.03 | 9% | 0.83 | 13.89% | 8.58 | < 0.001 |
Address | 6.34 | 0.41 | 0.02 | 6% | 6 | 0.43 | 0.02 | 7% | 0.34 | 5.51% | 5.67 | < 0.001 | ||
5 | Jumping far on the spot (cm) | TN | 84 | 8.45 | 0.03 | 10% | 100.3 | 10.71 | 0.03 | 11% | 16.3 | 17.69% | 9.58 | < 0.001 |
Address | 83.6 | 8.45 | 0.03 | 10% | 97.9 | 5.26 | 0.02 | 5% | 14.3 | 15.76% | 10.61 | < 0.001 | ||
6 | Throw far with 2 hands (cm) | TN | 262.4 | 10.61 | 0.01 | 4% | 305.2 | 12.33 | 0.01 | 4% | 42.8 | 15.08% | 15.13 | < 0.001 |
Address | 262.8 | 10.31 | 0.01 | 4% | 285.2 | 9.53 | 0.01 | 3% | 22.4 | 8.18% | 14.67 | < 0.001 | ||
Analysis of the results from Table 3.34 to Table 3.39 shows that all evaluation indicators are representative enough for the thesis to evaluate and analyze the following indicators (the relative error of the sample mean value is within the allowable range 0.05).
The coefficient of variation (Cv), a parameter reflecting the variability among individuals in the sample set in most post-tests at different ages, shows that most of the indicators have high homogeneity (Cv < 10%) which means that the dispersion among the research individuals is at a high level. In particular, the indicators in the "Balance walking on a gym chair" test of the middle kindergarten children in the inner-city experimental group, the "Long jump in place" test of the middle kindergarten children in the suburban experimental group, and the "Long jump in place" test of the older kindergarten children in the suburban experimental group have average homogeneity (Cv = 11% < 20%) which means that the dispersion among the research individuals is at an average level. However, because the subjects in the study are dispersed due to differences in age and local conditions of each research cluster, it is still possible to compare the parameters between the values obtained at different ages as follows:
* For young children (3 – 4 years old):
From the results of the data analysis in Table 3.34 and Table 3.35, it can be seen that the motor skills of preschool children in the inner and suburban areas of Ho Chi Minh City are different between the control and experimental groups before and after the experiment. The final test results of the experiment in all sports of the experimental group in both the inner and suburban areas have increased after 6 months of the experiment and the difference is statistically significant (t > t 05 ). The final test results of the experiment in the control group only have some sports growth: in the inner city area, there are jumping and throwing sports; and in the suburban area, there are running, balancing, jumping and throwing sports. The remaining sports in the control group (running, walking, crawling in the inner city area and crawling, crawling, climbing in the suburban area) have no difference in performance before and after the experiment (t < t 05 ). Most notably, crawling activity in the inner-city control group decreased.





