View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Professional Development Program to Enhance Primary School Teachers' Knowledge and Operationalization of Physical Literacy

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Professional Development Program to Enhance Primary School Teachers' Knowledge and Operationalization of Physical Literacy
Language: English
Authors: Edwards, Lori C., Bryant, Anna S., Morgan, Kevin, Cooper, Stephen-Mark, Jones, Anwen M.
Source: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Apr 2019 38(2):126-135.
Availability: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Elementary School Teachers, Faculty Development, Knowledge Base for Teaching, Physical Activities, Literacy, Physical Education
DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0275
ISSN: 0273-5024
Abstract: ntroduction: 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.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1213163
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGQgKp4C_u-LZ_PZY0TqFUkAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIdY5Sz-XIqAX9_gXQIBEICBm5tJAucxhtFFrg_Hi-T3ZDhSeLWJIdyMRr1oNO9TOhayoc85R_YvbSvQXb0Hu9lotoGt6Mix2Oja-k847Qo-W-TzM6kqSsdCOqtCxOJYyu6Z5fyF01bj9ySD75N-uuLJgOjIst7SF5wu1jo0tGrm2RPn4L7WUMHTj5s_HAqwjQZj1nTv8yweRp4lZvoUpJSZA1MKSb0ASekmhBv_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0135777795;0do01apr.19;2019Apr09.06:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0135777795-1">A Professional Development Program to Enhance Primary School Teachers' Knowledge and Operationalization of Physical Literacy </title> <p>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.</p> <p>Keywords: PE-CPD; physical education; primary education</p> <p>Despite the increased interest and attention around the concept of physical literacy on a global and political level ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]), it continues to be largely misinterpreted by practitioners, including school teachers ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]). A systematic review conducted by Edwards, Bryant, Keegan, Morgan, and Jones ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]) revealed that the majority of studies (70%) adopted a "Whiteheadian" definition of physical literacy. Whitehead's definition was founded on the philosophical groundings of phenomenology, existentialism, and monism and is defined as "the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life" ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref4">28</reflink>], para. 1). Recent developments have placed an emphasis on the social capability alongside the physical, affective, and cognitive domains of physical literacy (see [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>]). An in-depth critical discussion of the philosophical foundations of physical literacy is beyond the scope of the present study (see [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]). Nevertheless, practitioners should be aware of the key foundations that underpin the philosophy of physical literacy in order further understand how to operationalize the concept in practice ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref7">47</reflink>]). Even so, there have been many debates around how best to operationalize the complex, multifaceted, and nonlinear concept of physical literacy ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref8">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although physical literacy is relevant throughout the life course, currently, school-based physical education (PE) lessons have been recognized as the most common environment in which children and adolescents can develop their physical literacy ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>]). In this context, many advocates consider physical literacy as the main outcome of high-quality PE provision to generate healthy, able, and active citizens ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]). For most children, PE is their first encounter of structured physical activity, therefore positive, high-quality experiences of physical activity should be nurtured in primary schools ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref12">32</reflink>]). Such positive experiences are engendered by teachers delivering high-quality PE lessons ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref13">43</reflink>]). High-quality PE can be achieved when the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment are successfully integrated and aligned ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>]). Indeed, solely considering the content of the curriculum is not sufficient to provide a quality educational experience for pupils ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]). Research indicates that primary teachers' insecurities are partially related to limited content knowledge, but primarily they are due to pedagogical concerns ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]). These insecurities are unsurprising given that 40% of generalist primary school teachers in the United Kingdom receive less than 6 hr of PE training during their initial teacher education and training ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Limited PE content knowledge and lack of training opportunities impair teachers' abilities to plan lessons effectively with many primary teachers omitting PE lesson planning altogether ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref18">48</reflink>]). Consequently, primary school teachers who lack confidence in teaching PE are less likely to deliver high-quality PE, and in turn, less likely to impact positively on pupils' physical literacy ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref19">50</reflink>]). The primary school age group (aged 4–11 years) is viewed as a critical period in the development of physical literacy and healthy behaviors ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]), rendering primary school teachers' limited knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy problematic ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref22">46</reflink>]). The above-identified shortfalls in knowledge and implementation can be mitigated via effective professional development programs ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-2">Professional Development Programs</hd> <p>In teaching and education, professional development programs provide feasible opportunities for teachers to develop and refine high-quality teaching practice in an ever-changing and multifaceted profession ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]). Specifically, professional development programs in PE (PE-CPD) can play a considerable role in upskilling content knowledge and reducing primary school teachers' insecurities toward teaching PE ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]). Nevertheless, like most PE-CPD programs, they have a tendency to be brief, 1-day workshops that occur off the school site ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>]). Although workshop-based training can be useful in relaying large amounts of information in short periods of time, it is known that content covered during brief, "one-shot" workshop-based professional development programs are considered to be superficial and less effective ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref27">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers often question the value of the one-off courses and are usually "passive consumers" as opposed to actively engaging with their development ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>]). In this context, many workshop-based PE-CPD programs do not embed the content alongside teachers' current responsibilities, nor are they supportive and consider teachers' individual needs. To overcome these shortcomings, O'Sullivan ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]) proposed that initial stages of CPD programs should commence with a needs assessment phase. A "need" describes "a desire to improve current performance or to correct a deficiency" ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>], p. 5). In turn, the needs assessment phase is crucial as it avoids generic learning opportunities, focuses on teachers' growth, and nurtures them as learners ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]). An emphasis on teachers' "growth" can be supported by creating a collaborative environment and allow opportunities for teachers to work with peers, provide and receive feedback and share good practice ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Often, PE-CPD programs, particularly with primary schools, focus on upskilling teachers' PE content knowledge and offer resource materials as a mechanism to support their learning ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]). However, resource-driven professional development programs do not adequately provide teachers with an in-depth knowledge base and they are unlikely to be impactful at a national level ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]). Instead, PE-CPD programs should upskill teachers' content knowledge and pedagogical practice in PE to ensure the professional development program is instructionally focused ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]). In the context of PE-CPD with a focus on physical literacy, consideration for the complex and nonlinear nature of the development of the concept is required ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]). Many PE-CPD programs do not account for the complexity of the learning process, understand the context and contemporary theory, or support the bridge between theory and practice ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>]). This concern is heightened in primary schools whereby generalist teachers do not commonly specialize in PE in the United Kingdom, hence, requiring effective and long-lasting professional development opportunities.