The Benefits of Sampling Sports During Childhood

Sampling may promote prolonged engagement in sport by limiting physical injuries (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Overtraining injuries are a concern for young athletes who specialize in one sport and engage in high volumes of deliberate practice (Hollander, Meyers, & Leunes, 1995; Law, C��t��, & Ericsson, 2007). For instance, young gymnasts who practice for over 16 hours a week have been shown to have higher incidences of back injuries (Goldstein, Berger, Windier, & Jackson, 1991). A sampling approach in child-controlled play (e.g. deliberate play) rather than highly adult-controlled practice (e.g. deliberate practice) has been proposed as a strategy to limit overuse and other sport-related injuries (Micheli, Glassman, & Klein, 2000). In summary, sampling may protect against sport attrition by limiting sport related injuries and allowing children to have early experiences in sport that are enjoyable. Psychosocial Benefits of Sampling Only a small percentage of children who participate in school sports ever become elite athletes. Therefore, the psychosocial outcomes of sport participation are particularly important to consider. Recent studies with youth between the ages of 11 to 17 have found that those who are involved in a variety of extracurricular activities (e.g. sports, volunteer, arts) score more favourably on outcome measures such as Grade Point Average (GPA; Fredricks & Eccles, 2006a) and positive peer relationships (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006b) than youth who participate in fewer activities. These patterns are thought to exist due to each extracurricular activity bringing its own distinct pattern of socialization experiences that reinforce certain behaviours and/or teach various skills (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006b; Rose-Krasnor, Bussen, Willoughby, & Chambers, 2006). This contention is corroborated by studies of children and youths' experiences in extracurricular activities indicating that youth have unique experiences in each activity that contribute to their development (Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006). This has led Wilkes and C��t�� (2007) to propose that children who sample different activities (through their own choice or by virtue of parental direction), have a greater chance of developing the following five developmental outcomes compared to children who specialize in one activity: 1) life skills, 2) prosocial behaviour, 3) healthy identity, 4) diverse peer groups and 5) social capital.

Performance Information and Innovation in the Canadian Government (Working Paper 43)

The presentation made at the conference addressed the issue of linkages between performance information and innovation within the Canadian federal government1. This is a three���part paper prepared as background to that presentation. ��� Part I provides an overview of three main sources of performance information - results-based systems, program evaluation, and centrally driven review exercises ��� and reviews the Canadian experience with them. ��� Part II identifies and discusses a number of innovation issues that are common to the literature reviewed for this paper. ��� Part III examines actual and potential linkages between innovation and performance information. This section suggests that innovation in the Canadian federal government tends to cluster into two groups: smaller initiatives driven by staff or middle management; and much larger projects involving major programs, whole departments or whole-of-government. Readily available data on smaller innovation projects is skimpy but suggests that performance information does not play a major role in stimulating these initiatives. In contrast, two of the examples of large-scale innovation show that performance information plays a critical role at all stages. The paper concludes by supporting the contention of others writing on this topic: that more research is needed on innovation, particularly on its link to performance information. In that context, other conclusions drawn in this paper are tentative but suggest that the quality of performance information is as important for innovation as it is for performance management. However, innovation is likely to require its own particular performance information that may not be generated on a routine basis for purposes of performance management, particularly in the early stages of innovation. And, while the availability of performance information can be an important success factor in innovation, it does not stand alone. The commonality of a number of other factors identified in the literature surveyed for this paper strongly suggests that equal if not greater priority needs to be given to attenuating factors that inhibit innovation and to nurturing incentives.