Accountability in secondary school physical education

Truchmg & Teacher Educmon. Pnnted I” Great Brmtn

Vol.

7.

ACCOUNTABILITY

No.

4. pp.

373-382.

0742-051X/91 0 1991 Pcrgamon

1991

IN SECONDARY

SCHOOL

PHYSICAL

S3.OOCO.00 Rcrr

plc

EDUCATION

P. A. HASTIE The University

of Queensland,

Australia

and J. E. SAUNDERS College

of Physical

Education,

Singapore

Abstract-The concept of accountability provided the focus for an examination of how academic work is accomplished in secondary school physical education settings. A model was proposed to determine the interrelationships among the variables associated with accountability, namely, active instruction, monitoring, and the rewards system operating in classes. Questionnaire data were collected from secondary school physical education students (N = 828) as the basis for an analysis of student perceptions of their teachers’ use of these accountability strategies. The model was tested through Linear Structural Relations and confirmed that the accountability factors of monitoring directly affected involvement while active instruction and the rewards system affected involvement indirectly through the students’ valuing of the teacher.

There has been a significant increase in the profile of research on teaching physical education in the last 20 years such that Placek and Locke (1986) were confident enough to announce that “physical education has been the beneficiary of the same dramatic advances in research on teaching that have revolutionized our understanding of instruction in the classroom” (P. 27). Many studies involving systematic observation and analysis of teaching appeared during the 1970s. Numerous teacher behavior observation instruments subsequently became available for studying teachers in physical education (see Darst, Mancini, & Zakrajesk, 1983). Many of these were directly modified from instruments designed to study teachers in classrooms, while other authors designed original instruments for the observation of teachers in physical education. The major advance of the period came from an increased attention to observing teachers in situ. The authors would like to express their appreciation

Yet some writers had begun to express concern at the almost exclusive focus on the reacher in such observational studies (Doyle, 1977a, 1977b). Doyle’s concern involved two aspects. The first of these related to the neglect of pupil classroom processes. In process -product research, student data had been compiled mostly from classroom tests, or other such product measures. Student’s classroom behaviors (or student process variables) had been neglected or at least de-emphasized. The second addressed the assumption that the teacher is directly causing student outcomes. As Doyle reported, several studies have demonstrated the reverse, that is, that teacher behavior is often the result of (or coerced by) student classroom behaviors. Kennedy and Bush (1976) likewise raised the issue of teacher causality and questioned the extent to which changes in pupil learning are attributable direcrly to teacher effects. As Haigh and Kattems (1984) reflect, teachers cannot make students learn, they can

to Dr David Chant for his kind assistance with the LISREL

373

analyses.

374

P. A. HASTIE

and I. E. SAUNDERS

only influence and arrange the instructional conditions with the intention of facilitating learning. The major development in the study of teaching in physical education in the 1980s then became a shift in focus from the teacher to the student. The number of studies of student behavior grew from a total of four during the 1970s to over 36 up to 1988 (Pieron & Manthy, 1988). This shift in focus, together with the increasing dissatisfaction with achievement tests as measures of learning (see Berliner, 1979, and Siedentop. 1983), saw the notion of engaged time gain acceptance as a useful proxy measure of learning in physical education. It was in 1979, after the concept of Academic Learning Time (ALT) was developed in the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (Fisher et al., 1979), that the first studies relating to time and learning in physical education appeared (for a review see Metzler, 1989). A model for academic learning time in physical education (ALT-PE) was first presented by Metzler (1979) and a protocol for the determination of ALT-PE produced by Siedentop, Birdwell. and Metzler (1979). with a subsequent revision by Siedentop, Tousignant, and Parker (1982). Given this focus during the 1980s on the learner, interest has arisen in the nature of the “work” students are expected to complete in school. The key concept in the study of academic work is that of a “task”. According to Doyle (1983, p. 161) the tasks which comprise academic work involve three main features. These are: 1. The products students are to formulate, such as an original essay or answers to a set of questions. 2. The operations that are used to generate the product, such as memorizing a list of words or classifying examples of a concept. or resources available to 3. The “givens” students while they are generating a product, such as a model of a finished essay supplied by the teacher or fellow student. Doyle’s ideas were developed initially in the area of writing, though further studies have been completed in reading and mathematics in the primary school curriculum (Doyle, 1982), and English and mathematics at the junior high