</p> <p>In respect of the literature, nine key principles of effective professional development in PE and physical literacy emerged, specifically:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (a) Begin with an in-depth needs assessment consultancy process to evaluate the individual needs of the school and the teachers ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (b) Consider the complex and nonlinear nature of the development of physical literacy ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (c) Create a supportive environment and tailor the professional development program to the needs of the teacher, school, and local authority goals ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref42">40</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (d) Embed the content of the professional development program alongside teachers' current job duties and responsibilities and encourage teachers to reflect continually on the learning process ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (e) Upskill teachers on content knowledge and pedagogical practice in PE to ensure the professional development program is instructional focused ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (f) Focus on teachers' "growth" and nurture them as learners and bridge the theory–practice gap ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (g) Create a collaborative environment ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref46">27</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (h) Place an emphasis on sustainability and avoid one-off training opportunities such as workshops ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref48">27</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (i) Do not rely solely on resource material as resource-driven professional development programs do not adequately provide teachers with an in-depth knowledge base and they are unlikely to be impactful at a national level ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0135777795-3">Purpose</hd> <p>The purpose of the present study was to devise, implement, and evaluate a professional development program that works in a school-based environment with Welsh-medium primary school teachers. The present study explored how the aforementioned professional development program modified teachers' knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy. This study was part of a wider research project funded by the <emph>Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol</emph> (Welsh National College).</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135777795-5">Sampling and School Selection</hd> <p>Following institutional level research ethics committee approval, a purposive sampling procedure was employed to select the schools for this study ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref50">42</reflink>]). Specifically, Welsh-medium schools were selected because it was a key requirement of the funding body, the <emph>Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol</emph>. Written informed consents from two head teachers and three primary school teachers were collected to allow participation in the study. Furthermore, Year 6 (fifth grade) pupils in their final year of primary school (aged 10–11 years) who received two 1-hr PE lessons per week were the key focus of this study, given that physical literacy should be nurtured in primary before transitioning to secondary school ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref51">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Two primary schools from different socioeconomic demographics across South Wales, United Kingdom were recruited through e-mail contact with the respective head teachers. These two different schools provided an authentic context for the complexity and uniqueness of these individual demographics; hence, they were selected for this purpose. The schools in this study are subsequently referred to as the "urban school" and the "rural school." The urban school was based in a metropolitan area, whereas the rural school was based in the South Wales Valleys, a group of postindustrialized valleys in South Wales. Notable differences between the two schools included the percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals, the number of Year 6 pupils enrolled in each school, the number of Year 6 classes per school, and the number of Year 6 teachers per school. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of both schools.</p> <p>Table 1 Demographic Data for Both the Primary Schools</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">City school</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Valleys school</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of pupils enrolled</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">206</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">450</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Percentage of pupils eligible for "free school meals" (EFSM)</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">24.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Age range, years</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4–11</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3–11</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of Year 6 pupils</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">28</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of Year 6 teachers</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Teacher pseudonym</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mrs. Davies</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Jones</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">PE specialist/nonspecialist</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Nonspecialist</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mr. Rogers—PE specialist<break />Mrs. Jones—nonspecialist</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Years teaching</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">23 years</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mr. Rogers—3 years<break />Mrs. Jones—20 years</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Favorite sport/physical activity</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">No dominant sport</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mr. Rogers—rugby<break />Mrs. Jones—squash</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>. PE = physical education.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-6">Professional Development Program</hd> <p>A professional development program to enhance Welsh-medium primary school teachers' knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy (PDPL) was designed and implemented in the academic year 2014–2015. Throughout the PDPL, the principle investigator (PI) was based in each primary school for 2 days per week. The research design consisted of three phases: (a) needs assessment (September–December 2014), (b) physical literacy workshop (January 2015), and (c) physical literacy intervention (January–July 2015).</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-7">Phase 1</hd> <p>A 3-month qualitative needs assessment phase with no intervention was conducted in order to observe teachers' knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy as well as assess their confidence and competence in teaching PE. This phase identified the teachers' everyday behaviors through structured observation of their teaching practice in both classroom and PE lessons (see Table 2). Needs were identified for each teacher based on the observations (2 days per week) and were addressed in Phase 3. Before commencing with Phase 2 of the study, the teachers were interviewed individually for approximately 40 min using a semistructured interview guide to characterize their knowledge and understanding of physical literacy.