Volume 15, Issue 29 (4-2025)
JRSM 2025, 15(29): 61-85 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nejat Ghani A, Vaez Mosavi M K, Rafie S. The Effectiveness Of The Physical Education Classroom Of Dynamic Schools On The Development Of Physical Literacy Of 9-Year-Old Students. JRSM 2025; 15 (29) :61-85
URL: http://jrsm.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3274-en.html
URL: http://jrsm.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3274-en.html
1- Department of Motor Behavior, Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Psychology, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran. ,mohammadvaezmousavi@gmail.com
3- Department of Motor Behavior, Sport Sciences Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Psychology, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Department of Motor Behavior, Sport Sciences Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (3694 Views)
Introduction and Aim: Physical literacy is a topic that has attracted the attention of sports and health science researchers in recent years, and research is necessary and important to promote physical literacy. In this regard, the aim of this study was to the effect of physical education classroom of dynamic schools on the development of physical literacy of 9-year-old students.
Methods: To achieve this goal, one class from dynamic schools (31 people) and one class as control group (34 people) were selected. To assess physical literacy, the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy was used, which evaluates general body literacy as well as the subcategories of daily behaviors, knowledge and understanding, physical competence, and motivation and self-confidence.
Results: The results of covariance analysis showed that there is no significant difference between the two groups for the variable of daily behavior (p=0.506) and knowledge and understanding (p=0.052). But this difference is significant on physical competence (p=0.010), motivation and self-confidence (p=0.01) and the total score of physical literacy (p=0.000). With this solution, all variables improved more in the experimental group than the control group from pre-test to post-test.
Conclusion: In general, the results of this study confirmed the positive impact of dynamic schools on physical literacy, which reveals the need to pay attention to the activities of dynamic schools. And its results can be used in schools and kindergartens.
Methods: To achieve this goal, one class from dynamic schools (31 people) and one class as control group (34 people) were selected. To assess physical literacy, the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy was used, which evaluates general body literacy as well as the subcategories of daily behaviors, knowledge and understanding, physical competence, and motivation and self-confidence.
Results: The results of covariance analysis showed that there is no significant difference between the two groups for the variable of daily behavior (p=0.506) and knowledge and understanding (p=0.052). But this difference is significant on physical competence (p=0.010), motivation and self-confidence (p=0.01) and the total score of physical literacy (p=0.000). With this solution, all variables improved more in the experimental group than the control group from pre-test to post-test.
Conclusion: In general, the results of this study confirmed the positive impact of dynamic schools on physical literacy, which reveals the need to pay attention to the activities of dynamic schools. And its results can be used in schools and kindergartens.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
motor behavior
Received: 2024/08/24 | Accepted: 2025/03/2 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/03/2 | Published: 2025/04/30
Received: 2024/08/24 | Accepted: 2025/03/2 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/03/2 | Published: 2025/04/30
References
1. Whitehead 1 M. The concept of physical literacy. Eur J Phys Educ. 2001;6(2):127-38. [DOI:10.1080/1740898010060205]
2. Carl J, Barratt J, Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Barnett LM, Dudley DA, Holler P, et al. Development, explanation, and presentation of the physical literacy interventions reporting template (PLIRT). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023;20(1):1-15. [DOI:10.1186/s12966-023-01423-3]
