Validation of Playing for Life philosophy
for children aged five to 12 years
Full report
May 2013
RESEARCH TEAM
Professor Damian Farrow, Professor Remco Polman, Doctor Jason Berry, Doctor Anthony Watt and Ms
Loretta Konjarski, Ms Andrea Farrow, Doctor Fiona Ling
Research assistants
Mr Peter Balbata, Doctor Lauren Banting, Mr Tim Buszard, Ms Brianna Dalrymple-Monroe, Ms Catherine
Finney, Ms Georgia Giblin, Ms Erin Hickingbotham, Ms Vivian Romero, Mr James Rudd
Prepared for: Australian Sports Commission (RFT Number: 377/10)
ASC contact: Gary Rauber
Prepared by: Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University
ISEAL contact: Professor Damian Farrow ([email protected])
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research team would like to acknowledge the support of the participating students, parents
and coaches as well as the 10 schools and contact staff. We also appreciated the support of the
following divisions and organisations: Active After-school Communities; Participation Growth Support;
and National Sport Research divisions of the Australian Sports Commission, Victorian Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development and Catholic Education Office Melbourne.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary
1
List of figures
5
List of tables
7
List of abbreviations
9
Introduction
10
Method
11
Results
23
Conclusions and recommendations
75
References
80
Attachment A
82
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) has developed and promoted the Playing for Life (P4L)
philosophy for the junior sport area. P4L is based on a theoretical approach that uses games rather
than drills to introduce the skills and tactics of the particular sport or structured physical activity being
delivered (den Duyn 1996; Thorpe, Bunker and Almond 1984).
The P4L philosophy is intended to create a fun and inclusive environment for introducing sport and other
structured physical activities to primary school children. It is designed to engage children of all abilities
in the activities and encourages them to have a positive experience.
The ASC commissioned Victoria University’s (VU) Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL) to
examine the following research objectives:
1. Test and validate the effectiveness and appropriateness of the P4L philosophy for children aged five
to 12 years.
2. Reconfirm the appropriateness of the P4L philosophy for children aged 13 years and above.
3. Demonstrate whether the P4L philosophy can assist in overcoming the barriers to participation in
sport for children.
Method
To address the above objectives, this project implemented a quasi-longitudinal, mixed-methods design.
Samples were taken from 520 children across nine primary schools and one secondary college in the
Melbourne metropolitan region, and incorporated several age categories (for example, 5–6, 7–8, 9–10
and so on). Participants were split between those participating in the P4L intervention group (n=267)
and a control group (n = 253).
The P4L participants were monitored over two consecutive school terms. This allowed cross-sectional
data to be collected and analysed at the beginning of the first term and near the end of the second school
term of the monitoring period. Volunteer coaches at the participating schools were recruited based on the
recommendations of the Active After-school Communities (AASC) regional manager, with a key criteria being
to source coaches who had been accredited to deliver their sports program using the P4L philosophy.
Each P4L session went for 60 minutes and participants took part in a range of sports or activities
based on the logistical planning of the specific school. Participants typically completed one session per
week for one or two consecutive school terms, and all children who completed a minimum of five P4L
sessions were included in the analysis.
The control participants consisted of classmates who were not enrolled in P4L sessions but were
engaged in sport and physical education opportunities during regular school time. These groups were
only required to complete a background questionnaire and pre-post testing.
Cross-sectional data on the development of social, cognitive and motor skill outcomes was collected,
which was in addition to affective outcomes such as positive engagement, enjoyment and motivation.
To assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the P4L philosophy, participants completed a
fundamental motor skill (FMS) testing battery as well as a number of questionnaires (topics included
physical activity level, motivation and enjoyment) prior to and at the conclusion of the two school term P4L
intervention period. All participants completed the same testing battery, however as research objective 2
required secondary school children to participate in a P4L intervention a specific group was sampled.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
1
To complement the quantitative information gathered from the above methods, qualitative data was
gathered in the form of interviews and surveys with participating children, parents and coaches. Finally,
to ensure the delivery of coaching sessions were consistent with the P4L philosophy observational
coding of a variety of sessions was recorded.
Key findings
A summary of the key findings of this report are presented in two ways. The first is a general summary
in schematic form (see Figure 1) and summarises the key findings against the strength of evidence
levels of support for P4L within the participant cohorts:
•
Strong — it was considered strong supporting evidence if there was agreement from all three
participant cohorts. This was also the case if the P4L participants were statistically higher than the
control group at the post-test on a particular FMS task or questionnaire construct.
•
Moderate — it was considered moderate supporting evidence when the P4L participant results
were significantly improved from pre to post-test but not statistically different to the control group
at post-test or when only two of the three cohorts (children, coaches and parents) agreed.
•
Weak — it was considered weak supporting evidence where any difference between the P4L and
control group was restricted to a specific age group.
It should be noted that due to the complexity of the project and the number of variables recorded this
general summary should only be considered a guide and contextualised relative to reading of the full
report. The general schematic summary is followed by a dot-point summation of the key findings as
they relate to the three research objectives (see pages 8–10).
Figure 1
Levels of evidence in support of the P4L philosophy
Overcoming barriers to participation: Increased
activity, Playing with friends, Comfortable
STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE
STRONG
Self-reported increase in
spare time activity
Coach is the facilitator
FMS skills (kick, run, jump, punt, leap,
strike, dodge, object control, FMS total)
Overcoming barriers to participation: No emphasis on
winning, Feeling competent, Safe, Praise for all
Self-reported increase
in total physical activity
Ask the players
CHANGE IT
MODERATE
FMS skills (two-handed strike,
catch, throw, ball bounce)
Discrete coaching
Use of role models
Psychology: Peer acceptance in games
and sport (age dependent)
Psychology: Liking of games, Liking
of vigorous exertion/exercise
(age dependent)
WEAK
2
Game is the focus
Psychology: Decrease
in importance of
exercise (age
dependent)
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Test and validate the effectiveness and appropriateness of each P4L philosophy principle for children
aged five to 12 years
•
Participation in P4L resulted in improvements in FMS, higher levels of self-reported physical activity
(PA) and improved psychological functioning. However, only select measures were significantly higher
than the control group (for example, the increase in spare time PA).
•
Results were partially influenced by age and gender.
•
P4L in the present cohort was associated with higher FMS ability compared to the control group.
However, from the present study we cannot infer cause and effect as too many other variables may
have influenced these results.
•
Participation in P4L does not appear to have any negative consequences. There was no decrease in
the psychological, PA or FMS variables.
•
Engagement in P4L was viewed as an enjoyable experience by most children.
•
Children reaffirmed the importance of a game-centred philosophy but also highlighted the
motivational benefits of specific skill development or drill work.
•
Coach survey responses and interviews indicate the majority of the P4L principles are effective and
appropriate. Consistent with the children’s perspective, coaches feel there is still a place for drills in
skill development.
•
Coaching skill is critical to the successful delivery of the P4L philosophy.
Reconfirm the appropriateness of the P4L philosophy for children aged 13 years and above
•
The older participants in the P4L group responded similarly to the psychological, PA and FMS
variables as the control participants, indicating P4L does not have any adverse influence.
•
P4L has the potential to increase skill in a similar way to other coaching philosophies.
•
Direct comparison with previous experimental work examining coaching approaches is not possible
due to the absence of a condition that completed an alternative form of coaching.
Demonstrate whether the P4L philosophy can assist in overcoming the above barriers to participation
in sport for children
•
Parents perceive P4L to have significant social and psychological benefits for their child, supporting
a more active lifestyle and breaking down barriers for participation in sport and exercise.
•
The children’s views reinforced previously identified barriers to participation and there was strong
support for the P4L philosophy as an appropriate vehicle to overcome these barriers. These findings
were less clear for the 5–6 age group.
•
Coaches overwhelmingly support the P4L philosophy as appropriate for overcoming barriers to
participation.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
3
Recommendations
P4L
•
Continue to refine the delivery of the P4L philosophy and advocate it as a valuable coaching
philosophy to overcome barriers to participation for children under 12 years of age.
•
Age and gender influenced the results, with the 11–12 age group recording less positive results
compared to the 9–10 age group. This suggests more attention needs to be devoted to maintaining
the engagement of older children.
•
Results suggest many children possessed a relatively low overall FMS proficiency, and that
boys were typically superior to girls in this area. Coaches should emphasise developing these
foundational skills, which can occur to a large extent using a P4L philosophy.
•
It should be reinforced that continuing to adopt a P4L philosophy was strongly associated with
the overcoming of significant barriers to participation. In particular, increased activity, playing with
friends, feeling comfortable, no emphasis on winning and provision of praise were welcomed by the
children and provide a sound framework for coaches when planning a session.
•
Increase the support given to coaches for P4L delivery. This is a more skilful approach to coaching
and requires higher level skills to be delivered effectively.
Future research
•
Further work is needed to more clearly establish the value of the P4L approach within the 5–6 age
group. The current project was not successful in this regard.
•
More work is required to directly compare the P4L philosophy to another coaching approach. This
research should be completed in a more controlled setting than the current research.
•
Develop age-appropriate instruments to assess more effectively the outcomes of interventions,
including instruments which capture the psychosocial aspects related to participation in sport and PA.
•
Include objective assessment of PA outside of sessions that adheres to the P4L philosophy. This
could include the use of pedometers or accelerometers to obtain a more objective measure of daily
PA patterns.
•
Including the ‘voice’ of the end users (the children) provided powerful information on the efficacy
and suitability of the P4L coaching philosophy. It is recommended that voices are included in future
studies.
•
The mixed methodology approach and inclusion of children, parents and coaches provided a holistic
view of the value of P4L. We believe such a methodology would be suitable for future projects that
are similar in nature.
Limitation
•
A limitation of the current work was the amount of exposure to the P4L philosophy the children
received. The majority of participants took part in 10 to 15 sessions over the two terms of
the intervention monitoring period, with no evidence of a more beneficial impact for those who
completed more sessions. This quasi-longitudinal monitoring may be insufficient to observe the
true value of the P4L philosophy.
4
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Levels of evidence in support of the P4L philosophy
Figure 2
Code window exemplar
Figure 3
An example of a video (and code) timeline
Figure 4
An example of a code matrix
Figure 5
Traffic light analogy used to signpost significant findings regarding the value of the P4L
philosophy
Figure 6
Interaction effect for the FMS variable ‘ball bounce’
Figure 7
Interaction effect for the FMS variable ‘throw’
Figure 8
Interaction effect for the FMS variable ‘strike’
Figure 9
Interaction effect for the FMS variable ‘two-handed strike’
Figure 10
Coach responses to ‘What is your age?’
Figure 11
Question 29: ‘I find the P4L philosophy a valuable way to coach as it is easy to deliver
and adjust the planned session ...’
Figure 12
Coach identified differences between the P4L philosophy and their previous coaching
experience
Figure 13
Question 31: ‘I understand the P4L principles ...’
Figure 14
Question 32: ‘I follow the P4L principles when delivering the AASC program ...’
Figure 15
Question 30: ‘When coaching using the P4L philosophy I have noticed the children’s
problem solving skills within the activities have improved ...’
Figure 16
Question 17: ‘The children’s sports skills develop just as effectively using the P4L
philosophy as they do relative to other coaching philosophies ...’
Figure 17
Question 22: ‘The number of students per allocated coach influences your usage of the
P4L philosophy ...’
Figure 18
Question 26: ‘The range of children’s ages within the AASC program makes it difficult to
deliver the P4L philosophy ...’
Figure 19
Question 27: ‘The range of children’s skill levels within the AASC program makes it
difficult to deliver the P4L philosophy ...’
Figure 20
Question 14: ‘The P4L philosophy results in a more fun setting than other coaching
settings that rely more on direct instruction and drills ...’
Figure 21
Question 15: ‘I think the P4L philosophy helps overcomes some of the barriers to
children participating in sport more than other junior sport coaching philosophies ...’
Figure 22
Question 23: ‘The P4L philosophy does not assist children to overcome barriers to sports
participation ...’
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
5
Figure 23
Question 16: ‘I think the P4L philosophy has positively changed the attitudes of AASC
participants towards physical activity and sport ...’
Figure 24
Question 20: ‘Parents report that the P4L philosophy has positively changed their
children’s attitude toward sport ...’
Figure 25
Question 18: ‘I think the P4L philosophy has positively changed the social skills of AASC
participants ...’
Figure 26
Question 19: ‘The children become more engaged in a session using the P4L philosophy
than what you have experienced in other coaching settings ...’
Figure 27
Question 28: ‘I am aware of some of the children transitioning into local sporting clubs
and teams ...’
6
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Distribution of males and females in the P4L and control condition by age
Table 2
Age by group breakdown of completed student interviews
Table 3
Qualitative analysis checklist for the catch
Table 4
Summary of the key research objectives relative to the tests selected and subsequent
data collected to address the stated objective
Table 5
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups
Table 6
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups
Table 7
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups
Table 8
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (5–6 years old)
Table 9
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (7–8 years old)
Table 10
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (7–8 years old)
Table 11
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (7–8 years old)
Table 12
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre-test and the
post-test for the P4L and control groups (9–10 years old)
Table 13
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (9–10 years old)
Table 14
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (9–10 years old)
Table 15
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (11–12 years old)
Table 16
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (11–12 years old)
Table 17
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (11–12 years old)
Table 18
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (boys)
Table 19
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (girls)
Table 20
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (boys)
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
7
Table 21
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (girls)
Table 22
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (boys)
Table 23
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (girls)
Table 24
Percentage breakdown of key activities within a coaching session
Table 25
Percentage of sessions rated as meeting key P4L principles
Table 26
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (13–15 years old)
Table 27
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (13–15 years old)
Table 28
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (13–15 years old)
Table 29
Mean PA scores for the PA diaries for the P4L and control participants (three weekdays
and three weekend days)
Table 30
Parent survey respondents — age of their children
Table 31
Percentage of responses to the question: ‘The things my child says about attending the
AASC program are ...’
Table 32
Strength of evidence validating the effectiveness and appropriateness of the P4L
principles for five to 12 year olds based on interview and survey data. Effects are
considered strong, moderate or weak based on the collective evidence obtained
Table 33
Sources of evidence (based on the interview and survey data) summarising the degree of
support for the P4L philosophy in assisting to overcome barriers to participation in sport
for children. Effects are considered strong, moderate or weak based on the collective
evidence obtained
8
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
P4L
Playing for Life
PA
Physical activity
FMS
Fundamental motor skills
ASC
Australian Sports Commission
AASC
Active After-school Communities
NSO
National sporting organisation
CCTP
Community Coach Training Program
PAQ-C
Physical Activity Questionnaire
CAPA
Children’s Attraction to Physical Activity Scale
SPP
Self Perception Profile
PACES
Physical Activity Scale Enjoyment Scale
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
9
INTRODUCTION
During the last seven years the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) has developed and promoted
the Playing for Life (P4L) philosophy for the junior sport area. P4L is based on the theories of Game
Sense and Teaching Games for Understanding (den Duyn 1996; Thorpe, Bunker & Almond 1984) and
is an approach to coaching that uses games rather than drills to introduce the skills and tactics of the
particular sport or structured physical activity being delivered.
The P4L philosophy is intended to create a fun and inclusive environment for the introduction of sport
and other structured physical activities to primary school children. This philosophy is designed with
the intent of engaging children of all abilities in the activities, in turn having a positive and successful
experience. The ASC has adopted this philosophy as part of the Active After-school Communities (AASC)
program since 2005, while a range of national sporting organisations (NSOs) have also adopted it for
delivery of their junior sport programs.
This research was motivated by a 2009 review of the P4L philosophy, which recommended experimental
research to clarify the effect of the P4L principles on children’s development. While the expert panel
acknowledged that ‘substantial non-experimental information is available that claims that the Game
Sense and Teaching Games for Understanding approach can positively impact on child development’,
more direct experimental research evidence is required to support the adoption of these coaching
philosophies — particularly as they pertain to children aged five to 12.
Research objectives
Three research objectives were developed by the ASC:
1. Test and validate the effectiveness and appropriateness for each of the principles of the P4L
philosophy for children aged five to 12.
2. Reconfirm the appropriateness of the P4L philosophy for children aged 13 and above.
3. Demonstrate whether the P4L philosophy can assist in overcoming the above barriers to
participation in sport for children.
10
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
METHOD
Participants
Under the guidance of the ASC, participants were sampled from schools offering the AASC program
— thereby allowing access to children being coached under a P4L philosophy. The five to 12-year-old
sample consisted of 486 participants from nine primary schools in Melbourne’s metropolitan region.
There were 249 participants (137 boys, 112 girls) in the P4L condition and 237 participants (118 boys,
119 girls) the control condition.
Table 1 provides an overview of the number of participants by age category. The P4L sample was drawn
from nine schools while the control sample was from five schools. In the P4L condition 8 per cent (n =
20) participated in one to five after-school sessions, 22.9 per cent (n = 57) in six to 10 sessions, 64.3
per cent (n = 160) in 11 to 15, 2.4 per cent (n = 6) in 16 to 20 and 2.4 per cent (n = 6) in 21 to 28
sessions. A second cohort of 13 to 15-year-old children — sampled to specifically address research
objective 2 — were drawn from one secondary college and consisted of 18 P4L participants who
completed 10 P4L sessions as part of their PE curriculum. There were 16 control participants.
Ethical approval from the Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee was provided along with
permission from The Department of Education and Early Childhood Develop (Victoria) and the Catholic
Education Office Melbourne. Consent was obtained from the participant schools and parents/guardians
of the children prior to the commencement of the research.
Table 1
Distribution of males and females in the P4L and control condition by age
P4L
Control
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
5–6
49
23
26
41
19
22
7–8
76
46
30
83
47
36
9–10
78
41
37
55
24
31
11–12
46
27
19
58
28
30
13–15
18
7
11
16
16
0
TOTAL
267
144
123
253
134
119
Research design
Participants were split between those participating in the P4L intervention group and a control group.
The P4L participants were monitored over two consecutive school terms. This allowed cross-sectional
data to be collected and analysed at the beginning of the first term (pre-testing) and near the end of the
second term (post-testing) of the monitoring period.
To ensure adequate participant numbers two intervention periods were required. An initial intervention
was completed during terms three and four in 2011 followed by a second period — with additional
participants from different schools — during terms one and two in 2012. Volunteer coaches at the
participating schools were recruited based on the recommendations of AASC regional managers, with all
coaches accredited to deliver their sports program using the P4L framework.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
11
P4L participants took part in a range of sports or activities based on the logistical planning of the
school involved. The following sports were offered in at least one school during one term in the
intervention phase:
•
Ball games — Australian rules football, basketball, ice-hockey, hockey, dodgeball, soccer, netball,
multi-skill, rugby league, baseball and Frisbee.
•
Non-ball games — dance, aerobics, yoga, triathlon, martial arts, gymnastics and athletics
•
Mixed games — all the sports and activities combined.
Each session was 60 minutes in duration and conducted by a school-contracted AASC coach trained
in the principles of P4L. The participants typically completed one session per week for one or two
consecutive school terms, with sessions offered from week three of each school term. All participants
were required to complete a minimum of five sessions.
The control participants consisted of classmates who were not enrolled in AASC sessions but were
engaged in sport and PE opportunities provided during regular school hours. This group was required to
complete background questionnaires and pre-post testing.
Within the first two weeks of the school term (prior to the first P4L session) and the last week of the
second school term participants completed a range of quantitative and qualitative assessments. These
were designed to gather data on the social, cognitive and motor skill outcomes thought to facilitate or
act as barriers to children participating in sport. To assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of
the P4L intervention all participants completed a fundamental motor skill (FMS) testing battery and a
number of questionnaires — including questions on physical activity (PA) levels and motivation — prior
to and at the conclusion of the two school term P4L intervention period.
To complement the quantitative information gathered from the above methods, qualitative data was
gathered in the form of interviews and surveys with participating children, parents and coaches. Finally,
to ensure the delivery of coaching sessions were consistent with the P4L philosophy, observational
coding of a variety of sessions was recorded.
The quantitative and qualitative assessments took approximately 90 minutes to complete depending
on the number of participants being tested. The typical approach involved participants completing a
questionnaire pack for approximately 30–40 minutes and then FMS testing for a similar time period.
Participants were placed in groups of approximately 14–16 children and rotated between the two
testing stations; while one group of students completed the FMS testing the other group completed the
questionnaires.
Participants were also briefed on how to complete a three-week PA diary and supplied with hard copies.
School logistics influenced this procedure, with occasions where testing was completed over two
separate days and where the number of participants who were tested at one time varied. None of these
logistical issues influenced the data collected.
Behavioural measures
Participants completed a number of questionnaires which have been shown to be valid and reliable
to use for the youth demographic under investigation. Topics included PA level, motivation, athletic
competence and enjoyment.
The questionnaire pack was completed in the presence of a researcher and participants were guided
in the completion of the pack if required. This was found to be particularly important for the younger
children, many of whom struggled to comprehend the questions. The children in the 5–6 age group were
not required to complete the questionnaire section other than the demographic variables — instead the
interview phase was relied upon for this group.
12
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
The questionnaire pack was used to assess the following variables:
1. Demographic variables — this included questions on gender, age, school grade, ethnicity and
current sport and exercise participation using the Physical Activity Questionnaire for older children
(PAQ-C). The PAQ-C is suitable for children aged eight to 16 who are currently in the school system
and have recess as a regular part of their school week. It has been found to be a reliable and valid
measure in the assessment of PA in children and adolescents, and is an easy and time-efficient way
to administer to larger scale populations (Crocker et al. 1997; Kowalski et al. 1997).
2. Motivation — the Children’s Attraction to Physical Activity scale (CAPA) (Brustad 1993) and its
more recent adaption (Rose et al. 2009) were used to measure motivation. Attraction to PA refers
to an individual’s desire to participate in a task involving physical exertion or movement through
play, games or sport (Rose et al. 2009). The CAPA provides a multi-dimensional approach that
incorporates cognitive and affective dimensions, and consists of 25 items scored on a four-point
Likert-type scale (1 = ‘No Never’ to 4 = ‘Yes Always’).
