{"@context":{"@language":"en","Affiliation":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","AggregatedSourceRepository":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","Citation":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierCitation","Creator":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","DateAvailable":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","DateIssued":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","Description":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","FullText":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","Genre":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","IsShownAt":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","Language":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","PeerReviewStatus":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#peerReviewStatus","Provider":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","PublisherDOI":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#publisherDOI","Rights":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","RightsURI":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI","ScholarlyLevel":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","Subject":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/subject","Title":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","Type":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","URI":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","SortDate":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date"},"Affiliation":[{"@value":"Education, Faculty of","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Kinesiology, School of","@language":"en"}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"@value":"DSpace","@language":"en"}],"Citation":[{"@value":"Buckler, E. J., & Bredin, S. S. D. (2018). Examining the knowledge base and level of confidence of early childhood educators in physical literacy and its application to practice. Early Years, 41(2\u20133), 202\u2013217.","@language":"en"}],"Creator":[{"@value":"Buckler, E. Jean","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Bredin, Shannon S. D.","@language":"en"}],"DateAvailable":[{"@value":"2024-07-24T16:17:02Z","@language":"en"}],"DateIssued":[{"@value":"2018-09-06","@language":"en"}],"Description":[{"@value":"Early childhood is an opportune time to develop physical literacy, acquire movement skills, and promote physical activity. Little is known about early childhood educators\u2019 competence and confidence in physical literacy knowledge and its application to practice. The purpose of this research was to examine the competence and confidence of early childhood educators in physical literacy, and to determine whether exposure to information in this area influences their confidence level. A total of 85 participants completed an online survey. Physical activity knowledge was high; however, error detection and correction knowledge was lower, with high variability in responses. Mean confidence rating (out of 10) was lowest for locomotor skill error detection and correction (6.4\u00b11.8) and highest for physical activity promotion (7.7\u00b11.6). Confidence in movement skill development decreased significantly pre- to post-survey (p<0.001); highlighting a potential \u201ctopic exposure\u201d effect. These findings demonstrate the need for physical literacy training for early childhood educators","@language":"en"}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"@value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/88684?expand=metadata","@language":"en"}],"FullText":[{"@value":"1  Examining the knowledge base and level of confidence of early 1 childhood educators in physical literacy and its application to practice 2 E. Jean Buckler and Shannon S.D. Bredin 3 School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 4 Canada 5 Address all correspondence to: 6 E. Jean Buckler 7 School of Kinesiology 8 University of British Columbia 9 210-6081 University Boulevard 10 Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1 11 Tel: +1-604-880-0947 12 Fax: +1-604-822-6842 13 Email: ejean.burrows@alumni.ubc.ca 14  15 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Early 16 Years: An International Research Journal on September 6, 2018, available 17 at: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09575146.2018.1514488 18 19 2  Examining the knowledge base and level of confidence of early 1 childhood educators in physical literacy and its application to practice 2 Abstract 3 Early childhood is an opportune time to develop physical literacy, acquire 4 movement skills, and promote physical activity. Little is known about early 5 childhood educators\u2019 competence and confidence in physical literacy knowledge 6 and its application to practice. The purpose of this research was to examine the 7 competence and confidence of early childhood educators in physical literacy, and 8 to determine whether exposure to information in this area influences their 9 confidence level. A total of 85 participants completed an online survey. Physical 10 activity knowledge was high; however, error detection and correction knowledge 11 was lower, with high variability in responses. Mean confidence rating (out of 10) 12 was lowest for locomotor skill error detection and correction (6.4\u00b11.8) and 13 highest for physical activity promotion (7.7\u00b11.6). Confidence in movement skill 14 development decreased significantly pre- to post-survey (p<0.001); highlighting a 15 potential \u201ctopic exposure\u201d effect. These findings demonstrate the need for 16 physical literacy training for early childhood educators. 17 Keywords: gross motor development; professional development; physical 18 domain; motor domain  19 Introduction 20 Early childhood (0-5 years of age) is a critical period for the development of physical 21 literacy. Physical literacy is defined by Whitehead (2013, 28) as the \u201cmotivation, 22 confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take part 23 in physical activities\u201d for life, which may be the most accepted definition currently. 24 There are wide-ranging uses and definitions of this term, many of which simplify 25 physical literacy to the development of foundational gross motor skills or fundamental 26 movement skills. However, physical literacy should be examined as a holistic lifelong 27 concept, rather than a series of skills to be attained (Edwards et al. 2017; Jurbala 2015). 