Training Pre-Service Early Childhood Educators in Physical Activity (TEACH): Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Study
Abstract
:1. Background
1.1. Study Rationale
1.2. Study Objective
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Theoretical Underpinning
2.3. Implementation Framework
2.4. e-Learning Course Development
2.5. Recruitment and Allocation
2.5.1. Universities and Colleges with ECE Programs
2.5.2. Pre-Service ECEs
2.5.3. ECE Instructors
2.6. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.6.1. Universities and Colleges with Early Childhood Education Programs
2.6.2. Pre-Service ECEs
2.6.3. ECE Instructors
2.7. Sample Size
2.8. Intervention Conditions
2.8.1. Experimental Condition
2.8.2. Comparison Condition
2.9. Primary Outcome Measures
2.9.1. Pre-Service ECEs’ Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour-Related Self-Efficacy
2.9.2. Pre-Service ECEs’ Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour-Related Knowledge
2.10. Secondary Outcome Measures
2.10.1. Demographic Characteristics
2.10.2. Learning Management System Metrics
2.10.3. Behavioural Intention and Perceived Behavioural Control Survey
2.10.4. Process Evaluation Survey—Pre-Service ECEs
2.10.5. Process Evaluation Survey—ECE Instructors
2.10.6. Interviews
2.10.7. CFIR Checklist
2.11. Pilot Testing
2.12. Data Analyses
2.12.1. Primary Outcomes
2.12.2. Secondary Outcomes
3. Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
MVPA | Moderate-to vigorous-intensity physical activity |
ECE | Early Childhood Education |
EESS | Evaluating e-Learning System Success |
TEACH | Training pre-service EArly CHildhood educators in physical activity |
CFIR | Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research |
Appendix A
Pre-Service ECEs’ Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour-Related Knowledge Survey—Sample |
The following questions will test your knowledge of the Canadian 24-h Movement Guidelines for the Early Years (0–4 years): |
1. How many minutes of tummy time are infants (<1 year) recommended to engage in each day?
|
2. How many minutes of total physical activity (i.e., any intensity physical activity) are toddlers (1–2 years) and preschoolers (3–4 years) recommended to engage in each day?
|
3. How many minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (i.e., higher intensity physical activity) are preschoolers (3–4 years) recommended to engage in each day?
|
4. How many minutes of screen time should a 3-year-old be limited to each day?
|
5. How much good-quality sleep, including naps, should infants (4–11 months) get each day?
|
6. How much good-quality sleep, including naps, should toddlers (1–2 years) get each day?
|
The following questions will test your knowledge of research-based recommendations for physical activity and screen-viewing at childcare: |
7. For full-day programs (8 h), what is the recommendation for preschoolers’ (3–4 years) physical activity while in care?
|
8. What is the recommendation for screen-viewing in childcare?
|
The following questions will assess your knowledge of common terms related to physical activity and sedentary behaviour among young children. |
9. Galloping, hopping, and jumping are examples of what type of fundamental movement skill?
|
10. What is an example of a muscle and bone-strengthening activity?
|
11. The “motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life” is the definition of what?
|
12. What type of play is “a form of gross motor or total body movement in which young children use energy in a fun and freely chosen manner”?
|
13. What type of play invites curiosity by allowing children to play with everyday items (such as kitchen utensils and cardboard boxes) or natural elements (such as tree stumps or pebbles)?
|
14. What practice can be used to limit sedentary time while waiting for the next activity or travelling to a different part of the classroom?
|
15. What is not considered a category of risky play?
|
The following questions will assess your knowledge of appropriate behaviours of early childhood educators regarding activity promotion in childcare. |
16. Which of the following behaviours of early childhood educators does not promote physical activity?
|
17. Which strategy does not encourage risky play?
|
18. When it comes to outdoor play, it is okay to move activities indoors if:
|
19. When is it not appropriate to lead structured physical activities during outdoor play?
|
20. To make a throwing activity more challenging, you can:
|
21. According to the Active Play and Physical Literacy Everyday (APPLE) Model, what four elements can educators utilize to encourage their children’s development of physical literacy?
|
22. Why is communicating with families about movement behaviours at childcare important?
|
Appendix B
Training Pre-Service EArly CHildhood Educators in Physical Activity: The TEACH Pilot Study Sample Interview Guide for ECE Students |
- What are your thoughts on using an e-Learning platform to deliver this training?