The following five aspects were assessed by the CAPA:
–
liking of games and sport
–
liking of vigorous exertion and exercise
–
liking of vigorous physical activity
–
peer acceptance in games and sports
–
importance of exercise.
The CAPA has been shown to have good psychometric properties with acceptable reliability, validity
and factor structure (Brustad 1993; Rose et al. 2009).
3. Athletic competence — this subscale of the Self-Perception Profile (SPP) for Children (Harter 1982)
was used to assess the participants’ subjective evaluation of their athletic ability. The full SPP
consists of 31 items and five factors. The instrument has been designed to measure children’s
domain-specific judgements of their competence. The ‘athletic competence’ factor consists of six
items, with good internal consistency reported for this scale in the past (alpha = .80) (Harter 1985;
Muris, Meesters and Fijen 2003).
4. Enjoyment — this has been identified as an important correlate of sport and PA participation (Sallis,
Prochaska and Taylor 2000). The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) was used to assess
enjoyment in the children. The PACES was initially developed by Kendzierski and DeCarlo (1991) for
adolescents (12–16 years) and more recently for children younger than 12 (Moore et al. 2009).
The revised PACES consist of 16 statements scored on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = ‘Disagree
a lot’ to 5 = ‘Agree a lot’). The instrument starts with the stem, ‘When I am physically active ...’
with the average of the 16 items calculated. The revised PACES have been shown to have good
psychometric properties (Motl et al. 2001; Moore et al. 2009) and to be suitable for the population
under investigation.
Note — for the questionnaires an alternative response format was developed following the pilot testing. This resulted in the
development of pictorial response sets for the different inventories and exclusion of the 5–6 age group from this measurement.
These new response formats were also pilot tested and deemed to be more appropriate for use in the present evaluation. As such, it
is difficult to use the results of the present study with previous ones that have used these instruments.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
13
Interviews
Structured interviews were held with P4L and control participants, parents and coaches. The purpose
of the interviews was to further validate the effectiveness of the P4L philosophy and examine whether
it was able to overcome some of the barriers to participation. The interviews explored the motivational
climate (mastery versus outcome), role of the coach and enjoyment and engagement of the participants.
All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed (see Data Analysis section).
Participant interviews (P4L and control)
Table 2 details the number of children who were interviewed in each age and intervention condition.
The interviews addressed barriers to participation, motivational climate (mastery versus outcome), role
of the coach, enjoyment and engagement of the participants. Children were interviewed in pairs by a
research team member to help alleviate any anxiety experienced by being interviewed by an unknown
adult. Pilot interviews supported the use of pairs to better engage the children in conversation. Each
interview lasted approximately 10–15 minutes.
Table 2
Age by group breakdown of completed student interviews
P4L
Control
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
5–6
32
16
16
6
2
4
7–8
36
23
13
10
6
4
9–10
38
18
20
10
8
3
11–12
13
6
7
13
6
7
13–15
8
2
6
n/a
Note — the 13–15 control participants were not interviewed as they did not possess the same sampling criteria as the 5–12 control
participants. This group was a typical PE class in a secondary school setting.
Parent interviews
Twenty parents were interviewed about their child’s participation in the AASC program. The sample
was representative of the different school settings and ages of participating children. The essence
of the interviews was to ascertain the parents’ perceptions of their child’s development within a P4L
philosophy-based program. Similar issues to those relating to the children interviews were canvassed
and included: behaviour change in the home setting (for example, decreased sedentary behaviour), and
enjoyment and engagement in the intervention program.
Coach interviews
Twenty-four coaches were interviewed to gauge their perceptions of the P4L philosophy, with the
sample representative of a variety of sports programs and levels of coaching experience. Where
possible coaches were asked to provide a comparative review of the P4L philosophy relative to other
sports programs they may have delivered previously. Questions focused on the children’s engagement,
enjoyment, development of problem solving skills and skill development. Their perceptions of how easy
it was to deliver the P4L philosophy were also discussed.
14
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Coach survey
An online survey (created using Qualtrics) was developed for dissemination to AASC registered coaches
in Victoria. It was completed by 321 AASC coaches (136 males, 185 females) and took approximately
5–10 minutes to complete. In addition to personal demographic information (for example, years of
coaching experience) the coaches were asked to use a Likert-type scale to rate their view of the
appropriateness of the P4L philosophy for primary school children and if they felt it overcame barriers to
participation.
Parent survey
A paper-based survey was developed and distributed (with a stamped self-addressed return envelope) to
all parents of children participating in the P4L intervention component of the project. It was completed
by 46 parents and took approximately 5–10 minutes to complete. In addition to personal demographic
information (for example, age of children) the parents were asked to use a Likert-type scale to rate the
appropriateness of the P4L philosophy for their child and if they felt it overcame the listed barriers to
participation.
Weekly participation diary
Participants were asked to keep a weekly participation diary, with assistance from their parent or
guardian if required. This was an adapted version of the ‘A day in the life of ...’ diary developed by
Edmunds (personal communication) and the Play5 tracking sheet (Hands et al. 2007). The participants
were required to complete this diary on two weekdays and one day over the weekend for a period of
three consecutive weeks. The main purpose of including this assessment was to determine whether
differences existed between participants who engaged in the P4L intervention and those who did not
engage in sport/exercise participation.
Fundamental motor skill assessment
Motor skill proficiency was examined through the use of a qualitative analysis checklist. The underlying
motor skills thought to be developed during the intervention period were selected and participants
were required to perform six repetitions of each skill that were recorded using a standard digital video
camera. The 11 skills examined were: catch, kick, run, vertical jump, overhand throw, ball bounce, leap,
dodge, punt, forehand strike and two-hand side-arm strike. The testing procedure was as follows:
•
Demonstrate the requirement of the skill to be performed — for example, catch a tennis ball thrown
underarm by experimenter 2–3 metres high and from a distance of 5 metres (5–7 years), 10 metres
(8–10 years) or 15 metres (11 years plus).
•
Ask participant to stand in middle of a defined catching area (2 metres square), catch the tossed
ball and place on the ground beside him/her.
•
Allow the participant to pause between each catch.
A video camera was positioned side-on to the participant to capture the complete catching action and
allow analysis of proficiency.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
15
Table 3
Name
Qualitative analysis checklist for the catch
Eyes focused
on ball
throughout
catch
Preparatory
position with
elbows bent
and hands in
front of body
Hands move
to meet ball
Hands and
fingers
positioned
correctly to
catch the
ball
Catch and
control ball
with hands
only
Elbow bend
to absorb
force of the
ball
A qualitative analysis checklist was then used to assess the presence or absence of the key skill
components of each skill (Department of Education 1998) (see Table 3 for an example for the catch).
Two research assistants were trained by an expert analyst on the qualitative analysis procedure. Training
continued until 100 per cent agreement was established with the expert. A calibration was performed
after every 25 student video files.
To provide further context around the general FMS level of the participants, data was also recoded using
the classification adopted for the NSW Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS) 2010
(Hardy et al. 2011). In this approach, skills are reported as being at a level of ‘mastery’ (mastery of all
skill components), ‘near-mastery’ (mastery of all but one skill) and ‘advanced skills’ (mastery and nearmastery combined). While some of the skills were analysed slightly differently to those in the current
project we were able to adjust for this so that an analogous approach could be used.
Motor skill proficiency was a primary measure to test and validate the P4L principles (research objective
1) and reconfirm the principles in the older children (research objective 2). While significant improvement
may not be seen in all the skills examined — or distinguish the P4L intervention from the control group —
the established relationship between FMS proficiency and PA participation in youth may provide additional
evidence in regards to research objective 3 concerning barriers to participation (see Lubans et al. 2010).
P4L coaching observation and analysis
To ascertain how faithfully the coach used the P4L philosophy within the intervention sessions, a
sample of 28 sessions across the variety of intervention sites were recorded. A behavioural coding
instrument was developed to document whether the key principles of the P4L philosophy were used
effectively in the delivery of an intervention session. Each sampled session was video recorded so that
the nature of the games/drills played could be assessed and coaches wore a wireless microphone so
that their verbal communication could be analysed in concert with the video record.
While it is noted that coaches may have attempted to coach more faithfully to the P4L philosophy in the
observed relative to un-observed sessions, this is an inherent limitation of observational analyses. The
recording of multiple sessions was one strategy employed in an attempt to mitigate this issue.
The coding of the coaching sessions was completed with the use of SportsCode video analysis software.
The content of the coding instrument or code window consisted of themes adapted from the AASC coach
appraisal template, with additional criteria modified from other coach analysis research (see Figure 2 for
code window). Two members of the research team each coded a number of sessions to reach consensus
on the code content and terminology, resulting in a high level of inter-coder reliability. Examples of the
video timeline and the code matrix (code frequencies) are provided in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.
16
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Code definitions
•
Instructions/feedback — specific directions or information provided to the participants that is not
classified as coaching content as outlined below.
•
Transition — time between games, challenge-skill activities or drills in which the students are not
physically active. Instructions, feedback and coaching content may be delivered during the transition.
•
P4L game — a game structure that adheres to the principle of developing a particular sporting
outcome or skill as per the P4L guidelines.
•
Change it — simple variations to games in order to maximise participation and accommodate a
range of ability levels and backgrounds while meeting game objectives.
•
Challenge/skill activity — activities that are set as a challenge or involve a skill element but do not
constitute a game as defined by the P4L criteria.
•
Not P4L game — a game structure but does not adhere to the P4L criteria. Specific exclusion criteria
include: ‘numbers’ (too many, too few participants), ‘too basic’ (not age/skill appropriate, success
too easily achieved), ‘too complex’ (not age/skill appropriate, success unlikely), and ‘physical
mismatch’ (physical size differences not catered for in the design of game).
•
Drills — skill or task related activities that do not constitute a game or challenge/skill activity as
outlined above.
•
Coaching — specific information or questioning provided to the participants as a coaching
tool. These include: ‘ask’ (coach uses appropriate questioning to increase participation and
competence), ‘discrete’ (participants are coached discretely to develop their skills without
interrupting the game) and ‘role model’ (participants involved as role models during games to
demonstrate and emphasise skilful play).
Post-session assessment — the expert coder made a determination at the conclusion of the session as
to whether the coach displayed the required P4L attributes as listed below.
1. Coach facilitator
or
Coach director
2. Instructions/feedback — useful
or
Instructions/feedback — NOT useful
3. Session fun and engaging
or
Session NOT so fun and engaging
Figure 2
Code window exemplar
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
17
Figure 3
An example of a video (and code) timeline
Figure 4
An example of a code matrix
In the example displayed in Figures 2 and 3 (as indicated in the far-right column of the matrix above)
this coach provided instructions or feedback 31 times during the session and specific coaching content
12 times. There were four games and two drills conducted during the session. There were seven distinct
transition periods between games or drills. The students were active in games or drills for 60 per cent
of the session, with 40 per cent coded as transition time in which instruction, feedback or coaching
content could be delivered. While an allocation of 40 per cent of the session for transition appears
somewhat high, it is offset in this example by the high quality instruction, feedback and coaching that
was delivered. The students were highly engaged and well catered for with respect to their level of skill
and understanding.
Table 4 provides a summary of the key research objectives relative to the tests selected and
subsequent data collected to address the stated objective.
18
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
19
Differences in PA
levels (low, moderate,
high)
- Motivation,
perceived athletic
competence and
enjoyment
Questions related to
barriers of participation:
‘On the whole what
do you think the key
benefits are to the
children participating in
sessions using a P4L
philosophy?’
Thematic coding
Questions related to
barriers of participation:
‘Tell us about the other
children in the coaching
session?’
Thematic coding
Participant interviews
Questions related to
the P4L principles e.g.
In what way does the
coach help you?
Thematic coding
Participant interviews
e.g. 70% of
respondents strongly
agreed that ‘the
P4L philosophy has
positively changed
the attitudes of
participants towards
PA and sport’
Descriptive analysis
Coach survey
e.g. 70% of
respondents strongly
agreed that the P4L
philosophy results in a
more fun setting than
other coaching settings
that rely more on direct
instruction and drills
Descriptive analysis
Coach survey
Questions related
to the barriers to
participation: ‘Have
you observed any
differences in your
child since he/she
started participating
in the P4L coaching
sessions?’
Thematic coding
Parent interviews
Comparison to other
NSOs delivering junior
sport programs and
to extant empirical
research literature
Validation of principles
Comparative review
Note — research objective 2 was examined within a small cohort from a secondary college as part of their PE class. They completed the FMS testing, questionnaires and the P4L participants were interviewed;
however some measures were not collected such as activity diaries or parent/control participant interviews.
- Both within P4L
participants and
relative to control
participants
Descriptive analysis
Pre-post change in:
Data collected
Coach interviews
Questions related to
the P4L principles e.g.
How easy is it to use the
‘Change it’ model?
Relative frequency
(%) of coaching
behaviours
Activity diary
Thematic coding
Coach interviews
Descriptive analysis
Affective behavioural
outcomes
(questionnaires)
Both within P4L
participants and
relative to control
participants
Pre-post change in
performance
Observational
coding of P4L
sessions
3) OVERCOME
BARRIERS TO
PARTICIPATION
Data collected
2) RECONFIRM P4L
APPROPRIATENESS
FOR OLDER
CHILDREN*
FMS testing
Summary of the key research objectives relative to the tests selected and subsequent data collected to address the stated objective
1) TEST AND VALIDATE
P4L PRINCIPLES
Table 4
Data analysis
This section details the specific statistical approach taken to analyse those measures that will be
included in a multi-factorial manner so that relationships between the variables can be considered (for
example, does perceived competence relate to an improvement in FMS?) The remaining measures
will be analysed separately, as is detailed in other sections. All analyses were conducted using SPSS,
version 20. Separate analyses were completed for the 13–15 age group, albeit applying the same
between-group comparisons as the other age groups.
Data cleaning — pre-analysis
Prior to data analysis a number of steps were taken to ensure the data files were correct and met
the assumptions underlying the different statistical procedures. The data was screened by inspecting
minimum, maximum, means and standard deviations of the variables in the data set.
Preliminary data analysis assessed normality and outliers (for example, boxplots). Histograms were
inspected for each variable (this included the 11 FMS assessed and the factor responses in the
questionnaire) as well as the normal and de-trended Q-Q plots. In the instance of regression analysis,
multicolinearity was checked by inspecting Tolerance (<.10) and VIF (> 10) values. Outliers, normality,
linearity, homescedasticity, and independence of residuals were assessed by inspecting normal
probability plot (P-P) of the regression standard residuals and the scatter plot of the standard residuals.
Outliers were also examined using Mahalanobis distances and Cook’s distance.
When conducting multivariate analysis of variance the homogeneity of variance of the data set
was tested using Levene’s test of equality of error variances. Similarly, the homogeneity of intercorrelations was tested using the Box’s M statistic. Cook’s distance was used to test for outliers. For
all questionnaires used, internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach alpha. Effect sizes were
calculated using Eta.
Influence of gender
We first examined whether there were gender differences on the FMS, PA and psychological dependent
variables. If no differences were apparent the data was collapsed over gender. In the instance
of differences we either controlled (for example, co-variate in analysis of variance or step one in
regression) or used gender as an independent factor as appropriate.
Influence of age
We examined the influence of age on the FMS, PA and psychological variables. Regression analysis
was conducted with the three variables as the independent factors and calendar age as the predictor
variable. At step one we controlled for the possible effects of gender.
Validating the effectiveness of the P4L intervention
To examine the effectiveness of the P4L philosophy repeated measures Multivariate Analysis of CoVariance (MANCOVA) was used. The independent factor was condition (two levels — P4L or control)
with gender and age used as co-variates. Separate MANCOVAs were completed for the FMS, PA and
psychological variables. For the FMS data a MANCOVA for the 11 individual skills and the two higher
order categories (‘locomotion’ and ‘control’) were conducted.
A separate Analysis of Co-Variance (ANCOVA) for the total FMS index score was also run. In the instance
of a significant main or interaction effect, univariate repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
was conducted. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted using independent t-test.
20
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
The outcomes of these analyses detailed the following:
•
Did any specific FMS (or category of FMS) improve over the course of the P4L intervention period
(measured by change in skill from pre-test to post-test) relative to the control group?
•
Did any of the specific PA or psychological constructs increase over the course of the P4L intervention
period (measured by change in response from pre-test to post-test) relative to the control group?
Influence of volume of P4L attendance
A dose response relationship was examined using stepwise linear regression analysis. Put simply, this
means the number of P4L sessions engaged in by the participants was used as a predictor variable and
the change score in the FMS and psychological variables were the dependent variables. It should be
noted that at step one gender and age were controlled.
The analysis was also conducted for the total FMS index score and the two higher order categories
(locomotion and control). This allowed determination as to whether the number of P4L sessions
attended influenced the relative success of the philosophy in regards to FMS development or responses
to motivation, competence or enjoyment.
Nature of activities completed in P4L sessions
A wide variety of sports and activities were sampled by participants over the course of the P4L
intervention period. The various activities were coded based on the general nature of the activity as a
game with a ball or one without. This resulted in three categories — ‘ball’, ‘non-ball’ or ‘mixed’ — with
the nature of the game used as a control or independent variable where appropriate.
Individual sports were divided into three categories:
•
Ball games — Australian rules football, basketball, ice-hockey, hockey, dodgeball, soccer, netball,
multi-skill, rugby league, baseball and Frisbee.
•
Non-ball games — dance, aerobics, yoga, triathlon, martial arts, gymnastics and athletics.
•
Mixed games — all sports and activities combined.
Relationship between FMS and psychological measures
To examine the relationship between FMS and psychological variables, Pearson product moment
correlations were calculated between the pre-test scores and the difference scores (differences between
the pre and post-tests).
To examine the role of changes in FMS (higher order categories and total index score only) on
psychological variables (‘competence’ and ‘enjoyment’) a moderated multiple regression analysis was
completed. This strategy was adopted because the predictor FMS variables are continuous in nature,
whereas the condition is a categorical variable (Aiken and West 1996). The steps were as follows:
•
Step one — controlled for age and gender.
•
Step two — condition (dummy coded P4L = 0, control = 1) and the FMS (centred, which involves
subtracting the sample mean of the variable measured on a continuous scale to obtain a sample
mean of zero) were entered.
•
Step three — the interaction between the FMS variables and the condition were entered (product
term of the multiplication of the centred predictors FMS and condition).
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
21
The F-test, representing the stepwise change in variance explained as a result of the addition of the
product term, is an indicator of the significance of the moderator effects (Frazier, Tix and Barron 2004).
However, in the instance of a non-significant interaction term it will be removed from the model. On
these occasions, the first order effects will become unconditional and therefore standardised Betas will
be reported (Aiken and West 1996).
Interaction effects will be explored by plotting predicted values for the outcome variables (FMS total
index, FMS locomotion, FMS control) at mean, low (-1 SD from the mean) and high (+1 SD from the
mean) of the FMS variables (Cohen et al. 2003).
Interview thematic coding
A deductive approach was adopted for the interview thematic coding. This is recommended for
qualitative analysis when existing theories are to be tested, as is the case with the design of the P4L
philosophy (Elo and Kyngäs 2008).
The main themes of the interviews (termed ‘general dimensions’) were initially guided by the P4L
principles and the barriers to participation that have not been embedded in the principles or if the
barriers have been avoided. Specific details of each interview coding process are described in the
relevant results section.
Survey data
For both the coach and parent surveys, descriptive statistics were compiled for each question and
considered relative to demographic coding variables where relevant. For instance, we examined whether
the level of coach experience mediated the response to a specific question concerning the delivery of
P4L philosophy.
Weekly participation diary
The weekly PA participation diaries were examined for differences in activity levels (low, moderate, high)
and sedentary behaviour between the P4L and control conditions. A score was obtained for each day
the diary was completed, with total scores calculated for weekdays and weekends for each of the three
weeks diary completion occurred. An independent t-test was used to compare differences in PA between
the P4L and control conditions.
Coaching observation and analysis
For the coaching observation a descriptive analysis will be presented showing the results of each of the
variables coded. This will be used as a form of process evaluation to determine the degree to which the
principles of the P4L philosophy were utilised by the coaches when delivering sessions.
22
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Results
As summarised in Table 4 a range of qualitative and quantitative measures were captured to address
each of the stated research objectives. Within the following results and discussion section each research
objective will be considered separately and draw on pertinent data from the relevant measures.
To further enhance the reading clarity of this section, a traffic light analogy (see Figure 5) is used to
draw attention to the most notable results.
Figure 5
Traffic light analogy used to signpost significant findings regarding the value
of the P4L philosophy
Denotes P4L group was significantly better than control group at post-test
Denotes control group was significantly better than P4L group at post-test
Denotes P4L group significantly improved from pre to post-test
but not statistically different to the control group at post-test
Research objective 1 — test and validate the effectiveness and
appropriateness for each of the principles of the P4L philosophy
for children aged five to 12 years
Gender
The first analysis considered whether there were gender differences on the baseline assessment in the
psychological, PA or FMS assessments. The analysis showed significant differences for five of the seven
psychological variables, with the boys scoring higher than the girls on the following motivation measures
(CAPA): ‘peer acceptance in games and sports’; ‘liking of games and sport’; ‘liking of vigorous exertion
and exercise’; and ‘liking of vigorous physical activity’. The SPP-c questionnaire also revealed the boys
scored higher in their subjective evaluation of ‘athletic competence’.
The PA variables showed the boys scored significantly higher than the girls for ‘recess’, ‘lunch’,
‘weekend’, ‘self-rated’ and ‘total weekly’ PA, and higher overall PA.