28 This is particularly important, as the emphasis on fundamental movement skills may 29 3  limit focus to the middle to late childhood years as is found in many currently used 1 assessments of physical literacy (Edwards et al. 2018). Participation in lifelong health 2 promoting physical activity has wide-ranging health benefits (Janssen and LeBlanc 3 2010; Warburton, Nicol and Bredin 2006; Warburton et al. 2010). The early childhood 4 period is also influential for the development of physical competence, particularly the 5 acquisition of fundamental movement skills (LeGear et al. 2012; Robinson et al. 2015; 6 Stodden et al. 2008). Children who have higher levels of fundamental movement skills 7 are more likely to be physically active and fit as adolescents and adults (Barnett, van 8 Beurden et al. 2008; Lubans et al. 2010; Wrotniak et al. 2006). 9 By the age of 6, children have the developmental capability to perform 10 fundamental movement skills using a mature pattern, where individuals perform the 11 skill efficiently in a coordinated manner (Gallahue and Ozmun 2006; Payne and Isaacs 12 2016). Fundamental movement skills include: locomotor skills, where participants move 13 the body through space (e.g., skipping); object control skills, where individuals 14 manipulate an object (e.g., ball) to propel or to trap it, and non-locomotor skills, where 15 individuals stand stationary but move the trunk with control (e.g., twisting) (Pangrazi 16 and Beighle 2013; Payne and Isaacs 2016).  17 It has also been suggested that children exhibit cognitive characteristics in the 18 early childhood years, which are conducive to skill acquisition. At this age, children use 19 persistence and effort as measures of success, rather than comparisons of themselves to 20 others, and are therefore less likely to self-exclude from activities they have not 21 mastered (Stodden et al. 2008). Recent research has provided support for this concept. 22 For example, LeGear et al. (2012) showed perceptions of physical competence in 23 kindergarten children were high despite exhibiting low levels of motor proficiency. This 24 4  characteristic of early childhood provides a \u201cwindow of opportunity\u201d (p. 4) for the 1 promotion of skill acquisition (LeGear et al. 2012). Capitalizing on this window and 2 providing many positive physical activity and skill development opportunities for 3 children during this time period may have a powerful effect on long term engagement in 4 physical activity, as young children may exhibit greater willingness to engage in a 5 variety of activities and skills.  6 A contemporary reality in the early childhood years is the increasing prevalence 7 of childcare. Many children attend childcare facilities, where the majority of their day is 8 spent under the care of an early childhood educator (ECE). From 1992 to 2014 the 9 number of regulated childcare spaces in Canada increased from 371,573 to 1,201,377, a 10 3.2 fold increase (Friendly et al. 2015). The reasons for increased enrolment in childcare 11 arise from an increase in dual income households in Canada, with a particular increase 12 in working mothers (Friendly et al. 2015). Similar trends are seen in other countries 13 such as the United Kingdom (Office of National Statistics 2014) and the United States 14 (Women\u2019s Bureau 2016).  15 Early childhood educators within Canada and the US use a holistic model for 16 childcare, aimed at supporting the development of the whole child, including 17 development of the social, emotional, physical, language, and cognitive domains 18 (Barnett 2008; Craig 2012). The physical domain of childhood development includes 19 the acquisition of fine motor skills (such as utilizing a pen or buttoning a button) and 20 gross motor skills (such as running, kicking, or throwing) (Payne and Isaacs 2016). 21 Early childhood educators play an important role in the developmental process and are 22 likely instrumental in supporting a positive physical literacy journey in the children they 23 work with, given their role in promoting physical activity in the early childhood years 24 5  (Lu and Montague 2016). Lu and Montague\u2019s (2016) review provides a call to action to 1 prioritise physical activity in early years programming, considering the multitude of 2 health, social, and cognitive benefits that activity in this time period provides. 3 Despite the important role ECEs may play in a positive physical literacy 4 journey, there is little training provided in this area for ECEs. Previous research has 5 demonstrated that children under the care of ECEs with more education (e.g., a college 6 degree) are more likely to participate in physical activity (Dowda et al. 2004). There is 7 some evidence that suggests that ECEs may not have the background training to 8 implement effective movement skills curricula (Breslin, Morton, and Rudisill 2008); 9 however, greater understanding of the training needs and wants of ECEs in the area of 10 physical literacy is needed.  11 In preparation of this work, an online search was conducted to review the 12 educational curriculum of all recognised institutions in British Columbia, Canada 13 offering training in early childhood education. While online course descriptions of 14 teaching syllabi indicated that physical activity or gross motor development were 15 subtopics within one or two courses per program, the scan showed that no institutions 16 offered courses with a standalone focus on physical literacy, physical activity, or motor 17 development as a part of their early childhood education certificate or diploma program. 18 Without physical literacy skills training, the potential for an ECE to enhance 19 opportunities for the development of physical literacy in the child care setting is limited.  20 Given the growing emphasis on increasing instructional capacity in physical 21 literacy in the childhood years (Government of British Columbia 2015), research is 22 needed in the area of ECE training and physical literacy to inform effective pre-service 23 training and ongoing professional development. To date, little is known about the level 24 6  of knowledge competence and confidence that ECEs possess in the area of physical 1 literacy. This investigation employed a survey and was exploratory in nature. The 2 purpose of the work was to generate information on the competence and confidence of a 3 sample of ECEs in three theme areas: physical activity concepts, fundamental 4 movement skill patterns, and the capability to detect and correct movement errors. The 5 primary objective was to generate information to better inform the development of 6 effective training programs that meet the needs of ECEs. Given the limited pre-service 7 training in physical literacy, we postulated that ECEs\u2019 existing knowledge in the area 8 would be low. In addition, we hypothesised that confidence would be moderate, but 9 may actually decrease from the start to finish of the survey. We predicted a decrease in 10 confidence because exposure to questions requiring a knowledge base in which the 11 respondent lacks training, may bring to realization what one lacks, thereby decreasing 12 one\u2019s level of confidence. 