Storytelling in Motion: Effects of a Narrative-Based Outdoor Motor Intervention on Motor Competence and Inhibitory...

Background: Promoting physical activity in early childhood is essential for supporting motor, cognitive, and socio-emotional development. Outdoor environments rich in natural stimuli may further enhance these benefits. Recent approaches suggest that integrating movement with narrative contexts may provide additional developmental opportunities by engaging cognitive and affective processes. This study examined the associations between three outdoor motor activity approaches-Storytelling in Motion, Free Play, and Traditional Motor Instruction-and motor competence and inhibitory control in preschool children. Methods: Eighty-seven preschool children (M_age = 5.32 ± 0.60 years) participated in a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study conducted in outdoor educational settings in Northern Italy, including a natural environment, a structured playground, and a school courtyard. Participants were assigned at the class level to three groups of unequal size (Storytelling in Motion n = 36, Free Play n = 22, Traditional Motor Instruction n = 29). All groups completed ten weekly sessions lasting approximately 60 min. Motor competence was assessed using selected tasks derived from the Test of Motor Competence and the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2, while inhibitory control was evaluated using the Day/Night Test. Results: Significant Time × Group interactions were observed for several outcomes. The Storytelling in Motion group showed numerically greater improvements at a descriptive level in dynamic balance (Heel-to-Toe Walking: p < 0.001, η²p = 0.229) and fine motor control (Bicycle Trail: p < 0.001, η²p = 0.194) compared to the other groups. The Free Play group showed greater improvements in coordination-related tasks and upper-body strength. No significant differences between groups were observed for inhibitory control. These differences remained significant after adjustment but should be interpreted cautiously due to the non-randomized design. Accordingly, these findings should be considered preliminary and hypothesis-generating (ANCOVA, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Narrative-based outdoor motor activities may represent a potentially relevant approach; however, no firm conclusions can be drawn from the present design. Given the quasi-experimental nature of the study and the contextual differences between intervention settings, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Future research using randomized controlled designs and standardized environments is needed to clarify the independent and combined effects of instructional and environmental factors.