- Email: [email protected]
Relationships of organization, time, and student achievement in physical education
Tmchmg a, Teacher Educrrrron. Vol. 4. No. 3. pp. 247-257. 1988 Pnnted m Great Britam
0
0742~5Ix8f! s3.lx~+o.~Yl 198X Pergamon Press plc
RELATIONSHIPS OF ORGANIZATION, TIME, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION
STEPHEN
SILVERMAN,
LEA ANN TYSON and LINDA MARRS MORFORD
The University
of Texas at Austin,
U.S.A.
Abstract - The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between the way time is used in physical education classes and student achievement. Teachers of loclasses and their middle school/junior high school students were the subjects for the study. Students were pretested and posttested on the volleyball forearm pass and serve using previously validated tests. Between the two testing sessions students received 7 days of instruction in these skills. All classes were videotaped using a two-camera split screen system so that virtually all activity in the gym could be identified later. Digitally displayed running time was superimposed on the video image. Student achievement for each class was determined separately for each skill by regressing posttest on pretest and calculating a residual score for every student. The mean of the residual scores for each class was calculated and used in subsequent analysis. A multifaceted observation instrument was developed and validated for collecting data which reflected how time was spent in class. Mean residual achievement was correlated with time spent in the various categories of class organization. For both skills, total time spent in practice with teacher feedback had a significant positive correlation with student achievement. When subcategories of practice were considered, individual student practice and reciprocal practice by student pairs were positively correlated with achievement. The use of scrimmage had a negative correlation with achievement in situations where it was used for skill practice. This study provides powerful empirical validation of the relationships between class organization, time, and achievement in physical education.
The tradition of teacher effectiveness research using systematic observation of the classroom setting has produced many results which have both informed educational practice and provided insight into the dynamics of learning in school settings. Perhaps the most studied variable in the process-product tradition has been the use of time by students and teachers in educational settings (Fisher & Berliner, 1985). Time has been shown to be the single most valuable commodity in teaching and learning. Models for using time to enhance student learning have been suggested and modified over the past 25 years. Carroll (1963) proposed that time and quality of instruction interact to produce learning. The “Carroll Model” (Clark, 1979) inspired other models such as “Mastery Learning” (Bloom, 1985; Slavin, 1987), and 247
“Direct instruction” (Peterson, 1979; Rosenshine, 1979) among others. Research has repeatedly indicated that student achievement is related to measures of time (for reviews see: Brophy & Good, 1986; Fisher & Berliner, 1985; Rosenshine & Furs& 1973). Studies ranging from the Texas Teacher Effectiveness Study (Brophy & Evertson, 1974) to the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study [BTES, (Fisher, Filby, Marliave, Cahen, Dishaw, Moore, & Berliner, 1978)] have refined earlier models and confirmed the centrality of time in classroom processes. Although we might wish to generalize the findings related to time and achievement to all subject matters and grade levels, scholars and practitioners have been cautioned that this may be inappropriate for a variety of logical and technical reasons
248
STEPHEN
SILVERMAN
(Berliner, 1979; Stallings, 1980). One subject matter area in which the educational setting is different from that used for most of the research on time variables, is physical education. Not only is the environment different, the product of instruction often is a motoric rather than cognitive skill. Therefore the transfer of results may be especially problematic. Although some research has been conducted on teaching and learning in physical education, the volume is small in comparison to that conducted in the classroom. Specifically, there is no clear and direct confirmation that time plays the same critical role in student achievement. Considering the vast resources devoted to physical education instruction in the United States and worldwide, it is reasonable to pursue this question into the gymnasium. As in the classroom, much of the research in physical educational has been descriptive (Anderson & Barrette, 1978; Pieron, 1986). The instructional use of time has been described (Metzler, 1985; Silverman, 1987). In addition, a variety of tools has been developed to measure time variables in physical education (Siedentop, Birdwell, & Metzler, 1979; Siedentop, Tousignant, & Parker, 1982; Silverman & Zotos, 1987) and to measure student practice in other ways 1984; Graham, 1983; Silverman, (Dugas, 1985b). Although some research has been conducted on the relationship of time and achievement in physical education these early attempts have been limited by questionable methodology and inadequate analysis. Phillips and Carlisle (1983) found that “more effective teachers” provided more learning time. Metzler (1983) has suggested that as allocated time is increased greater raw gain in achievement occurs. Two related studies, however, in which more sophisticated techniques of analysis were used indicate that the relationship between residual achievement and engaged time was mediated by initial student skill level (Silverman, 1985a). In addition, practice trials at an appropriate level of difficulty were moderately related to achievement and inappropriate trials were negatively related to achievement (Silverman, 1985b). These two studies suggest that a relationship similar to that found in the classroom may exist, but the evidence at this time is not conclusive.
et al.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between the way time is used in physical education classes and mean residual student achievement. Method Students and teachers in 10 middle school/ junior high school physical education classes were the subjects for this study. Students in the classes were pretested, received instruction, and then were posttested on the forearm pass and underhand serve volleyball skills. Instruction was videotaped for subsequent coding of teacher and student behavior. A systematic observation instrument was developed to determine the amount of time spent in various categories of class organization. Time spent in each of the raw categories and logical categories summed from the raw categories for each skill was correlated with mean residual achievement. This study is part of a multifaceted investigation of the correlates of student achievement in physical education. Greater detail on the sample and on presage and context variables may be found in another report (Silverman, 1988). Subjects Students enrolled in 10 physical education classes taught by seven teachers in one middle school and one junior high school were the subjects for this study. Students who completed the pretest and posttest and missed no more than two classes were included in the study. This resulted in available data for 202 students in grades six, seven, and eight for the forearm pass skill, and 200 students for the serve skill. The teachers were the regularly assigned physical education teachers who would normally teach these students in this unit of instruction. Four teachers each taught one class and three teachers each taught two classes. Skill Testing Students were pretested and posttested on each of the two skills to be taught. Both tests have been previously shown to be reliable and valid for this age group (Carlisle, 1982) and in pilot studies were shown to be practical, in that
Time Use and Achievement
they could be completed in one class session with junior-high-aged children in the school gymnasium setting. With the help of several trained assistants, one of the investigators performed all testing, The pretest for the students took place in the class session prior to instruction, and the posttest on the day following completion of instruction. Serve test. The American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance serve test (American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1965) was used to determine skill in serving. Students stood in a designated area behind the serve line and had 10 serving trials. The court was marked so that the subject received from 0 to 4 points for each serve depending on where the ball landed. The total number of points was summed and used for analysis. Forearm pass fest. The Brumback forearm pass test (Carlisle, 1982) was used to determine skill on the forearm pass. The test consisted of passing the ball above an 8 foot line and against a wall as many times as possible in 1 minute. Instruction
Instruction took place over 7 consecutive school days. All instruction occurred as part of the regularly scheduled physical education class. All class sessions for each class were videotaped using a two-camera split screen video set-up such that virtually all activity in the gymnasium could be recorded. Elapsed time was superimposed on the video image prior to recording on a VI-IS videocassette recorder. Teachers wore a small, cordless microphone and the audio signal was recorded simultaneously. Each of the classes participating in the study would normally receive instruction in volleyball during the time period in which the study was conducted. Teachers were instructed to use the time as best they could for maximum student improvement in the two skills that were being tested. Teachers conducted the normal routines (role taking, warm-up, etc.) that were a part of the class. In all classes, the only skills taught were the forearm pass and the underhand serve; however, teachers spent varying amounts of time on
249
lead-up skills and knowledge of volleyball rules and strategy. Process Data
A systematic observation instrument was designed to provide data on the way time was used. The authors were interested in obtaining specific information on the amount of time spent in a variety of categories and subcategories. Initial categories, subcategories, and quality/feedback indicators (to categorize the quality of explanation, demonstration or directions, or frequency and quality of feedback provided during practice) were determined by generating a list of ways in which physical education teachers structure classes. Videotapes were then observed to pilot test the system. These steps were repeated until each category, subcategory, or quality/feedback indicator was unambiguous. Definitions for all aspects of the system and procedures for data collection were prepared prior to actual training of the coders. Major instrument categories included: (a) explanation; (b) demonsfration; (c) combined demonstration and explanation; (d) directions; (e) management; (f) fitness; (g) knowledge; (h) non-skill-related preview or review; (i) non-contenf talk; (j) practice; and (k) waiting. Figure 1 provides an overview of all categories, subcategories, and quality/feedback indicators. Due to the complex nature of this instrument, a technical report (Silverman, Mot-ford, & Tyson, 1987) is available from the authors to provide further detail. The various subcategories of practice were included because different types of practice may not equally contribute to mean student achievement. The following categories were included: (a) guided practice - the teacher is controlling class practice by providing prompts and whole group or large group instruction; (b) individual -the class has been structured so that students are practicing by themselves without assistance or participation with another student; (c) reciprocal - students are paired for the purpose of practice; (d) group-task - students are practicing in a group of three or more without direct teacher control; (e) group-individual the class is assembled in one or two groups and only one student is practicing at a time; (f) lead-up
STEPHEN
250
EXPLANATION
SILVERMAN
et al.
