Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Jiménez-Parra, J.F.;
Manzano-Sánchez, D.;
Valero-Valenzuela, A. The Evaluation
and Fidelity of an Interdisciplinary
Educational Programme.
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su142114456
Academic Editor: Antonio P.
Gutierrez de Blume
Received: 9 October 2022
Accepted: 1 November 2022
Published: 3 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
The Evaluation and Fidelity of an Interdisciplinary
Educational Programme
JoséFrancisco Jiménez-Parra , David Manzano-Sánchez * and Alfonso Valero-Valenzuela
Department of Physical Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Murcia, 30720 Murcia, Spain
*Correspondence: david.manzano@um.es
Abstract:
The aims of the present study were to evaluate the fidelity of the implementation of an inter-
disciplinary educational programme and to examine the differences between the teaching strategies
and interpersonal teaching style used by teachers who apply an interdisciplinary educational pro-
gramme and those teachers who use a conventional methodology. This is a quasi-experimental
repeated measures research with a non-randomised Experimental Group (EG) and Control Group
(CG). A total of 4 teachers, aged 27–52 years (M= 38.5), and 104 6th grade primary school students,
aged 11–13 years (M= 11.59; SD = 0.60), participated. The intervention programme lasted 16 weeks in
which the EG implemented a teaching methodology based on the incorporation of active breaks (AB)
into the structure of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model, while the CG used
a conventional methodology. The results show that the teachers who adhered to the educational pro-
gramme significantly improved the implementation of strategies related to the TPSR + AB throughout
the intervention, particularly when compared with the CG. In addition, the strategies used by the EG
had a positive impact on the improvement of the students’ educational values and physical activity
during the classes, as well as their perception of the transfer of autonomy. In conclusion, the present
study evidences the compatibility and feasibility of combining the TPSR and AB in any educational
matrix to improve teachers’ teaching strategies, students’ behavioural and motor responses, as well
as the autonomy support style.
Keywords:
active breaks; teaching personal and social responsibility; physical education; active method-
ologies; elementary education; educational values; physical activity; interpersonal teaching style
1. Introduction
In the last two decades, there has been an exponential increase in the number of
intervention programmes in schools whose main objective is to develop children and ado-
lescents in a comprehensive and multi-competential way so that they have sufficient tools to
adapt to society and become responsible citizens [
1
] with an active and healthy lifestyle [
2
].
1.1. Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR)
From a psychosocial perspective, the development of social-emotional competences,
known as “life skills” [
3
], is necessary through positive youth development programmes or
social and emotional learning programmes [
4
–
6
] based on active methodologies such as
the Personal and Social Responsibility Model (TPSR) [
7
]. TPSR is a pedagogical model that
has demonstrated its ability to achieve these goals and foster educational values [
8
,
9
]. Its
application in different contexts and settings evidences the practical appeal of TPSR beyond
the field of Physical Education, providing an effective framework for developing life skills
and social and emotional learning through different areas of the school curriculum [
3
,
8
,
10
].
One of the main characteristics of this pedagogical model is that it presents some
fundamental elements, such as the levels of responsibility [
7
], which can be worked on
progressively, cumulatively or interactively [
11
] to teach participants responsible behaviour
and attitudes. These levels, following Hellison, are [
7
]: (1) respect for the rights of others,
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114456 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 2 of 18
(2) participation and effort, (3) autonomy, (4) leadership and helping others, and (5) trans-
fer outside the classroom. Another element is the structure of the sessions, which can
be modified by each teacher to adapt the model to their classroom or subject context:
(a) relation time, (b) awareness talk, (c) physical activity plan, (d) group meeting and
(e) self-reflection time.
There are also other key elements such as teaching strategies to foster personal and
social responsibility, including: modeling respectful behaviour, setting expectations, en-
couraging social interactions, involving students in decision-making, assigning manage-
ment tasks, giving voice and vote, sharing responsibilities autonomously, evaluating class-
room behaviour and performance, and discussing the transfer of values and content to
other settings [12].
The main elements of the model and the teaching strategies used by teachers who
apply the TPSR in the classroom seem to have a positive impact on the autonomy support
perceived by students, showing a close relationship and interaction between the model
and the interpersonal teaching style [
13
]. In this sense, the figure of the teacher in the
classroom is fundamental in generating behavioural responses or positive perceptions on
the part of students, such as increased motivation, participation and satisfaction of basic
psychological needs [13].
Following the proposal of Moreno-Murcia et al. [
14
], the interpersonal style is di-
vided into two aspects: (a) autonomy support style, characterised by taking into account the
students’ thoughts and feelings, giving them autonomy in the selection of activities and
motivating them through the use of internal motivational resources; and (b) controlling style,
characterised by the authority adopted by the teacher who conditions the students’ feelings,
thoughts and actions, through the use of external incentives. Different studies corroborate
the efficacy of adopting teaching styles based on autonomy with respect to others that are
more controlling [
13
,
15
,
16
], since the support of autonomy generates very positive conse-
quences in students and teachers at the emotional, cognitive and behavioural levels [17].
1.2. Classroom-Based Physical Activity
From a health perspective, motor development and the promotion of an active lifestyle
are required to avoid the risk of motor, metabolic and cardiovascular disorders in children
and adolescents [
18
]. In this regard, the World Health Organization [
19
] recommends that
children and adolescents aged 5–17 years accumulate a minimum of 60 min of daily mod-
erate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA), as well as activities that strengthen
muscles and bones three days a week. The scientific community has implemented numer-
ous physical activity programmes to achieve these recommendations; however, there is
still a large percentage of the world’s population in this age range that does not meet the
established minimums [20,21].
According to Masini et al. [
18
], it seems that schools are the ideal setting and time
to carry out these programmes, as young people spend many hours in this environment
and it is accessible to all types of people, regardless of their age, ethnicity, gender or
socio-economic status. In education, many school-based programmes have been imple-
mented to promote physical activity among students, such as those based on active trans-
port or active breaks. However, classroom-based physical activity programmes or active
breaks (AB) are the ones that have reported the most benefits in terms of physical activity
level, reaching 50% of WHO recommendations [
22
], as well as in other variables such as
physical fitness, executive functions, academic performance and classroom behaviour of
young people [18,23–25].
These AB are understood as physical activity breaks of short duration (between 5
and 15 min) at any level of intensity, predominantly MVPA, which are guided by teachers
within the classroom during the normal course of the session [25,26]
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 3 of 18
1.3. Fidelity in Implementing Educational Programmes
The research community has begun to realise the critical importance of fidelity of
implementation (FOI) in intervention research [
27
], as this factor can mediate between an
intervention programme and the outcomes achieved [
3
]. In this way, FOI is understood
as the degree to which the delivery of a programme shows the researchers’ initial inten-
tions and plans [
3
]. According to its conceptual framework [
3
,
27
], FOI evaluation can be
conducted based on five key elements or components: (a) programme adherence, (b) pro-
gramme duration, (c) quality of programme delivery, (d) receptivity or responsiveness of
participants to the programme and (e) programme differentiation. Using any of these terms
individually or in combination may be appropriate indicators to measure FOI [3].
Within sport pedagogy and model-based practice of Physical Education [
28
], the
importance of providing a critical account that addresses the description of the curricular el-
ements and context of the programme, as well as a validation of the application of the model
or methodology, is highlighted [
29
]. However, this essential aspect remains a challenge
for many of the intervention studies based on sport pedagogy [
3
,
27
]. In this sense, the sys-
tematic reviews conducted on TPSR [
8
,
9
,
30
] and classroom-based physical activity [
18
,
31
]
agree that the main weakness and research gap of these methodologies, when applied
independently, is the follow-up and fidelity of the implementation of the programme.
