critically evaluate your physical education equipment

This site belongs to UNESCO's International Institute for Educational Planning

IIEP Learning Portal

Search form

• issue briefs
• Improve learning

The physical school environment

The brief explores how physical education facilities – that is, land, buildings, and furniture for education – can affect learning processes and what measures can be undertaken to create the optimal conditions for learners and teachers’ achievement and well-being.

Target 4.a of the Sustainable Development Goal 4 on inclusive and equitable quality education calls for the international community to ‘build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all’.  Proposed indicators include water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), electricity, and ICT access, as well as access to adapted infrastructure and materials for learners with disabilities (UNESCO, 2016) . Spaces that are safe and healthy have been found to positively affect pupil’s academic outcomes (Barrett et al., 2019) . Given the sizeable budget allocated to physical facilities, around 10–25 per cent of educational expenditures, it is crucial that funds are well spent and that school locations and facilities support access to education and an environment conducive to learning (Beynon, 1997) . The COVID-19 pandemic showed that poor-quality infrastructure (e.g. lack of ventilation) can exacerbate COVID-19 transmission in a school setting (USAID, 2020) . School infrastructure is, therefore, high on the agenda as governments prepare for school reopening. 

What we know

School location.

Schools are an integral part of a community and are best located close to the learners they serve. The need to travel long distances to school can have a negative impact on enrolment and retention (especially among girls and disabled children), as well as attendance and performance. For example, studies have found that students living less than 1 km from their school perform statistically better than those who walk further (Theunynck, 2009) .

School size

Evidence on the impact of school size on learning is mixed. Studies from the USA suggest that smaller schools may contribute to better student outcomes as learners, teachers, and parents see themselves as part of a community (Barrett et al., 2019) , while in India small schools with fewer facilities and a lack of specialist teachers may be resulting in lower outcomes (Rolleston and Moore, 2018) . Data from Senegal showed that school size had no effect on student performance in the early grades, but that attending a large school had adverse effects on student performance by the fourth grade. This may be due to the fact that fourth graders have spent more time in the education system whereas, at the start of the learning process, schools have not yet left their mark on younger learners, whose learning is shaped more by family environment (Koussihouede, 2020) . Barrett et al. (2019) also point to the drawbacks of large schools, citing higher transportation costs, higher administrative overheads, lower graduation rates, higher absenteeism, higher rates of vandalism, and lower teacher satisfaction.

School premises

An ‘inviting physical environment that ensures the safety and health of learners’ helps to enhance the quality of learning (UIS, 2012: 38) . Learning assessment data from Latin America shows a clear relationship between school infrastructure and learning even after controlling the socioeconomic level of the families. The two categories that are most clearly associated with learning outcomes are pedagogical and academic spaces, and connection to services (electricity, telephone, and Internet) (UNESCO Santiago Office and IDB, 2017) .

The quality of infrastructure affects enrolment and completion rates, and it is an important aspect in parents’ satisfaction with and perception of school quality (Gershberg, 2014) . There is evidence to suggest that school construction projects can help raise motivation among students and teachers and improve parental engagement, which subsequently leads to improved academic achievement (Neilson and Zimmerman, 2011) . Well-designed schools can increase the productivity of school staff and cut financial waste on unnecessary services and maintenance (RIBA, 2016) .

Although the literature does not show a strong relationship between students’ exam results and their satisfaction with the condition of school facilities, some studies have demonstrated convincing links between student outcomes and specific aspects of classroom infrastructure in OECD countries (Barrett et al., 2019) . Table 1 summarizes the evidence gathered from the literature.

a. Classroom features that are strongly related to their use. Source: Barrett et al., 2019: 28.

Outside of the classroom, learners need access to adequate outdoor space for organized physical education and sports, as well as for play during break times (UIS, 2012) . Physical activity and recreation have a significant impact on child development and the physical and mental health of learners (Barrett et al., 2019) .

WASH facilities

Schools are one of the most successful and cost-effective resources for targeting children and communities with key health and hygiene interventions (WHO, 2004) . Basic services such as water, sanitation, waste disposal, electricity, and communications also help ensure that children and teachers attend school and remain healthy there (Barrett et al., 2019) . Inadequate WASH facilities affect boys and girls in different ways, and this may contribute to unequal learning opportunities. Specifically, lack of sanitary facilities may mean that female students but also female teachers are absent from school during menstruation (WHO, 2009; Gershberg, 2014) .

Equity and inclusion

Equity issues are an important factor in the relationship among school location, facilities, premises, and student outcomes. The following findings emerged from the literature:

• Schools located in areas with good quality-of-life factors (e.g. higher pay, educated population) may attract and retain more qualified and motivated teachers (Gagnon, 2015) .
• In general, older school buildings and those in poor condition are located in the poorest areas (Barrett et al., 2019) .
• Overcrowded school buildings and heat exposure have been found to have a negative impact on student performance, especially for students from minority and financially disadvantaged backgrounds (Earthman, 2002; Park et al., 2020) .
• The effects of small schools (better attendance, higher graduation rates, greater engagement in extracurricular activities) may be more beneficial to children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Barrett et al., 2019) .
• Accessibility to school (transportation, well-maintained pavements) and in school (wide doors and corridors, adjusted toilets) is still a challenge worldwide (Education International Research, 2018) . The ‘physical “place” of the classroom’ can be improved to support learners with disabilities through the provision of clearly written texts, facilitating the use of assistive devices and adaptive learning resources. Space can be re-organized by moving learners with visual and physical disabilities to the front of the classroom so they can see and hear the teacher (Miles, Westbrook, and Croft, 2018: 79) . Flexible, age-appropriate learning spaces have the potential to improve academic outcomes for all learners (Barrett et al., 2019) .

Condition of school infrastructure

In Africa, the rapid expansion in access to education has surpassed the growth trend in primary school classrooms, often resulting in overcrowded classrooms (Theunynck, 2009) . This is further aggravated by the general poor quality, durability, and functionality of the existing infrastructure that requires renovation. However, poor learning conditions do not only affect developing countries. Environmental conditions in elementary schools (in terms of thermal and air quality) are often inadequate in developed countries (Wargocki and Wyon, 2013 in Barrett et al., 2019) .

Lack of facilities

Many schools lack the basic services necessary to guarantee a safe and healthy environment for learning. In Africa and Latin America, a high proportion of students attend schools with inadequate facilities (e.g. no potable water, lack of working sanitary facilities, broken or missing school furniture) (Theunynck, 2009; UIS, 2012b; UNESCO Santiago Office and IDB, 2017) . For instance, in Latin America, only one-quarter of third graders attend schools that met the infrastructure sufficiency criteria of the study (UNESCO Santiago Office and IDB, 2017) .

Inadequate resource allocation

Beyond budget constraints, ‘the problems of poor infrastructure are often exacerbated by an inefficient and inequitable distribution of construction resource’ (Theunynck, 2009: 10) . In some countries, overcrowded classrooms coexist with underutilized spaces (Theunynck, 2009; Barrett et al., 2019) . This can be partly explained by the high centralization of infrastructure planning, which cannot always accurately assess the actual needs at the local level (Theunynck, 2009; Gershberg, 2014) .

Policy and planning

School design.

In areas that are prone to natural disasters, schools should develop disaster preparedness plans that are reviewed on a regular basis (UIS, 2012a) . Other physical factors to consider for creating an optimal teaching and learning environment include: learner-to-classroom ratios, appropriate furniture for learner comfort, noise levels, heating and ventilation, sex-segregated toilets or latrines, and adequate lighting (Beynon, 1997; Neilson and Zimmerman, 2011; UIS, 2012a; UNESCO et al., 2020) . The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the need for adequate WASH facilities and classroom arrangements that facilitate social distancing (UNESCO et al., 2020; Furlani and Tibério Cardoso, 2021) .

It is also important to go beyond health and safety minimum standards and create spaces conducive to participatory learning methodologies. Although its impact on learning remains to be documented, school design can help build a connection between schools and the wider community if conceived in accordance with local climatic and cultural environments (UIS, 2012a; Barrett et al., 2019) .

Infrastructure planning

In areas facing budget constraints, cost-effectiveness analysis can help guide decisions regarding the construction or renovation of classrooms depending on their impact on the quality of learning (Jenkins and Zeinali, 2015) . Steps to create quality learning environments include an audit of the current state of affairs in schools, the development of a plan with specific baseline standards and indicators for reaching them, and a cost evaluation (Theunynck, 2009; UIS, 2012a) . Using up-to-date information on the condition of school infrastructure and adopting a participatory approach (involving parents and communities) are critical elements for successful infrastructure planning (UIS, 2012a; UNESCO Santiago Office and IDB, 2017) .

Access to school places

Maintaining reasonable travel distances implies increasing the number of schools and reducing their size rather than fewer and larger schools (Theunynck, 2009; Barrett et al., 2019) . This means that smaller schools should be locally distributed according to the density of demand (Barrett et al., 2019) .

Improving equity in access

Simple solutions exist when working towards better inclusion of children with physical disabilities, provided that they are incorporated in the school design and planning process (Theunynck, 2009) . These include building ramps, widening door openings, minimizing stairs, attention to topography, etc.

Maintenance of buildings

Consistently maintaining and bringing the necessary improvements to the existing infrastructure can result in a good-quality educational environment in buildings of any age. Additionally, attention to infrastructure sustainability can help accommodate future demographic or pedagogic changes (Barrett et al., 2019) . In this regard, Gershberg (2014) suggests that in developing countries, the decentralization of the education infrastructure can ensure more efficient maintenance.

Plans and policies

• Lao PDR: School construction guidelines (2009)
• Togo: Stratégie nationale du MEPSA en matière de constructions scolaires du primaire (2009)
• Beynon, J. 1997. Physical Facilities for Education: What Planners Need to Know.   Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.
• UNICEF. 2009. Child-Friendly Schools Manual.  New York: UNICEF.
• UNESCO; UNICEF; World Bank; WFP. 2020. Framework for Reopening Schools.
• WHO. 2009.   Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Standards for Schools in Low-cost Settings. Geneva: WHO.

