Physical literacy in children and adolescents: Definitions,assessments,and interventions

Philosophical underpinnings

Monism (versus dualism), existentialism, and phenomenology are the three most recognized philosophical underpinnings for the concept of PL. Monism is in opposition to Cartesian dualism and views the mind and body as interdependent entities rather than independent parts, and the self as a consciously and bodily integrated whole (Whitehead, 1993, 2001). With an integrated self, one can experience the world through proximate surroundings and then become embodied. The person achieves an enriched embodiment through fluent interaction with the external world. The more we interact with the world, the more we can develop. This is in line with the tenet of existentialism that the formation of self is based on interaction with the external world (Whitehead, 2001), and such an interaction varies if the environment changes. Commonly, the environment is always changing regardless of the presence or absence of self, which makes unique each person’s experience of interacting with the world (e.g. self-development process). Past experiences decide how we view the world now from a unique perspective. The uniqueness of our understanding and perspective in thinking through accumulated past experiences is termed as phenomenology (Husserl, 1991; Whitehead, 2010). According to Whitehead (2001), PL should involve not only physical competence, but also the capability of perceiving intelligently and responding appropriately in relation to the environment. A physically literate individual is developed via ‘perception, experience, memory, anticipation, and decision making’ (i.e. interactive process) to gain movement capacity (i.e. moving with poise, economy and confidence), overcome physically challenging situations (i.e. competent in taking various physical challenges), and respond to environments (i.e. sufficiently receive, analyze, and interpret surroundings and make appropriate decisions; Whitehead, 2001: 131).

The priorities of PL development

Promoting PL achievement is educationally meaningful (Whitehead et al., 2018). Upon the release of the new US national PE standards (SHAPE America, 2014), several research journals published special issues on PL where researchers presented their perspectives on the priorities of PL development. Some researchers believed the development of a physically literate individual should be prioritized in ample physical activity participation (Lounsbery and McKenzie, 2015) and motor skill development (Silverman and Mercier, 2015; The Aspen Institute, 2015a, 2015b). Other researchers believed that knowledge and understanding about fitness and physical activity should be prioritized as an area for PL development (including knowledge possession, transmission, transfer, and innovation; Ennis, 2015; Mandigo et al., 2009) and movement creativity (Mandigo et al., 2009; Penney and Chandler, 2000). In addition, motivation for PL development was regarded as another integral aspect of PL that should also be valued and fostered in PE (Chen, 2015). However, Hyndman and Pill (2018) found that existing scholarship over-emphasized the physical domain, suggesting more research attention should focus on affective, cognitive, and social domains to comprehensively foster PL development. Despite the divergent perspectives, priorities should not be taken at the expense of jeopardizing the balance across affective, physical, cognitive, and social factors (Hyndman and Pill, 2018; Sport for Life Society, 2015; The Aspen Institute, 2015a, 2015b) for developing whole individuals (Whitehead, 2001).

Settings for PL development

PL development may occur in PE classes, youth sport programs, or other settings (Castelli et al., 2014, 2015; Edwards et al., 2017; Lundvall, 2015; Sum et al., 2018). PE and sport ‘do not always share the same goals or serve the same individuals’ (Mandigo et al., 2009: 5). PL in sports has a lot to do with a wide range of motor skill development for athletic competition, while PL in PE tends to emphasize knowledge and skills acquisition and their applications (Ennis, 2015; Mandigo et al., 2009). A study that surveyed 12 globally selected experts to share their definitions of PL revealed that the core principle of PL should be ‘the ability to capitalize on the interaction between physical competence and affective characteristics’ (Mandigo et al., 2009: 28), which guides the practice of promoting PL through PE and youth sport. Sport and PE are not mutually exclusive. By fostering fun and enjoyable physical activity experiences in PE and/or sports settings, students and athletes can gain fundamental knowledge, physical competence, and attitudes for their long-term pursuit of performance, participation, and personal development, which are essential for lifelong physical activity participation (Allan et al., 2017).