Research on the FOI of TPSR-based programmes is still scarce [
8
,
9
,
30
] although the
results of existing studies reveal teachers’ compliance with the essential components of
TPSR in programme implementation [
8
] and their relationship with student response [
3
].
Martinek and Hellison (2016) noted that focusing on personal strengths, available resources
and improving interpersonal processes between students and instructors is essential to
increase the prospects for successful implementation of a TPSR programme. The Tool for
Assessing Responsibility-Based Education (TARE) was designed and validated by Wright
and Craig [
12
] to assess the FOI of programmes based on the TPSR model and to analyse
the relationship between teaching strategies and student response. Therefore, the TARE is
an ideal tool to measure the five fundamental elements of FOI mentioned above, as well as
to examine students’ responsible behaviours [3].
The FOI of AB-based programmes is also very low, as can be seen in the systematic
review by Watson et al. [
25
], where only 12 studies out of 39 reported using different
measures such as physical activity intensity or teacher reports. Furthermore, these same
authors indicated that none of these 12 studies clearly reported on compliance with the
implementation of daily active breaks or the number of AB sessions performed. The
Watson et al. [31]
study conducted an FOI process in which teachers recorded a log of
the date and time they completed AB, while students wore accelerometers to calculate
physical activity intensity in 15 s intervals. In this way, they were able to compare the
accelerometer data with the teachers’ records to assess the intensity of physical activity
during each AB [
31
]. Muñoz-Parreño et al. [
32
] videotaped the classes to carry out an
observational analysis and check that the programme was being applied correctly, thus
ensuring the effectiveness of the procedure. This analysis was carried out by means of an ad-
hoc checklist comprising fundamental characteristics of the AB such as: class interruption,
movement within the classroom, integration of academic content, work on emotional
intelligence or emotional content, promotion of social interaction and cooperative learning.
This instrument was adapted and used in the study by Jiménez-Parra et al. [
33
] with good
results in terms of fidelity throughout the intervention.
1.4. Applying the TPSR and AB in the Classroom
Numerous research studies establish that the educational community could benefit
from the application of TPSR [
3
] and AB [
26
] in the classroom to promote social-emotional
learning and active lifestyles in students [
4
,
5
,
18
,
22
]. In the Spanish educational context,
there is a great opportunity to implement multidisciplinary programmes that contemplate
both methodologies [
34
] as the new education law in force integrates personal and social
responsibility competences in the school curriculum, as well as the promotion of sport
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 4 of 18
and healthy habits [
35
]. Similarly, the Ministry of Health suggests promoting physical
activity in the classroom to combat sedentary lifestyles and childhood obesity through AB
programmes such as the DAME10 programme [36].
Based on the above, the authors designed an AB educational programme integrated
into the structure of the TPSR model so that it could be applied in multiple areas and
stages of the Spanish educational context. The main reasons that justify this proposal are:
(a) both TPSR and AB have a strong theoretical basis and scientific support, (b) they are
two methodological approaches with a cross-cutting and interdisciplinary nature that can
be applied to all types of students and in different subjects and curricular content, (c) they
have essential characteristics and elements that are compatible with each other, and (d) the
intervention programmes based on both methodologies follow a detailed FOI process.
Therefore, the general purpose of the present study was to evaluate the fidelity of
the implementation of a multidisciplinary educational programme in the school context
to address the research gaps found in the implementation of TPSR and AB. The specific
objectives of this study were: (a) to assess the feasibility of implementing an educational
programme based on the combination of TPSR and AB in the school curriculum; (b) to
evaluate the teaching strategies used by teachers in the classroom and to check whether they
are associated with behavioural responses of their students, (c) to compare the pedagogical
strategies between those teachers who apply an interdisciplinary educational programme
and those who use a conventional methodology and (d) to find out the students’ perception
of their teachers’ interpersonal style.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
The recruitment of teachers and students was carried out using a convenience and
accessibility sampling technique. The principal investigator (J.F.J.-P.) gave a 30 min talk
in two primary schools which participated in the research, on the objectives of the study
and the rationale for the implementation of the programme in the school. The teachers
were then invited to participate in a professional development course on active teaching
methodology and the implementation of the programme over 4 months (16 weeks). The
study involved four teachers divided into EG (n= 2) and CG (n= 2), aged between 27
and 52 years (M= 38.5) and with teaching experience between 4 and 25 years (M= 12.75).
Inclusion criteria for participation in the study were: (a) attendance at all initial training
sessions; (b) completion of a minimum amount of continuing professional development;
(c) commitment to implement the intervention programme in at least 80% of the weekly
classes for 4 months; and (d) allowing video recording of the sessions. This last criterion
was the only one considered for the inclusion of teachers in the CG, together with the
application of a conventional teaching methodology. The four participants were 6th grade
primary school teacher-tutors, who taught Mathematics, Spanish Language, Social Sciences
and Natural Sciences in two schools located in two municipalities in the Region of Murcia
with a medium-low socio-economic level.
A total of 104 students (Figure 1), participated in this study and were distributed in four
6th grade classes, aged between 11 and 13 years (M= 11.59; SD = 0.60). Informed consent
was obtained from teachers and the students’ legal guardians prior to data collection. The
consent included permission to videotape the lessons, guaranteeing that the data would
be used exclusively for training and research evaluation purposes. The management team
and the teaching staff of both schools approved the study, while the Ethics Committee of
the University of Murcia approved the present research (3207/2021), which was carried
out in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 5 of 18
Figure 1. Recruitment of participants and distribution of the sample.
2.2. Instruments
(1)
Tool for assessing responsibility-based education and physical activity in the class-
room (TARE–AB): the three subscales of the Spanish version of the tool for assessing
responsibility-based education (TARE) [
12
,
37
] validated by Escartíet al. [
38
] and
which was combined with the items of the instrument for assessing active breaks
(IEDA) [
39
]. Both instruments had been tested in the field of education in primary
schools [1,32,40]. The subscales used are explained in more detail below.
•
Subscale 1: responsibility and physical activity teaching strategies in the class-
room. This section of the TARE represents teaching strategies or teacher be-
haviour that foster personal and social responsibility. The analysis requires
observers to use an interval recording system indicating the presence or absence
of such strategies during five-minute periods [
12
]. To incorporate strategies that
encourage physical activity in the classroom, three items from the IEDA [
39
] were
included in this subscale (Table 1). The internal consistency was
Omega = 0.960
.
Table 1. Subscale 1 of the TARE–AB instrument.
Teaching Strategies of the ACTIVE VALUES Programme
TPSR Teaching
Strategies Description
Example of respect (R) The teacher is an example of respect. He/she communicates respectfully both
with individual students and with the whole group.
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 6 of 18
Table 1. Cont.
Teaching Strategies of the ACTIVE VALUES Programme
TPSR Teaching
Strategies Description
Setting expectations (E)
The teacher makes explicit to learners what is expected of them.
For example, how to conduct practical lessons, rules,
procedures and manners.
Providing opportunities for success (S)
The sessions are structured by the teacher so that all learners have the
opportunity to participate in the activities successfully, regardless of
individual differences.
Promotion of social interaction (SI)
The teacher structures activities that encourage positive social interaction. This
could involve pupil–pupil interaction through cooperation, teamwork, problem
solving, conflict resolution.
Task assignment (T)
The teacher assigns specific responsibilities or tasks to learners
(other than leadership) that facilitate the organisation of the programme or
a specific activity. For example, being responsible for organising the library,
fetching chalk, etc.
