Outcomes and Feasibility of a 12-Week Physical Literacy Intervention for Children in an Afterschool Program
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Design
2.4. Program Leader Training
2.5.1. Physical Literacy—Movement Competence Domain
2.5.2. Physical Literacy—Cognitive and Affective Domains
2.5.3. Program Leader Questionnaire
3.1. Program Leader Outcomes
3.2. Child Outcomes
3.3. Program Feedback
Conflicts of Interest
- Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: A pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1·6 million participants. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health 2020, 4, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, K.C.; Yao, X.; Carson, V.; Chaput, J.-P.; Janssen, I.; Tremblay, M.S. Meeting the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth. Health Rep. 2017, 28, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Biddle, S.J.H.; Ciaccioni, S.; Thomas, G.; Vergeer, I. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: An updated review of reviews and an analysis of causality. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunnell, K.E.; Poitras, V.J.; LeBlanc, A.; Schibli, K.; Barbeau, K.; Hedayati, N.; Ponitfex, M.B.; Goldfield, G.S.; Dunlap, C.; Lehan, E.; et al. Physical activity and brain structure, brain function, and cognition in children and youth: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.E.; Borghese, M.M.; Carson, V.; Chaput, J.-P.; Janssen, I.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Pate, R.R.; Connor Gorber, S.; Kho, M.E.; et al. Systematic review of the relationships between objectively measured physical activity and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41, S197–S239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mielke, G.I.; da Silva, I.C.M.; Kolbe-Alexander, T.L.; Brown, W.J. Shifting the Physical Inactivity Curve Worldwide by Closing the Gender Gap. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Love, R.; Adams, J.; van Sluijs, E.M.F. Are school-based physical activity interventions effective and equitable? A meta-analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with accelerometer-assessed activity. Obes. Rev. 2019, 20, 859–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metcalf, B.; Henley, W.; Wilkin, T. Effectiveness of intervention on physical activity of children: Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials with objectively measured outcomes (EarlyBird 54). BMJ 2012, 345, e5888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Owen, M.B.; Curry, W.B.; Kerner, C.; Newson, L.; Fairclough, S.J. The effectiveness of school-based physical activity interventions for adolescent girls: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 2017, 105, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van de Kop, J.H.; van Kernebeek, W.G.; Otten, R.H.J.; Toussaint, H.M.; Verhoeff, A.P. School-Based Physical Activity Interventions in Prevocational Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. J. Adolesc. Health 2019, 65, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- van Sluijs, E.M.F.; McMinn, A.M.; Griffin, S.J. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: Systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ 2007, 335, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Naylor, P.-J.; McKay, H.A. Prevention in the first place: Schools a setting for action on physical inactivity. Br. J. Sports Med. 2008, 43, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kriemler, S.; Meyer, U.; Martin, E.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.; Andersen, L.B.; Martin, B.W. Effect of school-based interventions on physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents: A review of reviews and systematic update. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011, 45, 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Atkin, A.J.; Gorely, T.; Biddle, S.J.H.; Cavill, N.; Foster, C. Interventions to Promote Physical Activity in Young People Conducted in the Hours Immediately After School: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2011, 18, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beets, M.W.; Beighle, A.; Erwin, H.E.; Huberty, J.L. After-School Program Impact on Physical Activity and Fitness. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 36, 527–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michie, S.; Johnston, M. Theories and techniques of behaviour change: Developing a cumulative science of behaviour change. Health Psychol. Rev. 2012, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagger, M.; Chatzisarantis, N.L.D.; Biddle, S. A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2002, 24, 3–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hattar, A.; Pal, S.; Hagger, M.S. Predicting Physical Activity-Related Outcomes in Overweight and Obese Adults: A Health Action Process Approach. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2016, 8, 127–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teixeira, P.J.; Carraça, E.V.; Markland, D.; Silva, M.N.; Ryan, R.M. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Young, M.D.; Plotnikoff, R.C.; Collins, C.E.; Callister, R.; Morgan, P.J. Social cognitive theory and physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis: Social cognitive theory and physical activity. Obes. Rev. 2014, 15, 983–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhodes, R.E.; Janssen, I.; Bredin, S.S.D.; Warburton, D.E.R.; Bauman, A. Physical activity: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol. Health 2017, 32, 942–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rhodes, R.E. The Evolving Understanding of Physical Activity Behavior: A Multi-Process Action Control Approach. In Advances in Motivation Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 4, pp. 171–205. ISBN 978-0-12-812123-8. [Google Scholar]
- Hagger, M.S.; Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. An Integrated Behavior Change Model for Physical Activity. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2014, 42, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Renshaw, I.; Chow, J.Y.; Davids, K.; Hammond, J. A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: A basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis? Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2010, 15, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Thelen, E. Motor development: A new synthesis. Am. Psychol. 1995, 50, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engel, A.C.; Broderick, C.R.; van Doorn, N.; Hardy, L.L.; Parmenter, B.J. Exploring the Relationship Between Fundamental Motor Skill Interventions and Physical Activity Levels in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 1845–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, L.C.; Bryant, A.S.; Keegan, R.J.; Morgan, K.; Jones, A.M. Definitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cairney, J.; Dudley, D.; Kwan, M.; Bulten, R.; Kriellaars, D. Physical Literacy, Physical Activity and Health: Toward an Evidence-Informed Conceptual Model. Sports Med. 2019, 49, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Public Health Agency of Canada. A Common Vision for Increasing Physical Activity and Reducing Sedentary Living in Canada: Let’s Get Moving; Public Health Agency of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2018.
- World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kriellaars, D.J.; Cairney, J.; Bortoleto, M.A.C.; Kiez, T.K.M.; Dudley, D.; Aubertin, P. The Impact of Circus Arts Instruction in Physical Education on the Physical Literacy of Children in Grades 4 and 5. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2019, 38, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coyne, P.; Vandenborn, E.; Santarossa, S.; Milne, M.M.; Milne, K.J.; Woodruff, S.J. Physical literacy improves with the Run Jump Throw Wheel program among students in grades 4–6 in southwestern Ontario. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2019, 44, 645–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandigo, J.; Lodewyk, K.; Tredway, J. Examining the Impact of a Teaching Games for Understanding Approach on the Development of Physical Literacy Using the Passport for Life Assessment Tool. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2019, 38, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Health Canada. Health Portfolio Sex and Gender-based Analysis Policy; Health Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2009.
- Craggs, C.; Corder, K.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.; Griffin, S.J. Determinants of Change in Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 40, 645–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Spencer, R.A.; Rehman, L.; Kirk, S.F. Understanding gender norms, nutrition, and physical activity in adolescent girls: A scoping review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Barnett, L.M.; van Beurden, E.; Morgan, P.J.; Brooks, L.O.; Beard, J.R. Gender Differences in Motor Skill Proficiency From Childhood to Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2010, 81, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cairney, J.; Kwan, M.Y.; Velduizen, S.; Hay, J.; Bray, S.R.; Faught, B.E. Gender, perceived competence and the enjoyment of physical education in children: A longitudinal examination. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hardy, L.L.; Reinten-Reynolds, T.; Espinel, P.; Zask, A.; Okely, A.D. Prevalence and Correlates of Low Fundamental Movement Skill Competency in Children. Pediatrics 2012, 130, e390–e398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, P.J.; Barnett, L.M.; Cliff, D.P.; Okely, A.D.; Scott, H.A.; Cohen, K.E.; Lubans, D.R. Fundamental Movement Skill Interventions in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2013, 132, e1361–e1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mandigo, J.; Butler, J.; Hopper, T. What is Teaching Games for Understanding? A Canadian perspective. Phys. Health Educ. J. 2007, 73, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
