IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE STANDARDS FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION: TEACHER AND STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ___________________________________________________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board ___________________________________________________________ in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy ___________________________________________________________ by Matthew David Cummiskey
Transcript
ii
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE STANDARDS FOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION: TEACHER AND STUDENT PERSPECTIVES
LIST OF TABLES..........................................xiii
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................xv
CHAPTER
1. THE PROBLEM............................................1
Introduction..........................................1Purpose...............................................4Research Questions....................................4Delimitations.........................................5Limitations...........................................6Definition of Terms...................................7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................10
History of the Standards Movement in the United States......................................10
National Physical Education Standards................20Application of the National Physical Education Standards..........................................31
Development of State Standards for Physical Education.................................37Development of the Pennsylvania Standards for Physical Education.............................46Adoption, Implementation, and Reaction to Standards-Based Reform.............................50Obstacles to Standards-Based Reform in Physical Education.................................55Summary..............................................57
3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES................................60
x
Research Design......................................60Selection of Participants............................61Instrumentation......................................68Data Collection......................................73Data Analysis........................................79Method of Verification...............................81IRB Authorization....................................83Assumptions and Rationale for Qualitative Design.....83Role of the Researcher...............................85
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................88
Introduction.........................................88Teacher Online Survey................................89Teacher Interview, Observation, and Document Analysis.................................125
Background.....................................131Standards Competence...........................139Curriculum Development.........................148Standards Implementation.......................166Standards Promotion and Constraint.............184
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, MEANING FOR PRACTITIONERS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..............217
Summary.............................................217Conclusions.........................................223Meaning for Practitioners...........................225Recommendations for Future Research.................234
the level of achievement that students are expected to
execute in the content standards (NASPE, 1995).
Physical Education Standards: The physical education
standards include Pennsylvania Academic Standards for
Health, Safety and Physical Education 10.4 (Physical
activity) and 10.5 (Concepts, principles and strategies of
movement) (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2002).
School level: The school level at which a child is
currently enrolled in school, either elementary school,
middle school, or high school.
Standards: Standards are conceptual or factual criteria
representing knowledge, skills, or attitudes that are
established by an authority (Horn, 2004).
9Standards-Based Education: Standards-based education is
the focusing of all aspects of an educational environment on
a set of guiding standards (Horn, 2004).
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of
the passage of the Pennsylvania standards for physical
education upon its planning, teaching, and assessment in the
public schools. This chapter is subdivided into the
following sections: (a) history of the standards movement
in the United States, (b) national physical education
standards, (c) application of the national physical
education standards, (d) development of state standards for
physical education, (e) development of the Pennsylvania
standards for physical education, (f) adoption,
implementation, and reaction to standards-based reform, (g)
obstacles to standards-based reform in physical education,
and (h) summary.
History of the Standards Movement in the United States
The educational standards movement developed over the
last twenty years, beginning with the publication of A
Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983). This document highlighted critical
11shortcomings in the nation’s educational system and provoked
widespread concern about the quality of American K-12
education. The report found that (a) high school curricula
lacked a central purpose and were described as “cafeteria-
style," (b) students were taking fewer challenging courses
as evidenced by a 300% enrollment increase in general level
courses (c) state graduation rates were consistently low,
(d) students spent less time in the classroom compared to
other industrialized countries, (e) teachers often taught
outside their fields of certification, (f) students scored
poorly on international tests, and (g) an increasing number
of students were illiterate. American education was
characterized as “inefficient and ineffective” owing to
factors such as grade inflation and social promotion (Horn,
2004, p. 18). Education secretary Terrance Bell uttered
these well-known remarks:
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament. (p. 18)
12The future of the nation seemed threatened due to
educational mediocrity. Parents, educators, business
professionals, and politicians reacted by demanding an
educational system that prepared students for the demands of
the next century (Fullan, 2001). The A Nation at Risk
report recommended five major changes to address the
shortcomings:
1. Content – Strengthen graduation requirements and
curriculum content.
2. Standards and Expectations – Adopt more rigorous
and measurable standards and higher expectations.
3. Time – Devote significantly more time to
instruction including a longer school day and school year.
4. Teaching – Improve the preparation of teachers and
make the profession more rewarding and respected.
5. Leadership and Fiscal Support – Hold educators and
elected officials responsible for leadership and encourage
them to provide appropriate fiscal support (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).
In 1989, President George H. W. Bush convened the state
governors in Charlottesville, Virginia for the First
National Educational Summit (Pulliam & Van Patten, 2002).
The objective was to create a national strategy addressing
13the shortcomings exposed by A Nation at Risk. The
governors, including future President Bill Clinton,
established a series of broad objectives called America
2000. The objectives stated that by the year 2000:
1. All children in America will start school ready to
learn.
2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at
least 90 percent.
3. All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having
demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter
including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages,
civics and government, economics, arts, history, and
geography.
4. Schools will ensure that all students learn to use
their minds to encourage responsible citizenship, future
learning, and productive employment.
5. Students in the United States will be first in the
world in mathematics and science achievement.
6. Every adult American will be literate and possess
the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global
economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship in this country.
147. Every school in the United States will be free of
drugs, violence, alcohol, and unauthorized firearms.
8. Every school will offer a disciplined environment
conducive to learning.
9. Teachers will have access to professional
development opportunities to acquire the knowledge and
skills necessary to instruct all students.
10. Every school will promote partnerships that
increase parental involvement and advance the social,
emotional, and academic growth of children (Pulliam & Van
Patten, 2002).
In addition, President Bush established the National
Education Goals Panel (NEGP) (Mondale, 2002). The NEGP’s
primary responsibility was to monitor achievement of
national goals. It issued a report titled The National
Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners and
also called for the development of student performance
assessments. America 2000 was introduced as a legislative
package but was never passed by Congress. It evolved into
strategies that involved local communities in school reform
to promote the achievement of the National Goals. By the
end of 1992, forty-eight states and over 2000 communities
had committed to achieving the National Goals. In addition
15to national goals, America 2000 also called for creating
voluntary “American Achievement Tests” linked to world-class
standards in five core subjects for grades 4, 8, and 12.
In 1990, the Secretary of Labor created the Secretary’s
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (Mondale,
2002). The SCANS initial report, What Work Requires of
Schools (1991), outlined the skills American workers would
need to be successfully employed in a high-performance,
high-skill, and high-wage economy. The focus was aligning
school curricula with the needs of the workplace, not
society at large. In addition, the SCANS report outlined
fundamental skills and workplace competencies. The
fundamental skills included basic skills (reading, writing,
arithmetic, listening, and speaking), thinking skills
(creative thinking, decision making, problem solving,
visualizing, knowing how to learn, and reasoning), and
personal qualities (responsibility, self-esteem,
sociability, self-management, integrity, and honesty). The
workplace competencies included the following categories:
resources, interpersonal, systems, information, and
technology.
In November 1993, the NEGP released “Promises to Keep:
Creating High Standards for American Students.” The report
16recommended creating the National Education Standards and
Improvement Council (NESIC) to certify voluntary national
standards.
In March 1994, President Clinton signed the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act (Lunenburg & Irby, 1999). The act
passed into the law the national goals President Bush
originally conceived as part of America 2000. The act
formally established the NESIC to endorse national and state
content standards and methods of assessment. States were
instructed to use the framework established by Goals 2000 to
create world-class academic standards, provide support, and
assess student progress. Goals 2000 also created the
National Skill Standards Board (NSSB) whose responsibility
it was to create work-related standards for students in
technical programs. Following Goals 2000, many national
organizations created subject-specific standards (Horn,
2004). For example, the National Center for History in
Schools developed the history standards in 1994. In 1995,
the NASPE published Moving into the Future: National
Standards for Physical Education (NASPE, 1995). Later, many
states used subject specific national standards as templates
for creating state content standards for various disciples
including physical education (Williams & Rink, 2003).
17The second National Education Summit, March 1996, was
attended by 40 state governors and 45 business leaders
(Pulliam, & Van Patten, 2002). The attendees promised to
support efforts to create rigorous academic standards in
core disciplines and reaffirmed the goals established in the
first National Education Summit. However, they acknowledged
that setting goals was not sufficient and therefore agreed
to a series of specific actions. The governors promised to
facilitate the development of rigorous standards, systems of
assessment, and teacher accountability in two years. The
business leaders promised to support the governors,
communicate necessary workforce skills, hire graduates
demonstrating achievement of the standards, consider state
standards when locating operations, and develop products
that support education. Lastly, Achieve Inc., was formed as
an independent, bipartisan, non-profit association committed
to high standards, assessment, and accountability (Dessoff,
(2005).
The third National Education Summit, 1999, included
governors, business leaders, and educators who reaffirmed
prior commitments to high educational standards (Mondale,
2002). New challenges were identified which included
raising teacher quality, helping all students achieve the
18standards, and enhancing school accountability measures.
Some issues remained unsettled such as charter schools and
vouchers.
On January 8th, 2002, President George W. Bush signed
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, a revised version of
the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)(U.S.
Department of Education, 2002). The law was passed by a
large majority of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress
(Yell & Drasgow, 2005). The law had four basic tenets:
1. Increased accountability – States were required to
develop standards and align them with assessments. Students
were tested in reading and math during grades 3-8 and once
during high school. All schools and districts were required
to achieve adequate yearly progress (AYP). Test data were
publicly disclosed including group scores by socio-economic
status, race, disability status, and language proficiency.
School district data were disclosed on state report cards
and corrective measures were instituted in schools that
failed to make AYP.
2. Improved flexibility and local control - States and
local communities were given more discretion about how
federal dollars were spent. In addition, federal funding
19options were consolidated and the application process
streamlined.
3. More parental choice – Parents were given the
option of transferring their children from failing schools
to better performing public schools. Children who remaining
in failing schools were eligible for supplemental
educational services including tutoring, after school
enrichment, and summer school. In addition, funding was
provided to assist the development of charter schools.
4. Greater utilization of proven teaching methods –
Educational programs that used scientifically proven
teaching methods received more federal money. In addition,
funding was provided to improve teacher quality through
professional development and recruitment (Yell & Drasgow,
2005).
The importance of standards had been elevated over time
to the point they became the focal point for program design
(Silverman and Ennis, 2003). The process of program design
incorporated learning goals, curriculum design,
instructional design, and assessment. First, teachers
created learning objectives that guided the selection of
related content. Second, instructional practices and
strategies were aligned with the learning objectives while
20still facilitating “individual and nuanced performance” (p.
131). Finally, summative and formative assessments required
students to demonstrate knowledge and the application
thereof. The focus of standards-based education was
learning as demonstrated by the achievement of standards.
National Physical Education Standards
The national standards for physical education were
evolving prior to the Educate America Act that encouraged
the development of national standards (Todorovich, Curtner-
Smith, Prusak, & Model, 2005). In 1986, the National
Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) formed
an Outcomes Committee to define what a physically educated
person should know and be able to do. From this committee,
five outcomes of a quality physical education program were
identified (NASPE, 1992). A physically educated person:
1. Has learned skills necessary to perform a variety
of physical activities
2. Knows the implications of and the benefits from
involvement in physical activities
3. Does participate regularly in physical activity
4. Is physically fit
5. Values physical activity and its contribution to a
healthful lifestyle (NASPE, 1992)
21Later, the original five outcomes were expanded to twenty
and included benchmarks for specific grade levels. NASPE
then created the Physical Education Standards and Assessment
Task Force to devise standards rooted in the outcomes.
Draft versions of the standards were introduced at the 1993
and 1994 American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) national convention. In
addition, NASPE presented the draft standards at each of the
alliance’s six district conventions and some state
conventions. The Physical Education Standards and
Assessment Task Force also sought the input of numerous
physical educators and professionals in the field.
In 1995, NASPE published Moving into the Future:
National Standards for Physical Education (NASPE, 1995).
This document delineated seven national standards:
1. Demonstrates competency in many movement forms and
proficiency in a few forms.
222. Applies movement concepts and principles to the
learning and development of motor skills.
3. Exhibits a physically healthy lifestyle.
4. Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of
physical fitness.
5. Demonstrates responsible personal and social
behavior in physical activity settings.
6. Demonstrates understanding and respect for
differences among people in physical activity settings.
7. Understands that physical activity provides
opportunities for enjoyment, challenge, self-expression and
social interaction.
In 2004, NASPE published a second edition of physical
education standards that reduced the total number of
standards from seven to six. The 2004 national standards
for physical education developed by NASPE are delineated
below:
1. Demonstrates competency in motor skills and
movement patterns needed to perform a variety of physical
activities.
2. Demonstrates understanding of movement concepts,
principles, strategies, and tactics as they apply to the
learning and performance of physical activities.
233. Participates regularly in physical activity.
4. Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of
physical fitness.
5. Exhibits responsible personal and social behavior
that respects self and others in physical activity settings.
6. Values physical activity for health, enjoyment,
challenge, self-expression, and/or social interaction.
The standards were created to help improve the quality
of public school physical education and the health of the
nation’s children (Holley, Clarke, Pennington, & Aldana,
2003). According to Judith Young, former executive director
of NASPE, the standards were left intentionally imprecise to
permit flexibility and avoid concerns regarding the
imposition of a national curriculum. NASPE did however
create benchmarks that had more specific interpretations.
The first NASPE standard (2004) was considered “the
heart of physical education” because the motor component
distinguished physical education from the other academic
disciplines (Collier & Oslin, 2001, p. 1). According to
standard one, a physically educated person demonstrated
competency in motor skills and movement patterns needed to
perform a variety of physical activities (NASPE, 2004).
Prior to standard one, some teachers were hesitant to hold
24students accountable for motor skill performance. However,
the first content standard went beyond simply addressing
motor skills and movement patterns - it required competency.
Competency was defined as the ability to properly employ,
during a physical activity or game, a skill or movement.
“In the primary years students develop versatility in the
use of fundamental skills (e.g., running, skipping,
throwing, striking)” (NASPE, 1995, p. 2). These fundamental
skills later developed into intricate, sport specific skills
“used in increasingly more complex movement environments
(e.g., more players, rules, and strategies)” (p. 2).
Although standard one required that students demonstrate
competency in a variety of motor skills and movement
patterns, it did not specify which skills or patterns.
Collier and Oslin (2001) indicated that demonstrating
accountability for standard one was one of the greatest
challenges facing physical education. Some postulated that
since the performance of physical skills varied so
dramatically, holding students accountable for learning was
inappropriate. On the contrary, subjects like mathematics
also faced divergent student abilities yet required student
competency. Therefore, it was appropriate that physical
43 in motor skills and 1. Longer seasons movement patterns needed 2. Smaller-sided competition to perform a variety of 3. Practice sessions during physical during preseason activities 4. Formative assessment-
focuses student practice5. More practice trials results in more learning6. Teamwork and cooperative learning7. Learning tactics and skills promotes proficiency
Stake, 1995). A semi-structured interview format was used
to allow flexibility in the question sequence and probing
when necessary. Nineteen interview questions were prepared
with potential probing questions included (Appendix M).
Follow-up questions were used to obtain more detail, focus
the conversation, provide examples, and explore unclear
points. The researcher also had the flexibility to change
the sequence and form of questions in response to
participant answers. According to Merriam, “this structure
allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand,
to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new
73ideas on the topic” (1988, p. 74). Interview notes were
taken and used for follow-up questions or later analysis.
The observation form was developed to record notes
during class observations (Appendix N). It was composed of
a checklist of major concepts the researcher should look to
observe.
Data Collection
The online survey participants were comprised of K-12
public school physical education teachers in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They were initially contacted
via emails inviting them to participate in this research
study. If participants chose to click the hyperlink, they
were directed to the consent form (Appendix O). Those who
agreed to participate clicked the “start survey” icon where
they were directed to the online survey which took
approximately 5-15 minutes to complete. After submitting
the survey, they were thanked for their participation and
reminded that they would receive an email providing a
summary of the results (Appendix P). Participants were not
permitted to directly access the survey by typing the web
address into the address bar. Participants were forced to
view the consent page and click “Start Survey” prior to
beginning the survey.
74Based on information supplied in the online survey,
potential interview participants were ranked according to
criteria explained earlier and contacted using the
information provided in the online survey. After scheduling
dates for on-site data collection, both parties met at the
teachers’ workplaces prior to the start of classes.
Therein, the participants completed a consent form (Appendix
Q). The researcher observed two or three classes as a non-
participant observer, conducted interviews during teachers’
“prep” period, and collected materials relating to the
standards such as lesson plans and assessments. If two
teachers were recruited from one school, a second day of
non-participant observations and a second interview with the
other teacher were scheduled. Field notes were written
during on-site data collection and a researcher reflective
journal was written after the conclusion of on-site data
collection but before the researcher departed the vicinity
of the school.
The qualitative data collection involved multiple
sources of data because conclusions are “more convincing and
accurate if based on several different sources of
information” (Yin, 1994, p. 92). If possible, the
observations preceded the interview to help the researcher
75and teacher acclimate to one another and provide observable
material for asking questions during the interview. Prior
to the beginning of the interviews, briefing sessions
oriented the teacher to the study. Briefing sessions
explored the context and purpose of the study, described the
course of the interview procedures, stated that the
interview would be audio-recorded, expressed the
confidentiality of all participants, and permitted the
subject to ask any questions. The initial part of the
interview was conversational in nature and helped to ensure
an atmosphere of trust and mutual exchange (Kvale, 1996).
A semi-structured interview format was used where the
researcher used a series of pre-arranged questions (Patton,
1990; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Questions were exploratory and
generally began with “who,” “what,” “where,” “why,” and
“how” (Yin, 1994, p. 5). Debriefing transpired at the end
of the interviews in which the researcher summarized the
main points of the interview and solicited comments or
questions from the participant (Kvale, 1996). If the
participants introduced additional comments, they were
incorporated into the study. A transcript of the interview
was emailed to all teachers to improve validity. Teachers
76were asked to confirm receipt of the interview transcript
and indicate any possible transcription errors.
Field notes were taken during the interview and were
used to supplement the data, make comments, observe patterns
or trends, frame future questions, and seek clarification.
Field notes were also recorded immediately following the
conclusion of the interview in order to record reflections
(Patton, 1990). Merriam (1988) stated that “post interview
notes allow the investigator to monitor the process of data
collection as well as begin to analyze the information” (p.
82). Field notes also provided evidence of remarks said
before or after an interview and aided in member-checks
(Patton, 1990; Rubin & Rubin, 1995).
Non-participant observations were conducted during the
participants’ physical education classes. The researcher
did not interact with the class in any manner and it was the
discretion of the teacher to explain the presence of the
researcher. Observations were incorporated because
interview statements and survey data did not necessarily
reflect what happened in the classroom. Furthermore, the
researcher could compare oral and written statements to
actual classroom practice. During the observations, the
researcher recorded and made notes on teacher and student
77actions, synchronicity between the lesson plan and its
implementation, the setting, people, conversations, and any
other information deemed pertinent. Bogdan and Biklen
(1992) stated that field notes provide a “written account of
what the researcher hears, sees, experiences, and thinks in
the course of collecting and reflecting on the data” (p.