Barrett, P.; Treves, A.; Shmis, T.; Ambasz, D.; Ustinova, M. 2019. The Impact of School Infrastructure on Learning: A Synthesis of the Evidence. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Beynon, J. 1997. Physical Facilities for Education: What Planners Need to Know. Fundamentals of Educational Planning 57. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Earthman, G.I. 2002. ‘School facility conditions and student academic achievement’. Williams Watch Series: Investigating the Claims of Williams v. State of California. Los Angeles: UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access.

Education International Research. 2018. Are We There Yet? Education Unions Assess the Bumpy Road to Inclusive Education. Brussels: Education International.

Furlani, S.; Tibério Cardoso, G. 2021. ‘Rethinking post-Covid-19 school design in Brazil: Adaptation strategies for public schools PEE-12 FNDE’. In: Strategic Design Research Journal , April 2021.

Gagnon, D.J. 2015. ‘School location and teacher supply: Understanding the distribution of teacher effects’. In: Current Issues in Education, 18(3) : 15.

Gershberg, A.I. 2014. ‘Educational infrastructure, school construction & decentralization in developing countries: Key issues for an understudied area’. Working paper 14–12. Atlanta: International Center for Public Policy.

Jenkins, G.P.; Zeinali, A. 2015. ‘Cost-effective infrastructure choices in education: Location, build or repair’. In: South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 18(1): 70–83.

Koussihouede, O. 2020. ‘School size and student performance’. IIEP Learning Portal, 9 September 2020.

Miles, S.; Westbrook, J.; Croft, A. 2018. ‘Inclusions and exclusions in rural Tanzanian primary schools: Material barriers, teacher agency and disability equality’. In: Social Inclusion, 6(1): 73–81.

Neilson, C.; Zimmerman, S. 2011. ‘The effect of school construction on test scores, school enrollment, and home prices’. IZA DP No. 6106. Discussion Paper Series. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Park, R.J.; Goodman, J.; Hurwitz, M.; Smith, J. 2020. ‘Heat and learning’ . In: American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(2) : 306–39.

RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects). 2016. Better Spaces for Learning. London: RIBA.

Rolleston, C.; Moore, R. 2018. Young Lives School Survey, 2016–17: Value-added analysis in India.  Oxford: Young Lives.

Theunynck, S. 2009. School Construction Strategies for Universal Primary Education in Africa: Should Communities Be Empowered to Build Their Schools? Washington, DC: The World Bank.

UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics). 2012a. A place to learn: Lessons from research on learning environments. Technical paper 9. Montreal: UIS.

UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics). 2012b. School and teaching resources in Sub-Saharan Africa: Analysis of the 2011 UIS Regional Data Collection on Education. UIS Information Bulletin 9. Montreal: UIS.

UNESCO. 2016. Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning .   Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO Santiago Office; IDB (Inter-American Development Bank). 2017. Sufficiency, Equity and Effectiveness of School Infrastructure in Latin America According to TERCE . Santiago: UNESCO Office Santiago and Regional Bureau for Education in Latin America and the Caribbean; IDB.

UNESCO; UNICEF; World Bank; World Food Programme. 2020. Framework for reopening schools.  Paris : UNESCO

USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2020. COVID-19 and Education: Initial Insights for Preparedness, Planning and Response. Washington, DC: USAID.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2004. The physical school environment: An essential component of a health-promoting school. Information series on school health document. Geneva: WHO.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2009. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Standards for Schools in Low-Cost Settings.  Geneva: WHO.

Related information

• Why education infrastructure matters for learning
• Child-friendly school (CFS)
• Learning environment
• School facilities

Transformative Perspectives in Physical Education Evaluation: Empowering Diverse Stakeholders for Holistic Learning Experiences in the Era of Big Data

• Published: 28 November 2023

Cite this article

• Chengquan Li 1 &
• Can Zhang 1  

168 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The evaluation of physical education (P. E.) learning is a cornerstone of educational systems globally, providing critical insights into the quality and effectiveness of P. E. programs. However, the current literature has primarily focused on teacher-centric evaluation, limiting the comprehensiveness and objectivity of the assessment process. This research, conducted within the context of the Journal of the Knowledge Economy, explores a transformative approach to P. E. learning assessment by introducing diversified evaluation subjects, including students, parents, and the broader community. The study demonstrates that involving diversified evaluation subjects enriches the evaluation process, extending understanding beyond traditional quantifiable measures. Students, in particular, play a pivotal role as evaluation subjects, empowering them to actively shape their learning journey and fostering self-reflection and self-confidence. This paradigm shift challenges conventional notions of educational stakeholders, expanding the theoretical landscape in education and evaluation. This research offers crucial recommendations for educational institutions and policymakers, emphasizing the need for policy revisions to promote inclusivity in the evaluation process. Training programs for P. E. teachers, platforms for transparent communication, and a culture of adaptability and openness to change are essential for successfully implementing diversified evaluation practices. By shedding light on this transformative approach, the study contributes to the knowledge economy by enriching the theoretical understanding of educational evaluation and providing practical guidance for educational institutions to enhance the quality of P. E. education and promote democratic principles within the context of P. E. learning assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning environments’ influence on students’ learning experience in an Australian Faculty of Business and Economics

Fresh evidence on the relationship between years of experience and teaching quality

A systematic review of pedagogies that support, engage and improve the educational outcomes of Aboriginal students

Data availability.

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Anyanwu, J. C. (2013). Characteristics and macroeconomic determinants of youth employment in Africa. African Development Review, 25 (2), 107–129.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). Cultural impacts on e-learning systems’ success. The Internet and Higher Education, 31 , 58–70.

Barlish, K., & Sullivan, K. (2012). How to measure the benefits of BIM—A case study approach. Automation in Construction, 24 , 149–159.

Battiste, M., Chomsky, N., Denzin, N. K., Fine, M., Gill, R., Grande, S., & Weistheimer, J. (2018). Dissident knowledge in higher education. University of Regina Press.

Beckers, J., Dolmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2016). e-Portfolios enhancing students’ self-directed learning: A systematic review of influencing factors. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 32 (2).  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2528

Bertills, K., Granlund, M., & Augustine, L. (2019). Inclusive teaching skills and student engagement in physical education. In Frontiers in education,   4 , 74. Frontiers Media SA.

Bornmann, L., Mittag, S., & Danie, H. D. (2006). Quality assurance in higher education–meta-evaluation of multi-stage evaluation procedures in Germany. Higher Education, 52 , 687–709.

Brauer, M., & Wiersema, M. (2018). Analyzing analyst research: A review of past coverage and recommendations for future research. Journal of Management, 44 (1), 218–248.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.

Breckenridge, J., Rees, S., Valentine, K., & Murray, S. (2015). Meta-evaluation of existing interagency partnerships, collaboration, coordination and/or integrated interventions and service responses to violence against women. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety .

Brown, S., & Knight, P. (2012). Assessing learners in higher education . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bucchianeri, M. M., Arikian, A. J., Hannan, P. J., Eisenberg, M. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2013). Body dissatisfaction from adolescence to young adulthood: Findings from a 10-year longitudinal study. Body Image, 10 (1), 1–7.

Bucholtz, M. (2001). Reflexivity and critique in discourse analysis. Critique of Anthropology, 21 (2), 165–183.

Casey, A., & Quennerstedt, M. (2020). Cooperative learning in physical education encountering Dewey’s educational theory. European Physical Education Review, 26 (4), 1023–1037.

Cashman, S. B., Adeky, S., Allen III, A. J., Corburn, J., Israel, B. A., Montaño, J., & Eng, E. (2008). The power and the promise: Working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. American Journal of Public Health , 98 (8), 1407–1417.

Cattell, V. (2001). Poor people, poor places, and poor health: The mediating role of social networks and social capital. Social Science & Medicine, 52 (10), 1501–1516.

Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 237–257). Springer, US.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cobos, R., & Ruiz-Garcia, J. C. (2021). Improving learner engagement in MOOCs using a learning intervention system: A research study in engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29 (4), 733–749.

Derri, V., Papamitrou, E., Vernadakis, N., Koufou, N., & Zetou, E. (2014). Early professional development of physical education teachers: Effects on lesson planning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152 , 778–783.

Dodgson, J. E. (2017). About research: Qualitative methodologies. Journal of Human Lactation, 33 (2), 355–358.

Dwyer, M. J., Pasini, M., De Dominicis, S., & Righi, E. (2020). Physical activity: Benefits and challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 30 (7), 1291.

Ehlers, U. D. (2009). Understanding quality culture. Quality Assurance in Education, 17 (4), 343–363.

Evans, J. (Ed.). (2017). Equality, education, and physical education.  21. Routledge.

Gabor, D., & Brooks, S. (2020). The digital revolution in financial inclusion: International development in the fintech era. In Material cultures of Financialization,  69–82. Routledge.

Geertz, C. (2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The Cultural Geography Reader,  41–51. Routledge.

Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The Qualitative Report, 20 (11), 1772–1789.

Google Scholar  

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57 (4), 2333–2351.

Hands, C. (2013). Including all families in education: School district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario. Canada. Teaching Education, 24 (2), 134–149.

Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. In Forum qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,   18 (1).

Haspel, E. (2019). Crawling behind: America’s child care crisis and how to fix it . Black Rose Writing.

Hay, P., & Penney, D. (2012). Assessment in physical education: A sociocultural perspective . Routledge.

Kelly, L. E., Kelly, L., & Melograno, V. (2004). Developing the physical education curriculum: An achievement-based approach . Human kinetics.

Kioupi, V., & Voulvoulis, N. (2019). Education for sustainable development: A systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes. Sustainability, 11 (21), 6104.