The FMS variables showed significant gender differences. The boys scored higher than the girls for
seven of the FMS variables (ball bounce, kick, punt, catch, throw, strike, and two-handed strike) while
the girls scored higher than the boys on the ‘leap’ variable. When individual skills were re-coded into
‘FMS locomotion’ (run, leap, dodge, vertical jump), ‘FMS object control’ (ball bounce, kick, punt, catch,
throw, one and two-handed strike) and ‘FMS total score’ (all 11 skills) this showed that the boys had a
significantly higher total score than the girls. This was mainly due to differences in the ‘object control’
variables but not the ‘locomotor’ variables.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
23
Age
To examine whether calendar age influenced pre-test performance, linear regression was conducted with
the psychological, PA and FMS variables as the dependent variables and age as the predictor variable.
The analysis controlled for gender at step one.
For the psychological variables, older children reported lower levels of ‘enjoyment’ and ‘liking of vigorous
physical activity’. For the PA variables only a significant association was found for self-reported ‘PA last
week’. Older participants reported higher levels of participation.
Finally, age had a significant influence on FMS. Older age was associated with increased performance
on all FMS variables.
Examining the influence of the P4L intervention
In order to examine the effectiveness of the P4L program, separate analyses were run for the
psychological, PA and FMS variables controlling for gender and age.
Psychological variables
There were no significant differences between the P4L and control groups on any psychological
variables. For the variables ‘liking of vigorous exertion and exercise’ and ‘athletic competence’ all
participants scored higher on the post-test in comparison to the pre-test (see Table 5 for means and
standard deviations).
Table 5
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
PACES: Enjoyment
24.77 (9.07)
23.73 (8.55)
24.91 (9.71)
24.68 (8.58)
CAPA: Peer acceptance in
games and sports
2.47 (0.35)
2.49 (0.35)
2.44 (0.38)
2.39 (0.40)
CAPA: Importance of exercise
2.82 (0.28)
2.79 (0.31)
2.81 (0.30)
2.74 (0.36)
CAPA: Liking of games and
sport
2.62 (0.39)
2.65 (0.36)
2.63 (0.41)
2.54 (0.43)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous
exertion and exercise
2.47 (0.49)
2.52 (0.46)
2.40 (0.45)
2.45 (0.49)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous
physical activity
2.63 (0.46)
2.59 (0.47)
2.50 (0.44)
2.52 (0.43)
SPP-c: Athletic competence
2.95 (0.76)
3.03 (0.67)
2.94 (0.76)
2.89 (0.77)
24
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Physical activity variables
Analysis showed that there were no differences between the two conditions at the pre or post-test
stages. However, the P4L group showed a significantly higher increase in ‘spare time activity’ and ‘total
PA’ compared to the control group. Participants (irrespective of group) were found to increase ‘spare
time activity’, ‘recess’, ‘lunch’, ‘after school’, ‘weekend’, ‘PA last week’ and ‘total PA’ (see Table 6 for
means and standard deviations).
Table 6
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Spare time activity
40.20 (11.07)
45.13 (12.50)
42.90 (12.38)
44.32 (12.49)
PE
4.10 (1.11)
4.26 (0.94)
4.13 (0.98)
4.17 (0.92)
Recess
3.93 (1.33)
4.08 (1.14)
4.00 (1.15)
3.73 (1.29)
Lunch
4.01 (1.21)
4.09 (1.20)
3.97 (1.25)
3.75 (1.16)
Right after school
3.16 (1.26)
3.54 (1.19)
3.27 (1.27)
3.39 (1.29)
Evenings
2.78 (1.36)
3.18 (1.31)
3.14 (1.27)
3.24 (1.29)
Weekend
3.14 (1.33)
3.49 (1.17)
3.29 (1.26)
3.42 (1.21)
Describes you best
3.38 (1.01)
3.60 (0.94)
3.36 (0.96)
3.43 (1.02)
PA last week
18.31 (5.20)
20.35 (5.31)
18.57 (5.68)
19.58 (4.90)
Total PAQ
82.38 (19.11)
91.19 (20.03)
86.51 (19.77)
89.21 (19.94)
Fundamental motor skills
The FMS variables of ‘ball bounce’, ‘throw’, ‘strike’ and ‘two-handed strike’ showed that the P4L group
had significantly higher score at baseline in comparison to the control group (see Table 7 for statistical
information). The reason for this pre-test difference between groups is unable to be determined from the
current research as it would require speculation as to the sport and PA patterns of the participants prior
to the intervention.
Although both conditions improved, the control group’s increase in performance was significantly higher
in ‘ball bounce’, ‘throw’, ‘strike’ and ‘two-handed strike’ compared to the P4L group. This resulted in
no differences between the P4L and control group at the post-test for ‘ball bounce’, ‘throw’ and ‘twohanded strike’. However, the P4L ‘strike’ still had a significantly higher score (see Figures 6–9). More
importantly, while the control condition improved significantly more than the P4L condition for ‘object
control’ and ‘FMS total’, they still scored significantly lower at the pre and post-tests.
Interestingly, there were significant condition effects (P4L or control group means when averaged
between pre and post-tests) for 10 of the 11 FMS variables measured. Inspection of the means for the
P4L and control groups showed that the P4L scored significantly higher in all instances. This indicates
the P4L participants possessed higher FMS skills than the control participants at the individual skill
level (for example, kick and strike) and the higher order level (object control and FMS total).
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
25
Table 7
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ball bounce
2.50 (1.05)
2.94 (0.93)
1.79 (0.93)
2.71 (1.15)
Kick
4.80 (1.24)
4.87 (1.29)
4.38 (1.52)
4.32 (1.42)
Punt
4.56 (1.63)
4.87 (1.55)
3.95 (1.88)
4.29 (1.71)
Jump
3.70 (0.98)
3.92 (0.90)
2.98 (1.16)
3.37 (1.00)
Leap
3.57 (1.01)
3.76 (0.96)
3.27 (1.13)
3.35 (0.97)
Catch
5.44 (1.07)
5.51 (1.07)
5.31 (1.23)
5.26 (1.24)
Throw
2.02 (1.43)
3.00 (1.70)
1.52 (1.02)
3.16 (1.64)
Strike
3.94 (1.87)
4.45 (1.70)
2.82 (1.73)
3.98 (1.80)
Two-handed strike
3.30 (1.97)
5.45 (1.86)
4.38 (2.29)
5.05 (2.06)
Run
3.74 (0.74)
3.97 (0.71)
3.45 (1.04)
3.73 (0.90)
Dodge
2.21 (0.74)
2.30 (0.74)
2.06 (0.72)
2.11 (0.58)
FMS locomotor
13.35 (2.02)
14.15 (1.99)
11.66 (2.48)
12.55 (2.13)
FMS object control
28.70 (6.84)
31.33 (6.73)
24.34 (7.20)
28.81 (6.99)
FMS total
42.49 (7.31)
46.03 (7.31)
36.23 (8.57)
41.77 (8.02)
Figure 6
Interaction effect for the FMS variable ‘ball bounce’
P4L
Control
3.2
3.0
2.8
Ball bounce
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
Pre-test
26
Post-test
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Figure 7
Interaction effect for the FMS variable ‘throw’
P4L
Control
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
Throw
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Pre-test
Figure 8
Post-test
Interaction effect for the FMS variable ‘strike’
P4L
Control
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
Strike
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
Pre-test
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Post-test
27
Figure 9
Interaction effect for the FMS variable ‘two-handed strike’
P4L
Control
5.6
5.4
Two-handed strike
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
Pre-test
Post-test
Summary
Considering the quantitative data collected, there were some modest effects demonstrating pre-post
improvement in specific skills and behaviours, which validates the effectiveness of the P4L philosophy.
However, equally prominent was that the control group also improved in specific skills or behaviours. For
instance, both groups scored higher on the post-test in comparison to the pre-test for ‘liking of vigorous
exertion and exercise’ and ‘athletic competence’. Similarly, participants (irrespective of group) were
found to increase ‘spare time activity’, ‘recess’, ‘lunch’, ‘after school’, ‘weekend’, ‘PA last week’ and
‘total PA’. In relation to FMS both groups improved proficiency in the ‘ball bounce’, ‘throw’, ‘strike’ and
‘two-handed strike’. Importantly the control group did not outperform the P4L group on any measure,
with P4L participants showing higher proficiency on a number of individual skills as well as ‘object
control’ and ‘FMS total’.
It should also be acknowledged that participation in P4L did not result in decreases in the psychological
variables, PA or FMS skills. This suggests the P4L program does not have any detrimental effects on the
participating children.
The key points of difference between the two groups based on the above data were that the P4L group:
•
reported a significantly higher increase in ‘spare time activity’ and ‘total PA’ compared to the
control group
•
possessed a higher FMS score at baseline in comparison to the control group and maintained
this advantage after the intervention for the ‘strike’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’. The P4L
group scored significantly higher in all instances (pre-post scores averaged) for 10 of the 11 FMS
variables measured, suggesting that P4L participants posses better FMS. However, we cannot
infer this is due to P4L participation in the AASC program as the prior experiences of the children
were unable to be controlled.
28
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Age differences in response to the P4L intervention
While the first section of results controlled for age and considered all participants between five and
12 years of age, the following section considers each age cohort separately. The four age categories
presented in the participant demographics section were used (5–6, 7–8, 9–10 and 11–12).
Note — valid data for the 5-6 age group was only obtained for FMS variables.
5–6 years old
For the FMS variables the 5–6 age group in both conditions did not show differences in responding
from the pre to post-tests (see Table 8 for statistical information). Participants showed improvements
in all FMS variables except for ‘two-handed strike’, ‘kick’, ‘catch’, ‘dodge’ or ‘leap’ where no changes
were observed.
Table 8
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the
P4L and control groups (5–6 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ball bounce
1.64 (1.07)
2.25 (1.05)
1.25 (.93)
2.10 (1.11)
Kick
4.19 (1.18)
4.16 (1.34)
3.82 (1.39)
3.82 (1.14)
Punt
3.05 (1.41)
3.57 (1.43)
2.87 (1.84)
3.28 (1.54)
Jump
3.06 (.92)
3.50 (1.06)
2.69 (1.20)
3.21 (1.06)
Leap
3.54 (1.07)
3.17 (1.01)
3.21 (1.21)
3.11 (.89)
Catch
4.49 (1.58)
4.60 (1.38)
4.32 (1.65)
4.32 (1.51)
Throw
1.40 (.95)
2.43 (1.60)
1.42 (.98)
2.05 (1.25)
Strike
2.03 (1.18)
3.26 (1.56)
2.57 (1.93)
3.17 (1.84)
Two-handed strike
3.97 (1.92)
4.37 (1.83)
4.11 (2.10)
3.94 (1.78)
Run
3.37 (.77)
3.80 (.80)
3.49 (1.02)
3.59 (1.01)
Dodge
1.81 (.79)
1.81 (.622)
1.70 (.61)
1.81 (.48)
FMS locomotor
11.78 (2.12)
12.67 (2.17)
10.59 (2.37)
11.96 (1.85)
FMS object control
21.03 (5.46)
24.79 (6.38)
20.47 (7.26)
22.97 (5.93)
FMS total
33.27 (6.33)
38.85 (7.33)
31.67 (8.46)
36.08 (6.35)
7–8 years old
No significant differences between the P4L and control participants were obtained for the psychological
(see Table 9 for statistical information) or the PA variables (see Table 10 for statistical information). In
both groups there was an increase in ‘total PAQ’ score, self-reported ‘weekend’ PA, ‘right after school’
and ‘PA last week’ variables.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
29
For the FMS variables, both conditions showed significant improvements for ‘strike’ and ‘run’. However,
the control group showed significantly greater gains than the P4L group (see Table 11 for statistical
information). That said, at both the pre and post-tests the control group scored significantly lower on
‘strike’ than the P4L group. For ‘run’ the P4L condition scored significantly higher at the pre-test. All
participants showed improvements in all FMS variables except for ‘kick’, ‘catch’ and ‘leap’ where no
changes were observed.
Table 9
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (7–8 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
PACES: Enjoyment
27.19 (11.06)
26.07 (11.21)
30.50 (12.39)
26.68 (10.87)
CAPA: Peer acceptance in
games and sports
2.40 (.39)
2.40 (.39)
2.45 (.44)
2.40 (.38)
CAPA: Importance of exercise
2.85 (.30)
2.76 (.38)
2.85 (.25)
2.75 (.43)
CAPA: Liking of games and
sport
2.63 (.35)
2.60 (.42)
2.61 (.43)
2.58 (.48)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous
exertion and exercise
2.52 (.50)
2.47 (.47)
2.42 (.47)
2.51 (.55)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous
physical activity
2.67 (.43)
2.59 (.53)
2.46 (.49)
2.57 (.40)
SPP-c: Athletic competence
2.82 (.69)
2.93 (.65)
2.94 (.82)
2.95 (.68)
Table 10
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (7–8 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Spare time activity
40.85 (13.19)
44.83 (13.56)
46.38 (15.94)
46.77 (15.02)
PE
4.13 (1.12)
4.26 (1.01)
4.38 (1.02)
4.38 (.85)
Recess
3.94 (1.44)
4.28 (1.04)
3.96 (1.40)
3.84 (1.43)
Lunch
4.13 (1.14)
4.26 (1.11)
3.96 (1.59)
3.84 (1.18)
Right after school
3.13 (1.41)
3.62 (1.39)
3.36 (1.73)
4.04 (1.17)
Evenings
2.98 (1.55)
3.11 (1.46)
3.24 (1.56)
3.64 (1.35)
Weekend
3.21 (1.38)
3.64 (1.29)
3.35 (1.62)
3.81 (1.44)
Describes you best
3.28 (1.09)
3.50 (1.09)
3.65 (1.16)
3.65 (1.23)
PA last week
16.09 (6.20)
20.47 (5.55)
18.79 (7.22)
21.21 (6.03)
Total PAQ
81.16 (20.50)
91.44 (20.77)
92.16 (25.01)
97.37 (24.76)
30
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Table 11
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (7–8 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ball bounce
2.24 (1.04)
2.86 (.97)
1.28 (1.32)
2.26 (1.07)
Kick
4.57 (1.20)
4.76 (1.34)
4.30 (1.40)
3.95 (1.43)
Punt
4.62 (1.76)
4.77 (1.56)
3.59 (1.68)
4.11 (1.64)
Jump
3.57 (1.13)
3.75 (.87)
2.88 (1.24)
3.25 (.88)
Leap
3.34 (1.20)
3.66 (.96)
3.17 (1.15)
3.22 (.89)
Catch
5.49 (1.06)
5.44 (1.33)
5.38 (1.18)
5.18 (1.30)
Throw
1.70 (1.17)
3.08 (1.72)
1.3 (.81)
3.12 (1.44)
Strike
4.11 (1.74)
4.56 (1.64)
2.49 (1.52)
3.98 (1.81)
Two-handed strike
4.95 (1.97)
5.07 (2.05)
3.78 (2.15)
4.66 (2.10)
Run
3.74 (.81)
3.92 (.86)
3.22 (1.13)
3.85 (.78)
Dodge
1.96 (.47)
2.19 (.52)
1.94 (.52)
2.02 (.52)
FMS locomotor
12.92 (1.94)
13.74 (1.70)
11.40 (2039)
12.23 (1.74)
FMS object control
27.67 (6.16)
31.02 (7.01)
22.08 (5.53)
26.96 (5.76)
FMS total
40.86 (6.91)
45.18 (7.35)
33.20 (6.52)
38.86 (6.46)
9–10 years old
The P4L group showed small (non-significant) increases for the psychological (CAPA) variables of
‘importance of exercise’, ‘liking of games and sport’ and ‘liking of vigorous exertion and exercise’
whereas the control participants showed small (non-significant) decreases (see Table 12 for statistical
information). However, at the post-test the P4L participants scored significantly higher than the control
group on the three psychological variables.
For the PA variables the P4L condition showed significant increases for ‘recess’ and ‘lunch’ whereas the
control conditions showed decreases (see Table 13 for statistical information). This resulted in the P4L
condition having a higher post-test score for ‘Lunch’ than the control condition. All participants reported
increases in ‘spare time activity’, ‘right after school’, ‘evenings’, ‘weekend’ and ‘PA last week’. This
resulted in a significant increase in ‘total PAQ’.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
31
Table 12
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (9–10 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
PACES: Enjoyment
23.34 (8.02)
22.11 (7.03)
23.22 (7.90)
23.90 (7.47)
CAPA: Peer acceptance in
games and sports
2.49 (.37)
2.53 (.35)
2.42 (.38)
2.40 (.32)
CAPA: Importance of
exercise
2.80 (.28)
2.86 (.21)
2.80 (.29)
2.75 (.28)
CAPA: Liking of games and
sport
2.60 (.45)
2.69 (.33)
2.65 (.32)
2.55 (.37)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous
exertion and exercise
2.46 (.47)
2.63 (.43)
2.48 (.39)
2.47 (.43)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous
physical activity
2.62 (.48)
2.63 (.46)
2.54 (.41)
2.55 (.38)
SPP-c: Athletic competence
3.06 (.80)
3.14 (.70)
3.04 (.74)
2.90 (.82)
Table 13
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (9–10 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Spare time activity
40.12 (9.53)
45.31 (11.01)
41.40 (10.12)
43.31 (10.68)
PE
4.00 (1.16)
4.31 (.81)
4.08 (.93)
4.10 (.93)
Recess
3.78 (1.31)
4.12 (1.12)
4.08 (.88)
3.73 (1.12)
Lunch
3.84 (1.28)
4.20 (1.09)
3.90 (1.09)
3.75 (1.05)
Right after school
3.11 (1.21)
3.44 (1.09)
3.06 (1.07)
3.40 (1.30)
Evenings
2.71 (1.29)
3.21 (1.19)
2.94 (1.02)
3.31 (1.28)
Weekend
3.11 (1.31)
3.47 (1.00)
3.25 (1.06)
3.39 (1.00)
Describes you best
3.39 (1.03)
3.69 (.87)
3.29 (.74)
3.49 (.89)
PA last week
18.99 (5.68)
21.01 (4.94)
17.29 (4.93)
18.93 (4.45)
Total PAQ
82.53 (18.48)
91.67 (18.48)
82.47 (14.53)
86.84 (17.28)
For the FMS testing, the control condition increased significantly from pre to post-test on ‘ball bounce’,
‘throw’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’ compared to the P4L condition (see Table 14 for statistical
information). However, the P4L had significantly higher pre-test scores than the control condition for
‘throw’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’. All participants showed improvements in the majority of FMS
categories, with no statistically significant changes observed for ‘kick’, ‘catch’, ‘punt’, ‘run’, ‘dodge’
and ‘leap’.
32
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Table 14
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (9–10 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ball bounce
2.87 (.85)
3.24 (.68)
2.03 (1.36)
3.19 (.90)
Kick
4.87 (1.09)
4.96 (1.11)
4.79 (1.47)
4.73 (1.38)
Punt
4.86 (1.16)
5.15 (1.28)
4.52 (1.99)
4.70 (1.59)
Jump
3.86 (.77)
4.06 (.75)
3.25 (1.04)
3.61 (1.23)
Leap
3.86 (.86)
4.03 (.77)
3.33 (1.07)
3.37 (1.12)
Catch
5.62 (.70)
5.80 (.53)
5.66 (.79)
5.75 (.80)
Throw
2.32 (1.49)
3.27 (1.58)
1.88 (1.27)
3.76 (1.56)
Strike
4.28 (1.73)
4.69 (1.66)
2.94 (1.68)
3.94 (1.56)
Two-handed strike
5.54 (1.69)
5.81 (1.64)
4.59 (2.41)
5.56 (2.15)
Run
3.81 (.61)
4.04 (.56)
3.44 (1.01)
3.50 (1.11)
Dodge
2.36 (.69)
2.36 (.64)
2.03 (.80)
2.23 (.50)
FMS locomotor
13.89 (1.72)
14.52 (1.50)
11.72 (2.49)
12.36 (2.87)
FMS object control
30.40 (4.96)
32.95 (5.28)
26.27 (6.93)
31.40 (6.23)
FMS total
44.20 (5.43)
47.39 (5.72)
37.80 (8.37)
43.72 (8.13)
11–12 years old
The psychological variable (CAPA) of ‘peer acceptance in games and sport’ increased significantly in the
P4L group and deceased significantly in the control group (see Table 15 for statistical information). At
the post-test the P4L group score was significantly higher than the control group. A small decrease was
observed in both groups for the CAPA variable ‘importance of exercise’.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
33
Table 15
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (11–12 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
PACES: Enjoyment
23.74 (7.25)
22.82 (6.82)
23.92 (9.28)
24.20 (8.17)
CAPA: Peer acceptance in
games and sports
2.49 (.27)
2.55 (.26)
2.46 (.37)
2.38 (.47)
CAPA: Importance of exercise
2.83 (.25)
2.70 (.36)
2.77 (.34)
2.71 (.40)
CAPA: Liking of games and sport
2.63 (.36)
2.59 (.34)
2.61 (.49)
2.49 (.47)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous exertion
and exercise
2.46 (.51)
2.44 (.45)
2.30 (.49)
2.38 (.51)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous physical
activity
2.55 (.46)
2.49 (.40)
2.47 (.46)
2.43 (.48)
SPP-c: Athletic competence
2.78 (.76)
3.04 (.65)
2.86 (.76)
2.86 (.79)
The P4L condition showed a significant increase in ‘evening’ PA whereas the control conditions showed
a decrease. All the participants reported increased ‘spare time activity’ but decreased ‘recess’ and
‘lunch’ PA (see Table 16 for statistical information).
