Embedded Files
How to Assess Physical Literacy. Prof Lisa Barnett
How to assess Physical Literacy
Physical Literacy has become a buzzword of late but how do we measure it? That has been the focus of recent work by a multidisciplinary (Health, Sport Science and Education) team from Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Physical Literacy in the Australian Context The concept of physical literacy has been gaining momentum and interest over the last five years in Australia 1. The comprehensive Australian definition of physical literacy was released in 2019 2,3. The Australian Physical Literacy Framework has 30 elements within four domains: physical (e.g. movement skills), psychological (e.g. motivation), social (e.g. collaboration) and cognitive (strategy and planning) 4. Some of the aspects that differentiate this framework from other approaches to physical literacy are its comprehensive scope, the lifespan approach and that a five stage model of learning was applied (pre-foundational, foundation & exploration, acquisition & accumulation, consolidation & mastery, transfer & empowerment) 4. Each physical literacy element has the potential to interact with other elements. For instance, a child may be strong and fit but their social skills needed for team sports and games (e.g. collaboration) may need further development. In this way it is possible to develop child profiles of physical literacy to work out which areas children need support in.
Measurement of Physical Literacy
Many tools exist to measure the individual elements of physical literacy (for example movement skill competence) 5,6. A number of Canadian research teams have also developed measures specifically to assess the construct of physical literacy (e.g. 7,8). Many measures are objective in that children are observed doing the activity and scored (e.g. 9). In the next section we explain why it is also important to have a subjective view and understand how children feel about their own physical selves.
Importance of Children’s Self-Perceptions
A/Prof. Barnett developed the pictorial scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence (PMSC) with the purpose to measure children’s perceptions of themselves doing movement skills such as running, jumping and catching 10,11. This scale is now in use in over 35 countries. Children’s perceptions of their physical selves are important to assess as they are associated with their actual skills 12, and positive perceptions can translate to more physical activity 13,14. Because the scale is pictorial (the booklets have boy or girl images) with very little text, it can be used with young children in a guided interview format (with the text read out). For example for the kicking item, children are told, “Some boys (girls) are pretty good at kicking and some boys (girls) are not so good at kicking. Which boy (girl) is like you when you kick?” If they pick the better performing kicker, they are asked: “are you really good or pretty good?” If they pick the poorer performing child they are asked: “are you not too good or sort of good?” 10. See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Example of images used to depict a good vs a poor kicking performance.
Figure 2 shows images for the ‘confidence’ element.
Whilst this scale is comprehensive in terms of movement skill perceptions (versions have between 12 and 19 skill items) this scale does not measure the broader construct of physical literacy. So, the Deakin University team became interested to see how self-perceptions of physical literacy could be measured. Measurement of Children’s Perceptions of Physical Literacy Sport Australia contracted the Deakin team to produce a tool to measure children’s perceptions of physical literacy (finalised January 2021) 15.
Whilst it was designed for the Australian context, it was anticipated it could also be utilised with children around the world. As such, the main character is a cartoon image of a bunny type character that does not represent a particular gender or ethnicity 15.
Each item is represented by the main character in a particular situation. where a higher level of physical literacy is shown in one image compared to the other image 15. Children need to first choose the image like them and then pick how much the image is like them. See Figure 2.
While the tool was rigorously developed with a team of multidisciplinary experts 15, the next step is tool validation where the tool is tested with large groups of children.
Teacher Assessment of Child Physical Literacy The school provides an ideal environment for the development of physical literacy. Teachers have been identified as important players in guiding children’s physical literacy growth 16. And although not explicitly stated in many school curricula, fostering children’s physical literacy is implicit in good teaching practice.
As such, there may be a role for teachers to more systematically evaluate where a child is at in regard to their physical literacy and subsequently better differentiate their teaching 17,18. Differentiated teaching can only occur when a teacher plans a lesson thatadjusts either the content being discussed, the process used to learn, or the product expected from students to ensure that learners at different starting points can receive the instruction they need to grow and succeed.
To assist with teacher evaluation of children’s physical literacy, valid and reliable teacher assessment protocols are needed 19,20. To further the development of such a measure, Essiet (PhD Candidate) conducted a systematic review which revealed there was no teacher proxy-report tool specifically designed to assess the 30 elements contained within the Australian Physical Literacy Framework (in review). Essiet then received almost 200 online survey responses on teachers understanding of physical literacy and thoughts regarding measurement. This was followed by interviews with teachers to understand more about their thoughts. She is currently using information provided in this study to design a comprehensive tool which can be used by teachers to find out where children are at on their physical literacy journey.
What about Children with Special Needs?
Although the concept of physical literacy has recently gained a lot of attention, the application of this concept to children with disabilities has only recently started to be explored. In the Australian Physical Literacy Framework, physical literacy is a journey, and in that respect we can start at different points and have different challenges and setbacks along the way. All children, regardless of their levels of functioning and ability, have the right to reach their full physical literacy potential. A recent review of 17 physical literacy interventions in children with disabilities provided useful insights on the various factors associated the implementation of such programs 21. The seven reviewed programs with measure of effectiveness all had positive results, although none of the studies in the review comprehensively targeted or measured all elements of physical literacy. The review identified the Physical Education setting as critical for physical literacy education in children with special needs, although the specifics of the programs need to be adapted to the type and severity of the disability, age, and individual learning objectives. As an example, Dr Mazzoli trialled the feasibility of breaking sitting time during school class time with a movement task in children with intellectual disabilities 22, with some positive results for cognition (accepted in the Journal of Intellectual Disability Research). The use of the child self-report physical literacy questionnaire 15 with children with disabilities could be feasible, given the pictorial nature of the tool, and may support the development of interventions in this population by widening our understanding of how children with special needs perceive their own skills.
