5

Approaches to Physical Education in Schools

Key Messages

•  Because it is guaranteed to reach virtually all children, physical education is the only sure opportunity for nearly all school-age children to access health-enhancing physical activities.

•  High-quality physical education programs are characterized by (1) instruction by certified physical education teachers, (2) a minimum of 150 minutes per week (30 minutes per day) for children in elementary schools and 225 minutes per week (45 minutes per day) for students in middle and high schools, and (3) tangible standards for student achievement and for high school graduation.

•  Students are more physically active on days on which they have physical education.

•  Quality physical education has strong support from both parents and child health professional organizations.

•  Several models and examples demonstrate that physical education scheduled during the school day is feasible on a daily basis.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 197
5 Approaches to Physical Education in Schools Key Messages • Because it is guaranteed to reach virtually all children, physical edu- cation is the only sure opportunity for nearly all school-age children to access health-enhancing physical activities. • High-quality physical education programs are characterized by (1) instruction by certified physical education teachers, (2) a minimum of 150 minutes per week (30 minutes per day) for children in elemen- tary schools and 225 minutes per week (45 minutes per day) for students in middle and high schools, and (3) tangible standards for student achievement and for high school graduation. • Students are more physically active on days on which they have physical education. • Quality physical education has strong support from both parents and child health professional organizations. • Several models and examples demonstrate that physical education scheduled during the school day is feasible on a daily basis. 197

OCR for page 197
198 Educating the Student Body • Substantial discrepancies exist in state mandates regarding the time allocated for physical education. • Nearly half of school administrators (44 percent) reported cutting significant time from physical education and recess to increase time spent in reading and mathematics since passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. • Standardized national-level data on the provision of and partici- pation, performance, and extent of engagement in vigorous- or m ­ oderate-intensity physical activity are insufficient to allow assess- ment of the current status and trends in physical education in the United States. • Systematic research is needed on personal, curricular, and policy b ­ arriers to successful physical education. •  long-term impact of physical education has been understud- The ied and should be a research priority to support the development of evidence-based policies. P hysical education is a formal content area of study in schools that is standards based and encompasses assessment based on standards and benchmarks. It is defined in Chapter 1 as “a planned sequential K-12 standards-based program of curricula and instruction designed to develop motor skills, knowledge, and behaviors of healthy active living, physical fit- ness, sportsmanship, self-efficacy, and emotional intelligence.” As a school subject, physical education is focused on teaching school-aged children the science and methods of physically active, healthful living (NASPE, 2012). It is an avenue for engaging in developmentally appropriate physical activities designed for children to develop their fitness, gross motor skills, and health (Sallis et al., 2003; Robinson and Goodway, 2009; Robinson, 2011). This chapter (1) provides a perspective on physical education in the context of schooling; (2) elaborates on the importance of physical education to child development; (3) describes the consensus on the characteristics of quality physical education programs; (4) reviews current national, state, and local education policies that affect the quality of physical education; and (5) examines barriers to quality physical education and solutions for over- coming them.

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 199 PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF SCHOOLING Physical education became a subject matter in schools (in the form of German and Swedish gymnastics) at the beginning of the 19th century (Hackensmith, 1966). Its role in human health was quickly recognized. By the turn of the 20th century, personal hygiene and exercise for bodily health were incorporated in the physical education curriculum as the major learning outcomes for students (Weston, 1962). The exclusive focus on health, however, was criticized by educator Thomas Wood (1913; Wood and Cassidy, 1930) as too narrow and detrimental to the development of the whole child. The education community subsequently adopted Wood’s inclusive approach to physical education whereby fundamental movements and physical skills for games and sports were incorporated as the major instructional content. During the past 15 years, physical education has once again evolved to connect body movement to its consequences (e.g., physical activity and health), teaching children the science of healthful living and skills needed for an active lifestyle (NASPE, 2004). Sallis and McKenzie (1991) published a landmark paper stating that physical education is education content using a “comprehensive but physi- cally active approach that involves teaching social, cognitive, and physical skills, and achieving other goals through movement” (p. 126). This per- spective is also emphasized by Siedentop (2009), who states that physical education is education through the physical. Sallis and McKenzie (1991) stress two main goals of physical education: (1) prepare children and youth for a lifetime of physical activity and (2) engage them in physical activity during physical education. These goals represent the lifelong benefits of health-enhancing physical education that enable children and adolescents to become active adults throughout their lives. Physical Education as Part of Education In institutionalized education, the main goal has been developing chil- dren’s cognitive capacity in the sense of learning knowledge in academic disciplines. This goal dictates a learning environment in which seated learning behavior is considered appropriate and effective and is rewarded. Physical education as part of education provides the only opportunity for all children to learn about physical movement and engage in physi- cal activity. As noted, its goal and place in institutionalized education have changed from the original focus on teaching hygiene and health to educating children about the many forms and benefits of physical movement, including sports and exercise. With a dramatic expansion of content beyond the original Swedish and German gymnastics programs of the 19th century, physical education has evolved to become a content

