Comparing the Use and Effectiveness of In-Person and Remote Physical Education Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Physical Education is a key component to improve youth health, but there is limited information on Physical Education delivery in different formats.

PURPOSE:

We compared PE formats (in-person versus remote) across evaluation aspects: weekly minutes; perceived effectiveness; and student-to-teacher ratio.

METHODS:

We distributed questionnaires (2020–2021 school year) to school contacts who represented NFL Play 60 FitnessGram^® Project (n=216) schools in multiple US cities. Questionnaires entailed learning format, weekly PE minutes, perceived effectiveness, and student-to-teacher ratio. We used linear mixed models to compare PE formats across evaluation variables.

RESULTS:

Among 165 schools, 10% (n=17) offered in-person instruction, 31% (n=51) offered remote instruction, and 59% offered both (n=97). Results revealed higher in-person PE minutes (77.2±7.3) compared to remote minutes (67.1±14.6), but results were not significantly different (p=0.19). School contacts reported significantly more effective in-person PE (4.0) than remote PE (2.8, p<0.001). In-person PE also had significantly smaller reported student-to-teacher ratio (16.7) compared to remote PE (23.7, p<0.001).

DISCUSSION:

Findings indicate PE was offered during the pandemic, but remote learning appeared less effective than in-person PE.

TRANSLATION to HEALTH EDUCATION PRACTICE:

Efforts are needed to improve remote PE to reinforce high-quality PE in the future.

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted children’s education worldwide.¹ The pandemic led to extraordinary societal measures aimed at containing the virus including school closures, social distancing, and sheltering in place at home across the United States.² By March 18, 2020, more than 850 million children and adolescents from 30 countries were learning remotely, which was unchartered territory for many schools, teachers, and students.³ Over the course of the pandemic, districts and schools offered different education formats including in-person, remote, and hybrid learning (students attend in person on some days and learn remotely on other days). The remote and hybrid formats shifted how academic content was delivered to students, and classes such as physical education (PE) needed to make significant changes to maintain their standards.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends for schools to use a Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP) to support student’s physical activity.⁴ The CSPAP Framework provides guidance for planning and organizing activities throughout the school day.⁴ Physical activity is a foundational component of CSPAP which aims to implement activity opportunities before, during, and after school. Activities entail walking or biking to school, intramural sports, recess, classroom physical activity, and after-school day programs.⁵ PE is another foundational component of the CSPAP framework and is key way to support youth physical activity in schools.⁴ PE is designed to develop motor skills, knowledge and behaviors for active living, physical fitness, sportsmanship, self-efficacy, and emotional intelligence.⁶ Students in PE have the opportunity to practice learning activities that allow for knowledge and skill acquisition in an instructional climate focused on mastery.⁶ Best practices for PE instruction include maximizing skill-building opportunities, working in small groups, limiting competition in class, and ensuring adequate equipment and space so that all students can engage in practice tasks for as much time as possible.⁷ SHAPE America recommends 150 minutes of PE per week for children in elementary schools and 225 minutes per week for students in middle and high schools.^8–9 Furthermore, authorities recommend for student-to-teacher ratios to be similar to those in other subjects (25:1 for elementary and 30:1 for middle and high schools).¹⁰ Manageable class sizes are significant because it can help support effective delivery of PE which can lead to additional benefits for students.

Effective PE delivery can further improve motor function, increase cognitive development, create a healthy lifestyle pattern, and offer a conducive environment for learning.^11–12 Authorities also highlight the importance of establishing a physically active lifestyle during childhood as a key strategy for life-long chronic disease prevention.¹³ Physical activity has been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk for youth and for those who maintain activity into adulthood.^14–15 Studies indicated that obesity prevention during childhood was important given evidence that those experiencing obesity throughout this period had 5.2 times (95% CI, 4.5–6.0) greater risk of having obesity into adulthood.¹³ A systematic review revealed that higher childhood cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with favorable adiposity and cardiometabolic biomarkers (e.g. lower triglycerides, reduced low-density lipoproteins, and improved fasting glucose level).¹³ Despite the many benefits and existing best practice recommendations, PE requirements vary across districts and states.² During the COVID-19 pandemic, many schools reduced or eliminated PE requirements.² Thus, educators were left with the pivotal decision to reevaluate best practices and to shift the delivery of PE format.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many schools shifted their PE classes to a remote format. Remote instruction offers schedule flexibility, choice of physical activities, interactivity, self-pacing and exercising in an environment that is comfortable for the learner.^16–19 Research has highlighted opportunities to develop student’s physical literacy and to promote parent involvement in activities.¹⁸ A mixed methods study examined reported experiences of teachers and parents with using remote PE and the results pointed out children’s growth in physical skills.¹⁸ The results further indicated that parents noticed the impact of their influence upon their children.¹⁸ Robust online resources can also be tailored to a particular context and student needs, so they can continue to serve all students.¹⁹