107). Marshall and Rossman (1995) considered observation:
A fundamental and critical method in all qualitative inquiry: It is used to discover complex interactions in natural social settings. Even in in-depth interview studies, observation plays an important role as the researcher notes body language and affect in addition to a person’s words. (p. 80)
The final method of qualitative data collection was
document analysis. The participants were notified in
advance that certain materials would be collected.
Participants were asked to provide the researcher with
lesson plans, assessments, and other printed materials
related to the curriculum or the Pennsylvania standards for
physical education. In addition, materials on display were
noted by the researcher such as posters, classroom rules,
paintings, and slogans. The intent of document collection
was two-fold, first to gather more information about the
implementation of the standards and second, compare the
espoused curriculum with the overt curriculum (Lincoln &
78Guba, 1985). Document analysis also enabled the collection
of information about topics which could not be observed
(Patton, 1990).
At the conclusion of each day of on-site data
collection, the researcher wrote in a reflective journal to
capture additional insights which may not have been apparent
from the interview transcripts or field notes. These
comments recorded “speculation, feelings, problems, ideas,
hunches, impressions, and prejudices” (Bogdan & Biklen,
1992, p. 121) that may have been overlooked during data
collection.
Upon completion of the interviews and observations, the
researcher provided the teachers with assent and consent
forms (Appendix R) to be completed by the students and their
respective parents/guardians. In the instances where the
superintendents required permission from students and their
parents/guardians for observations, a different assent and
consent form was used (Appendix S). In addition, student
surveys were provided with the stipulation that they be
completed within two weeks by all assenting students.
Students were allotted a maximum of 15 minutes to complete
the survey. Afterwards, the completed student surveys were
placed in a box by students through a small slit opening.
79After the teacher placed tape over the opening, the self-
addressed, stamped box was returned to the researcher.
Multiple methods of data collection were incorporated
to guarantee the validity of the collected materials. For
example, Merriam (1988) stated, “What you get in an
interview is simply the informant’s perception” (p. 84). By
using interviews, observations, and collected materials as
means of data triangulation, the quality of the data could
be determined. Patton (1990) confirmed this by stating:
By using a variety of sources and resources, the evaluator-observer can build on the strengths of each type of data collection while minimizing the weaknesses of any single approach. A multimethod, triangulation approach to fieldwork increases both the validity and the reliability of evaluation data. (p. 245)
Data Analysis
In the analysis of quantitative data, the online survey
scores and student survey scores represented the raw data.
Descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations
were calculated. Two factor analyses were conducted on the
standards-based Likert scale questions, first for teachers
and then for students. Any factors which coalesced were
tested for significant differences against the demographic
variables such as gender, locale, and school level using
either a MANOVA or ANOVA. Regression analyses were used to
80test the predictive effect of the continuous demographic
variables on the Likert scale responses. Multiple t-tests
were used to test for differences regarding the dichotomous
variables against the Likert scale responses.
In the analysis of qualitative data, the constant
comparative method was utilized to analyze the interview
transcripts and open-ended survey responses (Yin, 1994).
Categories were formed from patterns which emerged from the
data. The formation of preliminary categories, according to
Bogdan and Biklen (1992), begins when “certain words,
phrases, patterns of behavior, subject’s ways of thinking,
and events which repeat and stand out” (p. 166). Typically,
a category emerges from multiple sources of data such as
interviews, observations, and field notes. Pieces of data
were examined, grouped, refined, given a label, and further
examined (Patton, 1990).
The analysis of qualitative data for this study
conformed to standard protocols applicable to qualitative
research. “In qualitative studies, data collection and
analysis go hand in hand. . . . The researcher is guided by
initial concepts and guiding hypotheses, but shifts or
discards them as data are collected and analyzed” (Marshall
& Rossman, 1995, p. 112). This flexible approach allowed
81for an ongoing analysis and concept formation related to the
data.
Method of Verification
Merriam stated (1988) that qualitative research was
“holistic, multidimensional, and ever-changing. . . . What
is being observed are people’s construction of reality, how
they understand the world” (p. 167). Since qualitative
inquiry is less objective than quantitative designs,
additional measures were necessary to verify the accuracy of
the data.
To enhance construct validity, the triangulation of the
following multiple sources of data were used: interviews,
observations, document analysis and field notes (Fielding &
Fielding, 1986). This approach allows the researcher to
critically test material, examine weaknesses, and explore
additional areas of inquiry. Another strategy employed to
aid validity was the use of member checks (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). In member checks, the researcher summarized the
participants’ main points and permitted questions from the
participants. Member checks were also employed by sending
teachers a digital copy of the transcribed interview and
field notes and asking them to verify the accuracy of the
information.
82To test for internal validity, Miles and Huberman
(1994) suggested five safeguards: (a) use triangulation such
that converging data can be established, (b) consider
opposing explanations, (c) verify the accuracy of the
information by the original sources, (d) connect the
categories to the data, (e) and use thick, rich description.
One threat to internal validity specifically addressed was
testing (Thomas & Nelson, 2001). Since interviews with
multiple teachers from the same school district occurred on
successive days, each participant was asked not to discuss
the interview with other teachers until the conclusion of
all interviews.
External validity was defined as the ability to
generalize results to other participants and settings while
Unfortunately, due to the nature of qualitative research
methods, external validity was limited (Stefkovich & Guba,
1995). However, the use of multiple case studies did permit
cross-case comparison (Yin, 1994).
Reliability was addressed by having another doctoral
student in the kinesiology department read the interview
transcripts and code the data. In the instances where
discrepancies were recorded, the researcher and the
83secondary coder met to resolve the differences. The
secondary coder also critiqued the coding system and
suggested modifications.
IRB Authorization
This research study was reviewed by members of Temple
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The purpose
of this review was to ensure that the health and wellness of
the participants was properly safeguarded. Temple
University required IRB approval for any research proposal
involving human subjects. The document “Request for
Protocol Review” was submitted in January, 2006. The
protocol was approved with minor revisions in February,
2006. Modifications to the proposal were submitted in
April, 2006 and approved later that month.
Assumptions and Rationale for Qualitative Design
Qualitative methodology permitted the researcher to
examine various research questions in the context in which
they existed, the public schools. The goal was to develop
an in-depth understanding of the context and to develop
meaningful interpretations of the data (Yin, 1994).
Consider the following from Ornstein (1995):
The new emphasis on teaching goes beyond what the teacher is doing and explores teacher thinking from the perspective of teachers and how teachers
84come to know their pedagogy. . . . The new research on teaching relies on language and dialogue, and not mathematical or statistical analysis. (p. 5-6)
Bresler and Stake (1992) identified the following
characteristics of qualitative research: (a) field-oriented
study that relies heavily on observations, (b) data is
primarily collected on-site by the researcher in a
naturalistic setting, (c) descriptive data incorporate
quotations rather than quantitative analyses, (d)
interpretive and inductive processes are used to create
meaning, (e) the findings can be interpreted differently
from person to person, and (f) and the process is evolving
instead of unresponsive.
A multiple case study designed was used for this study
due to the limited number of participants and the
descriptive nature of qualitative research. Case studies
have four salient features, they: (1) incorporate data from
various groups and viewpoints, (2) demonstrate the effect of
personalities, (3) convey the complexity of situations, and
(4) incorporate rich, in-depth material (Stake, 1995).
Beyond a definition, case studies involved “both the process
of learning about the case and the product of our learning”
(p. 237). Descriptive case studies also permit the
85researcher to study phenomena for which quantitative methods
might have been ill suited.
Role of the Researcher
In qualitative designs, the “researcher is the
instrument” of data collection (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p.
66). The researcher interacts constantly with the
participants and therefore, it us incumbent upon the
researcher to build trust, maintain positive relations,
respect rules and decorum, and maintain ethical standards.
The interactive and personal nature of qualitative research
means that “the conduct of the study often depends
exclusively on the relationships the researcher builds with
the participants” (p. 65). In addition, the researcher
should “possess the skills of easily conversing with others,
being an active and thoughtful listener, and having
empathetic understanding . . . for the perspectives of
others” (p. 65).
Besides being the primary instrument of data
collection, the researcher is also the vehicle for data
analysis. This dual role therefore interjects ethical,
interpersonal, and technical issues not found in
quantitative designs (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). According
to Merriam (1988), researchers have opportunities to exclude
86data that contradicted the researcher’s views. However,
researchers should have considered all viewpoints equally,
regardless of position. Member checks and peer reviews can
be conducted to synchronize the analysis with the data
collected. Therefore, the researcher might approximate the
“lived experiences” of the participants (Yin, 1994, p. 9).
The researcher also had an ethical responsibility to
obtain informed consent form all participants. Locke,
Spirduso, and Silverman (2000), suggested several ethical
guidelines for obtaining informed consent: (1) participants
should be informed of the nature, purpose, and procedures of
the study (2) participants should be informed of all
safeguards taken to protect anonymity, (3) participants
should be given ample time to review and question any
aspects of the informed consent prior to signing, (4)
participants should be made aware of any potential benefit
or harm which may result from participation, (5)
participants may withdraw their consent to participate at
any time, (6) participants should be provided the contact
information of the researcher, and (7) participants should
be made aware of the results of the study. In addition, the
researcher should reveal his own professional status.
87
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of
the passage of the Pennsylvania standards for physical
education upon its planning, teaching, and assessment in the
public schools. This chapter presents the results and
discusses them. It is subdivided into four major sections:
___________________________________________________________Note: M = male, F = female, Elem. = elementary school (K-5), Middle = middle school (6-8), High = high school (9-12), Above = above average, Avg. = average, Below = below average, NR = no reply
126Table 16. (continued) Demographics of Interview
___________________________________________________________Note: M = male, F = female, Elem. = elementary school (K-5), Middle = middle school (6-8), High = high school (9-12), Above = above average, Avg. = average, Below = below average, NR = no reply
127selected was smaller. A total of 143 rural, 108 suburban,
and 38 urban teachers completed the online survey. Second,
eight urban teachers agreed to be contacted for a possible
follow-up interview. Third, only three urban teachers
scored high enough on the survey to be considered interview
candidates. Finally, two cooperated with the interview
scheduling process and were interviewed.
To enhance teacher confidentiality, all teachers were
assigned a number corresponding to the order in which they
were interviewed. When multiple teachers were interviewed
from one district, a letter was assigned as well. For
example, teachers 1a, 1b, and 1c were from the same school
district whereas teachers 2 and 3 were from different school
districts. In order to provide additional background
information and aid research transparency, the participants’
responses to all online survey items were included as
Appendix W. All interviews were transcribed and are
included as Appendix X. The interviews and open-ended
responses yielded a large volume of qualitative data that
were analyzed using the constant comparison method.
Therein, the following major themes were developed: (a)
because teachers’ perceptions of the standards affected how
they were implemented. Teachers who did not believe in the
standards, regardless of how competent they were with them,
were more likely to be ineffectual. In the online survey,
83% of teachers indicated they value the standards. The on-
site data collection confirmed this finding on multiple
levels. Primarily, the standards presented teachers with
goals and objectives that helped organize the curriculum.
For example, teacher #9a stated, “They’re like the ideal you
want to shoot for depending on where you are.”
Although a few teachers found some standards too
difficult to achieve due to perceived limitations, they
valued the guidance the standards provided. According to
teacher #9b, “It gives you guidance on how to go about
creating . . . physically active environments for our
students.” Teachers also believed that the standards helped
move physical education beyond past perceptions of merely
rolling out the ball. Teacher #8a stated “I think they’re
valuable, particularly in phys ed; [they prevent] us from
throwing out the ball.” Petersen, Cruz, and Amundson (2002)
also noted that the standards compelled more teachers to
131teach and provided an impetus for change. According to
teacher #8b, “They’re valuable as a guide
. . . to get everyone in the right direction.” Only one
teacher voiced the idea that the standards are an education
fad that will fail. Teacher #3 stated “[The standards] will
come around and then go away.”
Teachers perceived that the primary purpose of the
standards was to unify the curriculum across the state such
that schools were teaching similar content. According to
teacher #9b, “Without it [the standards], you’re kind of
freelancing.” Teacher #7b stated, “I think they provide
uniform and consistent instruction across the state.”
Teacher #8a stated, “I think [the purpose of the standards
is] to make everything consistent. So every student is
pretty much learning the same thing and decided, this, this,
and this, are important things to learn.”
Another perceived purpose of the standards was to
prevent the instructional time allocated physical education
from being further eroded. By creating uniform expectations
of student learning, physical education could enhance its
role and justification in the school curriculum. The
standards also helped guide curriculum development including
132lesson plans, unit plans, and curriculum plans. According
to teacher #7b:
[The standards form] the basis of what should be taught in an ideal program. . . . I’d hate to think what it would’ve been like without the standards, without some objective, ‘This is what we’re aiming for’. . . . It also lends credibility to what we’re doing; this is what we’re teaching, this is why we need time.
The standards also served the purpose of creating a
basis for assessment. By using the standards to design
curriculum, create lessons, implement the lessons, and
assess the same material, better alignment could be achieved
(Tannehill, 2001). Teacher #8a stated, “We can start in
kindergarten and go up to . . . the exit and say every
student should know this, this, and this; we won’t have so
much overlap.”
The standards also served the purpose of exposing
teachers or schools that are not adequately meeting the
standards. For example, if a middle school teacher
discovered that the majority of students did not comprehend
the FITT principle (frequency, intensity, time, and type),
this meant that elementary school physical educators were
not properly instructing or assessing the concept. In the
past, the FITT principle was not required to be addressed at
a specific level and therefore a lack of student knowledge
133was not considered a cause for concern. By having
standards, teachers knew when concepts should be taught and
who was generally responsible. As teacher #8a indicated,
“Are we really teaching students certain movements in
elementary because we continue to have to teach it?”
Teachers expressed a myriad of other positive and
negative opinions about the standards. First, the standards
helped focus students on the essential concepts in physical
education. For example, teacher #1a indicated that “By
having standards, by having rubrics and things, I think it
focuses them [students] better and . . . they know what the
critical elements of different skills are.” Second,
teachers could create standards-based assessments that gave
students goals and helped improve accountability. According
to teacher #1a, “Oh my assessments have totally [changed]; I
have rubrics for each one.” Third, the standards helped
physical educators feel more connected to other teachers
around the state and to part of the larger whole. These
perceptions were more prevalent among elementary physical
educators because they often lacked coordination with other
physical educators in a district. Teacher #9a stated:
When you’re out there in an elementary school, you’re out there by yourself . . . there’s no supervisor coming around, there’s no meetings of elementary schools, [no colleagues saying] I tried
134this, it went great. You know, you’re on your own; it [the standards] kind of makes you feel like you’re in line with what everybody’s doing.
Teachers also spoke positively regarding the breadth of
concepts that the standards addressed. According to teacher
#9a, “I liked the fact it was pretty inclusive of
. . . a range of things. It wasn’t just one thing.” Online
participant #139 indicated, “What is nice about the
Health/P.E. standards, is that the standards cover a wide
variety of topics.” The standards also served as a vehicle
to educate parents, administrators, and students about
physical education, that physical education is valuable,
that it has objectives, and that real learning takes place.
As online participant #44 indicated, “At the elementary
level I don't think my students care about standards. . . .
When I do discuss what they are learning outside of the
skills for the lesson they [students] are surprised that
P.E. is considered a class where learning occurs,”
Teachers also spoke positively that the standards
helped teachers quantify student learning through
assessment. By demonstrating student learning, physical
educators decreased the likelihood instructional time
allocations would be reduced or eliminated. As teacher #7a
fears, there’s always fears phys ed is going to go away.”
Since the standards delineated what content students
should be mastering, the question could be asked whether
physical education is allocated enough time to accomplish
the standards. In 2006, Pennsylvania required school
districts to provide physical education yearly during grades
K-5 and once during middle school and high school. The
state did not specify the amount of class time in minutes.
According to online participant #44, “I like the idea of
standards because it shows other people that there is a need
for health and physical education. There is not enough time
to teach everything.” The standards also served to
determine if teachers were using instructional time wisely.
According to teacher #4a, “They are helpful in giving
yourself a self-check. Are you doing something valuable or
is this just playtime?”
Of course, there were certain aspects of the standards
teachers would like improved. In particular, teachers
consistently identified an over-reliance on cognitive
information and questioned the presence of the science-based
standards. For example, teacher #7a stated, “Some of the
standards are difficult to reach or not particularly related
136to physical education . . . like the physics kind of makes
it a bit different.” Teacher #7b stated:
I think the state standards are a little light on physical development; I think heavy on cognitive. . . . I like the standards but I think some of the cognitive standards are hard to implement and I think, even in a perfect world, the biomechanical ones, biomechanical analysis, and Newton’s Laws are going to be tough. . . . I think people see that standard and they get stuck on “We can’t do this because of this.” They think it’s too hard and they throw the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, there’s individual responsibility there, but I wish those standards weren’t there.
Teachers wanted more emphasis on physical activity, motor
skills, and movement patterns such as those included in
NASPE standard one (Collier & Oslin, 2001).
Another major criticism was that the standards are too
vague. Although teachers appreciated the breadth of what
the standards encompass, they wanted more specific direction
on what to teach. According to teacher #8b, “I dislike the
vagueness. . . . I think I can truly get any equipment out
of the room over there and say I’m meeting a standard . . .
there’s a lot of room under each standard.” Online
participant #37 stated, “I feel the standards are too broad
and not very helpful. More work needs to be done to have
the standards . . . be more specific.” Online participant
#30 stated, “Many of the standards are wide and can be
137twisted to cover whatever curriculum you are utilizing.”
Finally, teacher #8a indicated, “Those two [standards],
shared responsibility and open communication, what is that,
goal setting? . . . Those two are a little too vague.”
Conversely, some physical educators viewed the
broadness of the standards as a strength. However, there
were considerably fewer comments supporting this sentiment.
According to teacher #8b, “There’s a lot of room under each
standard. Well this is the way I’m doing this standard.
Meanwhile, some other teachers interpret them a different
way. At the same time, that may be strength, flexibility.”
Broad standards allowed teachers flexibility in how to
create the curriculum and it is this flexibility that mutes
criticism regarding the perceived imposition of a national
feedback due to the benchmark grades being distributed every
three years (grades 3, 6, 9, and 12). Some teachers
believed they had to extrapolate too much of the content and
preferred the benchmark grades be distributed every two
years (grades 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12). As teacher #7b
stated, “I wish the standards were more specific by grade
level. I think it’s good they’re not; I see why it’s
138written that way. I wish they had something between 3 and 6
and between 6 and 9.”
A small percentage of teachers believed the standards
were too specific and limited teacher flexibility.
According to online participant #78:
The problem is that they [the standards] get more specific, more specific, more specific that the state might as well tell you what game/activity to play. . . . Are they important, yes! Should they be this detailed, I feel no . . . for people who have been around sport, are athletes/former athletes, and coaches, the standards take away their ability to be creative.
Although the standards provided structure and may reduce
flexibility, previous research demonstrated that curricular
problems stem more from teachers abusing flexibility to
create poor programs than chafing under too much guidance
(Rink et al., 2002).
Standards Competence
The second major theme addressed teachers’ standards-
based competence and how teachers accumulated that
knowledge. By examining how teachers learned to use the
standards, effective strategies could be enhanced and
obstacles remediated for the instruction of other teachers.
Teacher knowledge of the standards was consistent; they
knew the major standard numbers (10.4 and 10.5) and/or
headings but not the specific standard statements (physical
139activity and concepts, principles, and strategies of
movement) and bullet points. As teacher #7a indicated, “I’m
pretty familiar with them, not familiar enough to
quote . . . but the big picture.” Teacher #3 stated “I’m
familiar. . . . I don’t have every single one memorized; I
couldn’t just sit here and rattle them off to you. I keep
my standards book handy here.” These teachers reflected the
83% of teachers who stated on the online survey that they
were familiar with the standards. Many teachers defined
being familiar as understanding the major standards and not
the standard statements or bullets.
To complicate matters, some teachers perceived they
must teach to multiple sets of standards: state and school
district. However, the intent of the state standards was
for school districts to operationalize them into their own
standards (R. Swalm, personal communication, October 20,
2006). State and school district standards should naturally
complement one another because the latter is a derivative of
the former. Therefore, it was not necessary that teachers
address both sets of standards in their lesson plans.
However, some teachers misunderstood this relationship. For
example, teacher #9a stated, “Basically, if you’re hitting
the majors [standards], you’re going to cover something on
140the subs. If, you know, you made sure you complete your
obligation to cover the main headings, those subtitles or
the sub-standards are going to be enacted and addressed.”
Of the nine school districts selected for on-site data
collection, two (22%) focused their curricula on the school
district standards.
Teachers generally developed standards-related
competence through four methods, two of which were closely
tied to their number of years teaching. First, practicing
teachers who graduated before the introduction of the
standards generally became knowledgeable through their own
motivation and diligence. As teacher #2 stated, “A lot of
sit down with a standard, break it down” (Teacher #2).
Typically, this meant researching the standards online
through the Pennsylvania Department of Education website.
Teacher #3 educated herself about the standards,
Basically through just word of mouth, talking to different teachers and using these handbooks [PDE materials], becoming familiar on my own, teaching myself how to implement them. I never had any type of formal class or any type of instruction on them. I basically taught myself I guess you could say.
Some teachers were highly internally motivated to
independently improve their standards competence. For
teacher #2 stated, “A lot of research by myself, a lot of
141experimenting with new ideas that come across and really
just doing a lot of independent research.”
Teachers who graduated after the introduction of the
standards learned about them in the course of their teacher
preparation programs. However, unlike more experienced
teachers, they generally have not continued to improve their
standards competence. Instead, they rely almost exclusively
on their collegiate training. As teacher #7b stated, “Since
I wrote my lesson plans my first year teaching, I haven’t
gone back to look at them for a . . . year and a half.” The
third major source of standards-related knowledge included
school district curriculum initiatives. The administration,
typically the principal of a school or the superintendent,
required departments and programs to update their curriculum
in accordance with the state standards. This reality
reflected an increased emphasis on the standards, greater
accountability, and increased evaluation of program efficacy
(Fay & Doolittle, 2002). For example, teacher #5a stated,
“I probably learned about them [the standards] through in-
service when our administration came down . . . and said,
‘We’re going to have to quote start teaching to the
standards.” In some cases, administrators merely asked
teachers to begin listing the standards on their lesson
142plans. In general, the administration can be seen as a
major driving force for improving teacher knowledge of the
. . . forcing us to read and do more things with the
standards on in-service days, like apply scope and sequence
and the standards to our curriculum, how we’re going to
. . . meet certain standards.” In school district eight,
the superintendent gave all physical educators a copy of the
book Standards-based Physical Education Curriculum by Lund
and Tannehill (2005).
This emphasis on the standards from administration was
not confined solely to physical education; instead it was a
comprehensive reform initiative involving all subjects.
Therefore, administrators were not specifically targeting
physical educators. As teacher #4b stated, “So we took to
these standards pretty much because we were told.” However
regardless of the intent, the effect was that physical
educators incorporated the standards more than in the past.
Other teachers educated themselves about the standards
due to formal administrative observations where teachers
were required to address the standards. Some administrators
required teachers to post the standards, which for physical
143educators was generally in the locker room and occasionally
in the gymnasium. In some instances, physical education
departments updated the curriculum through their own
initiative. This approach helped accentuate the worth of
physical education to administrators (Rink, 1999).
According to teacher #8b, “Right now, we’re revising our
district’s curriculum . . . so we’ve been spending
time . . . just to get the details of what’s in there.”
Another teacher wrote a grant where the proposal relied
heavily on the standards. Some other methods where teachers
educated themselves about the standards included
collaborating with physical education colleagues, reading
physical education journals, and being granted release time
to visit other schools.
Professional development represented the fourth major
tool teachers used to increase their knowledge of the
standards. The quality, quantity, and relevance of
professional development experiences varied widely. One
common theme among all interview candidates was the lack of
professional development experiences designed specifically
for physical education. By contrast, districts often
offered professional development specifically for core
subjects such as mathematics and reading which were assessed
144on the PSSA exams. One district had an entire summer
institute devoted to teachers of mathematics and reading as
well as professional development during the school year.
Often, physical educators were forced to attend professional
development seminars unrelated to physical education that
instead focused on preparing students for PSSA content. In
some cases, the administration required all subjects to
incorporate reading and mathematics. According to teacher
#1b:
We have to attend workshops on reading. We have to attend workshops on math. And you know, because the PSSA’s, we’re required to incorporate those things into our course. . . . But at least we have that ammunition. You know, to go back and say, “I just sat through an entire day of writing, and it really didn’t have anything to do with phys ed.” That’s one fight [the district PE coordinator] has fought really well for us. Writing has to fall naturally in phys ed. I can’t really force it in there.
Embedding reading and mathematics into all other subjects
was required by the state. The embedded content, known as
assessment anchors, was not consistently applied by school
districts. Some administrators were more stringent in the
implementation of this policy than others. Some examples of
cross-curricular approaches included physical education
teachers having students do calculations during personal
fitness activities, writing a journal about a concept or
145classroom activity, or making the essay portion of tests
look like PSSA exams.
Teachers who wanted physical education professional
development related to the standards often attended
conferences such as PSAHPERD, EDA/AAHPERD (Eastern District
Association), or the Governor’s Institute. However, some
participants found that the standards-focused educational
resources were inadequate. According to teacher #8b, “I
attended a couple conferences, but they haven’t been about
the standards. They were more about activities, skills, the
hands-on things for kids” (Teacher #8b). While conferences
may have some standards related workshops, only a small
percentage are strictly focused on the standards, thus
giving the impression not much is being done (R. Swalm,
personal communication, October 20, 2006).
Most districts did pay for professional development
conferences. However, physical educators were generally not
reimbursed for travel expenses and lodging and teachers must
expend personal or professional leave time. This
arrangement made conference attendance somewhat prohibitive.
Typically the best professional development opportunities
for physical educators occurred among themselves. For
example, in district one, the first hour of every second
146Monday was reserved for teachers to collaborate within their
departments. In district five, physical educators were
excused halfway through the whole-school professional
development sessions to meet. In district three, physical
educators met after school on their own time. Finally,
teacher #9b met independently with colleagues from his
undergraduate training who taught in other districts. In
general, school districts did not offer sufficient
professional development opportunities for physical
educators. Teacher #2 stated, “It bothers me that I can, if
I’m left alone by myself, I can get more done professionally
than I can through sitting in [on a professional development
session].” School districts must strive to offer workshops
on par with those afforded to other subjects and teachers
must demand they do so. According to teacher #3, “Not a lot
of professional development pertains to PE, pretty much none
of it. We’re not part of the PSSA’s so we’re not as
important.”
Curriculum Development
There were many factors that shaped curriculum
development in school districts, two of which have already
been addressed: background information and standards
competence. One major factor that was often overlooked was
147the overall philosophy of a department, if one existed. Two
major philosophical factions emerged: physical exercise and
lifetime activity. The first emphasized the importance of
being physically active during as much class time as
possible. The objective was to improve student fitness
levels and meet the Surgeon General’s recommendation for 30
minutes of physical activity most days of the week (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 1996). As teacher
#4a stated, “[The] number one, most important thing, our
goal as a PE department, is to keep the kids physically
active through a variety of different avenues . . . [because
physical education] might be the only activity they get all
day.” The second major philosophical position entailed
promoting lifetime activity, a position espoused by various
researchers such as Darst (2001). Teachers believed the
time allocated to physical education was insufficient to
drastically improve fitness levels and, therefore, class
time would be better-spent encouraging students to be
physically active outside of school, particularly as adults.
Teachers fostered this objective by offering a variety of
activities. For example, teacher #9b stated, “I want them
to know there’s things they can do, activities that can keep
them healthy their whole life.” Interestingly, no teachers
148mentioned offering students a choice of activity as a way to
promote lifetime activity as suggested by Pagnano and
activities such as tae bo and yoga to introduce students to
wider ranges of activities. Teacher #8a offered a whole
semester weight room experience complete with heart rate
monitors, computer analysis, and an extensive assortment of
fitness equipment. A special hybrid class was also offered
for obese students, incorporating health knowledge and the
recommendations of the CDCP (1997) for improving fitness.
Teachers were sometimes at odds over these conflicting
philosophies and found it difficult compromising to form one
coherent philosophy. These conflicts reduced the ability of
departments to function effectively and adapt to change. An
important tool to mediate change and intra-departmental
dynamics was the district supervisor of physical education.
Responsibilities for district supervisors typically included
organizing meetings, organizing professional development,
shaping the curriculum, and observing physical education
teachers. In not one of the nine school districts selected
for on-site data collection was there a district supervisor.
Two districts had supervisors in the past but the positions
were eliminated. This was unfortunate because, as online
149participant #282 attested, the role of district supervisors
to improve the curriculum can be dramatic:
The members of our department are required to submit monthly standards-based lesson plans and assessments to the department supervisor; the department supervisor provides written feedback on every lesson and assessment submitted. The staff uses a standards-based [based] lesson planning process when planning lessons and has designed numerous assessments that directly measure the content of the state standards. Teachers are observed through clinical supervision and the standards-based lesson plan is the basis for the observation.
In districts without a physical education district
supervisor, three alternative coordination methods were
devised. First, no coordination; teachers acted
autonomously forming loose collaborations with other
teachers, typically in the same school. For example, one
physical educator in one school, had never met the other two
physical educators in a different school, despite having
taught for three years in the same school district. Second,
physical educators who chaired their middle or high school
physical education programs also functioned as the district
supervisors although they lacked any real authority to enact
change or supervise other teachers. The final method
involved administrators who coordinated for the department
but were typically not trained in physical education.
150The first method, where no coordination existed, was
the case for 4 of the 16 teachers interviewed. One of the
most important functions of physical education programs was
to develop coordinated, comprehensive, and aligned
standards-based curricula. Curriculum could be likened to
roadmaps guiding teachers to what students should know and
be able to do. Without these plans, teachers were more
likely to freelance, not incorporate the standards, and not
coordinate with other physical education teachers. As Rink
and colleagues noted in 2002, “For some professionals, this
lack of accountability has meant the freedom to create
wonderful programs. For too many, a lack of accountability
has resulted in poor programs” (p. 33). Incorporating the
standards is essential to developing an effective program
(COPEC, 2000).
The efficacy of the second method, where a department
chairperson acted as the physical education supervisor,
varied widely. Some of the supervisors functioned well
while others were ineffectual and powerless. For example,
in district one there was not a formal physical education
district supervisor but the middle school chairperson
functioned as one. Previous research demonstrated that
151schools with “lead teachers” adapt more readily than those
without (Wirszyla, 1998). Teacher #1b stated:
[Department chairperson’s name][is] very passionate about this [professional/programmatic development] obviously. So, when we get together on curriculum days, [the chairperson will] have goals for us. [The chairperson will] hand us a folder which he/she put together and [then] go over to elementary [school and do the same]. [The chairperson is] very organized . . . [and will] say, “I understand guys you don’t want to do this but we have to do this. This is our policy and if we want to keep PE in our district, you need to do this.” So, [the chairperson is] tough on us but we love him/her to death because he/she works so hard and he/she really fights for us so everybody’s willing to pay back with efforts during our meeting. District one represented the best example of a
department chairperson functioning as a district supervisor
who plans, motivates, and reconciles differences among
teachers. Teachers in district one rewrote the curriculum
several times. According to teacher #1b, “[The middle
school PE chairperson] does a great job of leading us and
rewriting our curriculum-over and over again. I feel like
we’ve been rewriting it forever; every non-instructional day
we do.” As a result, school district one developed a
standards-based curriculum aligned from elementary school
through high school. This process demonstrated how
curriculum writing has become increasingly reflective,
professional, and time consuming. By spending additional
152time planning the curriculum, teachers will likely achieve
better instruction and results (Petersen et al., 2002). The
coordination that existed in district one was similar to the
structure of district seven. According to teacher #7a, a
school-level chairperson functioned as the district’s
physical education supervisor but with different results:
We meet every month . . . but as far as the K-12 [coordination], there’s really a high school advisor, he/she would be the department chair. I wouldn’t say there is [one]. That’s a difficult thing; every single building has a little bit different kind of a program. There are certain things he/she might want to see up there . . . [Our chairperson is] in charge of the high school, we have over 50 years of teaching experience, it makes it a little bit difficult to teach an old dog new tricks.
The teachers who acted as de facto district supervisors
for district one and seven expended an exceptional amount of
energy and time improving their physical education programs.
Teacher #1a stated, “[The department chairperson] does a lot
of work but has no real authority. For example, if a person
skips a department meeting, there’s no oversight in that
way.” The teacher in district one enacted change through
sheer will and power of persuasion. Likewise, the teacher
in district seven used these same tools but with less
success. The circumstances in district seven underscored
the point that teachers who do not wish to change, do not
153have to. Since formal physical education supervisors were
eliminated, the only personnel in school districts who had
the power to require change were administrators. That was
the reason why administration was a major driving force for
integrating the standards into physical education. Many
teachers change due to internal motivation, but what of
those teachers who are unwilling to change or are externally
motivated? If the administration does not require change,
then often teachers will not. According to teacher #3, “I’d
better learn how to do it [incorporate the standards] if
it’s mandatory.”
Without physical education department supervisors,
coordination among teachers and compliance with accepted
standards of practice became difficult. The result,
therefore, was a rudderless discipline; concerned physical
educators did not have the power to enforce change in their
own ranks and administrators were often unwilling or lacked
the know-how. For example, the high school physical
education chairperson in district seven complained about
teachers who skipped departmental meetings and refused to
change their instructional practices but, realistically,
there were few, if any, remedies.
154In district five, the high school physical education
chairperson also functioned as the district’s department
supervisor, a role assigned to the assistant superintendent
who did not function in that capacity. Meetings of the
physical education department typically consisted of current
issues, directives from the administration, and reports from
conferences. Recently, the teachers had begun mapping out
the curriculum in accordance with the standards. In
district three, a high school physical educator functioned
as the district supervisor. However, during departmental
meetings, the standards were not discussed and this person
lacked any authority. Again, a high school teacher
functioned as the de facto district supervisor in district
number eight. This person coordinated with physical
educators in the high school and middle school but the
elementary teachers function independently. According to
teacher #8b, an elementary school physical educator, “We
don’t get to collaborate or see where we’re going” (Teacher
#8b).
In smaller districts, coordination between teachers was
easier. According to teacher #4b:
It’s just the three of us [in one district]. Our assistant principal is supposed to be our supervisor [but is not]. I believe he used to be
155a phys ed teacher years ago. . . . We don’t have a director or chair of physical education.
Two physical educators taught in a combined junior and
senior high school while the third taught in the elementary
school. Periodically, the three teachers met independently
of the assistant principal.
Teachers exhibited contradicting views regarding
department chairpersons who functioned as district
supervisors. Teacher responses to the quantitative online
survey indicated that supervisors hampered standards
implementation although the practical significance was below
10%. Teacher responses in interviews and observations
indicated that some department supervisors enhanced
standards implementation. These contradictions seemed to
suggest that in some districts, supervisors were ineffectual
and hampered program quality while in others, supervisors
were powerful tools for improvement.
As discussed earlier, there were many factors affecting
curricular development such as perceived value of the
standards, perceived purpose of the standards, standards
related likes and dislikes, teacher knowledge of the
standards, administrative influence, departmental
philosophy, and teacher coordination. When teachers came
together for curriculum development, they used essentially
156two approaches or a hybrid of the two: curriculum mapping
based upon activities and designing down based upon the
standards. Of the 16 teachers interviewed, 7 used the
curriculum mapping approach, six used the design down
approach, and three had no curricular approach.
The curriculum mapping approach began with activity
units such as tennis. Teachers planned lessons and
assessments based upon the activity and linked them with the
standards after the fact. As teacher #7a stated, “The first
thing you think about is the unit you’re in and then . . .
the lessons . . . [and] then you . . . plug the standards
into that” (Teacher #7a). Some districts had detailed
curriculum maps. For example, in district four, the first
column of the curriculum map identified a category of
activities such as invasion games or individual sports. The
second column identified the activity such as tennis. The
third identified skills such as the forehand, backhand, and
serve. The fourth identified the standard such as 10.4.9A
and the fifth identified assessment techniques. Typically
in the curriculum mapping approach, the standards were
inserted later, and this way minimal disruption occurred in
the existing curriculum and instruction.
157The second major approach was called designing down
where the standards form the basis for curricular and
program design (Silverman & Ennis, 2003). The design down
approach began with teachers taking the standards and
breaking them down into essential questions. These
questions included: how will you accomplish the standard
statement, when will you cover the standard statement, how
will you assess the standard statement, and how will you
align your curriculum from one grade to the next? After
these questions were answered for each standard, standard
statement, and bullet, a rough draft of the curriculum was
formulated. Checks were made to ensure that all of the
standards were addressed. Teacher #1c described the process
of designing down the curriculum:
158I take a standard statement, pull out essential content. For example, I identify game strategies; pull out what exactly the content is. Then identify and apply and use those words in the assessments . . . some teachers in my district don’t feel they need to change, the standards already fit what they’re doing. Others try and make the standards fit what they already do. . . . [To] hold all kids accountable, start with the standards and go from there. [The standards] are wonderful and the way we should go. It takes a lot of time and re-thinking; whole new ways of thinking, centered around concepts and not skills. That makes it difficult for a lot of people. For example, F strand, game strategies strand [standard statement]. When making up a lesson, use one descriptor [bullet], say the one-on-one descriptor. Research what one-on-one means, really think about what you’re holding kids accountable for knowing. Use concepts like defense, offense, fake/dodge, stay with man, watch center of body, et cetera. Pull in individual characteristics such as faster, less physically fit, advantage or weakness. . . . Then the assessment will be exactly what one-on-one is. Teachers must go and pull what the content really means.
The design down process was not easy and took a great deal
of time and energy. This commitment was a potential
drawback that may explain some of the resistance teacher #1c
encountered.
Teacher #8b used a similar design down approach with
some slight variations:
Well, I start with the standards. That’s what’s there, that’s what in stone. It’s something we can’t change so you got to use that as the starting point and work off of it . . . basically, right now we’re going through and breaking them down and writing the questions that you write out
159for each one on how will you do this, when will you do this. So we break it down that way so we can go back that way and figure out where our content will be going in. It goes from the standards, to the questions, to a rough draft of, I guess what we currently do now . . . like a course overview of everything we do now. And then we’ll take that a step further to match, to see if we do meet all of the standards and so forth.
The design down approach addressed the standards more
thoroughly than curriculum mapping because the curriculum
was built from the beginning on the standards. Despite
this, more teachers used the mapping approach. This can be
attributed to several factors. First, the curriculum
mapping approach required less effort and coordination
between teachers since the existing curriculum was mostly
retained. Second, the progress of curriculum design in the
design down approach was more confusing. As teacher #8a
stated:
The hard thing we’re having difficulty with is getting started with how you break these standards down. . . . Our first couple meetings, I remember our people saying; “You have to take these things under 10-4 and break them down.” People feel like we’re doing activities that are redundant. You’re turning around the statements and then making them questions. And then you’re trying to answer this question. People were asking, “Where are we going?” It’s just the tediousness of getting from the standards that are the state standards to what they’re going to look like and expect them to know.
160Third, planning must more thoroughly address what students
will be learning in the benchmark grades (3, 6, 9, & 12) and
all the grades in between. According to teacher #8a, “One
aspect of the design down approach teachers find difficult
is determining what content to teach at a particular grade.”
Lastly, the design down approach required that both novice
and veteran teachers adapt their teaching styles. Veteran
teachers may have been more resistant to change, especially
if they had been teaching for a considerable number of years
or were near retirement. Teacher #2 stated, “Younger
teachers I felt were more willing to look at what was up and
coming.”
In district seven, there was a combination of the
curriculum mapping and the design down approaches. This
hybrid curricular structure may have been more common in
school districts which lacked a strong mechanism for
coordinating physical education teachers. According to
teacher #7b:
I think the idea was we start with the standard and then design down. . . . I worked on the middle school [curriculum]. . . . We met for a couple days and then it just petered out. So we ended up with a curriculum, where . . . we wrote it towards the standards at some grade levels but at other levels they kind of did not. . . . There was a grade level that just wanted to take what they had and see how it related to the standards but didn’t actually change, their curriculum probably hasn’t
161changed at all. . . . I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to figure out ways that your activities line up with the standards, but it was more that inflexibility of that. I think there was some real stretches.
The final and least common curricular approach was where no
discernable curriculum existed. As teacher #6 indicated,
“We basically do what we want and then see what standards
we’re covering” (Teacher #6). Teachers continued to focus
on their favorite activities while only superficially
linking the standards (Rink et al., 2002).
Following the establishment of a curriculum, teachers
created lesson plans, sometimes in accordance with the
espoused curriculum and other times not. Two primary
methods of lesson planning emerged. In the first, teachers
used the standards to design the entirety of the lesson: the
set induction, warm-up, lesson focus/activity, assessment
(if any), and closure. For example, online participant #51
stated, “Every lesson that I plan directly deals with
meeting the state standards.”
In the second case, teachers created lessons to suit
the unit activity and inserted related standards. According
to online participant #95, “Many of the standards are
already incorporated into what I am teaching. . . . I do not
look at all the standards when I am planning a lesson.”
162Online participant #241 stated, “I feel as though any lesson
I create or find is automatically according to some
standard.” Most school districts required physical
educators to list the standards that were being covered on
lesson plans. Of the 16 teachers who were interviewed, 13
were required to specifically list the standards on their
lesson plans. Some teachers listed the entire standard or
standard statement while others listed only the number.
Even though most teachers were required to list
standards on lesson plans, none were required to link them
with the content. As discussed earlier, only 1 of 16
teachers interviewed linked the objectives to the standards.
In many cases, teachers designed a lesson and then listed
any standards they believe were related. In several cases,
teachers used the same standards on every lesson plan for a
week. Teacher #3 for example used the same standards for 10
different lesson plans. In such instances, the connection
between the objectives, the standards, and the content
appeared mostly superficial and was meant to satisfy
administrators.
Another area that needed improvement was balancing
coverage of the standards. Too often, teachers covered the
163same standards repeatedly while neglecting other equally
important standards. As teacher #5a stated:
Boy, that’s a real gray area [balancing coverage of the standards]. . . . That’s probably one area where I need to get more specific with the standards and zero in on . . . A through F because we are kind of hitting the broad standard [10.4, 10.5] and not necessarily zeroing in on the letters or the bullets. (Teacher #5a)
Only 2 of the 16 teachers interviewed made attempts to
balance coverage of the standards. After completing the
design down process, teacher #4a examined whether all the
standards were met and, if not, made modifications. Teacher
#8b informally checked off standards throughout the year to
assess coverage. However, these approaches were the
exception and not the rule. The result therefore was
inconsistent coverage of the standards where some were
addressed nearly every lesson while others were seldom
addressed, if ever. Certain aspects of the standards,
particularly physical activity, were frequently addressed.
According to teacher #4b, “I remember typing in the same
standard over and over again and then looking for ways to
hit this standard.” Teacher #5b stated, “Some of them you
hit a lot. The heart rate ones, why do you need vigorous
exercise every day, the one that says practice makes you
better . . . safety and prevention you hit on every class
164. . . physical activity.” Other standards were often
neglected due to teacher discomfort with addressing them.
For example, according to teacher #6, “There’s just some
things, like a lot of scientific principles. . . . I think
it’s college level stuff. . . . It’s a little bit too much
sometimes for what you need.”
Since most teachers were not balancing coverage of the
standards, accommodations or rationalizations were made.
For example, some teachers stretched or exaggerated the
relationship between the planned activities and the
standards in order to address more of them. Other teachers
mistakenly believed that by offering a broad curriculum, all
of the standards would be addressed. According to teacher
#6, “We kind of naturally do [balance coverage of the
standards]. We don’t necessarily try to but we do want to
offer the kids as much variety as possible and it just seems
when we do that, that’s when we cover the most.” According
to teacher #9b, “If . . . you made sure you complete your
obligation to cover the main headings, those subtitles or
the sub-standards, are going to be enacted and addressed.”
Standards Implementation
The entire process of lesson planning and curriculum
development ultimately manifested itself where it mattered
165most, the classroom. One major question teachers confronted
was whether the espoused curriculum matched the actual
instruction. In some instances, teachers had a physical
education curriculum that sat on the shelf and was not
utilized. As teacher #8a stated, “[The superintendent]
feels that we need to follow the curriculum. It can’t be
something we’re going to put on the shelf and don’t look
at.”
For some teachers, there was a breakdown between
planning and instruction. For example, teachers frequently
cited standards on lesson plans that were not addressed in
instruction. Generally, there were two reasons. First,
teachers included standards on the lesson plans to satisfy
administrators but those standards had no relation to the
instruction. The second and more prevalent problem was that
teachers believed certain standards were addressed by virtue
of activities. For example, the researcher observed a class
where students participated in an activity similar to
ultimate frisbee. In the activity, various objects such as
a football, basketball, or rubber chicken were moved towards
a goal. Students divided the original two teams into three
sub-teams that were rotated on and off the field. Teacher
166#7a described which standards were addressed by the
activity:
We do a pre and post heart rate, we’re teaching to the standards as far as that goes, as far as the actual game goes . . . , the moderate physical activity, it’s probably a high intensity game. You’re going for a minute hard, then they get a minute off, then they’re back on. We’re touching the physical activity standard; the effects of that activity on the heart rate through the post heart rate demonstrates that. As far as the skill related fitness, it touches upon agility, coordination, balance, reaction time. The fact we use different objects, it’s a transfer of skills in mid-game, which is really important for them to understand. How different weights and sizes affect different trajectories, throw distances, ability to catch, and flights and all that. That’s why I think it’s a really good game that ties into a lot of the standards. As far as the cognitive, we like the separation of teams within a team. It takes cognitive thought to strategize. To come up with three teams within their team that match up well against the other teams with the goal of scoring the most points. Teamwork, social interaction, even when they’re on the side, you could see how they were into it. So, they’re all on different teams but they’re all one team. The teamwork, the social interaction, we wanted to create an environment of the enjoyment of physical activity. And that’s one of our foremost goals is to do that.
According to the description of the activity, many standards
were addressed in class. However, what did students
actually take away? Yes, they were physically active; yes,
they picked teams; yes, they demonstrated agility and speed.
However, what standards-related information did students
learn from the lesson and what standards were actually
167taught? Does a teacher merely have to organize activities
and link standards to the activity? For example, teacher
#7a emphasized moving to an open area as part of game
strategy (Standard 10.5.6F) and incorporated a pre and post
heart rate analysis (Standard 10.4.6C). However, no
additional standards were directly addressed during a lesson
in which, essentially, students ran the track for a warm-up,
picked teams, and played a game. What about the other
standards the teacher purportedly addressed? Have students
improved their teamwork and social interaction merely by
picking teams and will these standards be subsequently
assessed?
This concept was common among teachers: that standards
are “covered” even though they are not addressed in class.
Teacher #5b explicitly stated, “I don’t know specific ones
I’m touching on because I don’t concentrate on that.” Like
teacher #7a, teacher #6 stretched the link between the
lesson and what standards were addressed during a field
hockey lesson:
[During field hockey] we had the group interaction. As far as factors that affect activity preference, they do get to pick their positions so that’s a little bit different. . . . Motor skill development, when I’m showing them how to hit the ball off the grass. I know when
168they’re doing it wrong so I think that helps them to fix what they’re doing. The effect of practice . . . this probably won’t have too much. . . . Game strategies, I usually yell out as we’re going over, use the sidelines, spread out, play your positions. Like, the scientific principles are really the hard ones. There’s just not enough time in class to go over all of them. . . . We probably use them without knowing or incorporating a lot.
The lesson consisted of jogging, teacher led stretching, a
demonstration, and a field hockey game in which the teacher
intermittently participated and implored students to spread
out. Not all of the standards espoused by the teacher were
actually taught during the lesson.
Teachers were also unclear regarding what portion of
the standards they were responsible for teaching. Does
addressing the standards themselves, (10.4 – Physical
Activity, 10.5 – Concepts, Principles, and Strategies of
Movement) mean that a teacher is teaching to the standards?
Does addressing the standards themselves and the standard
statements mean a teacher is teaching to the standards?
Does addressing the standards themselves, the standard
statements, and the bullets mean a teacher is teaching to
the standards? What about if a teacher covers two of the
four bullets under a standard statement; does that
constitute covering that standard statement? Teachers
appeared to be unclear about these questions.
169Of course, there were teachers who properly addressed
the standards by linking the standards with the lesson
objectives and the actual instruction. For example, teacher
#7b addressed the standards related to offensive and
defensive strategies on her lesson plan and during actual
instruction, via a game of capture the flag. Before the
activity, students were briefed about offensive and
defensive strategies and after each mini-game, students
huddle and finer points were discussed. During closure at
the end of class, the concepts taught were reviewed and the
teacher checked for understanding. Teacher #7b only
addressed the standards specified on the lesson plan and did
not include additional standards.
During the course of teacher observations, the
researcher expected to hear teachers discussing what
standards were being addressed with students. However, the
word “standard” was only used twice during the course of
observing 16 teachers for multiple class periods. This
omission reflected the notion among teachers that the
standards were strictly a curriculum development tool. In
other school subjects such as biology or reading, the
standards are infrequently cited because the content is more
obvious. In physical education however, students may
170perceive they are playing a tag game and not engaging in
physical activities that promote fitness and health,
standard 10.4.3A. Therefore, by citing the standards,
teachers instill the concept that physical education is
about learning, not merely playing games.
Despite the importance of reference the standards, this
occurred infrequently. According to teacher #7b, “I’ve
never talked about the standards to my students.” According
to teacher #7a, “It’s our job as educators to know the
standards and understand these standards without maybe
knowing they understand these standards.” Teachers’ failure
to make students aware of the standards reinforced the idea
that physical education was about activity and not student
learning. Teacher #3 posted the standards in the locker
room but generally teachers did not expose students to the
standards. Teacher #5a commented that students looked
perplexed when he mentioned the physical education standards
the first time and, therefore, has not mentioned them since.
When asked to what degree teachers believe their
students are meeting the standards, most teachers responded
positively. Percentages of students who meet the standards
include 100%, 80-90%, 80%, 75%, and 75-85%. Other
quotations included teacher #1a, “I think most have pretty
171much achieved them;” teacher #7a, “I would say pretty well.
I wouldn’t say everything;” teacher #5a, “I think our
students are meeting the standards just because in many of
our units . . . we do hit the standards;” and teacher #4a,
“Students know the standards pretty well.”
However, when teachers were asked how they know their
students are achieving the standards, their responses became
less certain. In most cases, teachers began referencing how
they graded students and not how they measured achievement
of the standards. Generally, teachers exhibited one of
three approaches when assessing student mastery of the
standards or a combination thereof. The first method did
not address the standards at all. No linkage existed
between instruction and assessment. This was the most
common form of assessment. In the second method, teachers
measured achievement through rubrics and assessments that
are loosely linked to the standards. Teachers used rubrics
to assess various objectives such as skill, behavior,
safety, and teamwork. The final and most infrequent method
In the first level of standards verification, teachers
did not measure achievement of the standards and typically
172assumed student mastery of the content. One teacher was
surprised by the concept of measuring achievement of the
standards instead of assigning grades. Teacher #2 stated,
“I’ll be honest with you, I never thought about it.” Still
another teacher, #3, stated:
I actually never sat down and thought about it. Um, how standards would apply to how I’m grading in phys ed. I’ve honestly never sat down and thought about it. . . . Attendance, I would say no. Participation would but there’s not a standard that has to do with effort or attitude.
This approach demonstrated the misconception that the
standards were merely for planning purposes, not assessment.
For example, online participant #151 indicated, “I use the
standards solely to fill out lesson plans.” Instead of
measuring achievement of the standards, some teachers simply
assumed student mastery. For example, teacher #7a stated,
“If you were to sit down with them in their own verbiage,
they could look back and say, ‘Yeah, yeah, we know a lot of
this.’” According to online participant #246, “I use the
standards to plan lessons. My assessments come from my
lessons, so in turn my assessments are somewhat standards
based.” In other cases, teachers had an impression of
student performance levels and used this to guide future
instruction instead of concrete assessment data. According
to teacher #7b:
173My best guess is, collectively, they are fairly strong on the movement standards . . . even the more advanced throwing, catching, fielding, I would say they’re proficient at those skills. I would say in terms of the fitness and the knowledge, do they know how much activity they should get a day, it’s a toss-up. Based upon what I’ve seen, I would guess maybe half of them would have an idea. They understand the relationship between exercise and fitness but could they explain the FITT principle, probably not. How often should you work out, probably not.
Teachers needed to assess student knowledge, particularly on
important concepts such as the FITT principle (Kulinna &
Krause, 2001).
The second level of measuring achievement of the
standards was the most prevalent and involved using skill
tests and written tests related to the standards but not
based upon them. Teachers reflected on what was taught and
created related assessments. For example, teacher #5a
stated, “I’d say we assess it [achievement of the standards]
through skill tests, written tests, and basically
observation.” Teacher #8b used skill checklists,
particularly at the elementary level, and created
assessments not based on the standards but on future
psychomotor or cognitive performance goals.
Some teachers were aware that the written tests and
skill tests used in class did not adequately address
achievement of the standards but were unwilling to change.
174For example, in terms of verifying achievement of the
achievement of the standards] . . . we do written tests like
in the volleyball unit but it’s basically on the rules of
the game. . . . I do a little bit of skill testing” (Teacher
#5b). A few teachers did make conscious efforts to measure
achievement of the standards but did so inconsistently. For
example, teachers frequently measured standards-based
achievement in areas which were easiest to address or
closely related to physical education such as heart rate.
According to teacher #7b, “There are some standards that we
hit real well and there are others that fall through the
cracks.”
The third level was the least common, where teachers
verified achievement of specific standards, standard
statements, and bullets. At this level, teachers used
standards-based assessment for the majority of information
taught. This meant that most standards related information
that was presented to students was also followed up with an
assessment. For example, teacher #1b stated:
At the end of each unit, we’ll go back through each and review what we accomplished in that unit based on the standards and our benchmarks. We’ll review the essential questions and all that. Make sure that we accomplished all that and then I’ll give them a written assessment. . . . Through
175written tests and performance assessments, that’s where we focus on the standards.
Ultimately, what teachers should be moving towards was
a model where the standards were incorporated throughout the
entire teaching cycle. This meant thoroughly educating
oneself about the standards, devising a standards-based
curriculum including lesson plans, teaching the written
curriculum, assessing student mastery of the standards, and
then based upon the results, seeking further professional
development, modifying the curriculum, or making no
additional changes. For example, online participant #65
stated, “I use the standards to plan my lessons according to
our school’s curriculum. I also use the standards to gauge
assessment and progression of my students.” Another online
teacher clearly demonstrated the cycle of standards usage:
Before writing lesson plans, I determine which standards will be incorporated. In my lesson plans, I list these standards and explain how they will be addressed. During my classes, I state which area(s) will be strengthened by the planned activities. After the lesson is taught, I assess how well the standards were incorporated and modify the next lesson accordingly.
Measuring student achievement of the standards
naturally tied into how teachers grade. Ideally, student
grades would be based upon achievement of the standards.
However, like other areas of this study, the manner in which
176teachers grade demonstrated a wide range of responses.
Instead of classifying teacher grading structures into
categories, there existed a continuum with one extreme
represented by teachers who based grades upon the standards
and the other extreme represented by teachers who based
grades upon effort and participation.
Effort and participation continued to make up a large
part of grading in physical education. These components,
although valuable and contributing towards mastery of the
standards, should not be incorporated into grading (Matanin
& Tannehill, 1994). For physical education to grow in
stature, it must demonstrate outcomes and learning resulting
from instruction. A math teacher would not say, ‘It’s all
right, you can’t balance equations but since you tried hard
and came to class each day, I’ll give you an ‘A’.’ Physical
education should move towards grading criteria derived from
data-driven assessment where students must demonstrate
acceptable levels of skill and knowledge related to the
standards (Petersen et al., 2002).