Ladky, M., & Peterson, S. S. (2008). Successful practices for immigrant parent involvement: An Ontario perspective. Multicultural Perspectives, 10 (2), 82–89.

Lei, Q., Du, J. X., Zhang, H. B., Ye, S., & Chen, D. S. (2019). A survey of vision-based human action evaluation methods. Sensors, 19 (19), 4129.

Leithwood, K. (2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education Sciences, 11 (8), 377.

Lewallen, T. C., Hunt, H., Potts-Datema, W., Zaza, S., & Giles, W. (2015). The whole school, whole community, whole child model: A new approach for improving educational attainment and healthy development for students. Journal of School Health, 85 (11), 729–739.

Lewis Ellison, T., Robinson, B., & Qiu, T. (2020). Examining African American girls’ literate intersectional identities through journal entries and discussions about STEM. Written Communication, 37 (1), 3–40.

López-Pastor, V. M., Kirk, D., Lorente-Catalán, E., MacPhail, A., & Macdonald, D. (2013). Alternative assessment in physical education: A review of international literature. Sport, Education and Society, 18 (1), 57–76.

Lorente-Catalán, E., & Kirk, D. (2016). Student teachers’ understanding and application of assessment for learning during a physical education teacher education course. European Physical Education Review, 22 (1), 65–81.

Lu, S. (2020). School+ family community learning model of PE course under COVID-19 epidemic situation. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15 (18), 218–233.

Maag, J. W. (2009). Resistance to Change: Overcoming institutional and individual limitations for improving student behavior through PLCs. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 41 , 57.

Mertens, D. M. (2019). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods . Sage publications.

Metselaar, S. (2023). Translational bioethics as a two‐way street. Developing clinical ethics support instruments with and for healthcare practitioners. Bioethics.   https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13225

Metzler, M. (2017). Instructional models in physical education . Taylor & Francis.

Michael, R. D., Webster, C. A., Egan, C. A., Nilges, L., Brian, A., Johnson, R., & Carson, R. L. (2019). Facilitators and barriers to movement integration in elementary classrooms: A systematic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 90 (2), 151–162.

Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice , 24 (1), 9–18.

Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C. A., Ehrlich, S. B., & Heath, R. D. (2015). Foundations for young adult success: A developmental framework. Concept Paper for Research and Practice . University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637.

Naylor, P. J., & McKay, H. A. (2009). Prevention in the first place: Schools a setting for action on physical inactivity. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43 (1), 10–13.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2007). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. In Capabilities Equality,  54–80. Routledge.

Paolini, A. (2015). Enhancing teaching effectiveness and student learning outcomes. Journal of Effective Teaching, 15 (1), 20–33.

Pechtel, P., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2011). Effects of early life stress on cognitive and affective function: An integrated review of human literature. Psychopharmacology (berl), 214 , 55–70.

Pickup, I., & Price, L. (2007). Teaching physical education in the primary school: A developmental approach . A&C Black.

Powers, A. L. (2004). An evaluation of four place-based education programs. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35 (4), 17–32.

Ramani, S., & Leinster, S. (2008). AMEE Guide no. 34: Teaching in the clinical environment. Medical teacher , 30 (4), 347–364.

Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results . ASCD.

Roussou, M. (2004). Learning by doing and learning through play: An exploration of interactivity in virtual environments for children. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 2 (1), 10–10.

Russell, J. A., & Austin, J. R. (2010). Assessment practices of secondary music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58 (1), 37–54.

Sandford, R., Quarmby, T., Hooper, O., & Duncombe, R. (2021). Navigating complex social landscapes: Examining care experienced young people’s engagements with sport and physical activity. Sport, Education and Society, 26 (1), 15–28.

Sherren, K. (2008). A history of the future of higher education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 14 (3), 238–256.

Shimizu, K., Hitt, M. A., Vaidyanath, D., & Pisano, V. (2004). Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A review of current research and recommendations for the future. Journal of International Management, 10 (3), 307–353.

Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & Van der Mars, H. (2019). Complete guide to sport education . Human Kinetics.

Simonton, K. L., & Garn, A. (2019). Exploring achievement emotions in physical education: The potential for the control-value theory of achievement emotions. Quest, 71 (4), 434–446.

Sovacool, B. K. (2012). The political economy of energy poverty: A review of key challenges. Energy for Sustainable Development, 16 (3), 272–282.

Sproston, K., Sedgewick, F., & Crane, L. (2017). Autistic girls and school exclusion: Perspectives of students and their parents. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2 , 2396941517706172.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research . Sage.

Sumner, J. (2013). Food literacy and adult education: Learning to read the world by eating. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 25 (2), 79–92.

Taylor, M. (2016). Risky ventures: Financial inclusion, risk management and the uncertain rise of index-based insurance. In Risking capitalism,   31 , 237–266. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Thomas, J. R., Martin, P., Etnier, J. L., & Silverman, S. J. (2022). Research methods in physical activity . Human kinetics.

Wals, A. E. (2012). Shaping the education of tomorrow: 2012 full-length report on the UN decade of education for sustainable development . UNESCO.

Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (2), 315–352.

Whitehead, M. (2013). Stages in physical literacy journey. ICSSPE Bulletin–Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education , 65 .

Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis. Educational Review, 66 (3), 377–397.

Woodhead, M. (2015). Psychology and the cultural construction of children’s needs. In Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood,  54–73. Routledge.

Xie, M., & Xu, X. (2022). Construction of a college physical education teaching model using multiple intelligences theory. Scientific Programming , 2022 .

Zhang, H., Wu, C., Xie, J., Lyu, Y., Cai, J., & Carroll, J. M. (2023). Redefining qualitative analysis in the AI era: Utilizing ChatGPT for efficient thematic analysis. arXiv preprint.   https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10771

Download references

This work is supported by A Project Supported by the Fourteenth Five-Year Plan of Education Science in Hunan Province in 2021: A Comparative Study on the Evaluation of Physical Education Learning in Primary and Secondary Schools between China and South Korea (ND214474) and A Project Supported by the Thirteenth Five-Year Plan of Education Science in Hunan Province in 2020: A Comparative Study on the Punishment Rights of Primary and Secondary School Teachers in China and South Korea (XJK20QBJ001).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hunan First Normal University, Changsha, China

Chengquan Li & Can Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Can Zhang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on  Innovation Management in Asia

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Li, C., Zhang, C. Transformative Perspectives in Physical Education Evaluation: Empowering Diverse Stakeholders for Holistic Learning Experiences in the Era of Big Data. J Knowl Econ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01637-7

Download citation

Received : 03 August 2023

Accepted : 12 November 2023

Published : 28 November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01637-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Diversified evaluation
• Physical education
• Stakeholder involvement
• Holistic assessment
• Teacher-centric evaluation
• Self-reflection

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

A Method for Evaluating Physical Activity Programs in Schools

SPECIAL TOPIC — Volume 14 — September 14, 2017

Cheryl Kelly, PhD, MPH 1 ; Dick Carpenter, PhD 2 ; Elizabeth Tucker, MS 2 ; Carmen Luna, MPH 1 ; John Donovan, PhD 2 ; Timothy K. Behrens, PhD, CHES 3 ( View author affiliations )

Suggested citation for this article: Kelly C, Carpenter D, Tucker E, Luna C, Donovan J, Behrens TK. A Method for Evaluating Physical Activity Programs in Schools. Prev Chronic Dis 2017;14:160607. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd14.160607 external icon .

PEER REVIEWED

Data Collection Methods

Implementation of the method, data analysis, limitations of the method, implications, lessons learned, acknowledgments, author information.

Providing opportunities for students to be physically active during the school day leads to increased academic performance, better focus, and fewer behavioral problems. As schools begin to incorporate more physical activity programming into the school day, evaluators need methods to measure how much physical activity students are being offered through this programming. Because classroom-based physical activity is often offered in 3-minute to 5-minute bouts at various times of the day, depending on the teachers’ time to incorporate it, it is a challenge to evaluate this activity. This article describes a method to estimate the number of physical activity minutes provided before, during, and after school. The web-based tool can be used to gather data cost-effectively from a large number of schools. Strategies to increase teacher response rates and assess intensity of activity should be explored.

Health-related factors, including low levels of physical activity, can lead to poor school performance for children (1,2). Conversely, children who are physically active have higher test scores, improved attention, decreased absenteeism, better behavior, decreased stress, and improved mood than children who are not physically active (2). Because of this evidence, Colorado passed House Bill 11–1069 in 2011, which became effective in the 2011–2012 academic year (3). This measure requires all public elementary schools to provide students with a minimum of 600 minutes of physical activity per month (or 30 minutes per school day).

Models such as the Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program have identified ways that schools can incorporate physical activity into the school day, including offering quality physical education (PE) at regular intervals, providing recess, implementing classroom physical activity breaks, or offering before and after school physical activity programming (4).

Many funders are supporting school districts to incorporate more physical activity for students than has been offered. Funders often require districts to work with a contracted external evaluation team to assess changes in the number of physical activity minutes provided to students. Evaluators need methods to estimate how much physical activity students are being offered. Physical activity assessment can occur through 2 methods: 1) indirect methods, which are surrogate markers of physical activity, such as body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, and surveys or questionnaires, and 2) direct methods, which reflect actual bodily movement or energy expenditure (5) (eg, direct calorimetry, doubly labeled water, motion detectors). Previous studies evaluating physical activity used obtrusive methods such as asking students to wear an accelerometer or having an evaluator observe the class to document when and how much physical activity is offered (6–8). Although these methods provide reliable data, they are expensive and challenging for teachers, and they may lead to social desirability bias (ie, teachers or students may perform differently when being observed than they would when not being observed). Likewise, indirect methods of assessing physical activity, such as self-report, have such limitations as a dependence on recall, a lack of precision about identifying the activity being recalled, inconsistent scoring systems for estimating energy expenditure, and the general overestimation of self-reported physical activity (1,9). We posit that using a method that includes a web-based monitoring tool, whereby teachers and school health coordinators systematically track and report physical activity, may be the best solution for large-scale data collection because of its ability to yield large amounts of data at a reasonable cost. This article describes an evaluation method developed and implemented in school districts funded to increase physical activity opportunities before, during, and after school.