Leadership (L)
The teacher allows pupils to lead or be in charge of a group. For example, being
a member of the responsibility court or teaching a task to the rest of
the classmates.
Granting choice and voice (V)
The teacher provides opportunities for students to make choices and gives them
a voice, for example in group discussions, group voting, individual choices,
asking questions, sharing opinions and evaluating the programme or the teacher.
Role in the assessment (A) The teacher allows learners to have a role in the assessment of learning (self-
and co-assessment).
Transfer (Tr)
The teacher talks to the learners about the possibility of transferring (applying)
the life skills or responsibilities worked on in the session to other contexts
outside the programme.
AB Teaching
Strategies Description
Movement (MOV) The teacher encourages children to move for 5–10 min in a structured and
planned way, performing exercises such as squats, push-ups, jumping jacks, etc.
Structure (EST) The activities used by the teacher (active breaks) show a well-defined structure:
introduction, development of the movement and return to the basic levels.
Animation/Participation (PAR) The teacher encourages or actively intervenes in the activities planned to
pro-motivate student movement.
Note: TPSR = Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility; AB = Active Breaks.
•
Subscale 2: themes of the ACTIVE VALUES programme. The second sub-
scale (Table 2) is completed by observers once the last five minute interval
of a given session has been coded. These observers should provide a holis-
tic assessment of the extent to which teachers have promoted responsibility and
physical activity throughout a lesson. Assessment and grading are carried out
on the basis of the four themes that characterise the teaching of personal and
social
responsibility [7,12]
. To these four themes, a theme characterising physical
activity-based teaching was added [
25
]. Thus, subscale 2 consisted of five items.
The items were rated using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never)
to 4 (very much), with an internal consistency value of Omega = 0.956. The score
sheet for this subscale can be found in Table 2, together with a description of its
component items.
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 7 of 18
Table 2. Subscale 2 of the TARE–AB instrument.
Teachers’ Behaviour 4
Extensively
3
Frequently
2
Occasionally
1
Rarely
0
Never Observations
Integration (TPSR): the extent to which teachers
integrate the roles and concepts of responsibility
in the session.
43210
Transfer (TPSR): the extent to which teachers
connect the application of life skills to other
environments and contexts.
43210
Empowerment (TPSR): the extent to which
teachers share responsibility with students. 43210
Teacher–student relationship (TPSR): the extent to
which teachers treat students as individuals who
deserve respect, choice and voice.
43210
Physical activity (AB): the extent to which teachers
incorporate physical activity breaks related to
academic content and life skills.
43210
Note: TPSR = Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility; AB = Active Breaks; 0—Never = none of the teacher’s
actions or words clearly fit this theme throughout the session; 1—Rarely = this theme may be reflected in some
specific words or actions of the teacher at isolated moments; 2—Occasionally = some of the teacher’s words and
actions relate to this theme during the lesson, either directly or indirectly; 3—Frequently = the subject is addressed
directly at various points in the session through the words or actions of the teacher; 4—Extensively = the theme is
evidenced in multiple ways during the session and is directly addressed through the teacher’s words and actions.
•
Subscale 3: behavioural responses of students. In this subscale, observers assess
the degree to which students actively participate and show personal and socially
responsible behaviour during the sessions. The ratings are made after the last five
minute interval of a lesson has been viewed, following a five-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 0 (very weak) to 4 (very strong). The TARE categories corre-
spond to easily observable behaviour from the first four levels of responsibility
of the TPSR [
3
]. As in subscales 1 and 2, an item was included to assess students’
behaviour during AB. Thus, subscale 3 was composed of six items, which are
described in Table 3. The internal consistency was Omega = 0.964.
Table 3. Subscale 3 of the TARE–AB instrument.
Students’ Behaviour 4
Very Strong
3
Strong
2
Moderate
1
Weak
0
Very Weak Observations
Respect (L1): the student does not verbally or
physically harm other students, works well and
resolves conflicts peacefully if they arise.
43210
Participation (L2): the learner is involved in all
activities, taking on roles or functions if asked to
do so.
43210
Effort (L2): the learner strives and attempts all
tasks to improve and progress. 43210
Self-direction (L3): the learner stays in the activity
without direct supervision, working individually
or in groups, and is able to resist peer or
group influence.
43210
Caring (L4): the learner offers help,
encouragement and positive feedback to others. 43210
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 8 of 18
Table 3. Cont.
Students’ Behaviour 4
Very Strong
3
Strong
2
Moderate
1
Weak
0
Very Weak Observations
Movement (AB): the student leaves his or her desk
(sedentary position) and moves actively during
the period of physical activity in the classroom
(5–10 min).
43210
Note: L = level of TPSR; AB = Active Breaks; 0—Very Weak = very few if any students displayed this behaviour,
while most struggled to do so, with the exceptions being frequent and/or severe enough to render some parts of
the session ineffective; 1—Weak = some students exhibited this behaviour, but not many, the exceptions being
frequent and/or severe enough to impede learning; 2—Moderate = a large proportion of the pupils showed
this behaviour, but there are still some who did not, with several exceptions noted; 3—Strong = the majority of
students showed responsible behaviour and physical activity throughout the session with minor and/or isolated
exceptions; 4—Very Strong = all students showed this behavioural attitude throughout the session, with no
observed exceptions.
(2)
Autonomy Support Scale: To assess the autonomy support perceived by students
from their teachers, the Autonomy Support Scale in Physical Education (EAA–EF),
designed and validated in the Spanish context by Moreno-Murcia et al. [
14
] was
used and adapted to the general context. The instrument was adapted by slightly
modifying the wording of the previous sentence, as the items are perfectly adapted
to general education. The scale consisted of 11 items (e.g., “values our ideas and
suggestions and lets us propose things”) which were preceded by a pre-sentence: “In
my classes, my teacher...”. Responses were recorded on a Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (definitely no) to 5 (definitely yes). The internal consistency analysis yielded
the values of Omega = 0.761 in the pre-test and 0.938 in the post-test.
(3)
Controlling style: In order to find out about the controlling style that students perceive
their teachers to have, the Controlling Style in Physical Education Scale, designed
and validated in the Spanish context by Moreno-Murcia et al. [
14
], was used and
adapted to the general context. This scale, like the EAA–EF, was adapted through
a slight modification in the wording of the sentence prior to the items, which are
adequately adapted to general education. The scale consisted of nine items (e.g.,
“Talks continuously and does not allow us to make contributions in class”) which
were preceded by a pre-sentence: “In my classes, my teacher...”. This instrument also
recorded responses on a Likert-type scale with options ranging from 1 (definitely
no) to 5 (definitely yes). The internal consistency analysis yielded the values of
Omega = 0.854 in the pre-test and 0.900 in the post-test.
Both scales were completed by the students before and after the intervention (pre- and
post-tests) in a quiet environment in the classroom corresponding to each group-class. The
completion time was 10–15 min. Before starting data collection, the principal investigator
explained to the students how to fill in the scales and read the items to ensure students’
understanding. After that, the participants were encouraged to answer honestly and
sincerely. During the completion time, the researcher was present to answer any questions.
2.3. Procedure
2.3.1. Study Design
This is a quasi-experimental research design, with a non-randomised Control Group
(CG) and Experimental Group (EG). The study presents a mixed methods approach to data
triangulation, as the observational analysis during the implementation of the programme
is complemented by the analysis of the questionnaires.
2.3.2. Intervention Programme
The intervention programme lasted 16 weeks, in which the contents of the subjects of
Mathematics, Spanish Language, Social Sciences and Natural Sciences, established in the
Spanish law on education [
35
] were developed to reinforce the relevance of the study [
3
].