Table 16
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (11–12 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Spare time activity
40.21 (9.48)
44.00 (10.72)
41.17 (9.14)
42.44 (9.89)
PE
4.18 (.85)
4.10 (.97)
4.07 (.93)
4.07 (.95)
Recess
4.18 (1.17)
3.77 (1.29)
3.98 (1.21)
3.59 (1.38)
Lunch
4.13 (1.15)
3.67 (1.31)
4.07 (1.18)
3.61 (1.25)
Right after school
3.41 (1.16)
3.41 (1.14)
3.37 (1.12)
3.04 (1.18)
Evenings
2.74 (1.19)
3.36 (1.09)
3.22 (1.27)
2.94 (1.17)
Weekend
3.38 (1.23)
3.23 (1.16)
3.28 (1.24)
3.22 (1.18)
Describes you best
3.47 (.89)
3.63 (.82)
3.29 (.94)
3.21 (.98)
PA last week
19.79 (5.57)
19.13 (4.94)
19.42 (5.25)
19.47 (4.79)
Total PAQ
84.78 (17.15)
88.47 (18.76)
86.00 (17.00)
85.90 (16.49)
34
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
For the FMS testing, the control condition increased significantly from pre to post-test on ‘ball
bounce’, ‘throw’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’ compared to the P4L condition (see Table 17
for statistical information). However, the P4L had significantly higher pre-test scores than the control
condition for ‘throw’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’. In addition, the P4L condition still had a
significantly higher score for ‘FMS total’ and showed greater improvements for ‘strike’ and ‘twohanded strike’. Again, the P4L condition showed significantly higher scores for these variables
at baseline but not at the post-test.
All participants showed improvements in the majority of FMS categories, with no changes observed for
‘kick’, ‘dodge’, ‘two-handed strike’, ‘run’ and ‘catch’.
Table 17
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (11–12 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ball bounce
3.05 (.73)
3.17 (.79)
2.69 (1.06)
3.44 (.79)
Kick
5.57 (1.19)
5.50 (1.13)
4.62 (1.69)
4.87 (1.37)
Punt
5.33 (1.43)
5.76 (1.28)
4.87 (1.52)
5.04 (1.60)
Jump
4.20 (.76)
4.33 (.83)
3.21 (1.04)
3.53 (.91)
Leap
3.47 (.78)
4.03 (.97)
3.43 (1.09)
3.70 (.99)
Catch
5.88 (.40)
5.93 (.26)
5.73 (.61)
5.73 (.61)
Throw
2.55 (1.70)
2.93 (1.88)
1.61 (1.06)
3.65 (1.77)
Strike
4.74 (1.73)
4.93 (1.52)
3.29 (1.79)
4.54 (1.75)
Two-handed strike
6.50 (1.67)
6.29 (1.37)
5.04 (2.33)
5.90 (1.69)
Run
3.95 (.76)
4.05 (.58)
3.69 (.94)
3.85 (.75)
Dodge
2.52 (.86)
2.67 (.95)
2.36 (.79)
2.28 (.66)
FMS locomotor
14.10 (1.82)
15.10 (2.26)
12.60 (2.38)
13.40 (2.01)
FMS object control
33.62 (5.51)
34.50 (4.97)
28.27 (6.75)
33.24 (5.67)
FMS total
47.78 (6.51)
49.58 (6.21)
41.33 (8.08)
47.15 (6.76)
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
35
Age summary
Psychological
•
No significant differences were obtained for the 7–8 age group for the psychological variables.
•
The P4L participants in the 9–10 age group had post-test scores that were significantly higher than
the control on ‘importance of exercise’, ‘liking of games and sport’ and ‘liking of vigorous exertion
and exercise’.
•
For the 11–12 age group, the CAPA variable ‘peer acceptance in games and sport’ increased
significantly with the P4L participants and deceased significantly with the control. At the post-test
the P4L group score was significantly higher than the control.
Physical activity
•
The 7–8 age group had similar responses in PA variables for the P4L and control participants. An
increase was observed in ‘total PAQ’ score and the ‘weekend’, ‘right after school’ and ‘PA last week’
variables.
•
In the 9–10 age group the P4L participants showed significant increases for ‘recess’ and ‘lunch’ PA
while the control showed decreases. This resulted in the P4L participants having a higher post-test
score for ‘lunch’ PA than the control. All 9–10 age group participants reported increases in ‘spare
time activity’, ‘right after school’, ‘evenings’, ‘weekend’, ‘PA last week’ resulting in a significant
increase in ‘total PAQ’.
•
For the 11–12 age group the P4L participants showed a significant increase in ‘evenings’ PA
whereas the control showed a decrease.
Fundamental motor skills
•
For the FMS variables the 5–6 age group participants in both conditions did not show differences
from the pre to post-tests.
•
For the 7–8 age group both conditions showed improvements for ‘strike’ and ‘run’. The control
participants made significantly greater gains than the P4L but had started at a lower proficiency level.
That said, at both the pre and post-tests the control group scored significantly lower on ‘strike’.
•
Both the 9–10 and 11–12 age groups showed that the control participants increased significantly
from pre to post-test on ‘ball bounce’, ‘throw’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’ compared to the P4L
participants. However, the P4L had significantly higher pre-test scores than the control for ‘throw’,
‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’.
•
The P4L conditions had a significantly higher post-test score for ‘FMS total’ in the 9–10 and 11–12
age groups.
•
For the 11–12 age group the control participants showed significantly greater improvements for
‘strike’ and ‘two-handed strike’. The P4L participants showed significantly higher scores for these
variables at pre-test but not at post-test.
•
Finally, all participants in all age groups showed improvements in ‘ball bounce’, ‘jump’, ‘throw’, ‘strike’,
‘locomotor’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’ score. No changes were observed for ‘kick’ and ‘catch’.
36
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Gender differences in response to the P4L intervention
Boys responded similarly to the psychological variables in both the P4L and control conditions
(see Table 18 and 19 for statistical information). Girls in the P4L condition showed a significant
increase for the ‘athletic competence’ variable while the control showed a decrease. At the post-test
the girls in the P4L condition scored significantly higher on this variable compared to the control.
Table 18
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups for the boys
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
PACES: Enjoyment
25.20 (9.19)
23.00 (8.01)
25.58 (10.80)
24.37 (8.72)
CAPA: Peer acceptance in
games and sports
2.50 (0.37)
2.51 (0.34)
2.53 (0.39)
2.49 (0.37)
CAPA: Importance of exercise
2.84 (0.26)
2.77 (0.35)
2.79 (0.34)
2.76 (0.34)
CAPA: Liking of games and sport
2.64 (0.39)
2.68 (0.33)
2.70 (0.38)
2.64 (0.42)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous
exertion and exercise
2.58 (0.42)
2.55 (0.47)
2.54 (0.43)
2.51 (0.48)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous
physical activity
2.70 (0.40)
2.63 (0.45)
2.54 (0.47)
2.57 (0.38)
SPP-c: Athletic competence
3.09 (0.72)
3.06 (0.64)
3.10 (0.73)
3.14 (0.64)
Table 19
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups for the girls
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
PACES: Enjoyment
24.27 (8.96)
24.59 (9.08)
24.27 (8.59)
24.98 (8.51)
CAPA: Peer acceptance in games
and sports
2.42 (0.33)
2.47 (0.36)
2.34 (0.35)
2.29 (0.40)
CAPA: Importance of exercise
2.81 (0.30)
2.81 (0.26)
2.83 (0.26)
2.72 (0.37)
CAPA: Liking of games and sport
2.61 (0.40)
2.61 (0.37)
2.56 (0.43)
2.45 (0.42)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous exertion
and exercise
2.33 (0.53)
2.48 (0.45)
2.26 (0.43)
2.39 (0.50)
CAPA: Liking of vigorous physical
activity
2.53 (0.51)
2.53 (0.50)
2.46 (0.42)
2.46 (0.47)
SPP-c: Athletic competence
2.77 (0.76)
2.99 (0.71)
2.79 (0.76)
2.64 (0.81)
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
37
For PA the boys in the P4L condition showed significantly higher increases compared to the control for
‘recess’, ‘evenings’ and ‘describe your best’ (see Table 20 for statistical information). For the ‘evenings’
variable the P4L condition scored significantly lower than the control at the pre-test. No differences were
apparent at the post-test.
For the girls, post-hoc comparisons did not show significant differences for the ‘spare time activity’ and
‘total PAQ’ interaction effects (see Table 21 for statistical information). Girls on the whole scored higher
in the post-test for ‘spare time activity’, ‘evenings’, ‘weekend’, ‘PA last week’ and ‘total PAQ’.
Table 20
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups for the boys
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Spare time activity
42.02 (12.36)
46.94 (14.05)
43.36 (11.59)
46.49 (12.14)
PE
4.04 (1.24)
4.29 (0.95)
4.18 (0.98)
4.37 (0.85)
Recess
4.12 (1.27)
4.39 (1.02)
4.35 (1.03)
4.08 (1.23)
Lunch
4.21 (1.15)
4.34 (1.06)
4.35 (1.10)
4.06 (1.08)
Right after school
3.26 (1.38)
3.59 (1.24)
3.41 (1.36)
3.65 (1.25)
Evenings
2.77 (1.43)
3.19 (1.35)
3.41 (1.22)
3.38 (1.21)
Weekend
3.28 (1.45)
3.52 (1.26)
3.56 (1.31)
3.52 (1.22)
Describes you best
3.44 (1.12)
3.75 (1.04)
3.56 (0.83)
3.47 (0.99)
PA last week
19.41 (6.42)
21.15 (5.14)
19.45 (5.56)
20.38 (4.74)
Total PAQ
86.48 (21.89)
95.03 (22.14)
89.48 (18.24)
93.26 (19.67)
38
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Table 21
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups for the girls
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Spare time activity
38.18 (9.11)
43.13 (10.25)
42.46 (13.17)
42.20 (12.52)
PE
4.16 (0.95)
4.22 (0.93)
4.09 (0.98)
3.97 (0.95)
Recess
3.70 (1.38)
3.72 (1.16)
3.67 (1.16)
3.41 (1.26)
Lunch
3.78 (1.25)
3.79 (1.28)
3.61 (1.27)
3.45 (1.16)
Right after school
3.04 (1.09)
3.48 (1.14)
3.13 (1.16)
3.14 (1.30)
Evenings
2.81 (1.29)
3.17 (1.26)
2.88 (1.27)
3.12 (1.36)
Weekend
2.99 (1.16)
3.44 (1.07)
3.03 (1.16)
3.33 (1.19)
Describes you best
3.32 (0.87)
3.44 (0.79)
3.16 (1.04)
3.39 (1.06)
PA last week
17.09 (5.08)
19.45 (5.39)
17.70 (5.71)
18.79 (4.96)
Total PAQ
78.22 (14.82)
87.30 (16.92)
83.59 (20.91)
85.24 (19.57)
For the FMS variables both the boys and girls in the control condition showed significantly greater
gains than the P4L condition for ‘ball bounce’, ‘throw’ and ‘strike’ (see Table 22 and 23 for statistical
information). This was mainly due to both the boys and girls in the control condition scoring significantly
lower at the pre-test to those in the P4L condition. Other notable results included:
•
the boys in the control group improved significantly more on the ‘jump’ variable, however they still
scored significantly lower than the P4L group during the pre and post-tests
•
the post-hoc comparisons for the girls showed that both conditions improved on ‘object control’ and
‘FMS total’. However, the P4L condition scored significantly higher on the pre-test for ‘object control’
and ‘FMS total’ and on the post-test for ‘FMS total’
•
the boys and girls both showed significant improvements for ‘ball bounce’, ‘punt’, ‘jump’, ‘throw’,
‘strike’, ‘locomotor’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’. The boys also improved on ‘dodge’ and ‘run’
while the girls improved on ‘two-handed strike’.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
39
Table 22
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups for the boys
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ball bounce
2.62 (1.08)
3.03 (0.91)
2.03 (1.41)
2.86 (1.11)
Kick
5.13 (1.17)
5.21 (1.24)
4.96 (1.43)
4.64 (1.44)
Punt
5.14 (1.49)
5.44 (1.40)
4.79 (1.77)
5.02 (1.64)
Jump
3.84 (0.94)
3.90 (0.91)
2.91 (1.22)
3.31 (1.02)
Leap
3.40 (0.97)
3.62 (0.95)
3.08 (1.07)
3.12 (0.91)
Catch
5.45 (1.14)
5.62 (0.95)
5.50 (1.03)
5.42 (1.06)
Throw
2.28 (1.60)
3.49 (1.72)
1.64 (1.12)
3.78 (1.58)
Strike
4.49 (1.88)
5.05 (1.43)
3.36 (1.80)
4.49 (1.76)
Two-handed strike
5.85 (1.87)
5.93 (1.70)
5.20 (2.29)
5.74 (1.92)
Run
3.75 (0.79)
4.05 (0.71)
3.46 (1.05)
3.86 (0.93)
Dodge
2.14 (0.80)
2.35 (0.81)
2.00 (0.84)
2.06 (0.58)
FMS locomotor
13.28 (2.06)
14.12 (2.00)
11.40 (2.56)
12.40 (2.06)
FMS object control
31.27 (6.35)
34.23 (5.82)
27.93 (6.74)
32.18 (6.37)
FMS total
44.97 (7.27)
48.84 (6.41)
39.62 (8.43)
44.92 (7.63)
Table 23
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups for the girls
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ball bounce
2.30 (1.00)
2.75 (0.94)
1.54 (1.19)
2.55 (1.17)
Kick
4.32 (1.15)
4.36 (1.22)
3.77 (1.38)
3.99 (1.32)
Punt
3.67 (1.55)
4.10 (1.40)
3.09 (1.57)
3.54 (1.44)
Jump
3.52 (1.04)
3.97 (0.86)
3.06 (1.09)
3.44 (0.97)
Leap
3.79 (0.99)
3.94 (0.92)
3.48 (1.16)
3.58 (0.99)
Catch
5.28 (1.09)
5.29 (1.30)
5.12 (1.37)
5.10 (1.37)
Throw
1.79 (1.21)
2.42 (1.47)
1.39 (0.91)
2.53 (1.46)
Strike
3.20 (1.60)
3.63 (1.69)
2.26 (1.47)
3.44 (1.69)
Two-handed strike
4.62 (1.89)
4.84 (1.89)
3.55 (1.98)
4.36 (1.97)
Run
3.74 (0.68)
3.88 (0.70)
3.45 (1.04)
3.60 (0.84)
Dodge
2.26 (0.61)
2.21 (0.59)
2.11 (0.58)
2.16 (0.59)
FMS locomotor
13.43 (1.88)
14.16 (1.92)
11.94 (2.38)
12.71 (2.21)
FMS object control
25.45 (6.22)
27.68 (6.14)
20.92 (5.85)
25.60 (6.00)
FMS total
39.28 (7.17)
42.44 (6.96)
32.90 (7.37)
38.66 (7.18)
40
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Gender summary
Psychological
•
There were few differences observed between the genders for the psychological variables.
•
The girls in the P4L condition reported higher ‘athletic competence’ than the control at the post-test.
Physical activity
•
Both the boys and the girls recorded increases on a number of PA variables.
•
For the girls the increases were independent of condition while for the boys these increases were
larger in the P4L condition.
•
All conditions showed an increase in ‘total PA’ from pre to post-test.
Fundamental motor skills
•
All participants showed significant improvements in a number of the FMS variables, as well as the
higher order variables of ‘locomotor’, ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’.
•
The boys and girls in the control conditions showed greater improvements in their FMS scores than
the P4L participants due to lower pre-test scores. However, at the post-test the P4L boys (jump) and
girls (FMS total) still outperformed the control participants on a number of variables.
Dose response relationship
To examine whether the number of sessions attended by the participants in the P4L condition influenced
the change in the psychological, PA or FMS variables, linear regression analysis was conducted. The
change from pre to post-test for the psychological, PA and FMS variables were the dependent variables
and the number of sessions attended the predictor variable whilst controlling for gender and age (meaning
all P4L participants were collapsed together for this analysis).
No significant associations were found between the number of sessions attended and the psychological
variables. However, there was an inverse relationship with ‘weekend’ PA and the FMS variable ‘strike’. This
suggests that participation in more P4L sessions reduced ‘weekend’ PA and performance in striking.
Fundamental motor skills re-coded
To further explore the FMS variables we re-coded this into three categories: ‘mastery’, ‘near mastery’
and ‘unskilled’ (see Hardy et al. 2011).
•
Table 15.1 provides an overview of the number of participants who could be classified as ‘mastery’,
‘near mastery’ or ‘unskilled’ during the pre and post-test phases.
•
Table 15.2 provides an overview by age for the pre-test phase.
•
Table 15.3 illustrates that with increasing age the participants see improvement in performance on
most of the FMS. This suggests that the FMS battery is sensitive to age developments.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
41
P4L intervention activity effects
The possibility that the type of activity engaged in during the P4L sessions influenced the progress
on the FMS variables was examined. The activities — as described in the Data Analysis section —
were coded as ‘ball’, ‘no ball’ or ‘mixed’. The statistical results revealed no systematic effects for
the development of specific motor proficiency as a consequence of participation in a specific sports
categorisation for the 11 FMS. However, for the higher order variables of ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’
it appeared that ‘no ball’ activities resulted in greater gains than the ‘ball’ or ‘mixed’ activities.
Coaching observation and analysis
The independent coding of a sample of the P4L intervention coaching sessions (n=28) was completed
by two members of the research team. Inter-rater reliability was first established through the two coders
reviewing the same three coaching sessions to establish conformity in coding. As can be seen from
Table 24, the organisation and delivery of the sessions analysed adhered to the key principles of P4L.
A significant proportion of the children’s time was spent engaged in a P4L-style game, with minimal time
spent doing drills. While the time taken for the transition period between games and other activities
appears relatively high according to the P4L guidelines, it is offset by the amount of PA undertaken
during these sessions. Quite often, a longer transition period appeared to be factored in by the coaches
to allow the children to recover and hydrate between activities. Furthermore, the quality of instruction
and coaching feedback delivered during the breaks was of a high standard and minimised the amount
of time in the rest breaks where little engagement was required from the children.
Table 24
Percentage breakdown of key activities within a coaching session
P4L game
Transition
44%
33%
Challenge/skill
activity
16%
Drills
5%
Not P4L game
2%
The final stage of the observational coding process required the raters to make a dichotomous decision
as to whether the session adhered to three core principles of the P4L philosophy. Table 26 summarises
the percentage agreement of the sessions relative to three core P4L principles. It again reinforces the
notion that the children in the intervention condition were receiving a P4L-driven coaching experience.
Table 25
Percentage of sessions rated as meeting key P4L principles
P4L principle
Agreement
Coach as facilitator
89%
Instructions/feedback — Useful
100%
Session is fun and engaging
95%
42
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
The children’s perspective
This section presents the perspectives of the children interviewed as related to research objective 1.
Six dimensions were adopted which reflected the core principles of the P4L coaching philosophy:
•
Principle 1 — Game is the focus
•
Principle 2 — Coach is a facilitator
•
Principle 3 — Discrete coaching
•
Principle 4 — Role models
•
Principle 5 — Ask the players
•
Principle 6 — Change it
The quotes that are presented relate to each of the key P4L principles and are reflective of the complete
children’s cohort. Where differences were evident — such as between P4L and control participants,
male or female participants or age groups — these are highlighted.
Principle 1 — Game is the focus
It was clear from the frequency of quotes generated that children in the P4L condition mentioned their
enjoyment of game-play more than their control counterparts. While there were no gender differences
it was interesting to note that the 11–12 age group did not mention game-play anywhere near as
frequently as the younger cohorts. The quotes below underline these points.
‘We go there and play games and have a lot of fun.’
Six-year-old male (P4L)
‘We get to learn all different types of sport that we don’t know and I think that’s
good ... It’s not just by yourself, it’s with other people so you get to make new
friends and you get to use teamwork and it’s really fun ... I’m happy that I’m
more confident in myself now and I’m happy that I do it and I’ll continue doing it.’
Nine-year-old female (P4L)
‘[I liked] the teamwork and how we all worked together to help each other out
and just have fun.’
Nine-year-old male (P4L)
Principle 2 — Coach is a facilitator
This principle was harder for the children to grasp than others, but was well articulated by one
P4L participant.
‘They make the games fun; like sometimes you don’t realise that you’re actually
practising it but you actually are.’
Nine-year-old female (P4L)
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
43
Principle 3 — Discrete coaching
This principle was not well understood by the 5–6 age group, however the older children were able to
articulate some interesting ideas around the value of a coach who supports them to develop at their own
pace. There were also some interesting differences in the experiences of the P4L and control participants.
‘The person we had, our instructor ... was fun because she would respond to
your questions and she would let you have a go.’
Eight-year-old male (P4L)
‘I like the way they were teaching us and not being so bossy and making us
do it so hard.’
Seven-year-old female (P4L)
It is useful to contrast the above reflections with the following reactions from control participants about
their coaching experiences outside of a P4L setting. They suggest a more traditional ‘demonstrate and
do’ style of coaching in an environment that may not build a child’s confidence.
‘I could make up games at home and then tell Jesse we could play that game
in gymnastics.’
12-year-old male (control)
‘Well our coach like, he pushes us really hard, to the limit and if we had
a very successful training session he’d give us a treat or we could play
a game afterwards.’
Seven-year-old male (control)
‘Before we start, [the coach] does a demonstration ... like how to block in a
certain way.’
11-year-old female (control)
Principle 4 — Role models
The participants did not generally refer to role modelling in any great depth. Interestingly, if the principle
was raised it was from a P4L participant.
‘First … they demonstrated it. And sometimes they got people to demonstrate it
after they had demonstrated it.’
Six-year-old female (P4L)
44
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Principle 5 — Ask the players
This was not a strong theme emanating from the children. However, a number of P4L participants did
provide some positive affirmations of this as a useful strategy.
‘They pretty much let us choose the things that we want to do in [the]
basketball game or the game like Octopus. That’s what made us enjoy it.’
12-year-old female (P4L)
‘Sometimes she gives us free time to think about dancing and mood dance, and
we had to prepare our own stuff ... We perform it to everyone.’
10-year-old female (P4L)
Principle 6 — Change it
A variety of perspectives were reported that related to the principle of ‘change it’. While there were no
clear differences between conditions, gender or age groups, the quotes below reinforce the importance
of coaches to successfully implementing this principle and maintaining the engagement of children.
‘Some of the dance moves were hard because we had to do them with our feet
and they were a bit quick.’
