Trial Outcomes & Findings for Effect of Sport Education in University Required PE on Students' Perceived Physical Literacy and Physical Activity Level (NCT NCT03888885)
NCT ID: NCT03888885
Last Updated: 2022-07-18
Results Overview
The globally standardized and validated International Physical Activity Questionnaire - short form was used to measure self-reported physical activity levels. Four generic items of vigorous, moderate, walking and sitting were included to obtain the physical activity levels from the participants. Example items included: During the last 7 days, on how many days did you do vigorous physical activities like heavy lifting, digging, aerobics, or fast bicycling (vigorous)? They are required to answer the total duration of different types of physical activity which was at least 10 uninterrupted minutes in the last 7 days. The following values continue to be used for the analysis: Walking = 3.3 METs, Moderate PA = 4.0 METs and Vigorous PA = 8.0 METs. The metabolic equivalent minutes/ week (MET-minutes/week) was calculated by this formula: 8 \* vigorous-intensity activity minutes \* days + 4 \* moderate-intensity activity minutes \* days + 3.3 \* walking-intensity activity minutes \* days.
COMPLETED
NA
410 participants
Change from Baseline Self-report Physical Activity Levels at the 10th lesson (11th week) and Follow-up at the 13th lesson (15th week)
2022-07-18
Participant Flow
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
Each sport education season included ten 90-min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event. Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark observational instrument.
|
Control Group
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were not formally recorded for the game outcomes.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
208
|
202
|
|
Overall Study
Post-intervention
|
191
|
190
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
188
|
184
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
20
|
18
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
Effect of Sport Education in University Required PE on Students' Perceived Physical Literacy and Physical Activity Level
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
n=188 Participants
Participants participated in the required physical education lessons which were delivered in a season of sport education model for 10 lessons.
Sport Education Model: A total number of 25 lecturers participated in the 12-hour CPD workshop on Sport Education curriculum on June 2018. The content of the workshop focused on the development of a Sport Education season, the changing roles of teachers and students, the assessment of personal and social responsibility, and the application of sport education season and related pedagogies on handball, badminton, swimming and physical conditioning. The Sport Education courseware and class materials were then designed by the eligible lecturers. The intervention was lasted for 10-lesson, 1-day per week and the duration for each lesson was around 90 minutes. The specific five phases in Sport Education model of team selection, teacher-directed, pre-season, formal competition and cumulating event were included. The eligible lecturers led the lessons according to the designated course wares and lesson plans for each sport.
|
Control Group
n=184 Participants
Participants received no intervention treatment. They were asked to attend in normal physical education classes for the same period of time.
|
Total
n=372 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
|
188 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
184 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
372 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Age, Continuous
|
18.53 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.93 • n=99 Participants
|
18.57 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.04 • n=107 Participants
|
18.55 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.98 • n=206 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
56 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
55 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
111 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
132 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
129 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
261 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Chinese
|
182 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
174 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
356 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Non-Chinese
|
6 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
16 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Change from Baseline Self-report Physical Activity Levels at the 10th lesson (11th week) and Follow-up at the 13th lesson (15th week)The globally standardized and validated International Physical Activity Questionnaire - short form was used to measure self-reported physical activity levels. Four generic items of vigorous, moderate, walking and sitting were included to obtain the physical activity levels from the participants. Example items included: During the last 7 days, on how many days did you do vigorous physical activities like heavy lifting, digging, aerobics, or fast bicycling (vigorous)? They are required to answer the total duration of different types of physical activity which was at least 10 uninterrupted minutes in the last 7 days. The following values continue to be used for the analysis: Walking = 3.3 METs, Moderate PA = 4.0 METs and Vigorous PA = 8.0 METs. The metabolic equivalent minutes/ week (MET-minutes/week) was calculated by this formula: 8 \* vigorous-intensity activity minutes \* days + 4 \* moderate-intensity activity minutes \* days + 3.3 \* walking-intensity activity minutes \* days.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
n=188 Participants
Each sport education season included ten 90-min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event (Hastie et al. 2014). Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark observational instrument (Ko et al. 2006; Sinelnikov 2009).
