Contents

Publisher's Statement
Foreword
Feature
Current Issues

Archives

Bulletin 65 Pdf

Contacts

| Feature | No.65 October 2013 |

Research into Assessing Physical Literacy in Northern Ireland

Melanie McKee, Gavin Breslin, Tandy J Haughey & Paul Donelly

Abstract

This article outlines the findings of a research project and a follow-up study commissioned by Sport Northern Ireland relating to the development of an assessment tool for physical literacy. A parallel development, namely the creation of physical literacy co-ordinators, is discussed in a later paper in the Bulletin within the section Physical Literacy Across the World. The discussion concludes with a summary of the recommendations of a cross-sectoral Physical Literacy Task and Finish Group which highlight how considerably more resources are required to develop assessment indicators for PL and to further advocate the importance of PL.

Introduction

A literature review commissioned by Sport Northern Ireland revealed findings which suggested that if physical literacy (PL) is developed in childhood it will have the potential to increase the degree to which individuals undertake regular health-enhancing physical activity throughout their lifespan (Delaney, Donnelly, News & Haughey, 2008). The review further recommended the development of an assessment tool for PL within the context of current and future PL projects in NI and suggested a number of proposals that would assist in its development. In accordance with these recommendations, Sport Northern Ireland commissioned a Research Partnership Team1 to design and pilot an appropriate assessment tool for PL. The Research Partnership Team subsequently developed a multi-component assessment tool which aimed to assess psychomotor and affective domains by adapting existing tools from PL programmes and other sports.

The Assessment Tool

Movement competence was assessed by observing children performing ten motor tasks. The tasks assessed three core motor skill components namely locomotor, body management and object control skills, and were consistent with Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment’s (CCEA), (2007) guidance for physical development and movement 2 in the Foundation Stage (Years 1 and 2, aged 4-6). Seven of the tasks were defined as ‘discrete tasks’ and three as ‘rich tasks’3. For each skill a measurement scale was adapted from existing motor assessment tools including Bruinink’s (1978) Test of Motor Proficiency and Henderson and Sugden’s (1992) Movement Assessment Battery for Children, which focused on limb positioning, balance and fluency of movement. Children’s self-perceptions and attitudes towards physical activity and sport were also assessed using modified versions of Harter’s (1985) Self-perception Profile for Children and Brustad’s (1993) Children’s Attitudes to Physical Activity Scale. Once developed and pilot tested 4, the tool was used to assess the aforementioned motor competencies, self-perceptions and attitudes of children who had received a structured PL programme, compared to children who had not (Breslin et al., 2009). A representative sample5 of schools within NI who received a structured PL programme (n=5) and those who did not (n=5) participated in the research in October, 2008.

Results

Within the motor competence tests, the findings showed no differences between children who had received a structured PL programme compared to those who had not. However, a significant school effect was revealed, as some schools despite the PL intervention scored higher than others in motor competence. All children showed similar positive attitudes towards physical activity, while those who received a structured PL programme showed higher levels of self-perception, suggesting that the psychological components of a PL programme may be impacted while motor competence requires more time to develop. This is an interesting finding for the design and delivery of PL interventions as it indicates that positive effects on motor competence may not be immediate and may require extended practice. These findings correspond with the relevant provisions of the NI Primary Curriculum (CCEA, 2007) for the Foundation Stage which state that “Physical Development and Movement is about experiencing and developing a range of fundamental movement skills” (p.43). The wording of this guidance indicates an expectation that children leaving the Foundation Stage will have developed and experienced fundamental movement skills rather than acquired or mastered them. The curriculum further acknowledges the importance of affective development by stating that “Physical development helps children gain confidence and self-esteem and enables them to feel the benefits of being healthy and active” (p.43). Arguably, these findings suggest teachers of PL programmes are following this guidance by focusing on affective development in addition to the acquisition of motor skills.