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 9 of 18
Teachers taught sessions with a duration of 60 to 90 min, computing a total of 20 h per week
with each class. The only difference between EG and CG was the mode of teaching:
CG: Teachers were placed at the centre of the teaching–learning process and decision-
making, whose only priority was focused on developing the conceptual and scientific
aspects of each subject without the possibility for students to actively participate in learn-
ing [
41
]. Therefore, the methodology used considered the student as a receiver of informa-
tion, whose role was passive, and with critical and metacognitive thinking as secondary [
1
].
EG: Teachers implemented an educational programme, called ACTIVE VALUES, based
on the incorporation of the AB into the structure of the TPSR, whose intervention protocol
has been previously published [
39
]. This programme approached the TPSR in a flexible
manner so that teachers could modify and adapt it to both teaching and the needs of their
students, as suggested by different research [
3
,
7
,
11
]. The levels of responsibility, a key
element of the programme, were developed in an interactive, progressive and cumulative
way (one per month) through the establishment of learning objectives and relevant be-
haviour [
3
], defined in achievement indicators to facilitate understanding. Level V (transfer)
was worked on in connection with the rest of the levels throughout the programme to
enhance its relevance and presence in everyday school life.
Teachers were asked to follow a daily and consistent structure to implement the
programme, based on the session format proposed by Hellison [
7
] and adapted to all
subjects by Escartíet al. [
3
] and Manzano-Sánchez & Valero-Valenzuela [
1
] Teachers began
the session by discussing the personal and social responsibility behaviour to be addressed
that day by setting expectations (Phase 1. Awareness-raising). The goals were related to the
children, displayed in the classroom by means of posters, together with the physical activity
to be carried out in the classroom. Teachers followed a pedagogical approach to learning
activities during the central part of the session (Phase 2. Active responsibility), based on the
application of strategies related to TARE–AB. In this phase, AB were carried out following
the methods proposed by Sánchez-López et al. [
26
] and Watson et al. [
31
] and implemented
in other research studies [
33
,
34
,
39
]. The AB were developed and related to the target level
of responsibility of the session. Physical activity in the classroom took place 20–30 min
into the session, when teachers detected a decrease in students’ attention or when students
requested it by mutual agreement with the teacher. In the final stretch, teachers led group
meetings (Phase 3. Group meeting), through open questions for 5–10 min (e.g., What did
you learn? How did you learn?), with students sharing opinions, feelings or ideas about
the programme at a general level or about the daily experience at a particular level [
3
].
Finally, teachers concluded the session by encouraging reflection and feedback on general
or specific aspects of the class (e.g., engagement in an AB or activity) through self and
co-evaluation (Phase 4. Self and co-evaluation) using the thumb technique (e.g., Do you
think that your classmates have met the objectives set for this session?).
In addition, it was suggested that teachers make extensive use of the themes proposed
by Wright & Craig [
12
] to achieve greater effectiveness in the implementation of the pro-
gramme, especially with the further development and treatment of transfer of responsibility
and physical activity in the out-of-school context (e.g., in what other context could you
apply what you have learned? At what time or place could you do the physical activity
that has been proposed today?). These themes are: (a) strong respectful teacher-student
relationship; (b) integration of responsibility in physical activity; (c) empowering students
with responsibility and autonomy; and (d) transfer and extrapolation of values and physical
activity in other settings.
2.3.3. Specific Professional Development and Fidelity of Implementation
A teacher training programme was designed and developed, following the recommen-
dations of Lee & Choi [
42
] to ensure the validity and fidelity of implementing a teaching
methodology or programme. Based on the proposal of [
3
], the training was carried out
prior to the intervention (initial training) by means of an intensive 20 h course for the
teachers participating in the EG in which different instructional strategies were used, such
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 10 of 18
as lectures, exemplifications, autonomous work and practical assumptions. The contents
addressed in the course were: (a) justification and theoretical foundation of the programme,
(b) essential elements of TPSR and AB, (c) considerations for combining both methodolo-
gies, (d) description of teaching strategies to promote physical activity in the classroom
and to teach personal and social responsibility to students, using TARE–AB, (e) resolution
of practical cases, design of sessions and integration of the ACTIVE VALUES methodology
into the curriculum, and (f) implementation of strategies for teaching responsibility. In
addition, a TPSR manual adapted to the general educational context [
43
] and the Spanish
version [4] of TARE [12] were shared with teachers.
With the intention of maintaining a follow-up during implementation, Continuous
Professional Development (CPD) [
44
] was provided in the form of seminars and meetings
with teachers every 3–4 weeks to discuss the development of the implementation, identify
difficulties or weaknesses of the programme, resolve queries or doubts, and guide and
share the application of strategies [45].
In this sense, Pozo et al. [
8
] indicate that educational interventions require expert
control and evaluation of the methodology, as well as continuous and close monitoring of
longitudinal studies. Hastie and Casey [
29
] state that the research team should provide
three key elements for the teachers in the research: (a) a detailed description of the curricular
elements of the educational programme, (b) validation of the methodology or strategy to
be implemented in the study, and (c) a description of the context in which the programme
will be developed.
In order to achieve a high degree of fidelity in the implementation of the programme,
the TARE–AB instrument, described above, was used, which allowed the evaluation of the
teaching strategies related to the combination of the AB and the TPSR. Pre-intervention
sessions were recorded with a SONY HDR video camera to reduce reactance bias and two
sessions were recorded every three to four weeks to check the degree of fidelity with the
programme and to give feedback by writing evaluation reports on those strategies that
could be improved. Feedback was shared with teachers in ongoing monitoring meetings
during implementation.
Following the same procedure, CG sessions were recorded in order to make sure that
a methodology similar to that of the ACTIVE VALUES programme was not being used. In
this way, it was possible to analyse and verify the differences between the strategies used
by the teachers of the EG and those of the CG.
To assess the validity of the intervention, observational criteria were determined, such
as the non-consideration of periods of unobservability, known as those sections in which
there is a break in the continuity of the observation session [
46
] and, in turn, no more than
10% of the total time of the session [
47
]. A total of 12 sessions recorded by each teacher were
considered valid (48 sessions in total), which were collected in: (a) weeks prior (pre-test) to
the start of the intervention (2 sessions), (b) between the first and third week (2 sessions),
(c) between the fourth and sixth (2 sessions), (d) between the seventh and ninth (2 sessions),
(e) between the tenth and twelfth (2 sessions), and (f) between the thirteenth and sixteenth
weeks (2 sessions).
The observational analysis was carried out by two graduates in Physical Activity and
Sport Sciences and active collaborators of the research group. Following the indications of
Wright & Craig [
12
], specific training was carried out by expert researchers in the AB and
the TPSR. The training began with a two-hour session in which the TARE–AB categories
were explained and clarified. The observers then analysed two sessions (independently)
together with the experts, to carry out a real observational analysis training and to resolve
possible doubts. Subsequently, the observers shared the results obtained after the analysis
in order to unify criteria and define the degrees of overlap for each of the instrument’s
categories, as a form of consensual reliability [
48
]. Finally, observers analysed a third
session to calculate inter-observer reliability using the formula proposed by García-López
et al. [
49
]: TA = TA/A + D (total agreement = TA; total agreement = TA; agreement = A;
disagreement = D). After a given period (seven days), the same video was analysed by each
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 11 of 18
observer to obtain intra-observer reliability. After obtaining more than 80% agreement, the
analysis of the sessions included in the present study was started.