Divesting physical education of grades based upon
effort and participation will be difficult, as it is deeply
rooted in current practices. For example, teacher #3 graded
in the following manner:
177I grade [on] attire, are they prepared for my class, effort, basically attitude . . . attendance, attire, attitude, effort, participation. If they’re here, they get five points; if they’re absent . . . they can’t get credit; if they’re tardy, they get two of . . . the five [points]; if they have an excused absence, they can make it up. They get five if they’re dressed, they get zero if they’re not dressed. Their attitude, if they exceed, they get four, everyone starts out at four. So, if they have a bad attitude that class, I’ll hit needs improvement so they’ll get one out of four that day on attitude. Basically, the same on effort, exceeds, meets, partially meets, unscorable.
There were multiple teachers, including teacher #6, who
utilized this grading style. Teacher #6 assigned 10 points
if students were changed, stretched, and did exercises.
Points were deducted for lack of effort, poor attitude, and
not dressing. Several concerns arise from basing grades
upon participation, effort, and attitude. First,
reliability - it is difficult for teachers to grade
consistently if there are no formal criteria. Second,
objectivity - the teachers’ relationship with students will
be more likely to impact grades. Third, the grade itself is
not based on learning or mastery of standards-based content.
Fourth, these grades, particularly when a rubric is not
used, are not defensible to students, parents, or
administrators. Despite such concerns, physical educators
often continued to rely upon indefensible grading practices.
178Teacher #4a subjectively graded based upon preparation
points. When asked to distinguish between preparation
points, he stated: “It makes it difficult for me to assess,
what’s the difference between a seven and eight [on the
rubric]. Something that stands out, say a [student] non-
participant, that’s going to stand out.”
In order to make grading by participation, effort, and
attitude more objective, some teachers used rubrics. This
did improve the objectivity in the grading system but was
still not equivalent with the method employed in other
subjects. According to teacher #6:
It’s kind of sketchy [grading on participation] but the other teacher and I came up with a system that works. If they’re just not putting in a lot of effort but they’re still participating but doing a minimal amount, we’ll take off 3 points, automatic. You’re there, you’re trying, but you could do more. You could definitely do more. . . . Then there’s the people that are
179kind of trying, that’s usually half credit. And then . . . you’re in a game and you never move . . . you get a zero.
The only instance in which a teacher objectively measured
effort was teacher #5a who used a pulse monitor (Teacher
#5a).
At the elementary level, there were some unique grading
obstacles that were not present at the middle and high
school levels. Teachers generally had more classes, more
students and, as one class leaves, another arrived, therein
making time to grade more difficult. In middle and high
school, teachers often assigned grades during locker room
changing time. According to teacher #5b, “I had trouble
with one student; he really wasn’t trying his hardest or he
just really refuses to participate, I’ll come in and put a
check minus beside his name.”
Many teachers did utilize a more objective grading
system incorporating written quizzes or skill assessments
based upon pre-established teacher criteria. Most written
assessments continue to focus on rules and strategies of
various activities. However, some teachers were beginning
to incorporate standards related questions. For example,
Teacher #4a reportedly added five questions relating to the
180standards to each 10-question activity quiz that previously
pertained only to rules and strategies.
Ideally, grades would be based upon and linked to
achievement of standards (Petersen et al., 2002). Two of
the 16 teachers interviewed demonstrated this approach. For
example, teacher #1b focused both written tests and
performance assessments on the standards. Teacher #1c used
learning logs, t-charts (characteristics of concepts),
posters, research projects, article question and answer, and
checklists; all of which were focused on the standards.
According to teacher #1c, “All of these assessments must
match the content pulled from the standards.” One online
survey participant graded completely on the standards, even
assigning report card grades for standards 10.4 and 10.5.
The movement towards standards-based assessment met
some resistance, particularly from more veteran teachers.
According to teacher #2, “Veteran teachers basically had a
wall. . . . We don’t need to have these because we already
do them.” Typically, such teachers had been grading on
effort and participation for years. They believed hard work
and effort should be rewarded and that grading on
achievement discouraged exercise and student motivation to
181try. If students knew they were not going to achieve the
standard, why should they try? Teacher #8a stated:
Yeah, [we have rubrics] for whatever it is. . . . [However] reconciling that with your own 20 plus years of experience watching kids participate and saying that kid is trying hard and giving some value to effort. But the standards saying and the books saying there isn’t a sweat-o-meter. If this kid doesn’t have a heart rate that’s at this level; you always have to have something totally objective. I’ve watched these kids all year; I know what they can do. I have a third period kid who tries so hard every single time, skill-wise, not much skill. But he gives every bit of effort . . . but it’s hard to quantify. So, what I’m saying is that sometimes with the standards, we’re taking away that teacher’s expertise in assessing their students and their participation. Fitness is really about the process and the participation, not the product.
This idea was common among physical educators: that holding
students accountable for skill performance was unfair. It
unfairly punishes athletically challenged students and
diminishes the likelihood of lifetime activity. According
to Teacher #5b, “How can I grade a student on a skill when
not everybody is going to be at that skill level?” Again
using a mathematics comparison, would it be unfair to grade
several students using the same criteria as the whole class
if they had a poor aptitude for mathematics. Certainly not,
all students are held to a consistent standard but in
physical education, the rules were different. Earlier in
this study, teachers negatively commented on the prevalence
182of cognitive information in the standards. In this section,
teachers negatively commented on assessing students’
psychomotor performance. The problem with objecting to
cognitive information and psychomotor assessment is that
both are essential elements in physical education.
Teachers who oppose grading students based upon skill
level might consider grading based upon improvement.
Teachers could measure student performance via a pretest-
posttest method. Teachers might also consider grading based
upon technique instead of performance. For example, a
teacher could grade whether a student successfully
demonstrated each of five components of a badminton spike.
Objections to assessment led some teachers to
completely abandon skill assessment. For example, teacher
#4a stated, “If a kid can’t make . . . [one] free-throw out
of five, he’s not going to get a lower grade than a kid who
made five out of five.” Other teachers were conflicted
about skill assessments yet continued to use them because
they perceive skill advancement as central to the purpose of
physical education.
Teacher #8a also objected to the rigid nature of
rubrics. For example, her school used a 3-point rubric
consisting of only whole numbers. In the instances where
183students have an excellent skill level but incur some minor
deductions, a 2 must be given. Teacher #8a perceived this
as unfair since a 2 is below the actual skill level. “You
can’t get a 2.5 [grading on a 3 point rubric], even if
they’re close to the three. If they don’t have all the
things that get to the three, they get a two.”
Standards Promotion and Constraint
The utilization of educational standards was a cycle
beginning with teacher perceptions and competence and
culminating in standards-based instruction and assessment.
In order to improve this process, additional factors that
promoted and constrained it must be addressed.
The most frequently mentioned obstacle to improved
implementation of the standards was lack of instructional
time. This reaffirmed previous research findings of a lack
of instructional time in physical education (Napper-Owen et
al., 2001). Elementary teachers objected more than middle
school and high school teachers. This was generally due to
physical education being scheduled for fewer classes per
week or cycle and for less time. Some examples of the time
classes per year (b) 30 minutes one class per week, and (c)
40 minutes one class per week. These findings contradicted
184Borsdorf and Wentzell’s (2002) conclusion that 63% of
students receive 45 minutes or less of physical education
per week. One-hundred percent of the elementary schools in
this study received 45 minutes or less per week. The only
classes where students received the recommended 150 minutes
per week (NASPE, 2004) were in block schedules. Although
students in block scheduling are in physical education for
longer each period, typically such courses are scheduled for
half instead of a full year. Therefore, the overall
instructional time per year is comparable to non-block
scheduled classes. Like the Borsdorf and Wentzell study
(2002), students received more physical education
instructional time in high school.
There were many consequences of a lack of instructional
time for elementary teachers. First, teachers found it
difficult to address all of the standards and, therefore,
covered fewer of them, covered them in less depth, or a
combination of the two. For example, teacher #7b stated,
“We have some barriers related to time . . . so I feel like
that’s tied my hands in terms of wanting to see a lot of
growth.” Second, those standards which physical educators
felt less comfortable teaching such as the biomechanical
principles and some cognitive knowledge, were sometimes
185neglected or not taught at all. For example, according to
teacher #6, “It’s [the biomechanical concepts] a little bit
too much sometimes for what you need.” Third, not enough
time spent on actual physical activity and fitness.
According to teacher #3, “39 minutes, by the time they
change and change back and take attendance. . . . I would
like to have at least double the time with each grade, each
class. Because of the changing time. . . . I mean, how much
time are you really going to get to workout.” Thirty
minutes one time per week did not meet the Surgeon General’s
recommendation (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 1996). Fourth, teachers reduced time devoted to
assessment or entirely eliminated it, a phenomenon that has
been noted by other researchers in the past (Hensley, 1997;
Lund, 1993). Five, students who fell behind and needed
extra help had difficulty catching up. For example, teacher
#8b stated, “I think your typical advanced kids, yeah,
there’s enough time. But for some of the lower kids,
there’s no chance for them to catch up a lot of times.”
The lack of time allocated physical education seriously
impaired the ability of educators to accomplish the
standards. When asked if physical education was allotted
sufficient instructional time, Teacher #5b responded
186“Absolutely not . . . if that’s the standard we’re supposed
to meet in physical education class, we’re not.” When
confronted with inadequate instructional time, teachers
tended to emphasize what they believed was the core mission
of physical education at the expense of other objectives.
As online participant #250 indicated, “Those students got PE
only once a week for 45 minutes - hardly enough time to
increase fitness levels - but enough time to try to develop
a love of sport and games that hopefully will last a
lifetime.” Under such conditions, teachers moved from one
short unit to another often without the assessment and
accountability necessary to promote standards-based
competencies (Jeffries, 1996).
Insufficient time was not isolated to only elementary
school; middle and high school teachers also reported a lack
of time, although less frequently than elementary teachers.
Some examples of the time allocations included; (a) 42
minutes every other day every year, (b) 90 minutes twice a
week every year, (c) 25 minutes twice per week, (d) 45
minutes one time per week, (e) once per week, (f) 39 minutes
twice per week, and (g) 90 minutes every day for half a
year. Middle and high school physical education was
187allotted more time but still, many of the same consequences
were evident, only to a lesser degree.
To compensate for the lack of instructional time, some
teachers assign homework. According to Kleinman (1997),
most teachers support homework. However, the reactions of
students, parents, and administrators are mixed. Students
may oppose homework, particularly if they are not accustomed
to it. According to teacher 1b, “It’s a big change for them
[students] this year, you know having homework in phys ed,
having writing.” Parents may also oppose homework due to
perceptions of traditional physical education programming
and increased work for their children. In turn, they may
pressure administrators to prohibit physical education
homework.
One difference at the middle and high school levels was
that teachers occasionally had block scheduling. Teachers
exhibited mixed responses to block scheduling. For example,
teacher #7a indicated, “I like having 70-minute periods.
You might not see them as often, it’s horrible, but you get
more done.” Other teachers complained that physical
education was condensed into half a year which was not
representative of the fact that health, wellness, and
188physical activity are year-round pursuits. Teacher #1b on
the other hand spoke positively about block scheduling:
I absolutely love block scheduling. It gives me enough time to really focus. . . . I don’t feel rushed in the beginning of class. . . . I can really take my time explaining what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. With the fitness tests, we’ve been able to really take our time with the kids practice rather than take them in here and saying ‘We’re testing you on sit-ups today.’
School administrations functioned as a double-edged
sword; they both advanced and inhibited the implementation
of the standards. As discussed previously, they were
instrumental in requiring physical education teachers to
incorporate the standards and providing resources towards
this aim. One consistent obstacle was the emphasis on the
PSSA exams and the improvement of reading and mathematics
scores. This confirmed other research that suggested high-
stakes testing was detrimental to physical education
(Wilkins et al., 2003).
Many teachers believed that the administration knew
little about the physical education standards aside from
their existence. Teacher #1a stated, “I think they are
aware that we have standards but exactly what they are, I
don’t think they’re familiar.” This concept tied into the
marginalization many physical education teachers experience.
For example, teacher #1b stated, “Low on the totem pole, I
189think that’s the biggest one . . . with the PSSA we are
definitely not a priority. More so I can say than in other
districts. It gets frustrating.” This led to frustration
among some physical educators that their work was not
properly valued, thus contributing to less assessment, less
effort, and further reductions in status (James, Griffin, &
France, 2005). According to teacher #7b:
I would say they [the administration] just have a lot of other priorities. I think they’re supportive but in an ideal world, they would love to have PE every day if they could, and still have math and reading as much as they could. . . . In my experience, physical education gets cut near the top, in terms of time.
Many physical educators taught with the fear that their
programs will be reduced or eliminated. However, by using
standards and assessment, teachers could better demonstrate
observable outcomes tied to the standards (Holt, 2001).
Teacher #4b echoed this sentiment by stating, “Our mission,
make sure we’re doing our job and make sure we don’t give
them [the administration] a reason to take it [our program]
away.”
In some districts, administrators required changes to
the physical education curriculum that were contrary to
accepted practice. For example, one administrator required
teachers to formulate grades based upon participation. In
190another instance, a teacher was told to play traditional
physical education games after parents complained about an
elementary school rope-jumping unit. For one teacher,
merely keeping physical education in the required school
curriculum was a task, since the school was reducing
instruction time.
Some teachers objected that they were required to
incorporate the standards and list them on lesson plans when
it appeared as if no one was checking. As teacher #5b
indicated, “When it comes right down to it . . . why go
through all the trouble to prove your kids are meeting the
standards when nobody is going to look at it? That might be
a poor attitude to have.” Teachers wanted some
acknowledgement that their efforts were meaningful and
appreciated.
Physical education teachers who incorporated the
standards were frustrated that other teachers who did not
address the standards were not held responsible. Standards-
focused physical educators believed that if they were
incorporating the standards, their colleagues should be
required likewise. According to teacher #5b, “Nobody is
watching over you and nobody is saying ‘Hey, did your kids
meet the standards.’” Another teacher, #1c, stated,
191“There’s no oversight. The department chairs and the
[administration] don’t care” (Teacher #1c). Such an
environment might have augmented the sense of
marginalization some physical educators encountered (James
et al., 2005). In districts that lacked oversight, there
was really no outward incentive to change. Teachers could
utilize outdated practices and little concern, if any, was
generated. According to teacher #1c, “[My co teacher]
doesn’t use the standards and it’s no big deal. . . . No one
holds anyone accountable for the standards and no one has
the pull to make anyone else change.” The result was that
poor teachers impeded other physical educators and stifled
change. In elementary schools where there was only one
teacher, just that school suffers. However, in large
schools, outmoded teachers who were not compelled to
incorporate the standards often reduced motivation for other
teachers to change and restrained entire departments.
Veteran teachers were cited as both facilitators and
obstacles to improving the implementation of the standards.
Encouragingly, the majority of veteran teachers interviewed
embraced the standards as a way to improve physical
education. Teacher #1b had been teaching 10 years at the
high school level and stated the following:
192When I first started teaching, it was, “What’s the curriculum? What am I supposed to be teaching?” You could pretty much do what you want. And now, we have binders, the standards are in front of us. It’s changed dramatically. I have to admit, in the beginning, when they were saying “You have to do this,” I was very resistant because I enjoyed being able to go into the gym and into the classroom and do what I wanted to do; what I felt was important. But this has made me much more organized, much more sequential, and it’s really helped our whole department align so that what I’m doing in 11th grade, they’re not also doing in 9th grade.
Teacher #8a, a 26-year veteran, astutely summarized the
changes the standards have brought. “Instead of just having
them play games and not what they have learned, it’s more
about what they learn.” Another veteran teacher of 27
years, online participant #192, summarized her enthusiasm
for the standards by stating, “Finally after all these
[years] in my career we [have] developed relevant and
challenging standards to attain with our students.”
Veteran teachers were also viewed as obstacles by some
teachers, including #7b who worked with colleagues who had
not changed the curriculum in 10 to 15 years. Teacher #3
stated:
There are some older teachers who don’t want to do this. They don’t want to reinvent the wheel. They just want to be able to do what they’re doing and not focus on the standards. It’s frustrating for those of us who are trying to make the change and encouraging those other teachers. . . . Well, if so and so doesn’t do this, why do we?
193
Incorporating the standards meant extra work, doing things
differently, and potential student resistance, all of which
may have been unwelcome to veteran teachers. Standards-
resistant teachers often rationalized their positions by
saying the standards were just another passing fad or their
curricula were already aligned. As teacher #2 indicated,
“We don’t need to have these because we already do them.”
Teacher #8b believed the standards were superficial and
would not really change what happened in the classroom with
the exception of adding more assessments. To this effect,
teachers created false façades which gave the impression
that they were changing but continued to use the same
planning and instructional practices. According to teacher
#8b:
I truly don’t see this process with the standards changing what we currently do. So I think for the most part, everything is going to pretty much stay the same in terms of what we’re doing on a daily basis. The biggest change is going to be more in the assessment piece . . . how we’re measuring and how we’re making sure the kids are reaching the standards.
The practices of teacher #8b demonstrated the difficulty
teachers had implementing the standards through the cycle of
instruction. Some teachers implemented the standards well
in planning, others in assessment, but few in both.
194Teachers who did want to incorporate the standards more
than they had in the past into the curriculum sometimes
found it difficult getting their colleagues to change.
There was a great deal of inertia among teachers, especially
in larger departments such as high schools, which required a
critical mass of teachers to implement change. This was the
case for online participant #250 who stated, “I recently
came to this [high] school. There is no strong PE program
and it is virtually impossible for me to ‘rock the boat.’
However, in my previous school. . . . I always incorporated
the standards.”
Four of the 16 teachers indicated that students were
also a major obstacle to the implementation of the
standards. In all cases, the teachers taught in urban
locales or adjacent to urban locales. Students objected to
activities which were deemed outside the scope of
traditional physical education activities or culturally
resistance with fitness activities, cooperative activities,
and non-traditional/lifetime activities. Teacher #4a
stated:
195A lot of students don’t have a problem with voicing that, this is stupid, I don’t wanna do that. Why do I have to walk across a line to get to a mat and how to figure out how to get from the mat to the bleachers . . . you know, a cooperative activity? . . . You’re going to have a heck of a time because you’re going to have students, “Ah, I’ll take a zero today. I don’t want to do this stupid game. I don’t want to do this. I thought we were going to do flag football. Now you got us, whatever.
Resistance from students can over time wear down teacher
willingness to embrace change and implement the standards.
One urban teacher indicated that his students were not
exposed to non-traditional activities outside of school.