Eight-year-old female (P4L)
‘The stuff they were teaching was basic because I do play soccer outside of
school, so it was like there’s nothing new they were really teaching me. But it
was still great fun with my mates.’
12-year-old male (P4L)
‘When [it was] the little kids versus the big kids, [the coach] won’t really help out
the bigger kids. She’ll only help out the little kids and then they’ll win. Well she
was pretty good and pretty fair too.’
11-year-old female (P4L)
‘We always learn the same dance. It kind of gets really boring because we have
to learn the dance until everyone knows it.’
Nine-year-old female (control)
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
45
The coach perspective
Coach survey background demographics
Of the 1627 AASC coaches contacted via email, 321 (136 males, 185 females) completed the ‘Coach
Perspectives on the Playing for Life (P4L) Philosophy used in the AASC Program’ online survey. This was
a 20 per cent response rate.
Despite 321 coaches registering their demographics in the survey, only n=298 completed questions
14 to 21 (n=58 question 22, n=296 questions 23, 24, n=49 question 25 and n=294 for questions
26 to 32). In addition to considering the coach responses as a collective group, the data was also
considered based on the qualification levels, gender and region. While there were some differences
in the responses of differently qualified coaches, there were no clear differences between any other
demographic variables and consequently this data is not presented.
Of the 321 coaches surveyed, 88 per cent indicated their involvement in the AASC program was
‘paid’ while 12 per cent indicated it was ‘voluntary’. When asked ‘Do you have any coaching/teaching
qualifications?’ 84 per cent indicated ‘yes’ while 16 per cent indicated ‘no’. Further analysis revealed
the majority of coaches who reported being ‘paid’ (n=281) also reported having a form of coaching/
teaching qualification (n=235).
Figure 10 demonstrates the variety of ages among the coaches surveyed, with the majority over 40 years.
Figure 10
Coach responses to ‘What is your age?’
16–19
years
8%
50+ years
31%
40–49 years
26%
46
20–29 years
22%
30–39 years
13%
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
The P4L philosophy
The majority of coaches (82 per cent) find the P4L philosophy a valuable way to coach as it is easy to
deliver and adjust the planned session (see Figure 11).
Figure 11
Question 29: ‘I find the P4L philosophy a valuable way to coach as it is easy to deliver
and adjust the planned session ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
I don’t know
Perspective of coaches to Question 29
When asked ‘Is the P4L philosophy used within the AASC program different to how you have coached
previously?’ 40 per cent of coaches indicated ‘yes’, 35 per cent indicated ‘no’ and 22 per cent ‘have not
delivered any other forms of coaching’. In a follow-up question, coaches were asked to identify how the P4L
philosophy is different from their previous coaching experiences. The responses are summarised in Figure 12.
It is interesting to note that while a number of the coaching strategies highlighted are in some ways in
opposition to the P4L philosophy, the largest key difference was 25 per cent of respondents suggesting they
usually do more technique work. The remaining key differences were between 15–17 per cent. This suggests
a strong ‘buy in’ to many of the key principles of the P4L philosophy from the coaches who were surveyed.
Figure 12
Coach identified differences between the P4L philosophy and their previous coaching experience
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
I usually do
more drill work
I focus more
on technique
I don’t coach
multiple age
groups together
I don’t coach
different skill
groups together
I use more direct
instruction than
questioning
I use a more
set style of
coaching plan
Other
Key differences from the P4L philosophy
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
47
Figure 13 demonstrates 93 per cent of coaches indicated they understand the P4L principles, with
86 per cent following the principles when delivering the AASC program (see Figure 14).
Figure 13
Question 31: ‘I understand the P4L principles ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches to Question 31
Figure 14
Question 32: ‘I follow the P4L principles when delivering the AASC programs ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches to Question 32
48
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Coach observation about the children’s engagement relative to P4L principles
Problem solving skills
Figure 15 shows 60 per cent of coaches have noticed an improvement in the children’s problem solving
skills when using the P4L philosophy.
Figure 15
Question 30: ‘When coaching using the P4L philosophy I have noticed the children’s
problem solving skills within the activities has improved ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Skill development
Over half of the coaches surveyed (58 per cent) indicated the children’s sports skills developed just as
effectively using the P4L philosophy as with other coaching philosophies (see Figure 16).
Figure 16
Question 17: ‘The children’s sports skills develop just as effectively using the P4L
philosophy as they do relative to other coaching philosophies ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
49
Coaching session programming
Only 58 coaches responded to the question of whether the number of students allocated to them
influences their use of the P4L philosophy. Of those who did answer 70 per cent agreed (see Figure 17).
There were mixed perspectives (46 per cent disagreed, 21 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed and
33 per cent agreed) from coaches on the difficulty of delivering the P4L philosophy when there are a range
of age groups within the AASC program (see Figure 18). However, when asked whether the range of skill
levels makes it difficult to deliver the P4L philosophy, half of the coaches disagreed (see Figure 19).
Figure 17
Question 22: ‘The number of students per allocated coach influences your usage of the
P4L philosophy ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Figure 18
Question 26: ‘The range of children’s ages within the AASC program makes it difficult to
deliver the P4L philosophy ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
50
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Figure 19
Question 27: ‘The range of children’s skill levels within the AASC program makes it
difficult to deliver the P4L philosophy ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Research objective 2 — reconfirm the appropriateness of the P4L
philosophy for children aged 13 years and above
Sample
The sample of children aged 13–15 years consisted of 34 participants; 18 (seven boys, 11 girls)
were in the P4L condition and 16 (all boys) were in the control. The nature of the sample meant no
preliminary analysis was conducted regarding age or gender.
Intervention
The analysis for the suitability of P4L for the older children was exploratory in nature. As such only
repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to explore whether the P4L condition showed differences
over time from the control for the psychological, PA and FMS variables:
•
Psychological — Table 26 shows the results for the psychological variables, with no significant
differences between conditions found.
•
PA — no significant differences were obtained for the PA variables (see Table 27 for statistical
information).
•
FMS — it was found that the FMS control condition improved significantly more than the P4L for
‘kick’ and ‘dodge’ and had a significantly higher score in the post-test (see Table 28 for statistical
information). The reason for this result is not clear as it cannot be attributed to the specific activities
completed by the P4L group as it was a multisport program that covered the invasion, striking and
fielding game categories — ensuring exposure to ‘kick’ and ‘dodge’ skills.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
51
Table 26
Mean and standard deviations for the psychological variables at the pre and post-tests for
the P4L and control groups (13-15 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent
variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
PACES: Enjoyment
27.20 (9.03)
28.33 (9.14)
29.18 (10.69)
27.55 (9.76)
CAPA: Peer acceptance
in games and sports
3.08 (0.55)
3.02 (0.59)
3.02 (0.57)
3.25 (0.57)
CAPA: Importance of
exercise
3.16 (0.39)
3.11 (0.31)
3.24 (0.45)
3.15 (0.35)
CAPA: Liking of games
and sport
3.16 (0.71)
3.21 (0.54)
3.27 (0.66)
3.24 (0.62)
CAPA: Liking of
vigorous exertion and
exercise
2.92 (0.66)
3.07 (0.47)
3.04 (0.78)
3.09 (0.68)
CAPA: Liking of
vigorous physical
activity
2.84 (0.61)
3.04 (0.53)
3.04 (0.73)
2.91 (0.48)
SPP-c: Athletic
competence
2.48 (0.63)
2.72 (0.57)
2.61 (0.56)
2.79 (0.66)
Table 27
Mean and standard deviations for the PA variables at the pre and post-tests for the P4L
and control groups (13-15 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent
variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Spare time activity
38.11 (8.96)
36.56 (9.76)
32.55 (5.57)
40.37 (25.16)
PE
3.78 (1.22)
3.83 (1.04)
3.82 (1.25)
3.91 (0.70)
Recess
2.56 (1.04)
2.28 (1.27)
2.45 (1.21)
2.73 (0.91)
Lunch
2.17 (0.99)
2.50 (1.34)
2.18 (0.98)
2.73 (1.19)
Right after school
3.50 (1.38)
3.67 (1.68)
3.00 (1.34)
3.00 (1.27)
Evenings
2.78 (1.44)
3.06 (1.66)
2.73 (1.01)
3.18 (0.75)
Weekend
2.67 (1.39)
2.67 (1.33)
2.55 (1.29)
3.09 (0.94)
Describes you best
2.72 (1.41)
3.06 (1.63)
2.27 (0.79)
3.00 (1.27)
PA last week
21.11 (8.42)
22.17 (8.46)
19.55 (7.39)
21.18 (8.68)
Total PAQ
79.39 (20.73)
79.78 (23.79)
71.09 (15.68)
83.18 (33.80)
52
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Table 28
Mean and standard deviations for the FMS variables at the pre and post tests for the P4L
and control groups (13-15 years old)
P4L
Control
Dependent variable
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Ball bounce
3.73 (0.47)
3.55 (0.82)
3.83 (0.58)
3.75 (0.87)
Kick
5.64 (1.22)
5.57 (1.02)
5.69 (0.63)
6.38 (0.65)
Punt
5.80 (1.70)
5.27 (1.62)
6.71 (0.91)
6.71 (0.83)
Jump
3.47 (0.74)
3.87 (0.92)
3.80 (0.68)
4.27 (0.70)
Leap
4.40 (0.51)
4.33 (0.62)
4.00 (0.96)
3.64 (1.01)
Catch
5.87 (0.35)
5.93 (0.26)
5.93 (0.26)
5.87 (0.35)
Throw
2.50 (1.46)
3.31 (1.54)
3.47 (1.89)
5.07 (0.46)
Strike
4.50 (1.51)
5.38 (1.50)
5.07 (1.39)
5.73 (0.70)
Two-handed strike
5.69 (2.25)
5.69 (1.49)
7.47 (0.74)
7.00 (0.85)
Run
3.90 (0.57)
4.10 (0.32)
4.00 (0.58)
4.31 (0.63)
Dodge
3.70 (1.25)
2.70 (0.82)
3.17 (1.03)
3.92 (1.08)
FMS locomotor
15.33 (1.73)
14.89 (1.05)
15.27 (2.01)
16.36 (2.38)
FMS object control
36.00 (6.31)
34.78 (7.33)
38.67 (3.99)
40.17 (2.59)
FMS total
52.83 (4.83)
51.33 (5.20)
53.78 (5.33)
56.33 (4.61)
FMS
To further explore the FMS variables this was re-coded in to three categories: ‘mastery’, ‘near mastery’
and ‘unskilled’. The 13–15 age group scored better than the primary school children overall, suggesting
progression in FMS with age.
Research objective 3 — demonstrate whether the P4L philosophy can assist
in overcoming the above barriers to participation in sport for children
Physical activity diaries
PA diaries were completed by 27 P4L and eight control participants over a three-week period. In order to
calculate PA levels for the week and weekend, answers were converted to ‘low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ PA.
For example, for the ‘travel’ question walking and biking were coded as ‘moderate’ while bus or car were
coded as ‘low’ PA (minimum score = 4; maximum score is 10). The scores for the four questions were
then added to give a total score for the week (average of two reports) or weekend. Independent t-tests
were conducted to explore differences in PA between the P4L and control participants.
Table 29 provides the means and standard deviations as well as the results of the statistical
comparison. Only one comparison was found to be significant. For week two the P4L participants
reported higher PA levels in comparison to the control. Although the P4L condition had a tendency to
score higher on most assessments there was no systematic difference between conditions. This was
partially due to the low number of participants in the control and the relatively high variability in scores.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
53
Table 29
Mean PA diary scores for the P4L and control participants over three weekdays and three
weekend days
Data collection period
P4L
Control
Statistical
significance
Weekday 1
7.96 (1.00)
7.44 (0.95)
t = 1.73; p = .09
Weekend 1
7.63 (1.45)
6.38 (1.06)
t = 1.55; p = .13
Weekday 2
7.81 (1.08)
7.07 (1.24)
t = 2.19; p = .03
Weekend 2
6.75 (1.51)
7.25 (1.04)
t = 0.14; p = .89
Weekday 3
7.74 (1.39)
7.44 (1.35)
t = 0.59; p = .56
Weekend 3
7.67 (1.59)
6.88 (1.36)
t = 1.00; p = .32
Correlational analysis
Analysis of the correlations between the psychological, PA and FMS variables provided support for the
P4L philosophy. For example, higher levels of enjoyment were associated with increased PA levels.
Similarly, increased scores on the CAPA variables (motivation) and ‘athletic competence’ showed
associations with increased PA levels. This was the case for the primary school and older participants
— if anything, the relationship between the CAPA variables and PA were larger for the older participants.
Encouragingly, increases in the psychological variables (for example, increased enjoyment) were associated
with increased PA levels.
Although the psychological and PA variables were not related to ‘locomotor skills’, most were positively
correlated with ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’. For example, increased levels of ‘athletic competence’
were associated with increased levels of ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’ for all participants. While not
all the correlations for the older group reached significance due to the low sample size, their magnitude
tended to be similar to the primary school children. Competence appeared to be particularly strongly
associated with FMS for the older participants.
‘FMS total’ and ‘object control’ were correlated with PA, with increased PA levels observed for primary
school and older children. The non-significant correlations for the older children were in the same range
as for the primary school children but did not reach significance due to the small sample size.
Overall the correlational analysis suggests there is an intricate relationship between FMS, PA and psychological
variables. This indicates that improving enjoyment would most likely result in increased PA and improved FMS,
and vice versa. Such relationships would provide indirect support for the P4L philosophy.
The children’s perspective
This section presents the primary themes of relevance to the children interviewed regarding research objective 3:
overcoming barriers to participation. Three researchers reached consensus on general dimensions (themes) that
could be generated to reflect the nature and effectiveness of the P4L philosophy. Four dimensions were adopted,
which included two additional general dimensions that were viewed as being significant:
•
Barrier 1 — a safe environment.
•
Barrier 2 — opportunity to play with friends.
•
Additional 1 — intention to continue with sport participation.
•
Additional 2 — overall liking of the program (note — the generic term ‘program’ was used as children were
not aware of the subtleties of the P4L philosophy being embedded in the AASC program).
Under each main theme, two sub-themes (termed ‘first-order themes’) were derived to indicate interviewees’
opinions of whether the P4L principles had been met. The researchers again reached a consensus on the
terminology used and the inclusion definition for each main and first-order theme.
54
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
To ensure inter-coder reliability, each researcher independently coded three of the same interviews
and compared their coding results. Any differences were discussed and resolved to ensure mutual
understanding of the general dimension and first-order themes. The researchers were randomly
allocated interview transcripts to code, and consensus meetings were regularly held throughout the
coding period to ensure a high level of reliability.
Following the thematic coding process, the frequency of first-order themes by gender, age group and
condition (P4L versus control) were used to derive significant quotes from interviewees. These were
then used to illustrate the consensus on a specific theme or issue.
Barrier 1 — a safe environment
While not a distinguishing characteristic amongst the conditions, gender or ages, the issue of feeling
safe when playing sport was a theme raised by participants.
‘A bit worried because I thought they would — you know, they would be pushing
me around and that ... I got scared the first time.’
Seven-year-old male (P4L)
‘I hurt myself so I don’t want to go again.’
10-year-old male (P4L)
‘I don’t like sport. [It’s] tiring. Sometimes fun because we play. Sometimes I fail.’
12-year-old female (P4L)
Barrier 2 — opportunity to play with friends
The opportunity to play with friends was a strong theme for all children. It was particularly apparent that
the girls valued this aspect of their sport or physical activity experience, and there was a tendency for
P4L participants to refer to this issue with a higher frequency than those in the control group.
‘All my friends were here and everything.’
Nine-year-old female (P4L)
‘I just have one [friend] so it’s not that fun.’
Six-year-old female (P4L)
‘We made friends. We didn’t know some people and then we met some more
people. When prep came, we all made friends with them.’
Seven-year-old female (control)
‘Well, I had really good friends there. We had lots of fun; we’re pretty close.’
11-year-old female (control)
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
55
Additional 1 — intention to continue with sport participation
A strong dimension — particularly in the P4L group and for children up to the age of 10 — was their
view on whether they would continue to participate in sport following the AASC coaching sessions. While
the tendency was for children to want to continue their motives were varied as to why. Furthermore,
control participants appeared less interested in wanting to participate.
‘I’m going to stay at soccer ... I might [also] go to cricket because I’ve got lots of
skills in cricket.’
Eight-year-old male (P4L)
‘I think I’ll go [to] Hip-Hop.’
Six-year-old female (P4L)
‘When our dancing teacher gave us this card and it told us [about] all the
dancing you can do ... [I thought] I might want to go over there.’
Seven-year-old female (P4L)
‘I’m going to keep doing it so I get fitter.’
Nine-year-old female (P4L)
‘I’ve got other activities like dancing [on] and so it’ll get a bit full, but otherwise
yeah.’
11-year-old female (control)
‘I don’t really know why. No. Not interest[ed] at all.’
11-year-old male (control)
Additional 2 — overall liking of the program
The second of the prominent general dimensions was the children’s perspectives on their likes and
dislikes of participation. This dimension clearly differentiated the two conditions, with P4L participants
reporting their like for sport and PA more than those in the control group. It was also notable that the
5–6 age group did not express as much positivity as the older children.
56
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Like
There were a range of feelings and perspectives offered by the children in the following quotes. They
clearly articulate examples of how significant barriers to participation can be overcome and identify the
complex relationship between motivation, enjoyment, PA and skill.
‘More confidence.’
10-year-old male (P4L)
‘I was really confident in the dance program, especially since [there were] more
little kids than big kids. We didn’t really mind [we] were embarrassing in front of
them. I found myself more energetic than before.’
11-year-old female (P4L)
‘I’m pretty active and energetic, but I was more active and confident when I went
to dance.’
11-year-old female (P4L)
‘I used to always stay indoors but now I go outdoors and play different sports
and games.’
10-year-old male (P4L)
‘I feel more sporty, especially after those games.’
Seven-year-old male (P4L)
‘I’m proud about myself when I’m doing it and that [I’m] not sitting down and
watching television.’
Eight-year-old male (P4L)
‘I think I’m a bit lazy and a bit slack. I’m a bit of a computer geek and lately I’ve
been playing my PlayStation; but I think that playing sport is way funner — I just
don’t know why.’
Nine-year-old male (P4L)
‘It was really, really fun ... There was no winning or losing, it was just fun!’
Nine-year-old male (P4L)
‘I feel like I’m a real player.’
11-year-old male (P4L)
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
57
‘I feel happy playing with others.’
Nine-year-old male (control)
‘I feel really [good] and feel like playing more.’
10-year-old male (control)
‘I feel really happy ... I feel more active; I can do more stuff now.’
Eight-year-old female (P4L)
‘I think I’m more sporty and fitter than I was last year ... I get less tired and I think
I’m [getting] used to all hard work and doing lots of different types of sports.’
10-year-old female (P4L)
Dislike
There was a reduced frequency of reference to what children disliked about their experience. However,
just as the previous section provided a myriad of examples of what children liked about participation in
sport and PA, just as much can be learned from what they disliked.
‘Well to be honest I feel a little bit the same. X hasn’t teached us much
skills — only two sides, kicking sideline. I already know that and I’d like
more skills ... more expert skills.’
11-year-old male (P4L)
‘It would be helpful to bring [in] more experts. Take some people out of the club
and try and teach you ... bring some real footy players and teach some expert
things. That would boost up more kids to come.’
11-year-old male (P4L)
‘We just learn it. Don’t have really much fun.’
Six-year-old male (P4L)
‘After a while it just got a bit ... like the same things and I wasn’t that interested
in it anymore.’
Seven-year-old male (control)
‘I would like to stay home ... I’m not really a sporty kind of person.’
11-year-old female (control)
58
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
The coach perspective
Coach interviews
The content analysis of the interviews with the coaches identified a number of themes which are
presented below in order of their frequency. The most reported themes related to ‘having fun’ and ‘being
active’. Less frequently reported themes were ‘social development’ and ‘value of games’, with the least
mentioned being ‘inclusive engagement’, ‘change it’ and ‘pathway transition’. While some of these
themes relate more closely to research objective 1, they are reported here as there is overlap with how
some of these coaching strategies or principles are assisting to overcome barriers to participation.
It was clear from the coaches sampled that the key to overcoming many of the barriers to participation
is through creating a fun environment (having fun), and that one of the key ways achieve this is with
games that involve lots of activity (being active). While coaches used the term ‘being active’, this is
obviously analogous with a common barrier cited by children: that they do not get enough playing time.
Having fun
‘I just try to make it fun; like having games, some competitions, joke around with
them. [I] try to make it not like a lesson but more of just a fun period — a fun
time for them.
‘I reckon they get to learn a lot more than what they normally would and there’s
probably a lot more fun involved in the whole program.’
Coach 2
‘It’s just fun ... They’re learning that being active can be a lot more fun than they
might have thought before.’
Coach 9
‘I love it [P4L]. I love what it stands for and if it’s just that one-hour I’ve got with
them, they’re not stationary. I love seeing them smile. They love it!’
Coach 11
‘You’ve got to make it as much like a game as possible because then kids have
fun — at the end of the day that’s really what it’s all about. You’re there to give
kids a good time and make sure they learn some skills because it’s much better
than them sitting in front of a TV or a computer screen.’
Coach 13
Being active
‘[Traditionally] there’s an awful lot of standing around in queues. So I ensure that
doesn’t happen ... there’s no standing around — only for quick breather.’
Coach 5
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
59
‘I get some comments like “I’m sweating” or “I haven’t done this much exercise
in a long time”. And I’m like, “Good, keep going”. I get a lot of those comments
when they’re worked up. “Can I get a drink?” — it’s a good feeling when they
need a drink because [you know] they’ve actually worked a little.’
Coach 11
‘I think the real benefit of the program is the fact that it’s motivating kids to not
only be active but enjoy being active. I think it’s great. When I’m working I see
kids that are running around — whether it be bouncing a basketball, whether it
be kicking — it doesn’t matter what they’re doing. They’re running around and
enjoying themselves and it’s setting them up for life.’
