Search

Framed within achievement goal theory and self-determination theory, the aim of this study was to explore the experiences and motivational needs of students within secondary school Physical Education, attempting to identify their preferred motivational instructional strategies. Nine focus group interviews were conducted comprising 61 students (32 girls and 29 boys; M age = 15.17; SD = 0.48) across 3 different schools. The semi-structured interview guide was based on the TARGET (Task, Authority, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, Time) framework. Interviews were analysed using the Framework Method. Results revealed that student-preferred instructional strategies were in line with the tenets of the self-determination theory and achievement goal theory. Students stressed the importance of variation, challenge, achievable tasks, involvement, structure, positive and individual feedback, careful grouping, progress evaluation, transparency of standards and reliable assessment. Structuring these strategies according to the TARGET dimensions provided an overview to support PE teachers in realising an optimal motivational class climate.

Background: Assessment can have various functions, and is an important impetus for student learning. For assessment to be effective, it should be aligned with curriculum goals and of sufficient quality. Although it has been suggested that assessment quality in physical education (PE) is suboptimal, research into actual assessment practices has been relatively scarce. Purpose: The goals of the present study were to determine the quality of assessment, teachers' views on the functions of assessment, the alignment of assessment with learning goals, and the actual assessment practices in secondary PE in the Netherlands. Participants and setting: A total of 260 PE teachers from different schools in the Netherlands filled out an online Physical Education Assessment Questionnaire (PEAQ) on behalf of their school. Data collection: The online questionnaire (PEAQ) contained the following sections: quality of assessment, intended functions of assessment, assessment practices, and intended goals of PE. Data analysis: Percentages of agreement were calculated for all items. In addition, assessment quality items were recoded into a numerical value between 1 and 5 (mean ± SD). Cronbach's alpha was calculated for each predefined quality aspect of the PEAQ, and for assessment quality as a whole. Findings: Mean assessment quality (±SD) was 3.6 ± 0.6. With regard to the function of assessment, most PE teachers indicated that they intended using assessment as a means of supporting the students' learning process (formative function). At the same time, the majority of schools take PE grades into account for determining whether a student may enter the next year (summative function). With regard to assessment practices, a large variety of factors are included when grading, and observation is by far the assessment technique most widely applied. A minority of PE teachers grade students without predetermined assessment criteria, and usually criteria are identical for all students. There is an apparent discrepancy between reported PE goals and assessment practices; although increasing students' fitness levels is the least important goal of PE lessons according to the PE teachers, 81% reports that fitness is one of the factors being judged. Conversely, while 94% considers gaining knowledge about physical activity and sports as one of the goals of PE, only 34% actually assesses knowledge. Conclusions: Assessment in Dutch PE is of moderate quality. The findings further suggest that PE teachers consider assessment "for" learning important but that their assessment practices are not generally in line with this view. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of alignment between intended learning outcomes and what is actually being valued and assessed. We believe that these results call for a concerted effort from PE departments, school boards, and the education inspectorate to scrutinise existing assessment practices, and work together to optimise PE assessment.

Background: Detailed knowledge about physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) can guide the development of school interventions aimed at reducing overweight in adolescents. However, relevant components of PAEE have never been objectively quantified in this population. This study investigated the contribution of active transport to and from school, physical education (PE), and leisure time activities to total PAEE during a regular school week in adolescents. Methods: Seventy-three adolescents (mean age: 15.7 years) wore an individually calibrated combined heart rate-acceleration monitor and kept an activity diary during a regular school week. Branched equation modeling was used to calculate PAEE of the specific activity categories, and their relative contribution to total PAEE was determined. Results: Active transport and PE contributed 30.0% and 17.4%, respectively, to school-related PAEE. Active transport to and from school contributed 15% to total PAEE. Youth with a high physical activity level (PAL) spent 4 hours less in sedentary behavior than subjects with a medium or low PAL (F = 77.415 (2.70), p less than 0.001) and had higher PAEE during leisure time sports (F = 9.135 (2.70), p less than 0.001) and work-related activities (F = 10.583 (2.70), p less than 0.001) than youth with medium or low PAL values. Conclusions: Active transport and PE contribute significantly to PAEE during school hours in adolescents. To achieve an increase in total PAEE in the least active group of adolescents, promising strategies might be to reduce inactive behavior, increase participation in leisure time sports, and possibly to replace inactive for active jobs. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)

Comparisons of visual perception, response-selection, and response-execution performance were made between Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and a matched nondiabetic control group. 10 well-controlled male patients with Type 2 diabetes without diabetic complications (M age 58 yr.) and an age and IQ-matched nondiabetic control group consisting of 13 male healthy volunteers (M age 37 yr.) were included. Significant differences were found only between the two groups on response-selection performance, which concerns the selection and preparation of an appropriate motor action.

Research presented concerns the potential benefits of exercise on the prevention and management of insulin resistance. The physiological aspects of insulin sensitivity are discussed, as research reveals higher levels of insulin sensitivity after exercise.