school level (Doyle, 1985; Doyle & Carter, 1984; Doyle & Sandford, 1985). Doyle contrasted tasks with activities, in that the demands which students face in the classroom operate through the tusks and these tasks operate independently of activities. Doyle went on to suggest that, “in comparing different activity segments but equivalent task structures, it is reasonable to expect little differences in what is learned” (1978, p. 17). That is, the same task may operate across a number of lessons and in different forms of class organization. For example. the task of developing a piece of prose in an English class may be developed through the different activities of individual and group work, over a number of lessons. Teachers are rarely passive in classrooms. While they do spend time observing student work, they also spend considerable time interacting with pupils. In such interactions, statements made to students by the teacher about performance, behavior or the consequences of actions are usually evuluarive statements. That is, the teacher makes an evaluation about the appropriateness of performance or behavior and communicates that evaluation to the student. Doyle (1983) identifies this evaluative climate as connecting tasks to a reward structure, which in turn, defines the accountability system operating in classrooms. The reward structure may be a formal evaluation, as in the case of an examination grade, or may be informal, as in the case of the teacher’s reaction to a student’s answer to a problem. Doyle (1983, p. 182) makes two statements critical for the study of any accountability system: 1. The answers a teacher actually accepts and rewards define the real tasks in classrooms. 2. The strictness of the criteria a teacher uses to judge answers has consequences for task accomplishment. Thus it is only the tasks for which students are held accountable that they tend to treat seriously. “If no answers are required or any answer is accepted, then few students will actually attend to the content” (Doyle, 1983, p. 186). This statement identifies a key role for accountability in interpreting classroom processes.

Accountability

in Physical

Tousignant and Siedentop (1983) extended Doyle’s concept of tasks into a physical education context. In this study of three junior high school teachers, three task systems were identified. These were the insrrucfional rusks system, which deals with the academic work in physical education, together with the managerial tusks system (the system dealing with behavior, dress, and attendance requirements), and the transitional tusks system (the system dealing with changes in class procedures). Commenting that the accountability system was the cornerstone of the task structures, Tousignant and Siedentop investigated those behaviors for which students were actually held responsible. Within the instructional task system she identified students to be held accountable at four levels. At the lowest level, students were held accountable for “minimal participation,‘* no matter how good or average the performance. At the next level, students were held accountable for their “effort,” without being expected to reach any particular performance level. At the next stage on the continuum, some level of performance was expected, but the process used to reach that level was not considered in its evaluation. Evaluation of how the performance was achieved is the fourth, and most demanding stage of the accountability continuum described by Tousignant and Siedentop. Tousignant and Siedentop’s study has provided an impetus for on-going work. For example, Graham (1987) provided a description of academic work during a school volleyball unit and Hastie and Saunders (in press) utilized the concept with an examination of the coaching process in an elite junior sports setting. In each of these studies, Doyle’s notion of academic tasks provided the conceptual framework, with the authors using this construct as a means of linking teacher behavior with student behavior and the experienced curriculum. From an initial concern with the ways teachers attend to the proximal task of gaining students’ cooperation, accountability has emerged as a key variable. As Tousignant and Siedentop (1983) state: How and why students “cooperate” with teachers to “get work done,” and what work is really accomplished remains a fascinating subject of

Education

375

investigation. Of particular interest in the current analysis are the seemingly crucial roles played by accountability as mediated through active supervision on the part of the teacher or a responsible agent of the teacher. Active supervision and accountability represent promising variables for further analysis and, eventually, for experimentation (p. 56).

The concept of accountability, then, offers a plausible explanation for differences in the extent of task involvement within and between different classes, and it may be hypothesized that in physical education classes which demonstrate high levels of task involvement by the students, a number of accountability strategies are successfully being employed by the teacher. As Gusthart (1985) states, The identification of certain teacher behaviors with high levels of student academic allow formation of an ALT Time) profile. In this manner determine specifically what behaviors are associated with

learning time would (Academic Learning one might be able to types of teacher ALT (p. 121).

A study by Hastie (1990) examined relationships between teacher behaviors in physical education and the degree of learner involvement as measured by ALT-PE. A similar study (Hastie & Saunders, 1989) also examined these relationships in a sports coaching setting. In both studies, the concept of active supervision was identified as a key link between teacher/coach behaviors and high degrees of lesson/training involvement. Two dimensions of active instruction (concurrent instruction and intervening instruction) were shown to be the key components of the cycles of teaching behaviors employed by effective teachers and coaches. Active instruction occurs when teachers provide information about the task to students while they are working, while intervening instruction occurs when the teacher stops student work to make comment about performance. Instructors who spent more time in cycles of functional behavior where there was a large component of concurrent instruction, and spent little time in passive observation, had greater involvement by their students. The most effective teacher in the physical education study also increased student accountability by clearly outlining to students expectations about the performance standards required for his classes.

376

Finally, the more provided on-going during inte,venecrittaese’

P. A. HASTIE

and J. E. SAUNDERS

effective teachers not only information and feedback (n$~;cgames) but also comments to individuals or the whole group. While the functional behavior of observation showed negative correlations with students’ involvement and positive correlations with off-task behaviors in physical education, monitoring has emerged as a more salient component of active supervision. The concept of monitoring in this context focuses on teacher positioning and intervention rather than the more simplistic notion of observing. The notion of monitoring as an accountability strategy has been examined in detail in a school gymnastics setting (Hastie & Saunders, 1990). In this study, an interrelationship between monitoring, student involvement, and the opportunity to respond was identified. Students were found least likely to be off-task when the teacher was watching the student in close proximity, and most likely to be off-task when the teacher could not see the student. Non-monitored students tended to become deviant where the opportunity to respond was high, but tended to avoid involvement where the opportunity to respond was low. The degree of difficultyability match was postulated as affecting the level of involvement, though it seemed that this effect could be over-ridden by the monitoring strategy of the teacher. There is also evidence to suggest the rewards for good performance or the consequences of poor performance are part of the accountability system that teachers use in maintaining the work level of their classes (see Calderhead, 1984; Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Tousignant & Siedentop, 1983). This research on classroom management has demonstrated that more effective teachers have successfully established sets of norms for classroom behavior and procedures, as well as ensuring that the work which students are to complete is done so in an orderly and well-organized manner (Calderhead, 1984). To recall Doyle’s (1983) statement, it is the answers a teacher actually accepts and rewards that define the real tasks in classrooms. The concepts of rewards or consequences might therefore be hypothesized as having a significant effect on student involvement.

This conceptualization of how the three accountability factors affect student involvement in school physical education can be simplistically presented as in Figure 1. However, it can also be hypothesized that the extent to which students value the teacher’s or coach’s instruction, feedback, and accountability strategies (that is the credibility the teacher has with the students), will affect the way they interpret accountability strategies operating in a class (see Cohen & Manion, 1981; chapter 5, “How pupils see it”). Research has shown that certain teacher behaviors are valued by students. For example, Keamey and McCroskey (1980) report that teachers perceived as high in assertiveness, versatility, and responsiveness have classes which demonstrate greater commitment to subject matter. If teachers are not able to maintain order in classes (Gannaway, 1976; Nash, 1976), or they are not sincere towards the needs of students (Thompson, 1975), then students may also be less likely to respond to the accountability strategies the teacher is trying to put in place. Attacking this issue from a management point of view, Calderhead (1984) commented that “once the teacher has asserted the rules of the game and appears consistent and capable of classroom life may settle enforcing them, down” (p. 30). valuing of the teacher can The students’ therefore be hypothesized as acting as a

(K) (EG-)

Figure

1.

1 @zz)

Conceptualization of accountability affecting student involvement.

factors

Accountability

in Physical

Education

377

-I

[EZ-)-(Z) I

I

Figure

2. Reconceptualization

of accountability

mediating variable between the direct effect of accountability factors on student involvement. This reconceptualization is shown in Figure 2. In order to test this model, a questionnaire was developed to measure the extent to which the students perceived these variables to determine their lesson involvement. The questionnaire consisted of items related to accountability strategies, students’ perceptions of their teachers, and students’ perceptions of their lesson involvement. The design of the questionnaire involved two stages. The first stage was to develop a series of questions which could provide an adequate measure of the five variables identified in the model. These questions were then trialled with a group of 40 physical education students in order to determine the suitability of these questions for statistical analysis, before administering the final questionnaire to a larger sample of students. All items were written in Likert format. Items were presented on a five point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Students were asked to circle the response which best matched their feelings about a statement, for example, Q4. In this sport, my teacher seems to bring out the best work in everyone. SD

D

U

A

SA

factors affecting

student involvement.

where SD = strong disagree, U = uncertain, A = agree, agree.