Discussion

The researchers highlighted some of the limitations due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, making recommendations that further investigations incorporating a pre-test, midpoint and post-test into the study’s research design are required to give a more accurate indication of the causal effects of a structured PL programme on children’s development (Breslin et al., 2012). Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings do give some indication that children’s experience of a structured programme results in higher levels of self-perception that could be fostered further in the design of any future interventions. The findings from the study, particularly the school effect, highlighted that perhaps the ethos of the school’s governance towards physical activity, PE and PL may in part be the reason why some schools are more likely to have ‘physically literate’ children compared to others.

In light of the apparent school effect on children’s motor competence outcomes, follow-up research investigated whether the ethos of the school could be a predictor of the psychomotor component of PL (Breslin et al., 2010). This study adopted a qualitative approach wherein semi-structured, face-to-face interviews6 were conducted with eight of the ten primary school principals and eight of the ten teachers from the schools involved in the original PL pilot study. From the interviews, it was not clear that a single factor alone could predict which schools would perform highly in the motor competence component of PL. However, it was evident that when some aspects of PE and school sport were present, positive outcomes could be anticipated. For example, the physical resources available to the schools may have played a part7. The findings also indicated that principals were supportive of PE and school sport irrespective of their personal training and involvement in physical activity and sport8. Principals also supported the view that parents, volunteers, the local community, local clubs and governing bodies of sport had a role to play in fostering a positive learning environment in PE and sport, and that this contributes to the vibrancy of the subject in the school. Interestingly, in terms of initial teacher training in PE, none of the teachers considered themselves to be a specialist and all considered that their initial training was insufficient in preparing them for the delivery of PE. However, previous teaching experience, in-service training through attendance at ELB courses, support from their PE co-ordinators and observing sports coaches delivering sessions in their schools were all seen to be beneficial. Teachers had a positive view of the assessment of PL, but did stipulate that the method and administration of the assessment should be manageable and should reflect the demands of assessment elsewhere in the curriculum.

Conclusion

Following the completion of the PL Research Report, a cross-sectoral PL Task and Finish Group9 was established to review10 the main findings and compile a list of recommendations (PL Task and Finish Group, 2009). A key recommendation was that the term ‘assessment indicators’ (of progression) should be used rather than ‘assessment tool’. There was consensus that these indicators should be an enabling resource as well as an indicator of performance to ensure that both the assessor and the child can be informed of where they are at, where they are going and what is required for a child to progress to the next level. To achieve this, appropriate use of formative and summative approaches was advised. Members acknowledged the range of assessors and recommended that two types of assessment indicators should be developed simultaneously for use by specialists/researchers in large-scale, population based studies, and also practitioners, including non-specialists, for use on an on-going basis ‘in the field’. Congruence between the two types of assessment indicators should be maintained where applicable and appropriate training should be provided and resourced. To reflect the holistic definition of PL, the group considered that the assessment criteria applied during the pilot project should be extended to include cognitive development. The final assessment indicators, should encompass psychomotor, affective and cognitive domains11 and be validated and promoted by a range of stakeholders from various disciplines representing education, sport and health sectors.

The importance of agreed terminology and a standardised approach within and across all organisations, policies and practices was reinforced by members. In addition, to assist with the promotion of PL, partners should continue to advocate the importance of developing and assessing PL within their organisations and also when working with other agencies. The Group recognised that the production, publication and dissemination of a general information note on PL would perform an important advocacy role. Therefore, members subsequently created an information note, entitled “Developing Children’s Physical Literacy”, which was circulated to all schools and national governing bodies of sport in NI.

The preceding discussion acknowledged the significant developments in relation to the assessment of PL, however, the recommendations of the PL Task & Finish Group highlight how considerably more resources are required to develop assessment indicators for PL and to further advocate the importance of PL.

1 The Research Partnership Team represented the collaboration of established academic and applied researchers within two of Northern Ireland’s leading universities - The University of Ulster, Jordanstown and Stranmillis University College, Belfast.

2 Physical development and movement is one of six areas of learning identified in the Northern Ireland Primary Curriculum for the Foundation Stage. In Key Stage One and Two, the name of this area of learning is physical education.

