RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPROPRIATE TEACHER FEEDBACK AND A
LOW INTEREST PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Kinesiology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Kinesiology
(Sport Performance)
by
Jolane Parr McCarthy
SPRING
2012
© 2012
Jolane Parr McCarthy
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPROPRIATE TEACHER FEEDBACK AND A
LOW INTEREST PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
A Thesis
by
Jolane Parr McCarthy
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Lindy Valdez, Ed.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Daryl Parker, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Jolane Parr McCarthy
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Michael Wright, Ph.D.
Department of Kinesiology
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPROPRIATE TEACHER FEEDBACK AND A
LOW INTEREST PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
by
Jolane Parr McCarthy
Research has shown that interest and enjoyment are some of the key ingredients
to physical activity and sport participation. Additionally, research has shown that
appropriate feedback can improve skill and motivation in physical activity. The
purpose of this study was to investigate whether appropriate teacher feedback would
improve interest in a previously disliked physical activity. Fifth and sixth grade
elementary school students (N = 215: 103 boys, 112 girls) completed questionnaires
assessing their interest in 15 physical activities. The lowest interest activity between
the genders was lacrosse. Eight lacrosse lessons were taught to two groups, a control
group who received minimal feedback, and an experimental group who received a
high rate of feedback that was over 50% positive. The questionnaire was given again
at the end of the unit to assess if the students’ interest level had changed. Results
showed that both the control and experimental groups improved significantly, with no
significant differences between the groups. However, there was a significant
v
difference in the improvement level seen between the genders. Although both boys
and girls improved significantly, the boys improved significantly more. Therefore,
both exposure and appropriate feedback in physical education improved interest in a
previously disliked activity.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Lindy Valdez, Ed.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Lindy Valdez and Dr. Daryl Parker for their direction,
assistance, and guidance. In particular, Dr. Valdez's recommendations and suggestions
have been invaluable in helping me complete my thesis. I also wish to thank Mr.
Pierre Kirby, Mrs. Denice Shigematsu, Mrs. Carol Rivas, my students, and the parents
of my students for allowing me to complete my research at their elementary schools.
Thanks are also due to Mr. Mike Kellermann for educating me on the correct statistics
that should be used for my research.
Finally, words alone cannot express the thanks I owe to Patrick McCarthy, my
husband, and Donna Sunell, my mother, for their encouragement and assistance
throughout the many years of my thesis journey.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study.................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 5
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 6
Delimitations .................................................................................................... 6
Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 6
Null Hypothesis ................................................................................................ 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 8
Developing an Activity Interest Survey ........................................................... 8
Systematic Observation .................................................................................. 10
Curriculum Diversity and Choice ................................................................... 12
Sport Psychology and Feedback ..................................................................... 17
Motor Learning and Feedback........................................................................ 22
3.
DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 30
Participants ..................................................................................................... 30
Instruments ..................................................................................................... 32
Procedures ...................................................................................................... 34
Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................................... 36
4.
RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 37
Initial Interest Survey ..................................................................................... 37
Teacher Feedback Coding Forms ................................................................... 39
viii
Activity Time Coding Forms.......................................................................... 40
Initial and Final Activity Interest Survey Statistics ........................................ 41
5.
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 45
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 49
Appendix A. Parent/Guardian Consent Form .......................................................... 53
Appendix B. Teacher Feedback Coding Form ......................................................... 55
Appendix C. Activity Time Analysis Coding Form ................................................. 57
Appendix D. Letter to Principals .............................................................................. 59
Appendix E. Human Subjects Review ..................................................................... 61
Appendix F. Interest Surveys ................................................................................... 63
References .................................................................................................................. 66
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Ethnicity Status for Each School ..................................................................... 31
2.
Socio-Economic and Language Status for Each School ................................. 31
3.
Final Number of Participants by Gender, Group, and School ......................... 32
4.
Results from the Initial Activity Interest Survey for All Students .................. 38
5.
Results from the Initial Activity Interest Survey Separated by
Girls and Boys ................................................................................................. 39
6.
Results from the Teacher Feedback Coding Forms ........................................ 40
7.
Results from the Activity Time Analysis Coding Forms ................................ 41
8.
Results of the Interest Surveys by Interest Level ............................................ 42
9.
Paired Samples T-Test for Differences in Initial versus Final Survey ............ 43
10.
Independent Samples T-Test for Equality of Means ....................................... 44
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades, there has been a reduction in school physical education
participation at all grade levels, while the rate of childhood obesity continues to
increase at an alarming rate (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010;
Lowry, Wechsler, Kann, & Collins, 2001). In order to ensure physical education a
place in our children’s lives, it is vital to increase student interest and enjoyment in
physical activity and physical education (Hill & Cleven, 2005c). Increasing interest
and exposure to new activities are ways to get students to participate in physical
activities at school, after school, and throughout their lifetime (Bibik, Goodwin, &
Omega-Smith, 2007; Mears, 2008; Ntoumanis, 2005). In the last few decades,
physical education organizations such as the National Association for Sport and
Physical Education (NASPE) and American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD) have been promoting a broader curriculum, with a
focus on health and fitness instead of just team sports (NASPE, 2004). Additionally,
students who receive a more diverse curriculum have been found to be more
physically fit and participate in more regular physical activity as adults (Mears, 2008).
Even with this push for curriculum diversity, the majority of physical education
programs still focus primarily on team sports and physical conditioning in their
physical education classes (Mears, 2008; NASPE, 2004).
Researchers have set out to identify student’s attitudes about physical
education, and their motives for participation (Hill & Cleven, 2005c). Surveys are a
2
way to evaluate what activities and aspects of physical education students like and
dislike (Hill & Cleven, 2005c). This survey information helps physical education
teachers develop an appropriate curriculum that students are more likely to enjoy and
value. Researchers have found that some of the main reasons why students enjoy
physical education are because they get to choose the activity, there is activity variety,
they are competent in the activity, and they are having fun (Couturier, Chepko, &
Coughlin, 2005; Mears, 2008). Researchers have also found that the main reasons why
students dislike physical education are the repetitive curriculum, students are ridiculed
by classmates, too competitive environment, low competence in the activity, getting
too sweaty, and changing in the locker room (Couturier et al., 2005). Research shows
that activity interest can vary by ethnicity, gender, skill level, involvement in school,
and age (Bibik et al., 2007; Greenwood & Stilwell, 2001; Hill & Cleven, 2005a,
2005b; Hill & Hannon, 2008). There are so many different reasons why students like
and dislike physical education and physical activities that it makes it very difficult for
physical educators to choose the appropriate curriculum. With these diverse interests
among different sub-groups of students, teachers must teach a wide range of activities
to reach some of each student’s interests. With curriculum variety, the students will
inevitably get to participate in activities they like and dislike. Although students have
a variety of reasons why they do not initially like an activity, it is the physical
educator’s job to educate them on the value of each activity and focus on individual
improvement (NASPE, 2004).
3
Appropriate feedback is one of the teaching strategies used to promote
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Koka & Hagger, 2008). More specifically,
appropriate feedback can increase perceived competence, motivation, and effort in
physical education (Koka & Hein, 2003; Moreno, Gonzalez-Cutre, Martin-Albo, &
Cervello, 2009). Also, students with higher rates of intrinsic motivation have been
found to have stronger intentions to participate in physical activity, greater actual
participation, and greater effort and persistence towards the physical activity
(Amorose & Smith, 2003; Ntoumanis, 2005). Additionally, appropriate positive
teacher feedback is a way to promote autonomous motivation independent of a
student’s dispositional goal orientation (Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Sideridis,
2008). Rink (2010) proposes that teacher feedback can have a positive or negative
affect on a student’s self-perception and direction of effort depending on the type of
feedback given. Furthermore, when a student receives appropriate positive
reinforcement and praise from a significant other, their perception of competence
increases and they are more likely to try the task again (Bandura, 1997; Deci & Ryan,
2000; Koka & Hagger, 2008). Appropriate teacher feedback can be an effective way to
improve individual motivation, set a positive motivational climate, and increase selfperception (Koka & Hein, 2003; Ntoumanis, 2005).
Appropriate teacher feedback is also a way to improve motor performance.
Furthermore, students who show competence in an activity are more likely to continue
that activity (Couturier et al., 2007). Some research shows that the type of feedback
that is best is dependent on the age level, experience level, and skill difficulty
4
(Amorose & Smith, 2003; Magill, 2004; Pellett & Harrison, 1995; Tzetzis, Vostis,
&Koutessis, 2008). One fact that remains constant is that when giving feedback, it
needs to be accurate. If it is specific and positive, but incorrect on how a student was
performing the skill, it isn’t worthwhile (Masser, 1993; Stroot & Oslin, 1993; Werner
& Rink, 1989). Although situations and circumstances change, the general guidelines
for feedback is that it should be specific, positive or corrective, and congruent to the
task being performed (Pellet & Harrison, 1995; Rink, 2010).
To maintain and increase the presence of physical education in school,
physical education teachers should not only account for content curriculum standards
but the students’ interests as well (Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001). The more physical
activities children and adolescents are exposed to and enjoy, the more likely they are
to find activities they enjoy and will participate in later in life (Mears, 2008). The
difficult part is that interest can vary by skill level, age, gender, ethnicity, and
significant others perceptions therefore, physical educator’s must expose students to a
wide range of physical activities to meet the needs of all students (Blankenship, 2008,
p. 240). Every student will not like every activity, but with appropriate feedback, it is
possible to improve interest, competence, and motivation for physical activity and
physical education (Bibik et al., 2007; Couturier et al., 2005; Koka & Hein, 2003;
Pellet & Harrison, 1995.)
5
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine if appropriate teacher feedback
patterns in physical education classes at the fifth and sixth grade level would increase
interest in a previously disliked physical activity.
Significance of the Study
There have been numerous studies on why students like or dislike physical
education, but there is little research on how specifically to change their minds about a
disliked activity. This study may, or may not, link physical activity interest and
appropriate teacher feedback patterns therefore, influencing how physical education
and specific activities are being taught.
Definition of Terms
-
Appropriate teacher feedback is feedback that is over 50% positive and given at a
rate of at least two to three comments per minute (Harrison, 2001; Rink, 2010).
-
Appropriate activity time is more than 50% activity and less than 20%
management time (Harrison, 2001).
-
Positive feedback is structuring, soliciting, or appraising comments that are not put
in a negative context. Some examples are: “Thank you for being quiet,” “Nice step
in to the swing” or “Tommy is staying in line” (Rink, 2010).
