Validation of an observation tool to assess physical activity-promoting physical education lessons in high schools: SOFIT+

Abstract

Teacher practices during high school PE lessons are significantly related to students' participation in MVPA. SOFIT+ is a valid and reliable tool to examine relationships between PE teacher practices and student MVPA during PE.

Validation of Modified SOFIT+: Relating Physical Activity Promoting Practices in Physical Education to Moderate-to-vigorous Physical Activity in 5–6 Year Old Children

“…PE teachers therefore have a responsibility to support MVPA promotion during lessons (McKenzie et al, 2000;Rutten et al, 2012). Previous research has shown that different teaching practices during PE are positively (e.g., engaging children in game play, proposing partner activities, teacher engaging in PA with children) or negatively (e.g., instructing children, proposing activities requiring waiting time, proposing activities including elimination from the game) associated with children's and adolescent's MVPA levels during lessons (Fairclough et al, 2018;McKenzie et al, 1992;Weaver et al, 2016). Better understanding of teaching practices is important to help both researchers and practitioners enhance MVPA promotion in PE (Castelli et al, 2013).…”

“…Within SOFIT+, Lesson Context variables (e.g., how lesson content was delivered) were kept as in the original SOFIT observation tool, while new variables were added to assess activity context (e.g., how activities were structured), teaching behaviors (e.g., what the teacher was doing) and teacher activity management (e.g., what management strategies were used by the teacher). SOFIT+ has been previously validated in elementary school children from the USA and high school students from the UK (Fairclough et al, 2018;Weaver et al, 2016). To account for gender-specific differences in MVPA engagement during PE or coaching (i.e., boys being more active than girls) and gender-specific attitudes toward different PAs (Peral-Suárez et al, 2020;Tanaka et al, 2018), previous validation studies evaluated the relation between teacher practices and MVPA engagement in boys and girls separately (Fairclough et al, 2018;Weaver et al, 2016).…”

“…SOFIT+ has been previously validated in elementary school children from the USA and high school students from the UK (Fairclough et al, 2018;Weaver et al, 2016). To account for gender-specific differences in MVPA engagement during PE or coaching (i.e., boys being more active than girls) and gender-specific attitudes toward different PAs (Peral-Suárez et al, 2020;Tanaka et al, 2018), previous validation studies evaluated the relation between teacher practices and MVPA engagement in boys and girls separately (Fairclough et al, 2018;Weaver et al, 2016). However, SOFIT+ has not been validated in children younger than 6-years-old and amongst primary school children from countries outside the USA, limiting the cross-cultural validity of the tool (Fairclough et al, 2018;Weaver et al, 2016).…”

“…To account for gender-specific differences in MVPA engagement during PE or coaching (i.e., boys being more active than girls) and gender-specific attitudes toward different PAs (Peral-Suárez et al, 2020;Tanaka et al, 2018), previous validation studies evaluated the relation between teacher practices and MVPA engagement in boys and girls separately (Fairclough et al, 2018;Weaver et al, 2016). However, SOFIT+ has not been validated in children younger than 6-years-old and amongst primary school children from countries outside the USA, limiting the cross-cultural validity of the tool (Fairclough et al, 2018;Weaver et al, 2016). Furthermore, SOFIT+ was developed to assess teaching practices in line with traditional teacher-centered educational approaches (Weaver et al, 2016).…”

Skill Acquisition Methods Fostering Physical Literacy in Early-Physical Education (SAMPLE-PE): Rationale and Study Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in 5–6-Year-Old Children From Deprived Areas of North West England

“…Intervention fidelity will be confirmed if (i) the Non-linear pedagogy intervention schools' PE lessons show greater implementation of Non-linear pedagogical principles than Linear and control schools PE lessons, and (ii) the reverse is true for Linear pedagogy intervention schools' PE lessons. Video recordings of PE lessons will also be retrospectively coded using established observation checklists to examine SAMPLE-PE coach (intervention schools) and teacher (control schools) behaviors in relation to promoting children's moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (SOFIT+;Weaver et al, 2016;Fairclough et al, 2018) and supporting or thwarting children's psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy (Smith et al, 2015). Researchers will also record the number of children participating in lessons, and the number of staff present and collect data on the themes and types of activities undertaken within the control group's PE lessons.…”