DIRECTIONS
1E 1
(DI ) Goad (G) Adequate (A) Poor (P)
Review at beginning (RB) New material (NM 1 Reteaching (AT 1 Revlew at end (RE)
MANAGEMENT Good (G) Adequate 1A) Poor (P)
Tranrltlon (T) Equipment /Maintenance Role /Required functions
(D 1
DEMONSTRATION
Review at beginnlng New material (NM) Reteachlng ( RT) Review at end (RE)
(M)
FITNESS IRE)
_
(K 1
REVIEW-NON-SKILL
NON-CONTENT Good (G) Adequate Poor (PI
PRACTICE
(A)
AND EXPLANATION
Review at beginning New material (NM) Reteaching (RT 1 Revlew at end (RE) Good (G) Adequate Poor (P)
(PR 1
(NC)
practice
(GP)
Indlvldual ( I) Reciprocal (RE) Group-task 1G 1 Group-individual (GI) Lead-up game (LU) Skill related game (SG) Game (GA) Scrimmage 1s 1
(D/E)
(RB)
1A 1 Good feedback (YG) Poor feedback (YP) No feedback (N) WAITING
Figure
TALK
RELATED
(P)
Guided DEMONSTRATION
1
(F)
KNOWLEDGE PREVIEW/
(EM 1R)
(W)
1. Summary of coding categories, subcategories, and quality/feedback indicators. Categories are listed in capitals, subcategories are the first indentation, and quality/feedback indicators the second indentation.
game - students are participating as a lead-up to actual practice of the skill or game play (game such as Newcomb); (g) skill related game - students are in a game situation, but where the specific purpose is skill practice of one or both skills; (h) game - students are participating in an actual game situation where the teacher is not stopping activity to provide feedback; (i) scrimmage - students are participating in a game-like situation, but the teacher is stopping activity to provide feedback. Data collection. All time data were collected by coding the videotapes. Two of the investigators served as coders for all data collection. During data collection coders first recorded, on
a specially prepared coding sheet, the focus of instruction -whether the forearm pass or serve was being taught, whether both skills were the focus of instruction, or whether neither skill was being addressed at the time. The coder then recorded the time that the category (or subcategory, or new quality/feedback indicator) began and the time when it switched to another category. All instruction for the 10 classes was coded. Coders were trained by viewing videotapes and discussing categories, simultaneous coding followed by discussion, separate coding of videotapes for comparison, and separate coding with interobserver agreement checks. Actual coding of the videotapes did not begin until in-
251
Time Use and Achievement terobserver
agreement was at the 0.90 level for three subsequent coded classes. Interobserver agreement was calculated by ANOVA with scored categories to obtain an intraclass correlation coefficient (Winer, 1971). During actual data collection, 10% of the classes were randomly chosen for interobserver agreement checks. Each of the checks resulted in reliability coefficients above 0.95.
Data Analysis Achievement data. For each skill, a residual score was calculated for each student as the measure of student achievement. For the entire sample a posttest on pretest regression equation was determined. Based on this equation, predicted scores were calculated. The actual posttest score minus the predicted posttest score was the achievement score adjusted for entry skill level (the residual gain score). Therefore, if a student did better than predicted the student would have a positive residual score and if worse than predicted a negative residual score. Residual gain scores were selected because they partial out pretest skill level, and are reliable, uncorrelated with entry skill, and not subject to ceiling effects. To determine the average class achievement the mean of the residual scores was calculated for each class. This score was used for subsequent correlational analysis. Process data. For each combination of skill, category, subcategory, and quality/feedback indicator the seconds in the category were summed for each class session. Each unique process variable was summed across the seven class sessions. Since there were numerous small categories for the process variable time, variables were collapsed into logical units for subsequent analysis. These summed categories were used for subsequent analysis. In addition, the times from instances where both of the skills were the focus of instruction were combined with the time spent on each individual skill. This “combined with both” category also was used in statistical analysis. For example, the good and adequate quality indicators of combined explanation and demonstration were summed to reflect a category where the presentation was at least adequate.
Similarly, practice was summed across subcategories, for all types of feedback, and for all instances of practice regardless of whether feedback was being provided by the teacher. Statistical analysis. The various summed units of the process variable (recorded in seconds) were correlated with mean residual achievement using the Pearson product-moment correlation technique. The procedure of correlating reSidua1 scores with other variables is similar to calculating part correlation coefficients. The technique used here was .chosen because it is slightly more powerful than using increments of R2 for significance in part correlation and for consistency of analysis. Based on research hypotheses, a one-tailed test was used to determine significance.
Results Descriptive
Data
Class time was used differently in each of the classes. Table 1 presents the mean amount of time spent in presentation and non-content categories. It is interesting to note that, on average, approximately 50% of class time was employed for skill practice of some sort (6,483 out of an average 12,925 seconds). Teachers did not organize practice so that lead-up games or skill related games were used to practice either skill. About 30% of total time was organized around practice in the pass, 14% on the serve, and 6% in which both were practiced. Approximately 12% of the class time was spent on some form of presentation (1,544 seconds). It is interesting to note that, while more than twice as much time on the average was spent practicing the pass than the serve (3,883 versus 1,805 seconds), slightly more time was spent explaining and demonstrating the serve than the pass (772 versus 761 seconds). As indicated in the tables, there was large variation within each category. Relationships
With Achievement
Presentation variables. For the pass, combined explanation and demonstration was significantly and positively related to residualized
252
Table
STEPHEN
SILVERMAN
et al.
1
Means and Standard Deviations
for Time Spent in Presentation
Pass Standard
Mean Explanation-G/A -Total Demonstration-G/A -Total Demonstration/explanation-G/A -Total Directions-Good -Adequate -Total Management Fitness Knowledge Preview/review Non-content talk Waiting Note. Time is expressed
and Non-content
37.0 40.2 10.4 190.0 500.4 529.1 481.9 245.2 747.6 919.9 304.7 37.8 77.7 114.9 610.4
Categories Serve
Both
deviation
93.2 94.8 32.9 94.2 296.9 314.2 231.9 252.3 359.2 627.5 430.2 41.8 105.8 132.26 263.4
15.9(26.1) 22.2(31.6) 0 206.9 (189.9) 465.1 (288.4) 542.9(315.3) 262.6(157.0) 94.3 (71.0) 362.5 (193.3) 407.4(177.7) 119.0 (145.8) 53.0(64.6) 34.1 (47.2) 67.8(63.6) 506.5 (269.1)
0 0 0
li.9(34.5) 10.9 (34.5) 58.6(83.4) 11.3(22.8) 89.0(106.7) 92.5 (130.2) 104.5 (225.5) 112.2 (260.8) 4.7 (14.9) 10.4(16.1) 120.1(216.2)
in seconds.