Despite the noted advantages, studies have also identified disadvantages to remote PE instruction. Challenges include the need for additional teacher training, new resources, and for students to have a supportive remote learning environment.²⁰ One study reported that 20% (N=4,362) of PE teachers felt less effective teaching their students online during the pandemic.²⁰ Furthermore, studies suggest student physical activity decreased over the pandemic while sedentary time increased.^21–23 Examining the differences between remote versus in-person instruction can help further our understanding about how PE learning formats may have contributed to decreases in physical activity noted during the pandemic. This information is also valuable for future PE programming where remote instruction could be a necessary component during challenging circumstances such as the pandemic. There are potential benefits and drawbacks to remote instruction, and gaining a better understanding of the benefits and drawbacks can help improve how schools support PE through different instruction formats.^16–20

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare in-person and remote PE offered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we compared weekly PE minutes; perceived PE effectiveness; and student-to-teacher ratio between learning environments.

METHODS

Participants

We conducted this cross-sectional study in February of the 2020–2021 school year. Study participants were enrolled from schools participating in the NFL Play 60 FitnessGram^® Project (n=216). The NFL Play 60 FitnessGram Project is an initiative designed to improve the health and wellness of youth by encouraging 60 minutes of physical activity per day.²⁴ Participating schools are enlisted by The Cooper Institute and are located in each of the 32 NFL Markets. Upon enrollment, each school is provided with NFL PLAY 60 incentives and resources including: NFL FLAG Kits, Fuel Up to Play 60 nutrition equipment, AHA PLAY 60 App, and online modules for social-emotional wellbeing through EVERFI.²⁵ Schools which agree to participate receive a FitnessGram test administration kit (including a protocol manual) and they are granted access to the web-based FitnessGram software.²⁵ Basic requirements for the school include completing a baseline assessment, conducting fitness testing twice a year, entering scores into the FitnessGram software, completing an annual end of year survey, and sending home student fitness reports generated from the FitnessGram software at least once a year.²⁵

We reached out to a designated school contact (most were PE teachers) at each school to complete a voluntary, online questionnaire administered via Qualtrics. School contacts provided consent prior to completing the questionnaire. The study was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (HSC-SPH-18-0549) and the Institutional Ethics Review Board at The Cooper Institute (Dallas, Texas, USA).

Instrumentation and Procedures

The questionnaire included questions about respondent demographic information, school learning format, physical activity practices, nutrition practices, and general safety procedures used in schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific to this study, we used the questions that pertained to school learning format and physical activity practices. The primary independent variable was learning format. School representatives could respond that they offered in-person learning only, remote learning only, hybrid (students concurrently attend in person on some days and learn remotely on other days), or any combination of in-person and remote. For schools offering both in-person and remote learning formats, respondents completed questions about both in-person and remote physical education. We examined three dependent variables within the PE domain: 1) weekly PE minutes, 2) perceived PE effectiveness, and 3) student-to-teacher ratio (Table 1). The measures for each PE question was developed by the project team. Weekly PE minutes was determined by multiplying the reported number of PE days per week and the minutes for each class. We assessed perceived PE effectiveness using a single item (In your opinion, how effective are the physical education lessons for in-person or remote?) Respondents answered the item according to a 5-point Likert scale (1-not effective at all to 5-extremely effective). Student-to-teacher ratio was collected by analyzing the self-reported number of students per PE teacher.

Table 1.