2.4. Data Analysis
The analysis of the data was carried out with IBM SPSS 22.0 (Armonk, NY, USA) and
Jamovi 2.2.5. A preliminary analysis was performed to assess the internal consistency
and reliability of the three TARE–AB subscales, autonomous support and controlled in-
terpersonal teaching styles. Based on 48 cases, McDonald’s omega on the three subscales
and two questionnaires ranged from 0.761 and 0.960, considered appropriate by authors
such as Sturrmey, Newton, Cowley, Bouras and Holt [
50
]. Furthermore, Ventura-León and
Caycho-Rodríguez [
51
] suggest the omega coefficient has a more feasible value for social
science studies. Due to its non-continuous variables, it is not affected by the sample error or
the number of items. The normality hypothesis was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov
test (p> 0.05), before using the Mann–Whitney U test to compare the variables between the
control and experimental groups. This comparison was carried out both pre- and post-test.
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare pre and post-test variables.
3. Results
The normality test carried out on Kolmogorov–Smirnov rejected the normality hy-
pothesis for all the variables. Pre- and post-test means and standard deviations of all the
variables differentiated by group are shown in Table 4, which also includes the p-values
obtained with the different nonparametric comparative tests.
A comparison of the pre-test variables of the two groups (control and experimental)
with the Mann–Whitney U test did not reveal significant differences. This suggests that the
groups were fairly homogeneous with regard to the observed variables prior to beginning
the ACTIVE VALUES program.
In the EG, the bulk of the variables improved throughout the process in terms of me-
dian values for each one of the subscales, except for assigning management tasks
(p= 0.122)
in the responsibility and physical activity strategies subscale, and decreased significantly
with the controlled style (p< 0.001). In the CG, the only variable that improved was fos-
tering social interaction (p= 0.025) in the responsibility and physical activity strategies
subscale and controlled style (p= 0.034), while the autonomy support style decreased
significantly (p= 0.035) after Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Regarding the differences between groups in the post-test, the Mann–Whitney U
test revealed that there were statistically significant differences for the responsibility and
physical activity strategies subscale in setting expectations (p= 0.019), fostering social
interaction (p= 0.011), leadership (p= 0.025), giving choices and voices (p= 0.013), role
in assessment (p= 0.017), transfer, movement, structure and participation (p= 0.011),
with variables in favour of the EG. In the general teacher, behaviour subscale (integration,
transfer, empowerment, teacher–student relationship and physical activity variables) and
in the student behaviour subscale (respect, participation, effort, self-direction, caring and
movement variables), there were significant differences in favour of the EG in all variables.
With regard to interpersonal style, there were also significant differences in favour of the
EG in the autonomy support style, while the CG showed higher values in controlled style
variable (p< 0.001).
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 12 of 18
Table 4. Pre-and post-test differences in the subscales according to the group.
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Post Test Differences
Control Experimental Control Experimental Control Experimental
Variables Mean SD Mean SD
Mann–
Whitney
p-Value
Mean SD Mean SD
Mann–
Whitney
p-Value
Wilcoxon
p-Value
Wilcoxon
p-Value
Subscale
1—TARE-AB
Modelling respect 92.50 5.00 92.50 5.00 1.000 97.50 5.00 100.00 0.00 0.317 0.186 0.040 *
Setting expectations 47.50 17.08 33.75 4.79 0.180 57.50 12.58 85.00 5.77 0.019 * 0.378 0.019 *
Opportunities for success 40.00 14.14 26,25 4.79 0.065 52.50 17.08 77.50 15.00 0.078 0.297 0.019 *
Fostering social interaction 37.50 12.58 36.25 4.79 0.538 57.50 5.00 90.00 0.00 0.011 * 0.025 * 0.013 *
Assigning management tasks 47.50 15.00 40.00 18.26 0.554 65.00 17.32 57.50 5.00 0.234 0.155 0.122
Leadership 7.50 9.57 5.00 5.77 0.752 15.00 10.00 40.00 8.16 0.025 * 0.278 0.019 *
Giving choices and voices 37.50 12.58 38.75 6.29 1.000 47.50 32.02 90.00 0.00 0.013 * 0.243 0.013 *
Role in assessment 5.00 10.00 5.00 4.08 0.439 10,00 8.16 37.50 5.00 0.017 * 0.350 0.017 *
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 2.50 5.00 30.00 0.00 0.011 * 0.317 0.008 **
Movement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.00 0.00 27.50 5.00 0.011 * 1.000 0.011 *
Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.00 0.00 27.50 5.00 0.011 * 1.000 0.011 *
Participation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.00 0.00 27.50 5.00 0.011 * 1.000 0.011 *
Subscale
2—TARE-AB
Integration 1.50 0.58 1.75 0.50 0.495 1.50 0.58 3.75 0.50 0.017 * 1.000 0.015 *
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.25 0.50 2.00 0.00 0.011 * 0.317 0.008 **
Empowerment 0.50 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.127 0.50 0.58 3.75 0.50 0.017 * 1.000 0.011 *
Teacher-student relationship 1.00 0.82 0.25 0.50 0.155 1.25 0.96 4.00 0.00 0.013 * 0.647 0.011 *
Physical activity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.00 0.00 2.75 0.50 0.011 * 1.000 0.011 *
Subscale
3—TARE-AB
Respect 1.50 0.58 1.75 0.50 0.495 2.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.008 ** 0.127 0.011 *
Participation 1.25 0.96 1.75 0.50 0.405 1.75 0.50 3.50 0.58 0.017 * 0.405 0.017 *
Effort 1.25 0.96 1.50 0.58 0.752 1.50 0.58 3.50 0.58 0.018 * 0.752 0.018 *
Self-direction 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.317 0.75 0.96 3.25 0.50 0.017 * 0.405 0.011 *
Caring 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.317 0.75 0.50 3.25 0.50 0.015 * 0.186 0.011 *
Movement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.00 0.00 3.75 0.50 0.011 * 1.000 0.011 *
Interpersonal
teaching style
Autonomy support style 2.74 0.38 2.88 0.28 0.082 2.66 0.37 4.02 0.37 0.000 *** 0.035 * 0.000 ***
Controlled style 3.35 0.49 3.22 0.49 0.162 3.42 0.43 2.24 0.35 0.000 *** 0.034 * 0.000 ***
Legend: *** p< 0.001; ** = p< 0.01; * p< 0.05.
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 13 of 18
4. Discussion
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an interdisci-
plinary educational program based on the combination of TPSR and AB within the general
educational context.
Regarding the first of the specific objectives under study, the feasibility of applying
the TPSR + AB program in the school context was adequate, based specifically on the
total adherence displayed by the participants from the beginning to the end of the study.
This is reflected in the results of the different scales of the TARE–AB instrument, a tool
considered reliable by various studies [
4
,
52
]. In our case, the teachers of the EG improved
in all the categories of the instrument, except for three of the variables that did not reach
statistical significance, probably due to the high initial values (such as a modelling respect
or assigning management tasks) or high standard deviation (such as opportunities for
success). In this sense, we can say that adherence to the study was high, unlike the study
by Escartíet al. [
4
], including a significant improvement in aspects such as transfer or
leadership, more typical of the TPSR methodology. As in our study, Camerino et al. [
40
],
using a similar sample size to the present study of 40 sessions and 4 teachers (48 sessions
and 4 teachers in our study), found improvements in all the behaviours reflected in the
TARE for novice teachers. Regarding AB, Watson et al. [
25
] indicate a low reliability in their
implementation, unlike these same authors in 2019 [
31
] or the study by Muñoz-Parreño [
32
].
