Feasibility of implementing fundamental movement skill microlessons in primary schools: A time-efficient solution for busy teachers

Feasibility of implementing fundamental movement skill microlessons in primary schools: A time-efficient solution for busy teachers | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Feasibility of implementing fundamental movement skill microlessons in primary schools: A time-efficient solution for busy teachers Angus A Leahy, Meg Southcombe, Jordan J. Smith, Narelle Eather, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7644052/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Many children worldwide are physically inactive and have low levels of physical fitness and motor competence. Schools are ideal settings to address these issues; however previous physical activity interventions have typically been delivered by specialist physical education teachers or trained researchers, and time is a common barrier to implementation. As such, the aim of our study was to determine the feasibility of a novel, time-efficient intervention (Burn 2 Learn junior: B2L-j), delivered by generalist teachers that targets children’s motor competency and fitness. Methods We recruited 85 children (10.6 ± 0.7 years, 46% girls) and their classroom teachers from two primary schools in New South Wales, Australia. Teachers (n = 7) were provided with training, resources, and support to deliver a six-week curriculum-aligned physical education program. The program involved the delivery of two ‘fundamental movement skill microlessons’ per week, which were designed to improve students’ motor competency and physical fitness (approximately 10–15 minutes in duration). Several feasibility domains (recruitment, acceptability, implementation, fidelity, practicality) were examined along with teachers’ capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver the program. Assessment of motor competency, fitness, and motivation were conducted at baseline and post-intervention, with changes in student outcomes explored using paired sample t-tests. Results The recruitment target was exceeded, and the program was well implemented by teachers (100% of microlessons delivered). Overall program satisfaction was high among teachers (median value of 5.0/5.0 [interquartile range = 5.0–5.0]) and students (median = 4.0/5.0 [4.0–5.0]). Teachers reported delivering 2.1 ± 0.7 microlessons per week during the study period. Researcher fidelity observations revealed that the program was being delivered as intended, and teachers perceived the program to be practical for delivery in their schools (median values ranging from 4.0–5.0/5.0 for practicality items). Teachers reported high levels of capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver the program (median values ranging from 4.3-5.0/5.0). Medium-to-large improvements were observed for students’ motor competency and fitness. Conclusions Our findings support the feasibility of training generalist primary teachers to deliver microlessons designed to improve children’s motor competency and fitness. Evaluation of fundamental movement skill microlessons in a larger-scale effectiveness trial is warranted. Trial registration : ACTRN12625000510448 Physical activity motor competence feasibility school intervention Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Key messages regarding feasibility 1. What uncertainties existed regarding the feasibility? · Previous fundamental movement skill (FMS) interventions delivered in primary schools have been effective, however, often rely on specialist physical education teachers, researchers, or external providers to deliver the intervention. The current study will assess the feasibility of a FMS intervention delivered by generalist trained classroom teachers. 2. What are the key feasibility findings? · The program exceeded initial recruitment targets suggesting that teachers perceive the program as having potential value for their students. Teachers and students were highly satisfied with the ‘Burn 2 Learn junior (B2L-j) program, and implementation fidelity was strong. Teachers also reported high levels of capability, opportunity, and motivation which may have aided program implementation. 3. What are the implications of the feasibility findings for the design of the main study? · Further evaluation of the efficacy of the B2L-j program using an appropriately powered randomised controlled trial is warranted. BACKGROUND The benefits of engaging in regular physical activity are extensive [ 1 – 3 ] yet most children worldwide fail to meet physical activity guideline recommendations. Late childhood (10–12 years) represents an ideal time to intervene given the decline in physical activity that occurs around this stage [ 4 ]. Of additional concern, international data highlight that children are not achieving proficiency in basic movement skills that are needed to support participation in a variety of physical activities [ 5 ]. Traditionally referred to as ‘fundamental movement/motor skills’ (FMS), these skills include: (i) locomotor (e.g., running, hopping), (ii) object control (e.g., catching, kicking) and (iii) stability (e.g., one-legged balance, body roll) skills. To capture skills that fall outside the traditional definition, the term ‘foundational movement skills’ has been suggested as a suitable alternative, which includes both traditional (e.g., kick) and non-traditional (e.g., body weight squat) movement skills [ 6 ]. Therefore, we use FMS to describe ‘foundational movement/motor skill’ competency. Developing FMS competency during childhood is likely to play a key role in shaping positive health behaviours across the lifespan [ 7 , 8 ]; and for facilitating a range of important physical, mental and cognitive health benefits (including enhanced health-related fitness, perceived competence, and executive function) [ 9 – 11 ]. Schools are important settings for physical activity promotion as they are equipped with the essential facilities, personnel, and equipment to deliver programs for children [ 12 , 13 ]. Despite this, schools are not achieving their health-promoting potential. School-based programs that include developmentally appropriate learning experiences delivered by physical education (PE) specialists, or highly trained classroom teachers, can substantially improve children’s FMS competency [ 14 ]. Unfortunately, not all schools have access to specialist PE teachers, especially in primary/elementary schools. As a result, PE is often delivered by generalist classroom teachers who typically lack specialised training for the effective planning and delivery of PE lessons. Classroom teachers report many barriers to the implementation of physical activity interventions, including lack of capability (i.e., low teacher competence [ 15 ]), opportunity (i.e., crowded curriculum/lack of time [ 16 , 17 ]), and motivation (i.e., low student motivation) related barriers. As such, there is a need to design time-efficient programs that can be easily implemented by classroom teachers to improve children’s outcomes. Classroom activity breaks (also referred to as energisers/brain breaks) are short bouts of physical activity performed as a break from academic instruction [ 18 ]. Classroom activity breaks have become increasingly common in primary schools due to their ease of use and time-efficiency, and are often designed with the aim of increasing students’ physical activity levels by disrupting prolonged periods of sitting. In addition, classroom activity breaks have demonstrated efficacy for improving students’ classroom behaviour [ 19 ], contributing to their popularity. However, the evidence to date suggests that they have been largely ineffective in improving children’s health-related fitness and FMS competency [ 20 ]. Given the palatability of this format for embedding short bouts of activity into the school day, an alternative approach is to adapt the model toward ‘FMS microlessons’ - brief, structured sessions where teachers focus on developing health-related fitness and FMS competence in a time-efficient manner. We previously designed and evaluated a time-efficient classroom activity break intervention for older adolescents (15–17 years), known as Burn 2 Learn (B2L) [ 21 ]. The B2L intervention was evaluated in a large-scale cluster RCT involving 670 older adolescents from 20 secondary schools in NSW, Australia. Classroom teachers participated in a professional learning workshop and received resources and implementation support to facilitate the delivery of two high-intensity active breaks per week for 16 weeks. Clinically relevant intervention effects were observed for cardiorespiratory fitness (primary outcome) and a range of secondary outcomes, including on-task behaviour and hippocampal volume and metabolism [ 21 – 24 ]. Following the success of the B2L intervention, the program has since been disseminated in > 220 schools, reaching > 330 teachers and an estimated 8,000 students. In the process of disseminating B2L the research team was contacted by primary school teachers who expressed their desire for similar time-efficient programs, with a specific focus on developing students’ FMS competence. As such, the current study aimed to assess the feasibility of a time-efficient physical activity program, known as Burn 2 Learn junior (B2L-j) for primary school students. METHODS Study design, participants, and setting The current study was a single arm feasibility study conducted in two primary Catholic schools located in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Eligible participants were students in Grade 5 and 6 at the study schools. We recruited one Grade 5 and one Grade 6 class from each of the study schools. In total, 85 students (10.6 ± 0.7 years, 46% girls) were recruited to the study. Classroom teachers of these classes were recruited to deliver the intervention. Three of the recruited classes had teachers that job shared, meaning that two teachers were recruited from these classes, resulting in a total of seven teachers. Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Newcastle, Australia (H-2024-0332). Approval to conduct research was also obtained from the Catholic Schools Office of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle. School principals, teachers, and parents of students provided written informed consent prior to enrolment in the study. Students also provided written assent. The study was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12625000510448. The conduct and reporting of this study complies with the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials extension for randomised pilot and feasibility trials [ 25 ]. Intervention The B2L-j intervention was delivered over a period of 6 weeks during school term 2 (May-July 2025). The B2L-j intervention utilises FMS microlessons as a novel and time-efficient strategy to improve primary school students’ physical literacy, more specifically their FMS competence, health-related fitness, and perceived competence. FMS microlessons were brief structured sessions that involve high levels of physical activity and opportunities for students to practice and refine their FMS (e.g., kick, throw, body weight squats). FMS microlessons aligned with the New South Wales Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K-6 Syllabus, and addressed the content point ‘Refining fundamental movement skills enhances health and wellbeing’ for stage 3 (Grade 5 and 6) students [ 26 ]. Prior to intervention delivery, Grade 5 and 6 classroom teachers participated in a two-hour professional development workshop led by members of the research team at each of the study schools. Separate from the two-hour professional development, the first FMS microlesson at each study school was delivered by a member of the research team, providing teachers with a visual demonstration of the structure and delivery of FMS microlessons. Teachers were also provided with resources (session cards [see Fig. 1] and an equipment pack) and support to assist with program implementation. Teachers were provided with a structured 6-week program that involved 2 x FMS microlessons per week. FMS microlessons were designed to take approximately 15 minutes to complete and involved the following format: (i) warm-up game (~ 3 mins), (ii), skill instruction (~ 2 mins), skill application (~ 8 mins), reflection (~ 2 mins). The skill application section of the microlesson was delivered in the form of either a modified-game, or an interval-based format (Fig. 1). FMS microlessons were designed for the following skills (i) overarm throw, (ii) catch, (iii) two-handed strike (cricket straight drive), (iv) kick, (v) bounce, and (vi) dribble. FMS microlessons were designed to provide developmentally appropriate learning experiences for all students by utilising small group-based activities contributing to high active learning time, and providing students with opportunity to develop competence, confidence, knowledge, and motivation to participate in a variety of physical activities. Theoretical framework FMS microlessons were designed in reference to self-determination theory (SDT) to satisfy students’ basic psychological needs of autonomy (e.g., providing students with choice), competence (e.g., providing multiple challenge levels to meet students’ individual needs), and relatedness (e.g., promoting a supportive and inclusive group environment) [ 27 ]. The principles of SDT were operationalised using the SAAFE (Supportive, Active, Autonomous, Fair, Enjoyable) framework [ 28 ]. An overview of SDT and the SAAFE framework was provided to teachers during the professional development workshop. The SAAFE teaching principles were reinforced through lesson observational checklists, which were completed by teachers observing a researcher-led microlesson (week 1) and a member of the research team observing a teacher-led microlesson (week 3). All FMS microlessons were delivered by teachers, apart from the first lesson which was delivered by a member of the research team. The purpose of the researcher-led microlesson was to provide teachers with a practical demonstration of the lesson structure and allow an opportunity to ask any clarifying questions. Study measures To warrant progression to an effectiveness trial, we prospectively identified the following targets: (i) Recruitment : We initially aimed to recruit one class per school, corresponding to an estimated 50 students based on the average class size of 25 students NSW schools. Anticipating that not all students in the class would be eligible/ return consent forms, our progression criteria was set at achieving ≥ 70% of the recruitment target (i.e., 35 students), (ii) Implementation : Due to anticipated disruptions within the school term (e.g., wet weather, alternative curriculum events) our implementation target was set at teachers delivering at least 10 of 12 planned FMS microlessons (which includes one researcher delivered session), and iii) Program satisfaction : High overall program satisfaction reported by teachers and students, defined as ≥ 80% of teachers agreeing with the following statement “Overall, I was satisfied with the B2L-j program” and ≥ 80% of students agreeing to the following statement “I enjoyed participating in the B2L-j program”. A range of feasibility measures were collected. Teachers completed an online survey at the completion of the intervention to assess their perceptions of program acceptability (also assessed at the student level), practicality (i.e., feasibility, compatibility [ 29 ], adaptability, dose satisfaction [ 30 ]), and sustainment [ 31 ]. Responses were assessed on a 5-point scale (i.e., 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree ). Implementation was assessed by the number of microlessons reported by teachers (i.e., dose delivered). Teachers also reported the average length of FMS microlessons (i.e., 30 minutes). This included the time required to deliver a microlesson, as well as the set-up time and