Distinct approaches to PL development

PL development can be approximated through two distinct approaches: holistic versus performance-driven approaches (Allan et al., 2017). The holistic approach, advocated by Whitehead (2007), de-emphasizes skill development and immediate fitness achievements but emphasizes fostering embodied competence and positive attitudes toward healthy and active lifestyles by respecting individual uniqueness. In comparison, the performance-driven approach emphasizes physical skills and/or fitness development to build competence. Each approach bears limitations. For example, from the youth sport development perspective, early specialization in performance-driven programs may lead to burnout or dropout that jeopardizes long-term physical activity participation (Almond, 2014), but merely focusing on individualized and balanced development may hinder one’s potential to pursue high levels of performance and achievement (Côté and Fraser-Thomas, 2016). To strike a balance between the two approaches, Allan et al. (2017: 9) defined physically literate individuals as integrated individuals who have ‘the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life,’ and having ‘a self-awareness that encourages moral behavior and meaningful connections with others in physical activity contexts.’

PL components

The underpinning components integral and/or dimensional to each PL definition demonstrate distinct features across studies. We summarize these components in Table 2 in supplemental files. In his review, Corbin (2016) identified 11 components of PL that were most frequently used to characterize and represent PL. Sport Australia (n.d.) identified physical, psychological, social, and cognitive skills as the underpinning PL components. Edwards et al.’s (2017) literature review identified 37 PL associated categories and 13 of them were viewed as directly contributing to PL development (see Table 2 in supplemental files). Mandigo et al. (2009) pointed out that the process of developing physically literate individuals should involve 11 steps, with each step being able to represent an integral part/component of PL. McClelland (2013) contended that PL components should reflect the attributes of a holistic physically literate individual whose mind and body are integrated. Similarly, Allan et al. (2017) further depicted six essential components of PL for positive youth development: physical activity behaviors, knowledge and attitudes, competence, confidence, connection, and character (Allan et al., 2017). In comparison, The Aspen Institute (2015b) proposed ability (i.e. competency in basic movement skills), confidence (i.e. beliefs about one’s capability in motor skills, fitness, etc.), and desire (i.e. intrinsic enthusiasm) as the three important PL components for one single goal (i.e. lifelong active lifestyle). Last but not least, using the text mining technique, Hyndman and Pill (2018) summarized the international literature focused on PL and identified 30 concepts closely connected to PL, with the top five being ‘physical,’ ‘literacy,’ ‘education,’ ‘activity,’ and ‘fitness’ (see Table 2 in supplemental files for more detail).

In summary, as shown in Table 2, PL as a concept has been defined inconsistently due to the different perspectives on (a) philosophical underpinnings, (b) the priorities of PL development, (c) settings for PL development, (d) distinct approaches to PL development, and (e) PL components. PL is definitely more than a composite that wraps ‘literacy’ with a cocoon of ‘physical’ (Wallis, 2015). We should not only embrace an integrated approach to universally defining PL, but also fit it into specific contexts, settings, and populations (Allan et al., 2017). Without contextualization, PL is merely a continuum or vision of limitless or infinitive possibilities that points to a concept (Otte and de Barros, 2016). We posited that a concept is more worthy of scientific investigation if it is measurable. This leads to a desire to set up the boundaries for what PL really is, as an initial step toward appropriate measurement of PL. In 2015, five Canadian organizations and the International Physical Literacy Association (IPLA) reached a multilateral agreement on a PL definition (The Aspen Institute, 2015b; Tremblay et al., 2018) that encompasses the affective, cognitive, physical, and social domains. The definition also centered on the more measurable dimensions from a pragmatic perspective. As informed by the existing scholarship on PL, we herein define PL as: a state of being physically cultured for lifelong active lifestyles as characterized by development in the cognitive, affective, physical, and behavioral domains.

