Effect of Sport Education Intervention in University Required Physical Education: Cluster Randomized Trial of Students' Perceived Physical Literacy and Physical Activity Levels
Phase: NA
Conditions: Physical Activity, Motivation
Sponsor: Chinese University of Hong Kong

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Effect of Sport Education in University Required PE on Students'  
Perceived Physical Literacy and Physical Activity Level 
 
 
NCT number: NCT03888885 
 
 
Date: 12/9/2021 
 

Study Protocol 
Research design 
This study employed a 10-lesson cluster-randomized study design to examine the effect 
of sport education on domains of student PL and physical activity levels. Questionnaires, 
accelerometers, and video recordings of PE lessons were used to collect self-report and objective 
data measures. 
 
Eligibility and randomization 
Only one university in Hong Kong fully funded by the University Grants Committee and 
requires the completion of two semesters of PE coursework for graduation. Lecturers in the PE 
program are required to have a master’s degree or above and have more than 5 years of teaching 
experience. All lecturers attended a 12-h continuous professional development workshop on 
sport education. Of the 25 lecturers who attended the workshop, 11 of them consented to 
participate in the study. The required sample size of students was calculated based on the 
hypothesized effect sizes and the likely rates of participants dropout for outcome measures. A 
total number of 2886 students were admitted to the university in the academic year, with an 
estimated required cluster sample size of 341 with an effect size of 0.25, α of 0.05, and a power 
of 0.95 (Faul et al. 2007). In anticipation of 10–20% of the dropout rate across data collection 
phases, this led to a required number of 8 classes for each of the sport education and traditional 
groups. PE classes were initially grouped by lecturers and types of sports (individual sports, team 
sports, and physical conditioning) and then randomly assigned to each intervention (Fig. 1) by a 
computer-generated sequence (GraphPad Software, Inc.) conducted by a statistician who was 
blind to the purposes of the study. The demographic background and corresponding courses for 
each of the eight lecturers are shown in Table 1. Students were eligible to participate in the study 
if they were aged 18 or above and indicated all negative statements in the self-screening Physical 
Activity Readiness Questionnaire (Thomas et al. 1992) which can uncover heart, circulatory, 
balance, medication, emotional, and joint problems that could make exercise difficult or 
dangerous for some people. Written consent for study participation was also obtained. 
 
PE curriculum intervention 
The goals of the required PE courses are to encourage students to participate in lifelong 
physical activities by developing their skills and fitness, motivation, knowledge, social, and 
sportsmanship. These domains of learning connect to the holistic attributes of PL; however, this 
term is not explicitly mentioned in course objectives or used to design curricular materials. PE 
teachers in Hong Kong generally adopt a teacher-directed approach in delivering content and 
accomplishing the objective of the curriculum (Ha 2016). The implementation of sport education 
was an attempt to infuse a more student-centered instructional model that has been empirically 
validated to elicit positive changes in student PL (Farias et al. 2020). The sport education 
professional development workshop focused on the development of a season structure, the 
changing roles of teachers and students, the assessment of personal and social responsibility, and 
the application of related pedagogical methods. Following the instructor workshop, two meetings 
were held with the PE lecturers to discuss the design of specific coursework and class materials. 
Sport education seasons were designed for badminton, basketball, handball, physical 
conditioning, swimming, woodball, and volleyball. Each sport education season included ten 90-
min lessons, 1-day per week with each season following the five-phase sequence of team  

Figure 3.1. Participant Flow of Enrolment and Allocation in the Trial. 
 
