Crotti Matteo, Rudd James R, Roberts Simon, Boddy Lynne M, Fitton Davies Katie, O'Callaghan Laura, Utesch Till, Foweather Lawrence
Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L2 2QP, UK.
Centre of Sport, Exercise and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK.
Children (Basel). 2021 Jan 15;8(1):49. doi: 10.3390/children8010049.
School-based interventions are a key opportunity to improve children's physical activity (PA); however, there is lack of evidence about how pedagogical approaches to motor learning in physical education (PE) might affect PA in children. Therefore, this study aimed to assess how different pedagogical approaches in PE might affect children's PA.
Participants ( = 360, 5-6 years) from 12 primary schools within the SAMPLE-PE randomized controlled trial were randomly allocated to either Linear Pedagogy (LP: = 3) or Nonlinear Pedagogy (NP: = 3) interventions, where schools received a 15-week PE intervention delivered by trained coaches, or to a control group ( = 6), where schools followed usual practice. ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers were used to assess PA metrics (moderate-to-vigorous PA, mean raw acceleration and lowest acceleration over the most active hour and half hour) over whole and segmented weeks at baseline, immediately post-intervention and 6 months follow-up. Intention to treat analysis employing multilevel modelling was used to assess intervention effects.
LP and NP interventions did not significantly affect children's PA levels compared to the control group.
PE interventions based on LP and NP alone might not be effective in improving habitual PA in children.
基于学校的干预措施是改善儿童身体活动(PA)的关键契机;然而,关于体育教育(PE)中运动学习的教学方法如何影响儿童的身体活动,目前缺乏证据。因此,本研究旨在评估体育教育中不同的教学方法如何影响儿童的身体活动。
来自SAMPLE-PE随机对照试验中12所小学的参与者(n = 360,5 - 6岁)被随机分配到线性教学法(LP:n = 3)或非线性教学法(NP:n = 3)干预组,学校接受由训练有素的教练提供的为期15周的体育教育干预,或分配到对照组(n = 6),学校遵循常规做法。使用ActiGraph GT9X加速度计在基线、干预后立即和6个月随访时,对整个星期和分段星期的身体活动指标(中度至剧烈身体活动、平均原始加速度以及最活跃的一小时和半小时内的最低加速度)进行评估。采用多水平模型的意向性分析来评估干预效果。
与对照组相比,LP和NP干预对儿童的身体活动水平没有显著影响。
仅基于LP和NP的体育教育干预可能无法有效改善儿童的习惯性身体活动。