-
Negative feedback is structuring, soliciting, or appraising comments that are put in
a negative context. Some examples are: “Don’t get out of line,” “Don’t step in to
the swing” or “Stop talking” (Rink, 2010).
6
-
Neutral feedback is structuring, soliciting, or appraising comments that are not put
in a negative or positive context. Some examples are: “Step with opposite foot,” or
“Line up in a straight line” (Rink, 2010).
Limitations
-
Only one unit, one teacher, and one age group will be observed
-
Researcher, teacher, and one of the event recorders are the same person
-
Measurement will include only verbal feedback, nonverbal feedback will be
excluded
-
Outside sport participation will not be controlled
Delimitations
-
Control group will receive mostly neutral feedback
-
Using nine different classes from three different schools
-
Exclude students who are participating in that activity currently
-
Two people will code teacher feedback and activity time to ensure reliability
Assumptions
-
Students answer the survey honestly
-
At least two to three feedback comments per minute is appropriate (Harrison,
2001)
-
Over 50% activity time and less than 20% management time is appropriate
(Harrison, 2001)
-
Appropriate feedback is more than 50% positive (Rink, 2010)
7
-
Interest Survey and coding forms are valid and reliable (Hill & Cleven, 2005c;
Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000)
-
Accurate survey administration
-
Random sampling of at least 20% of the lessons represents all lesson feedback
Null Hypothesis
Use of appropriate teacher feedback in fifth and sixth grade physical education
classes will not change students’ interest level in a previously disliked activity. Use of
appropriate teacher feedback in fifth and sixth grade physical education classes will
not change students’ interest level, regardless of gender, in a previously disliked
activity.
8
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Developing an Activity Interest Survey
In the last two decades, written surveys have become a popular tool used by
physical educators to find out what students like and do not like about different
aspects of their physical education programs (Hill & Cleven, 2005c). These surveys
are used to show students preferences as a whole, or by different subgroups such as
gender, ethnicity, skill level, or socio-economic status. Don Dillman is one of the
leading researchers for survey methodology. When designing a survey, Dillman
(2000) found several factors that are the key to developing a valid survey. The first
thing to consider is the initial design, determining the broad objectives and the topics
that will be covered in the survey. The next thing to consider, is how the directions are
phrased, to include what the respondents need to do at each point in the survey, how
long they have to complete it, and where it should be turned in to. This is also the
place where the respondents should be informed how the survey will be used, and how
confidentiality will be ensured. The directions should be in the appropriate language
level based on the target population. Another consideration is the question ordering,
grouping, and layout. The first question is most important because it will engage your
respondents or turn them away. It should apply to all respondents, be easy to complete,
closed-ended, and connect to the purpose. The questions should be grouped by content
and type, with section breaks, and the objectionable questions at the end. The question
layout should be consistent in appearance, font, font size, and indentation. The last
9
thing to consider is the page design to include being one-sided, vertical in orientation,
and using contrasting colors. Dillman (2000 found that if the above guidelines are
followed, there will be an increase in the response rate and decreased measurement
errors.
Working off of Dillman’s research, Hill and Cleven (2005c) conducted several
research studies on activity interest in Physical Education, discussing the benefits and
guidelines for conducting surveys specifically for physical education programs. They
found four main reasons why Physical Education teachers do not survey their students.
The first reason is that the teachers only teach what they are familiar with. The second
reason is that the teachers teach the same activities as the after school athletics that are
offered. The third reason is that the teachers may not have the available resources for
other activities. The fourth reason is that the teachers may not teach certain activities,
thinking that the students lack the maturity for some activities. Taking these
reservations into account, Hill and Cleven developed simple recommendations to
physical education teachers when developing and implementing an activity interest
survey. The surveys should be given yearly and the students should be asked about
what they like and what activities they have previously participated in. Teachers can
also give very short surveys immediately following the completion of an activity.
Additionally, the students should be given the opportunity to participate in classes
taught by another teacher, to offer more activity variety and chances to group classes
by skill level. Using Dillman, Hill, and Cleven’s suggestions, interest surveys are a
10
valid and reliable method to gather data to be used in designing the physical education
curriculum.
Systematic Observation
There are several methods that can be used to collect information on what
teachers, coaches, students, and athletes do: eyeballing, anecdotal, rating scales,
checklists, and systematic observation (van der Mars, 1989). Not until 1973, did the
first researcher, Travers, devote an entire chapter about systematic direct observation
in teaching and its uses. Systematic observation is defined as “a trained person
following stated guidelines and procedures to observe, record, and analyze interactions
with the assurance that all others viewing the same sequence of events would agree
with his, or her, data” (Darst, Zakrajsek, & Mancini, 1989. Early research in teaching
(1930s to 1950s) researchers did not go in to regular classrooms for their research (van
der Mars, 1989). In the 1950s, researchers started to observe what actual teachers did
and said in the classroom (van der Mars, 1989). The process of systematic observation
is used frequently in teacher and student research and requires that specific procedures
and steps be followed to ensure that the data collected is reliable, valid and accurate
(Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). Hans van der Mars (1989) describes in detail steps that
should be used for systematic observation: decide what to observe, develop definitions
for the behaviors to be observed, select the appropriate observation system, establish
observer reliability, make the observation, and summarize and interpret the data.
Systematic observation includes quantitative recording that can be one or a mix of:
event, duration, interval, and/or momentary time sampling recording.
11
Event recording is recording the number of times a discrete event, with a
definite beginning and end, occurs and is commonly used for recording teacher
feedback and time analysis (Rink, 2010; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). According to
van der Mars (1989), coding forms for event recording should include demographic
data, space for recording behavioral data, data summary, general comments, and
behavior definitions. Rink identified several important categories of feedback that can
be coded: type, congruency, specificity, negative or positive, context, and target. Rink
(2010) recommends giving skill feedback that is more specific, positive, corrective,
and congruent. She also recommends giving behavior feedback that is more positive
and specific to reduce off task behaviors. Harrison (2001) also recommends that the
teacher should give a minimum at least two to three comments per minute to students.
During feedback coding, skill and behavior feedback can be recorded in the following
ways: rate per minute, ratio of positive to negative, percentage of specific feedback,
percentage of value feedback, percentage of group-directed feedback, percentage of
non-verbal feedback, and ratio of reinforcement compared to punishment. Harrison
(2001) also recommends that more than 50% of time be devoted to activity and less
than 20% of class time should be used for management time. Common time analysis
coding includes activity time, management time, instruction time, and/or transition
time (Rink, 2010).
Reliability is the key to developing and using an observational system for
educational and research purposes (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). Reliability is
defined as “the capacity of the instrument to yield the same measurement value when
12
brought into repeated contact with the same state of nature” (Johnston & Pennypacker,
1980). According to Siedentop and Tannehill (2000), reliability is necessary when
using a data-based approach to improving teaching skills. Calculating reliability
indicates whether the observation category definitions are clear and accurate. Another
reason to calculate reliability is to ensure that the observations recorded are due to
teacher and/or student performance, not due to the observer. A third reason for
calculating reliability, is to ensure the observations reflect what is actually going on in
the classroom. Observer reliability, or agreement, can be reached by two people
observing and recording the same event or one person observing the same exact event
twice. A general formula for calculating reliability is to divide the number of
agreements by the number agreements plus disagreements and then multiply that by
100. A reliability of 80% is an accepted percentage of reliability for research purposes
(Hartmann, 1977; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000; van der Mars, 1989). Following these
guidelines, teachers are able to learn a lot about their teaching, their students, and the
overall classroom environment.
Curriculum Diversity and Choice
In the last few decades there has been a steady increase in obesity and a steady
decrease in physical education in schools (CDC, 2010 Lowry et al., 2001). This has
resulted in an increase in the volume of research that has been conducted on factors
that promote or discourage children, adolescents, and adults from participating in
physical education and physical activity (Bibik et al., 2007; Couturier et al., 2005).
Studies show that high school students enjoy physical education when it is fun, there
13
is variety and choice, team sports are included, the classes are coeducational, the
activities are relevant to their lives, they are competent and grouped by ability, and can
work at their own pace (Bibik et al., 2007; Couturier et al., 2005). Whether they like or
dislike physical education, all students feel that specific factors detract from or
discourage participation. The reasons cited for discouraged participation are repetitive
and boring activities, no personal meaning, too competitive, and they are made fun of
(Bibik et al., 2007; Chen, 1998; Couturier et al., 2005; Ennis et al., 1997). Variety and
choice were a recurring theme throughout the research on physical education
participation.
In 2005, Couturier et al. set out to re-evaluate student feelings about physical
education on a larger scale. They administered 7000 surveys, 5308 were completed, to
four high schools and seven middle schools with in an urban school district. The first
section of the survey asked why students would chose to participate in physical
education classes. The number one reason cited was to be healthier (70.7%). This
research shows that the message of health and wellness is getting through to the
students. The second reason cited was because it is fun (69.6%). Other top reasons for
participating in physical education were to get out of the classroom and move (68.8%),
to play competitive sports (65.7%), to learn new activities (64.8%), and to participate
in a variety of activities (64.4%). The second section of the survey was concerning
students’ opinions on various experiences in physical education class. Most students
said they would like to pick their own activities (75.5%), tell the teacher what
activities to teach (73.6%), and have greater variety in activities (54%). As found in
14
previous research (Earl & Stennett, 1987; Figley, 1985; Luke & Sinclair, 1991; Rice,
1988; Stewart, Green & Huelskamp, 1991), activity variety and choice were the top
reasons to participate in physical education. When asked about the reasons they would
not participate in physical education class, the students listed curriculum repetition
(45.1%), getting sweaty (64.4%) and not enough time to change and shower (52.9%)
as major concerns. Middle school and high school students differed slightly in their
feelings about participation in, and the curricular aspects of, physical education.
Middle school students were more likely than high school students to agree that they
liked learning new games (70.0% to 60.3%) and choosing their groups (67.1% to
56.8%). Although there were differences in many areas, there were no significant
differences seen in the rating of the top three most important reasons to participate in
physical education.
Curriculum diversity is a key component to the National Standards for Physical
Education (2004). It has also been seen in numerous research articles, that diversity is
a key motive for participation (Bibik et al., 2007; Couturier et al., 2005). Although
there are national recommendations that call for lifetime physical activities to be
taught in secondary physical education, the emphasis continues to be on team sports
(McKenzie, Alcaraz, & Sallas, 1994; Mears, 2008). Basketball, baseball, soccer, and
volleyball are still taught in 91% of programs and have the highest amount of
participation hours (Burgeson, Wechsler, Brener, Young, & Spain, 2003). A recent
research study by Mears (2008) sought to investigate the relationship between high
school students’ exposure to curriculum diversity and levels of adult physical activity.