- Please expand.
- Is this method of delivery preferable to in-person education?
- In what ways did this platform of delivery impact your learning?
- What characteristics of the e-Learning course did you enjoy the most (this refers to the visual appeal, functioning, navigation, course elements, etc.)?
- What made those parts/characteristics so enjoyable?
- What are some examples of these?
- Tell me more about that.
- What content in the e-Learning course did you find most useful to you as a (future) early childhood educator?
- What made it so useful?
- What are some examples?
- What content in the e-Learning course did you find least useful to you as a (future) early childhood educator?
- What about this content did you not find useful?
- What are some examples?
- How do you think this content could be delivered differently to make it more useful?
- What characteristics of the e-Learning course delivery (text, audio, animations, videos, external links, knowledge checks/assessments) do you feel were most beneficial for supporting your learning?
- What made them so beneficial?
- What are some examples?
- What characteristics of the e-Learning course delivery do you feel were least beneficial for supporting your learning?
- What made them so unbeneficial?
- What are some examples?
- How do you think this aspect of the training could be tweaked so that it is more conducive to supporting your learning?
- Do you think the knowledge assessments at the end of each module were appropriate in complexity?
- What challenges (if any) did you experience when completing the e-Learning course?
- Please expand.
- In what ways did this impact your learning?
- What solutions did you undertake to deal with these challenges?
- Please expand.
- Tell me more about that.
- How much time and effort did these solutions require?
- Do you have any suggestions that would improve the e-Learning course?
- What has been your overall experience with the TEACH intervention?
- How ‘effective’ would you consider this training in increasing early childhood educators’ knowledge and confidence to promote physical activity in childcare settings?
- How ‘effective’ would you consider this training in increasing early childhood educators’ knowledge and confidence to minimize prolonged sedentary behaviour in childcare settings?
- Approximately what percentage of the course content was new to you?
- How important would you consider this e-Learning training to be for [ECE students/early childhood educators]?
- How does this e-Learning course align with early childhood educators’ perspectives and beliefs?
- Did this course change your perspectives regarding the importance of appropriate physical activity experiences in early learning settings?
- In what ways?
- Do you think you will use any of the ideas from the e-Learning course in your programming?
- Was this e-Learning course relevant to your personal experience with childcare programming?
- How do you think the course could be adapted to better align with your experiences?
- How well do you see this course integrating into post-secondary ECE programs?
- Do you think ECE students would be receptive to this type of education in their program?
- ECE students: How well did this training complement your ECE training?
- ECEs: How much did this course differ from other professional learning courses you have taken?
- What elements of this e-Learning course were better than previous e-Learning courses you have taken?
- What elements of this e-Learning course did not live up to previous e-Learning courses you have taken?
- How receptive were your classmates/colleagues to this intervention?
- Do you have anything else to add?
Sample Interview Guide for ECE Instructors |
- What are your thoughts on using an e-Learning platform to deliver this training?
- Please expand.
- In what ways did this platform of delivery impact your students’ learning?
- What were the best parts of the e-Learning course?
- What made those parts/characteristics so beneficial?
- What are some examples of these?
- Tell me more about that.
- What content in the e-Learning course did you find most interesting?
- What made it so interesting?
- What are some examples?
- What content in the e-Learning course did you find least interesting?
- What made it so uninteresting?
- What are some examples?
- How do you think this content could be delivered differently to make it more interesting?
- What characteristic(s) of the e-Learning course do you feel was/were most beneficial for supporting your students’ learning?
- What made it/them so beneficial?
- What are some examples?
- What characteristic(s) of the e-Learning course do you feel was/were least beneficial for supporting your students’ learning?
- What made it/them so unbeneficial?
- What are some examples?
- How do you think this aspect of the training could be tweaked so that it is more conducive to supporting your students’ learning?
- What challenges did your students experience when completing the e-Learning course?
- Please expand.
- In what ways did this impact your students’ learning?
- What solutions did your students undertake to deal with these challenges?
- Please expand.
- Tell me more about that.
- How much time and effort did these solutions require?
- Overall, what has been your overall experience with the TEACH intervention?
- How ‘effective’ would you consider this training in increasing ECE students’ knowledge and confidence to promote physical activity in childcare settings?