In our study, the items included to assess the AB showed improvement as the intervention
progressed, indicating high fidelity on the part of the teachers. The same is true in terms of
loyalty in AB, using the adaptation of the IEDA instrument [
22
], thus showing that when
teachers assiduously adhere to a program such as the TPSR + AB, they are able to improve
their way of teaching and carry out their continuous monitoring work [
8
], vital in ensuring
fidelity in any successful intervention [27].
Regarding the second of the specific objectives, the teachers’ use of pedagogical
strategies and the behavioral response of their students, our study indicates that in addition
to achieving a high degree of loyalty on the part of teachers, all behaviour observed in
students improved significantly in the post-test within the EG group, as compared to the CG.
In this study, the values of the TPSR (respect, participation, effort, autonomy and helping
others) and AB (movement) were analyzed, something that had not been done previously.
Although Camerino et al. [
40
] verified with an instrument similar to the TARE adapted
to students, how students improved their values of respect, cooperation, helping others
and leadership correlated with the items evaluated with the participating teachers. Similar
results were obtained by Merino-Barrero et al. [
53
], where both teachers and students made
greater use of TARE strategies in addition to improving their intention to be physically
active. In this aspect, Muñoz-Parreño et al. [
22
] analyzed the values of physical activity
through accelerometry and found very positive results with the implementation of AB. In
our case, this type of analysis was not used, but the conclusions show similar results. This
same author, in his doctoral thesis, elaborated an ad-hoc checklist to analyze AB through
systematic observation, which gave rise to the IEDA instrument. From this instrument,
certain strategies were selected for the present investigation, elaborating the TARE–AB
instrument. Specifically, class structuring, participation and promotion of physical activity
by teachers (subscales 1 and 2) and movement in students (subscale 3), all improved
significantly after the programme.
Third, comparing the results of the teachers of the EG and those of CG, we must
highlight that initially there were no significant differences in any of the variables of
any of the groups, neither in the TARE + AB instrument, nor in the values of autonomy
support or the controlling style. This shows that the improvements noted in the present
study are due to the intervention carried out, with the fundamental use of AB [
32
] and
the TPSR using the TARE within the classroom and in Physical Education classes [
40
].
As in our study, Merino-Barrero et al. [
53
] saw how practically all the strategies used by
the EG obtained statistically significant differences with respect to CG by the end of the
intervention, while both groups had initially shown no differences. Regarding the AB,
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 14 of 18
although the values of physical activity with accelerometry were not analysed, the reflected
instrument indicated that the teachers of the EG identified an improvement in the values of
movement, participation and physical activity of their students, unlike those of the CG. All
this can be extrapolated to the benefit of the students since there are several studies that
have seen how these values can influence the physical activity of students [
54
,
55
] with the
consequent benefits in the prevention of obesity [
56
] and the reduction of joint pain [
57
], in
addition to cognitive variables such as executive functions and academic performance [
32
],
a reduction in distractions [
58
] and greater retention capacity [
59
]. As for responsibility, it is
already known that it improves aspects related to motivation or basic psychological needs
when applied to the general educational field, as well as the school social climate [
1
]. There
is also a link with an improvement in physical activity, especially mediated by increases in
responsibility, as shown in the study by Merino-Barrero et al. [53].
There are studies that, although they verified improvements after the application of
programs such as the TPSR in the EG, also found variables that improved in the CG, which
may be considered a limitation in extrapolating results. However, what is clear is that it is
essential, in any intervention, to ensure that the results are due to the protocol followed [
60
].
In our study, we can conclude that this was not an aspect that could influence the results.
Finally, regarding the students’ perception of the interpersonal style of their teachers,
it was observed that in the EG, there was improvement in their perception of the values
of autonomy ceded by teachers. Contrasting these aspects with the CG, initially both
groups were homogeneous, but after the intervention the CG’s results worsened (increased
perception of controlling style and reduced autonomy support) while the EG demonstrated
a positive change in support for autonomy and a reduction in controlling style. Other
research, where a teaching approach that gives greater autonomy to the student is sought,
have indicated similar results [
61
–
63
]. The application of the TPSR with primary education
students has also resulted in the identification of greater autonomy on the part of the
students [
1
] as well as a greater perception of autonomy and a reduction in the perception
of control of students [
13
], the same as in other educational stages such as secondary
education [
53
]. This is probably because one of the main objectives of the TPSR is to seek
the transfer of autonomy in the teacher’s strategies [
64
]. This type of methodology is clearly
essential in promoting the transfer of autonomy in order to achieve positive consequences
among students [
17
]. The use of TPSR to promote autonomy has already been documented,
but a novelty of this study is that there is no research that has assessed the implementation
of AB in this aspect or hybridizing it with TPSR. The transfer of autonomy is fundamental
when performing certain exercises as well as being able to choose what activities to carry
out. This is similar to what would happen at level 3 of autonomy in the TPSR.
5. Conclusions
The TPSR + AB hybrid model in the educational context has shown itself to be highly
applicable in classes, thereby improving the range of strategies open to teachers, whether
in their complete form or hybridized. All this is possible thanks to an intervention that
requires continuous monitoring and commitment on the part of the participating teachers,
with an exhaustive control of the sessions and the academic contents being fundamental.
Teachers of the EG managed to improve values of respect, participation, effort, auton-
omy, helping others and movement during classes with their students, all of which can
have a positive impact on their well-being in classes and outside of them.
In addition, the use of AB together with the TPSR increased the support for autonomy
perceived by students and a reduction in the controlling style, an important aspect if
students are to be able to develop self-sufficiently outside of the classroom now and
in the future.
The main limitation of the study is the small sample size, which could have influenced
the results. Moreover, the sample has been selected for convenience and accessibility,
therefore, we cannot ensure that it is representative of the population under study. Another
aspect is the possibility of analysing more variables with the questionnaires, in addition to
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 15 of 18
the interpersonal teaching style or the use of accelerometry to check the levels of physical
activity during classes with the use of AB. The use of combined instruments could have
been considered to assess the FOI, using a system such as the OSTOR for the TPSR [
40
]. In
addition, interviews or other instruments could have been used to verify the perception of
teachers and students of the intervention programme (social validity) as well as offering
improvements. Finally, the intention to be physically active could have been included in
the questionnaires, in order to check whether the use of AB also motivated future and
present physical activity outside the classroom.
As implications and future lines of research, the application of methodologies such as
TPSR + AB is recommended, hybridizing active methodologies that may also have a place
in the classroom due to their compatible characteristics. In the specific case of our study, its
extension to other educational stages may be of great interest, as well as the possibility of
using it in extracurricular activities such as language or music classes, including higher
levels of physical activity in students, in addition to the benefits reported above.
It is considered fundamental that AB-based programmes carry out specific training
and follow-up of classes, because the teachers who apply the methodology are not usu-
ally teachers specialized in PE and need greater support to specify the resources and
strategies to be used [
18
,
25
]. Regarding the use of TPSR, studies such as the one by
Manzano-Sánchez et al. [65]
indicate that not only is adequate initial training
necessary [4,7]
,
but continuous training and monitoring must also be carried out, especially with new teach-
ers. Finally, it is suggested that future studies use more objective measures to assess
physical activity-related FOI, such as accelerometers or heart rate monitors, to complement
the observational analysis of students’ and teachers’ behaviours.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, J.F.J.-P.; methodology, J.F.J.-P. and A.V.-V.; software, D.M.-
S. and A.V.-V.; validation, J.F.J.-P. and A.V.-V.; formal analysis, J.F.J.-P. and A.V.-V.; investigation,
J.F.J.-P.; resources, D.M.-S.; data curation, J.F.J.-P. and A.V.-V.; writing—original draft preparation,
J.F.J.-P. and D.M.-S.; writing—review and editing, J.F.J.-P., D.M.-S. and A.V.-V.; visualization, A.V.-V.;
supervision, A.V.-V.; project administration, J.F.J.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Ministry of Universities through the University Teacher
Training Programme (FPU19/04318).
