Promoting Elementary Physical Education: Results of a School-Based Evaluation Study

Abstract

Using a quasiexperimental design, the authors examine whether fourth- and fifth-grade students exposed to a developmental physical education (PE) curriculum, Michigan's Exemplary Physical Education Curriculum (EPEC), demonstrated stronger motor skill-specific self-efficacy and perceptions of physical activity competence, physical activity levels, motor skills, and physical fitness than did students exposed to existing PE curricula. The authors conducted a multilevel regression analysis with data from 1,464 students in the fourth and fifth grades. Data were collected using a student survey, an activity checklist, and motor and fitness assessments. Compared to students receiving standard PE, students exposed to EPEC showed significantly stronger results in motor skills but not fitness outcomes. The authors found significant positive intervention effects on indicators of motor skill self-efficacy and physical activity levels among the fourth-grade cohort. EPEC was more effective than standard PE curricula at improving motor skill performance (fourth- and fifth-grade cohorts) and at increasing self-reported motor skill-specific self-efficacy and physical activity (fourth-grade cohort).

Fundamental Movement Skill Interventions in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…A number of the PE-based interventions tested an "enhanced" PE curriculum with a focus on optimal FMS development versus traditional PE 34,39,46,47 or free play, 52 whereas some compared both enhanced PE and additional time spent in PE 36,38,43,44,48,50,51,53 or simply evaluated the benefit of an increased time allotment for PE. 49 Many of the interventions did not provide detail about the theoretical or pedagogical approach that the intervention was based on.…”

“…Nine studies met the criteria for adequate retention. 33,34,36,37,42,47,49,52,53 Assessor blinding was reported in 3 studies; 34,35,48 and in 6 studies, participants were analyzed in their allocated group and were not excluded because of missing data or noncompliance. 33,35,39,42,48,52 Of the 6 RCTs, the randomization procedure, including sequence generation, allocation concealment, and implementation, was adequately described in only 1 study.…”

“…[35][36][37]39,42,48,51 Ericsson 43,44 did not include an immediate postintervention assessment her but did include follow-up assessments at 1, 2, 43,44 and 9 years 36 after baseline. The sample sizes for the studies ranged from 13 42 to 1464, 34 and 10 studies had a sample size of .250. 34,36,39,40,43,44,48,50,51,53 Risk of Bias Within Studies BCT, behavioral choice theory; CMT, competence motivation theory; CON, control; FMS, fundamental movement skills; FU, follow-up -assessments conducted after the completion of the intervention and the initial posttest assessments; GMQ, Gross Motor Quotient; INT, intervention; K, kindergarten; MUGI, Motorisk Utveckling som Grund för Inlärning-motor skills as foundation for learning; PE, physical education; PT, posttest -assessments conducted after baseline assessments and/or immediately after completion of the intervention; p/y, per year; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RET, retention; SCT, social cognitive theory; SHARK, Skills Honing and Active Recreation for Kids; TGMD-2, Test for Gross Motor Development; y, year; a Facilitator refers to the individual(s) who delivered the intervention.…”

“…From this number, 22 studies (representing 19 unique interventions) were included. 54 The majority of studies were conducted in the United States, 34,37,47,[52][53][54] Australia, 35,42,48,50,51 and Sweden. 36,43,44,49 The majority of interventions were evaluated in primary/elementary schools among children, with only 1 study in high school with adolescents.…”

“…39 Most interventions were delivered by physical education (PE) teachers [34][35][36][37][38][39]42,43,44,[46][47][48][49]53,54 or experienced coaches, 45 with some using trained classroom teachers 53 or trained preservice teachers 50,51,52 or PE specialists to help classroom teachers. 40,49 Interventions ranged in duration from 4 weeks 37 to 3 years.…”