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations
for Time Spent in Summed
Mean Summed -Good -G/A -Total
Practice feedback
Practice and Subcatenories
Pass Standard
of Practice Serve
Both
deviation
1624.2 2637.0 3883.3
1590.3 1370.3 1719.6
2.2 28.4
6.7 45.7
809.5 1493.9
836.6 1438.8
20.2 (63.9) 20.2 (63.9)
Reciprocal -With feedback -Total
1397.4 1803.6
1402.1 1514.6
1034.5 (870.9) 1377.8 (1086.1)
0
Group-task -With feedback -Total
296.5 396.5
282.4 362.4
16.3 (40.8) 21.8 (52.0)
0 0
Group-individual -With feedback -Total
66.7 66.7
153.7 153.7
319.7 (497.7) 321.3 (500.2)
0 0
Skill related game -With feedback -Total
37.1 58.2
78.2 112.1
48.4 (104.7)
Scrimmage -With feedback -Total
27.6 36.0
87.3 113.8
feedback*
Guided -With -Total
feedback
Individual -With -Total
feedback
* G/A is a combination
of the good and adequate
categories.
803.4(1045.1) 1398.6 (1100.4) 1805.3 (1324.9) 7.9(16.7) 15.8(27.6)
0
0 0
57.9(166.9) 448.9(699.0) 794.8(1117.7) 0 0
133.7(295.5) 360.3 (827.1)
0
0 0
315.2 (703.5) 434.5 (995.5)
253
Time Use and Achievement
student achievement. This was true when the information that was presented was coded as being either good or adequate (r = 0.654) and for all combined explanation and demonstration (r = 0.699). In addition, when the time in which both skills were being addressed was combined with the time spent on explanation and demonstration of the pass, the same relationships were significant. No presentation variables were significantly related to achievement for the serve. A summary of the correlation coefficients for the summed presentation categories is presented in Table 3.
occur during the lesson or reviews what occurred) was related to achievement for the pass (r = 0.594) and combined pass and both categories (r 4 0.608). The other non-content related correlations are presented in Table 3. Practice variables. For the pass, significant relationships were found for the total summed time spent practicing the pass where feedback was given (r = 0.614) and for total practice time (r = 0.576). Interestingly, the time spent in scrimmage (game-like play with some teacher feedback) was negatively related to achieve-
Table 3
Correlation
of Time Categories
with Residualized
Achievement
Scores for Presentation
and Non-content
Pass Pass only Explanation--G/A*** -Total Demonstration-G/A -Total Demonstration/explanation-G/A -Total Directions-Good -Adequate -Total Management Fitness Knowledge Preview/review Non-content talk Waiting * **
0.062 0.048 0.066 0.214 0.654* 0.699’ 0.408 0.467 0.013 0.170 -0.657; 0.451 0.594* -0.052 0.349
Categories
Serve Pass and both 0.062 0.048 0.066 0.214 0.649* 0.693* 0.192 0.499 0.471 0.058 -0.720*‘ -0.714** 0.60s* -0.053 -0.202
Serve only
Serve and both
0.116 0.066 -
0.116 0.066 -
-0.089 0.346 0.198 0.468 -0.452 0.209 0.410 -0.045 0.207 -0.083 -0.046 0.315
-0.089 0.398 0.246 0.535 -0.400 0.281 0.384 0.014 0.177 0.044 -0.036 0.240
p < .05.
p<.Ol.
*** G/A is a combination of the good and adequate categories. A dash indicates that a correlation coefficient could not be calculated.
Non-content variables. There were several significant relationships between non-content category variables and achievement for the pass skill. Time spent on fitness activities was negatively related to achievement in the pass (r = -0.657) and also when time spent on fitness for the pass was combined with the time spent on fitness when both skills were being taught (r = -0.720). Time spent on knowledge related to the sport of volleyball, but unrelated to the two skills, when combined for the pass and both categories also was negatively related to achievement (r = -0.714). The preview/review category (non-skill-related information in which the teacher communicates what will
ment (r = -0.670). This relationship also was obtained from the combined time scrimmaging where pass and both skills were being practiced (r = -0.757). Since this relationship was in the opposite direction from the overall relationship of practice time to achievement for this skill, the time spent in scrimmage for the pass and combined pass and both categories were removed from summed practice time and the correlation coefficients recalculated. This resulted in practice with feedback and total practice for the pass and the combined pass and both categories having significant positive relationships with achievement (r = 0.625 and 0.642 for pass and r = 0.583 and 0.600 for the combined category).
STEPHEN
254
SILVERMAN
One additional significant relationship was found for time spent in individual practice with feedback for the combined pass and both category (r = 0.627). A summary of all correlation coefficients for practice variables for both skills is presented in Table 4. For the serve, summed time in practice was positively correlated with achievement when the time spent practicing only the serve was considered for the categories of good feedback (r = 0.650), all feedback (r = OH@), and total practice (r = 0.558). The same was true for the combined time category of serve and both (r = 0.649, 0.734, and 0.873 for good feedback, alI feedback, and total practice, respectively). A
et at.
