Dean Dudley, John Cairney, and Jackie Goodway
Dean Dudley, Victoria Goodyear, and David Baxter
The United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) recognizes quality physical education (QPE) must, along with physical, social and affective educative goals, seek to improve the health status of youth (UNESCO, 2015). Health-Optimizing Physical Education (HOPE) is a model of physical education (PE) that seeks this goal but is creating much debate in the discipline (Sallis et al., 2012).
The aim of this paper is to present a conceptual assessment framework for QPE and HOPE on which future assessment protocols may be based that serve both health and educative goals.
Policy and literature pertaining to QPE and HOPE were reviewed and compared for similarities and differences. This was followed by an analysis of literature on assessment in the health and education disciplines. These analyses provided the authors with the insight to propose a new model of assessment for HOPE models to implement QPE.
Many similarities exist in the policy of QPE and the published literature on HOPE. However, the measurement model of assessment can often circumvent two important assessment functions for education settings that need to be addressed in a wider QPE and Models-Based Practice (MBP) context. Conclusions: HOPE models were established using an interventionist mindset and are therefore well suited to integrating well-defined MBP pedagogies as appropriate ‘intervening’ strategies by using a clinical approach to teaching and assessment. To date, they have lacked an assessment framework that has been capable of addressing both the health and educative goals that both HOPE and MBP seek to achieve. This paper provides new insight by reimagining the role MBPs and assessment practices have to play in the health and education nexus.
Dean Dudley, Nathan Weaver, and John Cairney
Although high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is perceived to be an efficient way to meet health outcomes in physical education (PE), the effect of HIIT on the learning environment of students is unknown. Purpose: This study compared two PE interventions lasting 8 weeks and assessed the potential efficacy of embedding HIIT into a PE program to meet concurrent health and educative outcomes. Methods: Participants (N = 166; mean age = 12.91 years) were assigned to one of two study conditions according to intact groupings: HIIT program (n = 84) and dynamic PE (DPE) program (n = 82). Assessments occurred at baseline and postintervention. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test the intervention effects in each group. Results: Postintervention analysis demonstrated increases in health indices of both groups and comparing the effect size of each intervention revealed no difference. Systematic direct observation revealed effects for the provision of terminal feedback within the HIIT intervention (g = 1.03) when compared with the DPE intervention. A self-report questionnaire revealed changes in motivation toward PE among students allocated to the HIIT group were trivial, whereas students exposed to the DPE program displayed increased levels of motivation toward their PE experience. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that HIIT may elicit positive changes in PE settings by creating a “time potential” leading to an increased opportunity to learn without negating health gains. The DPE program proved to be move favorable in terms of student motivations to learn during PE.
John Cairney, Heather Clark, Dean Dudley, and Dean Kriellaars
Purpose: Physical literacy (PL) has been proposed as a key construct for understanding participation in physical activity. However, the lack of an agreed-upon definition and measure has hindered research on the topic. The current study proposed and analyzed the construct validity of a PL model comprised of motor competence, perceived competence, motivation, and enjoyment. Method: The authors tested three different models in two samples: Grade 5 (N = 1,448) and Grade 7 students (N = 698). Results: The PL construct was best represented as a hierarchical model in both the Grade 5, X2(295) = 791.90, p < .001; root mean square error of approximation = .035; and comparative-fit index = .97, and the Grade 7 samples, X2(295) = 557.21, p < .001; root mean square error of approximation = .036; and comparative-fit index = .98, samples. Discussion: Future work is needed to design and evaluate a PL measure consistent with our model. Such work will help generate further research and understanding of PL.
Dean J. Kriellaars, John Cairney, Marco A.C. Bortoleto, Tia K.M. Kiez, Dean Dudley, and Patrice Aubertin
Objective: To examine the impact of circus arts instruction in physical education (PE) on the physical literacy of children in Grades 4 and 5. Methods: A clustered, quasi-experimental design was used comparing children in schools with circus arts instruction in physical education (n = 101) with children in socioeconomic status-matched schools using standard PE instruction (n = 110). Physical literacy assessments performed at the beginning and end of one semester using the Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth tools. Results: Significant improvements in motor competence for both groups; endpoint differences favored the circus arts instruction in physical education schools for 15 of 18 movement skills for Grade 5 and 7 of 18 skills for Grade 4 (p < .05), with corresponding increases in children’s confidence and comprehension of movement terminology, as well as active participation. The gap in motor competence between girls and boys in the circus arts instruction in physical education schools was smaller than in standard PE schools. Conclusions: Circus arts instruction enriched PE can effectively aid in the development of physical literacy in children with greater gender equity.
Lisa M. Barnett, David Stodden, Kristen E. Cohen, Jordan J. Smith, David Revalds Lubans, Matthieu Lenoir, Susanna Iivonen, Andrew D. Miller, Arto Laukkanen, Dean Dudley, Natalie J. Lander, Helen Brown, and Philip J. Morgan
Recent international conference presentations have critiqued the promotion of fundamental movement skills (FMS) as a primary pedagogical focus. Presenters have called for a debate about the importance of, and rationale for teaching FMS, and this letter is a response to that call. The authors of this letter are academics who actively engage in FMS research.
We have answered a series of contentions about the promotion of FMS using the peer reviewed literature to support our perspective.
We define what we mean by FMS, discuss the context of what skills can be considered fundamental, discuss how the development of these skills is related to broader developmental health contexts, and recommend the use of different pedagogical approaches when teaching FMS.
We conclude the promotion of FMS is an important focus in Physical Education (PE) and sport and provide future research questions for investigation.
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.