Twenty-six Colorado school districts that demonstrated a need for more physical activity programming were funded by Kaiser Permanente Colorado. The geographically dispersed schools were funded to implement physical activity before, during, and after school. These districts were asked to select 2 or 3 schools for evaluation. An external evaluation team worked with selected schools to assess whether the number of physical activity minutes offered to students increased during the 2014–2015, 2015–2016, and 2016–2017 school years. To measure physical activity, the evaluation team developed a method to estimate the average number minutes of physical activity per school day per school.

Classroom-based physical activity. Classroom-based physical activity is often offered in 3-minute to 5-minute bouts at various times of the day, depending on the teachers’ time to incorporate it, and can comprise various strategies (eg, brain breaks, walking classroom). Because of this variability in how and when classroom-based physical activity is implemented, it is a challenge to evaluate. To track classroom-based physical activity provided by teachers, we developed a web-based monitoring tool that allowed teachers to self-report when they provided a physical activity opportunity and the number of minutes it was provided (Figure). Teachers were asked to report each instance of physical activity they provided during class time (ie, not recess or PE), the grade level of the students, the number of students, the type of activity provided, and the number of minutes each instance was provided.

Figure. Screenshot of classroom-based physical activity tool. [A text version of this figure is also available.]

Before and after school physical activity programming. We developed a second component for the web-based monitoring tool to allow each school district’s school health coordinator to report all before and after school physical activity programming provided. Each semester, coordinators reported all programming, the type of program, the number of days it was offered a week, the number of minutes it was offered, and the number of students who participated.

PE and physical activity during recess. PE and recess schedules for selected schools were submitted to the evaluation team annually. Using each school’s calendar of holidays, scheduled days off, and the master schedule of PE, we calculated the total number of days that each grade attended PE throughout the year. Total number of recess minutes was calculated as the number of minutes of recess per day times the number of school days.

The web-based monitoring tool was designed to randomly select teachers 2 or 3 times per semester to report any classroom physical activity they provided during a 1-week period. We sampled teachers weekly by using a stratified random sampling approach where 20% to 30% of each school’s teaching population was selected to participate. The stratified random selection allowed the evaluators to collect data for every week of the semester in each school without burdening every teacher with reporting minutes every week.

Through an automated email delivery system, teachers received an email on Friday morning indicating that the following week was their week to report physical activity minutes. The email included a link to the web-based tool as well as a form to print and track minutes on paper and report all minutes at the end of the day or week. Teachers received an additional reminder mid-week and a final reminder on Friday. In the first year, 35 teachers were invited to participate; in the second year, 43 teachers, and in the third year, 43 teachers. The average response rate in year 1 was low at 14% (range, 1%–49%). In subsequent years, however, the response rates increased steadily, to 27% (range, 4%–68%) in year 2 and 31% (range, 1%–68%) in year 3. The response rate for year 3 was significantly higher than the response rate for year 1 ( F = 8.07, P = .01).

Additionally, each semester, the school health coordinators received a link to the web-based tool and were asked to report all before and after school physical activity programming provided at the selected schools. Similarly, the coordinator was responsible for collecting the recess and PE schedules for each selected school and submitting them by the end of each academic year.

To estimate the average number of minutes of physical activity provided to students per year per school, we analyzed data by classroom-based physical activity opportunities, by before and after school programming, and by PE and recess.

Data on classroom PA were collected at the opportunity level (ie, each instance of physical activity provided during class time and the number of minutes spent in each activity), but our objective was to estimate the number of physical activity minutes provided at the school level. Therefore, these PA minutes were aggregated at the school level by 1) summing each teacher’s daily classroom physical activity minutes and then 2) deriving a mean of all teachers per day per school. The estimates of each school’s minutes per day were then summed over the entire year.

Data on minutes spent in before and after school programming and physical activity during PE and recess were originally collected at the school level; these data required little aggregation. Using each school’s calendar of holidays, scheduled days off, and the master schedule of PE, we calculated the total number of days that each grade attended PE throughout the year (which is not the same as number of school days, because PE is not offered daily and recess ordinarily is). By multiplying the minutes of PE reported by the number of days the class was held, we determined the total number of PE minutes for the year. This total was divided by the total number of school days to provide an average number of PE minutes offered per school day. Similarly, data on the total number of minutes of recess scheduled each day of the week in each school were provided by the district’s school health coordinator and used to calculate the total number of recess minutes offered to students during the year.

Total before and after school minutes is the number of minutes of before and after school programming times the number of days it was offered. When multiple programs were offered on the same day, we used the mean of the minutes per school in the calculation.

The total number of minutes is the sum of minutes spent in classroom opportunities, before and after school programming, PE, and recess. This total number of minutes provided the estimate for the average number of physical activity minutes provided by each school. Additionally, to assess the number of physical activity minutes provided per day on average, the total number of physical activity minutes per year was divided by number of school days to estimate the overall average number of physical activity minutes offered per day.

These analyses allowed the evaluator to estimate and track the average number of minutes provided during class time, before and after school programming, and during PE and recess. The evaluation team shared each school’s results and response rates with each coordinator yearly. The funder provided technical assistance and professional development opportunities to the coordinators, so they could identify opportunities for increasing minutes at certain times of the day or identify strategies that seem to be working well and could be replicated in other schools.

Like any method of data collection, our method has limitations. Our web-based tool relies on self-report, which has limitations. However, many limitations of self-report are observed at the individual level, for example, when people report their own physical activity. The extent to which these limitations apply to reports on the physical activity of others is not known.

A second limitation of our data collection method is the response rate. The response rate found among teachers in our study is not dissimilar to rates reported in other research, and it is likely an accurate reflection of the difficulty of collecting data from teachers. Achieving response rates anywhere close to 100% is typically extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive (10). It may be tempting to dismiss our data collection system because of our response rates, but we believe this to be ill-advised. Despite the response rate, our data collection system has distinct advantages over other methods, such as direct observation or paper teacher logs. Compared with other methods, our electronic method allows for quicker responses, more graphically interesting surveys, the use of many more response tools, lower costs, and greater flexibility; these advantages of electronic data collection have been discussed (11,12). Moreover, the response rate may be an important diagnostic and evaluative indicator, showing that teachers simply may not have perceived the initiative, or at least the reporting of physical activity opportunities, as important, interesting, or relevant. This observation would be entirely consistent with other research indicating the difficulties associated with altering teacher practices when introducing new programs or interventions (13). Viewed in this way, the low response rate may not entirely be a limitation.

Another limitation is that we did not ask teachers or coordinators to report the intensity of physical activity. Although intensity is not a factor in assessing the number of physical activity opportunities, it is critical to estimating energy expenditure. Thus, it would be imperative that a metric for determining physical activity intensity be included if the objective of the evaluation is to measure energy expenditure.

The value of our method of data collection is the ability to gather data cost-effectively from a large number of schools. In particular, it is a way for every school to be represented every week. Response rate is not the only construct of interest; so too is representation (14). Because the number of schools was large, traditional means of collecting data — direct observation, tracking devices, and the like — were not financially feasible. We could have taken a random sample of schools, but our methods resulted in arguably greater representation than would a random sample, because every school was represented every week.

To strengthen this method, we recommend validating teacher reports by collecting data simultaneously via accelerometers or other such devices, observing directly, or video recording classroom activities, just to name 3 examples. Similarly, it would be instructive to measure the extent to which the classroom-based physical activity of teachers who do not respond differs from the classroom-based physical activity of teachers who do respond to the program. If differences are small, then they may not be of great concern.

As mentioned above, the low response rate may be a measure of something important, particularly if traditional methods of increasing response rates have been taken. We recommend pursuing ways of increasing response, including one we were unable to afford — incentives. Doing so could be seen as a win–win. Even if incentives fail to increase response rates, they may tell us something essential about how participants view the relevance or importance of the intervention.

Finally, patterns of physical activity during the school year suggest the method of data collection accurately captured variation in physical activity. For example, because data were collected weekly, we were able to compare levels of physical activity by semester. Levels of physical activity in the second semester (spring) were typically lower than levels in the first semester (fall), which we expected. Because of extensive school, district, and state testing and inclement weather, opportunities for physical activity in the spring were fewer than those in the fall.

Tools for monitoring physical activity need to be as specific, consistent, and closed-ended as possible. During the first year of data collection, we used open-ended response fields that required many hours of cleaning and coding by the evaluation team. We fixed this in year 2 and year 3 by maximizing the use of closed-ended functions.

Additionally, on the basis of feedback from the school health coordinators indicating that teachers are busy and have many requirements during the school day, we began sending a weekly email to each district school health coordinator that listed the teachers selected to participate that week. The school health coordinators could then personally remind each teacher to participate, provide them with a paper reporting form if necessary, and follow up with any questions. These personal reminders probably increased our response rates in the second and third years, because someone from the school system, rather than an outside entity, was reaching out and encouraging participation.

Overall, this web-based monitoring tool can be used to evaluate changes in physical activity programming in schools. Implementing a tool like the one described here would allow teachers and school health coordinators to systematically track and report physical activity. The tool may be the best bet for large-scale data collection because of its ability to yield large amounts of data at a reasonable cost.

This work was supported by Kaiser Permanente Colorado. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Corresponding Author: Cheryl Kelly, PhD, MPH, Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 10065 E Harvard Dr, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80231. Telephone: 303-614-1264 Email: [email protected] .

Author Affiliations: 1 Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 2 College of Education, University of Colorado–Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 3 Department of Health Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.