Therefore, students who deviated from culturally established
behaviors were mocked, thus decreasing their willingness to
try. For example, in teacher #9b’s school, boys typically
played basketball while girls jumped rope. Few students
wanted to try activities such as volleyball, golf, or
fitness due to perceived stereotypes and negative
consequences. According to teacher #9a:
The kids don’t come with a wide range of experiences as far as athletics go. They don’t play soccer like in the suburban districts. . . . Now urban kids play a lot of basketball. . . . Well, I think it’s partly cultural and it’s free and it’s easy. You can put a net up on a telephone pole on the corner and it doesn’t cost you anything. To play tennis, you got to buy a racket, got to buy the balls, got to hope there’s a court with a net somewhere. You don’t find that in the city. Or there’s glass all over the court. You know, volleyball, well maybe at a picnic,
196someone might have a net I suppose. Where are you got to put it, on the concrete streets and asphalt? As far as these other sports options, they haven’t been exposed. And so when they come in high school, they don’t want to be embarrassed by demonstrating they can’t do this. . . . They’re very distracted by other things.
In addition, the difficulties were heightened socioeconomic
variables (Siedentop et al., 1994). Students’ expectations
could also impair implementation of the standards
particularly if students came from an outdated, recreation-
focused physical education program. New teachers’ efforts
to plan according to the standards, diversify the
curriculum, link instruction to the standards, and assess
student learning would likely be met with resistance.
Another major student obstacle was behavior. In some
schools, the majority of class time was devoted to managing
behaviors. In such cases, teachers restricted the variety
of activities, units, and drills in order to facilitate
behavior management. Teacher #9b stated, “Any game where
you have to rely on them being honest and abiding by the
rules of the game is tough.” Achieving adequate depth of
coverage was also difficult since students were not able to
focus for extended periods of time.
Scheduling also impaired teachers’ ability to implement
the standards. In such cases, the main complaint, as NASPE
197also noted in 2004, was that class sizes were too large. In
district 5’s high school, physical education was not
scheduled over the lunch hour so that students were
condensed into fewer classes and larger class sizes
resulted. In district four, students were scheduled for
multiple physical education classes per semester or multiple
classes in the same day.
Physical educators encountered difficulties with
facility management. At the elementary level, the gymnasium
was habitually used for school functions such as recitals,
plays, assemblies, health fairs, art shows, and other
events. According to teacher #3, “I keep my own calendar
and I write down when we can’t use the gym on this day, this
day, this day.” Facility conflicts involving physical
education were growing more frequent as schools constructed
dual-purpose gymnasiums that also served as cafeterias or
auditoriums. At the high school level, facility conflicts
typically arose with athletics. For example, teacher #6 was
not permitted to do certain activities in the gym during
basketball season, the wrestling room during wrestling
season, and the outside athletic fields during related sport
seasons. In another high school, physical educators removed
posters and other displays because they are damaged by
198after-school athletics. In urban schools, the gymnasiums
are often antiquated, small, rife with safety concerns, and
loud.
The final phase of the qualitative data analysis was to
collect lesson plans from teachers and observe those lessons
being taught. The purpose was to ensure the quality of the
data through triangulation (Patton, 1990). Teachers would
have to demonstrate their implementation of the standards
where it mattered most - the classroom. Scanned copies of
the lesson plans were included from four teachers because
they represent the spectrum of lesson plans collected
(Appendix Y).
Teacher #1c focused the lesson on school district
standards 1.1 (use intermediate sport-specific skills for
individual and team sports), 2.2 (use basic offensive and
defensive strategies in a modified version of a team and
individual sport), and 3.4 (understand sportsmanship and
proper attitudes toward both winning and losing). The
objectives and the content (teaching cues) were tied to the
standards. To begin the 6th grade lesson, each squad
assembled for the warm-up around a bucket that contained a
task, in this case, juggling. Different objects, such as
beanbags, wiffle balls, and assorted objects, were placed in
199the different buckets. After the warm-up, students began
stretching and a series of framing questions were used to
set the stage for the day’s lesson on field games. Sample
questions included: what are some examples of field games;
field games like softball can benefit you in what ways; and
field games can be played by people of what ages?
After students practiced their skills, the teacher
explained the game “over the line.” There were three
players per team and two teams. The batting team consisted
of two batters and the pitcher. The fielding team consisted
of two fielders and the catcher. The pitcher pitched to
home plate while the batter attempted to hit the ball into
the field between two parallel lines. Home plate was the
only base, so the batter did not run after hitting the ball.
The batter continued to bat until he or she accumulated
three outs. The batter was out if the ball was caught,
knocked down, or was batted outside the two parallel lines
that designated the playing field. After three outs, the
players rotated positions. The fielding players were asked
to contemplate how to successfully defend the field. At the
conclusion of the lesson, all students completed a team exit
slip asking questions related to the lesson and the
standards. For example, come up with three defensive cues
200(spread out, glove ready, ready position). The teacher
moved through the activity, providing feedback often
relating to standards 1.1 and 2.3. Standard 3.4 was used
during the closure to reinforce proper sportsmanship.
Teacher #3 listed a series of standards and major
activities in block plan format. The day’s lesson began
with jogging and stretching followed by presenting students
with a choice of activities. A closure was not used at the
conclusion of class although there were brief periods of
discussion between games. The standards were listed only by
number and letter (10.4.3c) instead of including the entire
standard statement (10.4 – know and recognize changes in
body responses during moderate to vigorous physical activity
(heart rate, breathing rate). Major details typically
associated with lesson plans such as the unit, organization,
safety precautions, accommodations, warm-ups, closures, and
assessments were absent. Most “lessons” were copied from
previous sections of the table and the instruction did not
entirely cover the standards listed on the lesson plans.
Teacher #3 demonstrated the misconception discussed earlier
that simply by providing activities, the standards will be
met.
201Teacher #4a’s lesson plan, like that of teacher #1c,
included the entire standard statement. However, during the
actual lesson in which students completed aerobic training
activities, the teacher did not address standard 10.4.9C,
“Analyze factors that affect the responses of body systems
during moderate to vigorous physical activities.” Teacher
#4a addressed parts of standard 10.4.12A by engaging in
physical activities but did not analyze those physical
activities as required by the standard. No assessments were
administered but observations, workout logs, and writing
samples were planned for the future. However, none of these
assessments seemed appropriate for measuring standard
10.4.9C. This disconnect demonstrated the difficulty
teachers have incorporating the standards through the entire
instructional process: planning, implementation, and
assessment. In addition, the lesson listed standards from
two different grade levels, 9th and 12th grade. The reason
was that the lesson was used for multiple grade levels, 9th
through 12th graders.
Teacher #7b’s lesson focused on preparing for the
FITNESSGRAM® PACER test. The unit was implemented over a
series of three lessons. The lesson objectives included
being able to correctly demonstrate the PACER, push-up, and
202sit-up tests, participate in aerobic activities, and
identify physical responses to exercise. Class began with a
whistle warm-up where students jogged around the gym and
sped up or slowed down in accordance with a whistle blast.
Following attendance, the teacher briefly discussed aerobic
exercise and gave two examples. Students then divided into
partners; one partner completed the PACER test while the
other recorded the data on a sheet. The lesson objectives
were aligned with the instructional methods but the
standards were not. Standards 10.4.6A and 10.4.6C were
incorporated throughout the lesson while standard 10.4.6D
was not discussed. Again, teachers had difficulty
connecting the standards to classroom instruction.
Standards 10.5.6A and 10.5.6D were partially covered
although students were not asked to demonstrate their
knowledge of the standards. After the lesson, Teacher #7b
believed that all the standards were covered in their
entirety.
Student Survey
The third and final phase of data collection entailed
having the students of teachers who were interviewed
complete in-class surveys. The student survey was included
in this research study to help triangulate the findings. By
203collecting teacher survey data online, observing and
interviewing teachers in their workplaces, and getting the
students’ perspective, a more accurate picture can be
formed. Unfortunately, 5 of the 16 teachers did not return
their student surveys to the researcher. Those teachers
cited a poor response rate from students or a lack of time
since the school year was near completion. A total of 338
surveys were interpretable for analysis. A small number of
student surveys (17) were discarded due to indications they
were improperly completed, such as using the same answer for
every survey item. The student survey consisted of three
demographic survey items (age, grade, and gender) and 18
Likert-scale survey items. Like the online teacher survey,
the demographic variables were analyzed against the factor
scores to test for statistical significance.
Two changes were made regarding the demographic
information. Age was not used in the statistical
calculations since age and grade are closely related.
Second, students’ grades were translated into school levels
of either elementary, middle, or high school. School levels
were utilized instead of individual grades to simplify the
data analysis and presentation.
204The frequency information for the student survey is
provided in Table 18. More females completed the student
survey due to the fact that two teachers taught only female
students. In addition, female students returned a higher
percentage of the consent forms and, therefore, completed
more student surveys. Considerably more elementary students
completed the student survey than middle or high school
students due to two reasons. First, three elementary
teachers (numbers 1a, 2, and 7b) were highly proficient at
having students return the consent forms and complete the
survey. They accounted for 60, 68, and 71 completed surveys
respectively for a total of 199 surveys. Second, four of
the five teachers who did not return any student surveys
taught in middle or high school.
Table 18. Student Survey – Frequency Table___________________________________________________________
Group Subset Freq. Perc.___________________________________________________________
Gender Male 128 37.9
Female 210 62.1
School Level Elementary 213 63.0
Middle School 65 19.2
High School 60 17.8___________________________________________________________
205The frequency information for the Likert-scale survey
items is included in Appendix Z. A Cronbach’s alpha was
conducted on the 18 survey items to test reliability. A
reliability coefficient of 0.83 was obtained and therefore,
the survey was considered reliable.
The responses for student survey item number one
indicated that over 67% of students had heard of the
Pennsylvania standards for physical education. This
percentage was higher than the 46% of teachers who agreed
that their students were aware of the standards. Therefore,
more students were aware of the physical education standards
than teachers expected. This difference most likely
reflected the emphasis placed on the standards across the
entire school curriculum. Although 67% of students were
aware of the standards, exceeding teacher expectations, the
percentage should be higher for two reasons. First, the
standards were required to be implemented for three years,
thus giving teachers ample notice to educate students.
Second, the 16 teachers selected for on-site data collection
represented some of the most standards-proficient teachers
in the state. If the top 16 of 292 participants generated a
score of 67%, what percentage would the remaining teachers
generate?
206The responses for student survey item number two
indicated that over 79% of physical education teachers
discussed the standards in class. These responses
demonstrated that a disconnect existed between the first and
second question. It was not possible for 79% of students to
state their teachers discussed the standards in class while
only 67% of students had heard of them. These percentages
also contradicted the 90% of teachers who claimed in the
online survey that they incorporated the standards into
their instruction.
The responses for student survey item number three
indicated that 89% of students believed the activities
utilized in class were covered by the state standards.
Since only 67% of students had heard of the Pennsylvania
standards for physical education, there were some
misinterpretations. Most likely, students answered item
three with the answer they believed was “correct” or another
appropriate answer.
The responses for student survey item number four
indicated that 84% of students believed the assessments
related to the Pennsylvania standards. The assessments
students performed were typically written tests and skill
207quizzes. There was no mention of other types of assessment
such as portfolios, video analysis, or fitness scores.
Survey items 5, 6, 8, and 9 addressed coverage of
specific standards related content. For example, question
five addressed standard 10.4B, question 6 addressed standard
10.4D, question 8 addressed 10.4B, and question 9 addressed
standard 10.4C. Students indicated that 90% of teachers
were effectively analyzing the physical, social, and
psychosocial aspects of regular activity (question 5).
Students indicated that 83% of teachers were effectively
discussing how exercise and physical activity related to
stress, disease prevention, and weight management (question
8). However, students also indicated that only 64% of
teachers were effectively analyzing what factors affect
physical activity and exercise patterns of adults (question
6). In addition, only 66% of students agreed that their
teachers helped analyze how factors such as climate,
altitude, and fitness level affected performance (question
9). The differences most likely indicated that some
standards were covered more than others. In addition, too
few teachers attempted to balance coverage of the standards.
The responses to survey item number 7 indicated that
over 91% of students enjoy physical education. There was no
208pattern for school level. However, for gender, 17 of the 26
participants who did not enjoy physical education were
female. This finding supports previous research that male
students enjoyed physical education more than female
students (Treanor, Graber, Housner, & Wiegand, 1998).
A factor analysis was conducted to analyze the 18
Likert-scale survey items and determine possible factors.
This analysis yielded five factors with eigenvalues over
1.0. The percentage of variance explained and the total
variance are displayed in Table 19. Factor 1 had the
socialization, or other topics considered essential to
physical education content. This reality reflects the lack
of guidance which permeates physical education from the
highest levels down to individual teachers. The state does
provide standards but it is not ensuring quality instruction
though its own devices, school administration, physical
education supervisors, or department chairpersons?
As part of No Child Left Behind (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002), states began increasing the use of
standardized testing in order to improve student learning
and foster more accountability. Another impact has been the
phenomenon of teaching to the test. Therein teachers focus
their instruction on the areas of the curriculum which will
be tested. In physical education, there is currently no
state exam. However, unlike other subjects, there are
divergent opinions regarding what, when, and how content
material should be taught. A state exam would help to
232remedy this and serve a two-fold purpose. It would measure
student learning and make teachers and school districts more
accountable. It would also create more standardization in
the curriculum. This is important because physical
education teachers have larger than average latitude
regarding subject matter (what, when, and how). In other
subjects such as mathematics for example, there is less
flexibility. In ninth grade students study algebra, tenth
grade geometry, eleventh grade trigonometry, and twelfth
grade calculus. There are no comparable guides for physical
education. In fact, a teacher could meet the standards by
teaching basketball every day from kindergarten through
twelfth grade (R. Swalm, personal communication, November
27, 2006). As Judy Rink (2002) stated, this flexibility has
allowed too many teachers to institute poor programming.
Since oversight of physical education is lacking, these
practices continue. The state must impose more detailed
state standards statewide or require all school districts to
submit their own and also create a state physical education
exam to increase standardization and accountability.
Lastly, parents should hold school districts
accountable for providing the necessary resources for their
children to meet the state standards. By making suggestions
233or lodging complaints to the school board or the state, real
change can be enacted. Parents have the power to author
change although too few realize this potential.
Recommendations for Future Research
1. Analyze why teachers believed the standards are not
producing more “physically educated” students. What
obstacles impede this process and what, if any, areas of the
standards need to be modified or eliminated?
2. Examine more closely the role of supervision in
physical education. For example, why did districts with
supervisors score below those without supervisors,
especially in the context of district one which had an
exemplary supervisor.
3. Analyze more closely how teachers incorporate the
standards into assessment. Major deficiencies were exposed
in this area. For example, three teachers had never
considered linking the standards to assessment. In this new
era of accountability and assessment, it is critical
physical educators have numeric data to support learning.
4. Systematic approaches in higher education should be
developed and taught to address balancing coverage of the
standards. Few teachers considered balancing and those who
did relied exclusively on checklists.
2345. Dialogue should take place between teachers,
teacher educators, and administrators addressing what it
means to adequately teach a standard. Does that mean
planning, teaching, and assessing a standard or merely using
activities that purportedly address them? Does that mean
covering only the standard or the standard statements and
bullets underneath?
6. Examine why high school students are purportedly
learning the least in physical education compared to middle
and elementary school students. What factors impede their
ability to learn at comparable levels to the other grade
levels?
235
REFERENCES CITED
Bluestein, J. (1988). 21st century discipline. Randolph, NJ: Edgell Communications.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borsdorf, L. L., & Wentzell, S. (2002). The status of physical education in Pennsylvania survey. Lititz, PA: Pennsylvania State Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Boyce, B. A. (1990). Grading practices-How do they influence skill performance? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 61(6), 46-48
Bresler, L., & Take, R. E. (1992). Qualitative research methodology in music education. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp.75-90). New York, NY: Schirmer.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Guidelines for schools and community Programs to promote lifelong physical activity among young people. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 46(No. RR-6), 5-6.
Chen, A., & Ennis, C. (2004). Goals, interests, and learning in physical education. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 329-338.
Coleman, S. (2001, January 29). Phys-ed classes are out, academics in. Boston Globe. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.boston.com/globe/
Colley, A., & Comber, C. (1994). School subject preferencesof pupils in single sex and co-educational secondary schools. Educational Studies, 20(3), 379–385.
236Collier, C. S., & Oslin, J. (2001). Achieving competency
and proficiency in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 72(8), 20-22, 33.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2000). Handbook for the development of a teaching portfolio, 2000-2001, physical education. Hartford, CT: Author.
Council on Physical Education for Children. (COPEC). (2000). Appropriate practices in movement programs for young children ages 3-5. Oxon Hill, MD: AAHPERD Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darst, P. W. (2001). Fitness routines for directing students toward a physically active lifestyle. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 72(8), 27-29, 33.
Davis, K. L., & Roberts, T. C. (1994). North Carolina children and youth fitness study. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(8), 65-72.
Deal, T. B., Byra, M., Jenkins, J., & Gates, W. K. (2002). The physical education standards movement in Wyoming: An effort in partnership. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73(3), 25-28.
Dessoff, A. (2005). High school reform. District Administration, 41(4), 35-37.
Donnelly, F. (2006, March). The “triple A” in secondary physical education: Assess, augment & advocate for student learning. Presentation at the meeting of the Eastern District Association, Hartford, CT.
Dreeben, R., & Barr, R. (1988). Classroom composition and the design of instruction. Sociology of Education, 61(3), 129-142.
237Durrant, S. (1992). Title IX - its power and its
limitations. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63(3), 60-64.
Ennis, C. D. (2001). Addressing the “high need, low demand” status of physical education. In P. Ward and P. Doutis (Eds.), Physical education in the 21st century. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Everhart, B. & Vaugh, M. (2005). A comparison of teachingpatterns of student teachers and experienced teachers in three distinct settings: Implications for preparing teachers for all settings. Education, 126(2), 221-239.
Fay, T., & Doolittle, S. (2002). Agents for change: Fromstandards to assessment to accountability in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73(3), 29-33.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gogolin, M. (2005). High performance schools. Media & Methods, 42(1), 27-27.
Gooden, M. A. (2005). The role of an African American principal in an urban information technology high school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 630-650.
Hensley, L. D. (1997). Alternative assessment for physical education. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(7), 19-24.
Holley, K. C., Clarke, M. S., Pennington, T., & Aldana, S.,(2003). The use of content standards by Utah secondary school physical educators. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 74(6), 45-48.
Holt, R. (2004). Are you “moving into the future?” Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 13, 32-33.
Horn, R. A. (2004). Standards. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
238
Humphries, C., Lovdahl, P., & Ashy, M. (2002). Elementary physical education and the national standards. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73(5), 42-45.
James, A. (2001). Analysis of high school student physical education accountability systems and the relationship of assessment as an accountability system. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72 (Supplement), 67.
James, A., Griffin, L., & France, T. (2005). Perceptions of assessment in elementary physical education: A case study. Physical Educator, 62, 85-95.
Jeffries, S. (Producer). (1996). Assessing learning in physical education: Motor skills [Motion picture]. USA: Central Washington University.
Karp, G. G., & Woods, M. L. (2001). Applying conceptual learning to physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 72(8), 23-26, 34.