- Jefferies, P.; Ungar, M.; Aubertin, P.; Kriellaars, D. Physical Literacy and Resilience in Children and Youth. Front. Public Health 2019, 7, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Horn, T.S.; Weiss, M.R. A developmental analysis of children’s self-ability judgments in the physical domain. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 1991, 3, 310–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lent, R.W.; Lopez, F.G. Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartite view of efficacy beliefs in growth-promoting relationships. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2002, 21, 256–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997; ISBN 0-7167-2850-8. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, B.; Gucciardi, D.F.; Lonsdale, C.; Whipp, P.R.; Dimmock, J.A. “I think they believe in me”: The predictive effects of teammate-and classmate-focused relation-inferred self-efficacy in sport and physical activity settings. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2014, 36, 486–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Saville, P.D.; Bray, S.R.; Ginis, K.A.M.; Cairney, J.; Marinoff-Shupe, D.; Pettit, A. Sources of Self-Efficacy and Coach/Instructor Behaviors Underlying Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy (RISE) in Recreational Youth Sport. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2014, 36, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saville, P.D.; Bray, S.R. Effects on Measures of Coaches’ Cognitions Toward Integrating Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy Communication into Practice. J. Sport Behav. 2018, 41, 189–208. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, J.; Law, B.; Latimer-Cheung, A. Effects of an Imagery Workshop on Coaches’ Encouragement of Imagery Use. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2012, 7, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Miller, W.R.; Rollnick, S. Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 1-60918-227-8. [Google Scholar]
- Gutnick, D.; Reims, K.; Davis, C.; Gainforth, H.; Jay, M.; Cole, S. Brief action planning to facilitate behavior change and support patient self-management. JCOM 2014, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar]
- Barnett, L.M.; Dudley, D.A.; Telford, R.D.; Lubans, D.R.; Bryant, A.S.; Roberts, W.M.; Morgan, P.J.; Schranz, N.K.; Weissensteiner, J.R.; Vella, S.A.; et al. Guidelines for the Selection of Physical Literacy Measures in Physical Education in Australia. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2019, 38, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canadian Sport for Life. Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth; Canadian Sport Institute: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cairney, J.; Veldhuizen, S.; Graham, J.D.; Rodriguez, C.; Bedard, C.; Bremer, E.; Kriellaars, D. A Construct Validation Study of PLAYfun. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2018, 50, 855–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bremer, E.; Graham, J.D.; Bedard, C.; Rodriguez, C.; Kriellaars, D.; Cairney, J. The association between PLAYfun and physical activity: A convergent validation study. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2019, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Effic. Beliefs Adolesc. 2006, 5, 307–337. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, B.; Whipp, P.R.; Chua, K.L.P.; Dimmock, J.A.; Hagger, M.S. Students’ Tripartite Efficacy Beliefs in High School Physical Education: Within- and Cross-Domain Relations With Motivational Processes and Leisure-Time Physical Activity. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2013, 35, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ryan, R.M. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McAuley, E.; Duncan, T.; Tammen, V.V. Psychometric Properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a Competitive Sport Setting: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 1989, 60, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goudas, M.; Biddle, S.; Fox, K. Achievement Goal Orientations and Intrinsic Motivation in Physical Fitness Testing with Children. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 1994, 6, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Social Foundations of thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986; ISBN 0-13-815614-X. [Google Scholar]
- Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D. On Conceptualizing and Assessing Social Cognitive Constructs in Career Research: A Measurement Guide. J. Career Assess. 2006, 14, 12–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 25.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, S.K.; Costigan, S.A.; Morgan, P.J.; Lubans, D.R.; Stodden, D.F.; Salmon, J.; Barnett, L.M. Do School-Based Interventions Focusing on Physical Activity, Fitness, or Fundamental Movement Skill Competency Produce a Sustained Impact in These Outcomes in Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review of Follow-Up Studies. Sports Med. 2014, 44, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhodes, R.E.; de Bruijn, G.-J. How big is the physical activity intention–behaviour gap? A meta-analysis using the action control framework. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2013, 18, 296–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sheeran, P.; Webb, T.L. The Intention-Behavior Gap. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2016, 10, 503–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Mean or Frequency|
|Age (mean (SD))||31.1 (14.4)|
|Level of Education|
|Completed high school (n)||1|
|Some college or technical training (n)||1|
|Completed college or technical training (n)||3|
|Completed a bachelor’s degree (n)||2|
|Years of Experience as Program Leader|
|<1 year (n)||2|
|1–2 years (n)||3|
|>2 years (n)||2|
|Previous Physical Activity Training|
|Outcome expectations||6.4 (0.5)||6.5 (0.4)||6.6 (0.3)||F (2,12) = 1.22, |
p = 0.33,
ηp2 = 0.17
|Perceived knowledge||4.8 (1.3)||6.2 (0.6) *||6.2 (0.6) *||F (2,12) = 7.41, |
p = 0.01,
ηp2 = 0.55
|Self-efficacy||5.3 (0.7)||6.3 (0.5) *||6.4 (0.6) **||F (2,12) = 11.75, |
p = 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.66
|Intentions||N/A||6.8 (0.4)||6.4 (0.7)||t (6) = 1.8, |
p = 0.13, d = 0.52
|Age (mean (SD))||9.1 (1.4)||10.5 (1.8)||t = 4.1, df = 88, |
p < 0.001
|Girls (n)||23||19||x2 (1) = 0.20, |
p = 0.65
|White (n)||32||33||x2 (1) = 0.58, |
p = 0.45
|Lives in one-home (n)||33||29||x2 (1) = 0.19, |
p = 0.66
|Splits time between two homes (n)||13||14|
|Parental place of birth|
|Both parents born in Canada (n)||32||27||x2 (1) = 0.28, |
p = 0.60
|One or both parents born elsewhere (n)||15||16|
|Effect Size |
|PLAYfun average score||39.2 (9.8)||47.3 (8.9) *||0.86|
|Self-efficacy||7.6 (1.9)||7.5 (1.4)||0.06|
|Motivation||6.0 (1.4)||6.0 (1.2)||<0.01|
|Enjoyment||6.4 (1.2)||6.2 (1.4)||0.15|
|PLAYself total score||76.2 (13.4)||75.5 (13.0)||0.05|
|Other-efficacy—leader||8.2 (1.9)||7.9 (1.9)||0.16|
|Other-efficacy—peer||7.7 (2.3)||7.4 (2.1)||0.14|
|Relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE)—leader||8.2 (2.2)||7.8 (1.8)||0.20|
|RISE—peer||7.8 (1.9)||7.6 (1.7)||0.11|
|PLAYfun average score|
|Experimental group||−3.99 (2.36)||0.10|
|Age (years)||1.52 (0.59)||0.01 **|
|Boys||4.27 (1.48)||<0.01 **|
|Baseline score||0.43 (0.10)||<0.001 ***||0.728|
|Experimental group||0.07 (0.38)||0.85|
|Age (years)||0.04 (0.09)||0.68|
|Baseline score||0.53 (0.08)||<0.001 ***||0.541|
|Experimental group||0.56 (0.38)||0.14|
|Age (years)||−0.04 (0.09)||0.63|
|Baseline score||0.30 (0.11)||0.01 **||0.330|
|Experimental group||0.95 (0.43)||0.03 *|
|Age (years)||−0.02 (0.10)||0.82|
|Baseline score||0.61 (0.14)||<0.001 ***||0.391|
|PLAYself total score|
|Experimental group||0.61 (4.78)||0.90|
|Age (years)||−0.17 (1.10)||0.88|
|Baseline score||0.36 (0.12)||<0.01 **||0.289|
|Experimental group||2.92 (0.66)||<0.001 ***|
|Age (years)||−0.04 (0.15)||0.76|
|Baseline score||0.41 (0.13)||<0.01 **||0.497|
|Experimental group||0.07 (0.81)||0.93|
|Age (years)||0.02 (0.18)||0.90|
|Boys||1.18 (0.50)||0.02 *|
|Baseline score||0.19 (0.11)||0.10||0.192|
|Experimental group||1.14 (0.56)||0.05 *|
|Age (years)||−0.07 (0.13)||0.59|
|Baseline score||0.55 (0.10)||<0.001 ***||0.494|
|Experimental group||1.36 (0.81)||0.10|
|Age (years)||−0.10 (0.19)||0.62|
|Baseline score||0.41 (0.17)||0.02 *||0.272|
|Question||Program Leader Responses|
|Would you recommend the program to other program leaders? Please elaborate.||1. I would recommend the program to other leaders as long as they are not implementing another program and have participants who are used to structured programming. |