the time taken to transition back to the classroom. To assess theoretical fidelity (i.e., the degree to which theory-informed recommendations are applied), a member of the research team observed classroom teachers’ FMS microlesson delivery during week 3 of the intervention, using the SAAFE observational checklist [ 28 ]. Microlesson quality was assessed using a 4-point scale (i.e., 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree ) with items corresponding to the adherence (or lack thereof) of suggested strategies for satisfying each component of the SAAFE delivery principles. Finally, teachers completed the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver Physical Activity in School Scale (COM-PASS) [ 32 ]. Responses were assessed on a 5-point scale (i.e., 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree ). Changes in student outcomes were assessed by evaluating within group differences from baseline to post-intervention (6-weeks post-baseline). All measures were conducted at the study schools by trained research assistants. Standard demographic information was collected at baseline and administered via an online survey. Socioeconomic backgrounds were determined by population decile using socioeconomic indexes for areas (SEIFA) of relative socioeconomic disadvantage based on residential postcode (i.e., SEIFA). Object control motor competency . Four object control skills (bounce, overarm throw, kick, catch) were assessed using the Test of Gross Motor Development 3rd edition (TGMD-3) [ 33 ]. Participants were recorded performing two trials of each of the four skills. An overall object control motor competence score was calculated by summing the individual skill scores. Perceived object control motor competency . Perceived skill competency of the same four skills mentioned above were assessed using the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence. An overall score was calculated by summing the skill scores [ 34 ]. Cardiorespiratory fitness. Participants’ cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed using the 20m multistage fitness test [ 35 ]. Participants were required to run between two sets of lines that were spaced 20m apart, while keeping pace with a recorded audio signal. The number of successful laps was recorded. Muscular fitness . Upper-body muscular fitness was assessed using a modified push-up test. All participants were instructed to complete as many push-ups as possible on their knees, in time with a cadence of 40 beats per minute [ 36 ]. Lower-body muscular endurance was measured using a 30s sit-to-stand test. From a seated position, participants were required to complete as many repetitions as possible within 30s [ 37 ]. Autonomous motivation . Participants’ motivation for PE was evaluated using the revised perceived locus of causality in PE scale [ 38 ]. Participants were instructed to respond to eight statements. Responses were scored using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 = ‘ strongly disagree ’ to 4 = ‘ strongly agree ’. A mean score was calculated with higher scores indicating greater autonomous motivation. Statistical analysis Feasibility data were analysed using descriptive statistics or qualitatively described where applicable. Additionally, Cronbach alphas were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the capability, opportunity, and motivation subscales from the COM-PASS tool. Results suggest that the three sub-scales have acceptable internal consistency (α > 0.70). Changes in student outcomes were analysed using paired sample t-tests, evaluating the within group change from baseline to post-intervention. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 30; 2010 SPSS Inc, IBM Company, Armonk, NY). To provide a measure of effect, Cohen’s d was calculated by dividing the mean difference in change by the standard deviation of change. Consistent with Cohen’s interpretation, values of d = 0.2, d = 0.5, and d = 0.8 are considered as small, medium and large effects [ 39 ]. RESULTS The flow of participants through the study is depicted in Fig. 2 and baseline characteristics of children are shown in Table 1 . A total of 85 students (10.6 ± 0.7 years, 46% girls) completed baseline assessments. Two students moved schools during the study period and therefore did not complete the study. Most students spoke English at home (98%), and approximately 40% of students were from low socioeconomic backgrounds (i.e., SEIFA decile ≤ 3). Seven classroom teachers were recruited to the study, with an average teaching experience of 12.6 ± 8.8 years. None of the teachers reported having any specialised training in PE, coaching, or fitness. Feasibility outcomes are presented in Tables 2 – 4 . There were no adverse events reported by teachers. Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of study participants. Characteristics N = 85 Students a Age, mean (SD), years 10.6 (0.0.7) Sex, n (%) Male 45 (53.6) Female 39 (46.4) Country of birth, n (%) Australia 82 (97.6) Other 2 (2.4) Language spoken at home, n (%) English 82 (97.6) Other 2 (2.4) Indigenous descent, n (%) Yes 6 (7.1) No 78 (92.9) Socioeconomic background, n (%) Low 33 (39%) Medium 18 (21%) High 32 (38%) Teachers N = 7 Years of teaching experience, mean (SD) 12.6 (8.8) Grade level Grade 5 Grade 6 3 (43%) 4 (57%) Specialist physical education/coaching qualifications, n (%) Yes No 0 7 (100%) a One student did not provide demographic background information. Table 2 Summary of feasibility evaluation Feasibility domain Survey items/measures Result a Acceptability Student satisfaction Overall program satisfaction (/5) 4.0 (4.0–5.0) Satisfaction of skill variety (/5) 5.0 (4.0–5.0) Teacher satisfaction Overall program satisfaction (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Would recommend program to others (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Perceived quality of program resources (/5) 5.0 (4.0–5.0) Usefulness of program resources (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Satisfaction with program professional learning (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Satisfaction with implementation support (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Teacher s ustainment Intended future use of program when appropriate (/5) 5.0 (3.0–5.0) Intended future use through changing circumstances (/5) 5.0 (4.0–5.0) Implementation Dose delivered Number of microlessons delivered per week, mean (SD) 2.1 (0.7) Average microlesson duration, n (%) 15–20 mins 4 (57%) 20–25 mins 2 (28%) 25–30 mins 1 (14%) Microlesson fidelity Adherence to SAAFE delivery principles, mean (SD) Supportive (/4) 3.3 (1.0) Active (/4) 3.8 (0.5) Autonomous (/4) 2.0 (0.0) Fair (/4) 3.0 (0.8) Enjoyable (/4) 4.0 (0.0) Total (/20) 16.0 (1.2) Practicality Feasibility Perceived ease of implementation (/5) 4.0 (4.0–5.0) Compatibility Perceived appropriateness of program (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Adaptability Perceived adaptability of program based on students (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Perceived adaptability based on school facilities (/5) 5.0 (4.0–5.0) Perceived adaptability based on school equipment (/5) 5.0 (4.0–5.0) a Feasibility outcomes are reported as median and interquartile range, unless otherwise specified. Table 4 Changes in outcomes from baseline to post-intervention. Outcomes N Baseline Mean (SD) Post-intervention Mean (SD) Mean change (95% CI) p d FMS competence, units Object control skills /28 77 17.7 (4.8) 19.7 (4.1) 2.0 (1.3, 2.7) < 0.001 0.63 Bounce / 6 79 3.6 (1.7) 4.2 (1.3) 0.6 (0.3, 0.9) < 0.001 0.41 Catch / 6 78 4.2 (1.3) 4.5 (1.1) 0.3 (0.1, 0.5) 0.016 0.28 Kick / 8 78 5.9 (2.5) 6.5 (2.1) 0.6 (0.2, 1.0) 0.005 0.33 Overarm throw / 8 79 4.0 (2.2) 4.6 (2.1) 0.5 (0.1, 0.9) 0.013 0.28 Perceived competence 78 13.2 (2.1) 13.5 (1.9) 0.3 (0.0. 0.7) 0.047 0.23 Cardiorespiratory fitness, laps PACER a 65 25.4 (19.2) 32.5 (24.1) 7.1 (4.2, 10.0) < 0.001 0.61 Muscular fitness, repetitions Sit-to-stand 79 21.1 (4.9) 24.6 (5.7) 3.5 (2.4, 4.7) < 0.001 0.72 Push-up 78 7.2 (7.3) 10.1 (11.6) 2.9 (0.7, 5.1) 0.011 0.30 Motivation for PE, units Autonomous motivation /4 78 3.5 (0.5) 3.5 (0.6) -0.05 (-0.1, 0.0) 0.144 -0.17 a 13 students who were present for post-intervention assessments did not complete the PACER, due to the need to reschedule because of wet weather and limited suitable facilities. Progression criteria Our recruitment data met the feasibility requirements, with 85 students recruited to the study (exceeding the target of 35 students). Implementation requirements were also met, with all teachers delivering the maximum number of prescribed FMS microlessons (100% of lessons delivered). We acknowledge that the first session was researcher delivered, however all teachers delivered the remaining 11 lessons. Finally, both teachers and students reported high levels of overall program satisfaction. All teachers agreed (86% strongly agreed) with the following statement: “Overall, I was satisfied with the B2L-j program”. Similarly, 82% of students agreed (48% strongly agreed) with the following statement: “I enjoyed participating in the B2L-j program”. Acceptability and sustainment Overall program satisfaction was high among students and teachers. Students reported a median value of 4.0/5.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 4.0–5.0), and teachers reported a median value of 5.0/5.0 (IQR = 5.0–5.0). All teachers agreed that the B2L-j resources were well designed and of high quality (median [IQR] = 5.0 [4.0–5.0]). Similarly, all teachers agreed that the resources were appropriate to enable them to implement the B2L-j program (median [IQR] = 5.0 [5.0–5.0]). Six teachers (86%) responded ‘strongly agree’ with the statement “I would recommend the B2L-j program to other teachers working with Grade 5 and 6”. Sustainment reported by teachers was also high, with all teachers indicating their intention to continue to implement the B2L-j program. Practicality Teachers perceived the B2L-j program to be feasible to implement in their school (median [IQR] = 4.0 [4.0–5.0]) and agreed that the program was highly compatible within their school context (median [IQR] = 5.0 [5.0–5.0]). Adaptability of the B2L-j program was also highly rated by teachers for adaptability based on student need (median [IQR] = 5.0 [5.0–5.0]), school facilities (median [IQR] = 5.0 [4.0–5.0]) and available equipment (median [IQR] = 5.0 [4.0–5.0]). Implementation The average time to complete FMS microlessons was 15–20 minutes. Fidelity observations of lesson quality indicate that FMS microlessons were being delivered as intended, supporting high theoretical fidelity (mean [standard deviation] = 16.0 [1.2] /20). The ‘Active’ (mean [standard deviation] = 3.8 [0.5] /4) and ‘Enjoyable’ (mean [standard deviation] = 4.0 [0.0] /4) principles were most effectively implemented by teachers, while the ‘Autonomous’ principle was implemented the least effectively (mean [standard deviation] = 2.0 [0.0] /4). Teachers’ Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation A summary of findings is presented in Table 3 . At post-test, teachers reported high levels of capability (median [IQR] = 5.0 [4.8-5.0]), opportunity (median [IQR] = 4.8 [4.4–4.8]), and motivation (median [IQR] = 5.0 [4.6-5.0]). Table 3 Teachers’ Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver physical activity Construct Median (Interquartile range) Capability (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Physical capability 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Psychological capability 5.0 (4.5-5.0) Opportunity (/5) 4.3 (4.0–5.0) Physical opportunity 4.3 (4.0–5.0) Social opportunity 5.0 (4.7-5.0) Motivation (/5) 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Reflective motivation 5.0 (5.0–5.0) Automatic motivation 5.0 (4.5-5.0) Student outcomes A summary of findings for student outcomes are reported in Table 4 . A medium improvement from baseline to post-intervention was observed for object control motor competency (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI] = 2.0 units, [1.3 to 2.7], d = 0.63). Medium improvements were also found for students’ cardiorespiratory fitness (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI] = 7.1 laps, [4.2 to 10.0], d = 0.61) and lower body muscular fitness (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI] = 3.5 repetitions, [2.4 to 4.7], d = 0.72). Small improvements were found for students’ perceived object control motor competency (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI] = 0.3 units, [0.0 to 0.7], d = 0.23) and upper body muscular fitness (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI] = 2.9 repetitions, [0.7 to 5.1], d = 0.30). There were no notable changes in students’ autonomous motivation for PE. DISCUSSION The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of FMS microlessons for primary school children. Initial recruitment targets were exceeded, and the program had strong implementation, suggesting high levels of interest and motivation from teachers to deliver the B2L-j program. The delivery of the B2L-j program involved limited researcher involvement, therefore increasing the potential for intervention sustainment and scalability. B2L-j was well accepted by both teachers and students, with high levels of overall program satisfaction reported. Researcher observations indicate that teachers’ implementation of microlessons aligned with the intended theoretical framework, which was designed to support students’ autonomous motivation for physical activity. Teachers indicated strong capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver the B2L-j program in their school. We observed medium-to-large improvements in students’ object control motor competency, perceived competency, and health-related fitness from baseline to post-intervention. The high level of program acceptability reported by both teachers and students supports the feasibility of the B2L-j program within primary school settings. In particular, the program resources (e.g., curriculum aligned program, resource cards) and variety of lessons offered as part of the program likely contributed to the overall satisfaction. A significant barrier to the delivery of high-quality PE in schools is a lack of teacher capability, opportunity, and motivation [ 15 , 16 ], particularly in primary school settings where generalist teachers are responsible for the delivery of PE [ 40 ]. Previous research studies have demonstrated that when PE classes are dominated by major games, with no emphasis on the development of FMS, students are more likely to report negative experiences [ 41 ]. To support implementation of the B2L-j program, we provided teachers with curriculum-aligned resources that focused on explicit instruction and small-sided activities to enhance students’ knowledge, competence, and confidence to engage in a variety of activities. Of note, all teachers strongly agreed that the B2L-j resources were appropriate to deliver the program, and 85% of teachers indicated that the program was easy to implement. Providing teachers with curriculum aligned resources and a structured program likely supported implementation of the program, by minimising teachers’ planning requirements. Teachers are recognised as key personnel for the implementation of school-based physical activity interventions [ 42 ]. It is promising to observe that teachers delivered the program with a high degree of fidelity, as indicated by researcher observations and teacher logbooks. These findings may be explained by the high level of teachers’ self-reported capability, opportunity, and motivation to implement the B2L-j program. According to the COM-B model, to support the implementation of physical activity programs in schools, there must be sufficient capability, opportunity, and motivation for those responsible for intervention delivery (i.e., teachers) [ 42 ]. In our study, teachers reported high levels of capability, suggesting that they