TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of linear and nonlinear pedagogy physical education interventions on children’s physical activity
T2 - A cluster randomized controlled trial (sample-pe)
AU - Crotti, Matteo
AU - Rudd, James R.
AU - Roberts, Simon
AU - Boddy, Lynne M.
AU - Fitton Davies, Katie
AU - O’callaghan, Laura
AU - Utesch, Till
AU - Foweather, Lawrence
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Background: 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. Methods: Participants (n = 360, 5–6 years) from 12 primary schools within the SAMPLE-PE randomized controlled trial were randomly allocated to either Linear Pedagogy (LP: n = 3) or Nonlinear Pedagogy (NP: n = 3) interventions, where schools received a 15-week PE intervention delivered by trained coaches, or to a control group (n = 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. Results: LP and NP interventions did not significantly affect children’s PA levels compared to the control group. Conclusion: PE interventions based on LP and NP alone might not be effective in improving habitual PA in children.
AB - Background: 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. Methods: Participants (n = 360, 5–6 years) from 12 primary schools within the SAMPLE-PE randomized controlled trial were randomly allocated to either Linear Pedagogy (LP: n = 3) or Nonlinear Pedagogy (NP: n = 3) interventions, where schools received a 15-week PE intervention delivered by trained coaches, or to a control group (n = 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. Results: LP and NP interventions did not significantly affect children’s PA levels compared to the control group. Conclusion: PE interventions based on LP and NP alone might not be effective in improving habitual PA in children.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112467047&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/children8010049
DO - 10.3390/children8010049
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:85112467047
SN - 2227-9067
VL - 8
JO - Children
JF - Children
IS - 1
M1 - 49
ER -