- How ‘effective’ would you consider this training in increasing ECE students’ knowledge and confidence to minimize prolonged sedentary behaviour in childcare settings?
- Do you think this e-Learning course aligns with curriculum objectives of your school’s ECE program?
- How important would you consider this e-Learning training to be for ECE students?
- How ‘feasible’ would you consider this e-Learning training to implement in post-secondary ECE programs?
- If feasible: How would you integrate this e-Learning course into the curriculum?
- If infeasible: What would you change about this e-Learning course to make it more feasible to implement in post-secondary ECE programs?
- How receptive were your students to this intervention?
- Do you have anything else to add?
Appendix C
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research Construct Checklist | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Construct | Short Description | Source Determining Fulfillment | Was the Construct Fulfilled? | How the Construct Was/Will Be Fulfilled |
I. INTERVENTION CHARACTERISTICS | ||||
A. Intervention Source | Perception of key stakeholders about whether the intervention is externally or internally developed. | Delphi Study (Bruijns et al., 2020) | Yes | The e-Learning course was developed in collaboration with ECE experts. |
B. Evidence Strength & Quality | Stakeholders’ perceptions of the quality and validity of evidence supporting the belief that the intervention will have desired outcomes. | Needs Assessment (Bruijns et al., 2019) | Yes | ECE stakeholders (college students, staff) were involved in this study, which determined that ECE students’ physical activity self-efficacy was higher if they had completed physical activity training. |
C. Relative Advantage | Stakeholders’ perception of the advantage of implementing the intervention versus an alternative solution. | Delphi Study (Bruijns et al., 2020) | Yes | ECE experts communicated that this type of training was important for ECE students and supported (and helped with) the creation of content for the e-Learning course. |
D. Adaptability | The degree to which an intervention can be adapted, tailored, refined, or reinvented to meet local needs. | e-Learning Course Development (Summer 2020) | -- | ECE students will be able to complete the e-Learning course at their own pace within a 4-week timeframe. The course itself will take ~3 h to complete. |
E. Trialability | The ability to test the intervention on a small scale in the organization, and to be able to reverse course (undo implementation) if warranted. | Pilot Study (Winter 2021) | -- | The intervention will be trialed with one college/university (~50 ECE students) as well as ~20 early childhood educators prior to large-scale implementation. |
F. Complexity | Perceived difficulty of implementation, reflected by duration, scope, radicalness, disruptiveness, centrality, and intricacy and number of steps required to implement. | Program Evaluation Survey, Interviews (Winter 2021, 2022) | -- | ECE students and instructors will be asked about the perceived ease of completion (students) or implementation (instructors). |
G. Design Quality & Packaging | Perceived excellence in how the intervention is bundled, presented, and assembled. | Program Evaluation Survey, Interviews (Winter 2021, 2022) | -- | ECE students and instructors will be asked about their perceptions of the e-Learning course’s design quality and presentation. |
H. Cost | Costs of the intervention and associated with implementing the intervention including investment, supply, and opportunity costs. | Government Funding (2019–2023) | Yes | Once created, the e-Learning course will only require webhosting (incurred for this project by the research team). For sustainability of the training, students or colleges may be required to pay a small fee to use the service, unless additional funds become available to the research team. |
II. OUTER SETTING | ||||
A. Patient Needs & Resources | The extent to which patient needs, as well as barriers and facilitators to meet those needs, are accurately known and prioritized by the organization. | e-Learning Course Development (Summer 2020) | -- | ECE students and instructors will be consulted during e-Learning course development to ensure online learning needs are met. |
B. Cosmopolitanism | The degree to which an organization is networked with other external organizations. | Ministry of Colleges and Universities | Yes | Each college/university is nested within their province’s Ministry of Colleges and Universities. |
C. Peer Pressure | Mimetic or competitive pressure to implement an intervention; typically because most or other key peer or competing organizations have already implemented or are in a bid for a competitive edge. | Recruitment (Summer/Fall 2021) | -- | The participation of other colleges and universities is likely to encourage further participation, as this unique training will give programs a competitive edge by being the first to offer the learning opportunity to students. |
D. External Policy & Incentives | A broad construct that includes external strategies to spread interventions, including policy and regulations (governmental or other central entity), external mandates, recommendations and guidelines, pay-for-performance, collaboratives, and public or benchmark reporting. | Knowledge Mobilization (2022–2023) | -- | Upon completion of the study, knowledge mobilization efforts will be aimed at college and university ECE curriculum experts, childcare organizations, and provincial policymakers to encourage the adoption of this training, as required, for the ECE profession. |