OCR for page 197
200 Educating the Student Body area with diverse learning goals that facilitate the holistic development of children (NASPE, 2004). To understand physical education as a component of the education system, it is important to know that the education system in the United States does not operate with a centralized curriculum. Learning standards are developed by national professional organizations such as the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) and/or state educa- tion agencies rather than by the federal Department of Education; all cur- ricular decisions are made locally by school districts or individual schools in compliance with state standards. Physical education is influenced by this system, which leads to great diversity in policies and curricula. According to NASPE and the American Heart Association (2010), although most states have begun to mandate physical education for both elementary and second- ary schools, the number of states that allow waivers/exemptions from or substitutions for physical education increased from 27 and 18 in 2006 to 32 and 30 in 2010, respectively. These expanded waiver and substitution poli- cies (discussed in greater detail later in the chapter) increase the possibility that students will opt out of physical education for nonmedical reasons. Curriculum Models Given that curricula are determined at the local level in the United States, encompassing national standards, state standards, and state-adopted textbooks that meet and are aligned with the standards, physical education is taught in many different forms and structures. Various curriculum models are used in instruction, including movement education, sport education, and fitness education. In terms of engagement in physical activity, two per- spectives are apparent. First, programs in which fitness education curricula are adopted are effective at increasing in-class physical activity (Lonsdale et al., 2013). Second, in other curriculum models, physical activity is con- sidered a basis for students’ learning skill or knowledge that the lesson is planned for them to learn. A paucity of nationally representative data is available with which to demonstrate the relationship between the actual level of physical activity in which students are engaged and the curriculum models adopted by their schools. Movement Education Movement has been a cornerstone of physical education since the 1800s. Early pioneers (Francois Delsarte, Liselott Diem, Rudolf von Laban) focused on a child’s ability to use his or her body for self-expression (Abels and Bridges, 2010). Exemplary works and curriculum descriptions include those by Laban himself (Laban, 1980) and others (e.g., Logsdon et al.,

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 201 1984). Over time, however, the approach shifted from concern with the inner attitude of the mover to a focus on the function and application of each movement (Abels and Bridges, 2010). In the 1960s, the intent of move- ment education was to apply four movement concepts to the three domains of learning (i.e., cognitive, psychomotor, and affective). The four concepts were body (representing the instrument of the action); space (where the body is moving); effort (the quality with which the movement is executed); and relationships (the connections that occur as the body moves—with objects, people, and the environment; Stevens-Smith, 2004). The impor- tance of movement in physical education is evidenced by its inclusion in the first two NASPE standards for K-12 physical education (NASPE, 2004; see Box 5-7 later in this chapter). These standards emphasize the need for children to know basic move- ment concepts and be able to perform basic movement patterns. It is imper- ative for physical educators to foster motor success and to provide children with a basic skill set that builds their movement repertoire, thus allowing them to engage in various forms of games, sports, and other physical activi- ties (see also Chapter 3). Sport Education One prevalent physical education model is the sport education cur- riculum designed by Daryl Siedentop (Siedentop, 1994; Siedentop et al., 2011). The goal of the model is to “educate students to be players in the fullest sense and to help them develop as competent, literate, and enthusi- astic sportspersons” (2011, p. 4, emphasis in original). The model entails a unique instructional structure featuring sport seasons that are used as the basis for planning and teaching instructional units. Students are organized into sport organizations (teams) and play multiple roles as team manag- ers, coaches, captains, players, referees, statisticians, public relations staff, and others to mimic a professional sports organization. A unit is planned in terms of a sports season, including preseason activity/practice, regular- season competition, playoffs and/or tournaments, championship competi- tion, and a culminating event (e.g., an awards ceremony or sport festivity). Depending on the developmental level of students, the games are simplified or modified to encourage maximum participation. In competition, students play the roles noted above in addition to the role of players. A sport educa- tion unit thus is much longer than a conventional physical education unit. Siedentop and colleagues (2011) recommend 20 lessons per unit, so that all important curricular components of the model can be implemented. Findings from research on the sport education model have been reviewed twice. Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005) report that evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion that use of the model results in

OCR for page 197
202 Educating the Student Body students’ developing motor skills and fitness and learning relevant knowl- edge; some evidence suggests that the model leads to stronger team cohe- sion, more active engagement in lessons, and increased competence in game play. In a more recent review, Hastie and colleagues (2011) report on emerging evidence suggesting that the model leads to improvement in cardio­espiratory fitness (only one study) and mixed evidence regarding r motor skills development, increased feeling of enjoyment in participation in physical education, increased sense of affiliation with the team and physi- cal education, and positive development of fair-play values. The only study on in-class physical activity using the model showed that it con­ributed t to only 36.6 percent activity at the vigorous- or moderate-intensity levels (Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2005). Hastie and colleagues caution, however, that because only 6 of 38 studies reviewed used an experimental or quasi- experimental design, the findings must be interpreted with extreme caution. The model’s merits in developing motor skills, fitness, and desired physical activity behavior have yet to be determined in studies with more rigorous research designs. Fitness Education Instead of focusing exclusively on having children move constantly to log activity time, a new curricular approach emphasizes teaching them the science behind why they need to be physically active in their lives. The cur- riculum is designed so that the children are engaged in physical activities that demonstrate relevant scientific knowledge. The goal is the develop- ment and maintenance of individual student fitness. In contrast with the movement education and sport education models, the underlying premise is that physical activity is essential to a healthy lifestyle and that students’ understanding of fitness and behavior change result from engagement in a fitness education program. The conceptual framework for the model is designed around the health-related components of cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength and endurance, and flexibility. A recent meta-analysis (Lonsdale et al., 2013) suggests that physical education curricula that include fitness activities can significantly increase the amount of time spent in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity. Several concept-based fitness education curriculum models exist for both the middle school and senior high school levels. They include Fitness for Life: Middle School (Corbin et al., 2007); Personal Fitness for You (Stokes and Schultz, 2002); Get Active! Get Fit! (Stokes and Schultz, 2009); Personal Fitness: Looking Good, Feeling Good (Williams, 2005); and Foundations of Fitness (Rainey and Murray, 2005). Activities in the curriculum are designed for health benefits, and the ultimate goal for the student is to develop a commitment to regular exercise and physical

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 203 activity. It is assumed that all children can achieve a health-enhancing level of fitness through regular engagement in vigorous- or moderate-intensity physical activity. Randomized controlled studies on the impact of a science-based fitness curriculum in 15 elementary schools showed that, although the curriculum allocated substantial lesson time to learning cognitive knowledge, the stu- dents were more motivated to engage in physical activities than students in the 15 control schools experiencing traditional physical education (Chen et al., 2008), and they expended the same amount of calories as their counter- parts in the control schools (Chen et al., 2007). Longitudinal data from the study reveal continued knowledge growth in the children that strengthened their understanding of the science behind exercise and active living (Sun et al., 2012). What is unclear, however, is whether the enthusiasm and knowledge gained through the curriculum will translate into the children’s lives outside of physical education to help them become physically active at home. To incorporate standards and benchmarks into a fitness education model, a committee under the auspices of NASPE (2012) developed the Instructional Framework for Fitness Education in Physical Education. It is suggested that through this proposed comprehensive framework, fit- ness education be incorporated into the existing physical education cur- riculum and embedded in the content taught in all instructional units. The entire framework, highlighted in Box 5-1, can be viewed at http:// www.­aahperd.org/naspe/publications/upload/Instructional-Framework-for- Fitness-Education-in-PE-2012-2.pdf (accessed February 1, 2013). Emergence of Active Gaming in Fitness Education Today, active gaming and cell phone/computer applications are a part of physical activity for both youth and adults. Accordingly, fitness educa- tion in school physical education programs is being enhanced through the incorporation of active video games, also known as exergaming. Examples of active gaming programs with accompanying equipment include Konami Dance Dance Revolution (DDR), Nintendo Wii, Gamebikes, Kinect XBOX, Xavix, and Hopsports. These active games have been incorporated into school wellness centers as high-tech methods of increasing student fit- ness levels to supplement the traditional modes for attaining vigorous- or ­ oderate-intensity physical activity (Greenberg and Stokes, 2007). m Bailey and McInnis (2011) compared selected active games with tread- mill walking and found that each game—DDR, LightSpace (Bug Invasion), Nintendo Wii (Boxing), Cyber Trazer (Goalie Wars), Sportwall, and Xavix (J-Mat)—raised energy expenditure above that measured at rest. Mean metabolic equivalent (MET) values for each game were comparable to or