13 Material and Methods 14 The link to a web-based survey designed specifically for this investigation was 15 distributed to all student and employed early childhood educators in the region via 16 professional organizations in 2015. This project employed a cross-sectional survey 17 design employing mixed methods. The investigation received approval from and was 18 executed in exact accordance with the ethical guidelines set forth by the University of 19 British Columbia\u2019s Behavioural Research Ethics Board for research involving human 20 participants. Participants were never tracked via IP address and no information that 21 could personally identify a participant was collected.  22 Participant data 23 7  Descriptive data of participants was collected to understand the demographics, 1 experience, and training of respondents. Demographic variables included age and sex. 2 Experience was determined from years of experience, ECE licensure, type of 3 workplace, and age of children attending workplace. Information regarding training 4 included type of pre-service training (e.g., eight-month training program, diploma, 5 bachelor\u2019s degree), and if pre-service training included physical activity, motor skill 6 development, or motor skill acquisition curricula. The survey did not undergo a 7 validation process, as the purpose was to gain insight into the current knowledge and 8 views of ECEs in BC to inform the development of an ECE training module. 9 Survey 10 The purpose of the survey was to examine the physical literacy confidence and 11 competence of ECEs in application to practice using likert scale, multiple choice, and 12 open-ended questions. Key topic areas were selected for inclusion within the survey to 13 ensure the survey was sufficiently broad to encompass the topic, and also reasonable in 14 length to encourage participation.  15 Knowledge and competence 16 Questions (total = 15) were categorised into four major sections: physical activity 17 knowledge (7 questions, e.g.,  knowledge of public messages of recommended amount 18 of physical activity and classification of physical activity intensity), age of skill 19 acquisition (4 questions, e.g., knowledge of anticipated age of motor milestone 20 achievement for rudimentary or mature movement skill patterns), error detection (2 21 questions, e.g., the capability to identify the source of a child\u2019s movement error during 22 performance), and error correction (2 questions, e.g., the capability to recommend 23 activities to improve an identified movement error). None of the categories were 24 8  exhaustive in nature; rather, each category focused on a few key concepts. Multiple 1 choice questions were administered to examine knowledge of physical activity, age of 2 acquisition, and error detection and correction. For example, \u2018playing tag would be 3 considered what type of physical activity: (a) light physical activity, (b) moderate 4 physical activity, (c) vigorous physical activity, or (d) sedentary activity?\u2019 Open-ended 5 questions were administered to examine knowledge of age of acquisition and error 6 detection and correction. For example: two questions were asked for error detection and 7 correction relating to running (a locomotor skill) and catching (an object control skill), 8 respectively. These included: \u2018(1) (a) Imagine you are working with a child who is 9 having difficulty generating a flight phase when running (the point in time when both 10 feet are off the ground). What is most likely causing this? (b) Describe an activity that 11 could be done to improve this\u2019; and \u2018(2) (a) The children you are working with are 3 12 years of age. They are unable to effectively catch a ball tossed in an arc. Is this a cause 13 of concern? (b) Describe an activity that could be done to improve this\u2019. For open-ended 14 questions, there was no single correct answer, but open-ended questions were included 15 to gain a better understanding of the capacity of respondents to think critically when 16 faced with movement challenges they may see within their day to day work. Open-17 ended questions were also included to gain insight into the perceptions of ECEs 18 surrounding physical literacy and its application to ECE practice (e.g., \u2018What does the 19 term physical literacy mean to you in relation to your ECE practice?\u2019) and to collect 20 specific opinions or perceptions of the content areas from respondents (e.g., \u2018Identify 21 any areas that you would like further professional development or educational 22 opportunities in regarding physical literacy and fundamental motor skill development in 23 an early childhood education setting\u2019). No major terms (e.g., physical activity, exercise, 24 physical literacy) were defined for participants in order to gain each participant\u2019s unique 25 9  understanding of these terms. 1 Confidence measures 2 The survey also examined confidence in physical literacy knowledge using Likert-scale 3 questions, where ECE\u2019s were asked to provide a confidence rating for each question on 4 a scale from 1 (not at all confident) to 10 (highly confident) in the following areas: 5 physical activity promotion, movement skill development, locomotor skill development, 6 error detection and correction for locomotor skills, object control skill development, 7 error detection and correction for object control skills, non-locomotor skill 8 development, and error detection and correction for non-locomotor skills.  9 Survey structure 10 The structure of the survey was such that respondents were first asked to provide 11 demographic and training information, then to rate their confidence in physical activity 12 knowledge and early childhood movement skill development, followed by multiple 13 choice and open ended questions, and finally to rate their confidence in all other areas 14 of physical literacy, as well as a re-assessment of movement skill development 15 confidence at the conclusion of the survey.  16 Data analysis 17 A descriptive analysis of confidence ratings was conducted to determine means and 18 standard deviations. Multiple choice questions were analyzed for accuracy, a percentage 19 correct for each participant was assigned, and descriptive statistics were then calculated. 