III. INNER SETTING | ||||
A. Structural Characteristics | The social architecture, age, maturity, and size of an organization. | Recruitment of College/University ECE Programs | Yes | The relatively new regulation of the early childhood educator profession has prompted the introduction of more college and university ECE programs. As such, ECE curricula are changing, and reviewed regularly to accommodate new research and foci. The nesting of ECE programs in larger, well-established academic institutions ensures resources are available for these changes. |
B. Networks & Communications | The nature and quality of webs of social networks and the nature and quality of formal and informal communications within an organization. | ECE Program Faculty and Staff | Yes | ECE program staff and faculty have strong relationships and work collaboratively to provide ECE students with high-quality educational experiences. |
C. Culture | Norms, values, and basic assumptions of a given organization. | College and University Reputation | Yes | Colleges and universities are esteemed to provide high-quality educational experiences and are increasingly using online platforms to deliver course content. |
D. Implementation Climate | The absorptive capacity for change, shared receptivity of involved individuals to an intervention, and the extent to which use of that intervention will be rewarded, supported, and expected within their organization. | |||
1. Tension for Change | The degree to which stakeholders perceive the current situation as intolerable or needing change. | Needs Assessment (Bruijns et al., 2019) | Yes | ECE students communicated that they wished to receive more training in physical activity and sedentary behaviour. |
2. Compatibility | The degree of tangible fit between meaning and values attached to the intervention by involved individuals, how those align with individuals’ own norms, values, and perceived risks and needs, and how the intervention fits with existing workflows and systems. | Needs Assessment (Bruijns et al., 2019) Delphi Study (Bruijns et al., 2020) | Yes | The e-Learning course we are developing addresses the gaps in content revealed in the needs assessment by ECE students. The Delphi study with ECE experts highlighted that the content developed for the course aligns with ECE curriculum objectives. |
3. Relative Priority | Individuals’ shared perception of the importance of the implementation within the organization. | Delphi Study (Bruijns et al., 2020) Program Evaluation Survey (Winter 2021, 2022) | -- | ECE experts communicated that this training was important for ECE students to receive in their program. This will also be explored via the program evaluation. |
4. Organizational Incentives & Rewards | Extrinsic incentives such as goal-sharing awards, performance reviews, promotions, and raises in salary, and less tangible incentives such as increased stature or respect. | e-Learning Course Certificate | -- | ECE students will receive a certificate of completion for the e-Learning course, which they can put on their resume for increased hirability upon graduation. |
5. Goals and Feedback | The degree to which goals are clearly communicated, acted upon, and fed back to staff, and alignment of that feedback with goals. | Communication with ECE Instructors | -- | ECE instructors implementing the intervention in their classroom will receive regular progress updates from the research team on their students’ e-Learning course completion rates. |
6. Learning Climate | A climate in which: a) leaders express their own fallibility and need for team members’ assistance and input; b) team members feel that they are essential, valued, and knowledgeable partners in the change process; c) individuals feel psychologically safe to try new methods; and d) there is sufficient time and space for reflective thinking and evaluation. | Communication with ECE instructors | -- | ECE instructors will act as partners in the intervention process. Adequate time will be given for ECE students to complete the e-Learning course, which will allow students to complete it at their own pace and give ECE instructors the ability to attend to student questions and concerns. |
E. Readiness for Implementation | Tangible and immediate indicators of organizational commitment to its decision to implement an intervention. | |||
1. Leadership Engagement | Commitment, involvement, and accountability of leaders and managers with the implementation. | Communication with ECE Program Staff, Website Metrics | -- | Researchers will be in constant communication with ECE program staff and instructors regarding their students’ completion rates of the e-Learning modules to hold them accountable. |
2. Available Resources | The level of resources dedicated for implementation and on-going operations, including money, training, education, physical space, and time. | e-Learning Course Development (Summer 2020), ECE Instructor Support | -- | The e-Learning course will be designed to take ~4 h to complete – a reasonable time requirement to integrate into pre-existing ECE courses. The course will be able to be accessed via mobile phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop, offering flexibility for ECE students. The course will initially be free of cost, and course instructors will be given a brief tutorial on how to use the e-Learning course so they can help their students. |