|
Control Group
n=184 Participants
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were not formally recorded for the game outcomes.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Self-report Physical Activity Levels
Baseline
|
2114.83 MET-minutes/week
Standard Deviation 2201.86
|
2245.51 MET-minutes/week
Standard Deviation 2307.48
|
|
Self-report Physical Activity Levels
Post-intervention
|
3334.41 MET-minutes/week
Standard Deviation 2473.12
|
3052.78 MET-minutes/week
Standard Deviation 2222.99
|
|
Self-report Physical Activity Levels
Follow-up
|
3664.36 MET-minutes/week
Standard Deviation 2390.37
|
3016.31 MET-minutes/week
Standard Deviation 2354.32
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Change from Baseline Objective Physical Activity Levels at the 10th lesson (11th week) and Follow-up at the 13th lesson (15th week)The accelerometers (Actigraph GT3X+) will be used in this study to measure the dynamic range from -6 to +6 with 3 axes and 3mg/ LSB of sensitivity. A sub-sample of 64 participants was randomly selected to wear accelerometers to measure their objective physical activity levels for at least 8 hours per day, in 7 consecutive days (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA). The data will be uploaded onto the computer and analyzed by ActiLife 6 software. Only 47 of their data were analyzed because the participants met the eligibility of wearing at least 8 hours per day in at least 5 days. Participants' objective physical activity levels will be categorized as sedentary, light, moderate or vigorous. Accordingly, metabolic equivalents were calculated automatically in its software that a higher value represents a better outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
n=29 Participants
Each sport education season included ten 90-min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event (Hastie et al. 2014). Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark observational instrument (Ko et al. 2006; Sinelnikov 2009).
|
Control Group
n=18 Participants
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were not formally recorded for the game outcomes.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Objective Physical Activity Levels
Baseline
|
1.32 Metabolic equivalents
Standard Deviation 0.26
|
1.28 Metabolic equivalents
Standard Deviation 0.14
|
|
Objective Physical Activity Levels
Post-intervention
|
1.34 Metabolic equivalents
Standard Deviation 0.27
|
1.29 Metabolic equivalents
Standard Deviation 0.14
|
|
Objective Physical Activity Levels
Follow-up
|
1.25 Metabolic equivalents
Standard Deviation 0.28
|
1.19 Metabolic equivalents
Standard Deviation 0.1
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, 10th lesson (11th week) (Post-intervention) and 13th lesson (15th week) (Follow-up)The 34-item Empowering and Disempowering Motivational Climate Questionnaire in Physical Education was based on achievement goal theory and self-determination theory to assess students' perception of the motivational climate of empowering and disempowering features created by their physical education teachers. Participants responded to the instrument on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The total subscale score range was 17 - 85 that higher values represent a better outcome in the empowering subscale and vice versa for the disempowering. Milton et al. (2018) clarified the questionnaire is internally consistent (α = 0.82 - 0.91) and factorial and construct validity. The empowering and disempowering scores were first summed up by their accordance item and the descriptive average scores were then calculated.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
n=188 Participants
Each sport education season included ten 90-min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event (Hastie et al. 2014). Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark observational instrument (Ko et al. 2006; Sinelnikov 2009).
|
Control Group
n=184 Participants
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were not formally recorded for the game outcomes.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Motivational Climate
Disempowering - Follow-up
|
37.18 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.47
|
38.35 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.12
|
|
Motivational Climate
Empowering - Baseline
|
62.97 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.4
|
62.44 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.08
|
|
Motivational Climate
Empowering - Post-intervention
|
68.55 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.14
|
67.48 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.5
|
|
Motivational Climate
Empowering - Follow-up
|
68.77 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.53
|
67.45 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.11
|
|
Motivational Climate
Disempowering - Baseline
|
44.13 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.74
|
41.95 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.89
|
|
Motivational Climate
Disempowering - Post-intervention
|
37.03 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.64
|
37.96 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.73
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, 10th lesson (11th week) (Post-intervention) and 13th lesson (15th week) (Follow-up)The Situational Motivation Scale was used to measure participants' situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation while performing given physical activities. Participants responded to the instrument on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true and 7 = very true). The total subscale score range was 4 - 28 that higher values represent a better outcome for all subscales. Example items include: (a) this activity is fun (intrinsic motivation); (b) I believe this activity is important for me (identified regulation); (c) I don't have any choice (external regulation); and (d) I do this activity, but I am not sure it is a good thing to pursue it (amotivation). It illustrated that it has adequate internal consistency (α = 0.77-0.95) and construct validity in physical activity settings among college students aged from 18 - 22 years (mean age = 18.9). The motivational spectrum scores were first summed up by their accordance item and the descriptive average scores were then calculated.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
n=188 Participants
Each sport education season included ten 90-min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event (Hastie et al. 2014). Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark observational instrument (Ko et al. 2006; Sinelnikov 2009).
