Physical Literacy

One of the first written definitions of physical literacy was provided by Morrison [16]—“To be physically literate, one should be creative, imaginative, and clear in expressive movement, competent and efficient in utilitarian movement and inventive, versatile, and skillful in objective movement. The body is the means by which ideas and aims are carried out and, therefore, it must become both sensitive and deft” (p. 5). Since then, many similar definitions of physical literacy have been put forth. [2,17–26]

Being credited as one of the leading experts in physical literacy, Whitehead [27] modified her own definition over the years and most recently described physical literacy as “a disposition acquired by individuals encompassing the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding that establishes purposeful physical pursuits as an integral element of their lifestyle” (p. 41).

In other words, a physically literate individual is one who embodies the physical nature of movement and uses their experiences and knowledge to interact with the environment.[1,24] Physical literacy educates individuals about their physicality, which not only pertains to ‘being physical’, but encapsulates an embodied understanding of how to be physical by interacting with varied and challenging environments. [1,24,28] In addition, Corbin [29] stressed that “physical literacy provides a foundation for elite sport, public health, and physical education rather than merely being a term used to improve public perceptions” (p. 24).

Physical Literacy and Physical Education

Penney and Chandler [22] have suggested that physical education is not about teaching children specific activities; rather that it is teaching them specific skills and competencies through the activities. This is dependent on teachers interpreting the curriculum in a way which does not focus on the ‘sport’ of physical education, highlighted through success in learning how to perform in specific activities. Instead, it is to highlight the ways in which necessary skills can be learned through the activities children do. This emphasizes the intended purpose of physical education; that it is for children to develop appropriate skills, understand strategies for moving within a specific environment, and, finally, to understand how this affects their health, rather than providing children with an opportunity to become physically fit through physical education lessons. Thus, it is clear that physical education presents one primary purpose—to develop children’s physical literacy. [24]

The concept of physical literacy can also be explored in the contexts of the child as an active learner, teachers as active practitioners and schools and the curriculum as providing active contexts. [20] The significance of physical literacy is considered to be an integral part of the education of the whole child, being made up of a wide range of ‘intelligences’. Armstrong [30] suggested that “the way exercise is presented to children may have important implications for future activity patterns and consequently for their health and well-being as adults”.

Recent researches suggest that physical education curriculum should have a physical literacy approach including fundamental movement skills, [31] and the development of physical literacy is critical to long-term health. [32] Physical literacy is a significantly important goal of physical education. An understanding of physical literacy would help one appreciate the special nature of physical education. This does not pertain specifically to teaching children and young people to play sports; nor is it purely about finding those with the potential to become elite sportsmen. Physical education is about encouraging every child and young person to become a lifelong participant in physical activity and supporting every child and young person on their physical literacy journey.

In this sense, the role of physical education teachers is important in the implementation of physical literacy in physical education so that future generations have the “motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for maintaining purposeful physical pursuits and activities throughout the lifecourse”. [26]

Since physical literacy is the ultimate goal of physical education, the definitions of physical literacy are intended to assist physical education teachers to implement quality physical education curricula, extra-curricular activities and health promotion programs etc., which are designed to foster the development of physically literate students. Part of the highlights of physical literacy is the development of students’ motivation and confidence. However, it is understood that motivation and confidence cannot be ‘taught’ and focus should be placed more on ‘learning’. Teaching is designed to provide learning opportunities through which abilities can be nurtured. Therefore, it is important for physical education teachers to understand the concept of physical literacy so that students of today are not only better prepared to live a healthy life, but are better equipped to do so in ways that assist others, are respectful of the environment, and in ways that have the potential to generate new and innovative ideas. [2]

To conclude, the above literature review has led us to the following three mutually reinforceable key attributes of a physically literate individual: 1) motivation, 2) confidence and physical competence, and 3) interaction with environment. [26]

Therefore, given the importance of physical literacy in the above key attributes, the purpose of this study was to develop and then analyze the properties of a survey instrument–the Perceived Physical Literacy Instrument (PPLI), which can be used to investigate physical education teachers’ self-perception of physical literacy.

Sample and Procedures

The approval for the use on human subjects was obtained from the University Survey and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Education, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. A total of 337 physical education teachers (162 male; 173 female; 2 unknown gender) with teaching experience ranging from 1 to 36 years who taught in primary school (N = 125) and secondary school (N = 210) attended the annual continuous professional development conference in Hong Kong were asked to complete the questionnaire in June, 2015. Written informed consent for participation in the study was obtained from participants. Trained research staff was responsible for distributing and collecting the questionnaire. They also answered any questions raised by the participants. The average range of questionnaire completion time was 8–10 minutes.