20 Open ended responses were analyzed and coded by hand using a deductive approach to 21 determine patterns and similarities amongst respondents. These coded responses were 22 then grouped to determine common themes in responses. Pre- and post-survey 23 10  confidence ratings of overall movement skill development knowledge were calculated, 1 and compared using a paired t-test. This was conducted to determine whether or not 2 exposure to the survey topics had an effect on participants\u2019 level of confidence. 3 Results 4 A total of 301 respondents opened and began the survey and 85 completed surveys were 5 received (77 F, 1 M, 7 no response), with a 28% response rate. Only completed surveys 6 were used in the data analysis. Most participants were more than 10 years into their 7 career, had post-basic ECE training, worked at a centre providing full day care, and 8 provided care for children aged 3-5, or 0-5 years of age. Most of the participants were 9 currently employed (n=82), and only three participants were students. Table 1 provides 10 participant characteristics (participant age, experience, and level of certification) of the 11 ECEs completing the survey. Level of certification was categorised as a 1 year (or 12 initial certificate), or a 5-year certificate (received after completing a 500 hours of work 13 as an ECE in BC, is valid for 5 years, and is held by all ECEs following their initial 1 14 year certificate). A 5-year certificate can be categorised further as a basic ECE 15 certificate, or a post-basic certificate, specializing in children with special needs, infants 16 and toddlers, or both.  17 Insert Table 1 Here 18 ECEs reported having taken one full semester course (21%), a half-semester 19 course (9%), or two or more full semester courses (8%) in the areas of physical activity, 20 motor skill development, or motor skill acquisition during their pre-service training. 21 While 50% of ECEs reported taking no specific courses in the area, ECEs did report 22 discussing the topics frequently (39%) or at least a few times (21%) in other courses. 23 11  Only 1% of respondents reported no time spent on these topics. For post-service 1 training in physical activity, motor skill development, and motor skill acquisition, many 2 ECEs indicated that they had completed no continuing education courses in these areas 3 (39%); however, 22% had completed one course, 18% had completed two courses, and 4 22% had completed three or more courses. Participants were asked to indicate whether 5 they believed they had adequate training to promote physical activity and fundamental 6 movement skill development in the children they work with and 39% responded yes in 7 both areas, 18% responded yes in one area, 41% responded somewhat, and only 2% 8 responded no. 9 Knowledge competency 10 Mean percentage on the multiple choice assessment of knowledge competency 11 was 62.5% \u00b116.6 (mean \u00b1 standard deviation).  While general physical activity 12 knowledge questions were answered consistently correctly, respondents demonstrated 13 difficulty in identifying public messaging for physical activity recommendations in the 14 early childhood years (only 14% of respondents responded accurately). Respondents 15 identified correctly age of skill acquisition for locomotor skills (76%); however, only 16 20% of participants correctly identified age of acquisition for object control skills.  17 When identifying what error may be causing difficulties in the flight phase of 18 the running pattern, responses were highly varied, with over 12 categories of responses 19 emerging from the sample (Table 2). Moreover, 11% of respondents answered by 20 stating that they did not know. A large percentage (55%) of respondents identified 21 physical constraints as limiting movement capabilities (e.g., strength, balance, 22 coordination); however, no single response was identified consistently and some of the 23 responses did not identify constraints that could be addressed through instruction in a 24 12  learning environment (e.g., age is not a variable that can be manipulated via 1 instructional feedback). 2 Insert Table 2 Here 3 When identifying error correction activities for running performance, activities 4 to overcome physical limitations or constraints were commonly suggested (e.g., 5 activities to improve balance (10%) or activities to increase posture\/core strength (5%) 6 and leg strength (5%)). Activities specific to other locomotor skills, such as hopping, 7 jumping, or leaping, were most commonly identified as activities that should be 8 implemented to improve the flight phase of running (31%). A total of 8% of participants 9 responded that they did not know (Table 3). Adaptive activities (e.g., vary the size of 10 the ball) were commonly suggested to improve catching performance (34%), as well as 11 the introduction of progressive skill activities such as rolling (20%) and bouncing 12 (10%). A total of 6% of respondents did not know (Table 4). A large percentage of 13 participants (27% for running, 19% for catching) identified that continual performance 14 of the skill itself, with no adaptation or change to instruction and\/or the learning 15 environment, should be sufficient to improve the motor problem emerging within the 16 performance of the skill.  17 Insert Table 3 Here 18 Insert Table 4 Here 19 Confidence ratings 20 Pre-survey confidence measures ranged from 6.4 \u00b1 1.7 in locomotor skill error detection 21 and correction to 7.7 \u00b1 1.6 in physical activity promotion out of a total score of 10. 22 Confidence rankings across physical literacy topics are presented in Figure 1. Statistical 23 differences were found between some variables, and reported in Figure 1. Confidence in 24 13  movement development decreased significantly from pre-survey (7.3 \u00b1 1.7) to post-1 survey (6.4 \u00b1 2.0) (p=0.00) (see Figure 2). 2 Insert Figure 1 Here 3 Insert Figure 2 Here 4 Application to practice 5 In response to what exercise meant in relation to ECE practice, the most common 6 responses were categorised qualitatively as (1) physical activity, any form, or (2) games, 7 fun, and play. This was further defined into four subcategories: (1) time outside; (2) 8 unstructured or free movement experiences; (3) learning and practice of movement 9 skills; and (4) activities to increase heart rate (e.g., for health). 