Questionnaire Questions

Question Types	Questions	Responses
Learning Format	What is your schools current learning environment?	• Students attend in-person only • Students attend remotely only • Students attend in a hybrid format (student can concurrently attend in-person and remotely)
Remote & In-Person Days/Week	In a typical week, how many days do… remote students at your school have physical education class? in-person students have physical education?	# of PE days per week
Remote & In-Person Minutes/Week	How many minutes is the typical physical education class… for remote students at your school? for in-person students at your school?	# of PE minutes per class
Effectiveness	In your opinion, how effective are the physical education lessons… for remote students? for in-person students?	• Extremely Effective • Very Effective • Moderately Effective • Slightly Effective • Not Effective at all
Student to Teacher Ratio	What is the average student-to-teacher ratio for physical education classes with… remote students in your school? in-person students in your school?	# of students per teacher

We also obtained school characteristics data from the Texas Education Agency. The following school characteristics were included as control variables in the analysis: geographic location (urban, suburban, township, rural), school type (elementary, middle, high school, combination), enrollment (total number of students), percentage of students in respective race/ethnicity categories (White, Black, Hispanic, & no racial/ethnic majority), and Title 1 designation (≥40% of students who are economically disadvantaged). Because the majority of schools were urban or suburban, the township and rural school categories were combined. Similarly, most schools were elementary level, and therefore the middle, high, and combination of school types were collapsed into one category for analysis. We also created a variable to represent each school’s racial/ethnic composition by categorizing schools into the following groups: (1) majority White (≥50%); (2) majority Black (≥50%); (3) majority Hispanic (≥50%); and (4) diverse (no single/race/ethnicity group ≥50%).

Data Analysis

We examined descriptive statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages) for school-level variables and for individual-level respondent variables (e.g., sex, age, position type, years in current position). Because some schools completed PE questions about both in-person and remote learning, the data were viewed as multilevel. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each dependent variable to determine the variance explained by differences between schools. We used a series of mixed-effects linear regression models to examine differences between the remote and in-person formats across each dependent variable. First, we tested random intercept models that included learning format (level 1 variable) and the school characteristics control variables (level 2 variables). We then compared random coefficient models using the likelihood ratio test to determine if they improved model fit.²⁶ We further checked the distributions of residuals for each model to ensure residuals were normally distributed. We used Stata 17.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) for the analysis and p < 0.05 to represent statistical significance.

RESULTS

A total of 216 schools participated in the study. Some schools were excluded from the analysis because they had incomplete/missing data (n=51). Incomplete/missing data from the sample included weekly minutes (remote & in-person formats), enrollment, race/ethnic majority, geographic region, school type, and Title 1 status. Thus, the final analytic sample consisted of 165 schools. The majority of questionnaire respondents were PE teachers (87.9%) and male (55.8%). Respondents also had an average of 9.9 years in their current position (Table 2). Most schools were in urban areas (49.1%), elementary-level (81.8%), and Title 1 (85.5%) (Table 3). The average school enrollment was 544 students, and most schools served a majority White (40.6%) or Hispanic (29.1%) populations (Table 3). The majority of schools used remote only (30.9%) or hybrid/combination (58.7%) learning formats.

Table 2.

Descriptive Information of School Contacts (n=165)

Variable	School Contact Information (n, %)
Sex
Male	109 (52.9%)
Female	97 (47.1%)
Age
20–29	16 (9.8%)
30–39	55 (33.7%)
40–49	59 (36.2%)
50+	33 (20.3%)
Job Type
PE Teacher	187 (87.9%)
Principal	7 (3.2%)
Assistant Principal	1 (0.4%)
Teacher	19 (8.8%)
Dance Instructor	1 (0.4%)
Retired	1 (0.4%)

Table 3.

Descriptive Information for School Characteristics (n=165)

School Characteristics
Geographic Location (%, n)
Urban	49.1% (81)
Suburban	35.2% (58)
Rural/Non-urban & Township	15.7% (26)
School Type (%, n)
Elementary	81.8% (135)
Non-elementary	18.2% (30)
Learning Format
Remote Only	30.9% (51)
In-Person Only	10.3% (17)
Hybrid/Combination	58.7% (97)
Enrollment (mean, SD)	544.2 (165)
Race/Ethnic Composition (%, n)
Majority White (≥50%)	40.6% (67)
Majority Black (≥50%)	17.0% (28)
Majority Hispanic (≥50%)	29.1% (48)
Diverse (no single race/ethnicity majority group ≥50%)	13.3% (22)
Title I (%, n)	85.5% (141)