OCR for page 197
204 Educating the Student Body BOX 5-1 Instructional Framework for Fitness Education in Physical Education Technique: Demonstrate competency in techniques needed to perform a variety of moderate to vigorous physical activities. • Technique in developing cardiovascular fitness. • Technique when developing muscle strength and endurance activities. • Technique in developing flexibility. • Safety techniques. Knowledge: Demonstrate understanding of fitness concepts, prin- ciples, strategies, and individual differences needed to participate and maintain a health-enhancing level of fitness. • Benefits of physical activity/dangers of physical inactivity. • Basic anatomy and physiology. • Physiologic responses to physical activity. • Components of health-related fitness. • Training principles (overload, specificity, progression) and workout elements. • Application of the Frequency Intensity Time Type principle. Factors that influence physical activity choices. Physical activity: Participate regularly in fitness-enhancing physical activity. • Physical activity participation (e.g., aerobic, muscle strength and endur- ance, bone strength, flexibility, enjoyment/social/personal meaning). • Create an individualized physical activity plan. • Self-monitor physical activity and adhere to a physical activity plan. Health-related fitness: Achieve and maintain a health-enhancing level of health-related fitness. • Physical fitness assessment (including self-assessment) and analysis. • Setting goals and create a fitness improvement plan. • Work to improve fitness components. • Self-monitor and adjust plan. • Achieve goals.

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 205 Responsible personal and social behaviors: Exhibit responsible personal and social behaviors in physical activity settings. • Social interaction/respecting differences. • Self-management. • Personal strategies to manage body weight. • Stress management. Values and advocates: Value fitness-enhancing physical activity for disease prevention, enjoyment, challenge, self-expression, self-efficacy, and/or social interaction and allocate energies toward the production of healthy environments. • Value physical activity. • Advocacy. • Fitness careers. • Occupational fitness needs. Nutrition: Strive to maintain healthy diet through knowledge, planning, and regular monitoring. • Basic nutrition and benefits of a healthy diet. • Healthy diet recommendations. • Diet assessment. • Plan and maintain a healthy diet. Consumerism: Access and evaluate fitness information, facilities, prod- ucts, and services. • Differentiate between fact and fiction regarding fitness products. • Make good decisions about consumer products. SOURCE: NASPE, 2012. Reprinted with permission.

OCR for page 197
206 Educating the Student Body higher than those measured for walking on a treadmill at 3 miles per hour. Graf and colleagues (2009), studying boys and girls aged 10-13, found that both Wii boxing and DDR (level 2) elicited energy expenditure, heart rate, perceived exertion, and ventilatory responses that were comparable to or greater than those elicited by moderate-intensity walking on a treadmill. Similar results were found by Lanningham-Foster and colleagues (2009) among 22 children aged 10-14 and adults in that energy expenditure for both groups increased significantly when playing Wii over that expended during all sedentary activities. Staiano and colleagues (2012) explored fac- tors that motivated overweight and obese African American high school students to play Wii during school-based physical activity opportunities. They found greater and more sustained energy expenditure over time and noted that players’ various intrinsic motivations to play also influenced their level of energy expenditure. Mellecker and McManus (2008) deter- mined that energy expenditure and heart rate were greater during times of active play than in seated play. Fawkner and colleagues (2010) studied 20 high school–age girls and found that dance simulation games provided an opportunity for most subjects to achieve a moderate-intensity level of physical activity. The authors conclude that regular use of the games aids in promoting health through physical activity. Haddock and colleagues (2009) conducted ergometer tests with children aged 7-14 and found increased oxygen consumption and energy expenditure above baseline determina- tions. Maddison and colleagues (2007), studying children aged 10-14, found that active video game playing led to significant increases in energy expenditure, heart rate, and activity counts in comparison with baseline values. They conclude that playing these games for short time periods is comparable to light- to moderate-intensity conventional modes of exercise, including walking, skipping, and jogging. Mhurchu and colleagues (2008) also conclude that a short-term intervention involving active video games is likely to be an effective means of increasing children’s overall level of physi- cal activity. Additionally, Sit and colleagues (2010), studying the effects of active gaming among 10-year-old children in Hong Kong, found the children to be significantly more physically active while playing interactive games compared with screen-based games. Exergaming appears to increase acute physical activity among users and is being used in school settings because it is appealing to students. Despite active research in the area of exergaming and physical activity, however, exergaming’s utility for increasing acute and habitual physical activity spe- cifically in the physical education setting has yet to be confirmed. Further, results of studies conducted in nonlaboratory and nonschool settings have been mixed (Baranowski et al., 2008). Moreover, any physical activ- ity changes that do occur may not be sufficient to stimulate physiologic changes. For example, White and colleagues (2009) examined the effects