What does this all mean in Physical Education practice?
Some researchers and practitioners think physical literacy should not be assessed 23, but we believe that understanding more about where
children are at, will assist us to help them develop. We are aiming to design fun and engaging tools. But what does this all mean in Physical Education practice? Some researchers and practitioners think physical literacy should not be assessed 23, but we believe that understanding more about where children are at, will assist us to help them develop. We are aiming to design fun and engaging tools.
BIO
Associate Professor Barnett is based at Deakin University in the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition. She is President Elect of the International Motor Development Research Consortium - http://i-mdrc.com/, and a Sports Medicine Australia Fellow. She is internationally recognized in the assessment of children’s actual and perceived movement skill competency and how movement skills relate to health behaviours. She has a career total > 160 peer reviewed publications. She developed the pictorial scale for Perceived Movement Skill Competence, in use in 35 countries. She was a key player in the development of the Australian Physical Literacy definition and standard and was subsequently contracted by Sport Australia to develop a measure for assessing physical literacy in children.
References
1. Keegan RJ, Dudley DA, Barnett LM. A brief history of physical literacy in Australia. Physical literacy across the world: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group; 2019: 105-24.
2. Keegan RJ, Barnett LM, Dudley DA. Physical Literacy: Informing a Definition and Standard for Australia: Australian Government, Australian Sports Commission, 2017.
3. Keegan RJ, Barnett LM, Dudley DA, et al. Defining physical literacy for application in Australia: a modified delphi method.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 2019; 38(2): 105-18.
4. Sport Australia. Australian Physical Literacy Framework: Australian Government,, 2020.
5. Barnett LM, Dudley DA, Telford RD, et al. Guidelines for the Selection of Physical Literacy Measures in Physical Education in Australia. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 2019; 38(2): 119-25.
6. Barnett LM, Stodden DF, Hulteen RM, Sacko RS. 19: Motor Competency Assessment. In: Brusseau TA, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Pediatric Physical Activity: Routledge; 2020: 384-408.
7. Kriellaars D. The Physical Literacy Assessment for Youth (PLAY) Tools. https://physicalliteracy.ca/play-tools/ (accessed 12-02-21 2020).
8. Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group (HALO). Canadian Assesment of Physical Literacy. https://www.capl-eclp.ca/.
9. Tremblay MS, Longmuir PE, Barnes JD, et al. Physical literacy levels of Canadian children aged 8–12 years: descriptive and normative results from the RBC Learn to Play–CAPL project. BMC Public Health 2018; 18(2): 1036.
10. Barnett LM, Ridgers ND, Zask A, Salmon J. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport 2015; 18(1): 98-102.
11. Barnett LM, Vazou S, Abbott G, et al. Construct validity of the pictorial scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence. Psychol Sport Exerc 2016; 22: 294-302.
12. De Meester A, Barnett LM, Brian A, et al. The Relationship Between Actual and Perceived Motor Competence in Children, Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med 2020.
13. Barnett LM, Salmon J, Hesketh KD. More active pre-school children have better motor competence at school starting age: an observational cohort study. BMC Public Health 2016; 16(1): 1068-.
14. Visser EL, Mazzoli E, Hinkley T, Lander NJ, Utesch T, Barnett LM. Are children with higher self-reported wellbeing and perceived motor competence more physically active? A longitudinal study. J Sci Med Sport 2020; 23(3): 270-5.
15. Barnett LM, Mazzoli E, Hawkins M, et al. Development of a self-report scale to assess children’s perceived physical literacy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 2020: 1-26.
16. Whitehead M. Definition of physical literacy and clarification of related issues. ICSSPE Bulletin 2013; 65(1.2).
17. Essiet IA, Salmon J, Lander NJ, Duncan MJ, Eyre ELJ, Barnett LM. Rationalizing teacher roles in developing and assessing physical literacy in children. Prospects 2020.
18. Estevan I, Molina-García J, Bowe SJ, Álvarez O, Castillo I, Barnett LM. Who can best report on children's motor competence: Parents, teachers, or the children themselves? Psychol Sport Exerc 2018; 34: 1-9.
19. Lander NJ, Morgan PJ, Salmon J, Logan SW, Barnett LM. The reliability and validity of an authentic motor skill assessment tool for early adolescent girls in an Australian school setting. J Sci Med Sport 2017; 20(6): 590-4.
20. Lander N, Morgan PJ, Salmon J, Barnett LM. Teachers’ perceptions of a fundamental movement skill (FMS) assessment battery in a school setting. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 2016; 20(1): 50-62.
21. Saxena S, Shikako Thomas K. Physical literacy programs for children with disabilities: a realist review. Leisure/Loisir 2020; 44(2): 199-224.
22. Mazzoli E, Koorts H, Salmon J, et al. Feasibility of breaking up sitting time in mainstream and special schools with a cognitively challenging motor task.
Journal of sport and health science 2019; 8(2): 137-48.
23. Edwards LC, Bryant AS, Keegan RJ, Morgan K, Cooper S-M, Jones AM. ‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings. Sports Med 2018; 48(3): 659-82.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse