Cardiff School of Sport, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cyncoed Campus, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, UK.
Faculty of Health, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, Australia.
Sports Med. 2017 Jan;47(1):113-126. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0560-7.
The concept of physical literacy has stimulated increased research attention in recent years-being deployed in physical education, sport participation, and the promotion of physical activity. Independent research groups currently operationalize the construct differently.
The purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a systematic review of the physical literacy construct, as reflected in contemporary research literature.
Five databases were searched using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria were English language, peer reviewed, published by March 2016, and seeking to conceptualize physical literacy. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed in relation to three core areas: properties/attributes, philosophical foundations and theoretical associations with other constructs. A total of 50 published articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed qualitatively using inductive thematic analysis.
The thematic analysis addressed the three core areas. Under definitions, core attributes that define physical literacy were identified, as well as areas of conflict between different approaches currently being adopted. One relatively clear philosophical approach was prominent in approximately half of the papers, based on a monist/holistic ontology and phenomenological epistemology. Finally, the analysis identified a number of theoretical associations, including health, physical activity and academic performance.
Current literature contains different representations of the physical literacy construct. The costs and benefits of adopting an exclusive approach versus pluralism are considered. Recommendations for both researchers and practitioners focus on identifying and clearly articulating the definitions, philosophical assumptions and expected outcomes prior to evaluating the effectiveness of this emerging concept.
近年来，身体素养的概念引起了越来越多的研究关注，它被应用于体育教育、体育参与和体育活动的推广中。目前，独立的研究小组对这一概念的操作方式有所不同。
本系统评价的目的是对身体素养这一概念进行系统评价，该概念反映在当代研究文献中。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南，对五个数据库进行了搜索。纳入标准为英语、同行评审、发表于 2016 年 3 月之前、并试图对身体素养进行概念化的研究。符合这些标准的文章将在三个核心领域进行分析：属性/特征、哲学基础以及与其他概念的理论关联。共有 50 篇已发表的文章符合纳入标准，并使用归纳主题分析进行了定性分析。
主题分析涉及三个核心领域。在定义方面，确定了定义身体素养的核心属性，以及目前采用的不同方法之间的冲突领域。大约一半的论文采用了一种相对清晰的哲学方法，这种方法基于一元论/整体论本体论和现象学认识论。最后，分析还确定了一些理论关联，包括健康、体育活动和学业成绩。
目前的文献中包含了身体素养这一概念的不同表述。本文考虑了采用排他性方法与多元化方法的利弊。针对研究人员和从业者的建议侧重于在评估这一新兴概念的有效性之前，明确界定、阐明定义、哲学假设和预期结果。
Zotero 插件