3. Access to Knowledge & Information | Ease of access to digestible information and knowledge about the intervention and how to incorporate it into work tasks. | Communication with ECE Program Staff and Instructors | -- | The research team will be readily available to answer any questions from participating ECE programs regarding program implementation. |
IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUALS | ||||
A. Knowledge & Beliefs about the Intervention | Individuals’ attitudes toward and value placed on the intervention as well as familiarity with facts, truths, and principles related to the intervention. | Demographics Survey (Winter 2022) | -- | ECE students’ perceived value placed on this type of training will be measured prior to implementation. |
B. Self-efficacy | Individual belief in their own capabilities to execute courses of action to achieve implementation goals. | Self-Efficacy Survey (Winter 2022) | -- | ECE students’ perceived self-efficacy to successfully complete the e-Learning course will be measured prior to implementation. |
C. Individual Stage of Change | Characterization of the phase an individual is in, as he or she progresses toward skilled, enthusiastic, and sustained use of the intervention. | Demographics Survey, Program Evaluation Survey (Winter 2022) | -- | ECE students’ motivation to learn about physical activity and sedentary behaviour will be measured pre- and post-intervention, as well as their likelihood of using the knowledge they gained in their future profession. |
D. Individual Identification with Organization | How individuals perceive the organization, and their relationship and degree of commitment with that organization. | Demographics Survey (Winter 2022) | -- | ECE students’ level of commitment to their studies will be measured as part of participant demographics. |
E. Other Personal Attributes | Other personal traits such as tolerance of ambiguity, intellectual ability, motivation, values, competence, capacity, and learning style. | Demographics Survey, Behavioural Intention Survey, Self-Efficacy Survey (Winter 2022) | -- | ECE students’ motivation to learn about physical activity and sedentary behaviour, as well as their own physical activity levels and self-efficacy to use e-Learning platforms will be measured prior to implementation. |
V. PROCESS | ||||
A. Planning | The degree to which a scheme or method of behaviour and tasks for implementing an intervention are developed in advance, and the quality of those schemes or methods. | Communication with ECE Program Staff and Instructors | -- | Early recruitment of colleges and universities will allow plenty of time for the research team to communicate with ECE program staff and instructors regarding timelines, surveys, and logistics of the e-Learning course. |
B. Engaging | Attracting and involving appropriate individuals in the implementation and use of the intervention through a combined strategy of social marketing, education, role modeling, training, and other similar activities. | |||
1. Opinion Leaders | Individuals in an organization who have formal or informal influence on the attitudes and beliefs of their colleagues with respect to implementing the intervention. | Recruitment of ECE Programs (Summer/Fall 2021) | -- | ECE programs will be recruited to participate in the intervention study, and program staff will act as opinion leaders who will manage implementation by course instructors. |
2. Formally Appointed Internal Implementation Leaders | Individuals from within the organization who have been formally appointed with responsibility for implementing an intervention as coordinator, project manager, team leader, or other similar role. | Recruitment of ECE Instructors (Fall 2021) | -- | ECE course instructors will be recruited to implement the intervention with students in their class. |
3. Champions | “Individuals who dedicate themselves to supporting, marketing, and ‘driving through’ an [implementation]”, overcoming indifference or resistance that the intervention may provoke in an organization. | Research Team, Recruitment of ECE Student Champions (Fall 2021) | -- | Research team members in each province will help champion the intervention, while ECE students in intervention classrooms will be recruited to promote their classmates’ completion of the e-Learning course. |
4. External Change Agents | Individuals who are affiliated with an outside entity who formally influence or facilitate intervention decisions in a desirable direction. | Communication with Stakeholder Groups (Ongoing) | -- | The research team has been in communication with physical activity and early childhood organizations to include their content and promote our research project nationally. |
C. Executing | Carrying out or accomplishing the implementation according to plan. | Website Metrics (Winter 2022) | -- | Dose received will be calculated by ECE students’ completion rates of each module within the e-Learning course. Average quiz scores will be calculated for each module to capture the extent of students’ learning. |
D. Reflecting & Evaluating | Quantitative and qualitative feedback about the progress and quality of implementation accompanied with regular personal and team debriefing about progress and experience. | Communication with ECE Programs, Program Evaluation Survey, Interviews (Winter 2022) | -- | Researchers will be in constant communication with ECE programs about progress. Program Evaluation Surveys and Interviews with ECE students and instructors will capture their experiences with the e-Learning course and its implementation. |
References
