Skip to main content

Characteristics of Teacher Training in School-Based Physical Education Interventions to Improve Fundamental Movement Skills and/or Physical Activity: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Fundamental movement skill (FMS) competence is positively associated with physical activity (PA). However, levels of both FMS and PA are lower than expected. Current reviews of interventions to improve FMS and PA have shown that many school-based programs have achieved positive outcomes, yet the maintenance of these interventions is variable. Teachers play a central role in the success and longevity of school-based interventions. Despite the importance of teacher engagement, research into the nature and quality of teacher training in school-based PA and FMS interventions has received little attention.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the type and quantity of teacher training in school-based physical education PA and/or FMS interventions, and to identify what role teacher training had on the intervention outcome.

Methods

A systematic search of eight electronic databases was conducted. Publication date restrictions were not implemented in any database, and the last search was performed on 1 March 2015. School physical education-based interventions facilitated by a school teacher, and that included a quantitative assessment of FMS competence and/or PA levels were included in the review.

Results

The search identified 39 articles. Eleven of the studies measured FMS, 25 studies measured PA and three measured both FMS and PA. Nine of the studies did not report on any aspect of the teacher training conducted. Of the 30 studies that reported on teacher training, 25 reported statistically significant intervention results for FMS and/or PA. It appears that teacher training programs: are ≥ 1 day; provide comprehensive subject and pedagogy content; are framed by a theory or model; provide follow-up or ongoing support; and measure teacher satisfaction of the training, are more effective at improving student outcomes in FMS and/or PA. However, the provision of information regarding the characteristics of the teacher training was largely inadequate. Therefore, it was difficult to ascertain which teacher training characteristics were most important in relation to intervention effectiveness.

Conclusion

It is clear that whilst teachers are capable of making substantial improvements in student outcomes in PA and FMS, the findings of this review suggest the teacher training component of school-based PA and/or FMS interventions is not only under-reported but is under-studied, and, perhaps as a result, the value of teacher training is not widely understood. What remains unclear, due to poor reporting, is what role teacher training is having on these outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Yang X, Telama R, Leskinen E, et al. Testing a model of physical activity and obesity tracking from youth to adulthood: the cardiovascular risk in young Finns study. Int J Obes. 2007;31:521–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Janssen L, LeBlanc A. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Eisenmann JC, Wickel EE, Welk GJ, et al. Relationship between adolescent fitness and fatness and cardiovascular disease risk factors in adulthood: the Aerobics Centre Longitudinal Study (ACLS). Am Heart J. 2005;149:46–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Camacho-Miñano MJ, LaVoi NM, Barr-Anderson DJ. Interventions to promote physical activity among young and adolescent girls: a systematic review. Health Educ Res. 2011;26(6):1025–49.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011–2013 Australian Health Survey: physical activity. 2013. http://www.abs.gov.au/australianhealthsurvey.

  6. 6.

    Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, et al. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):247–57.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nader P, Bradley R, Houts R, et al. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from ages 9 to 15 years. JAMA. 2008;300(3):295–395.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sallis J, Prochaska J, Taylor W. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(5):963–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Currie C, Zanotti C, Morgan A, et al. Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) study: international report from the 2009/2010 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380(9838):258–71.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lubans DR, Morgan P, Cliff DP, et al. Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: review of associated health benefits. Sports Med. 2010;40(12):1019–35.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ulrich D. Test of gross motor development. 2nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Gallahue DL, Ozmun JC, Goodway JD. Understanding motor development: infants, children, adolescents, adults. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2006. p. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Barnett LM, van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, et al. Childhood motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity. J Adolesc Health. 2009;44:252–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Booth ML, Okley AD, Denney-Wilson E, et al. NSW Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS) 2010: full report. Sydney: NSW Department of Health; 2006.

  16. 16.

    Hardy LL, Barnett LM, Espinel P, et al. Thirteen-year trends in child and adolescent fundamental movement skills: 1997–2010. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(10):1965–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hardy LL, King L, Epinel P, et al. NSW Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS) 2010: full report. Sydney: NSW Department of Health; 2011.

  18. 18.

    Pill S, Priest T. South Australian Catholic primary schools sport association fundamental movement skills pilot project. ACHPER International Conference: Creating Active Futures. Brisbane: ACHPER; 2009. p. 257–69.

  19. 19.

    Robinson LE, Stodden DF, Barnett LM, et al. Motor competence and its effect on positive developmental trajectories of health. Open Access Sports Med (Auckland, NZ). 2015;45(9):1273–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE). Achieving health promoting schools: guidelines for promoting health in schools. United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). USA: SAGE Publishing; 2009.

  21. 21.

