Matteo Crotti1, James R Rudd1, Simon Roberts1, Lynne M Boddy1, Katie Fitton Davies1,2, Laura O'Callaghan1, Till Utesch3, Lawrence Foweather1. 1. Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L2 2QP, UK. 2. Centre of Sport, Exercise and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK. 3. Department of Pedagogical Assessment and Potential Development, Institute of Educational Sciences, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: School-based interventions are a key opportunity to improve children's physical activity (PA); however, there is lack of evidence about how pedagogical approaches to motor learning in physical education (PE) might affect PA in children. Therefore, this study aimed to assess how different pedagogical approaches in PE might affect children's PA. METHODS:Participants (n = 360, 5-6 years) from 12 primary schools within the SAMPLE-PE randomized controlled trial were randomly allocated to either Linear Pedagogy (LP: n = 3) or Nonlinear Pedagogy (NP: n = 3) interventions, where schools received a 15-week PE intervention delivered by trained coaches, or to a control group (n = 6), where schools followed usual practice. ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers were used to assess PA metrics (moderate-to-vigorous PA, mean raw acceleration and lowest acceleration over the most active hour and half hour) over whole and segmented weeks at baseline, immediately post-intervention and 6 months follow-up. Intention to treat analysis employing multilevel modelling was used to assess intervention effects. RESULTS:LP and NP interventions did not significantly affect children's PA levels compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: PE interventions based on LP and NP alone might not be effective in improving habitual PA in children.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: School-based interventions are a key opportunity to improve children's physical activity (PA); however, there is lack of evidence about how pedagogical approaches to motor learning in physical education (PE) might affect PA in children. Therefore, this study aimed to assess how different pedagogical approaches in PE might affect children's PA. METHODS:Participants (n = 360, 5-6 years) from 12 primary schools within the SAMPLE-PE randomized controlled trial were randomly allocated to either Linear Pedagogy (LP: n = 3) or Nonlinear Pedagogy (NP: n = 3) interventions, where schools received a 15-week PE intervention delivered by trained coaches, or to a control group (n = 6), where schools followed usual practice. ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers were used to assess PA metrics (moderate-to-vigorous PA, mean raw acceleration and lowest acceleration over the most active hour and half hour) over whole and segmented weeks at baseline, immediately post-intervention and 6 months follow-up. Intention to treat analysis employing multilevel modelling was used to assess intervention effects. RESULTS: LP and NP interventions did not significantly affect children's PA levels compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: PE interventions based on LP and NP alone might not be effective in improving habitual PA in children.
Entities:
Keywords:
accelerometers; curriculum; movement competence; primary school; teaching
Authors: Stuart J Fairclough; Sarah Taylor; Alex V Rowlands; Lynne M Boddy; Robert J Noonan Journal: J Sports Sci Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Rodrigo A Lima; Karin Pfeiffer; Lisbeth R Larsen; Anna Bugge; Niels C Moller; Lars B Anderson; David F Stodden Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2017-02-07
Authors: Joseph E Donnelly; Charles H Hillman; Darla Castelli; Jennifer L Etnier; Sarah Lee; Phillip Tomporowski; Kate Lambourne; Amanda N Szabo-Reed Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Taru Manyanga; Joel D Barnes; Jean-Philippe Chaput; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Antonio Prista; Mark S Tremblay Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Matteo Crotti; James Rudd; Simon Roberts; Katie Fitton Davies; Laura O'Callaghan; Till Utesch; Lawrence Foweather Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 3.752