 
 
Assessed for eligibility (163 classes) 
Excluded (107 classes) 
  Not meeting inclusion criteria (42 classes) 
  Declined to participate (65 classes) 
Allocated to intervention (8 classes) 
  Received allocated intervention (8 classes; n = 209) 
  Did not receive allocated intervention (20 classes) 
Allocated to intervention (8 classes) 
  Received allocated intervention (8 classes; n = 202) 
  Did not receive allocated intervention (20 classes) 
Lost to follow-up (0 class) 
  Participants withdrew (n = 1) 
  Participants lost to follow-up (n = 19) 
Lost to follow-up (0 class) 
  Participants withdrew (n = 2) 
  Participants lost to follow-up (n = 16) 
Analysed (8 classes) 
  Full questionnaire completed (n = 188, 89.95%) 
Analysed (8 classes) 
  Full questionnaire completed (n = 184, 91.09%) 
Enrollment 
Allocation 
Follow-up 
Analysis 
Randomized (56 classes) 

selection, teacher-directed, preseason, formal competition, and a culminating event (Hastie et al. 
2014). Participants in each class were divided into teams for the duration of each season and 
assigned specific sport-related roles (e.g., coach, fitness trainer, equipment manager) at the end 
of the team selection phase. Students gradually increased their responsibility for learning and had 
equal opportunity to participate in every lesson with tasks progressing from drills to modified 
games and competitions to obtain more authentic sports experiences within the lessons. To 
evaluate model fidelity, a sample lesson from each phase of the sport education season was 
observed and coded by the primary researcher using the sport education benchmark 
observational instrument (Ko et al. 2006; Sinelnikov 2009). Fidelity analysis revealed 100% 
compliance with season, affiliation, formal competition, and culminating event benchmarks. 
Participants within the control group classes attended PE classes where teachers used 
traditional teacher-directed methods to teach the specific activities. These lessons started with a 
teacher-directed warm-up routine, followed by direct instruction of skills practices, and games 
without a consistent team and modification to meet the objective of the courses. Within the direct 
teaching approach, the teacher was assigned responsibility for all task presentation components 
of the learning tasks. No student role responsibilities or student-directed tasks were included 
within this approach. Students within the intact class changed teams each lesson and scores were 
not formally recorded for the game outcomes. Analysis with the sport education benchmark 
observational instrument revealed none of the instructional behaviors associated with the key 
features of the model. 
 
Data collection protocol 
During the first week of the semester, a baseline questionnaire was distributed by the 
researchers and lecturers to all participants to obtain students’ self-reported information 
including perceived PL, physical activity levels, and perceptions of motivational climate in PE 
classes. Demographic information is related to participants’ age, gender, ethnicity, undergraduate 
program and year of study, and years of sport participation. PL is both an antecedent and 
consequence of physical activity (Edwards et al. 2017) and represents the lived experience of the 
PL journey of an individual (Sum et al. 2018a). A primary outcome measure was the 
participants’ self-reported and objective physical activity levels. As there may be an over-
reporting of the self-report physical activity levels, a subsample of 64 randomly selected student 
participants per intervention group also collected objective physical activity levels using 
accelerometers. Accelerometers were worn for at least 8 h per day in seven consecutive days 
during the first week of the semester. During the intervention, all lessons were videotaped and 
coded using the System for Observing Fitness Instruction (SOFIT) which elicits percentage of 
PE time at different intensities of physical activity, lesson context, and teacher involvement in 
PE lessons. Participants recompleted the questionnaire, and the subsample wore the 
accelerometers during the post-intervention phase (the 10th lesson at 11th week of semester) and 
the follow-up phase (15th week of semester). 
Physical activity measures The globally standardized and validated short version of the 
International Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to measure self-report physical activity 
levels (Craig et al. 2003; Hallal et al. 2012). Four generic items of vigorous, moderate, walking, 
and sitting were included to obtain the physical activity levels from the participants. Example 
item included the following: During the last 7 days, on how many days did you do vigorous 
physical activity like heavy lifting, digging, aerobics, or fast cycling (vigorous)? The total 