    Carter R. The impact of public schools on childhood obesity. JAMA. 2002;288(17):2180. doi:10.1001/jama.288.17.2180-JMS1106-6-1.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/2014. Cited 14 April 2014.

  23. 23.

    School health guidelines to promote healthy eating and physical activity. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2011;60(Rr-5):1–76.

  24. 24.

    Russ L, Webster C, Beets M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of multi-component interventions through schools to increase physical activity. J Phys Act Health. (In press).

  25. 25.

    Morgan PJ, Barnett LM, Cliff DP, et al. Fundamental movement skill interventions in youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1361–83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Dudley D, Okely A, Pearson P, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of physical education and school sport interventions targeting physical activity, movement skills and enjoyment of physical activity. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2011;17(3):53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Dobbins M, Husson H, DeCorby K, et al. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:Cd007651.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lai SK, Costigan SA, Morgan PJ, et al. Do school-based interventions focusing on physical activity, fitness, or fundamental movement skill competency produce a sustained impact in these outcomes in children and adolescents? A systematic review of follow-up studies. Sports Med. 2014;44(1):67–79.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, et al. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educ Res. 2003;18(2):237–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hattie J. Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Sharma M. International school-based interventions for preventing obesity in children. Obes Rev. 2007;8(2):155–67.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Webster CA. Relationships between personal biography and changes in preservice classroom teachers’ physical activity promotion competence and attitude. J Teach Phys Educ. 2011;30(4):320–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Xiang P, Lowy S, McBride R. The impact of a field-based elementary physical education methods course on preservice classroom teachers’ beliefs. J Teach Phys Educ. 2002;21(2):145–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hart MA. Influence of a physical education methods course on elementary education majors’ knowledge of fundamental movement skills. Phys Educat. 2005;62(4):198–204.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Murphy F, O’Leary M. Supporting primary teachers to teach children physical: continuing the journey. Irish Educ Stud. 2010;31(3):297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bechtel PA, O’Sullivan M. Effective professional development—what we now know. J Teach Phys Educ. 2006;25:368–78.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hart J, Lee O. Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Biling Res J. 2003;27(3):475–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Huffman D, Thomas K, Lawrenz F. Relationship between professional development, teachers’ instructional practices, and the achievement of students in science and mathematics. Sch Sci Math. 2003;103(8):378–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Supovitz JA, Turner HM. The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. J Sci Teacher Ed. 2000;37(9):963–80.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Armour KM, Yelling M. Effective professional development for physical education teachers: The role of informal, collaborative learning. J Teach Phys Educ. 2007;26(2):177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Bechtel PA, O’Sullivan M. Enhancers and inhibitors of teacher change among secondary physical educators. J Teach Phys Educ. 2007;26(3):221–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Morgan PJ, Hansen V. Classroom teacher’s perceptions of the impact of barriers to teaching physical education on the quality of physical education programs. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;4(79):506–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kealey KA, Peterson AV Jr, Gaul MA, et al. Teacher training as a behavior change process: principles and results from a longitudinal study. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(1):64–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Garet MS, Porter AC, Desimone L, et al. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. Am Educ Res J. 2001;38(4):915–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    McKenzie TJ, Alcaraaz E, Sallis F. Effects on physical education program on children’s manipulative skills. J Teach Phys Educ. 1998;17:327–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Sallis JF, McKenzie JF, Alcarazaz JE, et al. The effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:1328–33.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Bakhtiari S, Shafina P, Ziaee V. Effects of selected exercises on elementary school third grade girls students’ motor development. Asian J Sports Med. 2011;2:51–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Boyle-Holmes T, Grost L, Russell L, et al. Promoting elementary physical education: results of a school based evaluation study. Health Educ Behav. 2010;37:377–89.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Cohen KE, Morgan PJ, Plontikoff R, et al. Physical activity and skills intervention: SCORES cluster randomized controlled trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(4):765–74.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Ericsson I. Effects of increased physical activity on motor skills and marks in physical education: an intervention study in school years 1 through 9 in Sweden. Phys Ed Sport Pedagogy. 2011;16(3):313–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Fogel VA, Miltenberger RG, Graves R, et al. The effects of exergaming on physical activity among inactive children in a physical education classroom. J Appl Behav Anal. 2010;43(4):591–600.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Gao Z, Lee AM, Xiang P, et al. Effect of learning activity on students’ motivation, physical activity levels and effort/persistence. ICHPER SD. 2011;6(1):27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    How YM, Whipp P, Dimmock J, et al. The effects of choice on autonomous motivation, perceived autonomy support, and physical activity levels in high school physical education. J Teach Phys Educ. 2013;32(2):131–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Jago R, McMurray RG, Drews KL, et al. HEALTHY intervention: fitness, physical activity, and metabolic syndrome results. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(8):1513–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Kalaja SP, Jaakkola TT, Liukkonen JO, et al. Development of junior high school students’ fundamental movement skills and physical activity in a naturalistic physical education setting. Phys Ed Sport Pedagogy. 2012;17(4):411–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Kriemler S, Zahner L, Schindler C, et al. Effect of school based physical activity programme (KISS) on fitness and adiposity in primary schoolchildren: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c785.