15
There were 1,920 undergraduate college students who completed this survey and the
results were separated into high (three or more content areas taught) and low diversity
(one to two content areas taught) physical education programs. The six content areas
were aquatics, individual sports, team sports, physical conditioning, outdoor
adventure, and rhythmic activities. The survey responses showed that 94% of
respondents participated in team sports and 69% of respondents said it was the
primary focus of their physical education classes. The overall content area
participation rankings were: team sports at 94%, physical conditioning & individual
activities both at 74%, aquatics at 20%, rhythmic at 15%, and outdoor adventure
activities at 7%. These numbers show that there was limited diversity in these
students’ physical education curriculum and the physical education teachers were not
teaching according to national standards. After high school, cardiovascular endurance
activities were the highest participation category per week. Although sport
participation is where the majority of time was spent in high school physical education
programs, it was the second to last participation area per week after high school. After
high school, students from high diversity programs, three or more content areas, had
higher rates of cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, sport participation, and
flexibility participation per week as compared to the low diversity program students.
Additionally, the high diversity group participants were involved in statistically
significant more cardiovascular endurance and flexibility activities. This research
study shows the lack of curriculum diversity and the detrimental effects it has on
future physical activity participation.
16
It isn’t always so simple to determine student interest because there are
differences in activity interest by age, gender, skill level, ethnicity, and
availability/exposure. Activities that generally rank in the top according to interest
level are basketball, football, bowling, softball, swimming, soccer, and volleyball
(Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001; Hill &Cleven, 2005a; Hill & Hannon, 2008). It isn’t
surprising that these activities are considered to be popular, acceptable activities in
American culture (Coakley, 2004). In a study conducted by Hill & Hannon (2008), an
interest survey was completed by 881 middle school students that included 33
activities. Out of those 33 activities, analysis showed significant interest shared for 21
activities by gender, 10 activities by skill level, 11 activities by grade, and 12 activities
by after school activity/sport participation. Also, 30 activities were written in by
students that were not included in the survey.
Several differences were found between middle and high school students’
physical education preferences (Couturier, Chepko, & Coughlin, 2007). Their activity
rankings were different in some areas, to include middle school students rated
swimming as their number one choice and high school students rated it last. Also, their
motives were different, with high school students ranking fitness activities second and
middle school students ranking them last. Additionally, general level of interest in
almost all of the activities decreased from grade seven to nine (Hill & Hannon, 2008).
Hill and Hannon (2008) also found that high skilled students chose team sports more
often than low skill students, but there was little differences seen in more nontraditional activities such as swimming, bowling, archery, and skating. Also, those
17
students who are more skilled will feel more comfortable in physical education and
continue participation, whereas students who have low skills may discontinue specific
physical activities (Fairclough, 2003; Raudsepp & Pall, 2006).
Activity interest can also be compared by ethnicity and gender. Girls are more
likely to choose individual, no contact, non-competitive activities; On the other hand,
boys are more likely to choose team sports and power activities (Bradley, McMurray,
Harrell, & Deng, 2000; Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001; Hill & Cleven, 2005a). Boys
tend to focus on the competitive nature and girls on the social nature (Greenwood &
Stillwell, 2001). Ethnicity also plays a major role in activity interest. Hill and Cleven
(2005c) found Asians selected Badminton, Hispanics selected soccer, and African
Americans selected contemporary dance at higher rates than other ethnicities. All of
these findings support the finding that society and exposure influence what students
like (Bruce & Saunders, 2005; Coakley, 2004, Hill & Cleven, 2005b). Students tend to
rate higher activities that are considered mainstream for society, or for a specific
gender or ethnicity, and are included in most programs (Hill & Cleven, 2005b). Due to
the diversity of interest, curriculum diversity is necessary to develop a program that
appeals to all students.
Sport Psychology and Feedback
Physical Educators are constantly trying to motivate their students to become
more active. Motivation and self-perception are critical components to physical
activity participation, not only in school, but in lifelong physical activity participation
as well (Ntoumanis, 2005). Deci and Ryan (1971, 1985, 2000) developed the Self-
18
Determination Theory (SDT) to describe the requirements for motivation by fulfilling
basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Depending on
how well these needs are met, will determine how motivated someone will be in
various areas of life. Using motivational theories, several studies have looked at the
effects of different types of reinforcement on perceptions of competence and intrinsic
motivation.
The purpose of a study conducted by Koka and Hein (2003) was to identify
which domains of the learning environment have an effect on intrinsic motivation. The
participants were 783 middle school students in Estonia. Three surveys were
administered to measure Intrinsic Motivation, Perceived Learning Environment (threat
to sense of self, challenge, competitiveness, control), and Perceptions of Teacher
Feedback (praise, instruction, instruction during performance, encouragement,
criticism, and reinforcement). The results showed that perceived challenge and
perceived threat to sense of self relate most to intrinsic motivation. This confirms that
when students view the learning environment as non-threatening and there is task
extension to provide challenges for the students, then they are more likely to have high
levels of intrinsic motivation. The results also showed that positive general feedback
related to intrinsic motivation. Additionally, there was a small but significant
relationship found between positive general feedback and all of the specific areas of
intrinsic motivation, to include: perceived competence, interest-enjoyment, effortimportance, and tension-pressure. This study shows that teachers should keep the
19
threat to sense of self low, provide opportunities for challenge, and provide positive
general feedback to help promote intrinsic motivation in students.
A study conducted by Koka and Hagger (2008) determined the effects of
perceived teaching behaviors on self-determined motivation for Physical Education
students, related to competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The subjects were 498
secondary students from Estonia, ages 12 to 17. The students completed six modified
questionnaires for Motivational Regulations, Perceived Teacher Behaviors,
Perceptions of Teacher Feedback, Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness. The
results showed the broad categories of competence and relatedness had a direct
positive relationship to self-determined motivation. Perceptions of negative non-verbal
feedback had a direct negative effect on perception of competence and self-determined
motivation whereas perceptions of positive verbal feedback had positive effects on
competence, autonomy, and relatedness. There was also a positive effect seen on the
indirect relationship between positive verbal feedback and self-determined motivation.
The teachers scored very low on meeting the students need for autonomy. The
researchers hypothesized that the reason for low levels of perceived autonomy were
due to the curriculum in Estonia being very prescriptive and controlling with little
student choice involved in their Physical Education classes. This study shows that
perceived positive verbal teaching behaviors have a direct positive relationship to all
three components of SDT, and that there is an indirect positive relationship to selfdetermined motivation, mediated by competence and relatedness.
20
Mouratidis et al. (2008) conducted a study looking at the role of positive
feedback on well-being, participation, performance, and intention to participate in
future physical education. The participants were 117 male and 111 female Greek
middle schools students ages 12 to 17 from five different middle schools. The students
were split into two groups; one group received mild positive feedback (i.e. “You did
average”) and the other group received strong positive feedback (i.e. “You did
exceptionally well”). The students completed three timed trials of a shuttle run. Before
the trials, the participants completed a Pre-Task Perceived Competence Survey. After
the three times trials, the participants completed surveys for Competence Valuation,
Performance Evaluation, Perceived Competence, Autonomous Motivation, Subject
Vitality, and Free-Choice Behavior Intention. They were also evaluated on their
overall performance. The research found that all subjects benefited from receiving
strong feedback, whether they thought it was important to do well or not (competence
valuation). There was a significant decrease in competence satisfaction (perceived
competence) for the mild positive feedback group, although the strong positive
feedback group did not significantly change from start to finish. There was also a
relationship between positive feedback and high autonomous motivation, although
there was no significance seen in intention to persist in the future (free-choice
behavioral intention) or subjective vitality. There were no significant differences seen
between the groups or between the trials on performance. It can be concluded that all
students, whether they are ego- or task-involved, female or male, benefit from positive
reinforcement in regards to perceived competence and autonomous motivation.
21
Moreno et al. (2009) conducted an experiment between motivation and
performance on a lateral movement test. The 363 subjects, ages 12 to 16, were split
into three groups: incremental ability comments, entity ability comments, and a
control group. The incremental ability group was told that sports ability can improve
through learning, practice, and training. The entity ability group was told that sports
ability is something you are born with and hard to change. The subjects were tested on
performance, physical activity participation, intrinsic motivation, and perceived
competence. Results showed that the incremental group had higher rates of situational
intrinsic motivation than the entity group. On the other hand, the entity group
performed better on the first lateral movement trial. Even though the entity group
performed higher on the first trial, there were no significant differences found on the
second trial between any of the three groups. Also, there were no differences seen
between the three groups on perceived competence. The results from this study show
that feedback geared towards improvement can have the ability to improve intrinsic
motivation.
Amorose and Smith (2003) examined whether age and ability level makes a
difference in how students interpret different types of feedback. The participants were
73 girls, ages 7 to 10 or 12 to 14, who either had no softball/T-ball experience or had
one-year or more playing on an organized team. The participants observed successful
and unsuccessful at bats where the batters received neutral, descriptive, prescriptive,
or evaluative feedback. The participants were then asked to evaluate the batters
success, effort, and expectancy of success in the future. For the successful batters, the
22
participants rated the batters low on effort and ability when they received prescriptive
feedback such as “You need to follow through all the way.” For expectancy success,
there was a difference seen between the age groups for the successful outcomes. The
younger group rated evaluative feedback as most important and the older group rated
neutral feedback as most important to future success. The biggest difference was that
the younger group rated evaluative and descriptive as positive predictors and the older
group rated them as less positive predictors of future success. For the unsuccessful
outcome batters, the participants saw evaluative feedback such as, “What are you
doing? That wasn’t even close.” as the least positive related to effort, ability, and
future success. This research found that unsuccessful performance should be followed
by informational feedback (descriptive and prescriptive) and successful performance
should be followed by praise to ensure high perceptions of ability and effort.
Motor Learning and Feedback
There has been much research to try to determine what type, how much, and
when to give feedback to gain the biggest results in student learning of motor skills.
Rink (2010) identified several important categories of feedback: type, congruency,
specificity, negative and positive, context, and target. According to Magill (2004)
there are four main factors to keep in mind when looking at the relationship between
augmented feedback and motor skill learning: augmented feedback is important when
no intrinsic feedback is available, some simple skills can be learned without
augmented feedback, augmented feedback can help to learn some skills faster or at a
higher level (even if it isn’t needed), and augmented feedback can hinder learning if
23
incomplete or incorrect. The reason these recommendations are so broad is that when
motor learning is taken out of a laboratory setting, there are many other environmental
factors that play a role in learning besides the teacher. Although the research on
feedback in the physical education setting shows broad results, Rink (2010)
recommends giving skill feedback that is more specific, positive, corrective, and
congruent.