Assessed components

The assessment of PL is primarily driven by the conceptualization of PL and its components as defined or embraced by different scholars and organizations. We list below several example assessments. Firstly, SHAPE America’s definition of PL includes components such as motor skills, knowledge, physical activity, physical fitness, and student motivation (Dudley, 2015; Hastie, 2017; Mandigo et al., 2009). It has endorsed several instruments to measure K-12 students’ attainment of the five standards (SHAPE America, 2014), including PE Metrics (NASPE, 2010, 2011) and FitnessGram (Welk and Meredith, 2010). Secondly, CAPL assesses four PL components, namely physical competence, daily behavior, knowledge and understanding, and motivation and confidence (Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, 2014). However, this assessment has greater emphasis on physical activity and fitness than other components. Thirdly, PLAY mainly assesses three components, namely knowledge, motor competence, and environment participation (Sport for Life Society, 2014). Specifically, PLAYfun is used for assessment of motor competence, while PLAYbasic is a shortened, simplified version of PLAYfun. There are also other tools developed for specific users, such as parent (PLAYparent: assessing environment participation, motor competence, motivation, confidence, and understanding), coach (PLAYcoach: assessing similar components as PLAYparent), and youth (PLAYself: assessing environment participation, self-described PL, and relative ranking of literacies). Notably, the PLAY tools do not assess physical activity and fitness, and the PLAY battery is heavily skills based, as Sport for Life Society is primarily sport focused. In addition, other assessments only assess single components of PL. For example, the PLOT assesses early children’s FMS (including stability skills, locomotor skills, and manipulative skills; Early Years Physical Literacy Research Team, 2017), as does the 60 MKC PL assessment tool (Jupiter⁴, n.d.; Personal Sport Record, n.d.). Lastly, the PFL is an online PL measurement tool for parents, children, and PE teachers to assess active participation, living skills, fitness skills, core strength, and movement skills, which reflect important PE outcomes and align with provincial PE curricula (PHE Canada, n.d.).

Targeted users

The PL assessment tools were developed for examiners (e.g. coach, PE teacher, and parents) and examinees (e.g. students, athletes, etc.). PE Metrics can be used by PE teachers to assess elementary and secondary school students (NASPE, 2010, 2011), as does the FitnessGram, but it is used for children and adolescents from third to 12th grades (Welk and Meredith, 2010). CAPL was developed for assessing children aged between 8 and 12 years old and the examiners can be coaches or teachers (Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, 2014). PLAY was developed for children of ages seven and older, and can be used by students themselves, coaches/teachers, or parents (Sport for Life Society, 2014). PLOT was developed for young children (i.e. infants, toddlers, and preschoolers), which need parents or practitioners to assess with observation (Early Years Physical Literacy Team, 2017). Finally, the intended users of the PFL are teachers, parents, and students themselves (PHE Canada, n.d.). It is a free PL assessment tool for PE specialists, parents, and students currently available for fourth to 12th graders (an assessment tool for grade 3 is in development).

Scoring methods

The scoring methods for PL also differ across the instruments, with some assigning one general PL score and others assigning scores for individual PL components. SHAPE America does not have a scoring system for quantifying overall PL, although PE Metrics was originally designed to produce a single overall score based upon mathematical equating and standardization. PE Metrics does not assess attainment of all five standards and the single standardized score has rarely been used by researchers and practitioners (NASPE, 2010, 2011). CAPL has separate scores available for each component and an overall score for the four components combined (Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, 2014). For the series of PLAY tools, PLAYself, PLAYcoach, and PLAYparent can quantify the overall PL level with a composite score, but do not capture all four PL domains (Sport for Life Society, 2014). PLOT does not have a criterion for levels of PL but it has a reference chart for users to receive reflective feedback. The PFL neither provides a composite score for overall PL achievement nor does it assign a score to each PL component/domain; it may only be used for formative evaluation. Students would have to report their active participation and living skills, while their teachers observe and assess their fitness and movement skills using a rubric and a recording form.

Promoting overall PL achievement

Rarely has an interventional study attempted to promote students’ overall PL achievement. This is largely due to the fact that PL is a recently revived concept and a relatively new area of research. Another reason, as described earlier in this article, is that PL has been inconsistently defined (i.e. with varying components) and assessed. In this section we present three representing studies that focused on promoting the multifaceted PL. The PHE Canada – PFL is a program designed to promote multifaceted aspects of PL (see Table 4 in supplemental files; UNESCO, 2015). This program involved 756 teachers and 4325 students (aged eight to 15 years old) across 330 classes. It focused on training teachers to offer quality lessons to increase students’ knowledge, skill, fitness, awareness, and understanding related to PL (UNESCO, 2015). PL was assessed by the PFL. By comparing data between pretest and posttest, statistically significant increases were observed in fitness, participation, interest, movement competency, skills, knowledge, and understanding (Lodewyk and Mandigo, 2017; UNESCO, 2015).