- Carson, V.; Lee, E.-Y.; Hewitt, L.; Jennings, C.; Hunter, S.; Kuzik, N.; Stearns, J.A.; Unrau, S.P.; Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.; et al. Systematic Review of the Relationships between Physical Activity and Health Indicators in the Early Years (0–4 Years). BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Land, N.; Vidotto, D. Tracing, Interrogating, and Re-Imagining How Physical Development Matters in Canadian Early Childhood Studies. Sport. Educ. Soc. 2020, 26, 606–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Brien, K.T.; Vanderloo, L.M.; Bruijns, B.A.; Truelove, S.; Tucker, P. Physical Activity and Sedentary Time among Preschoolers in Centre-Based Childcare: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vanderloo, L.M.; Tucker, P.; Johnson, A.M.; Van Zandvoort, M.M.; Burke, S.M.; Irwin, J.D. The Influence of Centre-Based Childcare on Preschoolers’ Physical Activity Levels: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 1794–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tucker, P.; Vanderloo, L.M.; Burke, S.M.; Irwin, J.D.; Johnson, A.M. Prevalence and Influences of Preschoolers’ Sedentary Behaviors in Early Learning Centers: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Pediatr. 2015, 15, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leblanc, A.G.; Spence, J.C.; Carson, V.; Connor Gorber, S.; Dillman, C.; Janssen, I.; Kho, M.E.; Stearns, J.A.; Timmons, B.W.; Tremblay, M.S. Systematic Review of Sedentary Behaviour and Health Indicators in the Early Years (Aged 0–4 Years). Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2012, 37, 753–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taylor, R.W.; Williams, S.M.; Farmer, V.L.; Taylor, B.J. Changes in Physical Activity over Time in Young Children: A Longitudinal Study Using Accelerometers. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e81567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Statistics Canada. Survey on Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2019; pp. 1–7.
- Bushnik, T. Child Care in Canada; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2006.
- Derscheid, L.E.; Umoren, J.; Kim, S.Y.; Henry, B.W.; Zittel, L.L. Early Childhood Teachers’ and Staff Members’ Perceptions of Nutrition and Physical Activity Practices for Preschoolers. J. Res. Child. Educ. 2010, 24, 248–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, L.E.; Webster, E.K.; Logan, S.W.; Lucas, W.A.; Barber, L.T. Teaching Practices That Promote Motor Skills in Early Childhood Settings. Early Child. Educ. J. 2011, 40, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, S.; Fedewa, A.L. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Children’s Physical Activity and Mental Health. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 2011, 36, 385–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, M.; Wu, L.; Ming, Q. How Does Physical Activity Intervention Improve Self-Esteem and Self-Concept in Children and Adolescents? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colley, R.C.; Garriguet, D.; Adamo, K.B.; Carson, V.; Janssen, I.; Timmons, B.W.; Tremblay, M.S. Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior during the Early Years in Canada: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Copeland, K.A.; Kendeigh, C.A.; Saelens, B.E.; Kalkwarf, H.J.; Sherman, S.N. Physical Activity in Child-Care Centers: Do Teachers Hold the Key to the Playground? Health Educ. Res. 2012, 27, 81–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McWilliams, C.; Ball, S.C.; Benjamin, S.E.; Hales, D.; Vaughn, A.; Ward, D.S. Best-Practice Guidelines for Physical Activity at Child Care. Pediatrics 2009, 124, 1650–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dyment, J.; Coleman, B. The Intersection of Physical Activity Opportunities and the Role of Early Childhood Educators during Outdoor Play: Perceptions and Reality. Australas. J. Early Child. 2012, 37, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froehlich, C.A.; Humbert, L. Physical Activity and Nutrition in Early Years Care Centres: Barriers and Facilitators. J. Child. Stud. 2011, 36, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruijns, B.A.; Adamo, K.B.; Burke, S.M.; Carson, V.; Irwin, J.D.; Naylor, P.-J.; Timmons, B.W.; Vanderloo, L.M.; Tucker, P. Exploring the Physical Activity and Screen-Viewing-Related Knowledge, Training, and Self-Efficacy of Early Childhood Education Candidates. BMC Pediatr. 2019, 19, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martyniuk, O.; Tucker, P. An Exploration of Early Childhood Education Students’ Knowledge and Preparation to Facilitate Physical Activity for Preschoolers: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tucker, P.; van Zandvoort, M.M.; Burke, S.M.; Irwin, J.D. Physical Activity at Daycare: Childcare Providers’ Perspectives for Improvements. J. Early Child. Res. 2011, 9, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Zandvoort, M.; Tucker, P.; Irwin, J.D.; Burke, S.M. Physical Activity at Daycare: Issues, Challenges and Perspectives. Early Years 2010, 30, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Health Promotion by Social Cognitive Means. Health Educ. Behav. 2004, 31, 143–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klassen, R.M.; Tze, V.M.C. Teachers’ Self-Efficacy, Personality, and Teaching Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2014, 12, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Training. Early Childhood Education Program Standard; Ministry of Training: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2018.