number of other significant relationships were found. IndividuaI practice with feedback was related to achievement (r = 0.565); as was reciprocal practice with feedback (r= 0.680) and total reciprocai practice (r = 0.596). Discussion As has been documented elsewhere for a variety of other subject matter areas (Brophy & Evertson, 1974; Brophy & Good, 1986; Fisher et al., 1978; Medley, 1977; Rosenshine, 1979; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973; Smyth, 1985), time spent with the content matter, or student oppor-
Table 4 Correlation
of Time Categories
with Residuaiized
Achievement
Scores
for Summed Practice and Subcategories Serve
Pass Pass only
of Practice
Pass and both
Serve only
o&io* 0.600* 0.558”
Serve and both
Summed Practice -Good feedback --/Afeedback*** -Total
0.290 0.614’ 0.576*
0.312 0.283 0.249
Guided -With -Total
0.066 0.331
0.066 0.331
0.494 0.347
0.627* 0.418
0.565* 0.565’
0.344 0.434
0.335 0.356
0.335 0.356
0.680” 0.596;
0.680’ 0.596*
0.002 0.032
0.002 0.032
0.066 0.072
0.066 0.072
0.244
0.244
-
0.087 0.074
feedback
Individual -With feedback -Total Reciprocal -With feedback -Total Group-task -With feedback -Total
-0.085 -0.012
Group-individual -With feedback -Total
0.373 0.373
-0.085 -0.012 0.373 0.373
Skill related game -With feedback -Total
-0.202 -0.347
-0.202 -0.347
Scrimmage -With feedback -Total
-0.680* -0.680’
-0.757** -0.757**
0.625’ 0.642’
0.583’ 0.6001
Summed -With -Total
*
Practice without feedback
scrimmage
p-C .05. p< .Ol. G/A is a combination of the good and adequate categories. A dash indicates that a correlation coefficient could not be calculated. ** ***
-0.022 -0.420
0.649* 0.734** 0.873** -0.022 -0.420
-
Time Use and Achievement
tunity to learn, correlates with student achievement. That relationship was unambiguously supported in this study. All summed categories of practice related to mean residual achievement. Although Phillips (1985) suggests that this result is common sense, the fact that the relationship was significant for this subject matter and that the relationship was strong and occurred for both skills is an important result in understanding teaching and learning in physical education. It is apparent that overall practice does relate to mean achievement in physical education when correlating time spent by the class in practice with student achievement. This does not imply, however, that for all students this relationship occurred, or that individual engaged time will invariably correlate with achievement -although recent studies lend some support to this contention (Silverman, 1985a, 1985b). It is impossible to know from the data collected thus far whether this data set will show the same relationship when the individual student is the unit of analysis or whether the relationship will generalize to all student subgroups within the population. It is interesting to note that time spent in scrimmage for the pass was negatively related to achievement. Although comparatively little time was spent scrimmaging in these classes, it seems that this organizational strategy for practice provides little of what is needed to improve skill. The videotapes reveal that many students get little or no opportunity to practice the skills in a scrimmage and, therefore, the time devoted to the activity has a negative relationship to their achievement. Individual and reciprocal practice were related to student achievement as indicated in Table 4. Both of these practice strategies minimize waiting in lines and maximize the potential for individual student practice (Mosston & Ashworth, 1986). The relationship for individual students between appropriate practice trials and achievement has been documented for one psychomotor skill (Silverman, 1985b) and the relationship between student engagement and achievement has been well documented in the classroom (Fisher et al., 1978). The relationship between some measure of individual student engagement and achievement in physical education needs further inves-
255
tigation to determine if individual practice and success rate are the underlying phenomena which actually relate to achievement in these organizational strategies. Time spent on explanation and demonstration of the skill was correlated with achievement for the pass. It makes sense that explanation and demonstration is another positive way of engaging the student with the subject matter. As has been indicated in studies conducted in classrooms (Brophy & Good, 1986), clear presentation of the material to be learned is important to learning. For this study, however, the relationship existed only for one of the skills even though roughly equivalent time was spent in explanation/demonstration of the two skills. Much more total class time and practice time were spent on the pass and it may be that the relationship was nonsignificant because of an overall interactive effect of presentation and practice (you must have a certain amount of practice in order for the explanation/demonstration to be meaningful) or that the small absolute time devoted to practicing the serve caused a restriction in the range of scores for this and other variables. The categories of fitness and non-skill-related knowledge were negatively correlated with achievement for the pass. Time spent in each of these categories takes away from the time available for practice and may inhibit skill learning. It is interesting that with the current emphasis on fitness in physical education classes (Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1987) the fitness activities conducted did not contribute to learning of the psychomotor skill and, given their brief duration, could not possibly promote cardiovascular fitness. Finally, the category of non-content-related preview/review correlated with achievement in the pass. This result is in line with the results of other process-product research (Brophy & Good, 1986) which shows that structuringstatements by teachers are related to learning. These structuring comments may help students focus on the tasks at hand without being diverted into wondering what is to come. The results of this study demonstrate that time devoted to student practice is related to student achievement and that certain types of practice may promote student learning while other types may detract from learning. De-
STEPHEN SILVERMAN et al.
256
monstration/explanation and preview/review also positively related to learning. It may be possible that many of the results of process-product studies with time variables which focused on classroom subjects may generalize to physical education and the gymnasium. As Berliner and Fisher (1985) have suggested, however, relationships cannot be generalized without data and documentation from a similar environment. This study provides a strong indication that the practice-achievement relationship exists in physical education, but there still is much to learn about the specifics of engagement as it relates to individual students in physical education.
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. (1965). Volleyball skills test manual. Reston, VA: Author. Anderson, W.G., & Barrette, G.T. (Eds). (1978). What’s going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education classes. Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice, Monograph I. Berliner, D.C. (1979). Tempuseducare. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 120-135). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Berliner, D.C., & Fisher, C.W. (1985). One more time. In C.W. Fisher & D.C. Berliner (Eds), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 333-347). New York: Longman. Bloom, B.S. (1985). Learning for mastery. In C.W. Fisher & D.C. Berliner (Eds), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 73-93). New York: Longman. Broohv. . ,. J.E.. & Evertson. C.M. (1974). Process-product correlations in the Texas teacher effectiveness -project: Final report (R & D Report No. 4004). Austin, TX:
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 091-394). Brophy, J.E., &Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on reaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan. Carlisle, C.S. (1982). An analysis of the relationship between teacher process variables, selected skill learning time variables, and student achievement in physical education classes, grades five through eight. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4783A. (University Microfilms No. 82-09.806). Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record,
64,723-733.
Clark, C.M. (1979). Five faces of research on teaching. Educational
Leadership,
37.29-32.
Dugas, D.M. (1984). Relationships among process and product variables in an experimental teaching unit. Dissertation
Abstracts
International,
(University Microfilms No. 84-00, 193).
44,
2709A.
Fisher. C.W., & Berliner, D.C. (Eds). (1985). Perspectives on instructional rime. New York: Longman. Fisher, C.W., Filby, N.N., Marliavey R., Cahen, L., Dishaw. M.M.. Moore. J.E.. & Berliner. D.C. (1978). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: Final reporr of phase III-B, beginning teacher evaluation study. San Francisco: Far West
Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Graham, G. (1983). Review and implications of physical education experimental teaching unit research. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds), Teaching physical education (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, Vol. 14, pp. 244-253). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Journal of Physical Educatien, Recreation and Dance. (1987). Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 58(9). Medley, D.M. (1977). Teacher competence and teacher effectiveness: A review of process-product research.
Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Metzler, M. (1983). Using academic learning time in process-product studies with experimental teaching units. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds), Teaching physical education (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, Vol. 14, pp. 185-196). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Metzler, M.W. (1985). An overview of academic learning time research in physical education. In C.L. Vendien & J.E. Nixon (Eds). Physical education reacher education: Guidelines for sport pedagogy (pp. 147-152). NY: Macmillan. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Columbus: Merrill. Peterson, P.L. (1979). Direct instruction reconsidered. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 5769). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Phillips, D.C. (1985). The uses and abuses of truisms. In C.W. Fisher & D.C. Berliner (Eds), Perspectives on instructional rime (pp. 309-316). New York: Longman. Phillips, D.A., & Carlisle, C. (1983). A comparison of physical education teachers categorized as most and least effective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(3), 55-67.
Pieron, M. (1986). Analysis of the research based on observation of the teaching of physical education. In M. Pieron & G. Graham (Eds), Sport pedagogy (The Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings, Vol. 6, pp. 193-202). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Rosenshine, B.V. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P.L. Peterson 8~ H.J. Walberg (Eds), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 28-56). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In M.W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally. Siedentop, D., Birdwell, D., & Metzler, M. (1979, April). A process approach to measuring teaching effectiveness in physical education. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, New Orleans. Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982).
Time Use and Achievement
Academic learning time - physical education, 1982 revision: Coding manual. Columbus, OH: School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, The Ohio State University. Silverman, S. (1985a). Student characteristics mediating engagement-outcome relationships in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 66-72. Silverman, S. (1985b). Relationship of engagement and practice trials to student achievement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 13-21. Silverman, S. (1987). Trends and analysis of research on teaching in doctoral programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7.61-70. Silverman, S. (1988). Relationships of selected presage and context variables to achievement. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59.35-41. Silverman, S., Morford, L.M., & Tyson, L.A. (1987). Observing teacher functions and class organization in
257
volleyball classes: Forearm pass and serve (technical report). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin. Silverman, S. & Zotos, C. (1987). Validity of interval and time sampling methods for measuring student engaged time in physical education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1005-1012. Slav& R.E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57, 175-214. Smith, W.J. (1985). A context for the study of time and instruction. In C.W. Fisher & D.C. Berliner (Eds), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 3-27). New York: Longman. Stallings, J. (1980). Allocated learning time revisited. or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher, 9(1 I), ll16. Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Received 7 January 1988 0
0
0742~5Ix8f! s3.lx~+o.~Yl 198X Pergamon Press plc
RELATIONSHIPS OF ORGANIZATION, TIME, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION
STEPHEN
SILVERMAN,
LEA ANN TYSON and LINDA MARRS MORFORD
The University
of Texas at Austin,
U.S.A.