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lonsdale C, Rosenkranz RR, Lubans DR, et al. A cluster-randomized controlled trial of strategies to increase adolescents’ physical activity and motivation during physical education lessons: the Motivating Active Learning in Physical Education (MALP) trial. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:834.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Magnusson KT, Sigurgeirsson I, Sveinsson T, et al. Assessment of a two-year school-based physical activity intervention among 7-9-year-old children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:138.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Michaud V, Nadeau L, Martel D, et al. The effect of team pentathlon on ten- to eleven-year-old childrens’ engagement in physical activity. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2012;17(5):543–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Sacchetti R, Ceciliani A, Garulli A, et al. Effects of a 2-year school-based intervention of enhanced physical education in the primary school. J Sch Health. 2013;83(9):639–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Siegrist M, Hanssen H, Lammel C, et al. A cluster randomised school-based lifestyle intervention programme for the prevention of childhood obesity and related early cardiovascular disease (JuvenTUM 3). BMC Public Health. 2011;11:258.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Zrnzević N, Lilić L, Zrnzević J. Contribution of the experimental physical education curricula to the functional abilities development. Res Kinesiol. 2013;41(1):101–5.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Dobraš R, Dragosavljević P, Vučković I, et al. The impact of the motivational intervention on students’ motor abilities. Physical Culture/Fizicka Kultura. 2013;67(1):24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Neumark-Sztainer DR, Friend SE, Flattum CF, et al. New moves-preventing weight-related problems in adolescent girls a group-randomized study. Am J Prev Med. 2010;39(5):421–32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Ahamed Y, MacDonald H, Reed K. School-based physical activity does not compromise children’s academic performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(2):371–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Akbari H, Abdoli B, Shafizadehkenari M, et al. The effect of traditional games in fundamental motor skill development in 7–9 year old boys. Iran J Pediatr. 2009;19(2):123–9.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Fairclough SJ, Stratton G. Effects of a physical education intervention to improve student activity levels. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2006;11(1):29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Gorely T, Nevill ME, Morris JG, et al. Effect of a school-based intervention to promote healthy lifestyles in 7–11 year old children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Graf C, Koch B, Falkowski G, et al. Effects of a school based intervention on BMI and motor abilities in childhood. J Sports Sci Med. 2005;15:361–87.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Harrison M, Burns C, McGuinness M, et al. Influence of a health education intervention on physical activity and screen time in primary school children: ‘Switch Off-Get Active’. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(5):388–94.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Jamner MS, Spruijt-Metz D, Bassin S, et al. A controlled evaluation of a school-based intervention to promote physical activity among sedentary adolescent females: project FAB. J Adolesc Health. 2004;34(4):279–89.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Maskell B, Shapiro DR, Ridley C. Effects of brain gym on overhand throwing in first grade students: a preliminary investigation. Phys Educat. 2004;61(1):14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Naylor P, Macdonald H, Zebedee J, et al. Lessons learned from Action Schools! BC—an ‘active school’ model to promote physical activity in elementary schools. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(5):413–23.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Pate RR, Ward DS, Saunders RP, et al. Promotion of physical activity among high-school girls: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(9):1582.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Conway TL, et al. Environmental interventions for eating and physical activity: a randomized controlled trial in middle schools. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(3):209–17.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Sollerhed AC, Ejlertsson G. Physical benefits of expanded physical education in primary school: findings from a 3-year intervention study in Sweden. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008;18(1):102–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    van Beurden E, Barnett LM, Zask A, et al. Can we skill and activate children through primary school physical education lessons? “Move it Groove it”-a collaborative health promotion intervention. Prev Med. 2003;36(4):493–501.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Verstraete S, Cardon G, De Clercq D, et al. Effectiveness of a two-year health-related physical education intervention in elementary schools. J Teach Phys Educ. 2007;26(1):20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Webber LS, Catellier DJ, Lytle LA, et al. Promoting physical activity in middle school girls: trial of activity for adolescent girls. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(3):173–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Martin EH, Rudisill ME, Hastie PA. Motivational climate and fundamental motor skill performance in a naturalistic physical education setting. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2009;14(3):227–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Gortmaker SL, Peterson K, Wiecha J, et al. Reducing obesity via a school-based interdisciplinary intervention among youth: planet health. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153(4):409–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Luepker RV, Perry CL, McKinlay SM, et al. Outcomes of a field trial to improve children’s dietary patterns and physical activity. The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health. CATCH collaborative group. JAMA. 1996;275(10):768–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Pieron M, Cloes M, Delfosse C, et al. An investigation of the effects of daily physical education in kindergarten and elementary schools. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 1996;2(2):116–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Simons-Morton BG, Parcel GS, Baranowski T, et al. Promoting physical activity and a healthful diet among children: results of a school-based intervention study. Am J Public Health. 1991;81(8):986–91.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Dyson B. Quality physical education: A commentary of effective physical education teaching. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014;85(2):144–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W-65.