- Pate, R.R.; Brown, W.H.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; Howie, E.K.; Saunders, R.P.; Addy, C.L.; Dowda, M. An Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 4-Year-Olds in Preschools. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 51, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ward, S.; Bélanger, M.; Leis, A. Comparison between the Healthy Start-Départ Santé Online and in-Person Training of Childcare Educators to Improve Healthy Eating and Physical Activity Practices and Knowledge of Physical Activity and Fundamental Movement Skills: A Controlled Trial. Prev. Med. Rep. 2020, 20, 101264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, P.; Thornton, A.; Lester, L.; Schipperijn, J.; Trapp, G.; Boruff, B.; Ng, M.; Wenden, E.; Christian, H. Nature Play and Fundamental Movement Skills Training Programs Improve Childcare Educator Supportive Physical Activity Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tucker, P.; Vanderloo, L.M.; Johnson, A.M.; Burke, S.M.; Irwin, J.D.; Gaston, A.; Driediger, M.; Timmons, B.W. Impact of the Supporting Physical Activity in the Childcare Environment (SPACE) Intervention on Preschoolers’ Physical Activity Levels and Sedentary Time: A Single-Blind Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bandura, A. Vicarious and Self-Reinforcement Processes. In The Nature of Reinforcement; Academic Press, Inc.: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 1971; pp. 228–324. [Google Scholar]
- Mayer, R.E. Multimedia Learning. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 2002, 41, 85–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweller, J. Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design. Learn. Instr. 1994, 4, 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, R.C.; Mayer, R.E. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hibbert, K.M.; Heydon, R.M.; Rich, S.J. Beacons of Light, Rays, or Sun Catchers? A Case Study of the Positioning of Literacy Teachers and Their Knowledge in Neoliberal Times. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2008, 24, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peden, M.E.; Okely, A.D.; Eady, M.J.; Jones, R.A. What Is the Impact of Professional Learning on Physical Activity Interventions among Preschool Children? A Systematic Review. Clin. Obes. 2018, 8, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bruijns, B.A.; Johnson, A.M.; Tucker, P. Content Development for a Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour E-Learning Module for Early Childhood Education Students: A Delphi Study. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Damschroder, L.J.; Aron, D.C.; Keith, R.E.; Kirsh, S.R.; Alexander, J.A.; Lowery, J.C. Fostering Implementation of Health Services Research Findings into Practice: A Consolidated Framework for Advancing Implementation Science. Implement. Sci. 2009, 4, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Champely, S. Pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis. 2017. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pwr/pwr.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2019. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 13 February 2022).