had the necessary physical attributes (e.g., fitness, skills) to successfully deliver the program (i.e., physical capability). Teachers also reported high satisfaction with the professional training they received (median value = 5.0/5.0), which was designed to strengthen teachers’ psychological capability. In addition, teachers indicated that physical opportunity (i.e., equipment/facilities) and social opportunity (i.e., support from colleagues/executive staff members) were appropriate to implement the intervention. Finally, there were high levels of both automatic (i.e., acting without much conscious thought) and reflective (i.e., conscious, decision-oriented) motivation reported by teachers suggesting that the program had become integrated into teachers’ routines and aligned with teachers’ self-determined motivation. Previous school-based FMS interventions have utilised researchers, external providers (e.g., sports coaches), or specialist PE teachers [ 43 ]. While these interventions are typically more successful at improving student outcomes, this model of implementation is less scalable in Australian primary schools and other countries around the world that do not have specialist PE teachers [ 44 ]. Inadequate teacher capability (i.e., competence/training), and opportunity (i.e., time constraints) are the two most commonly reported barriers to implementation of school-based physical activity programs [ 16 , 17 ]. Our intervention aimed to improve teachers’ psychological capability via professional learning prior to intervention delivery. Based on prior evidence [ 45 ], the professional learning component included effective behaviour changes techniques such as developing an action plan, and providing feedback on behaviour (via SAAFE observations). In addition, our intervention aimed to mitigate lack of time as a barrier by providing teachers with a time-efficient approach for targeting students’ FMS development. Previous FMS interventions are typically more time intensive, with most interventions reporting a session/lesson length of 40–60 minutes [ 46 , 47 ]. By addressing key barriers to implementation, our study findings suggest that a larger evaluation of the B2L-j program is warranted. We observed a medium-to-large improvement in students’ object control motor competency ( d = 0.63) and health-related fitness ( d = 0.61–0.72), which is consistent with findings from similar physical activity feasibility studies [ 48 , 49 ]. One important consideration is that the B2L-j intervention was designed to be time-efficient to support implementation. There is a growing body of evidence that supports the effectiveness of time-efficient physical activity programs for enhancing a range of outcomes among young people [ 50 , 51 ], however, the effect on FMS competency remains unclear. Active classroom breaks or energisers are commonly used in primary schools, but they do not often target students’ FMS competency or fitness [ 20 ], which are important predictors of current and future physical activity [ 52 ]. In their review, Yin and colleagues found that programs specifically targeting FMS have shown to have a medium-to-large effect (ES = 0.69) on students’ overall FMS competence [ 47 ]. Interestingly, lower dose FMS interventions (i.e., frequency < 3 times per week, duration < 60 minutes, and intervention length < 10 weeks) were found to be ineffective [ 47 ]. However, one recent approach consisted of daily plyometric-based active breaks (7–10 mins), which resulted in improved motor competence and muscular fitness after 6 weeks [ 53 ]. Our findings align with those observed by Sortwell and colleagues [ 53 ], indicting that positive changes can be observed in response to a relatively low-dose FMS intervention, which may be due to high levels of active learning time, that are typically not observed in primary school PE lessons [ 54 ]. However, both studies utilised small samples and their findings should be confirmed in a large trial. We observed a small improvement in students’ perceived object control motor competence. However, perceived competence has been shown to have only a small mediating effect on the relationship between actual competence and physical activity [ 55 ]. Notably, this effect appears to be weaker among younger children (in comparison to adolescents), as children’s self-perception often can be inaccurate. Surprisingly, the program did not improve students’ autonomous motivation for PE. However, students scored highly on autonomous motivation at baseline (mean = 3.5/4), which may highlight a potential ceiling effect. The B2L-j program was designed to promote students’ sense of autonomy, relatedness, and competence, in line with self-determination theory. During the professional development workshop, teachers were introduced to SDT and provided with a guiding framework (i.e., SAAFE) for delivering FMS microlessons that aligned with SDT principles. Lesson observations checklists revealed that teachers delivered microlessons as intended, however, the principle of autonomy was the least effectively applied. One potential explanation may be due to the short session duration, which limited opportunities for teachers to provide students with autonomy. It is plausible that while lessons were broadly consistent with SDT, limited application of autonomy-supportive strategies may have mitigated further improves in students’ motivation. Strengths and limitations A notable strength of our study was the novel intervention design, which was informed by several theoretical frameworks. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the concept of ‘FMS microlessons’, which is a novel approach for targeting the development of students’ FMS competency and fitness. We exceeded our recruitment target suggesting strong interest in the program among schools. Our study also used assessed both objective and subjective object control skill competency, along with assessments of autonomous motivation to participate in PE, which provides a more comprehensive understanding of children’s physical literacy (i.e., competence, confidence, knowledge and understanding). However, there are several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, FMS microlessons were delivered in place of regular PE lessons, which may reduce the overall amount of time dedicated to PE if teachers perceive that they are meeting the mandated requirements. Nevertheless, schools often fail to meet physical activity mandates currently, so the current approach may still represent a net gain in both the quality and consistency of FMS practice and application. Second, we did not include a control group so changes in student outcomes should be interpreted with caution. It is plausible that changes in students’ outcomes may be the result of a testing effect and therefore should be confirmed in a larger randomised controlled trial. Third, only four object control skills were assessed, so findings cannot be generalised to overall motor competence which also includes locomotor and stability skills. Finally, although we exceeded our initial recruitment target, our study involved a relatively small sample from two schools, which limits the generalisability of our findings. As such, further research examining the efficacy of the B2L-j program is warranted. CONCLUSION Our study findings highlight the feasibility of a novel, time-efficient approach for developing students’ object control skill competency, perceived competence, and health-related fitness (i.e., physical literacy). Previous FMS programs have often been delivered by trained specialists or researchers, and have large time commitments, which limits opportunities for implementation and scalability. Our study highlights that generalist classroom teachers can successfully implement a time-efficient program to enhance students’ motor competency and fitness. Findings from our study should be confirmed in a larger, sufficiently powered trial. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Approval for the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Newcastle (H-2024-0332) and the Catholic Schools Office of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Authors' contributions Conceptualization: AAL, DRL. Methodology: AAL, JJS, NE, DRL. Formal analysis: AAL. Investigation: AAL, MS, LW. Resources: AAL, MS, JJS, NE, DRL. Data curation: AAL. Writing - Original Draft: AAL. Writing - Review & Editing: AAL, MS, JJS, NE, LW, DRL. Project administration: AAL. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the teachers and students at the study school for their cooperation and participation, and Tara Finn, Ivy Lubans, and Felicity Wharton for their assistance with data collection. The Hunter Medical Research Institute provides funding support for the University of Newcastle’s Centre for Active Living and Learning. Availability of data and materials The datasets during and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author (AAL) on reasonable request. References Eather N, Ridley K, Leahy A. Physiological health benefits of physical activity for young people. The Routledge Handbook of Youth Physical Activity. Routledge; 2020. pp. 103–20. T.A. Brusseau, S.J. Fairclough, and D.R. Lubans, Editors. Lubans DR, et al. Physical activity, fitness, and executive functions in youth: Effects, moderators, and mechanisms. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2021;53:103–30. Rodriguez-Ayllon M, et al. Role of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the mental health of preschoolers, children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2019;49(9):1383–410. Farooq MA, et al. Timing of the decline in physical activity in childhood and adolescence: Gateshead Millennium Cohort Study. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(15):1002–6. Bolger LE, et al. Global levels of fundamental motor skills in children: A systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2021;39(7):717–53. Hulteen RM, et al. Development of foundational movement skills: A conceptual model for physical activity across the lifespan. Sports Med. 2018;48:1533–40. Barnett LM, et al. Motor skill competence and moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activity: a linear and non-linear cross-sectional analysis of eight pooled trials. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2024;21(1):14. Barnett LM, et al. Through the looking glass: a systematic review of longitudinal evidence, providing new insight for motor competence and health. Sports Med. 2022;52(4):875–920. Bao R, et al. Associations between motor competence and executive functions in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2024;54(8):2141–56. Liu C, et al. Correlation of fundamental movement skills with health-related fitness elements in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1129258. Hill PJ, et al. The influence of Motor competence on broader aspects of Health: a systematic review of the Longitudinal associations between Motor competence and cognitive and social-emotional outcomes. Sports Med. 2024;54(2):375–427. Hills AP, Dengel DR, Lubans DR. Supporting public health priorities: Recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57(4):368–74. Neil-Sztramko SE, Caldwell H, Dobbins M. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2021(9). Morgan PJ, et al. Fundamental movement skill interventions in youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1361–83. Morgan PJ, Hansen V. Classroom teachers' perceptions of the impact of barriers to teaching physical education on the quality of physical education programs. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(4):506–16. Nathan N, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of physical activity policies in schools: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2018;107:45–53. Naylor PJ, et al. Implementation of school based physical activity interventions: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2015;72:95–115. Lander NJ, et al. Beyond brain breaks: a new model for integrated classroom-based active breaks. J Phys Educ Recreation Dance. 2024;95(4):22–30. Daly-Smith AJ, et al. 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 Med. 2018;4(1):e000341. Peiris D, et al. Effects of in-classroom physical activity breaks on children’s academic performance, cognition, health behaviours and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(15):9479. Lubans DR, et al. Time-efficient intervention to improve older adolescents’ cardiorespiratory fitness: findings from the ‘Burn 2 Learn’ cluster randomized controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(13):751–8. Mavilidi MF, et al. Effect of a time-efficient physical activity intervention on senior school students’ on-task behaviour and subjective vitality: The ‘Burn 2 Learn’ cluster randomised controlled trial. Educational Psychol Rev. 2021;33(1):299–323. Valkenborghs SR et al. Effect of high-intensity interval training on hippocampal metabolism in older adolescents. Psychophysiology, 2022: p. e14090. Valkenborghs S et al. Effects of high-intensity interval training on subcortical and cortical brain volumes in older adolescents: findings from the Burn 2 Learn cluster randomised controlled trial. Preprint, 2025. Eldridge SM, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:64. New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA). K-6 Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K–6 Syllabus (2024) . 2024. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol. 2008;49(3):182. Lubans DR, et al. Framework for the design and delivery of organized physical activity sessions for children and adolescents: rationale and description of the ‘SAAFE’ teaching principles. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2017;14(1):24. Weiner BJ, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12:1–12. Kennedy SG, et al. Process evaluation of a school-based high-intensity interval training program for older adolescents: The Burn 2 Learn cluster randomised controlled trial. Children. 2020;7(12):299. Moullin JC, et al. Provider REport of Sustainment Scale (PRESS): development and validation of a brief measure of inner context sustainment. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):86. Verdonschot A, et al. Development and evaluation of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver Physical Activity in School Scale (COM-PASS). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2024;21(1):93. Webster EK, Ulrich DA. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the test of gross motor development—third edition. J Motor Learn Dev. 2017;5(1):45–58. Barnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(1):98–102. Ortega FB, et al. The Youth Fitness International Test (YFIT) battery for monitoring and surveillance among children and adolescents: A modified Delphi consensus project with 169 experts from 50 countries and territories. J Sport Health Sci. 2025;14:101012. Kable TJ, et al. Time-efficient physical activity intervention for older adolescents with disability: rationale and study protocol for the Burn 2 Learn adapted (B2La) cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2022;12(8):e065321. Robinson KJ, et al. Test–retest reliability and concurrent validity of the 30 second sit to stand test in adolescents. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2024;28(1):109–18. Vlachopoulos SP, et al. The revised perceived locus of causality in physical education scale: Psychometric evaluation among youth. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(6):583–92. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. p. 567. Rainer P, et al. From policy to practice: The challenges of providing high quality physical education and school sport faced by head teachers within primary schools. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2012;17(4):429–46. Morgan P, Bourke S. Non-specialist teachers' confidence to teach PE: the nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Phys Educ sport pedagogy. 