• Basch CE. Healthier students are better learners: a missing link in school reforms to close the achievement gap. J Sch Health 2011;81(10):593–8. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. Atlanta, (GA): US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/health_and_academics/pdf/pa-pe_paper.pdf
• HR 11-1069, 68th Leg, 1st Sess (Co 2011).
• Comprehensive school physical activity programs: a guide for schools. Atlanta (GA): US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/physicalactivity/cspap.htm
• Ainsworth BE, Bassett DR Jr, Strath SJ, Swartz AM, O’Brien WL, Thompson RW, et al. Comparison of three methods for measuring the time spent in physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32(9 Suppl):S457–64. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Behrens TK, Miller DA, Schuna JM Jr, Liebert ML. Physical activity intensity, lesson context, and teacher interactions during an unstructured afterschool physical activity program. J Sch Health 2015;85(12):880–5. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Behrens TK, Schuna JM Jr, Liebert ML, Davis SK, Rice KR. Evaluation of an unstructured afterschool physical activity programme for disadvantaged youth. J Sports Sci 2016;34(22):2140–4. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Schuna JM Jr, Lauersdorf RL, Behrens TK, Liguori G, Liebert ML. An objective assessment of children’s physical activity during the Keep It Moving! after-school program. J Sch Health 2013;83(2):105–11. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000;71(2 Suppl):S1–14. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ 2008;33(3):301–14. CrossRef external icon
• Tse AC. Comparing the response rate, response speed and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: e-mail vs. mail. J Mark Res Soc 1998;40(4):353–61.
• Yun GW, Trumbo C. Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, & web form. J Comput Mediat Commun 2000;6(1).
• Saunders R. The role of teacher emotions in change: experiences, patterns and implications for professional development. J Educ Change 2013;14(3):303–33. CrossRef external icon
• Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 2000;60(6):821–36. CrossRef external icon

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Simple Recipes for Making (and using) PE Equipment for a Future of Distance Learning

• By: Sue Tarr and Heidi Fisher
• August 27th, 2020

Physical educators and adapted physical educators have stepped up these past few months to make sure their students had opportunities to continue, as best they could, with the physical education curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic. For a majority of teachers, lessons were designed with the premise that students would not have much, if any, of the traditional equipment often used in physical education or adapted physical education settings.

The purpose of this article is three-fold:

• To encourage and support physical educators and adapted physical educators to use our recipes to make some homemade equipment with the intent to get this equipment in the hands of their students for their fall classes. We do realize that to complete some of our equipment recipes; there will be costs involved. Perhaps some of the physical education or adapted physical education equipment budget for 2020-2021 could be used to purchase the materials to make the equipment; or possibly, funds for materials could be obtained through Donor’s Choose or other similar programs that fund school projects.
• To encourage teachers to pass these recipes along to families or other community members who want to support the physical education and adapted physical education programs, by either making the equipment or donating the materials so the teachers could make the equipment in preparation for classes.
• To provide several activities that the physical educators and adapted physical educators could have the students do with their distance learning equipment. We would also encourage the teachers to keep abreast of the numerous resources that have been posted on social media (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) that might also provide equipment ideas that would be simple, easy, and cost-effective to make this summer so that their students might be able to work toward mastery of additional physical education content in their fall classes.

In sum, the goal is to provide equipment recipes and corresponding activities to support physical educators and adapted physical educators to design distance learning activities for their students that will still meet the physical education national/state grade-level outcomes. Thus, providing our students with meaningful, yet fun opportunities to master grade-level outcomes –  even in the chaos of a pandemic.

Equipment Recipes

Hula Hoops:

• ½ inch or ¾ inch diameter water poly pipe, comes in different lengths, 50’, 100’ and 200’
• ½ inch or ¾ inch swing pipe couplings, 1 for each hoop
• Ratcheting pipe cutter
• Colored electrical tape

Directions:

• You measure from the floor in front of your toes up to about your belly button that will give you a great approximate diameter size; 32”-40” for adults and 28”-32” for children
• Use ¾ inch diameter poly pipe
• Use ½ inch poly pipe and make them a 2-foot diameter
• Hold one end of your hoop and heat it with the heat gun for about 20-30 seconds. Be careful because the pipe does get hot! Heat the plastic all around the end and an inch from opening to make sure it is getting soft.
• Set the heat gun down on a hard heat-safe surface. Pick up a coupling and push the coupling halfway into the end of the hoop. Heat the other end of the pipe, and push it until it meets the other end of the hoop.
• Pick out the color electrical tape to decorate your hoop, and then wrap the tape around the hoop! You now have a colorful, fun hula hoop!!

A Variety Activities to Do with Your Hula Hoop:

• Hula Hoop to music
• Roll your hoop on the floor as far as you can
• Walk the dog (flick the hoop forward; snap your wrist at the end so the hoop comes back to you)
• Bean bag toss with a partner (2 hoops, 2 sets of 4 of the same colored bean bags)
• Tic Tac Toe with a partner (9 target hoops, 2 sets of 8 different colored bean bags)
• Hopscotch (10 target hoops, set up hoops in a 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1 pattern)
• Partner hoop swing (2 students, 1 target hoop; siblings/parents hold hands or a noodle with the hoop on it; start music & swing the hoop in a circle until the music stops; switch arms and repeat)

Boomerangs:

• Sturdy Cardboard
• 1 roll of double-sided carpet tape
• Rubber bands
• Markers to decorate
• Draw a pattern for the 2 boomerang blades onto the cardboard (14 inches long by 1½ inches wide)
• Cut the 2 boomerang blades out with scissors
• Take the 1st blade and stick a small piece of double-sided carpet tape in the center of the 1st blade
• Remove the paper backing on the tape and stick the 2 blades together centering the 2nd blade (the boomerang should look like a plus sign)
• Reinforce the boomerang by taking the rubber band and wrapping it around the blades
• Decorate your boomerang with your markers

A Variety of Activities to Do with Your Boomerang:

• Toss the boomerang with an inward motion starting by holding it up high on your throwing arm side and bringing your arm down across your body releasing it as you are moving it down to your opposite side.
• Throw the boomerang and try to catch it before it hits the ground.
• Toss/Catch the boomerang with a partner.
• Try bending the ends of the boomerang blades to see if it will fly a different direction.
• Toss the boomerang to a target.

Lap Ramp (to assist students in wheelchairs participate in more activities)

• 1 – 3/4 inch x 10 foot solid core PVC pipe
• 2 – 3/4 inch 90 degree PVC elbow
• 2 – 3/4 inch x 1 inch x ½ inch PVC tee
• PVC cutter- hand saw or ratcheting pipe cutter
• 2-37 inch length pieces
• 2-10 inch length pieces
• 2-2 ½ inch length pieces
• Take the PVC pipe pieces, tee pieces, and elbow pieces and join all together
• Decorate with electrical tape

A Variety of Activities to Do with Your Lap Ramp:

• Use the ramp for bowling
• Use the ramp for bocce
• Use the ramp to push a soccer ball into a goal area
• Set the end of the ramp on a table and the other on the student’s lap and work on pushing a ball up the ramp and have the ball roll back to the student’s lap
• Set the end of the ramp on another person’s lap and push a ball back and forth

Sock balls:

• Many pairs of socks
• Put a pair of socks together
• Fold the socks into each other to make the ball

A Variety of Activities to Do with Your Sock Balls:

• Sock bowling: find 10 objects, anything unbreakable, that can tip over (plastic water bottles, Kleenex boxes, paper cups, etc.). Set up the items 10 feet away from the starting point. Underhand roll the sock balls to knock down the objects. Roll until all the objects are knocked down.
• Sock shot: set a bucket, wastebasket, laundry basket, box, etc. by a wall. Step 6 feet away and take the sock balls and shoot them to see how many baskets you can make in one minute.

— Contribute an Article on HPE —

Contact: [email protected]

Join the Discussion

• Pete Charrette

Understanding Assessment in Physical Education: Strategies, Examples and Best Practices

Physical education plays a vital role in the holistic development of students. It offers numerous benefits, including promoting physical fitness, enhancing motor skills, and instilling a lifelong appreciation for physical activity. However, the true potential of physical education is often overshadowed by the perceived difficulty of assessing student learning and achievement in this context. The aim of this article is to demystify the concept of assessment in physical education and provide PE teachers with comprehensive strategies to ensure student progress and enhance teaching practices.

As the field of education continues to evolve, so too must the methodologies applied in the classroom, including those in the gymnasium or on the sports field. Traditionally, physical education assessment was focused on the more easily quantifiable aspects of fitness levels and specific skills. But a more comprehensive approach incorporates diverse assessment methods that not only evaluate physical abilities but also account for personal improvement, student understanding, and knowledge of physical activities.

Understanding the Role of Assessment in Physical Education

Assessment in PE is crucial for gauging student progress, refining curriculum, and enhancing teaching strategies. It provides a reliable way to measure the development of specific skills, including motor abilities, knowledge, and understanding of various physical activities, and the personal and social growth that accompanies participation in physical education class. Consequently, physical education assessments offer invaluable data to teachers, students, and parents about student achievement, forming the basis for setting new goals, providing feedback, and making inferences about future instruction.

The role of assessment is not limited to the measurement of the students' physical abilities. It extends to the evaluation of cognitive growth, understanding of the rules and strategies of specific sports, and development of teamwork, leadership, and ethical behavior. Moreover, assessment in physical education plays a critical role in promoting students' self-evaluation skills, encouraging them to take responsibility for their learning.

Utilizing Rubrics in Physical Education Assessment

Rubrics serve as essential tools for PE teachers

when conducting assessments. These established scoring criteria help to evaluate a student's performance in an organized, consistent, and objective manner. They offer clarity about what is expected of students, providing them with specific performance expectations and a clearer understanding of what constitutes success.

Well-constructed rubrics detail varying levels of proficiency for each learning objective, allowing teachers to pinpoint where a student is excelling and where improvement is needed. Additionally, rubrics facilitate constructive feedback, enabling students to understand their strengths and weaknesses better. They also promote consistency in evaluation and make the

assessment process transparent, promoting student understanding and fairness.

Formative Assessment in Physical Education

Formative assessment, also known as assessment for learning, is an ongoing process that occurs during instruction. It allows teachers to monitor student learning, provide feedback, and adjust instructional strategies to enhance student achievement. In the context of physical education, formative assessments can include peer assessment, self-assessment, exit assessment slips, and exit checks.

Peer assessment: Peer assessment encourages students to constructively critique each other's performance. It promotes the development of communication skills and a better understanding of the learning objectives. This form of assessment can be particularly effective in team sports and group physical activities, where students can give and receive feedback about specific skills or teamwork strategies.

Self-assessment: Self-assessment promotes self-reflection and personal improvement. Students assess their own performance, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and set goals for improvement. This formative assessment method fosters a sense of responsibility and accountability for one's own learning and progress.

Exit assessment slips: These are quick assessments at the end of a lesson where students write what they learned, questions they might have, or difficulties they experienced. They help teachers understand the effectiveness of the lesson and provide insight into students' understanding.

Exit checks: These quick checks at the end of class assess student understanding of the day's lesson. Students can point to or touch a visual on the way out of class to self-assess their performance for the day.

Summative Assessment in Physical Education

While formative assessments focus on ongoing feedback during the learning process, summative assessments occur at the end of a unit, semester, or school year. They provide an overall measure of student learning and achievement. Examples of summative assessments in physical education include fitness tests, skill performance assessments, written assessments, or team sport participation.

Summative assessments are useful for making inferences about student achievement over time and their readiness for the next level of physical education. They also help physical education teachers report student progress to parents and school administrators.

Authentic Assessment in Physical Education

Authentic assessment in physical education refers to evaluating students in situations that replicate real-world activities rather than contrived testing scenarios. For example, rather than simply testing a student's ability to kick a soccer ball, an authentic assessment would involve evaluating the student's performance during an actual game, taking into account their skill execution, decision-making, and teamwork.

Authentic assessment offers a comprehensive view of a student's abilities. It values the learning process, rewards meaningful learning, and mirrors the kind of work students are likely to encounter outside of the school environment.

Utilizing Assessment Data in Physical Education

Assessment data from a PE class serves as valuable resource for a physical education teacher. The data offers insights into students' physical abilities, understanding of PE concepts, and progress in various skills and objectives. By evaluating this data, teachers can identify trends, spot challenges, and tailor their instruction to better meet students' needs.

For instance, if PE assessment data show that many students struggle with a specific skill, the teacher might revisit that skill in subsequent lessons, provide additional practice opportunities, or adapt their teaching strategies to improve student understanding and performance. Furthermore, assessment data can also help professionals teaching physical education communicate more effectively with parents about their child's progress and learning needs in PE.

The Four Essential Components of Physical Education Assessment

There are four essential components to effective physical education assessment:

1 - Ongoing evaluation: Assessing student performance and progress should be a regular part of the physical education class. Consistent evaluation provides timely feedback to students and informs instruction.

2 - Diverse assessment methods: Utilizing a mix of formative, summative, and authentic assessments ensures a comprehensive evaluation of student learning.

3 - Student involvement: Engaging students in the assessment process through peer and self-assessment encourages active participation in their learning journey.

4 - Data-informed decision-making: Utilizing assessment data to inform teaching strategies and learning objectives ensures that physical education is responsive and tailored to students' needs.

Final Thoughts

Physical education plays a critical role in student development, promoting physical fitness, motor skills, and a love for physical activity. However, to fully realize its benefits, a comprehensive and effective assessment strategy is necessary. Through a combination of rubrics, formative, summative, and authentic assessments, physical educators can track student progress, adapt their teaching strategies, and enhance student learning.

Assessment in physical education is not just about evaluating student performance but is an essential tool for improving teaching practices and promoting student achievement. It allows teachers to create a learning environment that meets students' unique needs, encourages personal growth, and prepares them for a lifetime of physical activity.

As we move forward, we must embrace a broader vision of assessment in physical education—one that views each student holistically, values their personal improvement, and uses assessment data to continually enhance the quality of physical education.

How do you assess your students (formative and summative) during PE? Let us know in the comments below?

FREE Assessment Rubric Visual for Your Learning Space!

Do you need a practical rubric visual to help you highlight and showcase how you assess your PE students for a skill, movement or concept? If so, Cap'n Pete's Power PE has you covered! This FREE colorful Physical Education visual (poster) displays an Olympic-themed, 4-point grading rubric that can be utilized by teachers during student assessment in physical education. It can also be informative for students during PE skill self-assessment and by their classmates through peer-assessment.

Fill out the form below to download the physical education rubric visual that you can use to reference when assessing your students. PE Poster: 4 Point Rubric- Olympic Themed (Go for the Gold) - in 5 color schemes displays the 3 Olympic medals as motivation to improve PE assessment scores and provides a descriptor statement and graphical icons to help students easily relate to each score point.

This freebie set will be sure to enhance your PE program for years!

Need Some Easy to Implement Resources to Help Assess Physed Skills & Movements?

Download 24 practical assessment sets for several skill and movement actions for physical education students from 2nd to 8th Grade! The PE Assessment Series: Super Bundle: 24 Skill and Movement Assessment Sets is a comprehensive bundle of teacher, peer and self-assessment visuals teachers and students can easily use for formative and summative assessment in a PE setting.

You can download the bundle (or individual resources) from either of the following platforms: Cap'n Pete's Power PE Website or Teachers Pay Teachers- Cap'n Pete's TPT Store

Each assessment format can be used by a physical education teacher for formative or summative assessment purposes. The different sheets share the same visuals, element descriptors and basic rubric system. The teacher versions (Pre/Post-test and Single test variation) allow for scoring to be conducted by the teacher while the peer and self-reflection versions provide an area for student reflection.

What Skills and Movements are included in the PE Assessment Series Super Bundle?

PE Assessment Series: Bundle 1

1. Catching a Ball

2. Hand Dribbling

3. Overhand Throw

4. Throwing a Football

5. Underhand Roll

6. Underhand Toss

PE Assessment Series: Bundle 2

7. Foot Dribbling

8. Forehand Strike ️

9. Hockey Stick Handling

10. Kicking a Ball

11. Punting a Ball

12. Striking with a Bat

PE Assessment Series: Bundle 3

13. Forward Roll

14. Jumping Rope

15. Overhand Volley

17. Twirling a Hula Hoop

18. Underhand Volley

PE Assessment Series: Bundle 4

19. Galloping

20. Leaping

21. One Foot Hopping

22. Skipping

23. Slide Stepping

24. Two Foot Jumping

• PE Assessment
• Professional Growth

Related Posts

Understanding the New SHAPE America Physical Education Standards for 2024

PE Stations: 15 Fun Ideas for Active Engagement in Elementary Physical Education Classes

Exploring the Role of AI in Physical Education: Enhancing Efficiency and Effectiveness in Teaching PE

Great, well written article. I use a lot of iPad video work to help with self and peer assessments I have found that to be incredibly powerful.

Recent Posts

Physical Education and Childhood Obesity: Empowering a Healthier Generation

18 Top PE Activities for Dynamic Physical Education Classes

Mastering the Dynamics of PE Classroom Management: A Comprehensive Guide

PE Games for Elementary Students: 6 Dynamic Physical Education Games to Transform Your Classes

Run, Walk, Thrive: How to Implement a Mileage Club at Your School

Physical Education Advocacy Amplified: Elevating Your Voice

Energizing Education: The Power of Brain Breaks in the Classroom; Includes 12 Practical Activities

Engaging At-Home PE Activities for Effective Distance Learning in Physical Education

Adopt-a-Gym: Enhancing Physical Education for Underfunded Schools

Best Physical Education Equipment Providers 2024: Your Complete Resource

Cultivating Positive Character Traits for Students in Physical Education: Shaping Tomorrow's Leaders

What is Physical Education? A Comprehensive Overview for Physical Educators

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Physical Education Resources, Class Management, and Student Physical Activity Levels: A Structure-Process-Outcome Approach to Evaluating Physical Education Effectiveness

Katherine b. bevans.

a Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, ( ude.pohc.liame@snaveb ), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3535 Market Street, Room1584, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4399.

Leslie-Anne Fitzpatrick

b International Scholar, ( ude.pohc.liame@alkcirtapztif ), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3535 Market Street, Room1581, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4399.

Betty M. Sanchez

c Project Manager, ( ude.pohc.liame@bzehcnas ), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 3535Market Street, Room1581, Philadelphia, PA19104-4399.

Anne W. Riley

d Professor, ( ude.hpshj@yelira ), Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Department of Population Family & Reproductive Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Room E4539, Baltimore, MD 21205.

Christopher Forrest

e Mary D. Ames Professor of Pediatrics and Advocacy, ( ude.pohc.liame@ctserrof ), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Abramson Research Center, Philadelphia, PA19104-4399.

This study was conducted to empirically evaluate specific human, curricular, and material resources that maximize student opportunities for physical activity during physical education (PE) class time. A structure-process-outcome model was proposed to identify the resources that influence the frequency of PE and intensity of physical activity during PE. The proportion of class time devoted to management was evaluated as a potential mediator of the relations between resource availability and student activity levels.

Data for this cross-sectional study were collected from interviews conducted with 46 physical educators and the systematic observation of 184 PE sessions in 34 schools. Regression analyses were conducted to test for the main effects of resource availability and the mediating role of class management.

Students who attended schools with a low student-to-physical educator ratio had more PE time and engaged in higher levels of physical activity during class time. Access to adequate PE equipment and facilities was positively associated with student activity levels. The availability of a greater number of physical educators per student was found to impact student activity levels by reducing the amount of session time devoted to class management.