</p> <p>Table 2 Structured Form Used to Observe Teachers</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /></colgroup><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Curriculum<break />What is taught? (content)</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Curriculum<break />How is it taught? (teaching strategies / resources)</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Physical Aspect of the classroom</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Rapport between teacher and student</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Other personnel: support staff /parent helpers</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Other</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Teacher behavior</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Student engagement and behavior</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">TARGET structure:<break />Task<break />Authority<break />Recognition<break />Grouping<break />Evaluation<break />Time</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Adapted from <emph>Targeted School Self-Evaluation Improvement Team (TSSEIT) evaluation tools support materials</emph>, by N. Brito, 2009, Bankstown, Australia: Department of Education and Training.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-8">Phase 2</hd> <p>A 1-hr workshop took place in January 2015 which aimed to upskill teachers' knowledge on the definition of physical literacy through interactive tasks. First, the workshop highlighted the importance of physical literacy in the form of a lecture (e.g., developing the whole child). Second, various examples of physical literacy in international policy were shared with teachers, placing emphasis on its increased popularity. Third, teachers were asked to write their definition of physical literacy which naturally stimulated discussion around some common misconceptions ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref52">19</reflink>]). Fourth, the definition adopted by the International Physical Literacy Association was shared with teachers, which included explanations of the physical, affective, and cognitive characteristics and the physical literacy journey ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref53">21</reflink>]). Finally, teachers were asked to draw their own physical literacy journey.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-9">Phase 3</hd> <p>After the workshop, a 6-month physical literacy intervention was conducted with the Year 6 teachers (January–July 2015). The nine principles of effective professional development were implemented in the physical literacy intervention. For example, the physical literacy intervention embedded teachers' individual needs identified in Phase 1 and was considered collaborative and supportive as the PI conducted flexible weekly collaborative discussions (approximately 20 min) with the teachers to plan and reflect on their PE lessons. Weekly collaborative discussions were dialogic, and the content and pedagogy of the previous PE lessons were embedded into discussions. This embedded process was accomplished by concentrating on one curriculum focus (e.g., activity-specific practice and content knowledge) and one pedagogical focus (e.g., differentiating the tasks) every week. Throughout Phase 3, the teachers were central in the decision-making process and ultimately the PI's role was to support them during the planning for PE lessons and empower them to make decisions about PE lessons. The intervention was instructionally focused as the weekly collaborative discussions with teachers centered on the curriculum (what was taught), pedagogy (how it was taught), and assessment (impact on pupils' learning), in order to develop pupils' physical, affective, and cognitive domains of physical literacy ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref55">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref56">53</reflink>]). Further to discussing PE lessons, the collaborative discussions occasionally focused on how teachers could develop physical literacy within other areas of the curriculum. This included collaboratively discussing opportunities to develop pupils' knowledge and understanding of healthy and active lifestyles in other subject areas ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref57">21</reflink>]). At the end of Phase 3, the semistructured, 40-min individual interviews focusing on teachers' knowledge and understanding of physical literacy were repeated such that the pre- and postintervention interviews could be compared.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-10">Data Sources and Analysis</hd> <p>A range of qualitative research sources was utilized throughout Phase 1 and Phase 3, to include: notes taken during the lesson observations of PE lessons ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]) and reflections ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]), weekly reflective collaborative discussions with the teachers to plan high-quality PE lessons, and semistructured interviews with the teachers about their experiences before and after the intervention (see Appendix 1). The interviews audiotaped and subsequently transcribed for purposes of analysis. Before qualitative analysis procedures began, back translation was conducted from Welsh into English for accuracy and interpretation ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref60">15</reflink>]). For the back-translation process, the PI translated the transcripts from Welsh to English, and then the second investigator translated the English version back to Welsh. Both translators then compared the original Welsh version and the retranslated version, and the process continued until semantic similarity was achieved ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Deductive and inductive thematic analyses were performed using six phases of analysis, specifically: (a) familiarization with the data, (b) generating initial codes, (c) searching for themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e) defining and naming themes, and (f) producing the report ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>]). The PI generated initial codes deductively and the theoretical/deductive thematic analysis was driven by the knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy. Trustworthiness was addressed in accordance with Lincoln and Guba's ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>]) criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-11">Results</hd> <p>Two major themes were identified based on the deductive analysis of the lesson observations, reflective discussion collaborations, and interviews: <emph>Knowledge of Physical Literacy</emph> and <emph>Operationalizing Physical Literacy</emph>. Subthemes with these two major thematic categories will be presented in this section.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-12">Knowledge of Physical Literacy</hd> <p>Three subthemes evolved from the theme, <emph>Knowledge of Physical Literacy</emph>. The first subtheme, <emph>understanding the physical literacy definition</emph>, derived from nine of the lesson observation notes, 16 of the collaborative reflection sessions, and three of the teacher interviews. Six examples have been selected to describe this subtheme. The second subtheme, <emph>PE-specific knowledge</emph>, derived from seven of the lesson observation notes, 13 of the collaborative reflection sessions, and three of the teacher interviews. Five examples have been selected to describe this subtheme. Finally, the third subtheme, <emph>recognizing the importance of PE</emph>, stemmed from four of the lesson observation notes, 10 of the collaborative reflection sessions, and three of the teacher interviews. Six examples have been selected to describe this subtheme.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-13">Understanding the physical literacy definition</hd> <p>The first subtheme was related to the growth in the three teachers' understanding of the concept of physical literacy. As the literacy coordinator in Key Stage 2 (aged 7–11 years), Mrs. Jones' initial definition of physical literacy "was related to literacy in a PE or physical activity context" (reflection from the workshop). Similarly, Mr. Rogers alluded to developing literacy skills in his preliminary definition of physical literacy: "they [pupils] are able to use correct language to describe what they do and what effect it has on the body" (preintervention interview). In contrast to physical literacy, literacy in PE refers to developing the skills of speaking, listening, reading, and writing in PE lessons ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref64">14</reflink>]). Furthermore, Mrs. Davies's initial understanding of physical literacy indicated some common misconceptions of the concept ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref65">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>]):</p> <p>I'm going to be quite honest, when I first heard the term, I thought, "oh dear, what's this term now?" There are so many terms thrown at us all the time! There's certain physical skills and also that they [pupils] are more aware that literacy and numeracy are important and keeping fit is also