Werner and Rink (1989) performed a case study on four different teachers to
see how teaching style related to elementary students’ performance. The subjects were
160 second grade students and four physical education teachers. There were several
instruments used in this research. To measure specific skill performance, a force
platform was used to measure force production and reduction while jumping and the
standing long jump was used to test distance jumped. To measure practice trials, a
specific accounting was recorded to keep track of the number of practice trials. The
Observation System for Content Development-Physical Education was used to
describe the teachers’ managerial skills. The last instrument was the Qualitative
Measures of Teaching Performance Scale to describe task presentation, student
responses, and teacher feedback. The teachers went through training classes after
baseline to improve their effectiveness focusing on accurate learning cues (two to
three cues maximum per skill), congruent feedback, clarity, and appropriate task
progression. There was performance improvement seen in the force reduction and
standing long jump tests, yet there was little improvement in force production.
Although results varied between each teacher, there were six themes identified in the
24
lessons where there was improved performance: appropriate cues, specific cues,
accountability system, more practice trials, effective management, and teacher inservice training.
Boyce (1991) examined how varying amounts of knowledge of performance
(KP) feedback relates to skill performance in a field-based setting. The subjects were
135 university students ages 18 to 26 years old that were enrolled in a beginning
riflery class. The first group received KP feedback after every trial, the second group
received KP feedback after every five trials, and the third group received no feedback.
The experiment was two and a half weeks long with each session lasting
approximately 50 minutes. The KP feedback was evaluative, specific, and congruent
in nature, focusing on trigger pull and shot location on the target. The students were
pre-tested, then went through the skill acquisition phase with treatment, then posttested. The results showed that all groups improved after practice, but the two KP
groups improved significantly more. Also, there were no significant differences seen
between the summary KP feedback and the KP feedback after every trial. This
research shows that practice and KP feedback, regardless of frequency, can improve
performance.
Masser (1993) looked at the effectiveness of giving specific cues on the
acquisition of handstands and forward rolls. The subjects were 113 first-grade students
and the research was conducted during five physical education classes that were 30
minutes each. The subjects were pre-tested, post-tested, and tested again several
months later. There were three groups: control group receiving no instruction or
25
practice, cue group that received one cue repeatedly throughout the lessons (specific,
congruent feedback), and a no cue (NC) group that received regular instruction. The
results showed that only the cue group improved significantly and maintained that
improvement three months later with no additional practice. Also, the NC group did
not improve significantly more than the group who received no instruction (control) at
all. Another study was conducted with the same students to see if different cues
produced different results during the acquisition of a forward roll. Both cues produced
the same performance improvements during the post-test, although one cue showed
significantly higher learning on the re-test two months later. This second study shows
that the quality of the cue may play a role in long term performance learning.
Stroot and Oslin (1993) researched pre-service teachers feedback and student
performance to determine if teachers were providing appropriate feedback and the
results of that feedback on student performance. This research included three preservice teachers and six children, age’s five to eight. The teachers gave specific
congruent feedback on foot position, pelvic rotation, hand position-backswing, elbowbackswing, and arm action-forward swing. Only 37% percent of the 2,013 comments
were specific to the components listed (congruent feedback). Most of the comments
went towards foot position (16%). Teacher One’s component specific comments were
91% appropriate, Teacher Two’s were only 59% appropriate and Teacher Three’s
were 72% appropriate. One trend seen was that feedback was given on a particular
component when the student was already performing at a high level of proficiency.
Another trend was that no feedback was given on a particular component when it was
26
not performed at a high level of efficiency. These findings show that pre-service
teachers had a hard time giving appropriate, congruent feedback. When the teachers
did provide appropriate feedback, the students significantly improve their
performance. This research shows that feedback must be accurate, as well as specific
and congruent, to see improvements in skill.
Pellett and Harrison (1995) researched the relationship between a teacher’s
specific, congruent, corrective immediate feedback with high and low skilled
volleyball players. The subjects were 68 female volleyball players in seventh and
eighth grade. The students were skill tested and separated into high and low skilled
groups. The lessons were coded to ensure that the teacher used the same amounts of
feedback and lesson focus (extend, refine, apply) to ensure both groups received the
same lesson content over the 11 day unit. Practice success immediately following the
skill attempt was coded to determine immediate performance levels. The students
were tested at the end of the unit to see if their overall performance had changed. All
end of unit skill test performance improved for both the high and low skilled groups.
Immediate practice success after feedback improved for the pass and the set, but not
for the serve. The only skill that did not improve on immediate practice success after
feedback was the serve. One possible reason for this is that the difficulty level may
have been too high for most of the performers. There were no significant differences
seen between the high and low skilled groups showing that all skill levels improve
from specific, congruent, and corrective feedback, although difficult skills may not
improve from this type of feedback.
27
Wulf, McConnel, Gartner, and Schwartz (2002) researched the differences in
performance when using internal versus external focus specific, congruent feedback
on a complex sport skill. The first experiment involved 48 students, ages 15 to 30.
Internal focus feedback is directed towards the performer’s body movement versus
external focus feedback is directed towards the movement effects. The participants
were separated into high and low skilled groups and then split into external focus and
internal focus groups. Each group received comments after every five trials during a
tennis serve and performed a total of 25 trials. This was repeated a second week, and
then the third week a retention test with only 15 trials was performed. The accuracy
for each trial was scored and recorded to compare results between the trials and
between the groups. The results showed that external feedback for skilled and
unskilled performers’ increased immediate performance and retention but internal
feedback did not produce significant performance increases. The second experiment
conducted by Wulf et al. (2002) gave varying amounts of feedback frequency (33%
and 100%) and did not separate the subjects by skill level. This experiment involved
52 students ages 10 to 25 with at least some experience in soccer. The students
participated in 30 practice trials and one retention test a week later. When comparing
the frequency groups, the 33% feedback group performed better with internal-focus
feedback and the 100% feedback group performed better with external-focus feedback
during the practice and retention trials. Overall, both the 33% and 100% external
feedback groups were more accurate at passing than both internal groups during the
practice and the retention trials.
28
Tzetzis et al. (2008) studied whether different types of feedback had different
effects on self-confidence and skill performance depending on skill difficulty. The
research involved 48 young athletes ages 10 to 14 with two to three years’ experience
in badminton. The forehand clear was the easy skill and the backhand clear was the
difficult skill. The participants were pre-tested, post-tested, and retention tested on
their skill using a skill test and self-confidence levels were tested using the State Sport
Confidence Inventory before and after the feedback treatment. There were three
treatment groups and one control group who did not do any of the practice sessions.
The instructor was a certified coach and went through a pilot test with another group
to ensure the correct methods and procedures were followed. The first group received
positive feedback and correction cues, the second group received only error cues, and
the third group received all three kinds of feedback. The groups received practice and
feedback for 12 weeks, two times a week, 60 minutes, and feedback after every five
trials. For the easy skill, the positive feedback and correction cue group and the error
cue group improved more than the group that received all three types of feedback. For
the difficult skill, the only group that did not improve their skill level over time was
the group that received error correction cues only. The study found that for easy skills
it may not matter what type of feedback is given as long as there is feedback present
but when the skill is more difficult, it takes a combination of all of the feedback types
to improve skill. For the easy skill, both of the groups that received positive feedback
and correction cues improved their self-confidence. For the difficult skill, the only
group to improve self-confidence was the group who received all three types of
29
feedback. These results show that error correction alone does not increase selfconfidence; there must be some type of positive reinforcement included.
There have been numerous studies on why students like or dislike physical
education, but there is little research on how specifically to change their minds about a
disliked activity. This points for the need for a study to link physical activity interest
and appropriate teacher feedback patterns therefore, influencing how physical
education and specific activities are being taught.
30
Chapter 3
DESIGN
This study used a pre-test, post-test experimental design. The dependent
variable was the Activity Interest Survey given at the beginning and the end of the
physical activity unit. The treatment was appropriate teacher feedback given
throughout the low-interest physical activity unit. Students were given a short Activity
Interest Survey near the beginning of the school year. Then, the students had an
introduction unit, where general classroom rules and procedures were taught. Next, the
students participated in the physical activity that had the lowest mean interest
according to the Initial Activity Interest Survey. Throughout the unit the teacher used
appropriate teacher feedback for the experimental group and primarily neutral teacher
feedback for the control group. At the end of the unit, the students filled out the Final
Activity Interest Survey.
Participants
The participants were the physical education teacher and 215 students in those
physical education classes. The physical education teacher was a Caucasian female
who was 33 years old. She has been teaching physical education full-time for four
years in the same district. The students were ages 10 to 12, both male and female,
from three urban elementary schools in Northern California. The socio-economic
status and ethnicity break down at the three schools was very different (see Tables 1
and 2). The socio-economic status was calculated by counting the number of students
31
on free or reduced lunch, according to the School Accountability Report Card for the
2009-2010 school year.
Table 1
Ethnicity Status for Each School
School
Experimental
Group—
School 1
(N=44)
Experimental
Group—
School 2
(N=86)
Control
Group—
School 3
(N=85)
Black
American
Pacific
Asian Filipino Hispanic/Latino
White
Indian
Islander
1%
0%
8%
0%
85%
0%
6%
10%
0%
25%
12%
20%
1%
30%
22%
0%
24%
4%
32%
1%
16%
Table 2
Socio-Economic and Language Status for Each School
School
Experimental
Group—School 1
(N=44)
Experimental
Group—School 2
(N=86)
Control Group—
School 3
(N=85)
Socio-Economically
Disadvantaged
English Learners
98%
68%
42%
17%
72%
32%
32
There were nine participating classes, four control classes and five experimental
classes, with an average class size of 26 students. The sample size started at 232
students, but seven parents or guardians did not consent, nine students did not
complete the study due to absences or moving schools, and one was removed for
presently participating outside of school in the activity that was chosen. The resulting
sample size was 215 students.
Table 3
Final Number of Participants by Gender, Group, and School
Group
Males
Females
Number of Participants
103
112
Percent
47.9
52.1
Group
Experimental
Control
Number of Participants
130
85
Percent
60.5
39.5
Group
School 1
School 2
School 3
Number of Participants
44
86
85
Percent
20.5
40.0
39.5
Instruments
The survey followed the design and layout guidelines suggested by Dillman
(2000) to ensure internal validity. The two Activity Interest Surveys used (see
Attachments 1 and 2) were slightly modified versions of the Activity Interest Survey
33
developed by Hill and Cleven (2005c). The original survey used by Grant and Hill was
checked by three high school physical education teachers for content validity. It was
also field tested by 13 physical education teachers in their ninth grade classes to
ensure students provided accurate responses. The modified surveys used in this
research were also checked by three elementary physical education teachers for
content validity. Section one of the survey included student identification number,
gender and current involvement in sports outside of Physical Education class. The
students’ identification number was added to the survey so that the initial and final
surveys could be compared. Section two is the activity preference section where a five
point rating scale was used to differentiate between interest levels. The Initial Activity
Interest Survey included 15 activities, which were chosen by the equipment and
facilities available at the elementary schools where the research was taking place. The
Final Activity Interest Survey Section two included only interest in Lacrosse. Section
three included space to write in why they did or did not like the activity.
The other two instruments used were the Teacher Feedback Observation
Coding Form (see Attachment 3) and the Time Analysis Coding Form (see
Attachment 4), using event recording procedures and recommendations for systematic
observation from van der Mars (1989). The feedback categories included on the
Teacher Feedback Observation Form were positive, negative, and neutral feedback,
recommended by Rink (2010). Each time a feedback statement was given, the recorder
put a tally in the appropriate category. The Time Analysis Form included categories
34
for activity, management, and instruction time. Each time there was a transition in the
lesson, it was recorded.
Procedures
Interest Survey Administration
The assent and consent forms were administered and collected over a 10 day
period in order for the research to begin. The Initial Activity Interest Survey was
administered to all nine physical education classes once all the consent/assent forms
were returned. The directions were read out loud and the students had 15 minutes to
complete the survey. The teacher emphasized the importance of answering the
questions honestly. They were informed NOT to write their name on the survey and
that their identity would not be known. Students were instructed to raise their hand if
there were questions so the teacher could answer them. When the surveys were
collected, the teacher checked that they were completely and accurately filled out. If
the students’ assent and consent forms were not approved, they did not complete the
survey. The Final Activity Interest Survey was administered the class period after the
completion of the unit in the same manner as the initial survey. Again, if the students’
assent and consent forms were not approved, they did not complete the survey.
Low Interest Physical Activity Unit
The mean interest level was calculated for each activity. The second to lowest
mean activity interest was the activity taught to the classes (see explanation in Chapter
4). The students received introduction activities to establish the physical education
policies and procedures before the low interest activity was taught. The activity unit
35
was eight activity days throughout a four week unit and each lesson was
approximately 30 minutes of instruction time each, with five to seven minutes of
warm up time not included in the research coding forms. There were only eight
activity lessons due to the number of days per week the students had physical
education classes. The lessons included appropriate practices set forth by NASPE
(2004) to include opportunities to learn, meaningful content, and appropriate
instruction. The eight lessons included instruction on cradling, scooping, passing,
shooting, guarding, and two-on-two modified game play.
Teacher Feedback and Systematic Observation
The teacher used more than 50% positive feedback, gave at least two to three
comment per minute, dedicated more than 50% of the lesson to activity time and less
than 20% to management time, which is appropriate according to Rink (2010). To
ensure the teacher was using the appropriate amounts of feedback and appropriate use
of time, feedback and use of time was coded before the research started. Appropriate
feedback and time was being used, so no adjustments needed to be made by the
teacher. Also, during these practice coding sessions the two observers coding forms
were compared to ensure reliability of 80% or higher according to Siedentop &
Tannehill (2000). The reliability was calculated by two separate researchers coding
two sample lessons and comparing the ratings. A reliability of 89% was reached;
therefore the forms could be used for research purposes. The feedback form was used
to calculate frequencies, percentages, and rate per minute during the low interest
activity unit. The time analysis form was used to determine percent of class time spent
36
on activity, management, and instruction. The teacher’s feedback pattern and time
analysis were coded for 12 out of the 56 lessons to create a baseline for the average
rates and frequencies.
Data Collection and Analysis
The information from the initial survey was used to calculate the mean interest
level and standard deviation for each activity. Also, basic statistics were used to
calculate the rate and percent of feedback given for all three feedback categories.
Additionally, the percentage of activity, management, and instruction time was
calculated. After both surveys were completed, they were compared using SPSS
Statistics Software Version 18 to see if there were any statistically significant
differences between the first and second survey or differences between the groups. A
paired samples t-test was used to compare the control group to the treatment group.
Also, the groups were compared by group and gender using an independent samples ttest.
37
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Initial Interest Survey
The results from the Initial Interest Survey are listed in Tables 4 and 5 below.
The top five activities were bowling with an average interest rate of 3.93 (SD = 1.05),
basketball at 3.90 (SD = 1.10), volleyball at 3.71 (SD = 1.23), soccer at 3.71 (SD =
1.34), and tennis at 3.61 (SD = 1.23). Bowling and soccer were in the top five for both
girls and boys. The bottom five activities were dance with an average interest rate of
2.93 (SD = 1.61), lacrosse at 2.98 (SD = 0.75), track at 3.04 (SD = 1.36), badminton at
3.14 (SD = 0.77), and tumbling and stunts at 3.19 (SD = 1.12). Tumbling and stunts,
track, and lacrosse were in the bottom five for both girls and boys. The activity that
was rated lowest by girls was track with a mean interest of 2.88 (SD = 1.33) and the
second lowest was lacrosse with a mean interest of 2.90 (SD = 0.80). The activity that
was rated lowest by boys was dance with a mean interest of 2.12 (SD = 1.41) and the
second lowest was lacrosse at 2.99 (SD = 0.74). Although dance was ranked the
lowest overall, there was a significant difference between how girls and boys viewed
dance. Dance was ranked sixth by girls and ranked fifteenth by boys. Due to this
significant difference between boys and girls, dance was not chosen as the activity to
be taught. The second lowest ranked activity by interest level was chosen instead,
which was Lacrosse with a mean interest level of 2.98 (SD = 0.75). This was the
second lowest ranked activity for both boys and girls, and there was no significant
difference between the means.
38
Table 4
Results from the Initial Activity Interest Survey for All Students
Activity
1. Bowling/Underarm Throw
2. Basketball
3. Volleyball
4. Soccer
5. Tennis
6. Football
7. Frisbee Activities
8. Softball
9. Hockey
10. Team Handball
11. Tumbling & Stunts
12. Badminton
13. Track
14. Lacrosse
15. Dance
Mean (1 = Hate / 5 = Love)
3.93
3.90
3.71
3.71
3.61
3.57
3.56
3.38
3.32
3.21
3.19
3.14
3.04
2.98
2.93
SD
1.05
1.10
1.23
1.34
1.23
1.39
1.13
1.26
1.25
1.01
1.12
0.77
1.36
0.75
1.61
Note. The activities are listed from 1, being the most liked, to 15, being the least liked.
39
Table 5
Results from the Initial Activity Interest Survey Separated by Girls and Boys
Girls (N=116)
Activity
Mean
1. Bowling
4.08
2. Volleyball
4.02
3. Tennis
3.83
4. Frisbee Activities
3.79
5. Soccer
3.77
6. Dance
3.76
7. Basketball
3.75
8. Softball
3.46
9. Badminton
3.17
10. Team Handball
3.16
11. Tumbling & Stunts 3.15
12. Football
3.09
13. Hockey
3.08
14. Lacrosse
2.90
15. Track
2.88
Boys (N=109)
SD
0.96
1.05
1.11
1.01
1.23
1.43
1.13
1.27
0.68
0.92
1.11
1.37
1.25
0.80
1.33
Activity
1. Basketball
2. Football
3. Bowling
4. Soccer
5. Hockey
6. Frisbee Activities
7. Tennis
8. Softball
9. Volleyball
10. Team Handball
11. Track
12. Tumbling & Stunts
13. Badminton
14. Lacrosse
15. Dance
Mean
4.07
3.99
3.80
3.68
3.50
3.42
3.37
3.34
3.27
3.21
3.18
3.14
3.09
2.99
2.12
SD
0.99
1.33
1.18
1.39
1.20
1.19
1.27
1.23
1.32
1.16
1.34
1.11
0.92
0.74
1.41
Note. The activities are listed from 1, being the most liked activity, to 15, being the
least liked.
Teacher Feedback Coding Forms
The results from the Teacher Feedback Coding Forms are listed in Table 6
below. Reliability between the two observers was 92%, over the recommended 80%
(Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). There were approximately 20% of the lessons coded,
eight out of 40 coded for the Experimental Group, and four out of 16 coded for the
Control Group. The rate of feedback for the Control Group was 1.55 comments per
minute. The rate of feedback for the Experimental Group was 3.58 comments per
minute, exceeding the goal of two to three comments per minute. The Control Group
40
received primarily neutral feedback at 51.05% and negative feedback at 27.69%.
Positive feedback was last with 8.16% of the comments being positive. The
Experimental Group received primarily positive feedback at 64.15% of the comments
being positive, exceeding the goal of over 50%. Second was neutral feedback at
23.29% and last was negative feedback at 12.67%.
Table 6
Results from the Teacher Feedback Coding Forms
Group
Experimental
Group
Control
Group
Average
SD
Average
SD
Lesson
Length
(min.)
30.08
4.16
31.67
2.97
Positive
Fdbk (%)
64.15
3.89
8.16
3.04
Neutral Negative
Fdbk (%)
Fdbk
(%)
23.29
12.67
2.50
4.36
51.05
26.79
17.80
11.14
Rate
Per
Min.
3.58
0.55
1.55
0.31
Note. Feedback comments are the percent of comments given by the teacher broken
down by positive, neutral, or negative. Rate per minute is the mean number of
comments given by the teacher each minute.
Activity Time Coding Forms
The results from the Activity Time Coding Forms for approximately 20% of
the lessons separated by Experimental and Control Group are listed in Table 7 below.
Reliability between the two observers was 96%, over the recommended 80%
(Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). Approximately 20% of the 56 total lessons were
coded. There were eight lessons out of 40 coded for the Experimental Group and four
lessons out of 16 coded for the Control Group. The total time was coded in 10 second
41
increments and then calculated into minutes and seconds. The mean length for the
Experimental group was 30 minutes and five seconds and 31 minutes and 40 seconds
for the Control Group. Although both groups had the same lesson plan, the allocation
of time was different for each group. The Experimental Group averaged 55.43%
activity time, exceeding the goal of 50%. They received 18.58% management time,
exceeding the goal of under 20%. The Control Group received less activity time at
49.08% and higher management time at 24.65%.
Table 7
Results from the Activity Time Analysis Coding Forms
Group
Experimental Group
Control Group
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Activity
Time (%)
55.43
7.01
49.08
7.26
Instruction
Time (%)
26.08
5.27
26.26
4.30
Management
Time (%)
18.58
4.49
24.65
6.15
Note. The activity, instruction, and management time is listed by the percentage of the
total time that was spent in this area.