PE Weekly Minutes

Results from the final model revealed that weekly in-person PE minutes (77.1±7.3) appeared to be greater than remote PE minutes (67.5±14.6), when holding all other variables constant, yet the results were not significantly different (p=0.187) (Table 4). Notably, when examining other school characteristics, the majority black and no single race/ethnicity majority schools provided significantly more weekly PE minutes (107.9 ± 13.2, p=0.002 & 95.3 ± 13.7, p=0.04 respectively), than majority white schools (67.5 ± 14.6). Secondly, rural/nonurban/township provided significantly more weekly PE minutes (96.7 ± 14.1) than urban schools (67.5 ± 14.6), p<0.05. Thirdly, the non-elementary schools (155.2±12.8) offered significantly more weekly PE minutes than elementary schools (67.5±14.6). The ICC value for weekly PE minutes was (0.41) indicating that 41% of the variance in PE minutes offered was explained by differences between schools. Model testing revealed the random coefficients model had better fit than the random intercepts model, and thus was used as the final model for weekly PE minutes.

Table 4.

PE Format Results (n=165)

Variable	PE Weekly Minutes		PE Effectiveness		Student to teacher ratio
	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE	Coefficient	SE
Format	9.7	7.3	1.2*	0.1	−7.0*	1.5
(Remote is referent)
In-Person
Enrollment	−0.01	0.01	<−.01	<.01	<−0.1	<.01
Race/Ethnicity served (Majority White is referent)
Majority Black	40.4*	13.2	0.1	0.2	2.6	2.2
Majority Hispanic	20.5	11.8	0.1	0.2	2.1	2
No Majority	27.8*	13.7	0.1	0.2	2.9	2.2
Geographic Location (Urban is referent)
Suburban	7.6	9.4	0.2	0.1	0.8	1.6
Rural/Non-urban/Township	29.2*	14	0.1	0.2	1.7	2.2
School Type (Elementary is referent)	87.7*	12.8	<−.01	0.2	0.9	2.1
Middle/High/Combo
Title 1 Status	−12.9	12.3	−0.2	0.2	−1	1.9
(Non-Title 1 is referent)
Title 1

Note:

^*=sig by .05

Perceived PE Effectiveness

Results revealed that self-reported perceived in-person PE effectiveness (4.0±.12) was significantly greater than remote perceived PE effectiveness (2.8±.21) (p<0.001) (Table 4). No other school characteristics were significantly associated with perceived PE effectiveness. The ICC value for perceived PE effectiveness was (<0.001) indicating that less than 1% of the variance in perceived PE effectiveness was explained by differences between schools. Model testing revealed the random coefficients model did not improve fit, and thus results are presented for the random intercepts model.

PE Student-to-Teacher Ratio

Results from the final model revealed that in-person student-to-teacher ratio (16.7±1.5) appeared to be smaller than remote student-to-teacher ratio (23.7±2.6) (p<0.001) (Table 4). No other school characteristics were associated with PE Student-to-teacher ratio. The ICC value for PE student-to-teacher ratio was (<0.001) indicating that less than 1% of the variance in PE student-to-teacher ratio was explained by differences between schools. Model testing revealed the random coefficients model had significantly better fit than the random intercepts model, and thus was used as the final model for student-to-teacher ratio.

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to compare in-person and remote PE offered during the COVID-19 pandemic among a sample of schools participating in the NFL Play 60 FitnessGram Project. Study findings suggest that schools offered similar weekly minutes of PE for in-person and remote learning formats. However, in-person PE was perceived to be more effective and had a lower student-to-teacher ratio than remote PE. These findings suggest that although schools provided a similar amount of PE time between learning formats during the time of assessment, in-person PE appeared to be of higher quality than remote PE based on the reported perceived effectiveness and student-to-teacher ratio.

At the time of data collection (February 2021), schools had been operating in the pandemic environment for about 10 months and thus had time (including the summer of 2020) to plan for different learning formats offered in the 2020–2021 school year. This gave schools an opportunity to prepare for remote learning and identify potential resources. Our data suggest schools were able to provide access to PE through both in-person and remote instruction. However, the PE time provided during the pandemic remained below current recommendations, and remote PE was perceived to be less effective than in-person PE.² Studies have highlighted how students had less time and lower quality PE during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic.² The decrease in PE quality could be a contributing factor to lost fitness and increases in BMI during the pandemic.^27–28 Research has also identified other reasons for lost fitness and increased BMI such as increased sedentary time, overeating, and unhealthy lifestyles.²⁹ As schools have transitioned back to in-person learning, it is critical that they provide students with the recommended PE time, supplement in-person PE with remote PE, and continue to use best practices.