The identification of structure and process predictors of student activity levels in PE will support the allocation of resources and encourage instructional practices that best support increased student activity levels in the most cost-effective way possible. Implications for PE policies and programs are discussed.

School-based physical education (PE) programs face numerous challenges including pervasive inactivity among children and families, 1 competing academic priorities, 2 , 3 and budget cuts. 4 Despite recent progress in the implementation of policies that support PE programs, 5 - 7 schools are struggling to provide the frequency and intensity of PE and physical activity opportunities recommended in Healthy People 2010 . These objectives prescribe an increase in adolescents’ participation in daily PE, with at least 50% of class time devoted to being physically active. 8 Yet only 3.8% of elementary, 7.9% of middle, and 2.1% of high schools provide daily PE for students in all grades for the entire school year, 4 , 5 and students spend large amounts of PE class time being inactive. 9 Because a primary function of PE is to provide opportunities for physical activity, 9 it is important to identify resources that increase both PE opportunities and levels of student activity during PE class. Exposure to an adequate amount of PE class time during which physical activity is maximized increases students’ energy expenditure, which is a key contributor to the maintenance of healthy weight and fitness. It is important to understand the mechanisms though which resource availability exerts its effects.

The purpose of this study is to empirically evaluate a proposed model of PE quality rooted in the Donabedian (2003) structure-process-outcome approach to performance monitoring. 10 This framework was selected because it is useful for identifying barriers and facilitators of program quality, thereby suggesting targets for program-enhancing interventions. As depicted in Figure 1 , structural indicators of quality include human (eg, student-to-teacher ratio, availability of instructors exclusively focused on PE), curricular (eg, availability of curricula and lesson planning resources aligned with best practices in PE), and material (eg, access to facilities and equipment) resources that comprise the conditions under which PE is provided. These resources are expected to influence process indicators of quality, the activities that constitute PE implementation. In the proposed model, an indicator of process quality is the content of PE lessons, specifically the proportion of class time devoted to class management activities. The amount of PE provided per day and student activity levels during PE sessions (eg, % of class time during which students engage in MVPA) are outcomes, which are attributable to the availability of PE resources both directly and through the effects of some resources on class content.

A Structure-Process-Outcome Framework of PE Quality

Hypotheses regarding relations among the structure, process, and outcome components of the model are evaluated in this study.

Access to adequate human resources, as indicated by low student-to-physical educator ratio and the availability of teachers exclusively focused on PE, is expected to directly influence the amount of time that students participate in PE per day. Relative to schools with high student-to-teacher ratios, those with lower ratios can maximize the amount of time that each student participates in PE while maintaining class sizes that enhance student safety, learning, and activity levels. 11 Indeed, prior research indicates that students who attend schools with an adequate number of teachers who exclusively provide PE instruction (eg, do not teach other subjects) receive more PE per week. 4 , 12 - 15

In addition to increasing overall exposure to PE lesson time, the availability of qualified PE instructors is associated with increased student knowledge of physical fitness and activity levels during class. 12 - 15 High student-to-physical educator ratios and large class sizes are associated with reduced student physical activity. 3 , 11 Further, when physical educators are required to teach other subjects, they teach shorter lessons during which children are less active. 4 Like human resources, access to adequate curricular and material resources are expected to directly influence the proportion of PE class time during which students engage in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). There is growing consensus about the positive impact of using standard-based PE curricula. 7 , 16 PE programs that implement a curriculum based on national standards increase student physical activity levels. 17 Likewise, physical activity levels are increased by access to well-maintained, appropriate, and aesthetically inviting facilities and safe environments in which to be active. 18 , 19 Having an adequate amount of sport and exercise equipment that is in good condition and appropriate for children's sizes is also likely to increase physical activity opportunities during PE class sessions.

Although prior research has illustrated the positive effects of resource availability on lesson length and student activity levels, few studies have explored the mechanisms through which these resources exert their effects. The proportion of class time devoted to management during which administrative tasks are accomplished and students are not expected to be physically active is one such mechanism (indicated by dashed lines in Figure 1 ). Physical educators may spend as much as 21% of class time on administrative/class management tasks. 20 , 21 Adequate resources may reduce the proportion of class time needed for management and thereby increase opportunities for children to be physically active. For example, large class sizes resulting from high student-to-physical educator ratios may require that more time be devoted to activities such as taking attendance and transitioning from one activity to the next. Likewise, insufficient access to appropriate equipment or facilities could increase time devoted to activities such as selecting equipment and transitioning from one space to another. 22 Conversely, organized and focused lesson planning enhanced by access to curricular resources that are consistent with best practices in PE should maximize opportunities for students to participate in physically demanding activities. Thus, we hypothesized that time devoted to class management would mediate the relations between human, curricular, and material resource availability and student activity levels during PE sessions. That is, high levels of class management activities will be an outcome of inadequate resource availability and a contributor to reduced MVPA time.

Resources, daily PE class time, and student activity levels were assessed for 46 physical educators in 34 schools. Participating schools include all elementary schools (n = 26) and middle schools (n = 8) in 3 school districts (2 in Maryland and 1 in West Virginia). Schools serve families living in rural or small town communities who are otherwise sociodemographically diverse (17% African American, 81% White, 2% of another race, 3% Hispanic). Based on the US Census Bureau poverty thresholds for 2006, 23% of families served by the schools live below the poverty line and 58% of students are eligible to participate in a free and reduced meal program. All PE teachers in the 34 schools agreed to take part in the study and provided written consent for their participation. On average, teachers had 10.2 (SD = 9.5) years of experience teaching PE. All teachers had at least a bachelor's degree and 35% had a master's degree. All middle school physical educators were certified by their state to teach PE at the secondary level. Among elementary school physical educators, 93% were certified to teach PE at the primary level. Almost two thirds of teachers (63%) taught other subjects in addition to PE. Of these, 66% taught health education, 7% taught art or music, and 45% taught other subjects, most commonly reading.

Instruments

Interview questions were adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention School Health Policies and Programs Survey (SHPPS), a national survey periodically conducted to assess school health policies and practices at state, district, school, and classroom levels. 6 This survey has been previously tested for reliability and validity through a data quality substudy conducted in conjunction with the SHPPS 2000. 23

Human Resources

Physical educator full-time equivalent (FTE) and the number of students were obtained for each school for the academic year in which the assessments were conducted. An FTE of 1.0 means that there is 1 full-time physical educator at the school, while an FTE of 0.5 signals that there is 1 half-time physical educator at the school. The number of students per physical educator was calculated for each school (number of students/physical educator FTE). Teachers provided information about subjects they taught in addition to PE. Because health topics are commonly presented during PE class time, educators who taught physical and health education, but no other subjects, were classified as teaching no other subjects.

Curricular Resources

Teachers responded to 3 questions adapted from the 2006 SHPPS Physical Education School Questionnaire pertaining to the availability of curricular and lesson planning resources. Teachers who positively endorsed all of the following questions were identified as having access to a required PE curriculum that is consistent with best practices in PE: (1) “Have you been provided with a written physical education curriculum?”; (2) “Are all physical education teachers at this school required to use this curriculum?”; and (3) “When planning to teach, do you use the National Standards for Physical Education from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education?”

Equipment Resources

Teachers responded to 6 questions pertaining to their satisfaction with the sport and exercise equipment available at their school (eg, “How much of your school's exercise equipment is in adequate condition?”). All items had 5-point Likert response options with higher values indicating greater satisfaction with equipment. Scale scores were calculated by averaging item responses. The equipment resource scale had adequate internal consistency reliability ( α = .87).

Facility Resources

Teachers responded to questions about the presence of and their satisfaction with facilities used during PE at their school. If teachers reported that they had access to a particular type of facility, they were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the facility on a 5-point Likert scale for which higher response options indicated greater satisfaction. Both middle and elementary school teachers were asked to rate their satisfaction with 6 facility types: gymnasium, outdoor track, outdoor basketball court, baseball and softball diamonds, and playing fields. In addition, elementary school teachers were asked to rate their satisfaction with playgrounds and hard surface areas used for PE instruction. Each item was coded as 0 if the facility was unavailable, 1 if a facility was available and teachers expressed extreme to moderate dissatisfaction, and 2 if a facility was available and teachers expressed satisfaction or extreme satisfaction. Scale scores were calculated by averaging item responses. The facility resource scale had adequate internal consistency reliability ( α = .83).

System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time

The System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT), a reliable and valid observational tool, was used to assess lesson length, student activity levels, and the percent of session time devoted to class management. 7 , 24 , 25 Consistent with the training methods used by SOFIT developers, 11 observers completed 8 hours of classroom-based SOFIT training and 4 hours of field practice with a trainer. Classroom training included a review of code definitions and administration conventions as well as practice coding exercises using videotape vignettes obtained from the instrument's developers. Observers were SOFIT “certified” by reaching an interobserver reliability level of 85% on all variables for 2 consecutive class periods during a field practice day. 26

From January to May 2008, trained research assistants administered interviews to study PE teachers. The SOFIT was administered during 4 randomly selected PE class sessions for each teacher between March and May 2008. Class sessions were eligible for selection if the majority of participating students were in first to eighth grade. For each lesson, trained observers calculated lesson length by subtracting start time (time at which the teacher and 51% of students in the class reached the instructional area) from end time (time at which 51% of the class departed from the area). Teachers reported the number of PE class sessions that observed students received per week. Daily PE time was determined by multiplying lesson length by teacher reports of the number of PE class sessions that observed students received per week. This product was then divided by 5. Daily PE time was averaged across the teacher's 4 observation periods.