3. Mandigo J, Francis N, Lodewyk K, Lopez R. Physical literacy for educators. Phys Heal Educ J. 2009;75(3):27-30.
4. Chow JY, Komar J, Davids K, Tan CWK. Nonlinear Pedagogy and its implications for practice in the Singapore PE context. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2021;26(3):230-41. [DOI:10.1080/17408989.2021.1886270]
5. Talebi N. The Effect of a Selected Exercise Program on Physical Literacy and Body Composition of Elementary School Girls with Overweight and Obesity. پژوهان. 2021;20(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.61186/psj.19.3.12 [DOI:10.61186/psj.19.3.12]
6. Piñeiro-Cossio J, Fernández-Martínez A, Nuviala A, Pérez-Ordás R. Psychological wellbeing in physical education and school sports: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):864. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph18030864]
7. Castelli DM, Centeio EE, Beighle AE, Carson RL, Nicksic HM. Physical literacy and comprehensive school physical activity programs. Prev Med (Baltim). 2014;66:95-100. [DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.007]
8. Kriellaars DJ, Cairney J, Bortoleto MAC, Kiez TKM, Dudley D, Aubertin P. The impact of circus arts instruction in physical education on the physical literacy of children in grades 4 and 5. J Teach Phys Educ. 2019;38(2):162-70. [DOI:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0269]
9. Telford RM, Olive LS, Keegan RJ, Keegan S, Barnett LM, Telford RD. Student outcomes of the physical education and physical literacy (PEPL) approach: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention to improve physical literacy in primary schools. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2021;26(1):97-110. [DOI:10.1080/17408989.2020.1799967]
10. Wessely S, Starke D, Weyers S, Joisten C. Closing the gap between practice and science in school-and community-based participatory physical literacy promotion: study protocol of the StuPs project. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1-6. [DOI:10.1186/s12889-021-10666-3]
11. Reza Ebrahimi Doulatabadi, Abbas Hajizadeh, Farideh Mokhtari, Sara Bagheri, Farhanaz Menami, Fatemeh Tagvi-Moazed MA. Dynamic school teaching guide. Manadi Tarbiat Cultural Institute. 2021. 1-100 p.
12. Longmuir PE, Gunnell KE, Barnes JD, Belanger K, Leduc G, Woodruff SJ, et al. Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy Second Edition: a streamlined assessment of the capacity for physical activity among children 8 to 12 years of age. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(2):1-12. [DOI:10.1186/s12889-018-5902-y]
13. Dugas E. Leveling the playing field: assessing physical literacy in children and youth with physical disabilities. 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10464/10973
14. Dania A, Kossyva I, Zounhia K. EFFECTS OF A TEACHING GAMES FOR UNDERSTANDING PROGRAM ON PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS'PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS. Eur J Phys Educ Sport Sci. 2017. [DOI:10.5281/zenodo.400591]
15. Harvey S, Jarrett K. A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2014;19(3):278-300. [DOI:10.1080/17408989.2012.754005]
16. Choi SM, Sum KWR, Leung FLE, Wallhead T, Morgan K, Milton D, et al. Effect of sport education on students' perceived physical literacy, motivation, and physical activity levels in university required physical education: a cluster-randomized trial. High Educ. 2021;81(6):1137-55. [DOI:10.1007/s10734-020-00603-5]
17. Mandigo J, Lodewyk K, Tredway J. Examining the impact of a teaching games for understanding approach on the development of physical literacy using the passport for life assessment tool. J Teach Phys Educ. 2019;38(2):136-45. [DOI:10.1123/jtpe.2018-0028]
18. Gabbett T, Jenkins D, Abernethy B. Game-based training for improving skill and physical fitness in team sport athletes. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2009;4(2):273-83.
553 [DOI:10.1260/174795409788549]
19. Sabzevari Shahreza F, Parvinpour S, Namazizadeh M. The Effect of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) Approach on Physical Literacy among Ten-year-old Boys. Res Educ Sport. 2021. [DOI:10.22089/res.2021.10923.2124]
20. Light R. Engaging the body in learning: promoting cognition in games through TGfU. ACHPER Heal Lifestyles J. 2002;49(2):23-6. https://doi/10.3316/aeipt.123930
21. Miller A. Games centered approaches in teaching children & adolescents: Systematic review of associated student outcomes. J Teach Phys Educ. 2015;34(1):36-58. [DOI:10.1123/jtpe.2013-0155]
22. Wright J, Forrest G. A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and games centred approaches to teaching. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2007;12(3):273-87. [DOI:10.1080/17408980701610201]
23. Whitehead M. Physical literacy. In: International Association of Physical Education and Sport for Girls and Women Congress Melbourne. 1993. doi:10.1186/1479-5858-6-4.
24. Balali M, VaezMousavi M, Ghasemi A, Parvinpour S. Effects of challenging games on manipulative motor skills of 4-6 years old children: an application of challenge point framework. Early Child Dev Care. 2019;189(5):697-706. [DOI:10.1080/03004430.2017.1339276]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