10 In response to what physical literacy meant in relation to their ECE practice, two 11 major knowledge areas were identified: (1) ECE knowledge of motor development and 12 physical activity; and (2) the physical competence of the children ECEs work with. 13 ECEs identified that they needed the knowledge to promote physical literacy, and it was 14 their responsibility to ensure the children they work with were developing physical 15 literacy. Fitness or health, physical activity or movement, and learning or developing 16 movement skills, were identified as other areas where physical literacy could be related 17 to ECE practice. A portion of respondents (13%) were unfamiliar with the term physical 18 literacy.  19 The ECEs identified that there was a need for increased training opportunities in 20 physical literacy in the field and a desire for increased knowledge of activities and ideas 21 to promote physical literacy. In the open-ended responses ECEs also identified and 22 reported that they experienced a decrease in their confidence in the area of physical 23 14  literacy at the completion of the survey.  1 Discussion 2 The sample of ECE survey respondents was consistent with the demographic 3 portfolio of employed early childhood educators in Canada (Flanagan, Beach and 4 Varmuza 2013). The employed ECE population is made up predominantly of more 5 mature workers (almost 30% of ECEs across Canada are over the age of 45) and 6 predominantly female (Flanagan, Beach and Varmuza 2013). ECEs across Canada 7 demonstrate an average of 12 years of experience, with a median of 10 years, and 25% 8 of Canadian ECEs have worked in child care for 18 years or more (Flanagan, Beach and 9 Varmuza 2013). Coupled with the low unemployment rates, 4.2% in 2015 (Work BC), 10 statistics suggests a high turnover rate of early career ECEs, but following a specified 11 time period, the retention rate increases considerably. The training experiences of this 12 sample were similar to those identified in Martyniuk and Tucker\u2019s (2014) survey of 13 ECE students, which found that the majority of participants had not taken any physical 14 activity specific courses. 15 Our findings showed that general knowledge of physical activity was high 16 amongst respondents. This finding is consistent with current evidence, which 17 demonstrates that many people have a basic knowledge and understanding of the 18 importance of physical activity; however, this does not necessarily translate into 19 engagement in physical activity (Trost et al. 2003). Research has shown that education 20 style interventions at the population level have translated into increased knowledge, but 21 do not increase physical activity behaviour (Young et al. 1996). While many of the 22 survey respondents possessed a basic working knowledge of physical activity concepts, 23 it remains unknown whether this knowledge is reflected in the physical activity levels of 24 15  the children under their care. That is, are physical activity levels in the child care setting 1 higher in those children whose ECE scored higher on the section for general knowledge 2 of physical activity compared to those whose ECE scored lower?  This is particularly 3 important given previous research demonstrating low levels of physical activity in child 4 care settings (Reilly, 2010).  5 When summarizing the responses for the open-ended questions, respondents 6 generally viewed exercise as any type of physical movement. For example: \u201cany 7 physical movement that children are engaged in \u2013 walking, hiking, running, tag, Mr. 8 Wolf\u201d or as, \u201cgetting up and getting moving \u2013 could be dancing, going for a nice walk 9 in the neighbourhood, playing at a park, kicking a ball, running and playing tag, 10 swinging on a rope swing,\u2026\u201d. These statements support the messaging that every little 11 bit of physical activity counts (see Warburton and Bredin 2016). Physical activity and 12 exercise were used interchangeably in survey responses. While these terms are not 13 interchangeable in a research setting, these responses may indicate that the terms may 14 be perceived as more interchangeable in a play-based environment. 15 The ECEs responded consistently that the amount of time children should 16 engage in physical activity per day was 60 minutes. The message of 60 minutes per day 17 of moderate to vigorous physical activity (Tremblay et al. 2016) has been promoted 18 with concerted effort both provincially, nationally, and globally by various 19 organizations. However, this messaging has been promoted in physical activity 20 guidelines and policy documents (Government of British Columbia 2015) for children 21 5-17 years of age. In contrast, in the early years (0-4 years), the messaging has been to 22 promote 180 min\/day of any intensity physical activity, with a progression toward a 23 minimum of 60 min\/day of \u201cenergetic play\u201d, accepted as moderate to vigorous physical 24 16  activity (Tremblay et al. 2012). While the accuracy of messaging in the translation of 1 the evidence is in debate (see Warburton and Bredin, 2016), this finding does reveal that 2 the influx of promotional materials designed for older children has influenced ECEs, 3 which may ultimately affect physical activity programming within the childcare setting. 4 Respondents demonstrated difficulty in identifying the source of an error, and 5 when an error had been identified prescribing a corrective activity that was congruent 6 with the identified error. For example, participants were asked to provide a reason for a 7 child being unable to generate a flight phase (point in time when both feet are off the 8 ground) when running. Lack of leg strength was identified as a potential cause by only 9 18% of respondents and only 4% of respondents recommended a leg strengthening 10 activity as a corrective activity. Rather, many participants prescribed jumping, hopping, 11 or leaping activities to overcome a child\u2019s inability to generate a proficient flight phase 12 when running. For children with insufficient leg strength, these activities may not be 13 facilitative, as children who lack the strength to lift their body off the ground when 14 running are likely to experience similar difficulty when engaging in jumping, hopping, 15 or leaping activities. 