2008;13(1):1–29. Rosenkranz RR, et al. Physical activity capability, opportunity, motivation and behavior in youth settings: theoretical framework to guide physical activity leader interventions. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2023;16(1):529–53. Tompsett C, et al. Pedagogical approaches to and effects of fundamental movement skill interventions on health outcomes: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2017;47(9):1795–819. Jones L, Green K. Who teaches primary physical education? Change and transformation through the eyes of subject leaders. Sport Educ Soc. 2017;22(6):759–71. Ryan M, et al. Features of effective staff training programmes within school-based interventions targeting student activity behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2022;19(1):125. Zhang D, et al. Effect of intervention programs to promote fundamental motor skills among typically developing children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2024;156:107320. Yin X, et al. Effectiveness of school-based interventions on fundamental movement skills in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):1522. Nathan N, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of the Great Leaders Active StudentS (GLASS) program on children’s physical activity and object control skill competency: A non-randomised trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(12):1081–6. Leahy AA, et al. Feasibility of a school-based physical activity intervention for adolescents with disability. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021;7(1):120. Leahy AA, et al. Review of high-intensity interval training for cognitive and mental health in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52(10):2224–34. Leahy AA, et al. Integrating High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) into the School Setting: Benefits, Criticisms, and Recommendations , in Promotion of Physical Activity and Health in the School Setting . Nature Switzerland: Cham: Springer; 2024. pp. 303–25. A. García-Hermoso, Editor. Jaakkola T, et al. Fundamental movement skills and physical fitness as predictors of physical activity: A 6-year follow‐up study. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26(1):74–81. Sortwell A, et al. Effects of plyometric-based structured game active breaks on fundamental movement skills, muscular fitness, self-perception, and actual behaviour in primary school students. Biology Sport. 2024;41(3):69–78. Hollis JL et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in elementary school physical education lessons. Prev Med, 2016. 86. Bourke M, et al. Children's and Adolescents’ Actual Motor Competence, Perceived Physical Competence and Physical Activity: A Structural Equation Modelling Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine; 2025. Supplementary Files CONSORTextensionPilotandFeasibilityTrialsChecklist.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 22 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 18 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 17 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7644052","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":533453452,"identity":"77ee1c42-42f9-44fc-bf40-615430948433","order_by":0,"name":"Angus A Leahy","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2147-9420","institution":"The University of Newcastle","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Angus","middleName":"A","lastName":"Leahy","suffix":""},{"id":533453453,"identity":"d563a80a-2f47-43ad-bb02-6c1bb7c89fc1","order_by":1,"name":"Meg Southcombe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Newcastle Australia: University of Newcastle","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Meg","middleName":"","lastName":"Southcombe","suffix":""},{"id":533453454,"identity":"0e1ce464-84ed-43e1-a8a6-68eb1b05f2c4","order_by":2,"name":"Jordan J. Smith","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Newcastle","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jordan","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Smith","suffix":""},{"id":533453455,"identity":"9fd4c126-93f3-475a-8aed-20aadfc3b1f7","order_by":3,"name":"Narelle Eather","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Newcastle","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Narelle","middleName":"","lastName":"Eather","suffix":""},{"id":533453456,"identity":"1e790c8b-ec58-4079-bf30-8832c683979f","order_by":4,"name":"Levi Wade","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Newcastle","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Levi","middleName":"","lastName":"Wade","suffix":""},{"id":533453457,"identity":"2620d467-3fad-4266-af20-017bde65d652","order_by":5,"name":"David R. Lubans","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Newcastle","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"R.","lastName":"Lubans","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-18 01:18:57","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7644052/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7644052/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95064161,"identity":"fbebbb52-ca56-45ab-a24c-3b70d9317f25","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15706,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.Participantdemographicinformation.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/48d7ae2f1ab1f6d9aac208cc.docx"},{"id":95222637,"identity":"765e5ffa-f70f-4ada-ab57-c04a23b6b346","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-05 16:20:54","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16553,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table2.Feasibilityfindings.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/446430d61ca8096f4ba606ce.docx"},{"id":95064163,"identity":"2562400e-dc01-4b02-81ac-d4fa4cb019ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"docx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14639,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table3.COMBresults.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/12252b0e2ab20552ad576a93.docx"},{"id":95064169,"identity":"a3c2396d-d83a-4d42-890a-a2fc8590ea12","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"docx","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16568,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table4.Changesinstudentoutcomes.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/018c938996849a167352017d.docx"},{"id":95064168,"identity":"68d6a164-75c2-47a8-98eb-6236cfce101a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"xml","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":11280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"pafsPAFSD2500398.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/1829a641b1934284f8586c26.xml"},{"id":95222977,"identity":"715489e1-08bd-4955-80af-684d67fb0096","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-05 16:21:27","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1389,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PAFSD250039815278.go.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/c6d7b75ffdf8f84101a57b8c.xml"},{"id":95064165,"identity":"8ec8c049-b184-4e4e-8115-3f8d04ee4242","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":850,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PAFSD2500398Import.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/35cd3fb8c4c5b9ec18944d9a.xml"},{"id":95064171,"identity":"71502641-6b1d-4741-acf3-eed101b343f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":136084,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PAFSD25003980enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/a65a906083d386a8df0e3f2c.xml"},{"id":95064167,"identity":"4bc753b2-3f36-4baa-b273-99407b7836fa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"xml","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":135502,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PAFSD25003980structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/d6f16421ebf527d419e37eda.xml"},{"id":95064173,"identity":"ff055f47-f365-4bcb-a512-3fde48752afc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"html","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":147863,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/a81ed7078b2beb03d68096d0.html"},{"id":95064170,"identity":"c17a92ea-2bae-4dae-b746-94e83de3ed98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2433614,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExample of B2L-j microlessons\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.ExampleofB2Ljmicrolessons.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/6bc2b2d51972cfbb5d9befd0.png"},{"id":95223878,"identity":"ab2545b0-2640-475a-947d-b15523b8ab1c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-05 16:23:00","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":184067,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCONSORT flow diagram\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.CONSORTflowdiagram.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/d15fc24e1685f23bf55b24ea.png"},{"id":95312124,"identity":"65421262-2a93-4240-95ed-f0e68bf26c98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-06 15:47:16","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4079805,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/15ac9ca2-718b-41e2-b41d-71dadf1df46a.pdf"},{"id":95064172,"identity":"b3a496af-03da-4d22-b80c-996d5796b125","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-04 01:21:06","extension":"docx","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":44505,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"CONSORTextensionPilotandFeasibilityTrialsChecklist.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7644052/v1/5decfdc4aaf7ac832bd85c6d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Feasibility of implementing fundamental movement skill microlessons in primary schools: A time-efficient solution for busy teachers","fulltext":[{"header":"Key messages regarding feasibility","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. \u0026nbsp; What uncertainties existed regarding the feasibility?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Previous fundamental movement skill (FMS) interventions delivered in primary schools have been effective, however, often rely on specialist physical education teachers, researchers, or external providers to deliver the intervention. The current study will assess the feasibility of a FMS intervention delivered by generalist trained classroom teachers.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; What are the key feasibility findings?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; The program exceeded initial recruitment targets suggesting that teachers perceive the program as having potential value for their students. Teachers and students were highly satisfied with the \u0026lsquo;Burn 2 Learn junior (B2L-j) program, and implementation fidelity was strong. Teachers also reported high levels of capability, opportunity, and motivation which may have aided program implementation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. \u0026nbsp; What are the implications of the feasibility findings for the design of the main study?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Further evaluation of the efficacy of the B2L-j program using an appropriately powered randomised controlled trial is warranted.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"BACKGROUND","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe benefits of engaging in regular physical activity are extensive [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e] yet most children worldwide fail to meet physical activity guideline recommendations. Late childhood (10\u0026ndash;12 years) represents an ideal time to intervene given the decline in physical activity that occurs around this stage [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Of additional concern, international data highlight that children are not achieving proficiency in basic movement skills that are needed to support participation in a variety of physical activities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Traditionally referred to as \u0026lsquo;fundamental movement/motor skills\u0026rsquo; (FMS), these skills include: (i) locomotor (e.g., running, hopping), (ii) object control (e.g., catching, kicking) and (iii) stability (e.g., one-legged balance, body roll) skills. To capture skills that fall outside the traditional definition, the term \u0026lsquo;foundational movement skills\u0026rsquo; has been suggested as a suitable alternative, which includes both traditional (e.g., kick) and non-traditional (e.g., body weight squat) movement skills [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, we use FMS to describe \u0026lsquo;foundational movement/motor skill\u0026rsquo; competency. Developing FMS competency during childhood is likely to play a key role in shaping positive health behaviours across the lifespan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]; and for facilitating a range of important physical, mental and cognitive health benefits (including enhanced health-related fitness, perceived competence, and executive function) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSchools are important settings for physical activity promotion as they are equipped with the essential facilities, personnel, and equipment to deliver programs for children [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite this, schools are not achieving their health-promoting potential. School-based programs that include developmentally appropriate learning experiences delivered by physical education (PE) specialists, or highly trained classroom teachers, can substantially improve children\u0026rsquo;s FMS competency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Unfortunately, not all schools have access to specialist PE teachers, especially in primary/elementary schools. As a result, PE is often delivered by generalist classroom teachers who typically lack specialised training for the effective planning and delivery of PE lessons. Classroom teachers report many barriers to the implementation of physical activity interventions, including lack of capability (i.e., low teacher competence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]), opportunity (i.e., crowded curriculum/lack of time [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]), and motivation (i.e., low student motivation) related barriers. As such, there is a need to design time-efficient programs that can be easily implemented by classroom teachers to improve children\u0026rsquo;s outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassroom activity breaks (also referred to as energisers/brain breaks) are short bouts of physical activity performed as a break from academic instruction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Classroom activity breaks have become increasingly common in primary schools due to their ease of use and time-efficiency, and are often designed with the aim of increasing students\u0026rsquo; physical activity levels by disrupting prolonged periods of sitting. In addition, classroom activity breaks have demonstrated efficacy for improving students\u0026rsquo; classroom behaviour [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], contributing to their popularity. However, the evidence to date suggests that they have been largely ineffective in improving children\u0026rsquo;s health-related fitness and FMS competency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Given the palatability of this format for embedding short bouts of activity into the school day, an alternative approach is to adapt the model toward \u0026lsquo;FMS microlessons\u0026rsquo; - brief, structured sessions where teachers focus on developing health-related fitness and FMS competence in a time-efficient manner.