Abstract - The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between the way time is used in physical education classes and student achievement. Teachers of loclasses and their middle school/junior high school students were the subjects for the study. Students were pretested and posttested on the volleyball forearm pass and serve using previously validated tests. Between the two testing sessions students received 7 days of instruction in these skills. All classes were videotaped using a two-camera split screen system so that virtually all activity in the gym could be identified later. Digitally displayed running time was superimposed on the video image. Student achievement for each class was determined separately for each skill by regressing posttest on pretest and calculating a residual score for every student. The mean of the residual scores for each class was calculated and used in subsequent analysis. A multifaceted observation instrument was developed and validated for collecting data which reflected how time was spent in class. Mean residual achievement was correlated with time spent in the various categories of class organization. For both skills, total time spent in practice with teacher feedback had a significant positive correlation with student achievement. When subcategories of practice were considered, individual student practice and reciprocal practice by student pairs were positively correlated with achievement. The use of scrimmage had a negative correlation with achievement in situations where it was used for skill practice. This study provides powerful empirical validation of the relationships between class organization, time, and achievement in physical education.
The tradition of teacher effectiveness research using systematic observation of the classroom setting has produced many results which have both informed educational practice and provided insight into the dynamics of learning in school settings. Perhaps the most studied variable in the process-product tradition has been the use of time by students and teachers in educational settings (Fisher & Berliner, 1985). Time has been shown to be the single most valuable commodity in teaching and learning. Models for using time to enhance student learning have been suggested and modified over the past 25 years. Carroll (1963) proposed that time and quality of instruction interact to produce learning. The “Carroll Model” (Clark, 1979) inspired other models such as “Mastery Learning” (Bloom, 1985; Slavin, 1987), and 247
“Direct instruction” (Peterson, 1979; Rosenshine, 1979) among others. Research has repeatedly indicated that student achievement is related to measures of time (for reviews see: Brophy & Good, 1986; Fisher & Berliner, 1985; Rosenshine & Furs& 1973). Studies ranging from the Texas Teacher Effectiveness Study (Brophy & Evertson, 1974) to the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study [BTES, (Fisher, Filby, Marliave, Cahen, Dishaw, Moore, & Berliner, 1978)] have refined earlier models and confirmed the centrality of time in classroom processes. Although we might wish to generalize the findings related to time and achievement to all subject matters and grade levels, scholars and practitioners have been cautioned that this may be inappropriate for a variety of logical and technical reasons
248
STEPHEN
SILVERMAN
(Berliner, 1979; Stallings, 1980). One subject matter area in which the educational setting is different from that used for most of the research on time variables, is physical education. Not only is the environment different, the product of instruction often is a motoric rather than cognitive skill. Therefore the transfer of results may be especially problematic. Although some research has been conducted on teaching and learning in physical education, the volume is small in comparison to that conducted in the classroom. Specifically, there is no clear and direct confirmation that time plays the same critical role in student achievement. Considering the vast resources devoted to physical education instruction in the United States and worldwide, it is reasonable to pursue this question into the gymnasium. As in the classroom, much of the research in physical educational has been descriptive (Anderson & Barrette, 1978; Pieron, 1986). The instructional use of time has been described (Metzler, 1985; Silverman, 1987). In addition, a variety of tools has been developed to measure time variables in physical education (Siedentop, Birdwell, & Metzler, 1979; Siedentop, Tousignant, & Parker, 1982; Silverman & Zotos, 1987) and to measure student practice in other ways 1984; Graham, 1983; Silverman, (Dugas, 1985b). Although some research has been conducted on the relationship of time and achievement in physical education these early attempts have been limited by questionable methodology and inadequate analysis. Phillips and Carlisle (1983) found that “more effective teachers” provided more learning time. Metzler (1983) has suggested that as allocated time is increased greater raw gain in achievement occurs. Two related studies, however, in which more sophisticated techniques of analysis were used indicate that the relationship between residual achievement and engaged time was mediated by initial student skill level (Silverman, 1985a). In addition, practice trials at an appropriate level of difficulty were moderately related to achievement and inappropriate trials were negatively related to achievement (Silverman, 1985b). These two studies suggest that a relationship similar to that found in the classroom may exist, but the evidence at this time is not conclusive.
et al.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between the way time is used in physical education classes and mean residual student achievement. Method Students and teachers in 10 middle school/ junior high school physical education classes were the subjects for this study. Students in the classes were pretested, received instruction, and then were posttested on the forearm pass and underhand serve volleyball skills. Instruction was videotaped for subsequent coding of teacher and student behavior. A systematic observation instrument was developed to determine the amount of time spent in various categories of class organization. Time spent in each of the raw categories and logical categories summed from the raw categories for each skill was correlated with mean residual achievement. This study is part of a multifaceted investigation of the correlates of student achievement in physical education. Greater detail on the sample and on presage and context variables may be found in another report (Silverman, 1988). Subjects Students enrolled in 10 physical education classes taught by seven teachers in one middle school and one junior high school were the subjects for this study. Students who completed the pretest and posttest and missed no more than two classes were included in the study. This resulted in available data for 202 students in grades six, seven, and eight for the forearm pass skill, and 200 students for the serve skill. The teachers were the regularly assigned physical education teachers who would normally teach these students in this unit of instruction. Four teachers each taught one class and three teachers each taught two classes. Skill Testing Students were pretested and posttested on each of the two skills to be taught. Both tests have been previously shown to be reliable and valid for this age group (Carlisle, 1982) and in pilot studies were shown to be practical, in that
Time Use and Achievement
they could be completed in one class session with junior-high-aged children in the school gymnasium setting. With the help of several trained assistants, one of the investigators performed all testing, The pretest for the students took place in the class session prior to instruction, and the posttest on the day following completion of instruction. Serve test. The American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance serve test (American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1965) was used to determine skill in serving. Students stood in a designated area behind the serve line and had 10 serving trials. The court was marked so that the subject received from 0 to 4 points for each serve depending on where the ball landed. The total number of points was summed and used for analysis. Forearm pass fest. The Brumback forearm pass test (Carlisle, 1982) was used to determine skill on the forearm pass. The test consisted of passing the ball above an 8 foot line and against a wall as many times as possible in 1 minute. Instruction
Instruction took place over 7 consecutive school days. All instruction occurred as part of the regularly scheduled physical education class. All class sessions for each class were videotaped using a two-camera split screen video set-up such that virtually all activity in the gymnasium could be recorded. Elapsed time was superimposed on the video image prior to recording on a VI-IS videocassette recorder. Teachers wore a small, cordless microphone and the audio signal was recorded simultaneously. Each of the classes participating in the study would normally receive instruction in volleyball during the time period in which the study was conducted. Teachers were instructed to use the time as best they could for maximum student improvement in the two skills that were being tested. Teachers conducted the normal routines (role taking, warm-up, etc.) that were a part of the class. In all classes, the only skills taught were the forearm pass and the underhand serve; however, teachers spent varying amounts of time on
249
lead-up skills and knowledge of volleyball rules and strategy. Process Data
A systematic observation instrument was designed to provide data on the way time was used. The authors were interested in obtaining specific information on the amount of time spent in a variety of categories and subcategories. Initial categories, subcategories, and quality/feedback indicators (to categorize the quality of explanation, demonstration or directions, or frequency and quality of feedback provided during practice) were determined by generating a list of ways in which physical education teachers structure classes. Videotapes were then observed to pilot test the system. These steps were repeated until each category, subcategory, or quality/feedback indicator was unambiguous. Definitions for all aspects of the system and procedures for data collection were prepared prior to actual training of the coders. Major instrument categories included: (a) explanation; (b) demonsfration; (c) combined demonstration and explanation; (d) directions; (e) management; (f) fitness; (g) knowledge; (h) non-skill-related preview or review; (i) non-contenf talk; (j) practice; and (k) waiting. Figure 1 provides an overview of all categories, subcategories, and quality/feedback indicators. Due to the complex nature of this instrument, a technical report (Silverman, Mot-ford, & Tyson, 1987) is available from the authors to provide further detail. The various subcategories of practice were included because different types of practice may not equally contribute to mean student achievement. The following categories were included: (a) guided practice - the teacher is controlling class practice by providing prompts and whole group or large group instruction; (b) individual -the class has been structured so that students are practicing by themselves without assistance or participation with another student; (c) reciprocal - students are paired for the purpose of practice; (d) group-task - students are practicing in a group of three or more without direct teacher control; (e) group-individual the class is assembled in one or two groups and only one student is practicing at a time; (f) lead-up
STEPHEN
250
EXPLANATION
SILVERMAN
et al.
