Search

Physical education is the only school subject that provides access to psychomotor learning opportunity for all students, and, thus, should be the primary content identified in physical education standards. Half of the recently released 2024 SHAPE America National Physical Education Standards now focus specifically on social and personal development. This further diminishes the central place of physical education's core content (i.e., fundamental motor skills, fitness, sport, dance, and outdoor pursuits). To counter this development, this article will provide all physical education professionals with a set of alternative learning standards and content learning outcomes that more accurately reflect our profession's true and unique subject matter. Part 1 introduces readers to alternative Learning Standards. These are placed in the context of instructional alignment between unit objectives, instructional content, and assessment of students learning. Responses are also presented to questions that readers may pose after familiarizing themselves with these alternative PreK-12 physical education standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Part 2 of the article on the proposed alternative PreK-12 physical education Learning Standards introduces examples of specific Content Learning Outcomes (CLOs) under each of the alternative standards introduced in Part 1. In addition, Learning Outcomes are offered that target students' pro-social behavior development, as well as their joy and enthusiasm for physical activity. The proposed CLOs reflect observable and assessable behaviors. Furthermore, the article provides specific strategies for how physical educators can develop credible evidence of student learning (i.e., progression toward meeting the learning outcomes) and closes with a call to ensure that the field defines student "success" in a defensible way that is true to physical education's subject matter content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Educational reform in the past decade has placed a very strong emphasis on teacher accountability and student achievement. This change in focus has caused a thorough reexamination of how teacher quality and effectiveness are defined in the field, and has triggered a reform of the teacher evaluation process. As a result, generic, all-encompassing evaluation systems are being developed to evaluate teachers across all subject areas, including physical education. This one-size-fits-all approach meets the more obvious goal of evaluation, which is to review and appraise the competence level of teachers, but questions arise about whether the evaluation will improve teacher effectiveness. This generic approach overlooks the actual context in which teaching takes place and disregards the subject matter being taught. If the primary goal of teacher evaluation is to help teachers become more effective, the evaluation system must provide teachers with objective, content-specific feedback to inform practice and guide them to improve their teaching effectiveness. This article discusses concerns related to using some of the more generic evaluation systems currently being implemented in schools to evaluate physical education teachers. It concludes with suggestions about how physical education teacher education programs can provide observation tools to their teacher candidates to improve teacher effectiveness.

The purpose of this chapter is to advance the concept of pedagogical content knowledge in a manner that would better align it with the integrative type of knowledge needed by teachers at all three stages (preservice teachers, induction teachers, and cooperating teachers), allowing them to use model-based instruction (MBI) most effectively in physical education school programs once they have adopted that approach. This improved alignment would allow teachers to learn pedagogical content knowledge within a dynamic process that requires their attention to several key factors simultaneously, rather than as a set of deconstructed pieces of knowledge (e.g., management, content, pupil characteristics). Cochran et al. (1993) offer seven "working hypotheses" for the application of pedagogical content knowing to teacher education. These authors redefine those hypotheses as "postulates" that reflect necessary conditions for the development of pedagogical content knowing for MBI, and include all three stages of teaching (preservice, induction, veteran).

Previous chapters in this monograph have reported on a series of research studies that examined the adoption of an instructional innovation, model-based instruction (MBI), by teachers in three stages of career development: preservice/student teachers (STs), induction teachers (ITs), and experienced/cooperating teachers (CTs). All the teachers were affiliated to varying degrees with one physical education teacher education (PETE) program. All the teachers were involved with making decisions that would ultimately lead them to reject, adopt, or discontinue the use of MBI in their daily teaching practices. The purpose of this chapter is to take a closer examination at the dynamics involved with teachers in different career stages making decisions about adopting MBI as an innovative approach. All teachers cope with varying degrees of autonomy to make those decisions while interacting with different constellations of change agents, and learning MBI in school and PETE program settings (agencies) that offer different arrays of facilitating and inhibiting factors that influence their decisions about best practice in general and MBI in particular. The preceding chapters that reported the findings for teachers in this series of studies did so by within-group analyses; this chapter provides an analysis of the findings from these studies by presenting commonalities and differences found across the three groups of teachers, based on the sets of change agency factors and change agents. (Contains 1 figure.)

This article considers another group of educators involved with the adoption of model-based instruction (MBI)--the cooperating teachers, who supervise physical education teacher education (PETE) student teachers in the Georgia State University (GSU) program. The university spends several semesters educating preservice teachers about the skills and knowledge necessary to become effective teachers with MBI. The student teacher is then assigned to a cooperating teacher to practice this new knowledge and implement theories into real-world practice. Cooperating teachers can reinforce the lessons learned at the university or cause a "washout" effect (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). Because of the key role that cooperating teachers play in the educational process, the purpose of this study is to examine the factors that influence cooperating teachers' decisions to adopt MBI. (Contains 2 figures and 2 tables.)

Given the agreement of pedagogy experts about the importance of assessment in teaching and learning, this chapter focuses on the kinds of assessments used by student teachers as they planned lessons using five instructional models (IMs), for their models assessment project. In addition, the planned learning targets are examined by analyzing lesson objectives in the elementary and secondary models projects in an attempt to understand the conceptions about assessment held by these student teachers. Understanding student teachers' existing conceptions is required if teacher educators are to change their conceptions during a teacher education program. The original purpose of this study was to examine the assessment practices used by student teachers when teaching IMs. After researchers completed their initial review of the assessments found in the student teachers' model projects, it became clear that there were misconceptions related to the lack of alignment between assessments and objectives. Therefore, a secondary purpose of the study was to systematically examine the objectives in the projects as a way of understanding and explaining assessment misconceptions. (Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.)

The article examines how well student teachers planned and implemented model-based units of instruction and the factors that worked to either use or inhibit their use of model-based instruction (MBI). It states that a semi structured group interview allowed student teachers in providing insights about MBI, as they contemplated the experiences of learning MBI in physical education teacher education program (PETE). The result reveals that in spite of some inhibitors present in various contextual factors, student teachers implemented MBI units with average level of accuracy.

The article provides an overview of the framework for the adoption of instructional innovation across teacher's career stages which was formed by Everett Rogers, a scholar. It discusses Rogers' theory of diffusion of innovations in framing the study in adopting model-based instruction (MBI) in which three groups of teachers that are associated in different ways with a physical education teacher education (PETE) program faculty that uses MBI are being studied. Moreover, it asserts that the mixed methods approach that was used on the framework was designed to examine the influence of MBI in daily practice.

The article discusses the study that examines the role of model-based instruction (MBI) in a physical education teacher education (PETE) in the U.S. The current study examines the impact and adoption of MBI assessed by the Georgia State University (GSU) which attempts to determine the impact of programmatic decisions and changes on the quality of teaching. It also attempts to find out how PETE learn about and make decisions in adopting model-based instructions in three stages of developments which enumerates preservice, induction, and veteran teachers.