3 The discrete locomotor tasks included the standing broad jump and jump-half turn, while the discrete object control tasks included the over-arm throw, kicking a ball, trapping a ball and catching a ball. The rich object control tasks were more complex, being designed to assess the ability of children to apply basic skills to more challenging situations, and included discrete tasks embedded in a simple game, ‘drill’ or sequence of movements. The rich tasks included the catch and throw and trapping and kicking a ball. The discrete and rich body management tasks were the balance on one foot and log roll, respectively.

4 In June, 2008, the motor and affective components of the assessment tool were pilot-tested with a group of year 3 children in a primary school in County Antrim to ensure the suitability, validity and reliability of the tasks and questions.

5 The total sample (n=177) was identified by the Research and Statistics Branch of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI). 107 participants had received a structured PL programme and 70 participants had received a non-structured PL programme.

6 The content of the interviews was digitally recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis of the interview content was performed.

7 The schools that achieved the top three rankings for motor competence each had a school hall which was used exclusively for PE and other school events and had separate dining halls.

8 That is, some principals may or may not have been involved in sport or regular physical activity but all still demonstrated and maintained a positive view of the importance of children participating in and developing through the subject. This was articulated by their view of the importance of having a PE co-ordinator in the school and supporting the co-ordinator’s role.

9 The Physical Literacy Task & Finish Group was convened by Sport Northern Ireland in August, 2009, and included representatives from Sports Coach UK (SCUK); Association for Physical Education (AfpE); Coaching Ireland; Education & Training Inspectorate (ETI); Northern Ireland Inter-board Panel for PE & School Sport and Council for Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment (CCEA).

10 An independent peer review of the Research Report was also conducted and presented to the group for consideration by Dr Margaret Whitehead in September, 2009.

11 The psychomotor indicators will consist of a range of representative fundamental movement skills that can be performed and applied in a variety of settings. Self-esteem, confidence, intrinsic motivation, self-perception and attitudes will be included in the affective indicators. The cognitive indicators will assess knowledge and understanding (Physical Literacy Task & Finish Group, 2009).

References

1. Breslin, G., Delaney, B., Haughey, T., McKee, D., Connolly, S., Kelly, F., Murphy, M., Wallace, S, and Dempster, M. (2009). The Assessment & Measurement of Physical Literacy in Children. Sport Northern Ireland.

2. Breslin, G., Delaney, B., Haughey, T., McKee, D., Connolly, S., Kelly, F., Murphy, M., Wallace, S, and Dempster, M. (2010). The Assessment & Measurement of Physical Literacy in Children – school principal and teacher follow-up study, Sport Northern Ireland.

3. Breslin, G., Murphy, M., McKee, D., Delaney, B. & Dempster, M. (2012). The effect of teachers trained in a fundamental movement skills programme on children’s self-perceptions and motor competence. European Physical Education Review, 18 (1). 114-126.

4. Bruininks R. H. (1978). Bruininks-Oseretsky’s Test of Motor Proficiency, Examiner's Manual. Circle, Pines, MN, American Guidance Service.

5. Brustad, R. J. (1993). Who will go out and play? Parental and psychological influences on children’s attraction to physical activity, Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 210–223.

6. Delaney, B., Donnelly, P., News, J., & Haughey, T.J. (2008). Improving Physical Literacy, Sport Northern Ireland.

7. Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment (CCEA), (2007). Northern Ireland Primary Curriculum.

8. Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO, University of Denver.

9. Henderson, S.E. and Sugden, D.A. (1992). Movement Assessment Battery for Children, Manual, Psychological Corporation, London, Kiphard and Schilling.

10. Physical Literacy Task & Finish Group (2009). Guidance note on assessing physical literacy (unpublished), Sport Northern Ireland.

Contact

Melanie McKee
Department of Health and Physical Education,
Stranmillis University College Belfast,
BT9 5DY
United Kingdom
Email: m.mcKee@stran.ac.uk

http://www.icsspe.org/