D = disagree, SA = strongly

Using the data obtained from the trial questionnaires, scales were produced for the five accountability variables, in order to identify a single measure for each of the five variables. This single measure was then used to test the relationships among the variables in the model. The Cronbach coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 195 1) was calculated for each variable using the “corr procedure” of the SAS (1985) statistical package. The Cronbach alpha is a measure of the internal consistency or homogeneity of the items which make up a concept (e.g., the questionnaire items concerning active instruction or the items concerning monitoring). The “corr procedure” program identifies the correlation between each item and the total sum of items, from which the reliability for the final scale is determined. Moreover, from a correlation matrix between the items, a hypothetical alpha is calculated for each item which indicates the reliability of the new scale should that item be deleted. The reliability of these scales and their composition is shown in Table 1. To determine its reliability, the final questionnaire was divided into two halves, where items from each scale were evenly and randomly distributed to either half. There was no significant difference between the scores of the two halves as measured by analysis of variance

P. A. HASTIE

378

Table

and J. E. SAUNDERS

1

Determination of Final Scales for the Questionnaire Number

Variable

Active instruction Monitoring Rewards/consequences Valuing of teacher Task accomplishment

Original

of items

questionnaire

Final questionnaire

II 9 10 IO 7

(ANOVA) [F(1,78) = 1.5,~ > .lO], and a significant regression was also determined between one half and its equivalent (r = .53,p < .005). A total of 828 (473 boys and 355 girls) year 10 physical education students participated in this study. All were currently enrolled in Brisbane (Australia) secondary schools and were completing units in either athletics, gymnastics or hockey. These activities were chosen as they provided (i) a wide range of schools for the survey, (ii) enough students for an adequate sample, and (iii) a representative range of the in physical education activities provided classes. The statistical package LISREL VII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988) was used to determine the relationships between the variables of accountability and student task involvement. LISREL (Linear Structural Relations) is a package based on maximum-likelihood statistical theory. The structural equation model in LISREL determines the interrelationship between the exogenous variables (those not influenced by other variables) and endogenous variables (those which are affected). Its basic aim is to present information for situations where more than one independent variable influences the same dependent variable. LISREL VII calculates the values for the paths between exogenous and endogenous variables (y values), between endogenous and endogenous variables (fl values), as well as for the residual values for endogenous variables (I values). In addition, LISREL VII reports t-

7 2 3 4 5

Cronbach a

0.74 0.76 0.62 0.83 0.81

values for all beta and gamma equations as indicators of the significance of these equations. r-values exceeding a score of 2 indicate a strong relationship between variables. Also reported is the indicating a statistical chi squared, “goodness of fit” of the data to the model.

Results

Descriptive

data

Table 2 gives mean scores and standard deviations for boys and girls for each variable in the model. ANOVA data comparing gender are also shown. No significant interaction effects were found. From these results, it was noted that, for a number of variables, there was a significant difference between boys and girls. To account for these differences, sex was included in a revised model as an exogenous variable, with the accountability and mediating variables as endogenous variables. The revised model for testing is shown in Figure 3. LISREL

data

There were three significant gamma regressions between the student’s sex and the three accountability factors. This demonstrated that these accountability factors were stronger influences for girls than boys in physical education classes. All three accountability factors

Accountability

Table

in Physical

Education

379

2

Descriptive and Comparative Data for Scale Scores

Active

M

SD

F

3.44

0.64

3.92

< .os

3.60

0.55

3.28

0.99

32.45

<.OOl

3.60

0.55

0.08

> .20

P

instruction

Boys Girls Monitoring Boys Girls

Rewards/consequences Boys Girls

3.10

0.94

3.24

0.55

3.32 3.42

0.74 0.68

4.78

< .05

2.88 2.83

0.80 0.81

0.63

> .25

Value Boys Girls Task involvement Boys Girls

were significantly related to the student’s valuing of the teacher, independently of the student’s sex. However, only one accountability factor (monitoring) had a direct significant effect upon task involvement, although both active instruction and rewards/consequences influenced task involvement indirectly through the valuing of the teacher. The model was then recalculated including only those regressions whose f-value exceeded a value of 2, in order to arrive at a more