16 Participants demonstrated the greatest difficulty in response for an object-control 17 skill when asked to identify an activity to prepare for catching a tossed ball in an arc 18 (for children 3 years of age). The capability to catch a ball tossed in an arc develops 19 later in childhood (identified by 64% of participants), which is consistent with the 20 development of the perceptual motor system. Visual tracking allows for the 21 development of coincident anticipation timing (the capability to time (produce) a 22 response that coincides with the arrival of a moving stimulus). Coincident anticipation 23 timing continues to mature throughout childhood, reaching maturation at approximately 24 17  12 years of age, and requires practice and task exposure for optimal development in 1 childhood (Payne and Isaacs 2016). However, there are multiple activities that can be 2 presented to learners to lay the foundation for and promote the future acquisition of 3 catching a ball tossed in an arc (Pangrazi and Beighle 2013; Payne and Isaacs 2016). 4 Over 50% of ECEs provided catching activities with modifications to the object (e.g., 5 use a slow-moving object such as a scarf, or use textured or various sized balls) or the 6 task itself (e.g., convert the task to a rolling activity). However, 19% of ECEs provided 7 non-adaptive catching activities (e.g., \u201cjust keep practicing\u201d).  8 For both running and catching a significant portion of respondents suggested 9 continual practice of the skill as a correction activity. However, research indicates that 10 fundamental movement skills do not arise without instruction (Clark 1995) and children 11 who do not receive sufficient instruction may not achieve proficiency in these skills 12 (Goodway and Branta 2003). Previous research has indicated that children who spend 13 more time in moderate to vigorous physical activity are more likely to have stronger 14 locomotor movement skills, but no difference is seen in object control skills (Williams 15 et al. 2008); therefore, continued practice of running may be more beneficial than 16 continued practice of catching, without additional intervention or instruction. The area 17 of error detection and correction is an important area to focus on and address in pre- and 18 in-service training of ECEs. Greater exposure and opportunities to develop error 19 detection and correction capabilities are important for the effective design of the 20 learning environment in the childcare setting. 21 Respondents demonstrated moderately high levels of self-reported confidence in 22 the area of physical literacy. Confidence levels for physical activity (7.65) reported in 23 this study are similar to that found in a survey of pre-service ECE students (Martyniuk 24 and Tucker 2014), which also utilised a 10 point scale, and found that the cohort on 25 18  average rated themselves at 7.37 in their confidence to facilitate physical activities. This 1 suggests some generalizability of the current findings to a larger ECE population. 2 Participants were significantly more confident in their ability to facilitate physical 3 activity then any movement skill. In our findings, statistically significant differences in 4 confidence to facilitate some movement skills emerged as seen in Figure 1; however, 5 these are unlikely to represent functionally meaningful differences as the values are 6 similar (e.g. 6.38 vs. 6.53). 7 A shift in self-reported confidence was shown when pre- and post-survey 8 movement skill confidence was assessed. Through exposure to the on-line assessment 9 questions on physical literacy, the ECEs\u2019 general confidence in their capability to 10 improve movement skill proficiency in children under their care decreased. These 11 findings indicate that participating in the process of answering the knowledge-based 12 questions increased the ECEs\u2019 awareness of content materials in which  they may need 13 further professional development. As such, their level of confidence in the content 14 material decreased at the completion of the survey. Moreover, in the open-ended 15 questions some ECEs demonstrated a self-awareness of their shift in confidence level, 16 and identified in written form their decrease in confidence with the subject material. For 17 example, it was stated that involvement in the survey \u201cdefinitely made [me] more aware 18 of the lack of in depth information we [ECEs] have regarding children\u2019s typical physical 19 development\u201d. This finding identifies an important knowledge translation opportunity; 20 wherein following the assessment of one\u2019s content knowledge, evidence-based tools 21 should be disseminated to participants (e.g., fact sheets, infographics) and\/or 22 participants should be directed to complementary resources for professional support 23 (e.g., on-line training modules, webinars, telehealth services such as the Physical 24 Activity Services at HealthLink BC).  25 19  The ECEs were asked to identify areas for further professional development 1 opportunities and\/or educational training as it relates to physical literacy and 2 fundamental motor skill development in an early childhood education setting. Findings 3 showed that ECEs consistently expressed a need for increased training opportunities and 4 a desire for increased accessibility to resources in physical literacy specific to the early 5 childhood setting. For example, a participant stated, \u201c[I] have never heard of credit 6 courses in Physical Activity for ECEs\u201d. While this statement exemplifies the gap in pre- 7 and in-service training, it also identifies an area of need in professional development. 8 Developing training opportunities, which are supported by continuing education credits, 9 may facilitate an ECE\u2019s development in physical literacy. As well, participants felt they 10 needed activities that were \u201cage-appropriate\u201d and resources that they could \u201cadd to 11 [their] tool-kit\u201d. Professional development in physical literacy should first ensure that 12 all ECEs are capable of providing sufficient quality physical activity opportunities for 13 the children they work with, particularly given recent evidence that suggests highly 14 active preschoolers have more proficient movement skills (Barnett, Salmon and Hesketh 15 2016). Continued professional development should focus on enhanced knowledge about 16 age and acquisition of movement skills and practical advice on supporting development, 17 error detection and correction. A particular focus should be on object control skills 18 given that evidence suggests that these skills are less developed in children and there 19 remains a discrepancy in performance between boys and girls (Foulkes et al. 2015; 20 Hardy et al. 2010; LeGear et al. 2012). 