A Delphi study to gain the consensus on the definition, domains and elements of physical literacy

Background: Physical literacy is broadly understood as an individual’s capacity to engage in an active and healthy lifestyle (Francis et al., 2016). The concept cognates physical activity and is beginning to gain prominence in Western discourses of health and education (Delaney et al., 2008; Higgs et al., 2008; Mandigo et al., 2009; Keegan et al., 2013; YST, 2014). Margaret Whitehead predominantly evolved and developed the concept (Whitehead 1999, 2001, 2007, 2009, 2010), which is beginning to embed as an outcome of physical education curricula around the world (YST, 2014; Keegan et al., 2016; PHE Canada, 2016). However, despite the fact that conceptual clarity is slowly emerging (Edwards et al., 2016), which is based upon one relatively clear philosophical approach (Whitehead 2007), competing definitions continue to exist (PISE, 2016; PHE Canada, 2016; SHAPE America, 2016). These definitions have eroded the epistemological nuances of Whitehead’s (2010) concept as a number of interventions have reduced the essence of physical literacy to purely the mastery of fundamental movement skills (Edwards et al., 2016). Francis et al. (2016) portray that this is due to a ‘lack of consensus, regarding the constituent subdomains’ (p. 214). This combined has resulted in blurred conceptualisations of physical literacy, of which, in the context of the United Kingdom has prevented the concept from moving into mainstream educational policy and practice. This is a concern given the associated social and health benefits of this ‘healthy living construct’ (Francis et al., 2016: p. 214).\n\nObjective: The aim of this thesis is to respond to Francis et al. (2016) and gain consensus on the definition, domains and elements of physical literacy. This was achieved by aligning the domains and elements with its definition. This alignment responds to the calls to make the concept practitioner-friendly (Keegan et al., 2016), whilst reifying the original philosophical pillars espoused by Whitehead (Jurbala, 2015).\nMethod: This thesis conducted a Delphi study as it allowed for a convergence of opinion, permitting consensus to be reached (Helmer and Rescher, 1959). This study was conducted via three rounds of electronic surveys, using Qualtrics Software Solutions, and took place between March 2017 and June 2017. 20 leading experts in physical literacy and its associated fields were invited to participate; whilst three declined and one did not respond, 16 experts participated in the study. One expert declined at the start of round 2 whilst another did not respond to round 3; therefore, the results are obtained from 14 panellists. The following themes structured the main discussions in each round: Round 1 – What is the definition and what are the domains of physical literacy? Round 2 – Rank these domains and discuss the elements that underpin them. Round 3 – Rank these elements and discuss how these elements might be measured? Each round was active for a period of two weeks and consensus was reached following 75% agreement among panellists.\n\nResults: 87.5% of panellists completed all three rounds of the study. Consensus was reached on the definition, domains and elements. The study found that the philosophies of embodiment, existentialism and phenomenology overarch the concept and convergence was gained on the International Physical Literacy Association’s (IPLA) definition. IPLA (2016) define physical literacy as ‘the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life’. The results also indicated that four domains underpin the definition; furthermore, the elements that make up these domains were agreed upon.\n\nConclusion: The findings in this study respond to Francis et al. (2012), in that the elements and domains of physical literacy are realigned to its definition. This alignment maintains the original premise of Whitehead (2010) and Mandigo et al. (2012) respectively, but adds academic rigour in that it connects elements to these conceptualisations. Therefore, this re-conceptualised framework adds value in that it allows practitioners to be better placed to apply the concept to their practice. Future research can use this re-conceptualised framework to design a protocol to chart physical literacy development in children and adults.\n\n\n

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.