Abstract
Background
Teachers in Ontario are expected to implement the physical activity guidelines in the health and physical education (HPE) curriculum document that was introduced in 1998. This study examined Toronto teachers’ perspective on barriers to implementing these guidelines.
Methods
Forty-five teachers from five Toronto elementary schools in which generalist classroom teachers provide physical education classes participated in focus groups. An experienced moderator facilitated each session. Themes were inductively generated from the data.
Results
Participants reported that children were not engaged in moderate or vigorous physical activity daily and for the expected duration. Participants identified three categories of barriers to implementing the curriculum guidelines: lower priority for HPE, lack of performance measures for physical activity, and lack of sufficient infrastructure. First, they reported that the new curriculum expectations for other subjects were demanding, which left little time to focus on physical education. They felt that resource support for the HPE curriculum was not sufficient and that physical education specialists were necessary but unavailable to implement the curriculum. Second, participants felt accountable to both government and parents for high student performance on standardized tests in subjects deemed to be of higher priority. Third, participants reported inadequate facilities and equipment, use of portables for classrooms, cancelling physical education to have events in the gymnasium, and unavailability of teachers to supervise off-school physical activity.
Conclusion
The study suggests that participating teachers perceive physical education to be a low priority in the educational system, making it difficult for them to meet the HPE curriculum expectations.
Résumé
Contexte
Les enseignants de l’Ontario sont tenus d’appliquer les lignes directrices sur l’activité physique contenues dans le document de programme sur la santé et l’éducation physique diffusé en 1998. Nous avons étudié le point de vue des enseignants de Toronto sur les obstacles à l’application de ces lignes directrices.
Méthode
Quarante-cinq enseignants de cinq écoles primaires de Toronto où les cours d’éducation physique sont donnés par des enseignants non spécialisés ont participé à des groupes d’entretien en profondeur. Chaque séance était facilitée par un animateur chevronné. Les thèmes des entretiens ont été inductivement tirés des données.
Résultats
Selon les participants, les enfants ne pratiquent pas chaque jour et pendant la durée prévue une activité physique modérée ou vigoureuse. Il y aurait trois types d’obstacles à l’application des lignes directrices au programme: la faible priorité accordée à la santé et à l’éducation physique, l’absence de mesures de rendement pour l’activité physique et le manque d’infrastructures. Premièrement, les participants ont déclaré que les attentes du nouveau programme dans les autres matières sont élevées, ce qui laisse peu de temps pour se concentrer sur l’éducation physique. À leur avis, les ressources à l’appui du programme de santé et d’éducation physique sont insuffisantes, et il faudrait des spécialistes en éducation physique (non disponibles à l’heure actuelle) pour appliquer le programme. Deuxièmement, les participants se sentent responsables, tant auprès du gouvernement que des parents, d’obtenir de bons résultats pour leurs élèves aux examens normalisés dans les matières jugées prioritaires. Troisièmement, les participants ont mentionné l’insuffisance des installations et du matériel, les classes préfabriquées, l’annulation de l’éducation physique lorsqu’on tient des assemblées dans le gymnase et l’absence d’enseignants pour superviser l’activité physique avant ou après l’école.
Conclusion
L’étude porte à croire que les enseignants participants perçoivent l’éducation physique comme étant non prioritaire dans le système éducatif, ce qui leur complique la tâche de répondre aux attentes du programme en matière de santé et d’éducation physique.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement: The Children and Youth Action Committee, City of Toronto, funded the study. Dr. Kenneth Allison is supported by a Career Scientist award provided by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
References
- 1.Tremblay MS, Katzmarzyk PT, Willms JD. Temporal trends in overweight and obesity in Canada, 1981–1996. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002;26(4):538–43. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Steinbeck KS. The importance of physical activity in the prevention of overweight and obesity in childhood: A review and an opinion. Obes Rev. 2001;2(2):117–30. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-789x.2001.00033.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kumanyika S, Jeffery RW, Morabia A, Ritenbaugh C, Antipatis VJ. Obesity prevention: The case for action. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002;26(3):425–36. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, Haskell WL, Macera CA, Bouchard C, et al. Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. JAMA. 1995;273(5):402–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520290054029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.U.S. Department of HealthHuman Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Caspersen CJ, Nixon PA, DuRant RH. Physical activity epidemiology applied to children and adolescents. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1998;26:341–403. doi: 10.1249/00003677-199800260-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chad KE, Humbert ML, Jackson PL. The effectiveness of the Canadian Quality Daily Physical Education program on school physical education. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70(1):55–64. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1999.10607730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Allison KR, Adlaf EM. Structured opportunities for student physical activity in Ontario elementary and secondary schools. Can J Public Health. 2000;91(5):371–75. doi: 10.1007/BF03404810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ontario Ministry of Education. The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Health and Physical Education. 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ontario Health and Physical Education Curriculum Support: Kindergarten to Grade 10, Ontario Physical and Health Education Association (OPHEA), Toronto, 2000.
- 11.Tappe MK. Duda JL. Menges-Ehrnwald P. Personal investment predictors of adolescent motivational orientation toward exercise. Can J Sport Sci. 1990;15(3):185–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Stucky-Ropp RC, DiLorenzo TM. Determinants of exercise in children. Prev Med. 1993;22(6):880–89. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1993.1079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Allison KR, Dwyer JJ, Makin S. Perceived barriers to physical activity among high school students. Prev Med. 1999;28(6):608–15. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Leithwood K, Steinbach R, Jantzi D. School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educ Admin Q. 2002;38(1):94–119. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Research in Ontario Secondary Schools: Series of Brief Reports. 2001.
- 16.Research in Ontario Secondary Schools: Series of Brief Reports. 2003.
- 17.British Columbia Ministry of Education, Curriculum Branch. Physical Education Curriculum Review Report. 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Health Canada. Canada’s Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living. 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Morgan DL. The Focus Group Guidebook. Focus Group Kit, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Poland BD. Transcript quality as an aspect of rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. 1995;1(3):290–310. doi: 10.1177/107780049500100302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.The Ethnograph. Version 5.0. Salt Lake City, Utah: Qualis Research Associates, 1998.
- 22.Flick U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Morse JM, Richards L. Readme First For a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Ontario Ministry of HealthLong-Term Care. Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2003. [Google Scholar]