DIRECTIONS
1E 1
(DI ) Goad (G) Adequate (A) Poor (P)
Review at beginning (RB) New material (NM 1 Reteaching (AT 1 Revlew at end (RE)
MANAGEMENT Good (G) Adequate 1A) Poor (P)
Tranrltlon (T) Equipment /Maintenance Role /Required functions
(D 1
DEMONSTRATION
Review at beginnlng New material (NM) Reteachlng ( RT) Review at end (RE)
(M)
FITNESS IRE)
_
(K 1
REVIEW-NON-SKILL
NON-CONTENT Good (G) Adequate Poor (PI
PRACTICE
(A)
AND EXPLANATION
Review at beginning New material (NM) Reteaching (RT 1 Revlew at end (RE) Good (G) Adequate Poor (P)
(PR 1
(NC)
practice
(GP)
Indlvldual ( I) Reciprocal (RE) Group-task 1G 1 Group-individual (GI) Lead-up game (LU) Skill related game (SG) Game (GA) Scrimmage 1s 1
(D/E)
(RB)
1A 1 Good feedback (YG) Poor feedback (YP) No feedback (N) WAITING
Figure
TALK
RELATED
(P)
Guided DEMONSTRATION
1
(F)
KNOWLEDGE PREVIEW/
(EM 1R)
(W)
1. Summary of coding categories, subcategories, and quality/feedback indicators. Categories are listed in capitals, subcategories are the first indentation, and quality/feedback indicators the second indentation.
game - students are participating as a lead-up to actual practice of the skill or game play (game such as Newcomb); (g) skill related game - students are in a game situation, but where the specific purpose is skill practice of one or both skills; (h) game - students are participating in an actual game situation where the teacher is not stopping activity to provide feedback; (i) scrimmage - students are participating in a game-like situation, but the teacher is stopping activity to provide feedback. Data collection. All time data were collected by coding the videotapes. Two of the investigators served as coders for all data collection. During data collection coders first recorded, on
a specially prepared coding sheet, the focus of instruction -whether the forearm pass or serve was being taught, whether both skills were the focus of instruction, or whether neither skill was being addressed at the time. The coder then recorded the time that the category (or subcategory, or new quality/feedback indicator) began and the time when it switched to another category. All instruction for the 10 classes was coded. Coders were trained by viewing videotapes and discussing categories, simultaneous coding followed by discussion, separate coding of videotapes for comparison, and separate coding with interobserver agreement checks. Actual coding of the videotapes did not begin until in-
251
Time Use and Achievement terobserver
agreement was at the 0.90 level for three subsequent coded classes. Interobserver agreement was calculated by ANOVA with scored categories to obtain an intraclass correlation coefficient (Winer, 1971). During actual data collection, 10% of the classes were randomly chosen for interobserver agreement checks. Each of the checks resulted in reliability coefficients above 0.95.
Data Analysis Achievement data. For each skill, a residual score was calculated for each student as the measure of student achievement. For the entire sample a posttest on pretest regression equation was determined. Based on this equation, predicted scores were calculated. The actual posttest score minus the predicted posttest score was the achievement score adjusted for entry skill level (the residual gain score). Therefore, if a student did better than predicted the student would have a positive residual score and if worse than predicted a negative residual score. Residual gain scores were selected because they partial out pretest skill level, and are reliable, uncorrelated with entry skill, and not subject to ceiling effects. To determine the average class achievement the mean of the residual scores was calculated for each class. This score was used for subsequent correlational analysis. Process data. For each combination of skill, category, subcategory, and quality/feedback indicator the seconds in the category were summed for each class session. Each unique process variable was summed across the seven class sessions. Since there were numerous small categories for the process variable time, variables were collapsed into logical units for subsequent analysis. These summed categories were used for subsequent analysis. In addition, the times from instances where both of the skills were the focus of instruction were combined with the time spent on each individual skill. This “combined with both” category also was used in statistical analysis. For example, the good and adequate quality indicators of combined explanation and demonstration were summed to reflect a category where the presentation was at least adequate.
Similarly, practice was summed across subcategories, for all types of feedback, and for all instances of practice regardless of whether feedback was being provided by the teacher. Statistical analysis. The various summed units of the process variable (recorded in seconds) were correlated with mean residual achievement using the Pearson product-moment correlation technique. The procedure of correlating reSidua1 scores with other variables is similar to calculating part correlation coefficients. The technique used here was .chosen because it is slightly more powerful than using increments of R2 for significance in part correlation and for consistency of analysis. Based on research hypotheses, a one-tailed test was used to determine significance.
Results Descriptive
Data
Class time was used differently in each of the classes. Table 1 presents the mean amount of time spent in presentation and non-content categories. It is interesting to note that, on average, approximately 50% of class time was employed for skill practice of some sort (6,483 out of an average 12,925 seconds). Teachers did not organize practice so that lead-up games or skill related games were used to practice either skill. About 30% of total time was organized around practice in the pass, 14% on the serve, and 6% in which both were practiced. Approximately 12% of the class time was spent on some form of presentation (1,544 seconds). It is interesting to note that, while more than twice as much time on the average was spent practicing the pass than the serve (3,883 versus 1,805 seconds), slightly more time was spent explaining and demonstrating the serve than the pass (772 versus 761 seconds). As indicated in the tables, there was large variation within each category. Relationships
With Achievement
Presentation variables. For the pass, combined explanation and demonstration was significantly and positively related to residualized
252
Table
STEPHEN
SILVERMAN
et al.
1
Means and Standard Deviations
for Time Spent in Presentation
Pass Standard
Mean Explanation-G/A -Total Demonstration-G/A -Total Demonstration/explanation-G/A -Total Directions-Good -Adequate -Total Management Fitness Knowledge Preview/review Non-content talk Waiting Note. Time is expressed
and Non-content
37.0 40.2 10.4 190.0 500.4 529.1 481.9 245.2 747.6 919.9 304.7 37.8 77.7 114.9 610.4
Categories Serve
Both
deviation
93.2 94.8 32.9 94.2 296.9 314.2 231.9 252.3 359.2 627.5 430.2 41.8 105.8 132.26 263.4
15.9(26.1) 22.2(31.6) 0 206.9 (189.9) 465.1 (288.4) 542.9(315.3) 262.6(157.0) 94.3 (71.0) 362.5 (193.3) 407.4(177.7) 119.0 (145.8) 53.0(64.6) 34.1 (47.2) 67.8(63.6) 506.5 (269.1)
0 0 0
li.9(34.5) 10.9 (34.5) 58.6(83.4) 11.3(22.8) 89.0(106.7) 92.5 (130.2) 104.5 (225.5) 112.2 (260.8) 4.7 (14.9) 10.4(16.1) 120.1(216.2)
in seconds.