Kleinman, I. (1997). Grading: A powerful teaching tool. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 68(5), 29-31.
Kulinna, P. H., & Krause, J. (2001). Teaching students to achieve and maintain a health-enhancing level of physical fitness. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 72(8), 30-33.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lee, J. (2003). Implementing high standards in urban schools: Problems and solutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(6), 449-455.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
239Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2000).
Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lund, J. (1992). Changing secondary school physical education. Quest, 44, 352-360.
Lund, J. L. (1993). The role of accountability and assessment in physical education: A pedagogical view. In J.E. Rink (Ed.), Critical crossroads: Middle and secondary school physical education (pp. 102-112). Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
Lund, J., & Tannehill, D. (2005). Standards-based physicaleducation curriculum development. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Irby, B. J. (1999). High expectations: An action plan for implementing Goals 2000. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Macdonald, D., & Brooker, R. (1997). Moving beyond thecrisis in secondary physical education: An Australian initiative. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 155-175
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Matanin, M., & Tannehill, D. (1994). Assessment and grading practices in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 395-405
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
240Miller, J. B., Morley, V. S., & Westwater, B. (2002). The
beginning teacher support and training program in Connecticut. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73(4), 24-27.
Mondale, S. (2002). The story of American public education. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Napper-Owen, G., Johnson, I., Kamla, J., & Lindauer, J. (2001). Creating opportunity to learn. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 12(4), 21-23.
NASPE. (1995). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book.
NASPE. (2000). Appropriate practices in movement programs for young children ages 3-5. Reston, VA: Author.
NASPE. (2004). Moving into the future: National standards for physical education (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.
NASPE. (2006). 2006 shape of the nation report: Statusof physical education in the USA. Retrieved June, 21, 2006 from http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/ShapeOfTheNation/
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). National education longitudinal study: 1988-1994. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
New York State Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. (1991). Physical education adult roles. Latham, NY: Author.
New York State Association of Health, Physical Education,
New York State Education Department. (1996). Learning standards for health, physical education, and home economics. Albany, NY: The University of the State of New York.
Ornstein, A. (1995). Beyond effective teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 2-23.
Pagnano, K., & Griffin, L. (2001). Making intentional choices in physical education. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(5), 38-40.
Pangrazi, R. P., & Corbin, C. B. (1996). Physical activity for children and youth. The Journal Of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(4), 38-42.
Parker, M., & Hellison, D. (2001). In physical education: Standards, outcomes, and beyond. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 72(9), 25-27, 36.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2002). Academic standards for health, safety and physical education. Retrieved November, 21, 2005 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/stateboard_ed/lib/stateboard_ed/SandyHealth.doc
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). Chapter 4. Academic standards and assessment. Retrieved October 5, 2006 from http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/022/chapter4/chap4toc.html
Petersen, S. C., Cruz, L. M., & Amundson, R. (2002). The standards’ impact on physical education in New York State. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73(4), 15-28, 23.
Pulliam, J. D., & Van Patten, J. V. (2002). History of
242education in America (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ratliffe, T., Imwold, C., & Conkell, C. (1994). Children's view of their third grade physical education class. The Physical Educator, 51(2), 106-111.
Rink, J. (1999). Show me your outcomes. Teaching elementary physical education, 10(4), 5-20.
Rink, J., Mitchell, M., Templeton, J., Barton, G., Hewitt, P., Taylor, M., Dawkins, M., & Hohn, R., (2002). High stakes assessment in South Carolina. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(3), 21-25.
Rubin, J. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Siedentop, D. (1987). High school physical education: Stillan endangered species. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 58(2), 24-25.
Siedentop, D., Doutis, P., Tsangaridou, N., Ward, P., & Rauschenbach, J. (1994). Don’t sweat gym! An analysis of curriculum and instruction. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 13, 275-394.
Silverman, S., & Ennis, C. (Eds.).(2002). Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Spage, L. (1996). Listening to children on issues of assessment. Teaching and Change, 3(4), 359-410.
Spagnolo, S., Ballinger, D. A., Dedrick, J., Crawford, S.,Lillis, T., Campbell, B. J., & Docheff, D. (2005). Should the national standards in physical education be used as the basis for student grades? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 76(3), 12-14.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
243State Board of Education of Pennsylvania. (2002). Academic
standards for health, safety, and physical education.Harrisburg, PA: Author.
Stefkovich, J. A., & Guba, G. J. (1995). School reform in Chicago: A study of structures and symbols. International Journal of Educational Reform, 4(2), 131-141.
Sutliff, M. A., & Taylor, J. K. (2001). Are we finally breaking the mould? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 72(9), 34-36.
Tannehill, D. (2001). Assessment series. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Tinning, R., & Fitzclarence, L. (1992). Postmodern youthculture and the crisis in Australian secondary school physical education. Quest, 44, 287-303.
Todorovich, J. R., Curtner-Smith, M. D., Prusak, K., & Model, E. D. (2005). Addressing national standards within a task-involving motivational climate. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 16, 27-30.
Treanor, L., Graber, K., Housner, L., & Wiegand, R. (1998). Middle school students' perceptions of coeducational and same-gender physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 43-56.
U.S. Congress. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
244Veal, M. L. (1988). Pupil assessment issues: A teacher
educator’s perspective. Quest, 40, 151-161.
Veal, M. L., Johnson, D., Campbell, M., & McKethan, R. (2002). The North Carolina PEPSE project. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73(4), 19-23.
Wilkins, J. L., Graham, G., Parker, S., Westfall, S., Fraser, R., & Tembo, M. (2003). Time in the arts and physical education and school achievement, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 721-734.
Williams, L., & Rink, J. (2003). Chapter 5: Teacher competency using observational scoring rubrics. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 552-572.
Winkler, A. (2002). Division in the ranks: Standardized testing draws lines between new and veteran teachers. Phil Delta Kappan, 84(3), 219-225.
Wirszyla, J. (1998). Case studies of state-mandated curriculum change in three high school physical education programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Woolard, D. (n.d.). State physical education requirements. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.drwoolard.com/commentary/state_pe_requirements.htm
Wyoming Department of Education. (2000). Wyoming physical education content and performance standards. Cheyenne, WY: Author.
Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2005). No child left behind: A guide for professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania’s public schools shall teach, challenge, and support every student to realize his or her maximum potential and to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to:A. Identify and engage in physical activities that promote fitness and health. B. Know the positive and negative effects of regular participation in moderate to vigorous physical activities. C. Know and recognize changes in body responses during moderate to vigorous physical activity. heart rate breathing rateD. Identify likes and dislikes related to participation in physical activities.E. Identify reasons why participation in physical activities improves motor skills.F. Recognize positive and negative interactions of small group activities. roles (e.g.,
leader, follower)
A. Identify and engage in moderate to vigorous physical activities that contribute to physical fitness and health.B. Explain the effects of regular participation in moderate to vigorous physical activities on the body systems.C. Identify and apply ways to monitor and assess the body’s response to moderate to vigorous physical activity. heart rate
monitoring checking blood
pressure fitness assessmentD. Describe factors that affect childhood physical activity preferences. enjoyment personal interest social experience
A. Analyze and engage in physical activities that are developmentally/individually appropriate and support achievement of personal fitness and activity goals.B. Analyze the effects of regular participation in moderate to vigorous physical activities in relation to adolescent health improvement. stress management disease prevention weight managementC. Analyze factors that affect the responses of body systems during moderate to vigorous physical activities. exercise (e.g., climate,
A. Evaluate and engage in an individualized physical activity plan that supports achievement of personal fitness and activity goals and promotes life-long participation. B. Analyze the effects of regular participation in a self-selected program of moderate to vigorous physical activities. social physiological psychologicalC. Evaluate how changes in adult health status may affect the responses of the body systems during moderate to vigorous physical activity. aging injury and diseaseD. Evaluate factors that affect physical activity and exercise preferences of adults. personal challenge physical benefits finances
247
cooperation/sharing on task
participation
opportunities to learn new activities
parental preference
environmentE. Identify factors that have an impact on the relationship between regular participation in physical activity and the degree of motor skill improvement. success-oriented
activities school-community
resources variety of
activities time on taskF. Identify and describe positive and negative interactions of group members in physical activities. leading following teamwork etiquette adherence to rules
drug/substance use/abuseD. Analyze factors that affect physical activity preferences of adolescents. skill competence social benefits previous experience activity confidenceE. Analyze factors that on the relationship between regular participation in physical activity and motor skill improvement. personal choice developmental differences amount of physical
activity authentic practiceF. Analyze the effects of positive and interactions of adolescent members in physical activities. group dynamics social pressure, climate,
motivation access to activity self-improvementE. Analyze the interrelationships among regular participation in physical activity, motor skill improvement and the selection and engagement in lifetime physical activities.F. Assess and use strategies for enhancing adult group interaction in physical activities. shared responsibility open communication goal setting
248247
248
APPENDIX B
PENNSYLVANIA STANDARD 10.5 – CONCEPTS, PRINCIPLES
AND STRATEGIES OF MOVEMENT
247
249
10.5. Concepts, Principles, and Strategies of Movement
10.4.3. GRADE 3 GRADE 6 10.4.9. GRADE 9 GRADE 12
Pennsylvania’s public schools shall teach, challenge, and support every student to realize his or her maximum potential and to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to:A. Recognize and use basic movement skills and concepts. locomotor movements
space awareness (e.g., self-space, levels, pathways, directions)
effort (e.g., speed, force)
B. Recognize and describe the concepts of motor skill development using appropriate vocabulary. form developmental
differences critical elements feedbackC. Know the function of practice.D. Identify and use
A. Explain and apply the basic movement skills and concepts to create and perform movement sequences and advanced skills.B. Identify and apply the concepts of motor skill development to a variety of basic skills. transfer between
skills selecting relevant
cues types of feedback movement efficiency product
(outcome/result)C. Describe the relationship between practice and skill development.D. Describe and apply the principles of exercise to the components of health-related and skill-related fitness. cardio respiratory
A. Describe and apply the components of skill-related fitness to movement performance. agility balance coordination power reaction time speedB. Describe and apply concepts of motor skill development that impact the quality of increasingly complex movement. response selection stages of learning a
motor skill (i.e. verbal cognitive, motor, automatic)
types of skill (i.e. discrete, serial, continuous)
C. Identify and apply practice strategies for skill improvement. D. Identify and describe the principles of training using appropriate vocabulary. specificity overload progression
A. Apply knowledge of movement skills, skill-related fitness and movement concepts to identify and evaluate physical activities that promote personal lifelong participation.B. Incorporate and synthesize knowledge of motor skill development concepts to improve the quality of motor skills. open and closed skills short-term and long-
term memory aspects of good
performanceC. Evaluate the impact of practice strategies on skill development and improvement.D. Incorporate and synthesize knowledge of exercise principles, training principles and health and skill-related fitness components to create a fitness program for personal use.E. Evaluate movement forms for appropriate application of scientific and biomechanical
250
250
principles of exercise to improve movement and fitness activities. frequency/how often to
exercise intensity/how hard to
exercise time/how long to
exercise type/what kind of
exerciseE. Know and describe scientific principles that affect movement and skills using appropriate vocabulary. gravity force
production/absorption balance rotationF. Recognize and describe game strategies using appropriate vocabulary. faking/dodging passing/receiving move MOVING to be open defending spacefollowing rules of play
body compositionE. Identify and use scientific principles that affect basic movement and skills using appropriate vocabulary. Newton’s Laws of
Motion application of force static/dynamic
balance levers flightF. Identify and apply game strategies to basic games and physical activities. give and go one-on-one peer communication
aerobic/anaerobic circuit/interval repetition/setE. Analyze and apply scientific and biomechanical principles to complex movements. centripetal/
centrifugal force linear motion rotary motion friction/resistance equilibrium number of moving
segmentsF. Describe and apply game strategies to complex games and physical activities. offensive strategies defensive strategiestime management
principles. efficiency of movement mechanical advantage kinetic energy potential energy inertia safetyF. Analyze the application of game strategies for different categories of physical activities. individual team lifetime outdoor
251
251
APPENDIX C
SUPERINTENDENT AUTHORIZATION TO CONTACT TEACHERS
252TO: Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent FROM: [email protected]: Authorization for standards-based research studyEmail Text: Dear Superintendent [Last Name],
Your school district has been selected for a research study. This study is examining how the Pennsylvania physical education standards are currently being implemented and assessed. The results of this study will serve to guide future standards development, professional development opportunities, physical education teacher education programs, as well as allow me to complete my doctoral degree at Temple University.
With your permission, I will collect the email addresses of physical educators in your district and send them emails inviting them to participate in an online survey. You are welcome to view the online survey via the attached document or online at the following web address: http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224VXWYV3W7
Before implementing these procedures, I ask that you reply to this email and state whether you authorize me to contact the physical educators in your district. If the email addresses of physical educators in your district are not readily available on your website, I would greatly appreciate if they could be included in the reply or a separate email.
All information collected will remain completely confidential. Participants will receive a summary of the research findings upon completion. If you would like additional information, please contact me via email ([email protected]) or my dissertation advisor, Dr. Ricky Swalm ([email protected], (215)204-8713).
Thank you for your assistance, Sincerely, Matthew CummiskeyPh.D. student at Temple UniversityPhysical educator at West Philadelphia High [email protected]
254TO: Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent FROM: [email protected]: Physical education research studyEmail Text: Dear Superintendent [Last Name],
I hope your school district scored well on the recent PSSA exams.
Two weeks ago you received an email about a research study pertaining to the Pennsylvania physical education standards. I am seeking your permission to email the physical educators in your school district and invite them to complete a short online survey. Strict confidentiality will be maintained and school districts and teachers will not be identified. I encourage you to view the online survey via the attached document or online at the following web address: http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224VXWYV3W7
Before I send any emails, you must reply to this email and state whether you authorize me to contact the physical educators in your district. If the email addresses of physical educators in your district are not readily available on your website, I would greatly appreciate if they could be included in the reply or a separate email.
In the absence of authorization, no additional correspondences will be directed to your school district. If you would like additional information, please contact me via email ([email protected]) or my dissertation advisor, Dr. Ricky Swalm ([email protected], (215)204-8713).
Thank you for your assistance, Sincerely,Matthew CummiskeyPh.D. student at Temple UniversityPhysical educator at West Philadelphia High [email protected]
256TO: Director of Personnel/Supervisor of Physical EducationFROM: [email protected]: Physical Education Standards in Pennsylvania
Email Text: Dear [Mr/Mrs Last Name],
Your school district has been selected for a research study which has been authorized by your superintendent. This study is examining how the Pennsylvania physical education standards are currently being implemented and assessed [text deleted].
I have browsed your school district’s website but unfortunately, have not been able to determine the email addresses of current physical education teachers. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate if you would reply to this email and include their email addresses. Upon receipt of these addresses, an email will be sent inviting teachers to participate in an online survey lasting 5–15 minutes. I encourage you to view the online survey via the attached document or online at the following web address: http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224VXWYV3W7A copy of this survey has been attached. All information collected will remain confidential and no personally identifying information will be collected.
If you would like additional information, please contact me via email ([email protected]) or my dissertation advisor, Dr. Ricky Swalm ([email protected], (215)204-8713).
Thank you for your assistance,
Sincerely,Matthew CummiskeyPh.D. student at Temple UniversityPhysical educator at West Philadelphia High [email protected]
Email Text: Your school has been selected for a research study which has been approved by Superintendent [Last name]. This study is examining how the Pennsylvania physical education standards are being implemented in the public schools. The results of this study will provide a snapshot of how the standards are being implemented and serve to guide future standards development, professional development opportunities, physical education teacher education, and the advancement of our profession. Following your participation, the overall results of the study will be emailed to you later this summer.
Your participation involves completing an online survey lasting approximately 5-15 minutes. All participant information will be kept strictly confidential and in fact, your name is not required.
To participate, click the following link. If you encounter difficulties opening the link, copy and paste it into your web browser’s address bar and click enter.
If you would like additional information, please contact me via email ([email protected]) or my dissertation advisor, Dr. Ricky Swalm ([email protected], (215)204-8713).
I sincerely thank you for participating in this study.
Matthew CummiskeyPh.D. student at Temple UniversityPhysical educator at West Philadelphia [email protected]
260Matthew Cummiskey4532 Walnut Street, Apt B11Philadelphia, PA [email protected](215)901-9730 (cell)
Superintendent’s NameStreet AddressCity, State, Zip Code
Dear Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent,
I am a doctoral student in Kinesiology at Temple University. As part of my degree requirements, I am completing a dissertation. My study is examining the implementation and assessment of Pennsylvania physical education standards 10.4 and 10.5. With your permission, I would like to conduct a portion of this study in your school district.
Student Investigator: Matthew CummiskeyFaculty Advisor: Dr. Ricky SwalmDepartment: KinesiologyTitle of Proposal: Implementation of the Pennsylvania state standards for physical education: Teacher and student perspectives
Project Information:1. Project Description: One physical education teacher
will be interviewed for a time not exceeding one class period. Non-participant observations will be conducted the same day on two to classes taught by the interview participant. Curricular related materials such as teacher selected lesson plans and a unit plans will be collected. Upon completion of these steps, the researcher will provide the teacher with student surveys to be completed in class. The surveys must be completed within two weeks of the cessation of interviews and observations and returned to the researcher in self-address stamped envelopes.
2. Qualifications of Researcher-The researcher is a Temple University graduate student completing his doctorate in accordance with degree requirements. The researcher is also a Pennsylvania state certified health and physical education teacher currently teaching health and physical education at West Philadelphia High School.
3. Attachments:
261a. Informed consent form-interview participantsb. Interview questions for teachersc. Student surveyd. Informed assent and consent forms-student
participants4. Confidentiality: School districts and teachers will be
identified by a code known only to the researcher and dissertation committee. At no point in the research or publication process will the names of school districts or teachers be made public. Student names will not be collected because they are not integral to the research study. All collected materials will remain confidential and will be stored in a locked location for three years until they are destroyed.
5. Informing Subjects: Teachers will be verbally informed of the study by the researcher and will sign an informed consent form. Students will be verbally informed of the study by their teachers. In addition, students and a parent/guardian will complete and return an informed assent and consent form in order to participate.
6. Persons to Contact:a. Investigator: Matthew Cummiskey,
Welcome to the Pennsylvania Physical Education Standards Survey. Please respond accurately to all survey questions so that we can arrive at a true understanding of how the standards are being implemented. This study also involves teacher interviews and if you would like to be contacted for a possible interview, please provide your contact information at the end. All information will remain completely confidential.
