Purpose: To operationally conceptualize physical literacy (PL) for application in the United States, using a modified Delphi approach, with PL academics. Methods: A sequential, mixed methods, modified Delphi research design was employed, consisting of three phases: (a) literature analysis, (b) Delphi Survey I (22 participants), and (c) Delphi Survey II (18 participants). Data were analyzed using qualitative coding and descriptive frequency statistics. Results: PL academics’ conceptions of PL suggested a multidimensional, noncontextual, personal, holistic learning process. Qualitative analysis generated two themes: (a) “PL is” and (b) “PL is not.” Quantitative results aligned with the qualitative findings. PL concepts that achieved unanimous agreement were (a) application of knowledge to physical activity (PA), (b) value of PA, (c) autonomous participation in PA, (d) enjoyment of PA, and (e) ability to participate in PA independently. Discussion/Conclusion: PL was operationalized as an autonomous application of movement, constructed by the individual’s conception of movement and response to adversity.
Chelsee A. Shortt, Collin A. Webster, Richard J. Keegan, Cate A. Egan and Ali S. Brian
Nigel R. Green, William M. Roberts, Dwayne Sheehan and Richard J. Keegan
Physical literacy is creating significant interest worldwide due to its holistic nature and the potential it has to impact on people’s lives. It is underpinning many physical education programs, coaching strategies, health initiatives, and policymakers’ decisions. However, the complex philosophical and holistic nature of the concept has meant that methods used to chart/assess/measure progress have been very much dependent on the pedagogues interpretation of the concept. This paper will provide a review of current practices and issues related to charting/assessing/measuring progress of an individual’s journey. It will go on to highlight considerations that, we suggest, should be made by any organization developing methods to chart/assess/measure progress.
Lowri C. Edwards, Anna S. Bryant, Kevin Morgan, Stephen-Mark Cooper, Anwen M. Jones and Richard J. Keegan
Introduction: Despite increases in research and implementation, physical literacy continues to be largely misinterpreted by practitioners. The purpose of this study was to devise, implement, and evaluate a professional development program that works in a primary school environment to enhance their knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy. Methods: Following a 3-month needs assessment phase, data were collected from structured observations, reflections, and semistructured interviews with the teachers, before, during, and after an introductory workshop and 6-month physical literacy intervention. Thematic analysis was used to evaluate perceptions of program effectiveness. Results: The needs assessment phase identified notable differences between teachers’ classroom and physical education practice. Results of the physical literacy workshop and intervention detailed an increase in teachers’ knowledge of, and operationalization of, physical literacy. Discussion/Conclusions: Applying established principles of effective professional development in a contextually sensitive manner was viewed as effective in enhancing primary school teachers’ knowledge and practice regarding physical literacy.
Cara Shearer, Hannah R. Goss, Lowri C. Edwards, Richard J. Keegan, Zoe R. Knowles, Lynne M. Boddy, Elizabeth J. Durden-Myers and Lawrence Foweather
Physical literacy continues to gain global momentum, yet the definition and underlying concept of physical literacy remain contested in both research and practice. This lack of clarity has the potential to undermine the operationalization of physical literacy. This paper considers the various definitions of physical literacy that are currently adopted internationally. Physical literacy experts identified seven leading groups that have established physical literacy initiatives. Although each group is unified in using the term physical literacy, there are contrasting definitions and interpretations of the concept. Common themes were identified, including the (a) influence of physical literacy philosophy, (b) core elements of physical literacy, (c) lifelong nature of physical literacy, and (d) the need to scientifically pursue a robust operationalization of the concept. We conclude by recommending that programs relating to physical literacy should provide a definition, a clear philosophical approach, and transparency with how their actions align with this approach.
Richard J. Keegan, Lisa M. Barnett, Dean A. Dudley, Richard D. Telford, David R. Lubans, Anna S. Bryant, William M. Roberts, Philip J. Morgan, Natasha K. Schranz, Juanita R. Weissensteiner, Stewart A. Vella, Jo Salmon, Jenny Ziviani, Anthony D. Okely, Nalda Wainwright and John R. Evans
Purpose: The development of a physical literacy definition and standards framework suitable for implementation in Australia. Method: Modified Delphi methodology. Results: Consensus was established on four defining statements: Core—Physical literacy is lifelong holistic learning acquired and applied in movement and physical activity contexts; Composition—Physical literacy reflects ongoing changes integrating physical, psychological, cognitive, and social capabilities; Importance—Physical literacy is vital in helping us lead healthy and fulfilling lives through movement and physical activity; and Aspiration—A physically literate person is able to draw on his/her integrated physical, psychological, cognitive, and social capacities to support health promoting and fulfilling movement and physical activity, relative to the situation and context, throughout the lifespan. The standards framework addressed four learning domains (physical, psychological, cognitive, and social), spanning five learning configurations/levels. Conclusion: The development of a bespoke program for a new context has important implications for both existing and future programs.
Lisa M. Barnett, Dean A. Dudley, Richard D. Telford, David R. Lubans, Anna S. Bryant, William M. Roberts, Philip J. Morgan, Natasha K. Schranz, Juanita R. Weissensteiner, Stewart A. Vella, Jo Salmon, Jenny Ziviani, Anthony D. Okely, Nalda Wainwright, John R. Evans and Richard J. Keegan
Assessment of physical literacy poses a dilemma of what instrument to use. There is currently no guide regarding the suitability of common assessment approaches. The purpose of this brief communication is to provide a user’s guide for selecting physical literacy assessment instruments appropriate for use in school physical education and sport settings. Although recommendations regarding specific instruments are not provided, the guide offers information about key attributes and considerations for the use. A decision flow chart has been developed to assist teachers and affiliated school practitioners to select appropriate methods of assessing physical literacy. School physical education and sport scenarios are presented to illustrate this process. It is important that practitioners are empowered to select the most appropriate instrument/s to suit their needs.