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations
for Time Spent in Summed
Mean Summed -Good -G/A -Total
Practice feedback
Practice and Subcatenories
Pass Standard
of Practice Serve
Both
deviation
1624.2 2637.0 3883.3
1590.3 1370.3 1719.6
2.2 28.4
6.7 45.7
809.5 1493.9
836.6 1438.8
20.2 (63.9) 20.2 (63.9)
Reciprocal -With feedback -Total
1397.4 1803.6
1402.1 1514.6
1034.5 (870.9) 1377.8 (1086.1)
0
Group-task -With feedback -Total
296.5 396.5
282.4 362.4
16.3 (40.8) 21.8 (52.0)
0 0
Group-individual -With feedback -Total
66.7 66.7
153.7 153.7
319.7 (497.7) 321.3 (500.2)
0 0
Skill related game -With feedback -Total
37.1 58.2
78.2 112.1
48.4 (104.7)
Scrimmage -With feedback -Total
27.6 36.0
87.3 113.8
feedback*
Guided -With -Total
feedback
Individual -With -Total
feedback
* G/A is a combination
of the good and adequate
categories.
803.4(1045.1) 1398.6 (1100.4) 1805.3 (1324.9) 7.9(16.7) 15.8(27.6)
0
0 0
57.9(166.9) 448.9(699.0) 794.8(1117.7) 0 0
133.7(295.5) 360.3 (827.1)
0
0 0
315.2 (703.5) 434.5 (995.5)
253
Time Use and Achievement
student achievement. This was true when the information that was presented was coded as being either good or adequate (r = 0.654) and for all combined explanation and demonstration (r = 0.699). In addition, when the time in which both skills were being addressed was combined with the time spent on explanation and demonstration of the pass, the same relationships were significant. No presentation variables were significantly related to achievement for the serve. A summary of the correlation coefficients for the summed presentation categories is presented in Table 3.
occur during the lesson or reviews what occurred) was related to achievement for the pass (r = 0.594) and combined pass and both categories (r 4 0.608). The other non-content related correlations are presented in Table 3. Practice variables. For the pass, significant relationships were found for the total summed time spent practicing the pass where feedback was given (r = 0.614) and for total practice time (r = 0.576). Interestingly, the time spent in scrimmage (game-like play with some teacher feedback) was negatively related to achieve-
Table 3
Correlation
of Time Categories
with Residualized
Achievement
Scores for Presentation
and Non-content
Pass Pass only Explanation--G/A*** -Total Demonstration-G/A -Total Demonstration/explanation-G/A -Total Directions-Good -Adequate -Total Management Fitness Knowledge Preview/review Non-content talk Waiting * **
0.062 0.048 0.066 0.214 0.654* 0.699’ 0.408 0.467 0.013 0.170 -0.657; 0.451 0.594* -0.052 0.349
Categories
Serve Pass and both 0.062 0.048 0.066 0.214 0.649* 0.693* 0.192 0.499 0.471 0.058 -0.720*‘ -0.714** 0.60s* -0.053 -0.202
Serve only
Serve and both
0.116 0.066 -
0.116 0.066 -
-0.089 0.346 0.198 0.468 -0.452 0.209 0.410 -0.045 0.207 -0.083 -0.046 0.315
-0.089 0.398 0.246 0.535 -0.400 0.281 0.384 0.014 0.177 0.044 -0.036 0.240
p < .05.
p<.Ol.
*** G/A is a combination of the good and adequate categories. A dash indicates that a correlation coefficient could not be calculated.
Non-content variables. There were several significant relationships between non-content category variables and achievement for the pass skill. Time spent on fitness activities was negatively related to achievement in the pass (r = -0.657) and also when time spent on fitness for the pass was combined with the time spent on fitness when both skills were being taught (r = -0.720). Time spent on knowledge related to the sport of volleyball, but unrelated to the two skills, when combined for the pass and both categories also was negatively related to achievement (r = -0.714). The preview/review category (non-skill-related information in which the teacher communicates what will
ment (r = -0.670). This relationship also was obtained from the combined time scrimmaging where pass and both skills were being practiced (r = -0.757). Since this relationship was in the opposite direction from the overall relationship of practice time to achievement for this skill, the time spent in scrimmage for the pass and combined pass and both categories were removed from summed practice time and the correlation coefficients recalculated. This resulted in practice with feedback and total practice for the pass and the combined pass and both categories having significant positive relationships with achievement (r = 0.625 and 0.642 for pass and r = 0.583 and 0.600 for the combined category).
STEPHEN
254
SILVERMAN
One additional significant relationship was found for time spent in individual practice with feedback for the combined pass and both category (r = 0.627). A summary of all correlation coefficients for practice variables for both skills is presented in Table 4. For the serve, summed time in practice was positively correlated with achievement when the time spent practicing only the serve was considered for the categories of good feedback (r = 0.650), all feedback (r = OH@), and total practice (r = 0.558). The same was true for the combined time category of serve and both (r = 0.649, 0.734, and 0.873 for good feedback, alI feedback, and total practice, respectively). A
et at.
number of other significant relationships were found. IndividuaI practice with feedback was related to achievement (r = 0.565); as was reciprocal practice with feedback (r= 0.680) and total reciprocai practice (r = 0.596). Discussion As has been documented elsewhere for a variety of other subject matter areas (Brophy & Evertson, 1974; Brophy & Good, 1986; Fisher et al., 1978; Medley, 1977; Rosenshine, 1979; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973; Smyth, 1985), time spent with the content matter, or student oppor-
Table 4 Correlation
of Time Categories
with Residuaiized
Achievement
Scores
for Summed Practice and Subcategories Serve
Pass Pass only
of Practice
Pass and both
Serve only
o&io* 0.600* 0.558”
Serve and both
Summed Practice -Good feedback --/Afeedback*** -Total
0.290 0.614’ 0.576*
0.312 0.283 0.249
Guided -With -Total
0.066 0.331
0.066 0.331
0.494 0.347
0.627* 0.418
0.565* 0.565’
0.344 0.434
0.335 0.356
0.335 0.356
0.680” 0.596;
0.680’ 0.596*
0.002 0.032
0.002 0.032
0.066 0.072
0.066 0.072
0.244
0.244
-
0.087 0.074
feedback
Individual -With feedback -Total Reciprocal -With feedback -Total Group-task -With feedback -Total
-0.085 -0.012
Group-individual -With feedback -Total
0.373 0.373
-0.085 -0.012 0.373 0.373
Skill related game -With feedback -Total
-0.202 -0.347
-0.202 -0.347
Scrimmage -With feedback -Total
-0.680* -0.680’
-0.757** -0.757**
0.625’ 0.642’
0.583’ 0.6001
Summed -With -Total
*
Practice without feedback
scrimmage
p-C .05. p< .Ol. G/A is a combination of the good and adequate categories. A dash indicates that a correlation coefficient could not be calculated. ** ***
-0.022 -0.420
0.649* 0.734** 0.873** -0.022 -0.420
-
Time Use and Achievement
tunity to learn, correlates with student achievement. That relationship was unambiguously supported in this study. All summed categories of practice related to mean residual achievement. Although Phillips (1985) suggests that this result is common sense, the fact that the relationship was significant for this subject matter and that the relationship was strong and occurred for both skills is an important result in understanding teaching and learning in physical education. It is apparent that overall practice does relate to mean achievement in physical education when correlating time spent by the class in practice with student achievement. This does not imply, however, that for all students this relationship occurred, or that individual engaged time will invariably correlate with achievement -although recent studies lend some support to this contention (Silverman, 1985a, 1985b). It is impossible to know from the data collected thus far whether this data set will show the same relationship when the individual student is the unit of analysis or whether the relationship will generalize to all student subgroups within the population. It is interesting to note that time spent in scrimmage for the pass was negatively related to achievement. Although comparatively little time was spent scrimmaging in these classes, it seems that this organizational strategy for practice provides little of what is needed to improve skill. The videotapes reveal that many students get little or no opportunity to practice the skills in a scrimmage and, therefore, the time devoted to the activity has a negative relationship to their achievement. Individual and reciprocal practice were related to student achievement as indicated in Table 4. Both of these practice strategies minimize waiting in lines and maximize the potential for individual student practice (Mosston & Ashworth, 1986). The relationship for individual students between appropriate practice trials and achievement has been documented for one psychomotor skill (Silverman, 1985b) and the relationship between student engagement and achievement has been well documented in the classroom (Fisher et al., 1978). The relationship between some measure of individual student engagement and achievement in physical education needs further inves-
255