important for a healthy lifestyle in the future. (preintervention interview)</p> <p>Despite some misconceptions, Mrs. Davies made the connection between healthy lifestyles and physical literacy, demonstrating an understanding of the wider benefits of the concept ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>]). Mrs. Davies's quotation suggested that another "new term" emphasized the reality of initiative overload in education, and further exemplified a potential barrier in operationalizing physical literacy in primary schools ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]). By the end of the project, however, all three teachers made reference to the holistic and individualized nature of physical literacy:</p> <p>It's important that we develop the whole child: the physical, the mental, the emotional and the social parts in PE, so they would carry on enjoying sport and physical activity after they leave us, and hopefully inspire them to be active for the rest of their life. (Mr. Rogers, postintervention interview)</p> <p>It's not just about educating them; not just their literacy, not just their numeracy; it's their awareness of keeping fit in order to make sure that they leave us and go on to secondary school as a whole child. (Mrs. Davies, postintervention interview)</p> <p>Mrs. Davies's response alluded to the monist philosophy, whereby pupils' minds and bodies are interrelated, hence, exemplifying a deeper understanding of the concept in comparison to the needs assessment phase ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref70">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref71">54</reflink>]). This growth in the three teachers' understanding of physical literacy was initially developed in the workshop and built upon throughout the physical literacy intervention. The collaborative weekly discussions with the PI centered on the complex and nonlinear nature of physical literacy in line with the key principles of effective professional development.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-14">Growth in PE-specific knowledge</hd> <p>The second subtheme was an increase in the teachers' awareness of, and application of, PE-specific knowledge. In line with the key principles of effective professional development, the PI shared PE resource material (content) and importantly, collaboratively discussed the suitability of the resources (pedagogy) for the pupils ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>]). However, despite the number of PE resources (manuals, books, and DVDs etc.) located in the staffroom, the three teachers did not refer to these resources at all during the needs assessment phase. Consequently, drills aimed at developing physical competence tended to be static in PE lessons throughout Phase 1. For example in hockey, the "teacher could identify the areas of weaknesses in performance but was unable to convert/transfer passing into an applied setting. Drills were static and done in isolation. More active drills are required in order for pupils to successfully transfer into a game situation" (PI reflection). This observation highlighted Mrs. Davies' limited application of knowledge in a games context, specifically, the knowledge and application of modified games and game-centered approaches (e.g., Teaching Games for Understanding; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>]). In turn, the applied nature of this approach would allow learners to progress from simple to complex movement capacities ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref74">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>With reference to the physical competence element of physical literacy ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref75">53</reflink>]), it was observed that all teachers predominantly developed locomotor skills, partly developed manipulative skills, but, however, lacked developing body management skills during the needs assessment phase. As such, pupils were provided with very few opportunities to develop the body management skills deemed to be the foundation of other movement patterns ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref76">53</reflink>]). In the needs assessment phase, teachers did not plan PE lessons, which may explain why body management skills were omitted. Indeed, there were disparities between planning and organization for classroom and PE lessons. That is, all classroom lessons were carefully planned and included learning objectives, starter tasks, main activities, and plenaries in a progressive and differentiated manner; this was not the case with the planning of the PE lessons. Indeed, Mrs. Davies and Mrs. Jones did not plan any PE lessons during the 3-month needs assessment phase, and though Mr. Rogers planned some PE lessons during the needs assessment phase, his planning for PE was not carried out in the same rigorous manner as were his classroom lessons.</p> <p>These needs were identified and implemented into the 6-month physical literacy intervention. During the intervention, all movement vocabularies were planned into PE lessons, including locomotor, body management, and manipulative skills ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref77">39</reflink>]). This was achieved from the embedded collaborative weekly discussions between the teachers and the PI when discussing competitive (rugby) and creative (gymnastics) activities with Mrs. Davies:</p> <p>... a variety of travelling movements to develop the locomotor capability such as side-step, cross over, fast feet, jumping over obstacles and body management skills to drop to the ground and get back up. (reflection)</p> <p>... body management skills like dish, arch, front support, back support, balance on one hand and one foot, different jumps and locomotor skills, such as bunny hops, foxes, frog hopping and camel walking. (reflection)</p> <p>The weekly collaborative discussions between the PI and Mrs. Davies in the urban school were crucial in developing content knowledge through applied movement vocabularies in different environments. Furthermore, in the rural school, planning PE lessons collaboratively as a trio (PI, Mr. Rogers, and Mrs. Jones) led to an increase in the teachers' PE-specific knowledge. Though Mr. Rogers loosely planned his PE lessons during the needs assessment phase, the weekly collaborative discussions between the PI and the two teachers provided opportunities to learn from each other ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>]). Understanding teachers' individual dispositions toward PE and different physical activities, allowed the PI to further develop the activities the teachers felt most comfortable delivering, which were games and competitive activities ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref79">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-15">Recognizing the importance of PE</hd> <p>The third subtheme identified a positive shift in teachers' attitudes toward prioritizing PE in the curriculum. Observations from the needs assessment phase identified many disruptions to PE lessons. Events outside the control of the class teachers, such as sports competitions, trips, and special assemblies took place that hindered PE lessons from proceeding as usual. The intermittent PE lessons in the rural school continued from the start of November until the Christmas break "because pupils were on a trip to their secondary school" (PI, observation notes) and "because of practising for the Christmas concert" (PI, observation notes). Though this finding was a clear cause for concern, it was consistent with evidence from previous literature stating that PE lessons are canceled more frequently than any other subject on the primary school curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref80">24</reflink>]). Though disruptions were less prominent in the urban school, preparations for the Christmas fair, singing rehearsals for the Christmas concert, and general Christmas classroom tasks interfered with all lessons, but especially PE. For some pupils in these two schools, PE was the only structured physical activity they received all week ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>]). As such, canceling PE lessons, combined with rainy December South Wales weather (which meant indoor playtimes) denoted high levels of physical inactivity and likely disruptions to pupils' physical literacy development ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref82">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>During the 6-month physical literacy intervention, it was evident from observations that all teachers prioritized PE. Cancellations of PE lessons occurred less frequently, and teachers acknowledged in postintervention interviews that they believed physical literacy was equally important to a child's development as literacy and numeracy. These views were transferred to Year 6 pupils during Mrs. Davies' athletics lesson by saying: "Being healthy and active is just as important as being able to know your times tables" (observation note). During the weekly collaborative discussions, the PI continually emphasized the importance of physical activity as a means of developing the whole child, which was likely to have caused this shift in attitude.