Initial and Final Activity Interest Survey Statistics
There were five interest level choices for the students (see Table 8 below). A
rating of five meant the student loved the activity and a rating of one meant the student
hated the activity. Over 74.4% of the students were undecided prior to the lacrosse
unit. Another 13% either didn’t like or hated lacrosse and the last 13% either liked it
or loved it. After the lacrosse unit only 24.7% of the students were undecided about
42
their interest in lacrosse and 11.1% either didn’t like or hated lacrosse. Over 64% of
the students like or loved lacrosse after the activity unit.
Table 8
Results of the Interest Surveys by Interest Level
Interest Survey
1 (Hate)
2 (Don’t Like)
3 (Undecided)
4 (Like)
5 (Love)
Lacrosse (Initial Survey)
Frequency
Percent
17
7.9
11
5.1
160
74.4
21
9.8
6
2.8
Lacrosse (Final Survey)
Frequency
Percent
8
3.7
16
7.4
53
24.7
92
42.8
46
21.4
A paired samples t-test was conducted using SPSS to measure the differences
in interest level before and after the lacrosse (see Table 9 below). All groups
significantly improved interest level after the lacrosse unit, improving by an average
of 0.76 (SD = 1.15, p = 0.001). When comparing the groups, the control group
improved the most at an average interest increase of 0.85 (SD = 1.15, p = 0.001) and
the experimental group improved by 0.71 (SD = 1.15, p = 0.001). When comparing
gender, the boys improved the most at an average of 0.95 (SD = 1.14, p = 0.001) and
the girls improved least by 0.59 (SD = 1.14, p = 0.001).
43
Table 9
Paired Samples T-Test for Differences in Initial versus Final Interest Survey
Pre Post
Survey
Sample
Size
Mean
(Initial)
Mean
(Final)
Paired Differences
t
1.15
1.15
95%
Confidence
Interval
Lower Upper
-0.92
-0.61
-0.91
-0.51
Sig.
(2tailed)
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Total
Experimental
Control
Females
Males
215
130
2.94
3.02
3.71
3.72
-0.76
-0.71
-9.73
-7.01
0.001
0.001
85
112
103
2.84
2.91
2.98
3.68
3.5
3.93
-0.85
-0.59
-0.95
1.15
1.14
1.14
-1.10
-0.80
-1.17
-6.79
-5.49
-8.46
0.001
0.001
0.001
-0.60
-0.38
-0.73
An independent samples t-test was conducted using SPSS to compare the mean
increase of interest between the groups to see if there were any significant differences
(see Table 10 below). When comparing the results of boys versus girls, there was a
significant difference of 0.36 (SED = 0.16, p = 0.02). There was also a significant
difference of 0.61 (SED = 0.24, p = 0.01) between the boys and girls in the Control
Group. There was no significant differences found between the Experimental and
Control Groups (0.14, SED = 0.16, p = 0.39), the boys and girls in the experimental
group (0.19, SED = 0.20, p =0.36), the Experimental boys and Control boys (0.32,
SED = 0.23, p = 0.16), the Experimental girls and Control girls (0.1, SED = 0.22, p =
0.66), or school one and school two in the Experimental Group (0.27, SED = 0.21, p =
0.21).
44
Table 10
Independent Samples T-Test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Upper
Compared Groups
Sample
Size
Mean
Differenc
e
t
Sig.
(2tailed)
Std.
Error
Difference
Boys versus Girls
103/112
0.36
2.33
0.02
0.16
0.06
0.67
130/85
-0.14
-8.68
0.39
0.16
-0.46
0.18
58/72
0.19
0.91
0.36
0.20
-0.22
0.59
45/40
0.61
2.51
0.01
0.24
0.13
1.09
58/45
-0.32
-1.43
0.16
0.23
-0.77
0.12
72/40
0.1
0.45
0.66
0.22
-0.35
0.55
44/86
0.27
1.27
0.21
0.21
-0.15
0.69
Experimental
versus Control
Experimental Girls
versus Boys
Control Boys
versus Girls
Boys Experimental
versus Control
Girls Experimental
versus Control
School 1 versus 2
(Experimental
Group)
45
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Examination of the Initial Interest Survey found that four out of the top five
most liked activities on the interest survey, bowling, basketball, soccer and volleyball,
were found as the activities student’s liked most in previous research (Coakley, 2004;
Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001; Hill & Cleven, 2005a; Hill & Hannon, 2008). Girls
chose primarily non-contact sports as their favorite, four out of the top five activities:
bowling, volleyball, tennis, and frisbee activities. Boys chose primarily contact sports
as their favorite four out of the top five activities: basketball, football, soccer, and
hockey. In addition, the largest difference between genders for average interest was
football (1.64 difference) and dance (0.90 difference). These results support previous
research findings that show that girls generally like non-contact sports more and boys
generally like contact sports more (Bradley et al., 2000; Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001;
Hill & Cleven, 2005a). Furthermore, since both boys and girls ranked bowling and
soccer in the top five of, those are activities that both genders enjoy and should be
included in the curriculum in this geographic area. Additionally, since both boys and
girls ranked tumbling, track, and lacrosse in the bottom, those are activities that both
genders do not enjoy and possibly have little experience with in this geographic area.
It is not surprising that these activities were ranked last since they are not the most
popular sports in American culture (Coakley, 2004). If the low interest activities were
being taught, it is recommended that the teacher use positive feedback, task extension,
46
and high activity time to give the students a positive experience (Harrison, 2001; Koka
& Hagger, 2008; Koka & Hein, 2003; Rink, 2010).
Looking at teacher feedback and activity time, the Experimental Group
received appropriate amounts of feedback, averaging 3.58 comments per minute, over
the recommended amount of at least two to three comments per minute. They also
received the appropriate type of feedback, 64.15% positive feedback, over the
recommended 50% of positive feedback (Harrison, 2001; Rink, 2010). Rink (2010)
also recommends that the skill feedback be specific, corrective, and congruent. This
was not measured in this study. The Experimental Group also received appropriate
amounts of activity time, 55.43% activity time and 18.58% management time, over the
recommended 50% activity and under the recommended 20% or less management
(Harrison, 2001; Rink, 2010). It is interesting that the Control Group had higher rates
of management time, 24.65%, and lower rates of activity time, 49.08%, compared to
the Experimental Group. This could possibly be due to the fact that when there is a
presence of high rates of positive feedback, there are less management issues and
more time for activity (Rink, 2010). Another possible reason could be due to the fact
that the Control Group classes were two classes combined, 40 to 48 students per class,
increasing the need for more time to be spent on management. Future researcher may
want to see if there is a difference in results when class size is analyzed.
When comparing the Initial and Final Interest Surveys, it was found that all
groups and subgroups (overall, experimental, control, boys, and girls) improved
significantly (p = 0.001 for all groups) from the Initial Interest Survey to the Final
47
Interest Survey for their interest in lacrosse. The Experimental Group received over
60% positive feedback and over three comments per minute, therefore this type of
feedback improved interest significantly in a previously moderately disliked activity
which is similar to previous research (Koka & Hagger, 2008; Mouratidis et al., 2008).
The Control Group received primarily neutral feedback and only 1.55 comments per
minute, showings that exposure alone improved interest significantly in a previously
moderately disliked activity which is similar to previous research by Boyce (1991).
The Experimental Group may have improved more if the feedback was measure to be
positive but inaccurate (Stroot & Oslin, 1993). Although interest did improve for both
groups significantly, it is important to keep in mind that their interest level did not
reach the like category.
When comparing the Initial and Final Interest Surveys by gender, there were
some significant differences in amount of improvement in interest. Boys significantly
improved interest level by 0.36 (SED = 0.16, p = 0.02) more than girls. Also when
comparing the boys and girls in the Control Group, the boys significantly improved
interest by 0.61 (SED = 0.24, p = 0.01) more than girls. There was no significant
difference between the boys and girls in the Experimental Group, although the boys
did improve interest by 0.19 more than girls. Even though girls’ interest improved
significantly, these results show that the boys improved most during this unit. There
are several explanations for these results. First, lacrosse is a fairly aggressive contact
sport and boys have been shown to like those types of sports more than girls (Bradley
et al., 2000; Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001; Hill & Cleven, 2005a). Second, the largest
48
gap between boys and girls was seen in the Control Group where there was little
positive feedback given. It is possible that the boys didn’t need as much positive
feedback as the girls to improve interest. This supports previous research that found
girls rely more on positive feedback than boys to improve their perception of
competence (Nicaise, Cogerino, Bois, & Amorose, 2006).
When comparing the Initial and Final Interest Surveys by group, the Control
Group Improved slightly more than the Experimental Group (0.14), but the difference
was not significant. This indicates that there were no significant differences between a
group that received low amounts of neutral feedback and a group that received high
amounts of positive feedback, both groups improved significantly. When looking at
the boys only and comparing the Experimental to the Control Group, there was a trend
for the Control Group to improve interest at a higher rate (0.32 difference). It is
possible that the boys in the Control Group, where little feedback was given, liked
lacrosse more and did not need as much feedback since this was a novel activity.
Perhaps exposure alone is all the boys needed since this was a novel activity (Boyce,
1991). When looking at the girls only and comparing the Experimental to the Control
Group, the Experimental Group improved only slightly more (0.10). This would
suggest that girl’s interest level may depend more on feedback even when the activity
is novel (Boyce, 1991). These results may contradict what Tzetzis et al. (2008) found,
stating that you must have positive reinforcement with error correction to increase
self-confidence, although self-confidence was not evaluated in this research study.
49
When comparing the Initial and Final Interest Surveys by school, the
Experimental Group was made up of two different schools with very different socioeconomic and ethnicity backgrounds, therefore it was important to compare those two
schools. There was a difference of 0.27 between school one and school two, although
this difference was not found to be significant there may be a trend. School one had a
very low socio-economic status and a very high population of Latino/Hispanic
students. These types of students may appreciate novel activities more. Although, in
this geographic area lacrosse is not a very common sport and is novel to all the
students (Coakley, 2004).
Conclusion
The Initial Interest Surveys were very informative since previous research on
interest surveys were given to middle and high school students (Coakley, 2004;
Couturier, 2007; Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001; Hill & Cleven, 2005a, 2005b; Hill &
Hannon, 2008). Soccer and bowling were ranked in the top five liked physical
activities for both boys and girls and should be included in the curriculum in this
geographic area. Additionally, boys ranked contact sports higher and girls ranked noncontact sports higher. The largest gap in interest level was found in dance and football.
