Effect of Linear and Nonlinear Pedagogy Physical Education Interventions on Children’s Physical Activity: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (SAMPLE-PE)

Abstract

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.

Physical activity promoting teaching practices and children’s physical activity within physical education lessons underpinned by motor learning theory (SAMPLE-PE)

“…Pedagogic Fidelity scores were reported in Table 2 . Nonlinear pedagogy average intervention fidelity scores ranged from 3.95 (SD = 0.78) to 5 (SD = 0.00), Linear pedagogy intervention average fidelity scores were all lower than 1.77 (0.94), while control group average scores were comprised between 1.44 (SD = 0.97) and 2.50 (SD = 0.54) [ 71 ]. Fidelity scores of 1 and 2 on the Likert scale correspond to the observation being more in line with Linear pedagogy and scores of 4 and 5 correspond to the observation being in line with Nonlinear pedagogy.…”

“…Intervention fidelity in terms of Linear and Nonlinear pedagogy were independently assessed through the video analysis of recorded PE lessons using a checklist developed by the research team ( S4 Table ) [ 71 ]. The checklist comprised 9 items including 7 motor learning related items and 2 global items.…”

“…As expected from a teacher-centred pedagogical approach, the Linear pedagogy intervention involved higher Skill Practice and less Game Play compared to the Nonlinear pedagogy and control groups, as well as higher Individual Activity compared to the control group [35,38,71]. Furthermore, Linear pedagogy intervention involved a higher proportion of Instructs Single Child compared with other groups, and a higher proportion of instructing the class compared to the Nonlinear group in line with teacher-centred PE approaches [92,93].…”

The Effect of Primary School-Based Physical Education Programs: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…In 10 articles, the effect on physical fitness was analyzed. All of them were divided depending on the intervention main ideas: intensive interval training, [25][26][27] jumping and strength, 28,29 teaching styles, 14,30,31 and other. 18,32 On the other hand, 7 articles showed effect on both PA level and FMS.…”

“…28 Regarding teaching styles, the studies showed positive effects in PA level in 2 studies, 14,31 but did not in another one. 30 A community-based approach in schools has shown positive effects. 4,13 Finally, involving students in activities with greater cognitive function have shown positive effects to improve FMS.…”