  88. 88.

    Sullivan G, Feinn R. Using effect size-or why the p value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(3):279–82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Guskey TR. Professional development and teacher change. Teach Teach. 2002;8(3):381–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Yoon KS, Duncan T, Lee SW-Y, et al. Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Wei RC, Darling-Hammond L, Andree A, et al. Professional learning in the learning profession: a status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. TX: Dallas; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Darling-Hammond L, Jaquith A, Hamilton M. Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching, vol. 26. Stanford, California: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE); 2012.

  93. 93.

    Armour KM, Yelling MR. Continuing professional development for experienced physical education teachers: towards effective provision. Sport Educ Soc. 2004;9(1):95–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Lieberman LJ, Houston-Wilson C. Strategies for inclusion; a handbook for physical educators. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Cohen R, Goodway JD, Lidor R. The effectiveness of aligned developmental feedback on the overhand throw in third-grade students. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2012;17(5):525–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Hashweh MZ. Teacher pedagogical constructions: a reconfiguration of pedagogiacl content knowledge. Teach Teach. 2006;11(3):273–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Blank RK, de las Alas N. Effects of teacher professional development on gains in student achievement: how meta analysis provides scientific evidence useful to education leaders. Washington, DC: 2009.

  98. 98.

    Rink JE. Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. J Teach Phys Educ. 2001;20(2):112–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Borko H. Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educ Res. 2004;33(8):3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Wade RK. What makes a difference in inservice teacher education? A meta analysis of research. Educ Leadersh. 1985;42(4):48–54.

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Ross JG, Luepker RV, Nelson GD, et al. Teenage health teaching modules: impact of teacher training on implementation and student outcomes. J Sch Health. 1991;61(1):31–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    McKenzie TL, Dart JA, Sallis JF, et al. Evaluation of a widely disseminated physical education and professional development program by inservice teachers. (Abstract). Res Q Exerc Sport. 2003;74(1 Suppl):A-50-a-1.

  104. 104.

    Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Weaver K, et al. Rationale and study protocol for the supporting children’s outcomes using rewards, exercise and skills (SCORES) group randomized controlled trial: a physical activity and fundamental movement skills intervention for primary schools in low-income communities. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Graf C, Koch B, Falkowski G, et al. School-based prevention: effects on obesity and physical performance after 4 years. J Sports Sci. 2008;26(10):987–94.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    McMurray RG, Bassin S, Jago R, et al. Rationale, design and methods of the HEALTHY study physical education intervention component. Int J Obes. 2005;2009(33 Suppl 4):S37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Schneider M, Hall WJ, Hernandez AE, et al. Rationale, design and methods for process evaluation in the HEALTHY study. Int J Obes. 2009;33(Suppl 4):S60–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Naylor PJ, Scott J, Drummond J, et al. Implementing a whole school physical activity and healthy eating model in rural and remote first nations schools: a process evaluation of action schools BC. Rural Remote Health. 2010;10:1296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    McKenzie TL, Nader PR, Strikmiller PK, et al. School physical education: effect of the child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health. Prev Med. 1996;25(4):423–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Ward DS, Saunders R, Felton GM, et al. Implementation of a school environment intervention to increase physical activity in high school girls. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(6):896–910.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    McKenzie TL, Prochaska JJ, Sallis JF, et al. Coeducational and single-sex physical education in middle schools: Impact on physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2004;75(4):446–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Lander.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Lisa Barnett is supported by an Alfred Deakin Fellowship. Jo Salmon is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship (APP1026216). No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review.

Conflict of interest

Natalie Lander, Narelle Eather, Phillip Morgan, Jo Salmon, and Lisa Barnett declare that they have no conflicts of interest that are relevant to the content of this review.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 42 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lander, N., Eather, N., Morgan, P.J. et al. Characteristics of Teacher Training in School-Based Physical Education Interventions to Improve Fundamental Movement Skills and/or Physical Activity: A Systematic Review. Sports Med 47, 135–161 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0561-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Physical Activity
  • Physical Education
  • Pedagogical Content Knowledge
  • Teacher Training
  • Teacher Training Program