Girls rated dance high and football low, where boys rated them just the opposite. This
confirms that activity interest can vary by gender (Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001).
Furthermore, both boys and girls ranked tumbling and track in the bottom five. If these
two physical activities were taught in a positive and appropriate way, their interest
level may improve like it did for lacrosse. There is little research on activity interest at
50
the fifth and sixth grade level due to the belief that their maturity level is too low and
interest is inconsistent to know what they like and why they like it. Additional activity
interest research on this age group is needed to see if there is consensus among this
age group on what physical activities they like. Furthermore, this research did not have
a big enough population to compare ethnicity and interest level, so that is another area
of research that should be explored for this age group.
The treatment in this research was either the Control Group, that received low
amounts of primarily neutral feedback, or the Experimental Group, that received high
amounts of primarily positive feedback. Both groups received the same lessons with
the same lesson plans. The group that received the high rate of primarily positive
feedback had higher rates of activity time and lower rates of management time. This
supports research that positive feedback can decrease management and behavioral
issues. The Control and Experimental Groups had very different socio-economic and
ethnic backgrounds. It would be interesting to see if this link between feedback and
management/activity time would be found if the research was completed at only one
school. Another variable that could be explored is the effect of negative feedback on
interest level. That was not used in this experiment due to the ethical concerns of
purposefully giving children negative feedback.
This research found that exposure alone and high amounts of positive feedback
both improved interest in a previously moderately disliked novel activity. Before the
activity unit, approximately 87.4% of students had no feelings or negative feelings
about lacrosse. After the activity unit, only 26.7% of students had no feelings or
51
negative feelings about lacrosse. When comparing the groups overall, there were no
significant differences in interest level between the Control and Experimental Group.
Therefore, it did not matter whether the students received minimal feedback or high
amounts of positive feedback, either way they improved interest for this novel activity.
Although both genders did improve significantly, there were significant differences in
interest improvement between boys and girls overall and boys and girls in the Control
Group. This supports the findings in previous studies that boys enjoy aggressive
contact sports more than girls (Bradley et al., 2000; Greenwood & Stillwell, 2001; Hill
& Cleven, 2005a). Additionally, the largest difference was seen between gender in the
Control Group, where little feedback was given, supporting the idea that boys may not
need or want as much positive feedback as girls, especially when participating in a
novel activity. Lacrosse was only marginally disliked, so it would be interesting to see
what the results would be for an activity that was more strongly disliked. Ethnicity and
interest could be used as another subgroup for this type of research. Furthermore, it
would be of interest to see if the students’ interest level is enduring, and would be the
same the next school year.
Most of the previous research looked at the effects of positive feedback on
motivation, self-confidence, perception of competence, and skill improvement (Koka
& Hagger, 2008; Koka & Hein, 2003; Magill, 2004; Moreno et al., 2009; Mouratidis
et al., 2008; Pellett & Harrison, 1995; Rink, 2010; Tzetzis et al., 2008; Wulf et al.,
2002). This is the first research study to look at how teacher feedback and student
activity interest level relate. This research linked exposure and exposure with positive
52
feedback to increasing activity interest. These results were found for both boys and
girls in fifth and sixth grade, from three different urban elementary schools in
Northern California. If all Physical Education teachers aided in improving student
interest level at this rate, it might be possible to get students more interested in
physical activity and physical education.
53
APPENDIX A
Parent/Guardian Consent Form
54
PARENT/GUARDIAN CONSENT FORM
Your child is being asked to participate in research which will be conducted from October through
December, 2011 by Mrs. Jolane McCarthy, your child’s Physical Education teacher and a student in
Kinesiology at California State University, Sacramento.
The study will investigate how teacher feedback affects student interest in physical activities. Your
child will be asked to complete an activity interest survey regarding which physical activities they like
and do not like. Then a low interest activity will be taught for 4 weeks, and the teacher will implement
appropriate feedback (i.e. positive comments and encouragement). At the end of the unit, your child
will be asked to complete the same activity interest survey again. The surveys will be given during their
Physical Education class and will require only 15 minutes at the beginning of the unit and 15 minutes at
the end of the unit.
This is a “no risk” research study. The survey is one that is normally required for all students’ whether
they participate in the research or not. It is used by the teacher to understand what students like and
decide what units to teach. The teacher’s feedback is what will be evaluated during the low interest
activity unit. There are no risks involved with this study besides the normal risk involved with physical
activity and physical education participation. The unit being taught follows the California Content
Standards for Physical Education and all district guidelines will be followed. (See LUSD Policy 5141
and 5141.1 regarding Health Care, Emergencies, and Accidents.) The aim of this research is to improve
students’ interest in a previously disliked activity. It is hoped that the results of this study will be
beneficial for physical education programs by improving student’s enjoyment for physical activity and
possibly improving participation as well.
The only personal identifier on the survey is the students’ physical education roll call number at the top
of the survey. This is so that we can compare their first survey to their second. The information is
confidential and will not be shared with anyone but the research team. After all calculations have been
made, the surveys will be destroyed. Only group results for the research will be reported and neither the
school, nor school district, will be identified. You, or your child, will not receive any compensation for
participating in this study. If you have any questions about this research, you may contact me, Mrs.
Jolane McCarthy at 916-996-1851 or by e-mail at jolanep@hotmail.com. You may also contact the
Sacramento State advisor for this research, Dr. Lindy Valdez at 916-278-4471 or by e-mail at
lvaldez@csus.edu.
Although your participation in this research is entirely voluntary, please make sure your child returns
this form, as this is a required assignment. Your signature below indicates that you have read this page.
Please put a check mark next to agree if you would like your child to participate in the research. If
disagree is checked, your child’s will not participate in the research.
AGREE
DISAGREE
_______________________________
Parent/Guardian Signature
** See sample Activity Interest Survey on the back
_______________________________
Print Your Child’s First & Last Name
_________
Date
55
APPENDIX B
Teacher Feedback Coding Form
56
TEACHER FEEDBACK CODING FORM
Teacher: ______________________________
Date: _________________________________
Lesson Focus: __________________________
Observer 1: _________________________
Lesson Number: ______________________
Lesson Length: _______________________
TYPE OF FEEDBACK:
Positive
Negative
Neutral
AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK (Positive, Negative, or Neutral):
Total Positive
________
Total Negative ________
% Positive
________
% Negative
________
Total Neutral
% Neutral
________
________
RATE OF FEEDBACK:
Total Positive______ + Total Negative______+ Total Neutral______= ______Total Comments
Total Comments_______/_______Minutes of Instruction =______Rate Per Minute of Feedback
Teacher: ______________________________
Date: _________________________________
Lesson Focus: __________________________
Observer 2: _________________________
Lesson Number: ______________________
Lesson Length: _______________________
TYPE OF FEEDBACK:
Positive
Negative
Neutral
AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK (Positive, Negative, or Neutral):
Total Positive
________
Total Negative ________
% Positive
________
% Negative
________
Total Neutral
% Neutral
________
________
RATE OF FEEDBACK:
Total Positive______ + Total Negative______ + Total Neutral______= ______Total Comments
Total Comments_______/_______Minutes of Instruction = ______Rate Per Minute of Feedback
57
APPENDIX C
Activity Time Analysis Coding Form
58
TIME ANALYSIS CODING FORM
Teacher: ___________________________ Observer: _________________________
Date: __________ Classroom Teacher: ________________ Lesson Number: _____
Lesson Focus: _________________________________ Lesson Length: __________
(Every 10 seconds the class will be coded by activity, transition, or management time.)
0.5
8.5
16.5
24.5
32.5
1
9
17
25
33
1.5
9.5
17.5
25.5
33.5
2
10
18
26
34
2.5
10.5
18.5
26.5
34.5
3
11
19
27
35
3.5
11.5
19.5
27.5
35.5
4
12
20
28
36
4.5
12.5
20.5
28.5
36.5
5
13
21
29
37
5.5
13.5
21.5
29.5
37.5
6
14
22
30
38
6.5
14.5
22.5
30.5
38.5
7
15
23
31
39
7.5
15.5
23.5
31.5
39.5
32
40
8
16
24
Total # of 10 second intervals (TTS) ______________
Activity Intervals ______ / TTS _______ x 100 = _______ % Activity
Instruction Intervals ______ / TTS _______ x 100 = _______ % Instruction
Management Intervals ______ / TTS _______ x 100 = _______ % Management
59
APPENDIX D
Letter to Principals
60
Dear PrincipalsI am completing my research project for my Thesis at Sacramento State. I have
already received district approval to do the research, but the University needs your
approval as well. I have attached what was given to the district as well as the e-mail
from Mr. Eldridge (Assessment, Research, and Eval. Coordinator) giving me
permission to do the research. This research only involves the 5th and 6th grade
students that I teach and only requires them to fill out two short surveys. The rest of
the research involves me audio recording my lessons and coding them. All I need is a
very short Memo (or e-mail) saying you have read my research proposal and are
authorizing me to conduct research at your school. If you have any questions or
concerns please let me know.
Mrs. Jolane McCarthy
Physical Education Teacher
61
APPENDIX E
Human Subjects Review
62
Subject: Research Request Human Subjects (Jolane Parr Decision)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:33:05 -0800
From: eeldridge@lodiusd.net
To: jolanep@hotmail.com
CC: odouglas@lodiusd.net; esandstrom@lodiusd.net; dcamp@lodiusd.net
Dear Mrs. Parr (McCarthy),
Each year, the Lodi Unified School District receives numerous requests to involve
district students and staff in academic research projects. Board of Education policy
and the Administrative Regulations establish the criteria used to consider each
research proposal. Generally, to be approved, research proposals must 1) directly
benefit students and the school district, 2) not involve intrusion into students’
instructional time or staff’s regular work time, 3) not violate student or parent rights to
privacy, and 4) must encourage and promote research and data collection which
directly benefits the improvement of student achievement, teaching, and learning.
After careful review your Research Application, your project has been approved.
Should you have any questions, please contact our office at (209) 331-7024. Thank
you for your interest in the Lodi Unified School District.
Sincerely,
Ed Eldridge, M.P.A, Coordinator
Ed Eldridge, M.A., Program Coordinator
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation - Promotion and Retention Services
209.331.7024
63
APPENDIX F
Interest Surveys
64
INITIAL ACTIVITY INTEREST SURVEY
DIRECTIONS: Please respond to the following questions as honestly and accurately
as you can. Your answers are private and no one will know what you put on your
paper. If you have any questions, raise your hand and your teacher will answer them.