I

Figure

3. Revised

parsimonious explanation. In Figure 4, these are those regressions (0) whose path lines are drawn with solid lines, while those regressions with r-values less than 2 are drawn with broken lines. Residual scores (0 are also shown. The determination of this revised model gives a goodness of fit index of .995(x* = 2.17, df = 4, p = .704). Therefore, this revised model shows an excellent fit to the data provided by the questionnaire. These data demonstrate that the

I

model of accountability

and mediating

effects.

380

P. A. HASTIE

and J. E. SAUNDERS

5 = .361

S86

l-J SEXOF STUDENT

I

I

5 = ,393

Key

t 5 = ,863

Figure

4. Structural

equations

model of student perceptions

accountability variables identified within this paper are valid predictors of student involvement in physical education.

Discussion These data support the value of investigating the concept of accountability as a factor which significantly affects involvement by students in physical education classes. In all situations, the mean scores for the accountability variables were greater than 3, the score representing an uncertain response. Students then, did agree instruction, monitoring, and that active rewards/consequences do affect their level of involvement in lessons. The data also confirm that the accountability variables identified through this program of inquiry are valid

of accountability

factors in physical

education.

predictors of student involvement in physical education settings. Significant regression effects for gender on accountability variables were found, suggesting that processes through which accountability factors operate are different for the sexes. Girls rated active instruction, rewards/consequences, and the valuing of the teacher higher than boys. Boys rated monitoring strategies higher in terms of their effect on involvement. With previous data having been obtained from the direct observation of teachers, without accounting for students’ perceptions, these data allow for explanation of how the identified accountability strategies teachers use are interpreted by their students in different settings. While the reliability of the current questionnaire is high, and the data reflect normal distributions, too much confidence should not be placed in the magnitude of the correlations or

Accountability in Physical Education

the regressions. Rather, in a study of this nature, it is the general findings concerning the relationships and their direction that must provide the starting point for later research, and the model presented in this paper is proposed as just such a starting point.

381

and schools (pp. 132-160). Eastboume: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16, 297-334. Darst, P. W., Mancini. V. H.. & Zalcraisek, D. B. (1983). Systematic observation instrument&on for physic& education. West Point. NY: Leisure Press. Doyle, W. (1977a. April). Learning the classroom classrooms

environment: An ecological analysis of induction into teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Conclusion The model of accountability outlined in this paper provides a basis for further development of the concepts of accountability and the testing of future research questions. These questions may include the investigation of accountability in different sports settings, in physical education settings with different populations, or in outdoor education settings. Specific questions which may be posed include: 1. What are the tasks and accountability systems operating in more open and less structured settings such as outdoor education? 2. Do the identified active instructional strategies operate for effective teachers in primary schools? 3. Which accountability factors are most likely to have causal effects upon promoting task commitment compared with reducing task avoidance? 4. Are there significant differences between the perceptions of girls and boys of the accountability strategies used by female and male teachers? The knowledge gained from these inquiries can provide a useful input to teacher education programs. Laboratory work and intervention studies using these concepts might better equip teachers of physical education with strategies that will increase the involvement of their students in appropriate learning tasks, and hence increase teaching effectiveness. References

American Educ&ional Research Association, NY. Service No. Document Reoroduction (ERIC ED 13.5 782). Doyle, W. (1977b). The use of non-verbal behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 23, 179-192. Doyle, W. (1978. March). Student mediating responses in an interim report. Paper eflectiveness, teaching presented at the AMU~ Meeting, American Educational

Research Association, Toronto, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 152 748). Doyle, Wm. (1982). Design for analyzing &ssroom activities. (R & D Reoort 6130) Austin. TX: Texas University iERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 251 446). Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research,

53,

159-

199.