1. Demographic information1. You are
a. Maleb. Female
2. How many years have you been a full-time teacher in the public schools?a. Enter number
3. Which grade level do you teach?a. Elementary school (K-5)b. Middle school (6-8)c. High school grade (9-12)d. Multiple levels
4. In what setting do you perceive your school to be located?a. Central city/urbanb. Urban fringe/suburb/large townc. Rural/small town
5. How many physical education teachers are in your school (include yourself)? a. Enter number
6. Approximately how many students are in your school?a. Enter the number
7. Approximately how many students are in your school district?a. Enter the number
8. Is there a supervisor of physical education for your school district?a. Yesb. No
2649. Is there a chair or head of the physical education
department in your building?a. Yesb. No
10. How would you rate the performance of students in your school district in PSSA exams against other students in the state?a. Above averageb. Averagec. Below average
11. I am a member of (check all that apply):a. AAHPERDb. PSAHPERDc. Relevant Coaching Associationd. NEA/PSEA
2. Click the number which indicates whether you strongly agree, disagree, agree, or strongly disagree with the statement (4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree)1. I am familiar with Pennsylvania physical education
standards 10.4 and 10.5.2. I use the standards as a guide when creating
lesson plans.3. I incorporate the standards into my teaching.4. I believe the standards are valuable.5. I plan assessments which address the standards.6. My students have met the grade level PA standards
for PE.7. Enough class time is allocated to physical
education by my school district to achieve the standards.
8. I coordinate with other physical educators in my school district regarding how to implement the PA standards in class.
9. I improve my knowledge of the standards through workshops and professional development.
10.Students in my classes have achieved the respective grade level standards.
11.The standards are making a positive difference in how “physically educated” my students are.
12.The standards accurately reflect knowledge and skills which will be useful to students as adults.
13.The standards are not of much use.14.My students are aware there are state standards
for physical education.
26515.I understand the state’s physical education
standards. 16.When drafting lesson plans, the standards help
direct what I should cover or include. 17.My teaching reflects the standards.18.The amount and frequency of physical education is
sufficient to achieve the standards.19.I work with other teachers in my district when
deciding how to incorporate the standards in class.
20.Due to the standards, how “physically educated” my students are has improved.
21.Workshops and professional development help me improve my understanding of the standards.
22.Students in my classes have heard of the state standards for physical education.
23.The material covered by the standards will be valuable to students after high school as adults.
24.The assessments I create are focused on the standards.
3. Open Ended: Please describe how you integrate the standards into your entire physical education program (planning, teaching, assessing, other).
4. May we contact you for a possible follow-up interview?1. Yes2. No
5. If you answered “yes” above, please provide your name and contact information. This information will not be disclosed to a third party.1. Name:2. Email Address:3. Phone Number:4. Work Zip Code:
266
APPENDIX J
WEB-BASED ONLINE TEACHER SURVEY
267
Pennsylvania Physical Education Standards SurveyCONSENT FORM Please click "Start Survey" at the bottom after reading this consent form. Title: Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education Researchers(s): Matthew Cummiskey, M.S., Department of Kinesiology (215) 204-1940, Pearson Hall #140, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, Email: [email protected] Advisor: Ricky Swalm, PhD
CONSENT TO ACT AS A PARTICIPANT FOR RESEARCH PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to analyze how the Pennsylvania Academic Standards 10.4 and 10.5 for Health, Safety and Physical Education are being implemented and assessed in the public schools. SELECTION OF SUBJECTS: I understand that I have been chosen to participate in this study because I a certified public school physical education teacher in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES: I understand that I will be required to complete the following online survey. The survey will take approximately 5-15 minutes to complete. I may provide additional information by answering the open-ended question at the end of the survey. RISKS: There are no known risks associated with participating in this research study. If however, any problems or concerns arise, I will contact the researcher. BENEFITS: I will receive an email attachment describing the general results of the research. CONFIDENTIALITY: I understand that my privacy will be maintained throughout the research and publication process. Only the researcher and dissertation committee will have access to participant information. DISCLAIMER/WITHDRAWAL: It is understood that my participation is unconditionally voluntary and I may at any time terminate my involvement. I understand that non-participation or withdrawal from the research study will not prejudice future interactions with the investigator or Temple University. SUBJECT RIGHTS: I understand that if I wish further information regarding my rights as a research subject, I may contact Richard Throm, Temple University Institutional Review Board Coordinator at the Office of Vice President for Research by phoning (215) 707-8757. I also understand that I may ask questions, and that my questions will be answered.
By clicking the “Start Survey” arrow, you indicate that you have read and understand this consent form and that you voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
Thank you for completing the Pennsylvania Physical Education Standards Survey. The purpose of this survey is to determine how the standards are being implemented and to improve physical education for future students. Please respond accurately to all survey questions. Your responses will not affect your grade or the status of your teacher. All information will remain completely confidential.
Section 1: Demographics – Fill in the correct response
1. What is your age? _________
2. What grade are you in? _________
3. What is your gender? _________
Section 2: Check or X the box which shows whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with the statement.
For example:I like weekends.Strongly Disagree □ Disagree □ Agree □ Strongly Agree □Standards-Related Questions:1. I have heard of the Pennsylvania standards for physical education. Strongly Disagree □ Disagree □ Agree □ Strongly Agree □
2. My physical education teacher discusses the Pennsylvania standards for physical education.
The purpose of this survey is to look at how the standards are being put into action in your school. Please respond accurately to all survey questions. Your responses will not affect your grade or your teacher.
Section 1: Fill in the correct response
1. What is your age? _________
2. What grade are you in? _________
3. What is your gender? _________
Section 2: Check or X the box which shows whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with the statement.
For example:I like weekends.Strongly Disagree □ Disagree □ Agree □ Strongly Agree □Standards-Related Questions:1. I have heard of the Pennsylvania standards for physical education. Strongly Disagree □ Disagree □ Agree □ Strongly Agree □
2. My physical education teacher talks about the Pennsylvania standards for physical education.
Years teaching public school physical education:_______________________
District Classification:
Central city, urban fringe/large town, or rural/small town
AAAA, AAA, AA, A
Elementary, middle, high school
Administrative coordination, no administrative coordination
1. Why do you think we have the standards?2. Describe how familiar you are with the PA standards for
physical education?3. How did you educate yourself about the standards?4. How did you go about creating and organizing the
curriculum? 5. How do the standards relate to the curriculum?6. Do you do anything to balance coverage of the physical
education standards and standard statements?7. To what degree have your students achieved the
standards?8. How do you know that your students are achieving the
standards?a. Probe: How are you assessing the standards?
9. What factors have helped and impeded your ability to implement the standards?
a. Probe: Internet materials, physical education organizations, school district personnel, professional development etc.
b. Probe: Teacher willingness, access to materials, lack of know how, etc.
10. How do you think your school district’s demographic profile (setting, enrollment, and administrative coordination) affects the implementation of the standards?
11. Do you think that physical educators have enough class time to accomplish the standards? Why or why not?
27812. Does anyone organize and coordinate the districts
physical education program? If so, how. 13. Do you collaborate with other physical educators in
your district regarding the standards and if so, how?14. What do you like and dislike about the standards?15. Are there any ways in which you incorporate the PA
standards for PE which we haven’t discussed?16. Tell me what you honestly think of the standards; are
they a valuable tool or just a waste of time?
279
APPENDIX N
OBSERVATION FORM
280
School District, School, and Teacher Code:________________
Date:________ Time:_________ Class Size:_______________
Concepts to Observe_______________________________________________________________________
Observables related to standard 10.4: physical activity
Physical movement/fitness plan, affect of regular participation on health status, body’s response to exercise, factors affecting activity preference, motor skill improvement factors, group interaction.
Observables related to standard 10.5 concepts, principles and strategies of movement
Movement skills/concepts, motor skill development, effects of practice, health/skill related fitness/training, scientific principles, game strategies
Synchronicity of observables with the lesson plan provided
References to standards Number of times: Specific comments: General comments:
Compare observables to information provided in the online survey data
Compare observables to information provided in the interview
Use of standards related posters, information, or handouts.
Additional comments/notes
281
APPENDIX O
INFORMED CONSENT - ONLINE PARTICIPANTS
282CONSENT FORM
Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education: Teacher and Student Perspectives
Researchers(s): Matthew Cummiskey, M.S., Department of Kinesiology (215) 204-1940, Pearson Hall #140, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, Email: [email protected]: Ricky Swalm, PhD
CONSENT TO ACT AS A PARTICIPANT FOR RESEARCH
PURPOSEThe purpose of this study is to analyze how the Pennsylvania Academic Standards 10.4 and 10.5 for Health, Safety and Physical Education are being implemented and assessed in the public schools.
SELECTION OF SUBJECTSI understand that I have been chosen to participate in this study because I a certified public school physical education teacher in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURESI understand that I will be required to complete the following online survey. The survey will take approximately 5-15 minutes to complete. I may provide additional information by answering the open-ended question at the end of the survey.
RISKSThere are no known risks associated with participating in this research study. If however, any problems or concerns arise, I will contact the researcher.
BENEFITSI will receive an email attachment describing the general results of the research.
CONFIDENTIALITYI understand that my privacy will be maintained throughout the research and publication process. Only the researcher and dissertation committee will have access to participant information.
283Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education: Teacher and Student Perspectives
DISCLAIMER/WITHDRAWALIt is understood that my participation is unconditionally voluntary and I may at any time terminate my involvement. I understand that non-participation or withdrawal from the research study will not prejudice future interactions with the investigator or Temple University.
SUBJECT RIGHTSI understand that if I wish further information regarding my rights as a research subject, I may contact Richard Throm, Temple University Institutional Review Board Coordinator at the Office of Vice President for Research by phoning (215) 707-8757. I also understand that I may ask questions, and that my questions will be answered.
By clicking the “Start Survey” arrow, you indicate that you have read and understand this consent form and that you voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
284
APPENDIX P
THANK YOU
285Thank you for taking the time to complete the Pennsylvania Physical Education Standards Survey. Your efforts will help improve physical education for both teachers and students alike. Later this summer, you will receive an email summarizing the results of this study. You are free to share this information with students, colleagues, and other professionals.
If you would like to contact me ([email protected]) or my dissertation advisor, Dr. Ricky Swalm ([email protected], 215.204.8713) for any reason, please do not hesitate to do so. Best of luck with the standards and the remainder of your school year.
Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education: Teacher and Student Perspectives
Researchers(s): Matthew Cummiskey, M.S., Department of Kinesiology (215) 204-1940, Pearson Hall #140, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, Email: [email protected]: Ricky Swalm, PhD
CONSENT TO ACT AS A PARTICIPANT FOR RESEARCH
PURPOSEThe purpose of this study is to analyze how the Pennsylvania Academic Standards 10.4 and 10.5 for Health, Safety and Physical Education are being implemented and assessed in the public schools.
SELECTION OF SUBJECTSI understand that I have been chosen to participate in this study because I a certified public school physical education teacher in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURESI understand that I will be interviewed for a period not exceeding one class period (approximately 30-50 minutes). I also understand that the interview will be audio-recorded and these tapes will be stored in a locked location for a period of three (3) years after completion of the study. The researcher will take notes during the interview process and observe three to four physical education classes. Documents relating to the standards such as unit plans, lesson plans, and other curricular materials will be collected.
RISKSThere are no known risks associated with participating in this research study. If however, any problems or concerns arise, I will contact the researcher.
BENEFITSI will receive an email attachment describing the general results of the research.
CONFIDENTIALITYI understand that my privacy will be maintained throughout the research and publication process. Only the researcher and dissertation committee will have access to participant information.
288Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education: Teacher and Student Perspectives
DISCLAIMER/WITHDRAWALIt is understood that my participation is unconditionally voluntary and I may at any time terminate my involvement. I understand that non-participation or withdrawal from the research study will not prejudice future interactions with the investigator or Temple University.
SUBJECT RIGHTSI understand that if I wish further information regarding my rights as a research subject, I may contact Richard Throm, Temple University Institutional Review Board Coordinator at the Office of Vice President for Research by phoning (215) 707-8757. I also understand that I may ask questions, and that my questions will be answered.
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand this consent form and that you voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
________________________________________________________Participant’s Signature Date
________________________________________________________Researcher’s Signature Date
289
APPENDIX R
INFORMED ASSENT AND CONSENT - STUDENT SURVEY
290ASSENT AND CONSENT FORM
Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education: Teacher and Student Perspectives
Researchers(s): Matthew Cummiskey, M.S., Department of Kinesiology (215) 204-1940, Pearson Hall #140, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, Email: [email protected]: Ricky Swalm, PhD
CONSENT TO ACT AS A PARTICIPANT FOR RESEARCH
PURPOSEThe purpose of this study is to analyze how the Pennsylvania Academic Standards 10.4 and 10.5 for Health, Safety and Physical Education are being implemented and assessed in the public schools.
SELECTION OF SUBJECTSI understand that I have been chosen to participate in this study because I am a student in a public school physical education class in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURESI understand that I will be completing an in-class survey. The survey will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. I may provide additional information by answering the open-ended question at the end of the survey.
RISKSThere are no known risks associated with participating in this research study. If however, any problems or concerns arise, I will contact the researcher.
BENEFITSMy physical education teacher may provide information about the results of this study. In addition, my participation will serve to enhance the quality of physical education across the state.
CONFIDENTIALITYI understand that my privacy will be maintained throughout the research and publication process. No personally identifying student information such as names or contact information will be collected.
291Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education: Teacher and Student Perspectives
DISCLAIMER/WITHDRAWALIt is understood that my participation is unconditionally voluntary and I may at any time terminate my involvement. I understand that non-participation or withdrawal from the research study will not prejudice future interactions with the investigator or Temple University.
SUBJECT RIGHTSI understand that if I wish further information regarding my rights as a research subject, I may contact Richard Throm, Temple University Institutional Review Board Coordinator at the Office of Vice President for Research by phoning (215) 707-8757. I also understand that I can ask questions, and that my questions will be answered.
Students, your signature below indicates that you have read and understand this consent form and voluntarily agree to participate. Parents and guardians, your signature below indicates that you have read and understand this consent form and consent to the participation of the student named below.
________________________________________________________Participant’s Signature (Student) Date
________________________________________________________Parent/Guardian Signature Date
________________________________________________________Researcher’s Signature Date
292
APPENDIX S
INFORMED ASSENT AND CONSENT –
STUDENT OBSERVATION AND SURVEY
293ASSENT AND CONSENT FORM
Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education: Teacher and Student Perspectives
Researchers(s): Matthew Cummiskey, M.S., Department of Kinesiology (215) 204-1940, Pearson Hall #140, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, Email: [email protected]: Ricky Swalm, PhD
CONSENT TO ACT AS A PARTICIPANT FOR RESEARCH
PURPOSEThe purpose of this study is to analyze how the Pennsylvania Academic Standards 10.4 and 10.5 for Health, Safety and Physical Education are being implemented and assessed in the public schools.
SELECTION OF SUBJECTSI understand that I have been chosen to participate in this study because I am a student in a public school physical education class in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURESI understand that I will be observed for one class period and that the researcher will not interact or participate with the students in the class. I understand that I will also be completing an in-class survey that will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. I may provide additional information by answering the open-ended question at the end of the survey.
RISKSThere are no known risks associated with participating in this research study. If however, any problems or concerns arise, I will contact the researcher.
BENEFITSMy physical education teacher may provide information about the results of this study. In addition, my participation will serve to enhance the quality of physical education across the state.
CONFIDENTIALITYI understand that my privacy will be maintained throughout the research and publication process. No personally identifying student information such as names or contact information will be collected.
294Implementation of the Pennsylvania State Standards for Physical Education: Teacher and Student Perspectives
DISCLAIMER/WITHDRAWALIt is understood that my participation is unconditionally voluntary and I may at any time terminate my involvement. I understand that non-participation or withdrawal from the research study will not prejudice future interactions with the investigator or Temple University.
SUBJECT RIGHTSI understand that if I wish further information regarding my rights as a research subject, I may contact Richard Throm, Temple University Institutional Review Board Coordinator at the Office of Vice President for Research by phoning (215) 707-8757. I also understand that I can ask questions, and that my questions will be answered.
Students, your signature below indicates that you have read and understand this consent form and voluntarily agree to participate. Parents and guardians, your signature below indicates that you have read and understand this consent form and consent to the participation of the student named below.
________________________________________________________Participant’s Signature (Student) Date
________________________________________________________Parent/Guardian Signature Date
________________________________________________________Researcher’s Signature Date
Question 2: How many years have you been a full-time teacher in the public schools?
Question 3: Which grade level do you teach?
Question 4: In what kind of setting is your school located?
Question 5: How many physical education teachers are in your school (include yourself)?
Question 6: Approxi-mately how many students are in your school?
Question 7: Approxi-mately how many students are in your school district?
1a F 21 Elem Suburban 1 180 40001b F 10 High Suburban 2 400 36001c F 8 Middle Suburban 2 470 55002 M 8 Elem Rural 1 575 10003 F 2 Middle Rural 2 650 18504a M 7 Multiple Rural 2 470 10204b M 2 Multiple Suburban 2 500 7005a M 15 High Rural 5 1200 18005b F 9 Elem Rural 1 241 35006 F 5 High Rural 2 350 12007a M 1 Middle Suburban 3 600 12007b F 3 Elem Rural 1 200 24008a F 26 High Suburban 7 1700 70008b M 9 Elem Suburban 1 740 60009a F 29 High Urban 6 1400 NR9b M 2 Middle Urban 2 600 200,000Note: NR=no response
338
306
Tea-cher #
Question 8: Is there a supervisor of physical education for your school district?
Question 9: Is there a chair or head of he physical education department in your building?
Question 10: How would you rate the performance of your school district on state exams against other students in the state?
Ques-tion 11: AAH-PERD
Ques-tion 11: PS-AH-PERD
Ques-tion 11: Rele-vant Coach-ing Asso-cia-tion
Que-st-ion 11: NEA/PSEA
Question 12: I am familiar with Pennsyl-vania physical education standards 10.4 and 10.5
1a No No Above Yes No No No 41b Yes Yes Average Yes No No No 41c No Yes Above Yes No Yes No 42 No No Below No Yes No Yes 43 No No Above No No No Yes 44a No Yes Below No Yes No Yes 34b No Yes Below Yes Yes Yes Yes 35a Yes Yes Above No No No No 35b No Yes Average No No Yes No 46 No No Average No No No Yes 47a Yes Yes Below No No No Yes 27b No No Average No Yes No Yes 48a No Yes Above No No No Yes 48b Yes No Above No No No Yes 39a No Yes Below No No Yes No 4
9b Yes Yes Average Yes Yes No No
3 339
307
Tea-cher #
Question 12: I use the stan-dards as a guide when creating lesson plans.
Question 12: I incur-porate the stan-dards into my tea-ching.
Ques-tion 12: I be-lieve the stan-dards are valu-able
Ques-tion 12: I plan ass-ess-ments which add-ress the standards
Ques-tion 12: My stu-dents have met the grade level PA stan-dards for PE
Question 12: Enough class time is allocated to physical education by my school district to achieve the standards
Question 12: I coordinate with other physical educators in my school district regarding how to implement the PA standards in class
Question 12: I improve my knowledge of the standards through workshops and profes-sional develop-ment