</p> <p>Indeed, the collaborative discussions developed an awareness of teachers' responsibility in ensuring positive outcomes to pupils' health in later life from quality PE provision was prominent: "That we [teachers] instill enthusiasm in children and they [pupils] realise the importance of staying healthy and doing physical activity at a young age so when they become adults, there will be less problems with their health" (Mrs. Davies, postintervention interview). This suggested that Mrs. Davies recognized the importance of developing pupils' affective, cognitive, and social domains as well as their physical competence in order to influence their lifelong physical literacy development ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref83">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref84">31</reflink>]). This change was achieved by following the key principles of effective professional development and fostering a supportive environment tailored to the schools' health and well-being strategies ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref86">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-16">Operationalizing Physical Literacy</hd> <p>Four subthemes evolved from the theme, <emph>Operationalizing Physical Literacy</emph>. The first subtheme, <emph>transferring classroom practice into PE</emph>, derived from 18 of the lesson observation notes, 11 of the collaborative reflection sessions, and three of the teacher interviews. Five examples have been selected to describe this subtheme. The second subtheme, <emph>differentiating learning</emph>, originated from 16 of the lesson observation notes, 22 of the collaborative reflection sessions, and three of the teacher interviews. Nine examples have been selected to describe this subtheme. The third subtheme, <emph>ipsative assessment</emph>, stemmed from 13 of the lesson observation notes, 11 of the collaborative reflection sessions, and three of the teacher interviews. Six examples have been selected to describe this subtheme. Finally, the fourth subtheme, <emph>confidence in operationalizing physical literacy</emph>, was observed in four of the lesson observation notes, two of the collaborative reflection sessions, and three of the teacher interviews. Two examples have been selected to describe this subtheme.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-17">Transferring classroom practice into PE</hd> <p>Pedagogical and operational differences between the classroom and PE were observed during the needs assessment phase. Indeed, there were disparities between the planning procedures for classroom and PE lessons. Every classroom lesson was carefully planned on set templates that included learning objectives, starter tasks, main activities and plenaries in a progressive and differentiated manner, whereas PE was not. In effect, Mrs. Davies and Mrs. Jones did not plan any PE lessons during the needs assessment phase, and though Mr. Rogers planned some PE lessons, his planning for PE was not carried out in the same rigorous manner as were his classroom lessons.</p> <p>The lack of planning in PE lessons omitted crucial pedagogical elements. For example, there was a clear absence of learning objectives in PE lessons (Mrs. Davies and Mr. Rogers, observation notes). Such absence of learning objectives is considered problematic given that pupils were unlikely to fully understand the purpose of the PE lesson, what was expected of them, and what they should know/do by the end of the PE lesson ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref87">41</reflink>]). In contrast, classroom-based subjects had clear learning objectives, whereby pupils clearly understood the teachers' expectations ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref88">13</reflink>]). Pupils would therefore benefit if this effective pedagogical stratagem from the classroom was transferred into the PE context.</p> <p>To operationalize physical literacy and offering high-quality PE provision, good practice from the classroom was transferred into PE during the physical literacy intervention, as illustrated by the following reflection: "I made the comparison to the classroom, whereby the lesson always has a learning outcome and how imperative it was to share with pupils the aim of the lesson in PE and in the classroom" (PI, reflection). Indeed, this transfer of pedagogy was achieved through purposeful questions during the embedded collaborative discussions. This process encouraged teachers to reflect continually on the learning process and was embedded alongside their duties and responsibilities, aligning with the key principle of effective professional development ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-18">Differentiated learning</hd> <p>To ensure the professional development program was instructional focused to align with the key principles of effective professional development, the PI ensured that pedagogical practices, such as differentiating ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref90">27</reflink>]), were frequently discussed. During the 3-month needs assessment phase, in both schools "tasks were not differentiated for pupils' individual abilities" (PI, observation notes). Given that tasks should be varied and differentiated to maximize opportunities for self-referenced targets, the three teachers' lack of differentiation was problematic in nurturing pupils' motivation ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref91">51</reflink>]). It was observed that the higher physical ability learners became disengaged in PE due to boredom, and the lower ability learners became disengaged due to a lack of competence in completing the task, as illustrated in a PI observation note: "Pupils were engaged during the partner activity but when groups completed the task with cones, some pupils disengaged and started to misbehave; particularly the higher ability pupils." This level of disengagement from the higher ability learners suggested the need for a change in teachers' pedagogical practice while delivering PE to ensure tasks were challenging, yet realistic for each individual, and thereby aligning with the individualized element of the physical literacy journey ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref92">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref93">53</reflink>]). With a high variance in abilities, and a high number of pupils with additional learning needs, particularly in the rural school, differentiating tasks for individual needs in PE was challenging for the teachers. That said, linking to the previous theme, all three teachers differentiated tasks in classroom lessons, for example, by providing "extra work sheets to the higher ability group for mathematics task" (PI, observation notes). Nonetheless, understanding the variance in abilities during the needs assessment phase offered the PI an insight into the daily challenges that teachers faced while trying to create positive, high-quality learning environments for their classes ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref94">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given that the concept of physical literacy is individualized, differentiating tasks to meet individual needs was crucial in operationalizing the complex and nonlinear nature of physical literacy. As such, differentiation was a core pedagogical topic during the weekly collaborative discussions:</p> <p>The pedagogical focus of today's discussion centred on differentiation again in cricket, so different challenges were placed, different balls and rackets would also be offered... for example in the quick cricket game there were different distances which equated to a point system (PI, reflection).</p> <p>The differentiated tasks during the physical literacy intervention phase created a more inclusive environment, for example, pupils chose "their own level of ability on each station and create their own routine" during gymnastics, and "pupils chose the type of racket, ball and distance of the run" during cricket lessons (PI observation notes). At the start of the intervention phase Mrs. Davies believed differentiating in PE with Year 6 pupils was challenging:</p> <p>When the children are younger it's easier because they're all about the same in terms of physical development, but by the time they reach year six, you've got children playing cricket and rugby for the county, and others that, maybe except for PE lessons, they don't do anything physical outside of school (preintervention interview).