|
Control Group
n=184 Participants
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were not formally recorded for the game outcomes.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Situational Motivation
Intrinsic motivation - Baseline
|
19.82 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.62
|
19.41 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.86
|
|
Situational Motivation
Intrinsic motivation - Post-intervention
|
20.98 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.99
|
20.22 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.28
|
|
Situational Motivation
Intrinsic motivation - Follow-up
|
21.06 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.85
|
20.57 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.33
|
|
Situational Motivation
Identified regulation - Baseline
|
19.59 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.65
|
19.52 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.76
|
|
Situational Motivation
Identified regulation - Post-intervention
|
20.43 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.04
|
19.96 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.95
|
|
Situational Motivation
Identified regulation - Follow-up
|
20.65 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.93
|
20.34 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.32
|
|
Situational Motivation
Extrinsic regulation - Baseline
|
16.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.22
|
17.14 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.78
|
|
Situational Motivation
Extrinsic regulation - Post-intervention
|
17.07 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.78
|
17.73 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.74
|
|
Situational Motivation
Extrinsic regulation - Follow-up
|
17.24 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.14
|
17.96 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.7
|
|
Situational Motivation
Amotivation - Baseline
|
12.88 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.4
|
13.37 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.61
|
|
Situational Motivation
Amotivation - Post-intervention
|
12.83 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.79
|
13.32 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.72
|
|
Situational Motivation
Amotivation - Follow-up
|
12.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.71
|
13.24 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.16
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, 10th lesson (11th week) (Post-intervention) and 13th lesson (15th week) (Follow-up)The Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument is a 9-item instrument which is used to measure both teachers' and adolescents' perceived physical literacy. Participants responded to the instrument on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The total subscale score range was 3 - 15 that higher values represent a better outcome for all subscales. Example statements include: (a) I am physically fit, in accordance with my age (sense of self and self-confidence); (b) I have strong social skills (self-expression and communication with others); (c) I am aware of the benefits of sports related to health (knowledge and understanding). The scale scores are reliable with the internal consistency from .73 to .76. The scores were first summed up by their accordance item and the descriptive average scores were then calculated.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
n=188 Participants
Each sport education season included ten 90-min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event (Hastie et al. 2014). Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark observational instrument (Ko et al. 2006; Sinelnikov 2009).
|
Control Group
n=184 Participants
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were not formally recorded for the game outcomes.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Sense of self and self-confidence - Baseline
|
9.52 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.44
|
9.57 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.48
|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Sense of self and self-confidence - Post-intervention
|
9.85 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.41
|
9.64 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.5
|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Sense of self and self-confidence - Follow-up
|
9.92 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.45
|
10.04 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.51
|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Self-expression and communication with others - Baseline
|
9.52 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.29
|
9.5 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.21
|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Self-expression and communication with others - Post-intervention
|
9.87 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.4
|
9.62 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.19
|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Self-expression and communication with others - Follow-up
|
10.04 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.4
|
9.77 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.3
|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Knowledge and understanding - Baseline
|
11.11 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.11
|
1122 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.11
|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Knowledge and understanding - Post-intervention
|
11.29 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.1
|
11.05 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.21
|
|
Perceived Physical Literacy
Knowledge and understanding - Follow-up
|
11.28 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.12
|
11.37 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.2
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, 10th lesson (11th week) (Post-intervention) and 13th lesson (15th week) (Follow-up)The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale is designed to measure how much a student enjoys participating in physical activity. Participants responded to the 16-items instrument on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree a lot and 5 = agree a lot). The total subscale score range was 9 - 45 for positive and 7 - 35 for negative that higher values represent a better outcome in the positive subscale and vice versa for the negative. There are nine positive items such as "I find it pleasurable", "It gives me energy" and seven negative items such as "I dislike it", "It is not fun at all". Participants receive high scores on positive items and low scores on negative items would indicate a high enjoyment of physical activity. Motl et al. (2001) established adequate internal consistency (α = 0.81-0.86), and factorial and construct validity. The positive and negative scores were first summed up by their accordance item and the descriptive average scores were then calculated.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
n=188 Participants
Each sport education season included ten 90-min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event (Hastie et al. 2014). Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark observational instrument (Ko et al. 2006; Sinelnikov 2009).