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe previously designed and evaluated a time-efficient classroom activity break intervention for older adolescents (15\u0026ndash;17 years), known as Burn 2 Learn (B2L) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. The B2L intervention was evaluated in a large-scale cluster RCT involving 670 older adolescents from 20 secondary schools in NSW, Australia. Classroom teachers participated in a professional learning workshop and received resources and implementation support to facilitate the delivery of two high-intensity active breaks per week for 16 weeks. Clinically relevant intervention effects were observed for cardiorespiratory fitness (primary outcome) and a range of secondary outcomes, including on-task behaviour and hippocampal volume and metabolism [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR22 CR23\" citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Following the success of the B2L intervention, the program has since been disseminated in \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;220 schools, reaching\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;330 teachers and an estimated 8,000 students. In the process of disseminating B2L the research team was contacted by primary school teachers who expressed their desire for similar time-efficient programs, with a specific focus on developing students\u0026rsquo; FMS competence. As such, the current study aimed to assess the feasibility of a time-efficient physical activity program, known as Burn 2 Learn junior (B2L-j) for primary school students.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy design, participants, and setting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current study was a single arm feasibility study conducted in two primary Catholic schools located in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Eligible participants were students in Grade 5 and 6 at the study schools. We recruited one Grade 5 and one Grade 6 class from each of the study schools. In total, 85 students (10.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.7 years, 46% girls) were recruited to the study. Classroom teachers of these classes were recruited to deliver the intervention. Three of the recruited classes had teachers that job shared, meaning that two teachers were recruited from these classes, resulting in a total of seven teachers. Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Newcastle, Australia (H-2024-0332). Approval to conduct research was also obtained from the Catholic Schools Office of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle. School principals, teachers, and parents of students provided written informed consent prior to enrolment in the study. Students also provided written assent. The study was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12625000510448. The conduct and reporting of this study complies with the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials extension for randomised pilot and feasibility trials [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntervention\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe B2L-j intervention was delivered over a period of 6 weeks during school term 2 (May-July 2025). The B2L-j intervention utilises FMS microlessons as a novel and time-efficient strategy to improve primary school students\u0026rsquo; physical literacy, more specifically their FMS competence, health-related fitness, and perceived competence. FMS microlessons were brief structured sessions that involve high levels of physical activity and opportunities for students to practice and refine their FMS (e.g., kick, throw, body weight squats). FMS microlessons aligned with the New South Wales Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K-6 Syllabus, and addressed the content point \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Refining fundamental movement skills enhances health and wellbeing\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e for stage 3 (Grade 5 and 6) students [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Prior to intervention delivery, Grade 5 and 6 classroom teachers participated in a two-hour professional development workshop led by members of the research team at each of the study schools. Separate from the two-hour professional development, the first FMS microlesson at each study school was delivered by a member of the research team, providing teachers with a visual demonstration of the structure and delivery of FMS microlessons. Teachers were also provided with resources (session cards [see Fig.\u0026nbsp;1] and an equipment pack) and support to assist with program implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers were provided with a structured 6-week program that involved 2 x FMS microlessons per week. FMS microlessons were designed to take approximately 15 minutes to complete and involved the following format: (i) warm-up game (~\u0026thinsp;3 mins), (ii), skill instruction (~\u0026thinsp;2 mins), skill application (~\u0026thinsp;8 mins), reflection (~\u0026thinsp;2 mins). The skill application section of the microlesson was delivered in the form of either a modified-game, or an interval-based format (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). FMS microlessons were designed for the following skills (i) overarm throw, (ii) catch, (iii) two-handed strike (cricket straight drive), (iv) kick, (v) bounce, and (vi) dribble. FMS microlessons were designed to provide developmentally appropriate learning experiences for all students by utilising small group-based activities contributing to high active learning time, and providing students with opportunity to develop competence, confidence, knowledge, and motivation to participate in a variety of physical activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical framework\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFMS microlessons were designed in reference to self-determination theory (SDT) to satisfy students\u0026rsquo; basic psychological needs of autonomy (e.g., providing students with choice), competence (e.g., providing multiple challenge levels to meet students\u0026rsquo; individual needs), and relatedness (e.g., promoting a supportive and inclusive group environment) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. The principles of SDT were operationalised using the SAAFE (Supportive, Active, Autonomous, Fair, Enjoyable) framework [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. An overview of SDT and the SAAFE framework was provided to teachers during the professional development workshop. The SAAFE teaching principles were reinforced through lesson observational checklists, which were completed by teachers observing a researcher-led microlesson (week 1) and a member of the research team observing a teacher-led microlesson (week 3). All FMS microlessons were delivered by teachers, apart from the first lesson which was delivered by a member of the research team. The purpose of the researcher-led microlesson was to provide teachers with a practical demonstration of the lesson structure and allow an opportunity to ask any clarifying questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy measures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo warrant progression to an effectiveness trial, we prospectively identified the following targets: (i) \u003cem\u003eRecruitment\u003c/em\u003e: We initially aimed to recruit one class per school, corresponding to an estimated 50 students based on the average class size of 25 students NSW schools. Anticipating that not all students in the class would be eligible/ return consent forms, our progression criteria was set at achieving\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;70% of the recruitment target (i.e., 35 students), (ii) \u003cem\u003eImplementation\u003c/em\u003e: Due to anticipated disruptions within the school term (e.g., wet weather, alternative curriculum events) our implementation target was set at teachers delivering at least 10 of 12 planned FMS microlessons (which includes one researcher delivered session), and iii) \u003cem\u003eProgram satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e: High overall program satisfaction reported by teachers and students, defined as \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;80% of teachers agreeing with the following statement \u0026ldquo;Overall, I was satisfied with the B2L-j program\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;80% of students agreeing to the following statement \u0026ldquo;I enjoyed participating in the B2L-j program\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA range of feasibility measures were collected. Teachers completed an online survey at the completion of the intervention to assess their perceptions of program acceptability (also assessed at the student level), practicality (i.e., feasibility, compatibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], adaptability, dose satisfaction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]), and sustainment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Responses were assessed on a 5-point scale (i.e., 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eStrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eStrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e). Implementation was assessed by the number of microlessons reported by teachers (i.e., dose delivered). Teachers also reported the average length of FMS microlessons (i.e., \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;15 minutes, 15\u0026ndash;20 minutes, 20\u0026ndash;25 minutes, or \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;30 minutes). This included the time required to deliver a microlesson, as well as the set-up time and the time taken to transition back to the classroom. To assess theoretical fidelity (i.e., the degree to which theory-informed recommendations are applied), a member of the research team observed classroom teachers\u0026rsquo; FMS microlesson delivery during week 3 of the intervention, using the SAAFE observational checklist [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Microlesson quality was assessed using a 4-point scale (i.e., 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eStrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e to 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eStrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e) with items corresponding to the adherence (or lack thereof) of suggested strategies for satisfying each component of the SAAFE delivery principles. Finally, teachers completed the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver Physical Activity in School Scale (COM-PASS) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Responses were assessed on a 5-point scale (i.e., 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eStrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eStrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChanges in student outcomes were assessed by evaluating within group differences from baseline to post-intervention (6-weeks post-baseline). All measures were conducted at the study schools by trained research assistants. Standard demographic information was collected at baseline and administered via an online survey. Socioeconomic backgrounds were determined by population decile using socioeconomic indexes for areas (SEIFA) of relative socioeconomic disadvantage based on residential postcode (i.e., SEIFA).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eObject control motor competency\u003c/em\u003e. Four object control skills (bounce, overarm throw, kick, catch) were assessed using the Test of Gross Motor Development 3rd edition (TGMD-3) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. Participants were recorded performing two trials of each of the four skills. An overall object control motor competence score was calculated by summing the individual skill scores.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived object control motor competency\u003c/em\u003e. Perceived skill competency of the same four skills mentioned above were assessed using the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Movement Skill Competence. An overall score was calculated by summing the skill scores [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCardiorespiratory fitness.\u003c/em\u003e Participants\u0026rsquo; cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed using the 20m multistage fitness test [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Participants were required to run between two sets of lines that were spaced 20m apart, while keeping pace with a recorded audio signal. The number of successful laps was recorded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMuscular fitness\u003c/em\u003e. Upper-body muscular fitness was assessed using a modified push-up test. All participants were instructed to complete as many push-ups as possible on their knees, in time with a cadence of 40 beats per minute [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Lower-body muscular endurance was measured using a 30s sit-to-stand test. From a seated position, participants were required to complete as many repetitions as possible within 30s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutonomous motivation\u003c/em\u003e. Participants\u0026rsquo; motivation for PE was evaluated using the revised perceived locus of causality in PE scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. Participants were instructed to respond to eight statements. Responses were scored using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 = \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003estrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo; to 4 = \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;. A mean score was calculated with higher scores indicating greater autonomous motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeasibility data were analysed using descriptive statistics or qualitatively described where applicable. Additionally, Cronbach alphas were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the capability, opportunity, and motivation subscales from the COM-PASS tool. Results suggest that the three sub-scales have acceptable internal consistency (α\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.70). Changes in student outcomes were analysed using paired sample t-tests, evaluating the within group change from baseline to post-intervention. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 30; 2010 SPSS Inc, IBM Company, Armonk, NY). To provide a measure of effect, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e was calculated by dividing the mean difference in change by the standard deviation of change. Consistent with Cohen\u0026rsquo;s interpretation, values of \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5, and \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.8 are considered as small, medium and large effects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe flow of participants through the study is depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;2 and baseline characteristics of children are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. A total of 85 students (10.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.7 years, 46% girls) completed baseline assessments. Two students moved schools during the study period and therefore did not complete the study. Most students spoke English at home (98%), and approximately 40% of students were from low socioeconomic backgrounds (i.e., SEIFA decile\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;3). Seven classroom teachers were recruited to the study, with an average teaching experience of 12.