Coach 16
‘Just keep them busy, keep them active, keep them moving. It doesn’t particularly
matter what we’re doing as long as their heart rate [is] going up and they’re getting
a bit of a workout. That’s what I think anyway — just keep them moving.’
Coach 17
‘The most important thing with the program is to keep them active as much as
they can. There can be a lot of different programs where if the kids are waiting
in line for their turn, they might be there for an hour but they’ve only really been
active for maybe a quarter of the time. If you’ve got a few different activities
going at once, then at least they can keep active for most of the session.’
Coach 18
While not as prominent as ‘having fun’ and ‘being active’, the following themes also generated
consistent commentary from the coaches. They reflect the role of the coach as facilitator — who in turn
assists children with their social development — and the importance of the game being fun.
Social development
‘P4L is just really good for building interpersonal skills. A lot of kids [who] weren’t
talking to each other at the start of programs are more happy to chat afterwards
and it can turn into quite a social catalyst.’
Coach 9
‘If I put them into little groups I’ll get the [older children] to kind of take control
and become a leader. So that gets them involved. They love that kind of
mentoring role and they’re really good with the young kids.’
Coach 11
60
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
‘We play games where they’re all in together. The bigger kids are getting very,
very good at looking after the little kids.’
Coach 12
‘One of the things that happens really well is that the older kids learn the
responsibility of running a game because that’s one of the things we get them
to do. So I let them the run badminton; I’ll say: “Okay guys, here’s your team —
you organise how you set it up [and] you play the game”. They go off, choose the
captain and run it from there.’
Coach 14
‘It’s good to see friendships form amongst the age groups and then also within
age groups. So you might get kids that might not get along in a sitting down,
table and chair setting, but then they get on in a sporting environment. It’s really
good to see.
‘Sport [is] just a different vehicle for the kids to interact ... They give each other a
pat on the back when they do well. I think the friendships can form from there.’
Coach 15
‘[The children don’t] just enjoy it competitively ... but enjoy the social side
of sport. Having fun, bouncing the ball around and talking to people — just
enjoying it.’
Coach 16
Value of games
‘The games are fantastic because the kids absolutely love playing games and
they can learn through the games.’
Coach 5
‘I think the games are very good and the variety. You might start out games of
five minutes and then quickly change. It works very well.’
Coach 5
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
61
‘I think if the kids are enjoying it they’ll get a bit more out of it rather than the
way I was taught — things like the stock-standard ‘stand and deliver’, ‘throw and
catch’. You can actually get a lot more out of it with the games. When you do
then go [and] play (for lack of a better word) a ‘normal’ game the kids can adapt
a bit better to the games and the situation.’
Coach 15
‘[When I coach] it’s more a game play. So the kids don’t realise that they’re
improving their skills ... I just try and make it as fun as possible without [them]
thinking that it’s an actual lesson.’
Coach 20
Inclusive engagement
There is some overlap with the theme of inclusive engagement as it illustrates a number of the P4L
principles such as coach as a facilitator, role models and discrete coaching. Inclusive engagement also
demonstrates how P4L principles that are applied successfully can overcome barriers such as the need
for children to feel they are in a safe and supportive environment and that the coach is not perceived as
overly authoritarian.
‘I love the idea of the coach as the facilitator rather than the teacher or the coach.
You’re facilitating and then you’re helping them, you’re assisting them, you’re playing
with them and they love that. They do ... I race against them and I’ll be involved in
the games and they try and beat me. I just love running around with the kids.’
Coach 5
‘We try and join in with the children ourselves, even with doing badminton or softball
or any of the sports. If the teams are down, I’ll go and join in one of the teams.’
Coach 10
‘I try and join in with them where I can. I try and make sure they get a bit of
a laugh at me. Even though I can do something quite well I might maybe do it
incorrectly so they can have a laugh and say, “No, you didn’t do that right” or
they can actually see that I didn’t do it right. So at the same time they’re having
a bit of fun, but they’re learning as well.’
Coach 18
‘Some kids are a bit reluctant to join in or not confident. The [coach training]
taught me to get them all involved and to talk. I guess this is one thing I have
learnt with kids especially: to talk positively.’
Coach 19
62
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
‘The greatest benefit from P4L is confidence, because it’s really important that
they have confidence in whatever they’re attempt[ing]. There’s really no success
or failure in the programs that we try to run.’
Coach 21
Change it
‘Change it’ is a key feature of the P4L philosophy and it was clear from the coaches sampled that it is a
valuable tool to engage children.
‘We play a few games where the kids will openly say, “Can we have this rule?”
[We are] very much into the kids adapting games to suit their level.’
Coach 12
‘You actually need to be very flexible and change those rules to suit the needs of
the children that you’ve got playing, because ... their moods have got a lot to do
with it.’
Coach 14
‘I’m good at listening to the kids and getting their feedback. If I find something’s
not quite working, I’ll be brave enough to say, “Guys, what can we do better?
What do you want to change?’’’
Coach 15
‘One of the big things with the young ones, especially with the football, [is that]
if the ball is on the ground they just dive at it. And that creates a pretty hard
impact, with kids coming from different directions and fighting for the same
ball. So we’ve made a rule that you’re not allowed to pick the ball up in a game
unless you’re on your feet.’
Coach 23
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
63
Pathway transition
An indirect measure of children overcoming barriers to participation is whether they attempt to transfer
to other sports or PA or simply sustain their participation. Coaches reported some success in this
regard, albeit noting this was a third-level theme. One of the obvious issues with pathway transition as a
measure is that it relies on the parents of an interested child having the capacity/resources to support
the transition to another activity or sustained participation.
‘I’ve suggested to parents that they actually take their kid to play a sport. [One
participant] was just brilliant at any bowling or cricket thing that we did and I
said to his mum, “If you’re looking for a sport to put him in, let him have a go at
cricket”. She actually ended up doing it.’
Coach 12
‘Five kids [who I’ve taught for three years] started up basketball this year ... Now
they’re in Grade 3 they’re ready to actually have a go ... They know a lot about it
and know they’re fairly good.
‘We try to link up with the local sporting organisations. We tap into the local
basketball association and we’re able to hand out leaflets and things to
everyone ... I’ve even had some people from School Sport Victoria have a look at
kids [when they] come out.’
Coach 15
Coach survey
As highlighted in Figure 20, 82 per cent of coaches indicated the P4L philosophy produces a more fun
setting than coaching settings that rely on direct instruction and drills.
Figure 20
Question 14: ‘The P4L philosophy results in a more fun setting than other coaching
settings that rely more on direct instruction and drills ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
I don’t know
Perspective of coaches
64
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Figure 21 (see below) indicates 83 per cent of coaches supported the notion that the P4L philosophy
helps overcome some of the barriers to children participating in sport more than other junior sport
coaching philosophies. When asked their opinion on whether the P4L philosophy does not assist
children to overcome barriers to sports participation, the majority of coaches (76 per cent) disagreed
(see Figure 22).
Figure 21
Question 15: ‘I think the P4L philosophy helps overcomes some of the barriers to
children participating in sport more than other junior sport coaching philosophies ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Figure 22
Question 23: ‘The P4L philosophy does not assist children to overcome barriers to sports
participation ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
65
Psychological development
Attitudes
Figure 23 shows the majority of coaches (74 per cent) think the P4L philosophy has positively changed
the attitudes of AASC participants towards PA and sport. However, when coaches were asked whether
parents report that the P4L philosophy has changed their children’s attitude toward sport participation,
56 per cent neither agreed nor disagreed and only 40 per cent agreed (see Figure 24). These responses
suggest the coaches may not have had much contact with the parents.
Figure 23
Question 16: ‘I think the P4L philosophy has positively changed the attitudes of AASC
participants towards physical activity and sport ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Figure 24
Question 20: ‘Parents report that the P4L philosophy has positively changed their
children’s attitude toward sport ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
66
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Social development
Figure 25 shows 70 per cent of coaches agree that the P4L philosophy has positively changed the
social skills of the AASC participants.
Figure 25
Question 18: ‘I think the P4L philosophy has positively changed the social skills of AASC
participants ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Engagement
Over half of the coaches (59 per cent) agreed that children become more engaged in a session using
the P4L philosophy compared to what they have experienced in other coaching settings (see Figure 26).
Figure 26
Question 19: ‘The children become more engaged in a session using the P4L philosophy
than what you have experienced in other coaching settings ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
67
Pathway to participation
Figure 27 shows 63 per cent of coaches were aware of some of the children transitioning into local
sporting clubs and teams.
Figure 27
Question 28: ‘I am aware of some of the children transitioning into local sporting clubs
and teams ...’
100%
90%
Percentage of coaches
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Perspective of coaches
The parents’ perspective
Parent interviews
This section outlines perspectives from the parents of P4L participants. The interviews that were
undertaken indicated that parents had very little or no understanding of the P4L philosophy and were
unable to differentiate it from the AASC program:
‘The hockey really appealed to him, but I don’t really know the intimate details of
what goes on in that program. But he’s enjoying it and that’s the main thing.’
Parent of six-year-old male
The remainder of this section presents the primary themes of relevance to the parents interviewed in
relation to research objective 3: overcoming barriers to participation.
Confidence
A strong theme was the opportunity for children to gain confidence through their participation in
the program.
‘It’s made him more willing to get out and try things because he was a bit shy,
even to join this other club ... He’d never have done that.’
Parent of seven-year-old male
68
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
‘He’s gained more confidence, [no longer] standing in the back.’
Parent of seven-year-old male
‘She was shy at the start but now she doesn’t have a problem.’
Parent of eight-year-old female
Opportunity to play with friends
The opportunity for children to play with their friends was a strong theme with parents. There was also
tendency for parents to discuss the benefits (or not) of the varying of age groups.
‘At least they have been able to interact with kids from other grades, rather than
just their own age group.’
Parent of eight-year-old female and nine-year-old male
‘A bit more social interaction.’
Parent of six-year-old female
‘He’s with his friends.’
Parent of seven-year-old male
‘She likes the fact that her friends are there.’
Parent of five-year-old female
Sampling
A strong theme amongst the parents was the benefit of ‘sampling’ different sports.
‘I like the fact that he can dabble in it, he can learn and [then] if he wants to
pursue it outside [he can] ... That’s what I like the most.’
Parent of seven-year-old male
‘It gives her a chance to have a go at new activities which she [wouldn’t
otherwise] have the opportunity to.’
Parent of eight-year-old female
‘She can try different sports.’
Parent of eight-year-old female
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
69
Transfer to sport participation
A recurring theme expressed by the parents was their child’s desire to pursue a particular sports/activity
following exposure to it. However, not all parents were supportive of their child’s newfound interests.
‘Especially because we are not active parents, it gives the chance to be active
rather than sitting down watching TV.’
Parent of seven-year-old male
‘Through him doing the cricket, he now does Milo cricket. I spoke to the man
there and me and other friends enrolled our kids in the Milo cricket [program].’
Parent of seven-year-old male
‘I am a kind of old fashioned thinker ... I kind of think that I didn’t do any of
that stuff after school, so why do my kids? I think that when they want to do
something ... we might give it a go but I want the whole family to get involved
and back it up and get behind it.’
Parent of eight-year-old female
‘I kind of limit what they do after school. When you’ve got to take one kid one
way and one kid another way on a particular night or every after-school ... it’s
really hard.’
Parent of eight-year-old female
‘She does karate now!’
Parent of nine-year-old female
‘She would have liked to have done [sports aerobics] but it clashes with my son’s
football and I can only be at one place at a time.’
Parent of eight-year-old female
Parent survey
A total of 46 surveys from parents with children participating in the P4L intervention group were
returned — a response rate of 18.5 per cent (a normal response rate for this type of survey). It is
important to note the term ‘AASC program’ was used to describe the P4L philosophy for this cohort as
it was felt parents would not necessarily be aware of the distinction between the AASC program and its
underpinning P4L coaching philosophy. Below is a summary of the key findings.
Within the sample there was a 50:50 split of male and female respondents. There was a diverse range
of reasons why the parents enrolled their children in the AASC program, with the most common being
because the child asked to attend (23.9 per cent) or to increase the child’s activity levels (19.6 per
cent). The ages of the respondents’ children are detailed in Table 30.
70
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Of the children who participated in the AASC program, 82.5 per cent first took part in 2009–11;
13 per cent in 2009; 21.7 per cent in 2010; and 47.8 per cent in 2011. When specific participation
in 2011 was considered, the following statistics emerged:
•
21.7 per cent only participated in term one.
•
13 per cent participated in terms three and four.
•
10.9 per cent participated in terms one, two and three.
•
26.1 per cent participated in all four terms.
Table 30
Parent survey respondents — age of their children
Age of respondent’s child
Percentage
5
2.2%
6
10.9%
7
2.2%
8
19.6%
9
34.8%
10
15.2%
11
8.7%
12
4.3%
No response provided
2.2%
Physical activity
A series of questions focused on the parent’s perspective of their child’s PA level and whether the AASC
program incorporating a P4L philosophy had an influence on this:
•
60.9 per cent felt their child was an active participant in sport or PA compared with 26.1 per cent
who did not.
•
93.5 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed that their child had tended to shy away from
participation in sport or PA.
•
84.8 per cent agreed that participation in the AASC program increased their child’s interest in
sport or PA.
•
74 per cent felt the AASC program encouraged their child to want to participate.
A later section of the survey asked parents whether participation in the AASC program had influenced
some specific elements of their child’s physical activity behaviours:
•
65.3 per cent agreed their child was more likely to play outside compared with 26.1 per cent who
were unsure.
•
67.4 per cent agreed their child engaged in more physical activity or sports compared with
23.9 per cent who were unsure.
•
60.9 per cent agreed their children watched less TV and played less computer games compared
with 30 per cent who were unsure.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
71
Skill and behaviour development
In examining parents’ views on their child’s social, sport and academic skill development as they related
to participation in the AASC program, several observations were made:
•
89.1 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that their child’s sporting skills had improved.
•
54.3 per cent were unsure of whether there is a link between AASC participation and improved
academic skill compared with 41.3 per cent who thought there was an improvement.
•
78.2 per cent felt their child’s social skills had improved.
•
Approximately 50 per cent were unsure of whether there is a link between AASC participation and
improved school behaviour, however 43.5–47.8 per cent were in agreement.
Friendship and socialisation
As a result of participation in the AASC program the respondents overwhelming felt that their children
had made new friends (78.3 per cent), had a wider circle of friends (78.3 per cent) and generally played
with other children more (56.6 per cent).
Joining a sporting club
An indirect measure of the success of the P4L philosophy is to consider whether participation has
sparked a child’s interest in joining a sporting club or sports coaching program of some kind:
•
54.4 per cent of parents agreed their child had asked about joining a sporting club while 28.3 per
cent were not sure.
•
30.4 per cent of parents had actually joined a club, 34.8 per cent were unsure and 34.8 per cent
disagreed or disagreed strongly.
The above statistics suggest that while joining a sporting club is a reasonable secondary measure
of the legacy of the P4L philosophy, the fact that a child may want to join a club is only part of the
equation. A parent has to be willing and capable of physically and financially supporting such a
commitment.
Barriers to participation
The final section of the survey directly considered many of the stated barriers to participation, posing
the question: ‘The things my child says about attending the AASC program are ...’
Responses are summarised in Table 31 and indicate that from the parents’ perspectives barriers to
participation are overcome when a P4L philosophy is used within a sports coaching program.
72
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Table 31
Percentage of responses to the question: ’The things my child says about attending the
AASC program are ...’
Agree
(%)
Strongly
agree
(%)
Strongly
disagree
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Neither
agree
nor
disagree
(%)
They like the games
0
0
0
65.2
34.8
They like the coaches
0
2.2
15.2
54.3
28.3
It’s not like school PE
0
4.3
41.3
34.8
19.6
It’s fun
0
0
2.2
43.5
54.3
There are a variety of sports
0
4.3
13
58.7
23.9
They get to learn about new sports
2.2
0
6.5
58.7
32.6
It’s targeted at their level
0
4.3
30.4
41.3
23.9
Get lots of playing time
0
2.2
15.2
47.8
34.8
Get to play with friends
0
0
8.7
60.9
30.4
Feel comfortable participating
0
0
4.3
60.9
34.8
Feel safe playing the games
0
0
4.3
63.0
32.6
Everyone is treated equally
0
2.2
13.0
54.3
30.4
They feel they get bullied by other children
56.5
28.3
13
2.2
0
They don’t feel they get opportunities
to participate
39.1
41.3
13.0
6.5
0
The games are too difficult
50
41.3
8.7
0
0
They don’t have fun
71.7
23.9
4.3
0
0
The things my child says about
attending the AASC program are:
Research limitations
•
The research was limited to the AASC program, which restricted the quality control of the
intervention. It also made it difficult to understand the difference between the AASC program and
the underpinning P4L philosophy, particularly for parents and children. As a result, some of the
findings are inextricably linked to the AASC program; this would not have been the case had other
populations been recruited for investigation.
•
While the criteria that the coach is suitably accredited — coupled with the coaching observation
and analysis — provided a suitable means of process adherence/evaluation, the actual skill of the
coach and their capability to engage children is critical to the successful implementation of the P4L
philosophy (or any coaching approach). This was largely outside of the control of the research team.
•
While no dose response relationship was demonstrated, it is evident that longer time scales are
needed to see some of the direct effects of exposure to a P4L intervention. The FMS testing
demonstrated that such measures are sensitive to changes over age and it is likely similar
timescales may be required to see intervention effects.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
73
•
In future studies it would be essential for participants to be new to the P4L philosophy. It would
also be necessary to document more thoroughly the activities engaged in during school PE and after
school activities. This will allow for more definitive statements on the efficacy of the P4L philosophy.
Other areas of improvement for future studies could include:
–
comparing the P4L philosophy with alternative coaching approaches
–
examining the influence of different P4L aspects on specific variables (for example, do ball
games have a different influence compared to non-ball games?)
–
creating tighter control groups, which could involve matching participants on current activity
behaviour (matched controls) to potentially eliminate the confounding effects of activity behaviour
in the control group
–
modifying the instruments that are used for the different age categories (for example, alternative
response sets for younger children).
74
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Research objective 1 — test and validate the effectiveness and
appropriateness for each of the principles of the P4L philosophy
for children aged five to 12 years
Table 32
Strength of evidence validating the effectiveness and appropriateness of the P4L
principles for five to 12 year olds based on interview and survey data. Effects are
considered strong, moderate or weak based on the collective evidence obtained
P4L principles
Children
Parents
Coaches
The game is the focus
Strong
Strong
Strong
Coach is a facilitator
Strong
NA
Strong
Discrete coaching
Weak
NA
Moderate
Role models
Weak
NA
Weak
Ask the players
Weak
NA
Strong
Change it
Moderate
NA
Moderate
Note — ‘NA’ indicates that this cohort was not asked to comment on this P4L principle. The parents were not observers of the actual
coaching session so were unable to comment on the specific P4L principles listed. However, feedback from their children post-session
usually referred to ‘how they played games’ — resulting in the inclusion of this principle from a parent perspective.
Conclusions
•
Participation in P4L resulted in improvements in FMS, higher levels of self-reported PA and improved
psychological functioning. However, only select measures saw P4L participants perform significantly
higher than those in the control group (for example, an increase in ‘spare time’ PA and ‘total PA’,
higher FMS scores for ‘kick’, ‘punt’ and higher order variables of ‘FMS object control’ and ‘FMS total’).
•
Results were partially influenced by age and gender, which had some practical implications.
For example, the P4L 9–10 age group scored higher than the control condition on ‘importance
of exercise’, ‘liking of games’ and ‘liking of vigorous exertion and exercise’. By comparison,
the 11–12 age groups were only differentiated in ‘peer acceptance in games and sport’, with a
decrease in ‘importance of exercise’ observed. Similarly, there were differences in self-reported
PA between the age groups and different gains in FMS skills across the genders (for example,
boys improved significantly in ‘jump’ while girls improved in ‘object control’ and ‘FMS total’).
•
P4L in the present cohort was associated with higher FMS ability compared to the control; however,
we cannot infer cause and effect from the present study.
•
Participation in P4L does not seem to have any negative consequences. There was no decrease in
the psychological, PA or FMS variables.
•
Engagement in P4L is perceived to be an enjoyable experience by most of the children.
•
Children reaffirmed the importance of a game-centred philosophy but also highlight the important
motivational benefits of specific skill development or drill work.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
75
•
Coach survey responses and interviews highlight that the majority of the P4L principles are effective
and appropriate. Consistent with the children’s perspectives, coaches still feel there is a place for
the role of drills for skill development.
•
Coaching skill is critical to the successful delivery of the P4L philosophy, more so than other
coaching approaches.
Research objective 2 — reconfirm the appropriateness of the P4L philosophy
for children aged 13 years and above
•
The older participants in the P4L group responded similarly to the control participants in the
psychological, PA and FMS variables, indicating that P4L has not had any adverse influence.
•
P4L has the potential to increase skill in similarity to other coaching philosophies.
•
Direct comparison with previous experimental work examining coaching approaches — such as
Game Sense or Teaching Games for Understanding — is not possible due to the absence of a
condition in the current project that completed an alternative form of coaching.
Research objective 3 — demonstrate whether the P4L philosophy can assist
in overcoming the above barriers to participation in sport for children
•
Parents perceive P4L to have significant social and psychological benefits for their child, supporting
a more active lifestyle and breaking down barriers for participation in sport and exercise.
•
The children’s views reinforced previously identified barriers to participation and there was strong
support for the P4L philosophy as an appropriate vehicle to overcome these barriers. These findings
were less clear for the 5–6 age group but this is likely reflective of their stage of cognitive and social
development.
•
Coaches overwhelming support the P4L philosophy as appropriate to overcome barriers to
participation and are particularly strong in ensuring the session is fun and active.