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 207 of Nintendo Wii on physiologic changes. Although energy expenditure was raised above resting values during active gaming, the rise was not signifi- cant enough to qualify as part of the daily 60 minutes or more of vigorous- or moderate-intensity exercise recommended for children. While collecting data on the effects of Nintendo Wii on 11-year-olds in New Zealand, White and colleagues (2009) found that active video games generated higher energy expenditure than both resting and inactive screen watching. They determined, however, that active gaming is a “low-­ ntensity” i physical activity. Therefore, it may be helpful in reducing the amount of sed- entary behavior, but it should not be used as a replacement for more conven- tional modes of physical activity. Sun (2012) found that active gaming can increase student motivation to engage in physical activity, but the motivation may decrease as a result of prolonged exposure to the same games. This study also found that exergaming lessons provided less physical activity for children than regular conventional physical education. For inactive children, however, the exergaming environment is conducive to more active partici- pation in the game-based physical activities than in conventional physical education (Fogel et al., 2010). Finally, Sheehan and Katz (2012) found that among school-age children the use of active gaming added to postural stabil- ity, an important component of motor skills development. From the research cited above, as well as ongoing research being con- ducted by the Health Games Research Project funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, active gaming is promising as a means of providing young children an opportunity to become more physically active and helping them meet the recommended 60 or more minutes of vigorous- or moderate- intensity physical activity per day. Different types of games may influence energy expenditure differentially, and some may serve solely as motivation. Selected games also appear to hold greater promise for increasing energy expenditure, while others invite youth to be physically active through moti- vational engagement. The dynamic and evolving field of active gaming is a promising area for future research as more opportunities arise to become physically active throughout the school environment. Other Innovative Programs While several evidence-based physical education programs—such as the Coordinated Approach to Child Health (CATCH) and Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK)—are being implemented in schools, many innovative programs also have been implemented nationwide that are motivating and contribute to skills attainment while engaging youth in activities that are fun and fitness oriented. These programs include water ­ sports, involving sailing, kayaking, swimming, canoeing, and paddle board- ing; adventure activities such as Project Adventure; winter sports, such as

OCR for page 197
248 Educating the Student Body • “Evidence links higher levels of physical fitness with better school attendance and fewer disciplinary problems.” • “There are several possible mechanisms by which physical education and regular physical activity may improve academic achievement, including enhanced concentration skills and classroom behavior.” • “Additional research is needed to determine the impact of physical activity on academic performance among those children who are at highest risk for obesity in the United States, including black, Latino, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Asian-American and Pacific Islander children, as well as children living in lower-income communities.” Summary Physical education is a formal content area of study in schools, it is standards based, and it encompasses assessment according to standards and benchmarks. Select curriculum-based physical education programs have been described in this chapter to show the potential of high-quality physical education in developing children into active adults. Such models provide the only opportunity for all school-age children to access health-enhancing physical activities. Curriculum models for physical education programs include movement education, which emphasizes the importance of funda- mental motor skills competence as a prerequisite for engagement in physi- cal activity throughout the life span; sport education, which emphasizes helping students become skillful players in lifetime sports of their choosing; and fitness education, which imparts physical fitness concepts to students, including the benefits and scientific principles of exercise, with the goal of developing and maintaining individual fitness and positive lifestyle change. The emergence of a technology-focused fitness education curriculum and the new Presidential Youth Fitness Program offer further motivational opportunities for students to engage in lifelong physical activities. Because quality physical education programs are standards based and assessed, they are characterized by (1) instruction by certified physical edu- cation teachers, (2) a minimum of 150 minutes per week for elementary schools and 225 minutes per week for middle and high schools, and (3) tangible standards for student achievement and for high school graduation. Quality professional development programs are an essential component for both novice and veteran teachers to ensure the continued delivery of quality physical education. An analysis of datasets from NASPE, NASBE, and Bridging the Gap reveals that the implementation of supportive physical education policies varies from state to state and from school to school. Since passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, several studies and reports have identi-