tigation to determine if individual practice and success rate are the underlying phenomena which actually relate to achievement in these organizational strategies. Time spent on explanation and demonstration of the skill was correlated with achievement for the pass. It makes sense that explanation and demonstration is another positive way of engaging the student with the subject matter. As has been indicated in studies conducted in classrooms (Brophy & Good, 1986), clear presentation of the material to be learned is important to learning. For this study, however, the relationship existed only for one of the skills even though roughly equivalent time was spent in explanation/demonstration of the two skills. Much more total class time and practice time were spent on the pass and it may be that the relationship was nonsignificant because of an overall interactive effect of presentation and practice (you must have a certain amount of practice in order for the explanation/demonstration to be meaningful) or that the small absolute time devoted to practicing the serve caused a restriction in the range of scores for this and other variables. The categories of fitness and non-skill-related knowledge were negatively correlated with achievement for the pass. Time spent in each of these categories takes away from the time available for practice and may inhibit skill learning. It is interesting that with the current emphasis on fitness in physical education classes (Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1987) the fitness activities conducted did not contribute to learning of the psychomotor skill and, given their brief duration, could not possibly promote cardiovascular fitness. Finally, the category of non-content-related preview/review correlated with achievement in the pass. This result is in line with the results of other process-product research (Brophy & Good, 1986) which shows that structuringstatements by teachers are related to learning. These structuring comments may help students focus on the tasks at hand without being diverted into wondering what is to come. The results of this study demonstrate that time devoted to student practice is related to student achievement and that certain types of practice may promote student learning while other types may detract from learning. De-
STEPHEN SILVERMAN et al.
256
monstration/explanation and preview/review also positively related to learning. It may be possible that many of the results of process-product studies with time variables which focused on classroom subjects may generalize to physical education and the gymnasium. As Berliner and Fisher (1985) have suggested, however, relationships cannot be generalized without data and documentation from a similar environment. This study provides a strong indication that the practice-achievement relationship exists in physical education, but there still is much to learn about the specifics of engagement as it relates to individual students in physical education.
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. (1965). Volleyball skills test manual. Reston, VA: Author. Anderson, W.G., & Barrette, G.T. (Eds). (1978). What’s going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education classes. Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice, Monograph I. Berliner, D.C. (1979). Tempuseducare. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 120-135). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Berliner, D.C., & Fisher, C.W. (1985). One more time. In C.W. Fisher & D.C. Berliner (Eds), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 333-347). New York: Longman. Bloom, B.S. (1985). Learning for mastery. In C.W. Fisher & D.C. Berliner (Eds), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 73-93). New York: Longman. Broohv. . ,. J.E.. & Evertson. C.M. (1974). Process-product correlations in the Texas teacher effectiveness -project: Final report (R & D Report No. 4004). Austin, TX:
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 091-394). Brophy, J.E., &Good, T.L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on reaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan. Carlisle, C.S. (1982). An analysis of the relationship between teacher process variables, selected skill learning time variables, and student achievement in physical education classes, grades five through eight. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4783A. (University Microfilms No. 82-09.806). Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record,
64,723-733.
Clark, C.M. (1979). Five faces of research on teaching. Educational
Leadership,
37.29-32.
Dugas, D.M. (1984). Relationships among process and product variables in an experimental teaching unit. Dissertation
Abstracts
International,
(University Microfilms No. 84-00, 193).
44,
2709A.
Fisher. C.W., & Berliner, D.C. (Eds). (1985). Perspectives on instructional rime. New York: Longman. Fisher, C.W., Filby, N.N., Marliavey R., Cahen, L., Dishaw. M.M.. Moore. J.E.. & Berliner. D.C. (1978). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: Final reporr of phase III-B, beginning teacher evaluation study. San Francisco: Far West
Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Graham, G. (1983). Review and implications of physical education experimental teaching unit research. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds), Teaching physical education (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, Vol. 14, pp. 244-253). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Journal of Physical Educatien, Recreation and Dance. (1987). Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 58(9). Medley, D.M. (1977). Teacher competence and teacher effectiveness: A review of process-product research.
Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Metzler, M. (1983). Using academic learning time in process-product studies with experimental teaching units. In T.J. Templin & J.K. Olson (Eds), Teaching physical education (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, Vol. 14, pp. 185-196). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Metzler, M.W. (1985). An overview of academic learning time research in physical education. In C.L. Vendien & J.E. Nixon (Eds). Physical education reacher education: Guidelines for sport pedagogy (pp. 147-152). NY: Macmillan. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Columbus: Merrill. Peterson, P.L. (1979). Direct instruction reconsidered. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 5769). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Phillips, D.C. (1985). The uses and abuses of truisms. In C.W. Fisher & D.C. Berliner (Eds), Perspectives on instructional rime (pp. 309-316). New York: Longman. Phillips, D.A., & Carlisle, C. (1983). A comparison of physical education teachers categorized as most and least effective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2(3), 55-67.
Pieron, M. (1986). Analysis of the research based on observation of the teaching of physical education. In M. Pieron & G. Graham (Eds), Sport pedagogy (The Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings, Vol. 6, pp. 193-202). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Rosenshine, B.V. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P.L. Peterson 8~ H.J. Walberg (Eds), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 28-56). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In M.W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally. Siedentop, D., Birdwell, D., & Metzler, M. (1979, April). A process approach to measuring teaching effectiveness in physical education. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, New Orleans. Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982).
Time Use and Achievement
Academic learning time - physical education, 1982 revision: Coding manual. Columbus, OH: School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, The Ohio State University. Silverman, S. (1985a). Student characteristics mediating engagement-outcome relationships in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 66-72. Silverman, S. (1985b). Relationship of engagement and practice trials to student achievement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 13-21. Silverman, S. (1987). Trends and analysis of research on teaching in doctoral programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7.61-70. Silverman, S. (1988). Relationships of selected presage and context variables to achievement. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59.35-41. Silverman, S., Morford, L.M., & Tyson, L.A. (1987). Observing teacher functions and class organization in
257
volleyball classes: Forearm pass and serve (technical report). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin. Silverman, S. & Zotos, C. (1987). Validity of interval and time sampling methods for measuring student engaged time in physical education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1005-1012. Slav& R.E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 57, 175-214. Smith, W.J. (1985). A context for the study of time and instruction. In C.W. Fisher & D.C. Berliner (Eds), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 3-27). New York: Longman. Stallings, J. (1980). Allocated learning time revisited. or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher, 9(1 I), ll16. Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Received 7 January 1988 0