Doyle, W. (1985) Managing academic tasks in high school science and English classes. (R & D Report 6192) Austin, TX: Texas University. (ERIC ‘Documen; Reproduction Service No. ED 268 171). Doylk. W., Kc Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum inquiry, 14, t29- 149. Doyle, W., & Sandford, J. P. (1985). Managing students’ work in secondary classrooms: Practical lessons from a study of classroom tasks. (Contract No. NIE-G-83-0006) Austin, TX: Texas University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271 319). Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Effective management at the beginning of the year in junior high classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 485 -498.

Fisher, C., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen. L., Dishaw, M.. Moore, J., & Berliner, D. (1979). Teacher behaviors, AL.Tand student achievement: Final report of Phase MB, Beginning Teacher Evaluation Stud>. San

Francisco, Far West Regional Laboratorv for Education Research and Development. Gannaway, H. (1976). Making sense of school. In M. Stubbs & S. Delamont (Eds.), fiplorations in classroom observarion (pp. 45-82). London: Wiley and Sons. Graham, K. C. (1978). A description of academic work and student performance during a middle school volleyball unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 22-37.

Berliner, D. (1979). Tempus educare. In P. L. Peterson & Gusthart. J. L. (1985). Variations in direct, indirect and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on reaching: Concepts, noncontributing teacher behavior. Journal of Teaching jindings and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. in Physical Education, 4, 1 I I - 122. Calderhead, J. (1984). Teachers’ classroom decision- ( Haigh. N.. & Katterns. B. (1984). Teacher effectiveness: making. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Problem or goal for teacher education. Journal of Cohen,

L..

&

Manion,

L.

(1981).

Perspecrive

in

Teacher Education,

35(5),

23-27.

382

P. A. HASTIE

and J. E. SAUNDERS

Hastie. P. A. (1990, September). Teacher behaviors and student ALT-PE in secondary school physical education classes (Abstract). Proceedings of the Beiiine. Asian Games Scientilic Congress. (p- 183). Beijing. China. Hastie, P. A., & Saunders, I. E. (1989). Coaching behaviors and training involvement in elite junior rugby teams. Journal of Physical Education and Sports Science. l(1). 21-32. Hastie, P. A., & Saunders, J. E. (1990). A study of monitoring in secondary school physical education. Journal of Classroom Interaction. 25. 47-54. Hastie, P. A., & Saunders, J. E. (in press). A study of tasks and accountability in elite junior sports settings, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Joreskog. K. G., & Sorbom, A. D. (1988). PC-LISREL 7.12,~Mooresville. IN: Scientific Software Inc. Keamey, D.. & McCroskev. J. C. (1980). Relationshioscar . among teachers’ communication style, trait and state communication apprehension and teacher effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 4, New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Kennedy, J. J., Rc Bush, A. J. (1976). Overcoming some impediments to the study of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, l4- 17. Metzler, M. (1979). The measurement of academic learning time in physical education. (Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University), Dissertations Abstracrs International. 40, 5365A. Metzler. M. (1989). A review of research on time in sport pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8. 87- 103. Nash, R. (1976). Teacher expectations and pupil learning. London: Routledge and Kcgan Paul. Pieron, M., & Manthy. J. (1988). Study of teaching I

physical education teacher effectiveness. teacher student interactions and related subjects: A bibliography. Liege: A.I.E.S.E.P. Placek, J. H.. & Locke, L. F. (1986). Research on teaching physical education: New knowledge and cautious optimism. Journal of TeucherEducation, 37(4). 24-28. SAS Institute Inc. (1985). SAS Procedures guide for personal computers version 6 edition. Gary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Siedentop, D. (1983). Academic learning time: Reflections and prospects. In P. Dodds and F. Rife (Eds.), Time to learn in physical education: History, completed research and potential future for academic learning time in physical education. Monograph 1. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Siedentop, D., Birdwell, D., & Metzler. M. (1979). A process approach to measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Paper presented at the AAHPERD National Convention, New Orleans. Siedentop. D., Tousignant. M., & Parker, M. (1982). Academic Learning time - Physical Education: Coding Manual (2nd ed.). Colombus. OH: The Ohio State University. Thompson, B. L. (1975). Secondary school pupils’ attitudes to school and teachers. Educurional Research, 18, 62-66. Tousignant, M., & Siedentop, D. (1983). A qualitative analysis of task structures in required secondary physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3. 45-57. Received

26 April

1991

•I