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 249 fied a decline in physical education resulting from the shifting of time to academic subjects. Because physical education is not a high-stakes tested content area, the implementation of supportive policies often is hindered by other education priorities. Although the above analysis indicates that 30 states (74.5 percent) mandate physical education, most policies do not require specific amounts of instructional time, and more than half allow for waivers or exemptions. In addition, an unintended consequence of the No Child Left Behind Act has been disparities in access to physical educa- tion and physical activity opportunities during the school day for Hispanic students and those of lower socioeconomic status. In high school, relying on students to elect physical education after meeting the minimum required credit hours (one credit in all states but one) appears to be unfruitful. Strengthening of school physical education has received support from the public, health agencies, and parents. Parents recently surveyed expressed favorable views of physical education. Specifically: • A majority of parents (54-84 percent) believe that physical education is at least as important as other academic subjects (CDC, 2010). • Ninety-one percent believe that there should be more physical edu- cation in schools (Harvard School of Public Health, 2003). • Seventy-six percent think that more school physical education could help control or prevent childhood obesity (NASPE, 2009a). • Ninety-five percent believe that regular daily physical activity helps children do better academically and should be a part of the school curriculum for all students in grades K-12 (NASPE, 2003). Additionally, many public and private organizations have proposed initiatives aimed at developing a comprehensive school-based strategy centered on curriculum physical education. As the largest institution where children spend more than half of their waking hours on school days, schools can play a pivotal role in increasing students’ physical activity levels by providing access for all to quality physical education, along with physi- cal activities throughout the school environment, the subject of Chapter 7. references AAHPERD (American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance). 2011. 2011 Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP) survey report. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. AAHPERD. 2012. Let’s move in school. www.aahperd.org/letsmoveinschool (accessed April 15, 2012). Abels, K. W., and J. M. Bridges. 2010. Teaching movement education: Foundations for active lifestyles. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

OCR for page 197
250 Educating the Student Body ACS (American Cancer Society) CAN (Cancer Action Network), ADA (American Diabetes Association), and AHA (American Heart Association). 2012. Physical education in schools—both quality and quantity are important: A statement on physical educa- tion from the American Cancer Society and Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the American Heart Association (AHA). Dallas, TX: AHA. Bailey, B., and K. McInnis. 2011. Energy cost of exergaming: A comparison of the energy cost of 6 forms of exergaming. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 165(7):597. Ball, D. L., and D. K. Cohen. 1999. Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional development. In Teaching as the learning pro- fession: Handbook of policy and practice, Jossey-Bass education series, edited by L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes. San Francisco, CA: ERIC. Pp. 30-32. Baranowski, T., R. Buday, D. I. Thompson, and J. Baranowski. 2008. Playing for real: Video games and stories for health-related behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 34(1):74-82. Barroso, C. S., C. McCullum-Gomez, D. M. Hoelscher, S. H. Kelder, and N. G. Murray. 2005. Self-reported barriers to quality physical education by physical education spe- cialists in Texas. Journal of School Health 75(8):313-319. Bassett, D. R., E. C. Fitzhugh, G. W. Heath, P. C. Erwin, G. M. Frederick, D. L. Wolff, W. A. Welch, and A. B. Stout. 2013. Estimated energy expenditures for school-based policies and active living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44(2):108-113. Boyce, B., and G. L. Rikard. 2011a. Characteristics of pete doctoral level institutions: Descriptions of programs, faculty and doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 30(2):103-115. Boyce, B., and G. L. Rikard. 2011b. A comparison of supply and demand for pete pro- fessionals in higher education in the United States. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 30(2):116-128. Boyle, S. E., G. L. Jones, and S. J. Walters. 2008. Physical activity among adolescents and barriers to delivering physical education in Cornwall and Lancashire, UK: A qualita- tive study of heads of P.E. and heads of schools. BMC Public Health 8(1):273. Castelli, D., and J. E. Rink. 2003. A comparison of high and low performing secondary physical education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 22(5):512. Castelli, D. M., and J. A. Valley. 2007. The relationship of physical fitness and motor com- petence to physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 26(4):358-374. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2010. The association between school based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Center on Education Policy. 2007. Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Center on Education Policy. 2008. A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Act in five states. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Chen, A., R. Martin, H. Sun, and C. D. Ennis. 2007. Is in-class physical activity at risk in constructivist physical education? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 78(5):500-509. Chen, A., R. Martin, C. D. Ennis, and H. Sun. 2008. Content specificity of expectancy beliefs and task values in elementary physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79(2):195-208.

