Community-Campus Partnership for DPA

Previously published in Volume 82, Issue 2

An increasingly valued and popular approach to health and physical activity is that of multi-sector partnerships (Butterfoss, Goodman & Wandersman, 1993 & Lasker, Weiss & Miller, 2001). Numerous sectors can influence the knowledge, skills and attitudes for lifelong engagement in physical activity, developed during a child’s formative years. Since children and youth spend a significant amount of time in school, this sector should be a main focus for intervention and has the ability to influence and improve the physical activity levels of children and youth (Hills, Dengel & Lubans, 2014 & Olstad, Campbell, Raine & Nykiforuk, 2015).

The following article discusses the mandated policy of daily physical activity (DPA) as a way to increase time spent engaged in physical activity in elementary schools. A community-campus partnership between Queen’s University and the local school board highlights a service-learning opportunity for physical education undergraduate students in leading DPA and instructional support for generalist classroom teachers. Considerations for forming such partnerships are also provided to offer perspective on outcomes. 

DPA: policy and factors for success
On October 6, 2005, Ontario's Minister of Education announced the inclusion of a DPA policy which states: “School boards must ensure that all elementary students, including students with special needs, have a minimum of twenty minutes of sustained moderate to vigorous physical activity each school day during instructional time” (“Policy/Program Memorandum No. 138”, 2007, para. 4).

In addition to Ontario, four other provinces in Canada have adopted DPA policies: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Each province’s policy differs in terms of grades, minutes and distribution throughout the day, as well as the type and delivery of the mandated minutes of physical activity (for an overview see Olstad, Campbell, Raine & Nykiforuk, 2015).

Although these policies have been mandated, research indicates that there are factors which may influence the success rate of DPA implementation (Masse, Naiman & Naylor, 2013; Olstad, Campbell, Raine & Nykiforuk, 2015; Kennedy, Cantell & Dewey, 2010; Rickwood, 2015). Some of the factors that have been discussed as barriers to increasing physical activity in the school environment are:

• lack of space/time in the curriculum

• lack of student or parent interest (Kennedy, Cantell & Dewey, 2010)

• lack of funding for a physical education teacher/not having an experienced physical education professional on staff (Kennedy, Cantell & Dewey, 2010 & Rickwood, 2015)

• lack the of guidance for implementation, for elementary school teachers

• lack of clarity on what activities should be structured to count towards DPA

• the format does not work as easily in older grades.

On the other hand, some of the elements that have been identified as facilitators for DPA implementation are:

• ready-made provincial resources to help with implementation (Masse, Naiman, Naylor, 2013) (e.g. documents from OPHEA and Action Schools! BC)

• appropriate resources such as adequate space in the schools

• physical education established as a priority within the school

• a rearranged timetable to offer DPA

• teachers who believe in the importance of daily physical activity (Kennedy, Cantell & Dewey, 2010)

• a physical education specialist for the elementary grades (Kennedy, Cantell & Dewey, 2010; Masse, Naiman & Naylor, 2013).

Benefit of community-campus partnerships
A cross-sector partnership between academic institutions and community organizations (referred to as a community-campus partnership or a university-community partnership) can be described as “the coming together of diverse interests and people to achieve a common purpose via interactions, information sharing, and coordination activities” (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 1998, p. 239). These community-campus partnerships are central to the higher education of students to gain practical experience and understanding (Sandy & Holland, 2006). Buys and Bursnall (2007) suggest that academics seek out community engagement due to the growing evidence of benefits from these types of partnerships.

Furthermore, this type of partnership is often formed to provide service-learning opportunities (Sandy & Holland, 2006). Service-learning can be defined as a “course-based, credit bearing educational experience in which students (a) participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs, and (b) reflect on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course content, a broader appreciation of the discipline, and an enhanced sense of civic responsibility” (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995, p. 112). It is important to note that a service-learning opportunity of high quality proves to be mutually beneficial for the campus and community because it meets the needs of the learning objectives of the academic course and the needs identified by the community (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002). The development of community-campus partnerships are truly beneficial, as without them, “it is difficult to imagine how service-learning might even exist” (Sandy & Holland, 2006, p. 30). 

Collaboration in action
A community-campus partnership exists between the academic institution of Queen’s University and the local school board in the Kingston, Ont. community. As a mandatory course within the physical education degree in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, all second-year students enrol in PACT 237: Practicum for Physical Activities and Children. As described by the department in the academic calendar, this class is “an activity-based course which allows students to lead daily physical activity programming at local elementary schools . . .” (“Courses of Instruction”, 2016).

The objectives of the course are:

1. understand the essential role of physical activity on children’s healthy development and growth;

2. create developmentally and age-appropriate lesson plans that ensure that every participant has access to DPA that is safe, of high quality and promotes positive health behaviours;

3. explore different spaces that are available for physical activity and the different approaches that can be used to implement DPA; and

4. provide students with the opportunity to apply their knowledge of DPA and to implement their lesson plans with elementary schools.

The local school board in Kingston, Ont., partners with the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies to offer this service-learning opportunity for these university students. In the 2015-2016 academic year 44 students enrolled in the course and visited 12 different local schools. The university students benefit from the opportunity of applying theory and knowledge into real-world settings, and the elementary schools benefit from the university students’ current training in physical education, as they work towards becoming specialists in this field. This highlights the reciprocal relationship, essential to providing a high-quality service-learning opportunity (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002).

To further illustrate the impact of this community-campus partnership, the viewpoints of both the community and campus have been captured through the voices of the physical education consultant who supports DPA implementation in elementary schools and the university students who have successfully completed PACT 237.

