Implementing the Physical Literacy Component of the 2015 Ontario Health and Physical Education Curriculum: Is the Stage Set?

Introduction: Current physical activity levels among children and youth are alarmingly low; a mere 7% of children and youth are meeting the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines (Colley et al., 2011), which means that the vast majority of this population is at risk of developing major health problems in adulthood (Janssen & Leblanc, 2010). These high inactivity rates may be related to suboptimal experiences in sport and physical activity stemming from a lack of competence and confidence (Lubans, Morgan, Cliff, Barnett, & Okely, 2010). Developing a foundation of physical literacy can encourage and maintain lifelong physical activity, yet this does not always occur naturally as a part of human growth (Hardman, 2011). An ideal setting to foster the growth and development of physical literacy is physical education class. Physical education class can offer all children and youth an equal opportunity to learn and practice the skills needed to be active for life (Hardman, 2011). Elementary school teachers are responsible for delivering the physical education curriculum, and it is important to understand their will and capacity as the implementing agents of physical literacy development curriculum (McLaughlin, 1987). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the physical literacy component of the 2015 Ontario Health and Physical Education curriculum policy through the eyes of key informants, and to explore the resources available for the implementation of this new policy. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with seven key informants of the curriculum policy development, including two teachers. In tandem with the interviews, a resource inventory and curriculum review were conducted to assess the content and availability of physical literacy resources. All data were analyzed through the lens of Hogwood and Gunn’s (1984) 10 preconditions for policy implementation. Results: Participants discussed how implementation is affected by: accountability, external capacity, internal capacity, awareness and understanding of physical literacy, implementation expertise, and policy climate. Discussion: Participants voiced similar opinions on most issues, and the overall lack of attention given to physical education programs in schools will continue to be a major dilemma when trying to combat such high physical inactivity levels.

COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC FACTORS OF READING ARABIC: THE ROLE OF MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS IN READING

Scientific reading research has produced substantial evidence linking specific reading components to a range of constructs including phonological awareness (PA), morphological awareness, orthographic processing (OP), rapid automatized naming, working memory and vocabulary. There is a paucity of research on Arabic, although 420 million people around the world (Gordon, 2005) speak Arabic. As a Semitic language, Arabic differs in many ways from Indo-European languages. Over the past three decades, literacy research has begun to elucidate the importance of morphological awareness (MA) in reading. Morphology is a salient aspect of Arabic word structure. This study was designed to (a) examine the dimensions underlying MA in Arabic; (b) determine how well MA predicts reading; (c) investigate the role of the standard predictors in different reading outcomes; and (d) investigate the construct of reading in Arabic. This study was undertaken in two phases. In Phase I, 10 MA measures and two reading measures were developed, and tested in a sample of 102 Grade 3 Arabic-speaking children. Factor analysis of the 10 MA tasks yielded one predominant factor supporting the construct validity of MA in Arabic. Hierarchical regression analyses, controlling for age and gender, indicated that the MA factor solution accounted for 41– 43% of the variance in reading. In Phase II, the widely studied predictor measures were developed for PA and OP in addition to one additional measure of MA (root awareness), and three reading measures In Phase II, all measures were administered to another sample of 201 Grade 3 Arabic-speaking children. The construct of reading in Arabic was examined using factor analysis. The joint and unique effects of all standard predictors were examined using different sets of hierarchical regression analyses. Results of Phase II showed that: (a) all five reading measures loaded on one factor; (b) MA consistently accounted for unique variance in reading, particularly in comprehension, above and beyond the standard predictors; and (c) the standard predictors had differential contributions. These findings underscore the contribution of MA to all components of Arabic reading. The need for more emphasis on including morphology in Arabic reading instruction and assessment is discussed.