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 251 Chen, A., H. Sun, X. Zhu, and C. D. Ennis. 2012. Influences of personal and lesson fac- tors on caloric expenditure in physical education. Journal of Sport and Health Science 1(1):49-56. Cohen, D., and H. Hill. 2000. Instructional policy and classroom performance: The math- ematics reform in California. The Teachers College Record 102(2):294-343. College Board. 2013. College search. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-search (accessed March 18, 2013). Corbin, C. B. 2002. Physical activity for everyone: What every physical educator should know about promoting lifelong physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2):128-144. Corbin, C., G. Le Masurier, and D. Lambdin. 2007. Fitness for life: Middle school. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Dagkas, S., and A. Stathi. 2007. Exploring social and environmental factors affecting adolescents’ participation in physical activity. European Physical Education Review 13(3):369-384. Daum, D. N., and C. Buschner. 2012. The status of high school online physical education in the United States. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 31(1):86-100. DeCorby, K., J. Halas, S. Dixon, L. Wintrup, and H. Janzen. 2005. Classroom ­eachers t and the challenges of delivering quality physical education. Journal of Educational Research 98(4):208-221. Dwyer, J. J., K. R. Allison, M. Barrera, B. Hansen, E. Goldenberg, and M. A. Boutilier. 2003. Teachers’ perspective on barriers to implementing physical activity curricu- lum guidelines for school children in Toronto. Canadian Journal of Public Health 94(6):448-452. Erwin, H. E., and D. M. Castelli. 2008. National physical education standards: A sum- mary of student performance and its correlates. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79(4):495-505. Fawkner, S. G., A. Niven, A. G. Thin, M. J. MacDonald, and J. R. Oakes. 2010. Adolescent girls’ energy expenditure during dance simulation active computer gam- ing. Journal of Sports Sciences 28(1):61-65. Fishman, B. J., R. W. Marx, S. Best, and R. T. Tal. 2003. Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education 19(6):643-658. FLVS (Florida Virtual School). 2013. Florida Virtual School physical education policy. http://www.flvs.net/myFLVS/student-handbook/Pages/Policies/PEPolicy.aspx (accessed March 13, 2013). Fogel, V. A., R. G. Miltenberger, R. Graves, and S. Koehler. 2010. The effects of e ­xergaming on physical activity among inactive children in a physical education classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 43(4):591-600. Gallo, A. M., D. A. Sheehy, K. Patton, and L. Griffin. 2006. Assessment benefits and barriers: What are you committed to? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 77(8):46-50. GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2012. K-12: School-based physical educa- tion and sports programs. Washington, DC: GAO. Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38(4):915-945. Graf, D. L., L. V. Pratt, C. N. Hester, and K. R. Short. 2009. Playing active video games increases energy expenditure in children. Pediatrics 124(2):534-540. Greenberg, J., and R. Stokes. 2007. Developing school site wellness centers. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