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8.8 years. None of the teachers reported having any specialised training in PE, coaching, or fitness. Feasibility outcomes are presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. There were no adverse events reported by teachers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive characteristics of study participants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCharacteristics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge, mean (SD), years\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.6 (0.0.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSex, n (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45 (53.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39 (46.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCountry of birth, n (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82 (97.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLanguage spoken at home, n (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82 (97.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndigenous descent, n (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6 (7.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78 (92.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocioeconomic background, n (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33 (39%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18 (21%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32 (38%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTeachers\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYears of teaching experience, mean (SD)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.6 (8.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrade level\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGrade 5\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGrade 6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 (43%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (57%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpecialist physical education/coaching qualifications, n (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7 (100%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e One student did not provide demographic background information.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSummary of feasibility evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeasibility domain\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey items/measures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResult\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcceptability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall program satisfaction (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.0 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSatisfaction of skill variety (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall program satisfaction (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWould recommend program to others (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived quality of program resources (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsefulness of program resources (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSatisfaction with program professional learning (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSatisfaction with implementation support (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher \u003cb\u003es\u003c/b\u003eustainment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntended future use of program when appropriate (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (3.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntended future use through changing circumstances (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImplementation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDose delivered\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of microlessons delivered per week, mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.1 (0.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage microlesson duration, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u0026ndash;20 mins\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (57%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;25 mins\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (28%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u0026ndash;30 mins\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (14%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMicrolesson fidelity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdherence to SAAFE delivery principles, mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupportive (/4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.3 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eActive (/4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.8 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAutonomous (/4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFair (/4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.0 (0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnjoyable (/4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal (/20)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.0 (1.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePracticality\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeasibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived ease of implementation (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.0 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompatibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived appropriateness of program (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdaptability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived adaptability of program based on students (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived adaptability based on school facilities (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived adaptability based on school equipment (/5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Feasibility outcomes are reported as median and interquartile range, unless otherwise specified.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChanges in outcomes from baseline to post-intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcomes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBaseline Mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-intervention Mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean change (95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFMS competence, units\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eObject control skills /28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17.7 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.7 (4.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.0 (1.3, 2.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBounce / 6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.6 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.2 (1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.6 (0.3, 0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCatch / 6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.2 (1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.5 (1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3 (0.1, 0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKick / 8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.9 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.5 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.6 (0.2, 1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverarm throw / 8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.0 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.6 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5 (0.1, 0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived competence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.2 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.5 (1.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3 (0.0. 0.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.047\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCardiorespiratory fitness, laps\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePACER\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.4 (19.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32.5 (24.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.1 (4.2, 10.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMuscular fitness, repetitions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSit-to-stand\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.1 (4.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.6 (5.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.5 (2.4, 4.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePush-up\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.2 (7.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.1 (11.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.9 (0.7, 5.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.011\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMotivation for PE, units\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAutonomous motivation /4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.5 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.5 (0.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.05 (-0.1, 0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.144\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e 13 students who were present for post-intervention assessments did not complete the PACER, due to the need to reschedule because of wet weather and limited suitable facilities.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProgression criteria\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur recruitment data met the feasibility requirements, with 85 students recruited to the study (exceeding the target of 35 students). Implementation requirements were also met, with all teachers delivering the maximum number of prescribed FMS microlessons (100% of lessons delivered). We acknowledge that the first session was researcher delivered, however all teachers delivered the remaining 11 lessons. Finally, both teachers and students reported high levels of overall program satisfaction. All teachers agreed (86% strongly agreed) with the following statement: \u0026ldquo;Overall, I was satisfied with the B2L-j program\u0026rdquo;. Similarly, 82% of students agreed (48% strongly agreed) with the following statement: \u0026ldquo;I enjoyed participating in the B2L-j program\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAcceptability and sustainment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall program satisfaction was high among students and teachers. Students reported a median value of 4.0/5.0 (interquartile range [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.0\u0026ndash;5.0), and teachers reported a median value of 5.0/5.0 (IQR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0\u0026ndash;5.0). All teachers agreed that the B2L-j resources were well designed and of high quality (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 [4.0\u0026ndash;5.0]). Similarly, all teachers agreed that the resources were appropriate to enable them to implement the B2L-j program (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 [5.0\u0026ndash;5.0]). Six teachers (86%) responded \u0026lsquo;strongly agree\u0026rsquo; with the statement \u0026ldquo;I would recommend the B2L-j program to other teachers working with Grade 5 and 6\u0026rdquo;. Sustainment reported by teachers was also high, with all teachers indicating their intention to continue to implement the B2L-j program.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePracticality\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers perceived the B2L-j program to be feasible to implement in their school (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.0 [4.0\u0026ndash;5.0]) and agreed that the program was highly compatible within their school context (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 [5.0\u0026ndash;5.0]). Adaptability of the B2L-j program was also highly rated by teachers for adaptability based on student need (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 [5.0\u0026ndash;5.0]), school facilities (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 [4.0\u0026ndash;5.0]) and available equipment (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 [4.0\u0026ndash;5.0]).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplementation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe average time to complete FMS microlessons was 15\u0026ndash;20 minutes. Fidelity observations of lesson quality indicate that FMS microlessons were being delivered as intended, supporting high theoretical fidelity (mean [standard deviation]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.0 [1.2] /20). The \u0026lsquo;Active\u0026rsquo; (mean [standard deviation]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.8 [0.5] /4) and \u0026lsquo;Enjoyable\u0026rsquo; (mean [standard deviation]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.0 [0.0] /4) principles were most effectively implemented by teachers, while the \u0026lsquo;Autonomous\u0026rsquo; principle was implemented the least effectively (mean [standard deviation]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.0 [0.0] /4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA summary of findings is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. At post-test, teachers reported high levels of capability (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 [4.8-5.0]), opportunity (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.8 [4.4\u0026ndash;4.8]), and motivation (median [IQR]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0 [4.6-5.0]).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u0026rsquo; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver physical activity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedian (Interquartile range)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCapability (/5)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical capability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePsychological capability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (4.5-5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpportunity (/5)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.3 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhysical opportunity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.3 (4.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial opportunity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (4.7-5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMotivation (/5)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReflective motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (5.0\u0026ndash;5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAutomatic motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0 (4.5-5.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudent outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA summary of findings for student outcomes are reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. A medium improvement from baseline to post-intervention was observed for object control motor competency (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.0 units, [1.3 to 2.7], \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63). Medium improvements were also found for students\u0026rsquo; cardiorespiratory fitness (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.1 laps, [4.2 to 10.0], \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.61) and lower body muscular fitness (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.5 repetitions, [2.4 to 4.7], \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.72). Small improvements were found for students\u0026rsquo; perceived object control motor competency (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3 units, [0.0 to 0.7], \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.23) and upper body muscular fitness (mean [95% confidence intervals; CI]\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.9 repetitions, [0.7 to 5.1], \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.30). There were no notable changes in students\u0026rsquo; autonomous motivation for PE.