Search

Background: Although physical literacy is explicitly defined and integrated into Canadian provincial physical education curricula, limited empirical evidence substantiates the development of physical literacy in elementary physical education. Despite physical education curricular expectations, developing and assessing physical literacy in students may be difficult for teachers with little to no background in physical literacy or physical education. Purpose: The primary purpose was to explore the effect of a curricularly linked physical literacy enriched intervention in elementary school physical education. A secondary purpose involved an examination of the intervention's effects on sex differences. Design: A quasi-experimental controlled intervention trial with a matched comparison group was used to determine the impact of a curricular-based physical literacy enriched physical education intervention on students' development of physical literacy. Teachers (n = 6) and students (n = 131) from four Saskatchewan elementary schools participated in either a PLitPE (experimental) condition or a usual practice (control) condition. The PLitPE intervention was created using learning principles consistent with physical literacy and Self-Determination Theory. PLitPE instructional elements were developed with input from thirteen teachers who were members of the local school division's physical education professional learning community. An embedded professional development model was used where a mentor teacher was present to facilitate and support the implementation of the PLitPE intervention. The Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth tools were used to assess motor competence (PLAYfun), student self-description (PLAYself), and movement participation (PLAYinventory). Each domain of physical literacy (physical competence, psychological, and behavioural) was evaluated using these tools. Results: Significant differences, favouring PLitPE over control, were observed for average motor competence (M = 49.4, M = 40.0, p < 0.001, PLAYfun), movement vocabulary (M = 10.3, M = 7.5, p < 0.001, PLAYfun), environmental participation (M = 423.9, M = 390.1, p < 0.05, PLAYself), and a reduction of sex differences on average motor competence and movement vocabulary. Statistically significant relationships with low to fair correlations between PLAYfun and PLAYself variables existed. Conclusions: This study provides empirical evidence supporting physical literacy enriched physical education. PLitPE developed the psychological domain (affective and cognitive) and significantly improved physical competence, however, the intervention did not manifest in improved behaviour. Concerning sex differences, the intervention yielded an equal and substantive improvement in both males and females in the intervention group. Future studies should consider the addition of reflective approaches, as well as the construction of positive challenges for children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concerns that current forms of physical education teacher education (PETE) are not adequately providing teachers with the tools necessary for working with the realities and challenges of teaching physical education in contemporary schools has led some scholars to advocate for an approach that prioritises meaningfulness in physical education. There is, however, little empirical evidence of how future teachers might be taught to facilitate meaningful physical education experiences. Purpose: This paper describes a pedagogical approach to PETE to support pre-service teachers (PSTs) in learning how to facilitate meaningful experiences in physical education. We aim to contribute new understanding through sharing pedagogical principles that support PSTs’ ‘Learning About Meaningful Physical Education’ (LAMPE). Participants and setting: The research team consisted of three physical education teacher educators: Tim and Déirdre who implemented LAMPE pedagogies and Mary who acted as meta-critical friend (pseudonyms used for the review process). Results from the LAMPE innovation reported here are taken from implementation across four semesters of two academic years 2013–2015. Déirdre implemented LAMPE in an introduction to teaching physical education course for pre-service generalist elementary teachers. Tim implemented the approach in an undergraduate developmental games course for future physical education teachers. A total of 106 PSTs participated in the research. Data collection and analysis: Data included teacher educator reflections and non-participant observer data from 33 individual lessons, over 7 hours of transcribed teacher educator Skype conversations, 8 ‘turning point’ documents, 15 sets of PST work samples, and transcripts of individual (n = 10) and 9 focus group interviews (n = 18 participants) with PSTs. Data were analysed inductively. Triangulation of multiple data sources and an expert member check supported trustworthiness of the LAMPE approach and data analysis. Findings: We share five pedagogical principles that reflect how PSTs were supported to learn how to facilitate meaningful physical education experiences. Pedagogies included planning for, experiencing, teaching, analysing, and reflecting on meaningful participation. Implementing pedagogies aligned with these five pedagogical principles helped participants learnwhymeaningful participation should be prioritised as well ashowto facilitate meaningful physical education experiences. Conclusions: Pedagogical principles of LAMPE have been constructed from empirical evidence of both teacher educator and PST experiences that supported learning how to promote meaningful physical education. This research contributes new understanding of how to support PSTs in learning to teach with an emphasis on facilitating meaningful physical education experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]