International Studies of Physical Education Using SOFIT: A Review

  • Smith N
  • McKenzie T
  • Hammons A
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective evaluations are essential to improving physical education (PE) policy and practice, and the System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT) is a valid and reliable tool designed to reach this end. This review assesses peer-reviewed studies that used SOFIT to describe preK-12 PE in international schools. Methods were informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) and articles were located by searching nine library databases and Google Scholar. A total of 739 records were located, 567 were screened, and 29 full-text articles were scrutinized. Data extraction was conducted to evaluate the characteristics of the 29 studies and to synthesize commonly reported SOFIT variables. The studies, conducted on 5 continents, included direct observations of 2703 lessons in 348 schools taught by more than 600 teachers in 10 different countries. There was substantial variability in study characteristics, how results were reported, and in study outcomes. All studies assessed physical activity (PA) and 90% (n = 26) assessed both PA and lesson context. More than two-thirds of the studies (69%; n = 20) assessed PA, lesson context, and teacher behavior. A common goal of the reviewed studies was to describe PE using SOFIT, however, researcher modifications to the established protocol and variability in how results were reported limited data syntheses and generalizations. As SOFIT is widely endorsed for assessing PE policies and practices, researchers could improve the generalizability of their study findings by adhering to the standard SOFIT protocol and by reporting results in a consistent manner.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Smith, N. J., McKenzie, T. L., & Hammons, A. J. (2019). International Studies of Physical Education Using SOFIT: A Review. Advances in Physical Education, 09(01), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.4236/ape.2019.91005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free