2. Yes, this has increased our children’s participation in fundamental skills that they do not usually enjoy.
3. I would for programs that have a lot of structure. On the other hand, programs like mine are very hard to implement this.
4. Yes. It covers a wide range of physical activities to enhance PL skills. They are clearly explained and offer a variety of games with and without equipment. It encourages children to lead, as well in terms of skill sharing.
5. I would recommend to other program leaders because it is a great way of keeping a group of children occupied and entertained. This program has taught me a number of different gym games that cover a variety of categories.
6. Yes! The lesson plans were easy to follow so long as you have the right kind (or any) equipment.
7. Yes, because it helps build the confidence in the children and helps leaders to learn new gym games.
|Is there anything you would like to change about the program? Please describe.||1. Supply all equipment and supplies at the beginning of the program to leaders who are implementing the program. |
2. An increase in the variety of activities would be helpful in keeping children engaged.
3. Maybe have some free time.
4. Could the font size be a bit larger for text in booklet?
5. The only thing I would change were the games given as examples in the books. It became difficult to think of certain activities.
6. 12 Weeks is (in my opinion) too short to make true lasting attitude change. I think also 3-day blocks are too short.
7. The thing I would like to change is taking into consideration that we didn’t have the proper equipment.
|What was your favorite part about the program?||1. Introducing new skills to some participants while helping others maintain and develop certain skills. |
2. My favorite part of the program was seeing kids helping each other with peer-based learning.
3. Diverse games
4. Seeing children interact with enthusiasm when participating in whole group games or in pairs practicing their skills and also responding to positive feedback from their leaders. When a child developed a skill and recognized their own progress for those skills.
5. Seeing the kids having fun with the various games.
6. The new games—kids loved them. Not having to prepare plans was great.
|What was your least favorite part about the program?||1. Overwhelmed due to implementing more than one program plan. |
2. My least favorite part of the program was keeping children engaged in repeat games/activities and having to keep up engagement.
3. How short the weeks were.
4. Sometimes, children may not always want to have 3-day blocks and also some children due to behavioral issues, wanted to do their own thing (regardless of what was presented)—They are this way prior to the program.
5. Getting the kids to participate.
6. Having to meet deadlines and “strict” structure. I think structure is important though, and kids need structure, but it was too tight.
7. Not having the proper equipment for some games.
|Do you have any additional feedback or comments about the program?||1. Staying in contact with staff throughout the duration of program was great support. Supply equipment at initial training in order for staff to properly implement activities and skill stations. |
2. I think this was very helpful in increasing participant skills and increasing the idea of gender inclusivity (not all children fully understand this concept yet, but it is starting to set in).
4. Could an abridged version be offered with featuring a variety of activities but more economizing on use of words/explanations?
5. Hopefully this study sticks around in the future.
6. 5-day blocks. Rotation after 5 days of activity from block 1 to 6.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bremer, E.; Graham, J.D.; Cairney, J. Outcomes and Feasibility of a 12-Week Physical Literacy Intervention for Children in an Afterschool Program. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093129
Bremer E, Graham JD, Cairney J. Outcomes and Feasibility of a 12-Week Physical Literacy Intervention for Children in an Afterschool Program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093129Chicago/Turabian Style
Bremer, Emily, Jeffrey D. Graham, and John Cairney. 2020. "Outcomes and Feasibility of a 12-Week Physical Literacy Intervention for Children in an Afterschool Program" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 9: 3129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093129