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of FMS microlessons for primary school children. Initial recruitment targets were exceeded, and the program had strong implementation, suggesting high levels of interest and motivation from teachers to deliver the B2L-j program. The delivery of the B2L-j program involved limited researcher involvement, therefore increasing the potential for intervention sustainment and scalability. B2L-j was well accepted by both teachers and students, with high levels of overall program satisfaction reported. Researcher observations indicate that teachers\u0026rsquo; implementation of microlessons aligned with the intended theoretical framework, which was designed to support students\u0026rsquo; autonomous motivation for physical activity. Teachers indicated strong capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver the B2L-j program in their school. We observed medium-to-large improvements in students\u0026rsquo; object control motor competency, perceived competency, and health-related fitness from baseline to post-intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe high level of program acceptability reported by both teachers and students supports the feasibility of the B2L-j program within primary school settings. In particular, the program resources (e.g., curriculum aligned program, resource cards) and variety of lessons offered as part of the program likely contributed to the overall satisfaction. A significant barrier to the delivery of high-quality PE in schools is a lack of teacher capability, opportunity, and motivation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], particularly in primary school settings where generalist teachers are responsible for the delivery of PE [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Previous research studies have demonstrated that when PE classes are dominated by major games, with no emphasis on the development of FMS, students are more likely to report negative experiences [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. To support implementation of the B2L-j program, we provided teachers with curriculum-aligned resources that focused on explicit instruction and small-sided activities to enhance students\u0026rsquo; knowledge, competence, and confidence to engage in a variety of activities. Of note, all teachers strongly agreed that the B2L-j resources were appropriate to deliver the program, and 85% of teachers indicated that the program was easy to implement. Providing teachers with curriculum aligned resources and a structured program likely supported implementation of the program, by minimising teachers\u0026rsquo; planning requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers are recognised as key personnel for the implementation of school-based physical activity interventions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. It is promising to observe that teachers delivered the program with a high degree of fidelity, as indicated by researcher observations and teacher logbooks. These findings may be explained by the high level of teachers\u0026rsquo; self-reported capability, opportunity, and motivation to implement the B2L-j program. According to the COM-B model, to support the implementation of physical activity programs in schools, there must be sufficient capability, opportunity, and motivation for those responsible for intervention delivery (i.e., teachers) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. In our study, teachers reported high levels of capability, suggesting that they had the necessary physical attributes (e.g., fitness, skills) to successfully deliver the program (i.e., physical capability). Teachers also reported high satisfaction with the professional training they received (median value\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.0/5.0), which was designed to strengthen teachers\u0026rsquo; psychological capability. In addition, teachers indicated that physical opportunity (i.e., equipment/facilities) and social opportunity (i.e., support from colleagues/executive staff members) were appropriate to implement the intervention. Finally, there were high levels of both automatic (i.e., acting without much conscious thought) and reflective (i.e., conscious, decision-oriented) motivation reported by teachers suggesting that the program had become integrated into teachers\u0026rsquo; routines and aligned with teachers\u0026rsquo; self-determined motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrevious school-based FMS interventions have utilised researchers, external providers (e.g., sports coaches), or specialist PE teachers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. While these interventions are typically more successful at improving student outcomes, this model of implementation is less scalable in Australian primary schools and other countries around the world that do not have specialist PE teachers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Inadequate teacher capability (i.e., competence/training), and opportunity (i.e., time constraints) are the two most commonly reported barriers to implementation of school-based physical activity programs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Our intervention aimed to improve teachers\u0026rsquo; psychological capability via professional learning prior to intervention delivery. Based on prior evidence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e], the professional learning component included effective behaviour changes techniques such as developing an action plan, and providing feedback on behaviour (via SAAFE observations). In addition, our intervention aimed to mitigate lack of time as a barrier by providing teachers with a time-efficient approach for targeting students\u0026rsquo; FMS development. Previous FMS interventions are typically more time intensive, with most interventions reporting a session/lesson length of 40\u0026ndash;60 minutes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. By addressing key barriers to implementation, our study findings suggest that a larger evaluation of the B2L-j program is warranted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe observed a medium-to-large improvement in students\u0026rsquo; object control motor competency (\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63) and health-related fitness (\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.61\u0026ndash;0.72), which is consistent with findings from similar physical activity feasibility studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. One important consideration is that the B2L-j intervention was designed to be time-efficient to support implementation. There is a growing body of evidence that supports the effectiveness of time-efficient physical activity programs for enhancing a range of outcomes among young people [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], however, the effect on FMS competency remains unclear. Active classroom breaks or energisers are commonly used in primary schools, but they do not often target students\u0026rsquo; FMS competency or fitness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], which are important predictors of current and future physical activity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. In their review, Yin and colleagues found that programs specifically targeting FMS have shown to have a medium-to-large effect (ES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.69) on students\u0026rsquo; overall FMS competence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. Interestingly, lower dose FMS interventions (i.e., frequency\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3 times per week, duration\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;60 minutes, and intervention length\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;10 weeks) were found to be ineffective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. However, one recent approach consisted of daily plyometric-based active breaks (7\u0026ndash;10 mins), which resulted in improved motor competence and muscular fitness after 6 weeks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. Our findings align with those observed by Sortwell and colleagues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e], indicting that positive changes can be observed in response to a relatively low-dose FMS intervention, which may be due to high levels of active learning time, that are typically not observed in primary school PE lessons [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. However, both studies utilised small samples and their findings should be confirmed in a large trial.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe observed a small improvement in students\u0026rsquo; perceived object control motor competence. However, perceived competence has been shown to have only a small mediating effect on the relationship between actual competence and physical activity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. Notably, this effect appears to be weaker among younger children (in comparison to adolescents), as children\u0026rsquo;s self-perception often can be inaccurate. Surprisingly, the program did not improve students\u0026rsquo; autonomous motivation for PE. However, students scored highly on autonomous motivation at baseline (mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.5/4), which may highlight a potential ceiling effect. The B2L-j program was designed to promote students\u0026rsquo; sense of autonomy, relatedness, and competence, in line with self-determination theory. During the professional development workshop, teachers were introduced to SDT and provided with a guiding framework (i.e., SAAFE) for delivering FMS microlessons that aligned with SDT principles. Lesson observations checklists revealed that teachers delivered microlessons as intended, however, the principle of autonomy was the least effectively applied. One potential explanation may be due to the short session duration, which limited opportunities for teachers to provide students with autonomy. It is plausible that while lessons were broadly consistent with SDT, limited application of autonomy-supportive strategies may have mitigated further improves in students\u0026rsquo; motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStrengths and limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA notable strength of our study was the novel intervention design, which was informed by several theoretical frameworks. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the concept of \u0026lsquo;FMS microlessons\u0026rsquo;, which is a novel approach for targeting the development of students\u0026rsquo; FMS competency and fitness. We exceeded our recruitment target suggesting strong interest in the program among schools. Our study also used assessed both objective and subjective object control skill competency, along with assessments of autonomous motivation to participate in PE, which provides a more comprehensive understanding of children\u0026rsquo;s physical literacy (i.e., competence, confidence, knowledge and understanding). However, there are several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, FMS microlessons were delivered in place of regular PE lessons, which may reduce the overall amount of time dedicated to PE if teachers perceive that they are meeting the mandated requirements. Nevertheless, schools often fail to meet physical activity mandates currently, so the current approach may still represent a net gain in both the quality and consistency of FMS practice and application. Second, we did not include a control group so changes in student outcomes should be interpreted with caution. It is plausible that changes in students\u0026rsquo; outcomes may be the result of a testing effect and therefore should be confirmed in a larger randomised controlled trial. Third, only four object control skills were assessed, so findings cannot be generalised to overall motor competence which also includes locomotor and stability skills. Finally, although we exceeded our initial recruitment target, our study involved a relatively small sample from two schools, which limits the generalisability of our findings. As such, further research examining the efficacy of the B2L-j program is warranted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur study findings highlight the feasibility of a novel, time-efficient approach for developing students\u0026rsquo; object control skill competency, perceived competence, and health-related fitness (i.e., physical literacy). Previous FMS programs have often been delivered by trained specialists or researchers, and have large time commitments, which limits opportunities for implementation and scalability. Our study highlights that generalist classroom teachers can successfully implement a time-efficient program to enhance students\u0026rsquo; motor competency and fitness. Findings from our study should be confirmed in a larger, sufficiently powered trial.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e Approval for the study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Newcastle (H-2024-0332) and the Catholic Schools Office of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthors' contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: AAL, DRL. Methodology: AAL, JJS, NE, DRL. Formal analysis: AAL. Investigation: AAL, MS, LW. Resources: AAL, MS, JJS, NE, DRL. Data curation: AAL. Writing - Original Draft: AAL. Writing - Review \u0026amp; Editing: AAL, MS, JJS, NE, LW, DRL. Project administration: AAL.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank the teachers and students at the study school for their cooperation and participation, and Tara Finn, Ivy Lubans, and Felicity Wharton for their assistance with data collection. The Hunter Medical Research Institute provides funding support for the University of Newcastle\u0026rsquo;s Centre for Active Living and Learning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets during and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author (AAL) on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEather N, Ridley K, Leahy A. Physiological health benefits of physical activity for young people. The Routledge Handbook of Youth Physical Activity. Routledge; 2020. pp. 103\u0026ndash;20. T.A. Brusseau, S.J. Fairclough, and D.R. Lubans, Editors.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLubans DR, et al. Physical activity, fitness, and executive functions in youth: Effects, moderators, and mechanisms. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2021;53:103\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodriguez-Ayllon M, et al. Role of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the mental health of preschoolers, children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2019;49(9):1383\u0026ndash;410.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarooq MA, et al. Timing of the decline in physical activity in childhood and adolescence: Gateshead Millennium Cohort Study. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(15):1002\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolger LE, et al. Global levels of fundamental motor skills in children: A systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2021;39(7):717\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHulteen RM, et al. Development of foundational movement skills: A conceptual model for physical activity across the lifespan. Sports Med. 2018;48:1533\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarnett LM, et al. Motor skill competence and moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activity: a linear and non-linear cross-sectional analysis of eight pooled trials. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2024;21(1):14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarnett LM, et al. Through the looking glass: a systematic review of longitudinal evidence, providing new insight for motor competence and health. Sports Med. 2022;52(4):875\u0026ndash;920.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBao R, et al. Associations between motor competence and executive functions in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2024;54(8):2141\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu C, et al. Correlation of fundamental movement skills with health-related fitness elements in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1129258.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHill PJ, et al. The influence of Motor competence on broader aspects of Health: a systematic review of the Longitudinal associations between Motor competence and cognitive and social-emotional outcomes. Sports Med. 2024;54(2):375\u0026ndash;427.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHills AP, Dengel DR, Lubans DR. Supporting public health priorities: Recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57(4):368\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeil-Sztramko SE, Caldwell H, Dobbins M. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2021(9).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorgan PJ, et al. Fundamental movement skill interventions in youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1361\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorgan PJ, Hansen V. Classroom teachers' perceptions of the impact of barriers to teaching physical education on the quality of physical education programs. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(4):506\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNathan N, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of physical activity policies in schools: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2018;107:45\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNaylor PJ, et al. Implementation of school based physical activity interventions: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2015;72:95\u0026ndash;115.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLander NJ, et al. Beyond brain breaks: a new model for integrated classroom-based active breaks. J Phys Educ Recreation Dance. 2024;95(4):22\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaly-Smith AJ, et al. 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 Med. 2018;4(1):e000341.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeiris D, et al. Effects of in-classroom physical activity breaks on children\u0026rsquo;s academic performance, cognition, health behaviours and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(15):9479.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLubans DR, et al. Time-efficient intervention to improve older adolescents\u0026rsquo; cardiorespiratory fitness: findings from the \u0026lsquo;Burn 2 Learn\u0026rsquo; cluster randomized controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(13):751\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMavilidi MF, et al. Effect of a time-efficient physical activity intervention on senior school students\u0026rsquo; on-task behaviour and subjective vitality: The \u0026lsquo;Burn 2 Learn\u0026rsquo; cluster randomised controlled trial. Educational Psychol Rev. 2021;33(1):299\u0026ndash;323.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValkenborghs SR et al. Effect of high-intensity interval training on hippocampal metabolism in older adolescents. Psychophysiology, 2022: p. e14090.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValkenborghs S et al. Effects of high-intensity interval training on subcortical and cortical brain volumes in older adolescents: findings from the Burn 2 Learn cluster randomised controlled trial. Preprint, 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEldridge SM, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNew South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA). \u003cem\u003eK-6 Personal Development, Health and Physical Education K\u0026ndash;6 Syllabus (2024)\u003c/em\u003e. 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol. 2008;49(3):182.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLubans DR, et al. Framework for the design and delivery of organized physical activity sessions for children and adolescents: rationale and description of the \u0026lsquo;SAAFE\u0026rsquo; teaching principles. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2017;14(1):24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeiner BJ, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12:1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKennedy SG, et al. Process evaluation of a school-based high-intensity interval training program for older adolescents: The Burn 2 Learn cluster randomised controlled trial. Children. 2020;7(12):299.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoullin JC, et al. Provider REport of Sustainment Scale (PRESS): development and validation of a brief measure of inner context sustainment. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerdonschot A, et al. Development and evaluation of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver Physical Activity in School Scale (COM-PASS). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2024;21(1):93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWebster EK, Ulrich DA. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the test of gross motor development\u0026mdash;third edition. J Motor Learn Dev. 2017;5(1):45\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarnett LM, et al. Face validity and reliability of a pictorial instrument for assessing fundamental movement skill perceived competence in young children. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(1):98\u0026ndash;102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrtega FB, et al. The Youth Fitness International Test (YFIT) battery for monitoring and surveillance among children and adolescents: A modified Delphi consensus project with 169 experts from 50 countries and territories. J Sport Health Sci. 2025;14:101012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKable TJ, et al. Time-efficient physical activity intervention for older adolescents with disability: rationale and study protocol for the Burn 2 Learn adapted (B2La) cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2022;12(8):e065321.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson KJ, et al. Test\u0026ndash;retest reliability and concurrent validity of the 30 second sit to stand test in adolescents. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2024;28(1):109\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVlachopoulos SP, et al. The revised perceived locus of causality in physical education scale: Psychometric evaluation among youth. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(6):583\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. p. 567.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRainer P, et al. From policy to practice: The challenges of providing high quality physical education and school sport faced by head teachers within primary schools. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2012;17(4):429\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorgan P, Bourke S. Non-specialist teachers' confidence to teach PE: the nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Phys Educ sport pedagogy. 2008;13(1):1\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosenkranz RR, et al. Physical activity capability, opportunity, motivation and behavior in youth settings: theoretical framework to guide physical activity leader interventions. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2023;16(1):529\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTompsett C, et al. Pedagogical approaches to and effects of fundamental movement skill interventions on health outcomes: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2017;47(9):1795\u0026ndash;819.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJones L, Green K. Who teaches primary physical education? Change and transformation through the eyes of subject leaders. Sport Educ Soc. 2017;22(6):759\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyan M, et al. Features of effective staff training programmes within school-based interventions targeting student activity behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2022;19(1):125.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang D, et al. Effect of intervention programs to promote fundamental motor skills among typically developing children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2024;156:107320.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin X, et al. Effectiveness of school-based interventions on fundamental movement skills in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):1522.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNathan N, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of the Great Leaders Active StudentS (GLASS) program on children\u0026rsquo;s physical activity and object control skill competency: A non-randomised trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(12):1081\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeahy AA, et al. Feasibility of a school-based physical activity intervention for adolescents with disability. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021;7(1):120.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeahy AA, et al. Review of high-intensity interval training for cognitive and mental health in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52(10):2224\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeahy AA, et al. \u003cem\u003eIntegrating High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) into the School Setting: Benefits, Criticisms, and Recommendations\u003c/em\u003e, in \u003cem\u003ePromotion of Physical Activity and Health in the School Setting\u003c/em\u003e. Nature Switzerland: Cham: Springer; 2024. pp. 303\u0026ndash;25. A. Garc\u0026iacute;a-Hermoso, Editor.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaakkola T, et al. Fundamental movement skills and physical fitness as predictors of physical activity: A 6-year follow‐up study. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26(1):74\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSortwell A, et al. Effects of plyometric-based structured game active breaks on fundamental movement skills, muscular fitness, self-perception, and actual behaviour in primary school students. Biology Sport. 2024;41(3):69\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHollis JL et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in elementary school physical education lessons. Prev Med, 2016. 86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBourke M, et al. Children's and Adolescents\u0026rsquo; Actual Motor Competence, Perceived Physical Competence and Physical Activity: A Structural Equation Modelling Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine; 2025.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"pilot-and-feasibility-studies","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pafs","sideBox":"Learn more about [Pilot and Feasibility Studies](http://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/PAFS/default.aspx","title":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Physical activity, motor competence, feasibility, school, intervention","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7644052/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7644052/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMany children worldwide are physically inactive and have low levels of physical fitness and motor competence. Schools are ideal settings to address these issues; however previous physical activity interventions have typically been delivered by specialist physical education teachers or trained researchers, and time is a common barrier to implementation. As such, the aim of our study was to determine the feasibility of a novel, time-efficient intervention (Burn 2 Learn junior: B2L-j), delivered by generalist teachers that targets children’s motor competency and fitness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe recruited 85 children (10.6 ± 0.7 years, 46% girls) and their classroom teachers from two primary schools in New South Wales, Australia. Teachers (n = 7) were provided with training, resources, and support to deliver a six-week curriculum-aligned physical education program. The program involved the delivery of two ‘fundamental movement skill microlessons’ per week, which were designed to improve students’ motor competency and physical fitness (approximately 10–15 minutes in duration). Several feasibility domains (recruitment, acceptability, implementation, fidelity, practicality) were examined along with teachers’ capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver the program. Assessment of motor competency, fitness, and motivation were conducted at baseline and post-intervention, with changes in student outcomes explored using paired sample t-tests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe recruitment target was exceeded, and the program was well implemented by teachers (100% of microlessons delivered). Overall program satisfaction was high among teachers (median value of 5.0/5.0 [interquartile range = 5.0–5.0]) and students (median = 4.0/5.0 [4.0–5.0]). Teachers reported delivering 2.1 ± 0.7 microlessons per week during the study period. Researcher fidelity observations revealed that the program was being delivered as intended, and teachers perceived the program to be practical for delivery in their schools (median values ranging from 4.0–5.0/5.0 for practicality items). Teachers reported high levels of capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver the program (median values ranging from 4.3-5.0/5.0). Medium-to-large improvements were observed for students’ motor competency and fitness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings support the feasibility of training generalist primary teachers to deliver microlessons designed to improve children’s motor competency and fitness. Evaluation of fundamental movement skill microlessons in a larger-scale effectiveness trial is warranted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrial registration\u003c/strong\u003e: ACTRN12625000510448\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Feasibility of implementing fundamental movement skill microlessons in primary schools: A time-efficient solution for busy teachers","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-04 01:21:02","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7644052/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2026-04-25T14:42:50+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-22T14:10:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-18T10:11:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","date":"2025-09-17T21:17:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"pilot-and-feasibility-studies","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pafs","sideBox":"Learn more about [Pilot and Feasibility Studies](http://pilotfeasibilitystudies.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/PAFS/default.aspx","title":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7a7d5ade-b57f-4ab5-952c-6185b6a9d5c4","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-04T01:21:02+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-04 01:21:02","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7644052","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7644052","identity":"rs-7644052","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}