76
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Table 33
Sources of evidence (based on the interview and survey data) summarising the degree of
support for the P4L philosophy in assisting to overcome barriers to participation in sport
for children. Effects are considered strong, moderate or weak based on the collective
evidence obtained
Overcome barrier to participation
Children
Parents
Coaches
Not a safe and supportive
environment
Strong
Moderate
Strong
Over-emphasis on winning
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Don’t get enough playing time
Strong
Strong
Strong
Cannot play with friends due to
imposed grading systems
Strong
Strong
Weak
Made to feel uncomfortable
Moderate
Strong
Moderate
Frightened of being hurt
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Not as good as they want to be
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Coach is overly authoritarian
Strong
NA
Strong
High praise for best performers,
little acknowledgement of others
Moderate
NA
Moderate
Note — ‘NA’ means this cohort was not asked or did not comment on this issue.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
77
Recommendations
P4L
•
Use the findings of this report and other relevant research to refine the delivery of the P4L
philosophy and advocate it as a valuable coaching philosophy to overcome barriers to participation
for children under 12 (see accompanying P4L Comparative Review).
•
Age and gender did influence the results obtained. While the P4L 9–10 age group demonstrated a
positive attitude to ‘importance of exercise’, ‘liking of games’ and ‘liking of vigorous exertion and
exercise’ compared to the control condition, the P4L 11–12 age group did not. This suggests more
attention needs to be devoted to maintaining the engagement of this older age group.
•
Consistent with other research that has investigated FMS proficiency, boys were typically superior to
girls — particularly in ‘object control’ skills. Further, although the P4L participants were associated
with superior FMS proficiency to the control group, the results collectively suggest many children
possessed a relatively low overall FMS proficiency. It is recommended coaches place a premium on
developing these foundational skills, which can largely occur using a P4L philosophy.
•
It should be reinforced that continuing to adopt a P4L philosophy was strongly associated with the
overcoming of significant barriers to participation. In particular, increased activity, playing with friends,
feeling comfortable, no emphasis on winning and provision of praise were elements particularly
welcomed by the children — providing a sound framework for coaches when planning a session.
•
Increase the support of coach development in regard to P4L delivery as it requires higher level skills
for the coach to deliver effectively. For example, providing greater education about how a coach may
deliver a ‘game’ in a ‘drill-like fashion’ to develop the skills of participants.
Future research
•
Further work is needed to more clearly establish the value of the P4L approach with the 5–6 age
group. The current project was not successful in this regard.
•
Work is required to directly compare the P4L philosophy relative to another coaching approach.
This research should be completed in a more controlled setting than the current research.
•
Develop age-appropriate instruments to more effectively assess the outcomes of interventions.
This would include instruments which capture the psychosocial aspects related to participation
in sport and PA.
•
Include objective assessment of PA outside of sessions that adheres to the P4L philosophy. This
could include the use of pedometers or accelerometers to obtain a more objective measure of daily
PA patterns.
•
Including the ‘voice’ of the end users (the children) in this research provided powerful information
on the efficacy and suitability of the P4L coaching philosophy. It is recommended that the children’s
voices be included in similar studies in the future.
•
The adopted mixed methodology in the present project and inclusion of children, parents and
coaches provided a holistic view of the value of P4L. We believe such a methodology would be
suitable for future projects examining the efficacy of P4L or other coaching philosophies.
78
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Limitation
•
A limitation of the current work was the amount of exposure to the P4L philosophy the children
received. The vast majority took part in 10–15 sessions over the two terms of the intervention
monitoring period (60 minutes per week), with no evidence of a more beneficial impact for those
children who completed more sessions. This quasi-longitudinal monitoring may be insufficient to
observe the true value of the P4L philosophy.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
79
REFERENCES
Aiken, LS and West, SG 1996, Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions, Sage, Newbury
Park: CA.
Brustad RJ 1993, ‘Who will go out to play? Parental and psychological influences on children’s attraction
to physical activity’, Paediatric Exercise Science, 5, pp. 210–23.
Brustad RJ 1996, ‘Attraction to physical activity in urban school children: parental socialization and
gender influences’, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, pp. 316–23.
Cohen, J; Cohen, P; West, SG; and Aiken, LS 2003, Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioural sciences, third edition, Erlbaum, Mahwah: NJ.
Crocker, PRE; Bailey, DA; Faulkner, RA Kowalski, KC; and McGrath, R 1997, ‘Measuring general levels
of physical activity: Preliminary evidence for the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children’,
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 29, pp. 1344–9.
Department of Education, Victoria 1998, ‘Fundamental Motor Skills: An Activities Resource for
Classroom Teachers’, Department of Education, Victoria.
den Duyn, N 1996, ‘Why it makes sense to play games!’, Sports Coach (Spring), pp. 6–9.
Elo, S and Kyngäs, H 2008, ‘The qualitative analysis process’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1),
pp. 107–15.
Frazier, PA; Tix, AP; and Barron, KE 2004, ‘Testing moderator and mediator effects in counselling
psychology research’, Journal of Counselling Psychology, 51, pp. 115–34.
Hands, B; Larkin, D; Rose, E 2007, ‘Play5 every day: children taking control of their own physical
activity level’, in Twenty-fifth International/Biennial ACHPER Conference PACE Yourself, Fremantle:
WA (October 3–6).
Hardy, LL; King, L; Espinel, P; Cosgrove, C; and Bauman, A 2011, NSW Schools Physical Activity and
Nutrition Survey (SPANS) 2010: Full Report, NSW Ministry of Health, Sydney.
Harter, S 1982, ‘The Perceived Competence Scale for Children’, Child Development, 53, pp. 87–97.
Harter, S 1985, Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children, University of Denver, Denver: CO.
Kendzierski, D and DeCarlo, KJ 1991, ‘Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale: To validation studies’, Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, pp. 50–64.
Kowalski, KC; Crocker, PRE; and Faulkner, RA 1997, ‘Validation of the Physical Activity Questionnaire for
Older Children’, Pediatric Exercise Science, 9, pp. 174–86.
Lubans, DR; Morgan, PJ; Cliff, D; Barnett, LM; and Okley, A 2010, ‘Fundamental movement skills in
children and adolescents’, Sports Medicine, 40(12), pp. 1019–35.
Moore, J; Yin, Z; Hanes, J; Duda, J; Gutin, B; and Barbeau, P 2009, ‘Measuring enjoyment of physical
activity in children: Validation of the physical activity enjoyment scale’, Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 21, pp. 116–29.
Motl, RW; Dishman, RK; Saunders, R; Dowda, M; Felton, G; and Pate, RR 2001, ‘Measuring enjoyment
of physical activity in adolescent girls’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21, pp. 110–17.
Muris, P; Meesters, C; and Fijen, P 2003, ‘The self-perception profile for children: Further evidence for
its factor structure, reliability and validity’, Personality and Individual Differences, 35, pp. 1791–1802.
80
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Rose, E; Larkin, D; Hands, B; Howard, B; and Parker, H 2009, ‘Evidence for the validity of the Children’s
Attraction to Physical Activity questionnaire (CAPA) with young children’, Journal of Science and Medicine
in Sport, 12, pp. 573–8.
Sallis, JF; Prochaska, JJ; and Taylor, WC 2000, ‘A review of correlates of physical activity of children and
adolescents’, Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 32, pp. 963–75.
Thorpe, RD; Bunker, D; and Almond, L 1984, ‘A change in the focus of teaching games’, in M Pieron
and G Graham (eds.), Sport Pedagogy: Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings, vol. 6, Human Kinetics,
Champaign: IL, pp. 163–9.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
81
ATTACHMENT A
Comparative review of ‘Playing for Life’ philosophy
with existing Junior Sport delivery models
Submission to the Australian Sports Commission
SUBMITTED BY:
Professor Damian Farrow
Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL)
Victoria University
6 August 2012
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to inform the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) in the design and
development of a position paper for junior sport to assist the delivery of quality junior sport programs
throughout Australia. A comparison between the Playing for Life (P4L) philosophy with existing junior sport
models of delivery was performed in the following sports to identify any gaps and areas for improvement:
•
target — bowls
•
striking and fielding — cricket
•
invasion — netball and AFL
•
net and court — badminton and tennis
•
movement — gymnastics and athletics.
Search strategy
Original searches conducted in December 2011 were updated in February 2012. The search strategy
included searching the National Sport Information Centre (NSIC) catalogue, the Victoria University
Library Catalogue and Google Scholar to locate relevant information regarding the P4L approach, junior
sport policies and coaching philosophies of several national sporting organisations (NSO). These were
bowls, cricket, netball, AFL, badminton, tennis and gymnastics.
Where there was insufficient information available on the internet, NSOs were contacted directly
to gather the relevant information. The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed, NSO and ASC
publications from 2000 to 2012. The electronic databases included: Academic Search Premier,
SPORTdiscus, Education Research Complete, ERIC, Medline full text, PsychARTICLES, PsychINFO,
Australia Education Directory, A+ Education, Humanities and Social Sciences Collection, and Teacher
Reference Centre.
82
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Background
The P4L philosophy is closely aligned to the principles of the Game Sense (den Duyn 1996). While there
is a lack of research conducted on P4L and Game Sense outcomes in junior sport (five to 12 years of age)
there is considerable support for such approaches by various stakeholders (for example, the Australian
Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (ACHPER) publish Game Sense texts for the school
setting — see Pill 2012).
Game Sense and P4L are closely related instructional strategies; for example, both use questioning and
modified games (Pill 2011). The P4L approach, however, is aimed specifically at school children, using
game-like activities that are fun, safe, inclusive and challenging (ASC 2010). Similarly, Game Sense
approaches are designed to provide ‘authentic and educationally valid sport experiences’ (Alexander
and Penney 2005; Siedentop 1994 cited in Pill 2010) as they are considered holistic, student-centred
and inquiry-based (Light and Dixon 2007).
Peer reviewed Game Sense literature demonstrates its capacity to engage students in meaningful
and enjoyable physical activity, social interaction, problem solving and decision making (Dyson, Griffin
and Hastie 2004; Wright and Forrest 2007) and engage participants beyond their sport experience
(Drummond and Pill 2011). The objective of P4L is to develop an understanding of the game or sport,
which in turn will create ‘a love of physical activity that will encourage them to play for life’ (ASC 2007).
As articulated by den Duyn, ‘probably the best reason for adopting a Game Sense approach is that
games are challenging and fun!’ (1996).
Fifteen companion booklets — provided to coaches by the Active After-school Communities (AASC)
program to assist in the delivery of the P4L philosophy — were reviewed as part of this research. The
key features of the P4L philosophy are described in each of the companion books:
•
Players develop skills through fun, game-like activities (by ‘playing the game’) rather than performing
traditional skill drills in isolation from the game. The game is the focus of the session, challenging
players to think about what they are actually doing and why.
•
Coaches and teachers play a facilitator role rather than a director role. They set challenges and the
players find solutions through activity. For example, ‘Where will you stand to field the ball?’ ‘How can
you work together to stop the opponents scoring?’ ‘How can you include everyone?’
•
Players learn through self-discovery and working with and observing other players, rather than
through coach direction.
•
Player role models are used to highlight skilful play.
•
Players are coached discretely on the side to develop their skills without interrupting the game.
•
Simple variations are introduced to make games easier or harder. This evens up play and highlights
particular aspects or tactics of games.
•
Players develop the ability to make decisions and to apply skills appropriately within the context of
the game. They also develop teamwork and communication skills.
Table 1 (see over) provides a comparison between the key tenets of the P4L philosophy and current
NSO junior sport delivery models for the sports of bowls, cricket, netball, AFL, badminton, tennis,
gymnastics and athletics. Where the term ‘not clearly defined’ has been used, this indicates the
sampled materials did not explicitly refer to the use of this coaching strategy (for example, role
models) as detailed by the P4L philosophy.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
83
84
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Coaching
philosophy
P4L
Game
Sense/implicit
learning
P4L
Skill/drill/game
progression
P4L
Bowls
Cricket
In2cricket
Netball
NetSetGO!
AFL Auskick
Badminton
Miniton — under
10 years
✓
Auskick Rookie 5–8 years
Auskick Pro 9–12 years
Recommended sequential
programming
✓
✓
S — Show
P — Practice
I — Instruct
R — Reward
SPIR method:
Not clearly defined
Not clearly defined
✓
✓
✓
Not clearly
defined
Not clearly defined
✓
✓
Ask the
players
✗
✓
Not clearly defined
Not clearly defined
Role models
Active listening
✓
✓
Focus on
positives
✓
Discrete
coaching
Fun Net 5–7 years
Netta 8–10 years
✓
Have-A-Go 5–7 years
Have-A-Game 8–10 years
✓
10–13 years — maximum five
end games/sets
✓
✓
✓
Primary 5–9 years —
target/introductory games
Coach as the
facilitator
The game is the focus
A summary of the adherence to P4L philosophy in selected NSO junior coaching delivery models.
Sport
Table 1
✓
T — teaching/coaching style
R — rules
E — Equipment
E — Environment
TREE acronym:
✓
✓
Recommend P4L kit and
bowls companion manual
✓
Change it
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
85
Coaching
philosophy
P4L/implicit
learning
P4L
Skills, drills
and games
P4L
Sport
Tennis
Hotshots
Gymnastics
Athletics
(Australia)
Coaching
principles
Little
Athletics
✓
✓
All activities focus on
athletic fundamentals of
run, jump and throw
4–12 years
Athletic play
Implement positive
and appropriate
communication
strategies in one-onone situations
Allow participants to
take responsibility
for their learning
Implement a series
of games and skill
development activities
suitable for the level of
the participants involved
✓
✓
✓
Gymnastics for
all — GymMix
✓
Not clearly defined
Not clearly defined
✓
✓
✗
✓
✓
Role models
‘Deliverers explain/
demonstrate the
skill and children
practise it’
✓
✓
Discrete coaching
Red stage 5–8 years
Orange stage 8–10 years
Green stage 9+ ages
Coach as the
facilitator
The game is the focus
✓
Coaches prompted
to consider, ‘Did
you use questioning
effectively?’
✓
✓
✓
Ask the players
✓
Modify coaching methods
and activities where
necessary to include
all participants within
the group
Use a variety of methods
TREE acronym
✓
Change it
In considering the summary presented in Table 1 it is evident that the NSOs of bowls, netball,
badminton, cricket, gymnastics and Little Athletics have been working with the ASC in the development
of P4L companion booklets and this is reflected in their respective junior sport policies. Similarly, tennis
has adopted game-focused delivery approaches that are generally consistent with the P4L philosophy,
albeit without explicitly referring to P4L. For instance, Tennis Australia’s promotes its Hot Shots program
as follows:
At the heart of MLC Tennis Hot Shots is a fundamental approach to learning. It’s called learning
through play and it’s based on developing skills in real situations that happen on a tennis court.
The primary objective of the Deliverer should be to get kids to serve, rally and score quickly so that
they can develop and refine skills in a game-like situation. Creating environments by changing balls,
court sizes and shapes and modifying equipment will help children to engage in effective learning,
which includes being excited and motivated to play. By using a system that includes implicit learning
opportunities, players have fun and learn quickly and effectively without the need to halt all activity
and revert to traditional explicit instruction-based coaching that means standing in line and being
inactive for long periods. This does not mean that coaches should not teach technical skills but that
this technical intervention should help players to perform the skills better when they try to play the
game. Technique has a purpose — to help players perform the tactics of the game more effectively.
(Tennis Australia 2012)
Similarly, while Little Athletics adopts a P4L coaching philosophy, junior athletics (defined as under 13
years of age) as administered by Athletics Australia does not explicitly mention the P4L philosophy in
their coaching development/accreditation content. However, the key assessment outcomes for coaches
completing their beginning and junior coach programs are generally consistent with the P4L philosophy.
The NSO with (seemingly) the most different coaching philosophy to P4L is the AFL, which promotes a
skill-drill-to-game progression method. It is important, however, to acknowledge the AFL’s underpinning
position, which is that Auskick is managed by the community (in other words, the parents). While not
explicitly stated in the AFL materials reviewed, follow-up personal communication with the AFL in regards
to this issue revealed that the skill-drill-to-game progression approach was based on the fact that
many of the coaches (parents) delivering the Auskick program would not be suitably skilled or qualified
to deliver a game-based coaching philosophy or the underpinning tenets of a facilitative, questioning
coaching style.
It is evident that with little empirical evidence to guide the respective coaching philosophy adopted
by each NSO, a combination of pragmatics (such as those displayed by the AFL), experiential wisdom
and collaboration with key stakeholders (such as the ASC) are typically the drivers behind an NSO’s
junior coaching philosophy. Each NSO typically presented an overriding philosophy of safe and inclusive
participation in order to develop the fundamentals of their sport. A typical example would be the Little
Athletics Development Policy, which states:
Little Athletics aims to provide skills development and competition opportunities for children through
athletics as a ‘Foundation for all Sports.’ Australian Little Athletics have drafted the following Development
Policy in order to highlight the respective stages of development of Little Athletics, as the introduction to
a lifelong participation in physical activity and a healthy lifestyle. Little Athletics prides itself in its ability
to introduce children to the fundamental skills of running, jumping and throwing that form the basis for
other sports. While no one event or activity participated in at Little Athletics provides this foundation,
collectively the events which comprise Little Athletics do. As such, the emphasis of participation in Little
Athletics is on involvement in all events rather than specialisation on one or a few at an early age.
86
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
The game is the focus
In contrast to the P4L philosophy of advocating that children develop sporting skills through fun games
and activities rather than skill-based drills, the AFL advocates the ‘sequenced skill development’
approach to coaching (AFL 2011). What is not clear from the literature sampled is how different this
coaching approach would look in practice when compared to a P4L approach.
For instance, the instruction manual may detail a progression from simple to more complex ‘drills’, starting
with something as simple as kicking the ball to a partner. The addition of a simple coach prompt to ‘see
how many kicks you and your partner can do in a row’ changes the drill to an appropriate game.
This difference in philosophy is also evident in the empirical literature, where despite the number of
authors advocating the use of the P4L coaching philosophies (or similar) there is a lack of empirical
evidence to support the superiority of game-focused coaching over the traditional technique-based
model (Rink, French and Tjeerdsma 1996). French et al. (1996) investigated games-centred coaching
in badminton using three intervention methods (skill, tactical and combined), with results inconclusive
due to skill and tactical components improving equally across the three experimental conditions. Lawton
(1989) reported similar findings with badminton.
An investigation by Turner and Martinek (1992) into the effect of game-based coaching on the
development of skill, knowledge and game play in field hockey demonstrated some support for the
game-centred approach. This study incorporated a longer intervention period (15 lessons) than earlier
studies and found the ‘games for understanding’ group improved their decision making compared to the
technique and control groups, and increased their declarative and procedural knowledge only in relation
to the control group. There was no observed difference between the groups for skill accuracy when
tested in isolation from the game environment.
Based on the above literature, NSOs would be justifiably ‘confused’ as to whether there is a preferred
approach to coaching based on empirical evidence. Some researchers acknowledge that elements of
the skill drill may need to occur for technique refinement to occur (Pill and Priest 2009), however much
of the current literature suggests that this type of approach may impede a child’s understanding of the
game and its rules (Launder and Piltz 2006). As Pope suggests, ‘Most kids want to play games not
practise the skills, and if they are in a learning environment the outcome of the games is relative to the
opposition’ (2006).
While the guiding P4L philosophy of ‘the game is the focus’ is sound, there is a need to articulate the
nature of ‘game progression’ not just in the context of a particular sport or skill, but on a more holistic
curriculum level (see Butler and McCahan 2005). For example, Thorpe, Bunker and Almond’s (1996) games
classification system reflects a progressive structure that provides the opportunity for transfer across
games and their concepts. Target and striking games such as bowls and cricket are sampled before net/
wall (court) games, which are then followed by territorial or invasion games. Butler and McCahan summarise
this progressive logic as, ‘The concept and skills embedded in target and striking games form the
foundation for the more conceptually sophisticated and complex net and territorial games.’
Obvious differences are apparent between the above sport classifications, which provide the basis for
progression. For instance, target sports are typically closed or self paced in nature, providing learners
with time to assemble an appropriate action to meet the task goal. Striking and fielding sports then
open up the environment and add some time-stress on a performer, but equally the time between
deliveries (for example, cricket) allow much needed time for re-organisation. Net games then add an
element of continuity to the game with less frequent breaks, but are not as complex as invasion/
territorial sports because the opposition cannot ‘invade’ another player’s space. While skilful coaching
can overcome many of the differences cited between sports classifications, it would be prudent to
consider a more progressive introduction of sports across a curriculum rather than a more ad hoc
sport-by-sport basis.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
87
Studies by Oslin and Mitchell (1998) and Jones and Farrow (1999) — both of which used a net/wall
(court) classification — have provided empirical support for the transfer of strategic knowledge between
sports within the same classification. Jones and Farrow (1999) investigated the transfer of tactical
awareness from volleyball (learned in a game-centred environment) to badminton. The experimental
group practised volleyball (net/wall — court) and improved their badminton (net/wall — court)
knowledge and decision making accuracy over the intervention period compared to the control group
practising rugby (invasion). These results go some way to demonstrate the transfer of perceptual and
tactical links between sports within the same games classification.
Coach as the facilitator and Ask the players
The categories of ‘Coach as facilitator’ and ‘Ask the players’ have been merged for the purpose of this
review as the latter can be considered a derivative of facilitative coaching.
The P4L philosophy suggests coaches play a facilitator role rather than a director’s role, setting
challenges for children to find solutions rather than instructing in how to perform a particular
skill. Facilitative coaching is grounded in a developmental approach to learning that incorporates
‘experiential’ and ‘discovery’ processes to assist learning (Rink, French and Tjeerdsma 1996). As the
P4L outline of ‘Ask the players’ states:
The use of questioning is a valuable strategy to engage the children themselves in changing the activity
to increase participation and to make the activity more or less challenging. Feedback from the children
will give a good indication of whether the game or activity is achieving the desired outcomes.
Tennis Australia calls its coaches ‘deliverers’ and suggest their primary role ‘should be to get kids
to serve, rally and score quickly so that they can develop and refine skills in a game-like situation’.