</p> <p>Indeed, as pupils enter the upper end of primary school, their ability to compare their own physical performance against peers becomes more sensitized and frequent ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref95">52</reflink>]). Offering pupils <emph>"</emph>different options to choose their own level" (PI, observation notes) created an inclusive environment placing emphasis on ipsative assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-19">Ipsative assessment</hd> <p>Where possible, judgments on performance should be made against a pupil's previous attainment; it should be noncomparative, self-referenced, and ipsative assessment ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref96">49</reflink>]). It was observed that all teachers frequently compared pupils' performances in PE by "the best performer" (PI, observation notes) which would likely be detrimental to pupils' attitudes toward PE and physical activity ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref97">5</reflink>]). In the needs assessment phase, all teachers employed assessment for learning strategies and praised pupils on effort and personal success during classroom lessons when circulating around the classroom and approaching the group tables ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref98">54</reflink>]). Though pupils were aware of the higher and lower ability groups, performance comparison between pupils was not observed in the classroom. Research indicates that comparing pupils' academic performance would have negatively affected pupils' motivation, confidence, and self-esteem ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref99">23</reflink>]). That said, it should be recognized that it is more difficult, logistically, to provide individualized feedback in PE lessons because pupils are physically more spread out.</p> <p>With these disparities between classroom and PE pedagogy, focusing on ipsative assessment was crucial in operationalizing physical literacy throughout the intervention. The focus on ipsative assessment resulted in Mrs. Davies "praising pupils individually a lot more on their efforts" (PI, observation notes), and "encouraging pupils to try their best" during PE lessons (PI, observation notes). By the end of the project, all teachers demonstrated growth in recognizing the importance of applying ipsative assessment strategies in PE. For example, Mrs. Davies stated, "it's not about winning or who's the best, it's about improving on what they have done in the past" (postintervention interview). Indeed, as the intervention progressed, Mrs. Davies and Mrs. Jones ceased to create a comparative environment and incorporated the principles of ipsative assessment into their PE lessons. One athletics lesson prominently evidenced this change in practice: "Teacher promoted ipsative assessment by timing the number of laps pupils can achieve in 5 min and focusing on individual progress" (PI, observation notes). Despite the gains in implementing ipsative assessment in PE lessons with all three teachers, Mrs. Jones expressed the need for "summative" assessments in PE to evidence progress:</p> <p>For assessing in PE, we've tried to think about where pupils are individually and how much they've improved. We also now do more peer-evaluation methods which work very well in PE. Although these assessments are child-centred, I don't think an inspector would see it as real evidence of assessment from us as teachers. (postintervention interview)</p> <p>Although Mrs. Jones appreciated the significance of assessing pupils against their personal best to improve their motivation and confidence in PE, in reality, the pressures of evidencing progress to align with governmental policies is pertinent. In turn, advocates should voice the inconsistencies between child-centered educational practices and governmental policies to policymakers. This important finding was uncovered because an emphasis in the present PDPL was placed on sustaining an ongoing relationship with teachers as opposed to one-off training ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref100">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref101">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-20">Confidence in operationalizing physical literacy</hd> <p>Overall, the collaborative weekly discussions from the physical literacy intervention increased teachers' confidence in teaching PE and thus operationalizing physical literacy. Mrs. Davies's initial confidence levels to teach PE were low during the needs assessment phase: "... I don't feel as confident to teach PE compared to other subjects" (preintervention interview). However, postintervention statements depicted a contrasting outlook: "I am in my element teaching PE, and I know maybe the odd teacher, if they could get rid of one lesson, it would be PE, but not me. That is one lesson that will always stay" (postintervention interview). This confirms a clear growth in confidence. This focus on teachers' growth is rooted in the key principles of effective professional development whereby the PI nurtured the teachers as learners ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>]). Acknowledgment that growth in learning is complex and individualized, and, hence, can be exhibited in different ways was essential in the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-21">Discussion</hd> <p>A key feature of the present study was the observable impacts on teachers' knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy after implementing the nine key principles of effective professional development. Flexibility was pertinent while conducting school-based research, as teachers have different levels of experiences and confidence while teaching PE, and as such, a "one-size-fits-all model" does not suffice ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref103">27</reflink>]). An important finding from the present study was the crucial role of including the 3-month needs assessment phase to help facilitate the design of a successful 6-month physical literacy intervention for both schools ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref104">40</reflink>]). During the needs assessment phase, the PI was able to acquire a greater understanding of the teachers' strengths and needs to develop their PE practice.</p> <p>A finding that was consistent in both schools was that teachers did not naturally transfer well-recognized pedagogical and assessment practices from the classroom into the PE context. As a consequence, a crucial contributor to the perceived success of the present PDPL approach was the PI's observations of both classroom and PE practices in order to make fair judgments about the teachers' pedagogical capabilities and allow the transfer of positive classroom pedagogy to the PE setting. Some previous PE-CPD programs have focused solely on observing teachers' PE pedagogy and have omitted classroom pedagogy ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref105">17</reflink>]). Adopting this latter approach, however, would have limited the opportunities to develop teachers' overall professional practice.</p> <p>Based on the differences in the three teachers' responses during the postintervention interviews compared with the preintervention, the content of the physical literacy workshops was experienced as effective in increasing teachers' understanding of the physical literacy definition. That said, the hour-long workshop was an introduction to the concept and did not permit time to explain how teachers can operationalize the key messages of physical literacy into practice. The impact of "one-shot," workshop-based, PE-CPD programs have previously been criticized because teachers are less likely to apply the content once they "return to their daily routine" ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref106">27</reflink>], p. 177). Sustainable changes to teachers' practices were achieved through embedding the principles of the physical literacy concept and high-quality PE. The embedded and dialogic nature of the professional development intervention did not overload the teachers with modifications to their practice, and therefore created sustainable changes ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref107">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-22">Limitations</hd> <p>That only two schools and only three teachers participated in the present study might have limited the study's potential impact. Nevertheless, having only two schools and three teachers did allow for an in-depth professional development that developed a sustainable change in teachers' practice.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-23">Conclusion</hd> <p>To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to offer a program focused on enhancing primary school teachers' knowledge and operationalization of physical literacy. The principles adopted in the present study work in a complex primary school-based environment, hence, can be applied in future professional development programs. The present study exemplified the current pressing need to support primary school teachers to operationalize physical literacy through the delivery of high-quality PE lessons. Although the present professional development program was delivered to Year 6 (fifth grade) primary school teachers, its adaptability has been replicated in different contexts. For example, the nine key principles of effective professional development have already been utilized recently in a Sport Wales funded "Physical Literacy Programme for Schools" action research project, where the program was adapted to working with Year 3 teachers (7- to 8-year olds; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref108">37</reflink>]). Future research should consider following the nine key principles for effective professional development in other environments.