|
Control Group
n=184 Participants
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were not formally recorded for the game outcomes.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Physical Activity Enjoyment
Positive - Baseline
|
33.11 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.96
|
32.46 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.82
|
|
Physical Activity Enjoyment
Positive - Post-intervention
|
34.34 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.04
|
33.58 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.89
|
|
Physical Activity Enjoyment
Positive - Follow-up
|
34.44 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.87
|
33.68 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.25
|
|
Physical Activity Enjoyment
Negative - Baseline
|
14.55 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.31
|
15.22 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.47
|
|
Physical Activity Enjoyment
Negative - Post-intervention
|
14.09 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.62
|
15.06 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.67
|
|
Physical Activity Enjoyment
Negative - Follow-up
|
14.29 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.81
|
15.14 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.65
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: The 1st lesson (Baseline) to the 10th lesson (11th week)The Fitness instruction time was measured using the System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT; McKenzie et al., 1992) which is a validated and reliable momentary time sampling and interval observation instrument to gather quantitative data for assessing physical activity during PE lessons. SOFIT includes three intensities of students' physical activity levels, lesson context, and teacher behavior. Each category is coded using interval coding every 20 seconds (10 seconds observe; 10 seconds record) throughout the lesson. The observer decides on what is occurring at the moment an observation interval ends. Physical activity level, lesson content, and teacher behavior were measured as a percentage of physical education lesson time. Each outcome measure was then measured by averaging the percentage of physical education lesson time across the first to the tenth lesson.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Sport Education Group
n=188 Participants
Each sport education season included ten 90-min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event (Hastie et al. 2014). Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark observational instrument (Ko et al. 2006; Sinelnikov 2009).
|
Control Group
n=184 Participants
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were not formally recorded for the game outcomes.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
PA levels - Lying down
|
0.11 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 0.47
|
0.11 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 0.35
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
PA levels - Sitting
|
12.35 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 11.46
|
12.78 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 10.83
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
PA levels - Standing
|
48.77 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 23.28
|
47.54 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 20.99
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
PA levels - Walking
|
27.32 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 11.44
|
29.13 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 10.64
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
PA levels - Vigorous
|
11.45 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 13.25
|
10.45 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 10.96
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Lesson context - General content
|
18.62 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 8.8
|
14.17 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 5.45
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Lesson context - Knowledge content
|
16.93 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 10.62
|
24.01 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 8.97
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Lesson context - Fitness
|
7.27 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 10.91
|
5.26 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 4
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Lesson context - Skill practice
|
34.37 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 15.79
|
37.36 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 13.91
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Lesson context - Game play
|
19.1 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 14.6
|
16.09 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 12.79
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Lesson context - Other
|
3.71 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 11.29
|
3.07 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 10.99
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Teacher behavior - Promotes fitness
|
0.56 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 1.2
|
0.61 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 1.2
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Teacher behavior - Demonstrates fitness
|
1.99 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 9.84
|
1.63 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 3.4
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Teacher behavior - Instructs generally
|
38.57 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 15.9
|
47.53 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 15.92
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Teacher behavior - Manages
|
26.3 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 12.21
|
22.26 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 14.41
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Teacher behavior - Observes
|
31.71 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 14.18
|
27.07 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 14.87
|
|
Fitness Instruction Time of Physical Education Lessons
Teacher behavior - Other task
|
0.87 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 1.76
|
0.09 percentage of lesson time
Standard Deviation 2.04
|
Adverse Events
Sport Education Group
Control Group
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Dr. Sum Kim Wai Raymond
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place