Designing the Physical Literacy Survey

The original item pool was constructed from a comprehensive literature review on the concept of physical literacy between 1994 and 2015, followed by three focus group interviews which lasted an average of 90 minutes per interview. Eleven Hong Kong Chinese physical education teachers with teaching experience ranging from 3 to 18 years were interviewed on three separate occasions. The focus group participants were all physical education subject specialists and came from primary (N = 5) and secondary (N = 6) schools in Hong Kong. This number was appropriate, as focus group sizes generally range from 4 to 12. [33] In the focus group discussions, participants were given opportunities to share their perception on physical literacy and to provide diverse experiences on how physical literacy impacts their students’ lifestyles. The researchers used reviewed literature to guide the focus group interviews that helped to identify some key attributes of physical literacy and relationships between all attributes such as “sense of self and self-confidence”, “self-expression and communication with others” and “knowledge and understanding” [26] for the development of the instrument.

The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed by the researchers. Content analysis was used to identify codes in an iterative process. [34] The researchers discussed the codes and their relationships in order to facilitate analysis for drafting different items of the instrument. The role of codes was to distinguish overall themes in which more specific patterns can be interpreted. After drafting and revising items, participants from the focus group were asked to complete an 18-item version of the instrument. They responded to the items, evaluated their clarity, and provided feedback on the response scale. The feedback suggested slight changes to 2 items and that the instrument could be achieved by using a 5-point Likert scale anchored by 1) “strongly disagree” and 5) “strongly agree” with a midpoint 3) “no comment”.

A second (revised) version of the instrument was then sent to a panel of four experts who were teaching and doing research in the area of sport science, physical education, health education and instrument development in local and regional universities. They were invited to evaluate the initial instrument for item wording, instrument length, clarity of the statement and response format. Revisions were made based on their feedback with a few items rewritten. There were no suggested items being added by the experts relating to the construct. The initial instrument was well received and commented as useful. A full outline of the items of the instrument which contained 18 questions on the understanding of physical literacy is shown in Table 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Items of the instrument contained 18 questions on understanding of physical literacy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155610.t001

Data Analysis

Firstly, the research team used the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm [35] for estimating missing values in returned questionnaires. There were 1.8% of the overall values missing (6 cases), with 1 missing case excluded from the analysis as over 50% of their data fields were missing. In the 5 other missing cases, only a trivial number of values were missing and the missing pattern was random. As such, it was reasonable to hypothesize that the remaining cases were representative of the entire sample and those missing cases were the same as the non-missing cases in terms of the analysis being performed. [36] The research team therefore implemented an ad hoc deletion of missing data before proceeding to the next step.

Samples (N = 336) were randomly allocated via a computer-generated randomization sequence (GraphPad Software, Inc.) into two groups with the ratio 1:2 (135 cases in set 1 and 201 cases in set 2) in which the sample size was satisfied with the minimum amount of data. [37] Data from the first half of the split sample (N = 135) were entered into the IBM SPSS 21 for Windows program. The research team then conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

To confirm the factor structure obtained in the first half of the split sample (N = 201), the research team conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation model (SEM) techniques for the second half of the split sample. CFA was used as a critical step to refine the instrument and identify factor structure within understood physical literacy. The data were analyzed using AMOS 22.

Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on Subset 1

The research team performed EFA for the first subset on the 18 items (see Table 1). The optimal number of factors was determined by latent root criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0, the Kaiser’s criterion K1). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index of sampling adequacy appeared to be significant (.83). Bartlett’s test of sphericity proved that correlations between items were large enough for conducting a principal components analysis (PCA) (p < .001; our model 0.000). [37]

Nine out of 18 items were deleted after initial factor analysis and this resulted in the final three factors as shown in the pattern matrix in Table 2.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Factor structures by Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability (N = 135).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155610.t002

With 3 variables per factor, three factors were found in the final analysis generally confirming the differentiation between the categories of understanding of physical literacy that were based on previous literature. Items with communality of less than 0.40 were removed from the analysis [39] and the PCA was computed again with all items greater than 0.60 in our final model. A cross loading item was defined as an item that loads at 0.32 or higher on two or more factors. [40] Crossloading items were dropped from the analysis and the PCA was reconducted.

In addition, to assess the fit of the factor models, the research team examined the differences between the model-based correlations and the observed correlations. Our model showed that 33% of the residuals was greater than 0.05. [41] In terms of the internal consistency of the three factors, the research team used Cronbach’s α for the entire data set (see Table 2), and all factors showed sufficient to good (>0.7).

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on Subset 2

Based on the EFA results, CFA was performed with IBM SPSS-Amos 22 to cross-validate and confirm the three-factor structure derived in the analysis using the first subset. The research team assessed the factorial validity of the three scales by confirmatory factor analysis. The factor loading of all items (Fig 1), above the standard of .45, [42] ranged from .48 to .83, revealing the factor validity of the measurement was satisfactory. The goodness-of-fit test on the model was assessed using chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI), [43] and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). [44] Non-significant chi-squares are considered as an acceptable model fit. [45] Values which are greater than 0.90 are considered as an acceptable model fit for the CFI. [46] The RMSEA is often considered one of the most valuable fit indices in SEM. Hu and Bentler [47] indicated a value of .06 would suggest a good fit. Final fit statistics were all adequate as follows: chi-square (p>.05), CFI = .95, RMSEA = .038.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Factor structure and standardized factor loading on perceived physical literacy items.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155610.g001