21 We acknowledge that there are several limitations to our project including the 22 relatively small sample size and the response rate which may limit the generalizability 23 of our results. The respondents may be particularly interested in physical literacy and 24 physical activity. For example, this could mean that the enthusiasm for professional 25 20  development in the general ECE population might not be as large as in this sample.; 1 This should not, however, diminish the demonstrated need for training in physical 2 literacy. As this was a preliminary investigation to gain knowledge of the potential 3 training needs of ECEs in physical literacy, physical activity, and fundamental 4 movement skills, these limitations should not detract from the demonstrated areas of 5 training need. This is particularly salient as a less enthusiastic population may have 6 even greater need for training in this area. 7  Given the importance of physical literacy promotion for the health and optimal 8 development of boys and girls in early childhood, continued research in this area is 9 warranted. The results of this investigation provide strong support for this need, and are 10 consistent with current literature (Breslin, Morton and Rudisill 2008; Lu and Montague 11 2016; Robinson et al. 2012). This has also been highlighted in the BC Physical Activity 12 Strategy, indicating a need to improve the physical literacy environment in general, but 13 also specifically in childcare settings (Government of BC 2015). A focus on the 14 development and assessment of contemporary pre- and in-service training programs for 15 ECEs in physical literacy is one potential direction of research that is supported by the 16 government\u2019s physical activity strategy (Government of BC 2015). Survey responses 17 showed a need to advocate for policies to increase physical literacy training at the pre-18 service level in order to facilitate the training of ECEs with a strong knowledge base 19 and practitioner competencies in physical literacy. As well, there is a need to improve 20 access to professional development programs in physical literacy for ECEs. Based on 21 the current findings, a focus on skills instruction  and on how to adapt these instructions 22 to address identified errors should be a primary focus of this work. Through these steps, 23 improving the physical literacy instruction skills of ECEs could provide potential 24 lifelong health benefits for the children who attend early childhood educational centres. 25 21    1 22  References 1 Barnett, L. M., J. Salmon, and K. D. Hesketh. 2016. \"More Active Pre-School Children 2 have Better Motor Competence at School Starting Age: An Observational Cohort 3 Study.\" BMC Public Health 16(1): 1068. doi: 10.1186\/s12889-016-3742-1 4 Barnett, L.M., E. Van Beurden, P. J. Morgan, L. O. Brooks, and J. R. Beard. 2008. 5 \u201cDoes Childhood Motor Skill Proficiency Predict Adolescent Fitness?\u201d Medicine & 6 Science in Sports & Exercise 40(12): 2147-2144. doi: 7 10.1249\/MSS.0b013e31818160d3. 8 Barnett, W. S. 2008. \u201cPreschool Education and its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy 9 Implications.\u201d Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & 10 Education. 11 Breslin, C. M., J. R. Morton, and M. E. Rudisill. 2008. \u201cImplementing a Physical 12 Activity Curriculum into the School Day: Helping Early Childhood Educators meet the 13 Challenge.\u201d Early Childhood Education Journal 35: 429-437. doi: 10.1007\/s10643-14 007-0200-9.  15 Clark, J.E. 1995. \u201cOn Becoming Skillful: Patterns and Constraints.\u201d Research Quarterly 16 for Exercise and Sport 66(3): 173-185. doi: 10.1080\/02701367.1995.10608831. 17 Craig, A. 2012. \u201cEarly Childhood Education has Widespread and Long Lasting 18 Benefits.\u201d Toronto: Canadian Public Policy Collection. 19 Dowda, M., R. R. Pate, S. G. Trost, M. J. C. A. Almeida and J. R. Pate. 2004. 20 \u201cInfluences of Preschool Policies and Practices on Children\u2019s Physical Activity.\u201d 21 Journal of Community Health 29(3): 183-196. doi: 22 10.1023\/B:JOHE.0000022025.77294.af. 23 Edwards, L. C., A. S. Bryant, R. J. Keegan, K. Morgan, S.-M. Cooper and A. M. Jones. 24 2018. \u201c\u2018Measuring\u2019 Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of 25 Empirical Findings.\u201d Sports Medicine 48(3): 659-682: doi: 10.1007\/s40279-017-0817-9 26 23  Edwards, L. C., A. S. Bryant, R. J. Keegan, K. Morgan and A.M. Jones. 2017. 1 \u201cDefinitions, Foundations and Associations of Physical Literacy: A Systematic 2 Review.\u201d Sports Medicine 47(1): 113-126. doi: 10.1007\/s40279-016-0560-7 3 Flanagan, K., J. Beach and P. Varmuza. 2013. \u201cYou bet we still care! A survey of 4 centre-based early childhood education and care in Canada: Highlights report.\u201d 2013. 5 http:\/\/www.ccsc-cssge.ca\/sites\/default\/files\/uploads\/Projects-Pubs-6 Docs\/EN%20Pub%20Chart\/YouBetSurveyReport_Final.pdf Friendly M., B. Grady, L. 7 MacDonald, and B. Forer. 2015. \u201cEarly childhood education and care in Canada 2014\u201d 8 December 2015. http:\/\/childcarecanada.org\/sites\/default\/files\/ECEC-2014-full-9 document-revised-10-03-16.pdf  10 Foulkes, J. D., Z. Knowles, S. J. Fairclough, G. Stratton, M. O'Dwyer, N. D. Ridgers, 11 and L. Foweather. 2015. Fundamental Movement Skills of Preschool Children in 12 Northwest England.\u201d Perceptual and Motor Skills 121(1): 260-283. doi: 13 10.2466\/10.25.PMS.121c14x0 14 Gallahue, D. L. and J. C. Ozmun. 2006. Understanding Motor Development: Children, 15 Adolescents, Adults. Boston: McGraw-Hill. 16 Goodway, J.D. and C.F. Branta. 2013. \u201cInfluence of a Motor Skill Intervention 17 on Fundamental Motor Skill Development of Disadvantaged Preschool 18 Children.\u201d Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 74(1) 36-46, 19 doi: 10.1080\/02701367.2003.10609062.  20 Government of British Columbia. (2015). \u201cActive people, active places: British 21 Columbia\u2019s physical activity strategy\u201d November 2015. 22 http:\/\/www.health.gov.bc.ca\/library\/publications\/year\/2015\/active-people-active-places-23 web-2015.pdf Accessed 20 June 2017. 24 Hardy, L.L., L. King, L. Farrell, R. Macniven, and S. Howlett. 2010. \u201cFundamental 25 Movement Skills among Australian Preschool Children.\u201d Journal of Science and 26 Medicine in Sport 13(15): 503-508. doi: 10.1016\/j.jsams.2009.05.010. 27 Hardy, L. L., L. Barnett, P. Espinel and A. D. Okely. 2013. \u201cThirteen-Year Trends in 28 Child and Adolescent Fundamental Movement Skills: 1997-2010.\u201d Medicine and 29 24  Science in Sport and Exercise 45(10): 1965-1970. doi: 1 10.1249\/MSS.0b013e318295a9fc. 2 Jurbula, P. 2015. \u201cWhat is Physical Literacy, Really\u201d Quest 67(4): 367-383: doi: 3 10.1080\/00336297.2015.1084341 4 LeGear, N., L. Greyling, E. Sloan, R. I. Bell, B.-L. Williams, P. J. Naylor and V. A. 5 Temple. 