During the pandemic, researchers have reported challenges to providing remote PE instruction. Challenges include student access to reliable online learning and the available resources and training provided to teachers.² Student access to online learning was impacted by not having an appropriate device (e.g. computer or tablet), inconsistencies with internet speed, limited adult supervision and support, limited sports equipment, and limited physical space to participate in online PE.^2,19 Teachers may have also lacked the available resources and training to facilitate the transition to remote learning. For example, many teachers reported not having adequate training and that they lacked appropriate learning platforms or lessons.^2,19 Additional research highlighted other barriers to remote PE. For example, PE teachers had difficulties with online tasks, such as uploading lectures and linking videos from different sites.^30–31 Other challenges included lack of necessary equipment (cameras, microphones, laptops, etc.), access to software for editing images and coding video files, and/or experience using such software.³⁰ These challenges indicate the potential contributing factors to the difference in perceived PE effectiveness between in-person and remote formats.

Our study also found that remote learning had higher student-to-teacher ratios compared to in-person learning, which may have impacted perceived effectiveness. Traditionally, larger class sizes have been associated with students spending less time in moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and with teachers spending more time on classroom management.^32–34 It is unclear how student-to-teacher ratio may impact the MVPA in the remote learning experience. Remote learning may have offered advantages in how schools reached students, although, more research is necessary to better understand how the student-to-teacher ratio may contribute to physical activity minutes and its perceived effectiveness.

This research identifies the importance of PE and it provides insight to the quality of PE in different formats. Although schools have shifted back to in-person learning, there are valuable lessons from remote learning that may enhance PE both now and in future scenarios where in-person PE is limited. Studies have reported increased benefits of including a remote format to complement traditional PE. For instance, Blain et al.³⁵ stated remote learning benefits such as timely, flexible and continuous learning, and it provided learners with access to resources that allow them to study/practice at preferred times and locations. Other research emphasized how online platforms provided teachers with various ways to interact with students and to share recorded videos or other educational resources with students.³⁶ There is evidence that some students responded very well to remote instruction because they didn’t feel like other students were judging them.³⁷ Overall, remote instruction could be a valuable tool for schools and teachers to use to engage with students beyond the traditional in-person PE classes. For example, PE teachers could maintain their virtual resources for students to use during out of school time or as an extension of their in-person lesson. Another instance involves using virtual resources for students during the extended break of summer. Research has highlighted that students experience “summer learning loss,” and virtual resources could be utilized as an approach to maintain learned concepts from the school year.²

Based on our findings, there is room for improvement with remote instruction. SHAPE America³⁸ provides ways to improve remote instruction such as developing connections with students, assessing curriculum, communicating expectations, creating consistency, and making content accessible for learners. Other researchers examining factors for effective remote instruction highlight the need for parental and community engagement.³⁹ Calabuig-Moreno et al.⁴⁰ further emphasized that with an increasing number of technologies available, physical educators can explore more applications of technology related to PE environments. With this in mind, PE programming could improve its accessibility with both formats to have a sustainable impact on students.

Implications for School Health Policy, Practice, and Equity

As schools have transitioned back to in-person teaching, it is critical to ensure that they adhere to PE policies and provide students with adequate PE time. We found that remote PE instruction helped ensure students had access to PE time, although the quality of instruction could be improved. Therefore, schools should consider how they can improve access to physical activity and PE through remote instruction to complement in-person teaching. Remote instruction could provide an avenue for engaging students in PE during out-of-school time hours. Providing out-of-school time PE could be critical for students who lack access to safe spaces to play or the means to play for sports teams or leagues.

Strengths and Limitations

The study provides key information to understand the impact of learning format on the quality of PE. A strength of this study is that we leveraged an existing network of schools to collect valuable data during the pandemic. This was valuable because schools experienced various challenges during this time, and information from this study could be utilized to enhance PE literature. A second strength, was the sample included schools from different geographic regions. Even though all schools were part of the NFL Play60 project, the geographic variation improves the generalizability of findings. The sample also included a diverse group of schools in terms of the students served (income, race/ethnicity, title 1 status). A third strength was that the teachers from the sample had nearly 10 years of teaching experience and this suggests that they had the skills to adapt to external challenges such as the pandemic.

