ABSTRACT
The collection of papers in this Special Issue serves to extend the literature and evidence base for physical literacy (PL) research within child and youth populations. Currently, child and youth populations are increasingly sedentary, resulting in them spending less time engaging in daily physical activity (PA). Physical literacy serves as an attractive concept to help reframe and address physical inactivity and poor health and wellbeing, utilising a different and integrated approach to physical activity, health and wellbeing promotion. The studies presented in this Special Issue respond to previous calls in PL research for further empirical evidence, clarity around PL assessment, the utility of physical literacy with diverse populations including indigenous children and those with disabilities, the application of PL within early years, parental engagement and the role of physical education in the promotion of PL. These studies shed new light on the frontiers of PL research within child and youth populations.
ABSTRACT
The concept of physical literacy is continuing to gain traction internationally. This increasing interest has also given rise to concerns about the use, interpretation and meaning of the term "literacy" within the context of physical literacy. This paper explores the development of the terms literate, illiterate, literacy, and illiteracy identifying their historical origin and contemporary meaning. This provides the backdrop to explore the use of the term literacy within the context of physical literacy. In the final part of this introductory section the recent popularity of the literacies movement is explored. Our discussion identifies key intersections and areas of tension associated with the use, interpretation and meaning of literacy in the context of physical literacy. We adopt Whitehead's philosophy of physical literacy and discussion is informed further by Derrida's notion of differance, and Barad's challenge to singular representations of concepts. Once harnessing these concepts, we reach a juncture of an in-between space; entry points of nonidentity (sameness) and points where multiple effects of difference are created. Key discussion topics include: discourse, language and interpretations of literacy; in/tangibility of literacy; capturing literacy; literacy as a process or a product; connotations of the terms literate and illiterate; neoliberalism and literacy and finally literacy as learning. We believe that when understood as the productive and meaningful interaction with/in/through the world, literacy is still the appropriate term within the context of physical literacy. Our discussion leads us to conclude that as embodied individuals, physical literacy is often the literacy through which other literacies have to pass. Through physical activity individuals can not only nurture their own physical literacy but also contribute toward a global or holistic literacy that helps us navigate, connect and make sense of ourselves, others and the world around us. However, the paper acknowledges that this meaning is not always grasped with the historical understanding of literacy as well as it's translations into other languages presenting challenges in articulating the intended use, meaning and connotations of the contemporary understanding of physical literacy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, there has been increased interest amongst researchers, practitioners and policymakers in physical literacy for children and young people and the assessment of the concept within physical education (PE). This systematic review aimed to identify tools to assess physical literacy and its physical, cognitive and affective domains within children aged 7-11.9 years, and to examine the measurement properties, feasibility and elements of physical literacy assessed within each tool. METHODS: Six databases (EBSCO host platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Education Research Complete, SPORTDiscus) were searched up to 10th September 2020. Studies were included if they sampled children aged between 7 and 11.9 years, employed field-based assessments of physical literacy and/or related affective, physical or cognitive domains, reported measurement properties (quantitative) or theoretical development (qualitative), and were published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality and measurement properties of studies and assessment tools were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist. The feasibility of each assessment was considered using a utility matrix and elements of physical literacy element were recorded using a descriptive checklist. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in a total of 11467 initial results. After full text screening, 11 studies (3 assessments) related to explicit physical literacy assessments. Forty-four studies (32 assessments) were relevant to the affective domain, 31 studies (15 assessments) were relevant to the physical domain and 2 studies (2 assessments) were included within the cognitive domain. Methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties within the included studies were mixed. The Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy-2 and the Passport For Life had evidence of acceptable measurement properties from studies of very good methodological quality and assessed a wide range of physical literacy elements. Feasibility results indicated that many tools would be suitable for a primary PE setting, though some require a level of expertise to administer and score that would require training. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified a number of existing assessments that could be useful in a physical literacy assessment approach within PE and provides further information to empower researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate assessment for their needs, purpose and context. The review indicates that researchers and tool developers should aim to improve the methodological quality and reporting of measurement properties of assessments to better inform the field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42017062217.