There were studies using reliable research designs. McGrane et al. (2018) conducted a school-based randomized control trial that involved 482 student participants of 12–15 years old to examine their motor competence, health-related fitness, and physical activity behavior as a result of receiving a PE-based intervention called the Youth-Physical Activity Towards Health (Y-PATH) program. Informed by the youth physical activity promotion model, Y-PATH puts forth a multi-component intervention that involves students, teachers, parents/guardians, and online-based intervention resources. The six-month program’s effectiveness was examined by evaluating the time (i.e. pre versus posttests), treatment (i.e. Y-PATH versus regular PE instruction), and time by treatment interaction effects. The results showed time by treatment interaction effects for total object control and total locomotor skills (indicators of motor competence, assessed by the TGMD-II and Victorian Fundamental Movement Skills Manual), showing significantly more favorable gains in the Y-PATH group than the control. In addition, Kozera (2017) conducted a quasi-experimental study that examined the effect of the PE-based Running, Jumping and Throwing (RJT) program on PL achievement. The study recruited 199 students (girls = 22.78%; boys = 57.22%) and assigned 111 to the RJT-PE group (i.e. three classes per week; 30–50 minutes per class) and 76 to the control group that received regular PE. The eight weeks of RJT intervention yielded a statistically significant time (p < 0.01) and a group (p < 0.05) impact on motor competence (assessed using PLAYfun). The above two studies took place in PE and both showed favorable intervention effects, suggesting the fundamental role of quality PE in PL promotion (Castelli et al., 2014, 2015; UNESCO, 2015). However, as we addressed earlier, FMS and physical competence are only components of PL. The dearth of intervention studies on PL promotion makes it difficult to arrive at a conclusive statement on their intervention efficacy.

Promoting achievement in individual PL components

A diverse number of interventions have focused on promoting achievement in PL components, largely outside of the context of promoting PL. We summarize these studies in Table 4 in supplemental files. Although they did not address overall PL promotion, they studied constructs or variables that are similar or the same as the underlying components of PL. These studies are foundational to informing future interventions. Firstly, some studies followed a theory-driven approach, including the youth physical activity promotion model (O’Brien et al., 2013), social ecological model (Bélanger et al., 2016; Castelli et al., 2014), and the Health Belief Model (HBM; Castelli et al., 2014), to render effects on achievement in the outcome variables. Secondly, existing studies have more frequently employed quantitative research methods than qualitative research methods or mixed methods (Bélanger et al., 2016; Collins et al., 2010; George et al., 2016; Houser et al., 2019; Johnstone et al., 2017; Kiez, 2015; Kozera, 2017; Lavery et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018; Mateus et al., 2015; McGrane et al., 2018; O’Brien et al., 2013; UNESCO, 2015; Wainwright et al., 2018), although inquiries from qualitative methods alongside quantitative approaches (mixed methods) may be well-suited to inform students’ physical embodiment of PL. Thirdly, examinations of these studies also suggest a minimum of 4–6 weeks of intervention duration to yield significant effects (George et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2018). Participants positively responding to PL interventions can be as early as preschoolers (i.e. 3 years old) all the way to older adults (Holler et al., 2019). Lastly, the majority of the identified studies chose to deliver interventions in schools (Johnstone et al., 2017; Lavery et al., 2017; Wainwright et al., 2018) or in PE classes in particular (Chen et al., 2016, 2017; Kiez, 2015; Kozera, 2017), while very few occurred in sports (Mateus et al., 2015) or communities (Lee et al., 2018). These studies demonstrated great variations with regard to the outcome variables of focus, research design, sample size, assessment tools, population (early childhood to college students), setting (e.g. PE, sport), location (USA, Europe, etc.), and approach (curriculum and programming, instructional analysis). These variations hamper the generalizability of the research findings.

Promoting physical activity from the perspective of PL

The ultimate goal of PL promotion is lifelong physical activity participation (Whitehead, 2010). While the number of physical activity intervention studies are too abundant to summarize, we only examined those that were specified by authors as PL-related interventions on children and/or adolescents. Some PL components (e.g. motor competence) are believed to be associated with physical activity behavior (Bélanger et al., 2018). Most of the identified studies conducted single-group pre-to-post comparisons to detect physical activity changes over time, but none of these studies involved a control group. This limited research design constrains our ability to attribute the observed effects on physical activity to the PL-related interventions. Another observation we made is that most of these interventions were delivered through PE and school settings and they all appeared to be short-term studies. Therefore, whether the development of PL as an intervention strategy may lead to long-term (e.g. lifelong) physical activity participation remains a question that warrants further longitudinal investigation. Last but not least, consistent with The Aspen Institute’s conclusion, most of the physical activity interventions in the context of PL were conducted in economically developed areas. Thus, more research across populations from both economically developed and underdeveloped areas is needed.