Although this research provides valuable findings concerning the relation between learning format and PE quality, there are limitations to consider. First, a small percentage (12.1%) of questionnaire respondents were non-PE teachers and thus they may have a different perspective than PE teachers about the effectiveness of PE formats during the pandemic. Second, the study sample consisted of schools that were using the NFL Play60 program, which limits the study’s generalizability. NFL Play60 schools could be more conducive to promoting more PE-based initiatives compared to other schools. Third, data were from a self-report survey, which may lead to social desirability bias and recall bias. Fourth, there were incomplete/missing data from 51 schools in the NFL Play60 program. A secondary analysis revealed no statistically significant differences among school characteristics (e.g., enrollment, percentage of students in respective race/ethnicity categories, geographic location, school type, and title 1 designation) for schools with complete data and the 51 schools with incomplete/missing data. Fifth, the measures used to assess variables in this study lack formal reliability and validity testing.

TRANLATION TO HEALTH EDUCATION PRACTICE

Schools play an important role in providing students with high quality PE to support their health and learning. Our findings suggest that PE was largely offered in the participating NFL Play60 schools through both remote and in-person instruction, yet the remote instruction was perceived to be less effective during the pandemic. Less effective remote PE could be a contributing factor to less student activity during the pandemic. Our findings can be leveraged to further explore the effectiveness of remote PE instruction, provide recommendations for best practices when using remote PE, and enhance implementation of remote PE in future circumstances when this delivery method is needed or preferred.

Additionally, our study contributes to the health education field by offering an understanding of PE quality in multiple delivery formats. These findings are especially significant as they offer valuable insights to consider during challenging public health circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from our study could be used to update and enhance educator responsibilities identified by the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing (NCHEC), specifically, Area 1: Assessment of Needs and Capacity, Area 2: Planning, and Area 4: Evaluation and Research.⁴¹

For Assessment of Needs and Capacity and NCHEC Competency 1.3, it is of upmost importance to make data driven decisions when determining the environmental factors which impact the health of the school population.⁴¹ From our quantitative data collection, we identified school stakeholder(s) who could assist with identifying school contextual factors that influence the health of the population (i.e. PE teachers, health education teachers). The synthesis of findings is another key contributor to informing the planning process. (NCHEC competency 1.4).⁴¹ Synthesis of our findings helped to identify the school physical education format that needed the most support during the COVID-19 pandemic, which can inform project planning efforts. Also, utilizing open-ended questions for quantitative data revealed critical information that provided additional insight about the school environment. This process is key because it helps to avoid research predispositions, and it provides an informed planning process for decision-making. Within the planning process (NCHEC Competency 2.1), the engagement between researchers and school stakeholders is key to understand multiple perspectives and make well-informed decisions.⁴¹ From our findings, we recognized the importance of having multiple planning meetings with stakeholders to identify research ideas, project priorities, and potential processes.

For Evaluation and Research: our study reinforces the need to applying the appropriate research design (NCHEC Competency 4.2, sub competencies: 4.2.1. determine purpose, hypotheses, and questions; 4.2.2. comply with institutional and/or IRB requirements for research; and 4.3.6 analyze data.), interpret the data (NCHEC Competency 4.4), and use findings for the priority population (NCHEC Competency 4.5).⁴¹ For instance, our application of a quasi-experimental design allowed us to quickly collect data at a critical point during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our interpretation process involved meeting with multiple stakeholders to develop a comprehensive understanding of the results and to conclude on potential recommendations from the study. Lastly, we discussed various ways that our findings will be most applicable to the priority population and future research. For instance, the findings from our study could be used to provide additional training insight for school personnel and it could contribute additional knowledge to PE research studies.

Study findings reveal several aspects to consider when evaluating PE. First, it is key to work with school stakeholders (e.g., PE teachers, health educators, principals) to support needs assessment efforts. Schools are a complex entity, and working with school stakeholders could assist with understanding students and their environment. Secondly, school stakeholders are essential to involve with research planning and evaluation. Stakeholders could help facilitate specific priorities which would make the project more applicable for the intended population. Thirdly, collaboration with school personnel could help identify best practices and assist in physical education promotion.