PE consultant and student impressions
One physical education consultant writes, “the partnership between Queen’s School of Kinesiology and local school boards has been instrumental in supporting the building of teacher capacity in delivering physical activity in our elementary schools. Most teachers at the elementary level are generalist teachers with minimal training in health and physical education. Through the training of Queen’s physical education students, we are able to provide schools with support and professional learning through this integrated partnership.” This comment illustrates the service need identified by the community and compliments the need for physical education specialists within schools, as identified in the DPA literature.

Two students provide their thoughts from their experiences in the course. The first quotation emphasizes that the experience was beneficial to both the university and elementary students, further emphasizing the mutual value to both sides of the partnership. “PACT 237 was an eye opening and rewarding experience for us as instructors, but more importantly for the elementary students we taught throughout the semester. It was astounding to see the elementary students’ level of participation and enthusiasm towards the ideas of physical activity increase over the course of the semester. I truly believe this placement is beneficial for students [elementary and university] in and out of the classroom.” (2nd-year undergraduate student)

The second student’s comment illustrates the appreciation for the opportunity to apply course-based knowledge outside the traditional classroom. “This course was an incredible way to apply knowledge we learned in the classroom to a practical setting. It was a great experience being able to work with local schools and promote physical activity within the Kingston community.”

Considerations for success
While these comments exemplify the benefits to such a service-learning opportunity, for those wanting to form similar partnerships, attention needs to be given to various features in order for it to be successful. The next section, while not comprehensive, provides insight into stages and considerations for development and sustainability offered via a community tool kit.

An integral part of developing a successful community-campus partnership that is beneficial to all parties is being able to identify when it is appropriate to accept or decline the request to collaborate (Bringle & Hatcher, 2002) as well as how to nurture a relationship between the university/college and agency. Torres and Schaffer (2000), through the development of a service-learning toolkit, outline some guidelines on how to design, build and sustain a community-campus partnership. These benchmarks highlight the need for a shared vision and clearly articulated values, and establishment of concrete benefits to both partnering institutions.

Furthermore, the collaborative partnerships should be based on trust and mutual respect, should involve multiple sectors that contribute and enable problem solving for complex situations. Bearing in mind the sustainability of the partnership; the goals of the service-learning should be integrated into the mission and systems of both institutions, a process for how to communicate, make decisions and suggest changes should be clearly established. And finally, evaluation should occur regularly, focused on both process and outcomes.

Conclusion
The course, PACT 237, offered by the School of Kinesiology and Health Students at Queen’s University, and further supported by the local school board in Kingston, is one example of a community-campus partnership organized to provide a service-learning opportunity and enhance the daily physical activity program in the education system. Partners within collaboration can be diverse in membership and could include local government, universities/colleges, educators, health care providers, public health, recreation or sport groups, churches, charities, foundations and businesses (Green, Daniel & Novick, 2001). Thereby identifying gaps in community services or community need across various sectors can support community growth and educational practices. 

Resources
For other practical tools aimed at assisting with developing a community-campus partnership, see the following:

• Connors KM, 2003. Advancing the Healthy People 2010 Objectives through Community-Based Education: A Curriculum Planning Guide. S. Cashman., S.D. Seifer, M. Unverzagt (Eds.).  San Francisco, CA: Community Campus Partnerships for Health. https://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/handout3.pdf
• Seifer, S.D. & Connors, K. (Eds.). (2007). Community Campus Partnerships for Health. Faculty Toolkit for Service-Learning in Higher Education. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, 2007. https://ccsr.ku.edu/sites/csl.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/HE_toolkit_with_worksheets-4.pdf

References

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 112-122.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2002). Campus–community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503-516.

Butterfoss, F.D., Goodman, R.M. & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research, 8(3), 315-330.

Buys, N., & Bursnall, S. (2007). Establishing university–community partnerships: Processes and benefits. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 73-86.

Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology. [CSEP] (2011). Canadian physical activity guidelines. Retrieved from http::/www.csep.ca/guidelines.

Donnelly, J. E., & Lambourne, K. (2011). Classroom-based physical activity, cognition, and academic achievement. Preventive Medicine, 52, S36-S42.

Green, L., Daniel, M., & Novick, L. (2001). Partnerships and coalitions for community-based research. Public Health Reports, 116, 20-31.

Hills, A. P., Dengel, D. R., & Lubans, D. R. (2015). Supporting public health priorities: recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 57(4), 368-374.

Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1998). An examination of collaboration in high‐technology new product development processes. Journal of product innovation management, 15(3), 237-254.

Kennedy, C. D., Cantell, M., & Dewey, D. (2010). Has the Alberta daily physical activity initiative been successfully implemented in Calgary schools?. Paediatrics & Child Health, 15(7), e19-e24.

Lasker, R.D. Weiss, E.S., & Miller, R. (2002). Partnership synergy: A practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. The Millbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179-205.

Mâsse, L. C., Naiman, D., & Naylor, P. J. (2013). From policy to practice: implementation of physical activity and food policies in schools. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 71-83.

Olstad, D. L., Campbell, E. J., Raine, K. D., & Nykiforuk, C. I. (2015). A multiple case history and systematic review of adoption, diffusion, implementation and impact of provincial daily physical activity policies in Canadian schools. BMC public health, 15(1), 385-410.

ParticipACTION. Are Canadian kids too tired to move? The 2016 ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. Toronto: ParticipACTION; 2016.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005). Daily Physical Activity in Elementary Schools, Grades 1 – 8. (Policy/Program Memorandum No. 138). Toronto, ON, Canada.

Queen’s University Academic Calendar. (2016). Courses of Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/courses_of_instruction.pdf

Rickwood, G. (2015). The status of daily physical activity in Northern Ontario’s elementary public schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 136-149.

Sage, G. H. (1986). The effects of physical activity on the social development of children. Effects of physical activity on children, 19, 22-29.

Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives, on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 30-4.