duration of different intensities of physical activity which occurred for at least 10 uninterrupted 
minutes in the last 7 days was used for calculations (Booth 2000). 
Accelerometers (Actigraph wGT3X+) were used to measure the objective physical 
activity levels (light, moderate, and vigorous) of participants, and physical activity intensity was 
calculated as ametabolic value (Evenson et al. 2008). The dynamic range of accelerometers is ± 
6MET with 3 axes and 3 mg/LSB of sensitivity. Only data that recorded more than 8 h per day 
and 5 days per week were used for analysis. 
SOFIT is a validated and reliable momentary time sampling and interval observation 
instrument to gather quantitative data for assessing physical activity during PE lessons 
(McKenzie et al. 1992). SOFIT includes three intensities of students’ physical activity levels 
(lying down, sitting, standing, walking, vigorous), lesson context (general, knowledge, fitness, 
skill practice, game play, free time), and teacher behavior (promotes fitness, demonstrates 
fitness, instructs generally, manages, observes, or other task) or teacher interactions (promoting 
“in-class” or “out-of-class” physical activity). Each category is coded using interval coding every 
20 s (10 s observe; 10 s record) throughout the lesson. The observer decides on what is occurring 
at the moment an observation interval ends. 
Situational motivation scale (SIMS) The SIMS is a 16-item instrument that was used to 
measure participants’ situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation while performing given 
physical activities. The four behavioral subscales include intrinsic motivation, identified 
regulation, external regulation, and amotivation (Deci et al. 1991). Participants responded to the 
instrument on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true and 7 = very true). Example items include 
the following: (a) this activity is fun (intrinsic motivation); (b) I believe this activity is important 
for me (identified regulation); (c) I do not have any choice (external regulation); and (d) I do this 
activity, but I am not sure it is a good thing to pursue it (amotivation). Guay et al. (2000) 
reported adequate internal consistency (α = 0.77–0.95) and construct validity in physical activity 
settings among college-aged students. 
Physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES) PACES is a survey instrument that 
measures how much a student enjoys participating in physical activity. Participants responded to 
the 16-item instrument on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree a lot and 5 = agree a lot). There are 
nine positive items such as “I find it pleasurable” and “It gives me energy” and seven negative 
items such as “I dislike it” and “It is not fun at all.” Participants who receive high scores on 
positive items and low scores on negative items would indicate a high enjoyment of the physical 
activity. Motl et al. (2001) established adequate internal consistency (α = 0.81–0.86) and 
factorial and construct validity of PACES with college-aged students. 
Perceived physical literacy instrument (PLLI) The PPLI is a 9-item instrument that 
has been used to measure the perceived PL of teachers (Sum et al. 2016; Sum et al. 2018b), 
adolescents (Choi et al. 2018; Sum et al. 2018a), and coaches (Li et al. 2019). Three subscales 
within the instrument assess the PL attributes of “sense of self and self-confidence,” “self-
expression and communication with others,” and “knowledge and understanding” (Whitehead 
2010). Participants responded to the instrument on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree 
and 5 = strongly agree). Example statements include the following: (a) I am physically fit, in 
accordance with my age (sense of self and self-confidence); (b) I have strong social skills (self-
expression and communication with others); and (c) I am aware of the benefits of sports-related 
to health (knowledge and understanding). The scale scores are reliable with the internal 
consistency from 0.73 to 0.76 (Sum et al. 2016). 

Empowering and disempowering motivational climate questionnaire in PE 
(EDMCQPE) The EDMCQ-PE is a 34-item instrument based on achievement goal theory and 
self-determination theory to assess students’ perceptions of empowering and disempowering 
features of the motivational climate created by their PE teachers. Participants responded to the 
instrument on a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Example 
statements include the following: (a) My teacher gave pupils choices and options (empowering) 
and (b) My teacher tried to interfere in aspects of pupils’ lives outside of PE (disempowering). 
Milton et al. (2018) provided evidence of the EDMC-Q as internally consistent (α = 0.82–0.91) 
and has factorial and construct validity. 
 
Pilot study 
A pilot study was conducted to ensure that the randomized controlled trial was 
scientifically valid (Lancaster et al. 2004). A convenience sample of 55 full-time undergraduate 
students was recruited to obtain their feedback on the data collection procedure and the 
comprehension of the questionnaire. Participants’ ethnicity, studying program, and the year of 
study were added into the revised questionnaire which was also reviewed and considered to be 
content valid by experts in this area of research. 
 