- Szpunar, M.; Bruijns, B.; Tucker., P. Measuring Early Childhood Educators’ Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior–Related Self-Efficacy: A Systematic Review of Tools. Health Educ. Behav. 2021, 48, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bandura, A. Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents; Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT, USA, 2006; pp. 307–337. [Google Scholar]
- Gagné, C.; Harnois, I. The Contribution of Psychosocial Variables in Explaining Preschoolers’ Physical Activity. Health Psychol. 2013, 32, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 178–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruijns, B.A.; Johnson, A.M.; Burke, S.M.; Tucker, P. Validation of a Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour, and Outdoor Play Behavioural Intention and Perceived Behavioural Control Tool for Early Childhood Educators. Health Educ. Behav. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Fraihat, D.; Joy, M.; Masa’deh, R.; Sinclair, J. Evaluating E-Learning Systems Success: An Empirical Study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 102, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research Evaluation Methods; Sage: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Guba, E.G.; Lincoln, Y.S. Fourth Generation Evaluation; Sage: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Finn, K.; Johannsen, N.; Specker, B. Factors Associated with Physical Activity in Preschool Children. J. Pediatr. 2002, 140, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Henderson, K.E.; Grode, G.M.; O’Connell, M.L.; Schwartz, M.B. Environmental Factors Associated with Physical Activity in Childcare Centers. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tonge, K.L.; Jones, R.A.; Okely, A.D. Correlates of Children’s Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Early Childhood Education and Care Services: A Systematic Review. Prev. Med. 2016, 89, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dalkey, N.; Helmer, O. An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts. Manag. Sci. 1963, 9, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, M. Increasing the Impact of Behavior Change Intervention Research: Is There a Role for Stakeholder Engagement? Health Psychol. 2019, 38, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garrison, R. E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice, 2nd ed.; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, VA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Howie, E.K.; Brewer, A.; Brown, W.H.; Saunders, R.; Pate, R.R. Systematic Dissemination of a Preschool Physical Activity Intervention to the Control Preschools. Eval. Program Plan. 2016, 57, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- New Zealand Ministry of Health. Sit Less, Move More, Sleep Well: Active Play Guidelines for Under-Fives; New Zealand Ministry of Health: Wellington, New Zealand, 2017.
- Okely, A.D.; Ghersi, D.; Hesketh, K.D.; Santos, R.; Loughran, S.P.; Cliff, D.P.; Shilton, T.; Grant, D.; Jones, R.A.; Stanley, R.M.; et al. A Collaborative Approach to Adopting/Adapting Guidelines—The Australian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years (Birth to 5 Years): An Integration of Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Sleep. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Experimental Group | Comparison Group | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | Post | 3-Month Follow-Up | Baseline | Post | 3-Month Follow-Up | ||
Pilot Study | |||||||
Pilot Test Participants | Consent | X | |||||
Demographic Survey | X | ||||||
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire | X | X | |||||
Knowledge Questionnaire | X | X | |||||
Behavioural Intention and Control Survey | X | X | |||||
Process Evaluation Survey | X | ||||||
Interview | X | ||||||
Quasi-Experimental Study | |||||||
University/College | Consent | X | X | ||||
Curriculum Review | X | X | |||||
Instructors | Consent | X | |||||
Process Evaluation Survey | X | ||||||
Interview | X | ||||||
Pre-Service ECEs | Consent | X | X | ||||
Demographic Survey | X | X | X | X | |||
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
Knowledge Questionnaire | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
Behavioural Intention and Perceived Behavioural Control Survey | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
Process Evaluation Survey | X | ||||||
Interview | X | ||||||
Research Team | Website Metrics | X | X | ||||
CFIR Checklist | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tucker, P.; Bruijns, B.A.; Adamo, K.B.; Burke, S.M.; Carson, V.; Heydon, R.; Irwin, J.D.; Johnson, A.M.; Naylor, P.-J.; Timmons, B.W.; et al. Training Pre-Service Early Childhood Educators in Physical Activity (TEACH): Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073890
Tucker P, Bruijns BA, Adamo KB, Burke SM, Carson V, Heydon R, Irwin JD, Johnson AM, Naylor P-J, Timmons BW, et al. Training Pre-Service Early Childhood Educators in Physical Activity (TEACH): Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(7):3890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073890
Chicago/Turabian StyleTucker, Patricia, Brianne A. Bruijns, Kristi B. Adamo, Shauna M. Burke, Valerie Carson, Rachel Heydon, Jennifer D. Irwin, Andrew M. Johnson, Patti-Jean Naylor, Brian W. Timmons, and et al. 2022. "Training Pre-Service Early Childhood Educators in Physical Activity (TEACH): Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 7: 3890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073890
APA StyleTucker, P., Bruijns, B. A., Adamo, K. B., Burke, S. M., Carson, V., Heydon, R., Irwin, J. D., Johnson, A. M., Naylor, P. -J., Timmons, B. W., & Vanderloo, L. M. (2022). Training Pre-Service Early Childhood Educators in Physical Activity (TEACH): Protocol for a Quasi-Experimental Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 3890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073890