During each class session, observers coded the activity levels of 4 randomly selected students using a momentary time sampling procedure (10-second observe, 10-second record intervals). The selected students were observed for 4-minute intervals on a rotational basis for the entire class session. Physical activity levels were assessed by observing students’ body positions, which were coded as lying down , sitting , standing , or walking . Very active was coded if students appeared to be expending energy beyond what is needed for walking, regardless of body position. 20 , 24 , 27 The percentage of intervals during which students engaged in each level of activity was calculated for each class session. Time devoted to MVPA was determined by summing the percent of intervals during which students were walking or very active and averaging these proportions across the teacher's 4 observed class sessions.

Curricular lesson content was coded for each 10-second observation interval. 28 , 29 Intervals were coded as management when students were not intended to be involved in PE content such as during transitioning (eg, team selection, selecting equipment, moving from one space to another), when dealing with class business unrelated to instructional activity (eg, taking attendance), or during breaks (eg, getting a drink of water). Alternatively, intervals could be coded as knowledge acquisition (focus is on student knowledge acquisition related to PE, not their active engagement), physical fitness (activities whose major purpose is to alter the physical state of the individual in terms of cardiovascular endurance, strength, or flexibility), skill practice (practice of skills with the primary goal of skill development), game play (application of skills in a game or competitive setting), or free play/other (free play time during which PE instruction is not intended). The percentage of intervals devoted to management was calculated for each class session and averaged across each teacher's 4 observed class sessions. Thirty-one of the 184 SOFIT observations were conducted simultaneously by 2 independent observers yielding an interrater reliability of .93 which exceeds the recommended level. 13

Data Analysis

Primary outcome variables were daily PE minutes, the proportion of lesson time devoted to MVPA (%), and the proportion of lesson time devoted to class management. Separate generalized linear models were fit to the data to assess relations between PE resources and each outcome variable as indicated in Figure 1 . Analyses were conducted using SAS 9.2 proc GENMOD (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) because the procedure can handle general linear models as well as those appropriate for count or proportion data. General linear models were fit for daily PE minutes (a continuous outcome variable) and MVPA data, which despite being a proportion score was normally distributed and fell within the range .20 to .80. A Poisson distribution and log link function was specified for the prediction of the proportion of class time devoted to management.

Following the identification of resources that significantly predicted MVPA, the mediating role of class management was evaluated ( Table 2 ). Only resource variables that significantly predicted MVPA were included in the mediation analyses. Four criteria were used to test for mediation: resources significantly affect class management ( Table 1 ), resources significantly affect MVPA (model 1, Table 2 ), management significantly affects MVPA (model 2, Table 2 ), and the effect of resources on MVPA is less in the mediation model than in the main effects model ( Table 2 ). 30 Mediation analyses were conducted using SAS 9.2 proc GENMOD.

Regression Analyses Evaluating Relations Between Resources and Physical Activity Indicators

The Mediating Role of Time Spent on Class Management in Relations Between PE Resources and the Proportion of Class Time Devoted to MVPA

On average, there were 331.1 students (SD = 236.9) per physical educator FTE in participating schools (range = 134 to 1558 per FTE). Approximately one third of physical educators (33%) taught a subject other than physical and health education. Consistent with national trends, about one third (34%) of teachers had access to a required PE curriculum and used the National Standards for Physical Education when developing lesson plans. Physical educators rated their sport and exercise equipment positively, rating equipment resources an average of 3.96 (SD = 0.73) on the 5-point scale. Although the vast majority of schools (93.1%) had access to a gymnasium for use during PE, fewer schools had access to a playing field (66%), an outdoor basketball court (44%), a baseball or softball diamond (38%), or an outdoor track (29%). Among elementary schools, 56% had a playground and 47% had a hard surface area, which were used during PE instruction. The average rating of facility resources was 0.58 (SD = 0.35) on the 0 to 2 scale.

Students received an average of 23.1 (SD = 12.0) minutes of PE per day and only 17.4% of schools offered PE to students 5 days per week. Average lesson length was 46.7 (SD = 13.6) minutes, and the mean number of days per week that students had PE was 2.47 (SD = 1.3). Students spent 0.9% of lesson time lying down, 20.2% sitting, 33.5% standing, 20.3% walking, and 25.0% being very active. Thus, students engaged in MVPA for 45.3% of lesson time, an average of 21.2 minutes per lesson or 10.4 minutes per school day. On average, 23.1% of class time was devoted to class management.

Results of the main effect regression analyses including all hypothesized predictors are presented in Table 1 . Compared with elementary school students, middle school students received a greater number of PE minutes per day. Middle school teachers spent significantly less class time on management than elementary school teachers. Access to more dedicated human resources was associated with greater daily exposure to PE. In particular, having fewer students per physical educator FTE at the school and physical educators exclusively charged with teaching physical and health education were associated with more minutes of daily PE exposure. Low student-to-physical educator ratio was also associated with a greater proportion of class time during which children engaged in MVPA and a lesser proportion of class time devoted to management. Access to adequate sport and exercise equipment and physical activity facilities predicted increased MVPA and decreased class management time. As shown in Table 2 , the proportion of class time devoted to management significantly mediated the relation between student-to-physical educator ratio and MVPA.

In the present sample, fewer than 1 in 5 schools offered PE to students 5 days per week. On average, children received about 23 minutes of PE per day and engaged in MVPA for less than half of class time. Therefore, they were moderately to vigorously active for about 10 minutes per day during PE, which is approximately one sixth of the Institute of Medicine's (2005) recommended 60 minutes of MVPA per day. 31 Undoubtedly, children must be active outside of the PE context to achieve recommended MVPA levels. However, to help children achieve these goals, schools must maximize the amount of time devoted to PE during which children are physically active.

This study suggests that human resources, particularly having a low number of students per physical educator FTE, significantly increase class time and student activity levels during PE. School districts must allocate adequate resources to recruit and retain highly skilled physical educators to permit longer PE class sessions and maximize student physical activity during PE. 3 Reduced time spent on class management is one mechanism through which student-to-physical educator ratio influences student activity levels. Teachers in schools with fewer students per physical educator FTE spend less class time on activities during which students are not engaged in PE content, thereby increasing physical activity opportunities for their students. Like human resources, access to adequate equipment and facilities is associated with increased student activity levels and decreased class management time. Thus, by increasing accessing to human and material resources in support of PE, educational agencies will enhance students’ potential to engage in the recommended amount and intensity of physical activity.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study merit discussion. First, this study focused exclusively on students’ physical activity levels during PE class time, but there are many other desirable PE outcomes including frequency and intensity of physical activity outside of the PE context (eg, during recess/free time, in the community), competency in movement forms, understanding the benefits of physical activity, and enjoying physical activities. 32 Further work is needed to identify characteristics of PE programs that maximize these and other positive outcomes. Second, this study was conducted in elementary and middle schools serving rural and small town communities, which may pose a challenge to the generalizability of study findings. Future research of this type should be conducted in high schools and urban school environments. Third, additional research is needed to further explore the impact of curricular resources on student outcomes. Access to a required curriculum and lesson planning resources that are consistent with best practices in PE was unrelated to lesson time, student activity levels, and the proportion of class time devoted to management. However, it is notable that this study did not include an assessment of curricular content (a structure variable) or the fidelity with which curricula were implemented (a process variable). Past intervention programs utilizing standard-based curricula (eg, Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls 12 and Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids 33 ) have demonstrated that high-fidelity implementation of specific curricula with key content standards increase student physical activity levels during class time. 15 , 34 More research is needed to identify the specific components of PE curricula and other instructional support tools that when used with high fidelity enhance student activity both in and out of class.

Conclusions

Undoubtedly, adequate exposure to high-intensity PE is an effective contributor to healthy lifestyle among children and across the life span. Yet, many PE programs fall short of national recommendations in terms of both class time and intensity of physical activity. This study suggests that PE quality can be enhanced by establishing, protecting, and improving both activity-promoting resources and instructional practices. In particular, access to an adequate number of physical educators per student as well as well-maintained, safe, and appropriate facilities and sport and exercise equipment will enhance students’ opportunities for adequate physical activity. In addition, the frequency and intensity of student physical activity are enhanced by minimizing the proportion of class time devoted to classroom management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH

This study provides an organizing framework of PE quality that distinguishes between structure and process predictors of student activity levels. Comprehensive approaches to improve PE effectiveness and ultimately the health and well-being of children must address both type of factors, but the distinction is important because approaches that enhance structure quality may differ from those that enhance process quality. For example, improving access to physical activity-promoting resources (structure factors) requires the implementation of federal-, state-, and district-level policies that mandate appropriate physical educator-to-student ratios and allocate adequate funds for equipment and facility maintenance. In contrast, PE process quality, which includes instructional practices, should be enhanced by providing teachers with professional development opportunities that emphasize techniques to reduce the amount of class time devoted to management.

Human Subjects Approval Statement

This study was approved by the institutional review boards at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by Grant No. K01DP001130fromthe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Citation: Bevans KB, Fitzpatrick L-A, Sanchez BM, Riley AW, Forrest C. Physical education resources, class management, and student physical activity levels: a structure-process-outcome approach to evaluating physical education effectiveness.

File Description: UUEE - Sheremetyevo International - Moscow, Russia Sheremetyevo International Airport is an international airport located in the Moscow Oblast, Russia, 29 km (18 mi) north-west of central Moscow. It is a hub for the passenger operations of the Russian international airline Aeroflot, and one of the three major airports serving Moscow along with Domodedovo International Airport and Vnukovo International Airport. It is now the 2nd largest airport in Russia after Domodedovo. In 2010, the airport handled 19,329,000 passengers and 184,488 aircraft movements. Using ADEx 1.52, aeronautical maps and Google Earth the default AFCAD has been completely reworked to reflect today's situation including gate assignments.

File Description: UUEE Sheremetyevo International Airport updated with the new 6L-24R runway.

AVSIM Library System Version 2.00 -- 2004-May-01 © 2001-2024 AVSIM Online All Rights Reserved