You will have 15 minutes to complete this survey. Please stay seated and quiet when
finished, your teacher will collect the surveys after the 15 minutes.
PART ONE: BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Physical Education Period: _____ Student ID or Roll Call Number: _______
2. Gender (circle one):
Male Female
3. Do you play on a sport team? (circle one)
Yes
No
If so, which sport(s):
_____________________________________________________________
PART TWO: ACTIVITY PREFERENCES (Circle one number for each activity-Undecided (3) is for activities you have never done or have no feelings about.)
Activity
Strong Interest
Some Interest
(LOVE)
(LIKE)
Badminton
(5)
Basketball
(5)
Bowling/Underarm Throw(5)
Dance
(5)
Football
(5)
Frisbee Activities
(5)
Hockey
(5)
Lacrosse
(5)
Soccer
(5)
Softball
(5)
Track and Field
(5)
Team Handball
(5)
Tennis/Paddle Tennis (5)
Tumbling/Stunts
(5)
Volleyball
(5)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Undecided
Dislike
Strong Dislike
(UNDECIDED) (DON’T LIKE) (HATE)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
65
FINAL ACTIVITY INTEREST SURVEY
DIRECTIONS: Please respond to the following questions as honestly and accurately
as you can. Your answers are private and no one will know what you put on your
paper. If you have any questions, raise your hand and your teacher will answer them.
You will have 10 minutes to complete this survey. Please stay seated and quiet when
finished, your teacher will collect the surveys after the 10 minutes.
PART ONE: BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Physical Education Period: _____ Student ID or Roll Call Number: _______
2. Gender (circle one):
Male Female
3. Do you play on a sport team? (circle one)
Yes
No
If so, which sport(s):
_____________________________________________________________
PART TWO: ACTIVITY PREFERENCES (Circle one number for each activity-Undecided (3) is for activities you have never done or have no feelings about.)
Activity
Lacrosse
Strong Interest
Some Interest
(LOVE)
(LIKE)
(5)
(4)
Undecided
Dislike
(UNDECIDED) (DON’T LIKE)
(3)
(2)
Strong Dislike
(HATE)
(1)
66
REFERENCES
Amorose, A. J., & Smith, P. J. K. (2003). Feedback as a source of physical
competence information: Effects of age, experience, and type of feedback.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 341-359.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H Freeman
& Co.
Bibik, J., Goodwin, S., & Omega-Smith, E. (2007). High school students’ attitudes
toward physical education in Delaware. Physical Educator, 64(4), 192-204.
Blankenship, B. T. (2008). The psychology of teaching physical education: From
theory to practice. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers.
Boyce, B.A. (1991). The effects of an instructional strategy with two schedules of
augmented KP feedback upon skill acquisition of a selected shooting task.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 47-58.
Bradley, C. B., McMurray, R. G., Harrell, J. S., & Deng, S. (2000). Changes in
common activities in 3rd through 10th grades: the CHIC Study. Medicine and
Science in Sport and Exercise, 32(12), 2071-2078.
Bruce, T., & Sunders, R. (2005). Young people, media sport and the physical
education curriculum. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 38(1), 5167.
67
Burgeson, C., Wechsler, H., Brener, N. D., Young, J. C., & Spain, C. G. (2003).
Physical education and activity: Results from the school health policies and
programs study, 2000. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance,
74(1), 20-36.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Obesity trends among U.S. adults
between 1985 and 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59(30).
Chen, A. (1998). Meaningful physical education: A description of high school
students’ perceptions. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 285-306.
Chen, A., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazzi, R. P. (1999). What constitutes situational
interest: The role of gender and skill. Measurement in Physical Education and
Exercise Science, 3(3), 157-180.
Chen, A., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazzi, R. P. (2001). An examination of situational
interest and its sources. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 383400.
Coakley, J. (2004). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (8th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Couturier, L., Chepko, S., & Coughlin, M. (2005). Student voices--What middle and
high school students have to say about physical education. Physical Educator,
62(4), 170-177.
Couturier, L., Chepko, S., & Coughlin, M. (2007). Whose gym is it? Gendered
perspectives on middle and secondary school physical education. Physical
Educator, 64(3), 152-158.
68
Darst, P, Zakrajsek, B., & Mancini, V. (Eds.). (1989). Analyzing physical education
and sport instruction. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Davis, R. T., Settlage, P. H., & Harlow, H. F. (1950). Performance of normal and
brain-operated monkeys on mechanical puzzles with and without food
incentive. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 77, 305-311.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Earl, L., & Stennett, R. (1987). Student attitudes towards physical and health
education in secondary schools in Ontario. Canadian Association for Health,
Physical Education, and Recreation Journal, 53(4), 4-11.
Ennis, C. D., Cothran, D. J., Davidson, K. S., Loftus, S. J., Owens, L., Swanson, L., et
al. (1997). Implementing curriculum within a context of fear and
disengagement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 58-72.
69
Fairclough, S. (2003). Physical activity, perceived competence and enjoyment during
high school physical education. European Journal of Physical Education, 8(1),
5-18.
Figley, G. (1985). Determinants of attitudes toward physical education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 229-240.
Gately, M. J. (1950). Manipulation drive in experimentally naive rhesus monkeys.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Wisconsin.
Greenwood, M., & Stilwell, J. (2001). Activity preferences of middle school physical
education students. Physical Educator, 58(1), 26-30.
Harlow, H. F., Harlow, K. F., & Meyer, D. R. (1950). Learning motivated by a
manipulation drive. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 228-234.
Harrison, J. M. (2001) Instructional strategies for secondary physical education (5th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Hartmann, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability
estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 101-116.
Hill, G. M. (2000). Ten ways to get kids excited about running. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 71(4), 25-28.
Hill, G., & Cleven, B. (2005a). A comparison of 9th grade male and female physical
education activities preferences and support for coeducational groupings.
Physical Educator, 62(4), 187-197.
70
Hill, G. M., & Cleven, B. (2005b). A comparison of students’ choices of 9th grade
physical education activities by ethnicity. The High School Journal, Dec
2005/Jan 2006, 16-23.
Hill, G. M., & Cleven, B. (2005c). Using student surveys to help choose physical
education activities. Strategies, 18, 6-9.
Hill, G. M., & Hannon, J. (2008). An analysis of middle school student’s physical
education physical activity preferences. Physical Educator, 65(4), 180-194.
Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1980). Strategies and tactics of human
behavior tactics. Hilsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Knop, P. D. (1986). Relationship of specified instructional teacher behaviors to
student gains in tennis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 71-78.
Koka, A., & Hagger, M. S. (2008). Perceived teaching behaviors and self-determined
motivation in physical education: A test of Self-Determination Theory.
Research Quarterly for Sport and Exercise, 81(1), 74-86.
Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2003). Perceptions of teacher’s feedback and learning
environment as predictors of intrinsic motivation in physical education.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 333-346.
Lee, A. M., Keh, N. C, & Magill, R. A. (1993). Instructional effects of teacher
feedback in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12,
228-243.
71
Lowry, R., Wechsler, H., Kann, L., & Collins, J. (2001). Recent trends in participation
in physical education among U.S. high school students. Journal of School
Health, 71, 145-153.
Luke, M. D., & Sinclair, G. D. (1991). Gender differences in adolescents' attitudes
toward physical education. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 11, 31-46.
Magill, R. A. (2004). Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications (7th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Masser, L. S. (1993). Critical cues help first-grade students' achievement in
handstands and forward rolls. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12,
301-312.
McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz, J. E., & Sallas, J. F. (1994). Assessing children’s liking for
activity units in an elementary school physical education curriculum. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 306-315.
McKiddie, B. & Maynard, I. W. (1997). Perceived competence of schoolchildren in
physical education. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 16, 324-339.
Mears, D. (2008). Curriculum diversity and young adult physical activity: Reflections
from high school physical education. Physical Educator, 65(4), 195-207.
Moreno, J. A., Gonzalez-Cutre, D., Martin-Albo, J., & Cervello, E. (2009). Motivation
and performance in physical education: An experimental test. Journal of Sport
Science and Medicine, 9, 79-85.
72
Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating
role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence of a
motivational model. Journal of Sport and Educational Psychology, 30, 240268.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2004). Moving into the
future: National standards for physical education (2nd ed.). Reston, VA:
Author.
Nicaise, V., Cogerino, G., Bois, J. E., & Amorose, A. J. (2006). Student’s perceptions
of teacher feedback and physical competence in physical education classes:
Gender effects. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 25, 36-57.
Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical
education using a self-determination theory framework. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 444-453.
Pellet, T. L., & Harrison, J. M. (1995). The influence of a teacher’s specific,
congruent, and corrective feedback on female junior high school students’
immediate volleyball practice success. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 15, 53-63.
Raudsepp, L., & Pall, P. (2006). The relationship between fundamental motor skills
and outside-school physical activity of elementary school children. Pediatric
Exercise Science, 18, 426-435.
Rice, P. (1988). Attitudes of high school students toward physical education activities,
teachers, and personal health. Physical Educator, 46(2), 94-99.
73
Rink, J. E. (2010). Teaching physical education for learning (6th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Ryan, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations; Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 5467.
Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical
education (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Silverman, S., Woods, A. M., & Subramanian, P. R. (1999). Feedback and practice in
physical education: Interrelationships with task structures and student skill.
Journal of Human Movement Studies, 35, 203-234.
Stewart, M. J., Green, S. R., & Huelskamp, J. (1991). Secondary student attitudes
toward physical education. Physical Educator, 48, 78-79.
Stroot, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1993). Use of instructional statements by preservice
teachers for overhand throwing performance of children. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 13, 24-45.
Travers, R. M. (1973). Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand
McNally & Co.
74
Tzetzis, G., Votsis, E., & Koutessis, T. (2008). The effect of different corrective
feedback methods on the outcome and self-confidence of young athletes.
Journal of Sport Science and Medicine, 7, 371-378.
Vallerand, R. J. (1983). The effect of differential amounts of positive verbal feedback
on the intrinsic motivation of male hockey players. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 5, 100-107.
van der Mars, H. (1989). Systematic observation: An introduction. In P. Darst et al.
(Eds.), Analyzing Physical Education and Sport Instruction (pp. 3-19).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Werner, P., & Rink, J. (1989). Case studies of teacher effectiveness in second grade
physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 280-297.
Whitehead, J. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1991). Youth fitness testing: The effect of
percentile based evaluative feedback on intrinsic motivation. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 225–231.
Wulf, G., McConnel, N., Gartner, M., & Schwartz, A. (2002). Enhancing the learning
of sport skills through external-focus feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior,
34(2), 171-182.