</p> <p>Edwards, Bryant, Morgan, Cooper, and Jones are with the Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences (Sport), Cardiff Metropolitan University, Wales, United Kingdom. Keegan is with the Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.</p> <hd id="AN0135777795-24">Appendix 1: Teacher Interview Guide Pre-intervention</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Background of the teacher</item> <p></p> <item> - Could you explain your pathway to becoming a teacher, for example, where did you go to university?</item> <p></p> <item> - What about the physical side—how was your experience at school in PE lessons?</item> <p></p> <item> - Do you / did you do any physical activity/sport?</item> <p></p> <item> School—PE lessons</item> <p></p> <item> - Describe the structure of PE lessons at school. (probe: the school in general/ more specifically your lessons)</item> <p></p> <item> - What are your strengths while teaching PE?</item> <p></p> <item> - Are there any aspects you would like to improve while teaching PE?</item> <p></p> <item> - What aspects of learning do you enjoy most about PE?</item> <p></p> <item> - What qualities do you think are important when planning PE lessons?</item> <p></p> <item> - Describe what you would normally do this term in PE.</item> <p></p> <item> - Monitoring and tracking are very important in terms of assessing pupils' attainment levels. Do you monitor in PE? If yes, what monitoring techniques do you use?</item> <p></p> <item> - Does the school hold sports clubs lunchtime / after school? If so, what kind of clubs?</item> <p></p> <item> - Do you contribute to/run extracurricular clubs? If so, which club(s)?</item> <p></p> <item> Physical literacy</item> <p></p> <item> - What do you think when hearing the term "physical literacy"?</item> <p></p> <item> - What is your definition of physical literacy?</item> <p></p> <item> - Why do you think that it's important for children and young people?</item> <p></p> <item> - What is your role as a teacher in promoting physical literacy? Specific examples?</item> <p></p> <item> - As a primary school teacher, in your opinion how does physical literacy play a role within the curriculum?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0135777795-25">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This research was funded by the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol (Welsh National College).</p> <ref id="AN0135777795-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Armour, K., Quennerstedt, M., Chambers, F., & Makopoulou, K. (2015). What is 'effective' CPD for contemporary physical education teachers? A Deweyan framework. Sport, Education and Society,22, 799–811. doi:10.1080/13573322.2015.1083000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref28" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Armour, K.M., & Yelling, M.R. (2004). Continuing professional development for experienced physical education teachers: Towards effective provision. Sport, Education and Society,9, 95–114. doi:10.1080/1357332042000175836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref34" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Atencio, M., Jess, M., & Dewar, K. (2012). 'It is a case of changing your thought processes, the way you actually teach': Implementing a complex professional learning agenda in Scottish physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,17, 127–144. doi:10.1080/17408989.2011.565469</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref81" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, R. (2000). Movement development and the primary school child. In R.Bailey & T.McFadyen (Eds.), Teaching physical education 5-11 (pp. 73–85). London, UK: Continuum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref97" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bannon, C. (2013). An investigation into teaching strategies and assessment methods to foster physical literacy. ICSSPE Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education,65, 199–203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barbazette, J. (2005). Training needs assessment: Methods, tools and techniques. New York, NY: Pfeiffer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref14" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bernstein, B. (1977). Class codes and control, towards a theory of educational transmissions (Vol. 3). London, UK: Routledge and Keegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref17" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blair, R., & Capel, S. (2008). Intended or unintended? Issues arising from the implementation of the UK Government's 2003 Schools Workforce Remodelling Act. Perspectives in Education,26, 105–121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref62" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brito, N. (2009). Targeted School Self-Evaluation Improvement Team (TSSEIT) evaluation tools support materials. Bankstown, Australia: Department of Education and Training.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education,18, 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cale, L., & Harris, J. (2018). The role of knowledge and understanding in fostering physical literacy. Journal of Teaching in Physcial Education,37, 280–287. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Capel, S., Leask, M., & Younie, S. (2016). Learning to teach in the secondary school: A companion to school experience (7th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education and Skills. (2002). Literacy in physical education: Key stage 3 national strategy. London, UK: Crown.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duda, J.L., & Hayashi, C.T. (1998). Measurement issues in cross-cultural research within sport and exercise psychology. In J.L.Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 471–483). Morgantown, WV: FIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dudley, D., Cairney, J., Wainwright, N., Kriellaars, D., & Mitchell, D. (2017). Critical considerations for physical literacy policy in public health, recreation, sport, and education agencies. Quest,69, 436–452. doi:10.1080/00336297.2016.1268967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncombe, R., & Armour, K.M. (2003, September). Enhancing teachers' and pupils' learning in primary school physical education: The role of collaborative professional learning. Paper presented at the British Education Research Association Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durden-Myers, E.J., Green, N.R., & Whitehead, M.E. (2018). Implications for promoting physical literacy. Journal of Teaching in Physcial Education,37, 262–271. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, L., Bryant, A., & Jones, A. (2015). PE teachers' perceptions of high quality physical education in Welsh medium secondary schools [canfyddiadau athrawon addysg gorfforol ar addysg gorfforol ansawdd uchel yn ysgolion cyfrwng Cymraeg]. Gwerddon,20, 44–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, L.C., Bryant, A.S., Keegan, R.J., Morgan, K., Cooper, S.-M., & Jones, A.M. (2018). 'Measuring' physical literacy and related constructs: A systematic review of empirical findings. Sports Medicine,48, 659–682. PubMed ID: 29143266 doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0817-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, L.C., Bryant, A.S., Keegan, R.J., Morgan, K., & Jones, A.M. (2017). Definitions, foundations and associations of physical literacy: A systematic review. Sports Medicine,47, 113–126. PubMed ID: 27365029 doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford, UK: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, S. (2002, July). Criterion referenced assessment as a guide to learning—The importance of progression and reliability. Paper presented at the Study of Evaluation in Education Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardman, K. (2010). Physical education: "The future ain't what it used to be!". Retrieved from <ulink href="http://w3.restena.lu/apep/docs/CC/Hardman%5fLuxembourg1.pdf">http://w3.restena.lu/apep/docs/CC/Hardman%5fLuxembourg1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, J., Cale, L., & Muson, H. (2012). The predicament of primary physical education: A consequence of 'insufficient' ITT and 'ineffective' CPD?Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,17, 367–381. doi:10.1080/17408989.2011.582489</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holdsworth, S., Wyborn, C., Bekessy, S., & Thomas, I. (2008). Professional development for education for sustainability: How advanced are Australian universities?International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,9, 131–146. doi:10.1108/14676370810856288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional Development in Education,37, 177–179. doi:10.1080/19415257.2010.523955</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Physical Literacy Association. (2016). Physical literacy definition. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.physical-literacy.org.uk/">www.physical-literacy.org.uk/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jerome, L., & Bhargava, M. (2015). Effective medium-term planning for teachers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jess, M., McEvilly, N., & Carse, N. (2017). Moving primary physical education forward: Start at the beginning. Education 3-13,5, 645–657.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keegan, R., Dudley, D., Bryant, A., Evans, J., Farrow, D., Lubans, D., ... Barnett, L. (2019). Defining physical literacy: A modified Delphi method. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,38. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0264</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk, K. (2012). The future for primary physical education. Journal of Pedagogic Development,2, 38–44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larouche, R., Laurencelle, L., Shephard, R., & Trudeau, F. (2015). Daily physical education in primary school and physical activity in midlife: The Trois-Rivières study. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,55, 527–534. PubMed ID: 26068327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLennan, N., & Thompson, J. (2015). Quality physical education: Guidelines for policy-makers. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merrell, C., & Tymms, P. (2012). Working with difficult children in primary schools: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Durham, UK: CEM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, K., Bryant, A.S., Edwards, L.C., & Mitchell-Williams, E. (2019). Collaborative action research to enhance primary teachers' knowledge, understanding and delivery of physical education and the physical literacy journeys of their pupils: A sustainable and replicable CPD process. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,24,43–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murdoch, E., & Whitehead, M. (2010). Physical literacy, fostering the attributes and curriculum planning. In MWhitehead (Ed.), Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse (pp. 175–188). London, UK: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Curriculum for Physical Education. (2008). Physical education in the National Curriculum for Wales: Key stages 2–4. Cardiff, UK: Crown.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'sullivan, M.C. (2002). Effective follow-up strategies for professional development for primary teachers in Namibia. Teacher Development,6, 181–203. doi:10.1080/13664530200200164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paine, L. (2014). Complete guide to primary dance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London, UK: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penney, D., Brooker, R., Hay, P., & Gillespie, L. (2009). Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment: Three message systems of schooling and dimensions of quality physical education. Sport, Education and Society,14, 421–442. doi:10.1080/13573320903217125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, P. (2008). Professional development as a critical component of continuing teacher quality. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education,33, 37–45. doi:10.14221/ajte.2008v33n1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pot, N., Whitehead, M.E., & Durden-Myers, E.J. (2018). Physical literacy from philosophy to practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,37, 246–251. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0133</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, D.B., Randall, L., & Barrett, J. (2018). Physical literacy (mis)understandings: What do leading physical education teachers know about physical literacy?Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,37, 288–298. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shearer, C., Goss, H.R., Edwards, L.C., Keegan, R.J., Knowles, Z.R., Boddy, L.M., & Foweather, L. (2018). How is physical literacy defined? A contemporary update. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,37, 237–245. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sloan, S. (2010). The continuing development of primary sector physical education: Working together to raise quality of provision. European Physical Education Review,16, 267–281. doi:10.1177/1356336X10382976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spengler, J.O., & Cohen, J. (2015). Physical literacy: A global environmental scan. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taplin, L. (2013). A story of physical literacy in primary initial teacher training and education. ICSSPE Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education,65, 257–264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vickerman, P., Walsh, B., & Money, J. (2015). Planning for an inclusive approach to learning and teaching. In S.Capel & M.Whitehead (Eds.), Learning to teach physical education in the secondary school: A companion to school experience (4th ed., pp. 156–170). London, UK: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Welk, G., & Eklund, B. (2005). Validation of the children and youth physical self perceptions profile for young children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,6, 51–65. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2003.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, M. (Ed.). (2010). Physical literacy: Throughout the lifecourse. Oxon, UK: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehead, M., & Almond, L. (2013). Creating learning experiences to foster physical literacy. ICSSPE Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education,65, 72–79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeedyk, M.S., Gallacher, J., Henderson, M., Hope, G., Husband, B., & Lindsay, K. (2003). Negotiating the transition from primary to secondary school: Perceptions of pupils, parents and teachers. School Psychology International,24, 67–79. doi:10.1177/0143034303024001010</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Lowri C. Edwards; Anna S. Bryant; Kevin Morgan; Stephen-Mark Cooper; Anwen M. Jones and Richard J. Keegan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref108"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1213163
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Professional Development Program to Enhance Primary School Teachers' Knowledge and Operationalization of Physical Literacy
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Edwards%2C+Lori+C%2E%22">Edwards, Lori C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bryant%2C+Anna+S%2E%22">Bryant, Anna S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morgan%2C+Kevin%22">Morgan, Kevin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cooper%2C+Stephen-Mark%22">Cooper, Stephen-Mark</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jones%2C+Anwen+M%2E%22">Jones, Anwen M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Teaching+in+Physical+Education%22"><i>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</i></searchLink>. Apr 2019 38(2):126-135.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Base+for+Teaching%22">Knowledge Base for Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activities%22">Physical Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0275
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0273-5024
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: ntroduction: 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.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1213163
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1213163
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1123/jtpe.2018-0275
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 126
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Base for Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Professional Development Program to Enhance Primary School Teachers' Knowledge and Operationalization of Physical Literacy
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Edwards, Lori C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bryant, Anna S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morgan, Kevin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cooper, Stephen-Mark
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jones, Anwen M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0273-5024
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1