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was developed in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Murcia (3207/2021).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. Implementation of a model-based programme to promote personal and social
responsibility and its effects on motivation, prosocial behaviours, violence and classroom climate in primary and secondary
education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 4259. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Merino-Barrero, J.A.; Valero-Valenzuela, A.; Pedreño, N.; Fernández-Río, F.J. Impact of a sustained TPSR program on students’
responsibility, motivation, sportsmanship, and intention to be physically active. J. Teach. Phys. Educ.
2019
,39, 247–255. [CrossRef]
3.
Escartí, A.; Llopis-Goig, R.; Wright, P.M. Assessing the Implementation Fidelity of a School-Based Teaching Personal and Social
Responsibility Program in Physical Education and Other Subject Areas. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2018,37, 12–23. [CrossRef]
4.
Martinek, T.; Hemphill, M.A. The evolution of Hellison’s teaching personal and social responsibility model in out-of-school
contexts. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2020,39, 331–336. [CrossRef]
5. Pinkerton, B.; Martinek, T. Teaching personal and social responsibility practitioners’ perceptions of the application of culturally
relevant pedagogies. Sport Educ. Soc. 2022, 1–12. [CrossRef]
6.
Wright, P.M.; Jacobs, J.M.; Ressler, J.D.; Jung, J. Teaching for transformative educational experience in a sport for development
program. Sport Educ. Soc. 2016,21, 531–548. [CrossRef]
7. Hellison, D. Teaching Responsibility through Physical Activity; Human Kinetics Publishers: Champaign, IL, USA, 2011.
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 16 of 18
8.
Pozo, P.; Grao-Cruces, A.; Pérez-Ordás, R. Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical
education: A Systematic Review. Eur. Phys Educ. 2018,24, 56–75. [CrossRef]
9.
Shen, Y.; Martinek, T.; Dyson, B.P. Navigating the Processes and Products of The Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility
Model: A Systematic Literature Review. Quest 2022,74, 91–107. [CrossRef]
10.
Dunn, R.J.; Doolittle, S.A. Professional development for teaching personal and social responsibility: Past, present, and future.
J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2020,39, 347–356. [CrossRef]
11.
Gordon, B. An Alternative Conceptualization of the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat.
Dance 2020,91, 8–14. [CrossRef]
12.
Wright, P.M.; Craig, M.W. Tool for assessing responsibility-based education (TARE): Instrument development, content validity,
and inter-rater reliability. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 2011,15, 204–219. [CrossRef]
13.
Valero-Valenzuela, A.; López, G.; Moreno-Murcia, J.A.; Manzano-Sánchez, D. From Students’ Personal and Social Responsibility
to Autonomy in Physical Education Classes. Sustainability 2019,11, 6589. [CrossRef]
14.
Moreno-Murcia, J.A.; Huéscar, E.; Andrés-Fabra, J.A.; Sánchez-Latorre, F. Adaptación y validación de los cuestionarios de apoyo
a la autonomía y estilo controlador a la educación física: Relación con el feedback. Rev. Int. Med. Cienc. Ac.
2020
,21, 1–16.
[CrossRef]
15.
Cheon, S.H.; Reeve, J.; Yu, T.H.; Jang, H.R. The teacher benefits from giving autonomy support during physical education
instruction. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2014,36, 331–346. [CrossRef]
16.
Zamarripa, J.; Castillo, I.; Tomás, I.; Tristan, J.; Álcarez, O. El papel del profesor en la motivación y salud mental en alumnos de
educación física. Salud Mental 2016,39, 221–227. [CrossRef]
17.
Cheon, S.H.; Reeve, J. A classroom based intervention to help teachers decrease students’ amotivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol.
2015,40, 99–111. [CrossRef]
18.
Masini, A.; Marini, S.; Gori, D.; Leoni, E.; Rochira, A.; Dallolio, L. Evaluation of school-based interventions of active breaks in
primary schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2020,23, 377–384. [CrossRef]
19.
World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour: At a Glance; World Health Organization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
20.
Chaput, J.P.; Willumsen, J.; Bull, F.; Chou, R.; Ekelund, U.; Firth, J.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. 2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity
and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years: Summary of the evidence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.
2020,17, 141. [CrossRef]
21.
Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.; Bull, F. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: A pooled analysis
of 298 population-based surveys with 1.6 million participants. Lancet Child. Adolesc. Health 2020,4, 23–35.
22.
Muñoz-Parreño, J.A.; Belando-Pedreño, N.; Torres-Luque, G.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. Improvements in Physical Activity Levels
after the Implementation of an Active-Break-Model-Based Program in a Primary School. Sustainability
2020
,12, 3592. [CrossRef]
23.
Daly-Smith, A.J.; Zwolinsky, S.; McKenna, J.; Tomporowski, P.D.; Defeyter, M.A.; Manley, A. Systematic review of acute physically
active learning and classroom movement breaks on children’s physical activity, cognition, academic performance and classroom
behaviour: Understanding critical design features. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. 2018,4, e000341. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
De Greeff, J.W.; Bosker, R.J.; Oosterlaan, J.; Visscher, C.; Hartman, E. Effects of physical activity on executive functions, attention
and academic performance in preadolescent children: A meta-analysis. J. Sport Sci. Med.
2018
,21, 501–507. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Watson, A.; Timperio, A.; Brown, H.; Best, K.; Hesketh, K.D. Effect of classroombased physical activity interventions on academic
and physical activity outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.
2017
,14, 114. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
26.
Sánchez-López, M.; Ruiz-Hermosa, A.; Redondo-Tébar, A.; Visier-Alfonso, M.E.; Jiménez-López, E.; Martínez-Andrés, M.;
Martínez-Vizcaino, V. Rationale and methods of the MOVI-da10! Study -a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the impact of
classroom-based physical activity programs on children’s adiposity, cognition and motor competence. BMC Public Health
2019
,
19, 417. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Li, W.; Ma, L.; Xiang, P.; Tang, Y. A Review of Fidelity of Implementation in Intervention Research Published in JTPE and RQES.
J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2021,40, 662–666. [CrossRef]
28. Casey, A.; Kirk, D. Models-Based Practice in Physical Education; Routdlege: London, UK, 2020.
29.
Hastie, P.; Casey, A. Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations. J. Teach. Phys.
Educ. 2014,33, 422–431. [CrossRef]
30.
Fernandez-Rio, J.; Iglesias, D. What do we know about pedagogical models in physical education so far? An umbrella review.
Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2022, 1–16. [CrossRef]
31.
Watson, A.; Timperio, A.; Brown, H.; Hesketh, K.D. Process evaluation of a classroom active break (ACTI-BREAK) program
for improving academic-related and physical activity outcomes for students in years 3 and 4. BMC Public Health
2019
,19, 633.
[CrossRef]
32.
Muñoz-Parreño, J.A.; Belando-Pedreño, N.; Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. The effect of an active breaks program
on primary school students’ executive functions and emotional intelligence. Psicothema 2021,33, 466–472. [CrossRef]
33.
Jiménez-Parra, J.F.; Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Camerino, O.; Castañer, M.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. Incentivar la actividad física en el
aula con descansos activos: Un estudio Mixed Methods. Apunt. Educ. Física Deportes 2022,38, 84–94. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 17 of 18
34.