References 
Booth, M. (2000). Assessment of physical activity: An international perspective. Research 
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2), 114–120. 
Choi, S. M., Sum, R. K. W., Leung, E. F. L., & Ng, R. S. K. (2018). Relationship between 
perceived physical literacy and physical activity levels among Hong Kong adolescents. 
PLoS One, 13(8), e0203105. 
Craig, C. L., Marshall, A. L., Sjostrom, M., Bauman, A. E., Booth, M. L., Ainsworth, B. E., et al. 
(2003). International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. 
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35(8), 1381–1395. 
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: 
The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346. 
Edwards, L. C., Bryant, A. S., Keegan, R. J., Morgan, K., & Jones, A. M. (2017). Definitions, 
foundations and associations of physical literacy: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 
47(1), 113–126. 
Evenson, K. R., Catellier, D. J., Gill, K., Ondrak, K. S., & McMurray, R. G. (2008). Calibration 
of two objective measures of physical activity for children. Journal of Sports Sciences, 
26(14), 1557–1565. 
Farias, C., Wallhead, T., & Mesquita, I. (2020). “The project changed my life”: Sport 
education’s transformative potential on student physical literacy. Research Quarterly for 
Exercise and Sport, 91(2), 263–278. 
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical 
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior 
Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. 
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and 
extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 
24(3), 175–213. 

Ha, S. C. A. (2016). Student learning outcome and teachers' autonomy support toward teaching 
games for understanding through adopting accessible technology and alternative sport 
equipment: An Asian experience. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87(S1), S12. 
Hallal, P. C., Andersen, L. B., Bull, F. C., Guthold, R., Haskell,W., Ekelund, U., & The Lancet 
Physical Activity Series Working Group. (2012). Global physical activity levels: 
Surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet, 380(9838), 247–257. 
Hastie, P., Sinelnikov, O., Wallhead, T., & Layne, T. (2014). Perceived and actual motivational 
climate of a mastery-involving sport education season. European Physical Education 
Review, 20(2), 215–228. 
Ko, B., Wallhead, T. L., & Ward, P. (2006). Professional development workshops: What do 
teachers learn and use? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 397–412. 
Lancaster, G. A., Dodd, S., & Williamson, P. R. (2004). Design and analysis of pilot studies: 
Recommendations for good practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 10(2), 
307–312. 
Li, M. H., Sum, K. W. R., Wallhead, T., Ha, S. C. A., Sit, H. P. C., & Li, R. (2019). Influence of 
perceived physical literacy on coaching efficacy and leadership behavior: A cross-sectional 
study. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 18(1), 82–90. 
McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., & Nader, P. R. (1992). SOFIT: System for observing fitness 
instruction time. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11(2), 195–205. 
Milton, D., Appleton, P. R., Bryant, A., & Duda, J. L. (2018). Initial validation of the teacher-
created empowering and disempowering motivational climate questionnaire in physical 
education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(4), 340–351. 
Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Saunders, R., Dowda, M., Felton, G., & Pate, R. R. (2001). 
Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. American Journal of 
Preventive Medicine, 21(2), 110–117. 
Sinelnikov, O. A. (2009). Sport education for teachers: Professional development when 
introducing a novel curriculum model. European Physical Education Review, 15(1), 91–
114. 
Sum, K. W. R., Ha, S. C., Cheng, C. F., Chung, P. K., Yiu, K. T., Kuo, C. C., et al. (2016). 
Construction and validation of a perceived physical literacy instrument for physical 
education teachers. PLoS One, 11(5), e0155610. 
Sum, K. W. R., Cheng, C. F., Wallhead, T., Kuo, C. C., Wang, F. J., & Choi, S. M. (2018a). 
Perceived physical literacy instrument for adolescents: A further validation of PPLI. 
Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness, 16(1), 26–31. 
Thomas, S., Reading, J., & Shephard, R. J. (1992). Revision of the physical activity readiness 
questionnaire (PAR-Q). Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 17(4), 338–345.