2012. \u201cA Window of Opportunity? Motor Skills and Perceptions of 6 Competence of Children in Kindergarten.\u201d International Journal of Behavioral 7 Nutrition and Physical Activity 9: 29-33. doi: 10.1186\/1479-5868-9-29. 8 Lu, C. and B. Montague. 2016. \u201cMove to Learn, Learn to Move: Prioritizing Physical 9 Activity in Early Childhood Education Programming.\u201d Early Childhood Education 10 Journal 44: 409-417. doi: 10.1007\/s10643-015-0730-5. 11 Lubans, D. R., P. J. Morgan, D. P. Cliff, L. M. Barnett, and A. D. Okely. 2010. 12 \u201cFundamental Movement Skills in Children and Adolescents: Review of Associated 13 Health Benefits.\u201d Sports Medicine 40(12): 1019-1035. doi: 10.2165\/11536850-14 000000000-00000. 15 Martyniuk, O. J. M., and P. Tucker. 2014. \"An Exploration of Early Childhood 16 Education Students\u2019 Knowledge and Preparation to Facilitate Physical Activity for 17 Preschoolers: A Cross-Sectional Study.\" BMC Public Health 14(1): 727. doi: 18 10.1186\/1471-2458-14-727 19 Office for National Statistics. 2014. \u201cFamilies in the labour market.\u201d 2014. 20 http:\/\/www.ons.gov.uk\/ons\/dcp171776_388440.pdf  21 Pangrazi, R. P. and A. Beighle. 2013. Dynamic Physical Education for Elementary 22 School Children. Glenview, IL: Pearson. 23 Payne, V. G. and L. D. Isaacs, ed. 2016. Human motor development: A lifespan 24 approach. 9th ed.. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway. 25 Reilly, J.J. 2010. \u201cLow Levels of Objectively Measured Physical Activity in 26 Preschoolers in Child Care.\u201d Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42(3): 502-27 507. doi: 10.1249\/MSS.0b013e3181cea100. 28 25  Robinson, L. E., E. K. Webster, S. W. Logan, W. A. Lucas, and L. T. Barber. 2012. 1 \u201cTeaching Practices that Promote Motor Skills in Early Childhood Settings.\u201d Early 2 Childhood Education Journal, 40: 79-86. doi: 10.1007\/s10643-011-0496-3. 3 Stodden, D. F., J. D. Goodway, S. J. Langendorfer, M. A. Roberton, M. E. Rudisill, C. 4 Garcia and L. E. Garcia. 2008. \u201cA Developmental Perspective on the Role of Motor 5 Skill Competence in Physical Activity: An Emergent Relationship.\u201d Quest 60(2): 290-6 306. doi:10.1080\/00336297.2008.10483582. 7 Tremblay, M. S., V. Carson, J. P. Chaput, S. Connor-Gorber, T. Dinh, M. Duggan, G. 8 Faulkner et al. 2016. \u201cCanadian 24-hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth: 9 An Integration of Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour, and Sleep.\u201d Applied 10 Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism 41(6): 311-327. doi: 10.1139\/apnm-2016-0151. 11 Tremblay, M. S., A. G. LeBlanc, V. Carson, L. Choquette, S. Connor Gorber, C. 12 Dillman, M. Duggan et al. 2012. \u201cCanadian Physical Activity Guidelines for the Early 13 Years (Aged 0-4 Years).\u201d Applied Physiolology Nutrition and Metabolism, 37: 345-356. 14 doi: 10.1139\/h2012-018. 15 Trost, S. G., N. Owen, A. E. Bauman, J. F. Sallis, and W. Brown. 2003. \u201cCorrelates of 16 Adults\u2019 Participation in Physical Activity: Review and Update.\u201d Medicine & Science in 17 Sport and Exercise 34(12): 1996-2001. doi: 10.1249\/01.MSS.0000038974.76900.92. 18 Warburton, D. E. R., C. W. Nicol, and S. S. D. Bredin. 2006. \u201cHealth Benefits of 19 Physical Activity: The Evidence.\u201d Canadian Medical Association Journal 176 (6): 801-20 809. doi: 10.1186\/1479-5868-5-10. 21 Warburton, D. E. R. and S. S. D. Bredin. 2016. \u201cReflections on Physical Activity and 22 Health: What Should We Recommend?\u201d Canadian Journal of Cardiology 32: 495-504. 23 doi: 10.1016\/j.cjca.2016.01.02. 24 Warburton, D. E. R., S. Charlesworth, A. Ivey, L. Nettleford, and S. S. D. Bredin. 2010. 25 \u201cA Systematic Review of the Evidence for Canada's Physical Activity Guidelines for 26 Adults.\u201d International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 7: 39. 27 doi:10.1186\/1479-5868-7-39. 28 26  Williams, H. G., K.A. Pfeiffer, J.R. O'Neill, M. Dowda, K.L. McIver, W. Brown and 1 R.R. Pate. 2008. \u201cMotor Skill Performance and Physical Activity in Preschool 2 Children.\u201d Obesity 16: 1421\u20131426. doi:10.1038\/oby.2008.214  3 Whitehead, M. 2013. \u201cDefinition of Physical Literacy and Clarification of Related 4 Issues.\u201d ICSSPE Bulletin Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education 65:28\u201333. 5 Women\u2019s Bureau, US Department of Labour. 2016. \u201cWorking mothers issue brief. 6 https:\/\/www.dol.gov\/wb\/resources\/WB_WorkingMothers_508_FinalJune13.pdf\u201d  7 Work BC. 2017. Early childhood educators and assistants (NOC 4214). Retrieved from 8 https:\/\/www.workbc.ca\/Jobs-Careers\/Explore-Careers\/Browse-Career-9 Profile\/4214#section-outlook Accessed 22 January 2018 10 Wrotniak, W.H., L. H. Epstein, J. M. Dorn, K. E. Jones, K.E., and V. A. Kondilis.  11 2006. \u201cThe Relationship between Motor Proficiency and Physical Activity in Children.\u201d 12 Pediatrics 188: 1758-1765. doi:10.1542\/peds.2006-0742 13 Young, D. R., W. L. Haskell, C. B. Taylor, and S. P. Fortmann, S.P. 1996. \u201cEffect of 14 Community Health Education on Physical Activity Knowledge, Attitudes, and 15 Behavior.\u201d American Journal of Epidemiology 144(3): 264-274. doi: 16 10.1093\/oxfordjournals.aje.a008921 17  18  19 ","@language":"en"}],"Genre":[{"@value":"Article","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Postprint","@language":"en"}],"IsShownAt":[{"@value":"10.14288\/1.0444800","@language":"en"}],"Language":[{"@value":"eng","@language":"en"}],"PeerReviewStatus":[{"@value":"Reviewed","@language":"en"}],"Provider":[{"@value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","@language":"en"}],"PublisherDOI":[{"@value":"10.1080\/09575146.2018.1514488","@language":"en"}],"Rights":[{"@value":"Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International","@language":"*"}],"RightsURI":[{"@value":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/","@language":"*"}],"ScholarlyLevel":[{"@value":"Faculty","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Graduate","@language":"en"}],"Subject":[{"@value":"gross motor development","@language":"en"},{"@value":"professional development","@language":"en"},{"@value":"physical domain","@language":"en"},{"@value":"motor domain","@language":"en"}],"Title":[{"@value":"Examining the knowledge base and level of confidence of early childhood educators in physical literacy and its application to practice","@language":"en"}],"Type":[{"@value":"Text","@language":"en"}],"URI":[{"@value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/88684","@language":"en"}],"SortDate":[{"@value":"2018-09-06 AD","@language":"en"}],"@id":"doi:10.14288\/1.0444800"}