Similarly, the AFL Junior Coaching Manual and Athletics Australia resources recommend a questioning
approach rather than an instructive approach. While subtly different terminology is used by NSOs when
describing their coaching approach, it is evident they all advocate a more facilitative rather than directive
approach. Where some confusion exists is in the operationalising of this philosophy. For instance, while
the AFL Junior Coaching Manual encourages a questioning approach, it also provides coaches with
examples of good teaching that focus on ‘telling the children what to do ...’
In addition to the use of a questioning approach, both tennis and cricket cite the value of ‘implicit
learning’ methods. Implicit learning approaches typically contain little or no formal instruction
(the mechanics), but result in a learner being able to perform the skill — despite being unable to
verbally describe how they do it. In contrast, explicit learning can be related to traditional coaching
approaches, where verbal instruction is used to coach a learner about how to perform a skill. This
process typically results in the learner hypothesis testing or evaluating each practice attempt. For
example, ‘I hit the ball in the air’, ‘I better adjust my grip’ and so on. As a result, the player is able
to verbalise how to perform the skill — although it doesn’t guarantee they can physically execute the
skill (see Masters 2008 for a review).
Questioning techniques that require a learner to consider how they could play the game more effectively
may still lead to explicit learning. Hence, while there may be benefits in terms of engagement of the
children in the activity, this has to be balanced with what explicit information is acquired. Similar to the
observations about clarity of terminology for facilitative coaching, it is evident NSOs are confusing terms
— such as ‘direct’ and ‘explicit’ instruction, and ‘implicit’ and ‘discovery’ learning — and using them
interchangeably. Greater consistency in the use of these terms is required to reduce coach confusion
and improve understanding of the underpinning concepts, as ultimately it is agreed that facilitative
coaching and questioning is a useful strategy for engaging participants. To this end, Tennis Australia has
recently elected to exclusively use the terms ‘direct’ (i.e. explicit, directive) and ‘indirect’ (i.e. implicit,
experiential) instruction to improve coach understanding.
88
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Discrete coaching
The P4L philosophy suggests that coach instructions be kept to a minimum and play is allowed to
continue where possible. It also encourages discrete, unobtrusive coaching on the side to foster a
supportive environment that helps to build confidence, increase participation and redress some of the
negative instructional experiences reported by children. Notably, the strategy is not explicitly discussed
by NSOs that have not adopted the complete P4L philosophy (i.e. tennis, cricket and AFL).
While the strategy is admirable it does highlight one potential gap in the adoption of a game-centred
approach: the difficulty of providing discrete coaching. For instance, if a game is being played relatively
well by most participants but one or two children are struggling, how does the coach manage to
continue to supervise the game and ’unobtrusively’ support the struggling children? Such strategies
require excellent coaching skills or multiple coaches to be successfully implemented.
Role models
The value of role models is identified by the majority of NSO programs reviewed. Tennis was one
exception, which (seemingly) did not encourage the use of role models as it is felt that ‘deliverers
explain/demonstrate the skill’. Similarly, it was inferred from the AFL materials that it was the coach
who provided a clear demonstration of the required skill rather than a ‘role model’. In summary, as
identified in Table 1 this was one aspect where it was difficult to establish the NSO’s perceived value of
this coaching strategy, as reflected by specific recommendations to coaches.
When considering the use of player role models to emphasise good technique or strategies, there are a
number of empirically demonstrated underpinning principles that could be articulated to coaches. First,
it is empirically supported that the use of a peer (in this case another child) is a superior role model to
an adult modelling the same skill or strategy. The closer fit between the learner and the model in terms
of psychophysical constraints — such as limb lengths, strength and hand sizes — provide a more
appropriate movement solution than what a larger adult may provide (Davids, Button and Bennett 2008).
When empirical work is considered regarding the influence of a role model’s skill level on psychological
responses and motor performance, mixed findings are reported (see McCullagh and Weiss 2001 for
a review). For instance, viewing a skilled role model has been shown to entail higher self-efficacy and
better motor performance (D’Arripe et al. 2002; Lirgg and Feltz 1991) than viewing an unskilled one.
On the other hand, some studies have addressed the issue of whether it is ‘correct’ or ‘learning’ role
models that lead to better performance. Some results indicate that viewing a ‘learning model’ (a role
model who does not execute the skill correctly) can lead to higher motor performance (McCullagh
and Caird 1990), while others report that both conditions lead to similar performance (McCullagh and
Meyer 1997). D’Arripe et al. (2002) suggest that skilled peer models elicit more effective learning from
children as it motivates them to practice in order to emulate the models. However, it has also been
speculated that watching a novice model engages learners in greater problem-solving activity than when
observing a skilled model (Hodges and Franks 2002), which is consistent with the facilitative coaching
approach advocated by the P4L philosophy.
The P4L philosophy suggests that cultural considerations should taken into account when adopting the
role model strategy. Gender-based modelling is one such facet that has been explored. In symmetrical
dyads — where the skill levels of participants were equal — girls cooperated more than boys while
the latter displayed more parallel activity, preferring physical investment in the task (see D’Arripe et al.
2002). In short, the selection of a role model is influenced by a variety of psycho-social factors, the skill
to be performed, and the age and skill levels of the participants. This complex array of factors makes
it difficult to provide a ‘one size fits all’ recommendation, and therefore it is suggested that future work
provides a more detailed set of guidelines for coaches.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
89
Finally, it should be noted that learners can acquire a strong familiarity or awareness of a skill or strategy
through observation, even when there is no conscious desire or intention to do so. While game play is
encouraged to maximise participation and playing time, selective use of ‘interchanging’ may still be a
valuable method of creating some positive modelling of game play behaviours. However, it has been noted
that many coaches (ab)use ‘interchanging’ to sub-off less skilled performers rather than use it as an
opportunity for positive modelling (Hill and Green 2008) — an approach at odds with the P4L philosophy.
Change it
A key feature of P4L is the use of simple variations to games (or ‘Change it’). This is aimed at
maximising participation and accommodating a range of ability levels and backgrounds.
The ‘Change it’ coaching principle is a strength of the P4L philosophy. Consistent with some of the other
principles reviewed, programs that have modelled their program on P4L have simply presented ‘Change
it’ (for example, Athletics Play). In other cases NSOs have not explicitly referred to the concept as
‘Change it’ but do cite similar constructs focused on how to readily change activities to meet the needs
of participants. For example, gymnastics and the AFL recommend coaches apply the TREE acronym (T
= teaching/coaching style, R = rules and regulations, E = equipment, E = environment) to modify and
challenge players according to their ability.
However, while the use of acronyms appear plentiful what seems to be lacking is the provision of sportspecific ‘Change it’ constructs (though programs such as In2cricket and Auskick did provide numerous
progressions and modifications to games and drills). Even less apparent was a sport-specific checklist
for coaches to use to determine which ‘Change it’ modification is most effective for a particular
circumstance. For instance, if there are too many players gravitating to the ball consider the addition of
positional zones with defined numbers of players.
Not surprisingly, there is a lack of empirical evidence on the direct value of such a coaching strategy;
however there is ample indirect evidence to support its use. For instance, Guadagnoli and Lee (2004)
propose a ‘Challenge Point Framework’ that argues learning is related to the information arising
from performance and should be optimised relative to the difficulty of the task and the skill level of
the performer. Similarly, Davids et al. (2008) argue that coaches need to selectively manipulate key
constraints (learner, environment and task) so that learners can find an appropriate response to the
learning outcome of the session. In this instance game play is neither free play nor so tightly controlled
and directed that a child is not required to be an ‘active learner’. Davids et al. suggest a coach needs
to be particularly competent in the manipulation of task constraints (i.e. critical ‘Change it’ elements).
These include the rules of the game, equipment used, boundary playing areas, size of goals and the
number of players involved in a game.
90
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Recommendations
The need for evidence
The most obvious gap — and therefore recommendation — is the need for more direct evidence about
the value of a P4L approach relative to traditional skill/drill coaching approaches. The need for research
is further highlighted in the ensuing gaps identified and recommendations detailed in this review.
To address this issue, a critical future direction is the implementation of a systematic and longitudinal
program of research to further validate the P4L philosophy as a holistic coaching approach. This work
needs to be supported by a series of well designed cross-sectional studies that further elucidate on the
respective underpinning P4L principles, in turn allowing for recommendations to coaches to be more
definitive. For instance, a more systematic examination of the interaction of role modelling with skill
level and gender is required. Similarly, a greater understanding of the stages of cognitive development
in children and how this manifests itself within a P4L curriculum of sporting activities would be helpful,
particularly for NSOs seeking the direction of the ASC on junior sport delivery.
Stronger recognition of the influence of the coach
Coaches have a significant impact on the experiences of children in sport (Torres and Hager 2007).
The P4L principles require coaches to be highly skilled, and while each of the NSO programs reviewed
herein have minimum accreditation standards under the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme
(NCAS), continued education and support of coaches will be a critical factor in the successful
implementation of the P4L philosophy.
While the above statement could be levelled at any coaching approach, it arguably more pertinent
in the case of P4L as the principles require more advanced coaching skills. In particular, integrating
the principles of facilitative coaching, discrete coaching, ask the players and the use of a ‘Change it’
strategy are all difficult coaching skills for the inexperienced coach in the applied setting, despite the
provision of useful supporting resources. For example, a coach will need to be particularly competent
in the recognition of situations that require the need for the game to change and subsequently have
command of the ‘Change it’ elements (see the ‘Change it’ section).
Understanding the nuances of the sport being coached would seem advantageous in this regard,
and ensuring the coach has a sufficient sports-specific background and grounding in the P4L
philosophy may be important. As such, greater attention to coach education in the area of mentoring/
modelling opportunities should occur. For example, many junior sport programs have a ‘club’ or
‘centre’ coaching coordinator. This person would presumably be suitably skilled in recognising and
demonstrating P4L coaching behaviours and could work with volunteer and inexperienced coaches to
improve their ‘on the job’ skills.
The influence of modelling
Of all the concepts advocated by the P4L philosophy, the influence of role models was the most difficult
to discern how the different NSOs approached the concept. However, as highlighted in the ‘Role models’
section, there is a body of empirical literature to guide the use of modelling in a more specific fashion
than at present. Similar to ‘the game being the focus’, role modelling is a feature of the P4L philosophy
that can potentially overcome difficulties inexperienced coaches may encounter when trying to deliver
all elements of the P4L philosophy. Consequently, it is suggested further detail or guidelines could be
provided to coaches about how to use role modelling as a resource.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
91
Greater recognition of equipment scaling in ‘Change it’
Similar to the previous claim regarding the power of role modelling, when the ‘Change it’ options
available to a coach are considered, the influence of equipment scaling (E in the acronym) could be
highlighted even more strongly. Tennis Australia’s HotShots program highlights the value of equipment
scaling most strongly when compared to other NSOs considered as part of this review, stating in its
program introduction:
The child-scaled equipment, including smaller courts, racquets and low compression balls, makes it
possible to develop skills faster, resulting in a more tactically and technically proficient player at a
young age. And it’s fun. Kids have the chance to learn at their own pace and play with their friends.
It is now possible to match red, orange and green balls to a player’s size and developing skill level,
helping them to play sooner.
The P4L coaching philosophy, particularly in relation to the ‘Change it’ acronym, provides the ideal
vehicle to further educate coaches regarding the capacity to positively influence child participation
in sport through appropriately scaled equipment. Appropriate equipment scaling has the potential
to overcome other coaching delivery challenges (previously identified) that may require more coach
expertise. Presently, the P4L philosophy discusses scaling as an option available to coaches if an
activity is not working — perhaps a greater focus could be placed on highlighting to coaches that
appropriate equipment and playing area scaling is a fundamental element of a successful game rather
than simply a ‘Change it’ option.
Managing the potentially competing needs of game-centred and discrete coaching approach
While the adoption of a game-centred approach is well considered, at a practical level facilitating a
game-centred approach may make it more difficult to provide discrete coaching. Basic group management
skills may be challenged if a coach has a game/s being played by the group yet needs to ‘unobtrusively’
discretely coach a subset of children unable to play the developed game. Being able to successfully
implement these approaches would require excellent coaching skills or for multiple coaches to be present.
This is perhaps one of the reasons the AFL Auskick program prefers a skill-drill-to-game progression
approach as it is easier for inexperienced coaches to ‘manage’ the group.
A P4L curriculum approach
A gap that could be addressed by reflecting more closely on commentary and research directed at the
Game Sense or games for understanding approach relates to positioning the P4L coaching philosophy
within a progressive sports skill curriculum. As described in ‘The game is the focus’ section, certain
sports and skills provide the opportunity for transfer across games and their concepts; for example,
target and striking games such as bowls and cricket are sampled before net/wall (court) games, which
are then followed by territorial or invasion games. Providing education systems and sports clubs with
a recommended sequence for introducing sports or skills so that they build upon one another in a
progressive manner may provide an even more advantageous experience for participants.
A consistent terminology
The use of subtly different terminology by the NSOs when describing their coaching approach was
evident throughout the review. A common nomenclature is advocated to make the interpretation of
principles and concepts easier for the developing coach/parent. Given the P4L coaching philosophy
is seemingly the dominant approach in the majority of sports reviewed in this exercise, it would seem
prudent to use this opportunity to steer more NSOs to adopt common terminology in this regard.
92
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Conclusion
The P4L philosophy and its underpinning principles provide a sound foundation for coaching children
and overcoming some of the stated barriers to children not enjoying sport. The current review of the
NSO junior sport delivery programs relative to the principles of P4L revealed a close match in most
instances. Where differences were apparent it could be argued this is as much to do with inconsistent
use of terminology or a lack of clarity.
The overwhelming conformity of approaches across the NSOs reviewed suggests there is a strong
belief from key stakeholders that a philosophy such as P4L is a preferred coaching approach. This is
despite the fact there is an absence of direct empirical support, however it should be noted the majority
of the P4L principles when considered individually do have some underpinning evidence supporting
their application. This literature provides a sound foundation for the development of future research
directions to address the gaps highlighted in this review.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
93
References
Alexander, K and Penney, D 2005, ‘Teaching under the influence: feeding Games for Understanding
into the Sport Education development-refinement cycle’, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
10(3), pp. 287–301.
Australian Football League 2011, AFL Junior Coaching Manual: for coaches and players aged 5–12 years.
Australian Sports Commission 2007, Sporting Partnership Programs.
(http://www.ausport.gov.au/participating/aasc/resources/sporting_partnership_programs)
Australian Sports Commission 2010, AASC Playing for Life in action: Presenters guide.
(secure.ausport.gov.au/aasc/playing_for_life)
Australian Sports Commission 2010, Athletic Play Manual.
(http://www.littleathletics.com.au/assets/console/customitem/attachments/Athletics%20Play.pdf)
Australian Sports Commission 2011, Final Report — Evaluation of the Active After-school Communities
Program 2009–10 Impact Assessment, second edition.
(http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/445117/Report_Impact_Assessment_2nd_
followup_15.pdf)
Badminton Australia 2008, Junior Badminton Policy.
(http://www.badminton.org.au/index.php?id=148)
Bowls Australia 2009, Developing junior bowls: Bowls Australia policy and guidelines.
(http://www.bowlsaustralia.com.au/index.php?id=3930)
Butler, JI and McCahan, BJ 2005, ‘Teaching games for understanding as a curriculum model’ in LL Griffin
and JI Butler, Teaching games for understanding, Human Kinetics: USA, pp. 33–54.
Cricket Australia 2012, In2Cricket Co-ordinators Manual.
(http://in2cricket.com.au/coordinators/coordinator-resources)
D’Arripe-Longueville, F; Gernigon, C; Huet, M; Cadopi, M; and Winnykamen, F 2002, ‘Peer tutoring in a
physical education setting: influence of tutor skill level on novice learners’ motivation and performance’,
Journal Of Teaching In Physical Education, 22(1), pp. 105–23.
D’Arripe-Longueville, F; Gernigon, C; Huet, M; Winnykamen, F; and Cadopi, M 2002, ‘Peer-Assisted
Learning in the Physical Activity Domain: Dyad Type and Gender Differences’, Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 24, pp. 219–38.
Davids, K; Bennett, S; and Button, C 2008, The Dynamics of Skill Acquisition, Human Kinetics: USA.
den Duyn, N 1996, ‘Why it makes sense to play games’ Sports Coach (Spring), 6–9.
Drummond, MJ and Pill, S 2011, ‘The role of physical education in promoting sport participation in
school and beyond’ in Youth Sport in Australia: History and Culture, Sydney University Press: Sydney,
pp.165–78.
Dyson, B; Griffin, L; and Hastie, P 2004, ‘Sport Education, Tactical Games and Cooperative Learning:
Theoretical and Pedagogical considerations’, Quest, 56, pp. 226–40.
French, K.E; Werner, PH; Rink, JE; Taylor, K; and Hussey, K 1996, ‘The effects of a 3-week unit of tactical,
skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students’,
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, pp. 418–38.
French, KE; Werner, PH; Taylor, K; Hussey, K; and Jones, J 1996, ‘The effects of a 6-week unit of tactical,
skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students’,
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, pp. 439–63.
Guadagnoli, MA and Lee, TD 2004, ‘Challenge Point: A Framework for Conceptualizing the Effects of
Various Practice Conditions in Motor Learning’, Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), pp. 212–24.
94
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
Gymnastics Australia (2012). GymMix.
(http://www.gymnastics.org.au/default.asp?Page=3046&MenuID=Coaching_@_Judging/
c20038/3023#GYMMIX)
Hill, B and Green, BC 2008, ‘Give the Bench the Boot! Using Manning Theory to Design Youth-Sport
Programs’, Journal for Sport Management, 22, pp. 184–204.
Hodges, N.J and Franks, IM 2002, ‘Modelling coaching practice: The role of instruction and
demonstration’ Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, pp. 1–19.
Jones, C and Farrow, D 1999, ‘The transfer of strategic knowledge: A test of the games classification
curriculum model’, The Bulletin of Physical Education, 35(2), pp. 103–24.
Launder, A and Piltz, W 2006, ‘Beyond ‘understanding’ to skilful play in games, through play practice’,
Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 39, pp. 47–57.
Lawton, J 1989, ‘Comparison of two teaching methods in games’, Bulletin of Physical Education, 25(1),
pp. 35–8.
Light R and Dixon MA 2007, ‘Contemporary developments in sport pedagogy and their implications for
sport management education’, Sport Management Review, 10(2), pp. 159–75.
Lirgg, CD and Feltz, DL 1991, ‘Teacher versus peer models revisited: Effects on motor performance’,
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, pp. 217–24.
Masters, RM 2008, ‘Skill learning the implicit way — say no more!’ in D Farrow, J Baker and C MacMahon
(eds.) Developing sport expertise: Researchers and coaches put theory into practice, Routledge: NY.
McCullagh, P and Caird, JK 1990, ‘Correct and learning models and the use of the model knowledge
of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill’, Journal of Human Movement Studies,
18, pp. 107–16.
McCullagh, P and Meyer, KN 1997, ‘Leaming versus correct models: Influence of model type on the
learning of a free-weight squat lift’, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, pp. 56–61.
McCullagh, P and Weiss, MR 2001, ‘Modeling: Considerations for motor skill performance and
psychological responses’ in RN Singer, HA Hausenblas and CM Janelle (eds.), Handbook of research on
sport psychology, Wiley: NY, pp. 205–38.
Netball Australia 2012(a), National Coach Accreditation Framework.
(http://66.29.206.247/_uploads/res/1_191605.pdf)
Netball Australia 2012(b), Netsetgo Parents Program Information.
(http://www.netsetgo.netball.asn.au/parents_program.asp)
Netball Australia 2012(c), Netsetgo Centres Program Information.
(http://www.netsetgo.netball.asn.au/centres.asp)
IFNA (2008) Netball Academy Basic Coaching Manual.
(http://66.29.206.247/_uploads/res/1_50863.pdf)
Netball Australia 2006, Junior Sport Policy.
(http://66.29.206.247/_uploads/res/1_33566.pdf)
Oslin, J and Mitchell, S 1998, ‘An investigation of tactical transfer in net games’, Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 69 (suppl.), A-98.
Pill, S 2010, ‘Student reflections of sport education in one urban Australian primary school’
Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport & Physical Education, 1(3/4), pp. 29–36.
Pill, S 2011, ‘Teacher engagement with teaching games for understanding-game sense in physical
education’, Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 11(2), pp. 5–13.
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report
95
Pill, S 2012, Developing Game Sense in AFL Footballers (second ed.), ACHPER.
Pill, S and Preist, T 2009, ‘Play with purpose — Teaching games and sport for understanding’,
ACHPER Active & Healthy Magazine, 16(2/3), pp. 5–7.
Pope, C 2006, ‘Affect in New Zealand junior sport: The forgotten dynamic’, Change: Transformations in
Education, 9(11), pp. 17–25.
Poulton, M and Goodman, S 2010, Athletics Coach Accreditation Framework. Level 1 Beginning Coach:
Facilitator and Assessors Manual, Athletics Australia.
Rink, JE; French, KE; and Tjeerdsma, BL 1996, ‘Foundations for the learning and instruction of sport
and games’, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, pp. 390–417.
Tennis Australia 2012, MLC Tennis Hot Shots Delivery manual 2011–12.
(tennis.com.au/mlctennishotshots)
Thorpe, R; Bunker, D; and Almond, L 1986, Rethinking games teaching, Loughborough University Press,
Loughborough: UK.
Torres, CR and Hager, PF 2007, ‘De-emphasizing Competition in Organized Youth Sport: Misdirected
Reforms and Misled Children’, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 34(2), pp. 194–210.
Turner, A and Martinek, TJ 1992, ‘A comparative analysis of two models for teaching (technique approach
and game centred (tactical focus) approach’ International Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15–31.
Wright, J and Forest, G 2007, ‘A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and games centred
approaches to teaching’ Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12(3), 273–87.
96
Validation of Playing for Life philosophy for children aged five to 12 years – Full Report