Jiménez-Parra, J.F.; Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Camerino, O.; Prat, Q.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. Effects of a Hybrid Program of Active
Breaks and Responsibility on the Behaviour of Primary Students: A Mixed Methods Study. Behav. Sci. 2022,12, 153. [CrossRef]
35.
Organic Law 3/2020, of 29 December, which Amends Organic Law 2/2006, of 3 May, on Education. Available online: https:
//www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2020/12/29/3 (accessed on 2 May 2022).
36.
Abad, B.; Cañada-López, D.; Cañada-López, M. Active Breaks through Physical Exercise (DAME10); Ministry of Health, Social
Services and Equality and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports: Madrid, Spain, 2014; Available online: https://www.
sanidad.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/prevPromocion/Estrategia/DAME10.htm (accessed on 8 September 2022).
37.
Escartí, A.; Wright, P.; Pascual, C.; Gutiérrez, M. Tool for assesing responsibility based education (TARE) 2.0: Instrument revisions,
inter-rater reliability, and correlations between observed teaching strategies and student behaviors. Univ. J. Psychol.
2015
,3, 55–63.
[CrossRef]
38.
Escartí, A.; Gutiérrez, M.; Pascual, C.; Wright, P. Observation of the strategies that physical education teachers use to teach
personal and social responsibility. Rev. Psicol. Dep. 2013,22, 159–166.
39.
Jiménez-Parra, J.F.; Belando-Pedreño, N.; López-Fernández, J.; García-Vélez, A.J.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. “ACTIVE VALUES”:
An Interdisciplinary Educational Programme to Promote Healthy Lifestyles and Encourage Education in Values. A Rationale and
Protocol Study. Appl. Sci. 2022,12, 8073. [CrossRef]
40.
Camerino, O.; Valero-Valenzuela, A.; Prat, Q.; Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Castañer, M. Optimizing education: A mixed methods
approach oriented to teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR). Front. Psychol. 2019,10, 1439. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Metzler, M. Instructional Models in Physical Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
42.
Lee, O.; Choi, E. The influence of professional development on teachers’ implementation of the Teaching Personal and Social
Responsibility model. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2015,34, 603–625. [CrossRef]
43.
Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Merino-Barrero, J.A.; Sánchez-Alcaraz, B.J.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. El Modelo de Responsabilidad Personal y
Social Desde la Educación Física a la Educación General: Guía Teórico-Práctico Para su Aplicación en el Contexto Escolar; Wanceulen S.L.:
Sevilla, Spain, 2020.
44.
Hemphill, M.A.; Templin, T.J.; Wright, P.M. Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based continuing professional
development protocol in physical education. Sport Educ. Soc. 2015,20, 398–419. [CrossRef]
45.
Braithwaite, R.; Spray, C.M.; Warburton, V.E. Motivational climate interventions in physical education: A meta-analysis. Psychol.
Sport Exerc. 2011,12, 628–638. [CrossRef]
46.
Anguera, M.T. Metodología Observacional. In Metodología de la Investigación en CIENCIAS del Comportamiento; En, J., Arnau, M.T.,
Gómez, A.J., Eds.; Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 1990; pp. 125–236.
47.
Anguera, M.T.; Blanco-Villaseñor, A.; Hernández-Mendo, A.; Losada, J.L. Diseños observacionales: Ajuste y aplicación a la
Psicología del Deporte. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2011,20, 337–352.
48.
Hernández-Mendo, A.; Molina-Macías, M. Cómo usar la observación en la psicología del deporte: Prncipios metodológicos.
Efdeportes 2006,8, 1–9.
49.
García-López, L.M.; Gutiérrez, D.; González, S.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. Cambios en la Empatía, la Asertividad y las Relaciones
Sociales por la Aplicación del Modelo de Instrucción Educación Deportiva. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2012,21, 321–330.
50.
Sturmey, P.; Newton, J.T.; Cowley, A.; Bouras, N.; Holt, G. The PAS-ADD checklist: Independent replication of its psychometric
properties in a community sample. Br. J. Psychiatry 2005,186, 319–323. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51.
Ventura-León, J.L.; Caycho-Rodríguez, T. El coeficiente Omega: Un método alternativo para la estimación de la confiabilidad. Rev.
Latinoam. Cienc. Soc. Ninez Juv. 2017,15, 625–627.
52. Wright, P.; Irwin, C. Using systematic observation to assess teacher effectiveness promoting personally and socially responsible
behavior in physical education. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 2018,22, 250–262. [CrossRef]
53.
Merino-Barrero, J.; Valero-Valenzuela, A.; Belando-Pedreño, N. Consecuencias psicosociales autodeterminadas mediante la
promoción de responsabilidad en Educación Física. Rev. Int. Med. Cienc. Act. Fis. Dep. 2019,19, 415–430. [CrossRef]
54.
Riley, N.; Lubans, D.R.; Holmes, K.; Hansen, V.; Gore, J.; Morgan, P.J. Movement-based mathematics: Enjoyment and engagement
without compromising learning through the EASY Minds program. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
2017
,13, 1653–1673.
[CrossRef]
55.
Vazou, S.; Saint-Maurice, P.; Skrade, M.; Welk, G. E
ff
ect of Integrated Physical Activities with Mathematics on Objectively
Assessed Physical Activity. Children 2018,5, 140. [CrossRef]
56.
Cardon, G.; De Clercq, D.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Breithecker, D. Sitting habits in elementary schoolchildren: A traditional versus
a “Moving school”. Patient Educ. Couns. 2004,54, 133–142. [CrossRef]
57.
Erwin, H.E.; Abel, M.G.; Beighle, A.; Beets, M.W. Promoting children’s health through physically active math classes: A pilot
study. Health Promot. Pract. 2011,12, 244–251. [CrossRef]
58.
Stewart, G.; Webster, C.A.; Stodden, D.F.; Brian, A.; Egan, C.A.; Weaver, R.G. The association of children’s participation in school
physical activity opportunities with classroom conduct. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2019,97, 22–28. [CrossRef]
59.
Carlson, J.A.; Engelberg, J.K.; Cain, K.L.; Conway, T.L.; Mignano, A.M.; Bonilla, E.A.; Sallis, J.F. Implementing classroom physical
activity breaks: Associations with student physical activity and classroom behavior. Prev. Med.
2015
,81, 67–72. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Sustainability 2022,14, 14456 18 of 18
60.
Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Valero-Valenzuela, A.; Conde-Sánchez, A.; Chen, M.-Y. Applying the Personal and Social Responsibility
Model-Based Program: Differences According to Gender between Basic Psychological Needs, Motivation, Life Satisfaction and
Intention to be Physically Active. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 2326. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61.
Moreno-Murcia, J.A.; Sánchez-Latorre, F. The effects of autonomy support in physical education classes. Rev. Int. Cienc. Deporte
2016,43, 79–89. [CrossRef]
62.
Stroet, K.; Opdenakker, M.; Minnaert, A. Need supportive teaching in practice: A narrative analysis in schools with contrasting
educational approaches. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2015,18, 585–613. [CrossRef]
63.
Zhang, D.; Bobis, J.; Wu, X.; Cui, Y. The effects of an autonomy-supportive teaching intervention on Chinese physics students and
their teacher. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018,50, 645–671. [CrossRef]
64.
Pardo, R.; García-Arjona, N. The Responsibility Model: Development of psychosocial aspects in socially disadvantaged youth
through physical activity and sport. Rev. Psicol. Educ. 2011,6, 211–222.
65.
Manzano-Sánchez, D.; Belando-Pedreño, N.; Valero-Valenzuela, A. Preservice Teachers from Physical Education: Differences
between Ireland and Spain in Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility. Sustainability 2022,14, 8380. [CrossRef]
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