OCR for page 197
252 Educating the Student Body Guskey, T., and D. Sparks. 2004. Linking professional development to improvements in student learning. In Research linking teacher preparation and student performance: Teacher education yearbook, Vol. XII, edited by E. M. Guyton and J. R. Dangel. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Pp. 233-247. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/­ southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf (accessed April 1, 2013). Hackensmith, C. W. 1966. History of physical education. New York: Harper & Row. Haddock, B. L., S. R. Siegel, and L. D. Wikin. 2009. The addition of a video game to stationary cycling: The impact on energy expenditure in overweight children. Open Sports Sciences Journal 2:42. Hastie, P. A., D. M. de Ojeda, and A. C. Luquin. 2011. A review of research on sport edu- cation: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 16(2):103-132. Healthy People 2020. 2010. Healthy People 2020: Physical activity objectives. http://www. healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=33 (accessed March 14, 2013). Hensley, L., and W. East. 1989. Testing and grading in the psychomotor domain. Measurement concepts in physical education and exercise science. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2008. Physical activity guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: HHS. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012a. Accelerating progress in obesity prevention: Solving the weight of the nation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IOM. 2012b. Fitness measures and health outcomes in youth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Jenkinson, K. A., and A. C. Benson. 2010. Barriers to providing physical education and physical activity in Victorian state secondary schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35(8):1. Johnston, C. A., C. Tyler, B. K. McFarlin, W. S. C. Poston, C. K. Haddock, R. S. Reeves, and J. P. Foreyt. 2010. Effects of a school-based weight maintenance program for Mexican-American children: Results at 2 years. Obesity 18(3):542-547. Kennedy, M. 1998. Form and substance of inservice teacher education. Research Monograph No. 13. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin. Kramer, S. L., and R. Keller. 2008. An existence proof: Successful joint implementation of the imp curriculum and a 4 × 4 block schedule at a suburban U.S. high school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 39(1):2-8. Kulinna, P. H. 2012. Increasing physical activity: A comprehensive professional develop- ment effort. Biomedical Human Kinetics 4:6-11. Kulinna, P. H., T. Brusseau, M. Ferry, and D. Cothran. 2010. Preservice teachers’ belief systems toward curricular outcomes for physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 81(2):189-198. Laban, R. 1980. The mastery of movement. Plymouth: Macdonald & Evans. Lanningham-Foster, L., R. C. Foster, S. K. McCrady, T. B. Jensen, N. Mitre, and J. A. Levine. 2009. Activity promoting games and increased energy expenditure. Journal of Pediatrics 154(6):819. Learning Forward. 2012. Standards for professional learning: Standards list. http://www. learningforward.org/standards/standards-list#.UUhuMKK7mXw (accessed March 19, 2013). Logsdon, B., K. Barrett, and B. Logsdon. 1984. Movement—the content of physical edu- cation. Physical Education for Children 295-355.

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 253 Lonsdale, C., R. R. Rosenkranz, L. R. Peralta, A. Bennie, P. Fahey, and D. R. Lubans. 2013. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in school physical education lessons. Preventive Medicine 56(2):152-161. Loucks-Horsley, S., and C. Matsumoto. 2010. Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics 99(5):258-271. Luepker, R. V., C. L. Perry, S. M. McKinlay, P. R. Nader, G. S. Parcel, E. J. Stone, L. S. Webber, J. P. Elder, H. A. Feldman, C. C. Johnson, S. H. Kelder, M. Wu, and CATCH Collaborative Group. 1996. Outcomes of a field trial to improve children’s dietary patterns and physical activity. The child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health. Catch collaborative group. Journal of the American Medical Association 275(10):768-776. Maddison, R., C. N. Mhurchu, A. Jull, Y. Jiang, H. Prapavessis, and A. Rodgers. 2007. Energy expended playing video console games: An opportunity to increase children’s physical activity? Pediatric Exercise Science 19(3):334. Martin, J. J., N. Mccaughtry, P. Hodges-Kulinna, and D. Cothran. 2008. The influences of professional development on teachers’ self-efficacy toward educational change. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 13(2):171-190. McCaughtry, N., J. Martin, P. H. Kulinna, and D. Cothran. 2006. What makes teacher professional development work? The influence of instructional resources on change in physical education. Journal of In-Service Education 32(2):221-235. McCullick, B. A., T. Baker, P. D. Tomporowski, T. J. Templin, K. Lux, and T. Isaac. 2012. An analysis of state physical education policies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 31(2):200-210. McKenzie, T. L. 2007. The preparation of physical educators: A public health perspective. Quest 59(4):346-357. McKenzie, T. L., J. E. Alcaraz, and J. F. Sallis. 1994. Assessing children’s liking for activity units in an elementary school physical education curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 13(3):206-215. McKenzie, T. L., J. F. Sallis, B. Kolody, and F. N. Faucette. 1997. Long-term effects of a physical education curriculum and staff development program: Spark. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 68:280-291. McKenzie, T. L., J. E. Alcaraz, J. F. Sallis, and E. Faucette. 1998. Effects of a physical education program on children’s manipulative skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17:327-341. McKenzie, T. L., E. J. Stone, H. A. Feldman, J. N. Epping, M. Yang, P. K. Strikmiller, L. A. Lytle, and G. S. Parcel. 2001. Effects of the catch physical education interven- tion: Teacher type and lesson location. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 21(2):101-109. Mellecker, R. R., and A. M. McManus. 2008. Energy expenditure and cardio­ ascular v responses to seated and active gaming in children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 162(9):886. Mhurchu, C. N., R. Maddison, Y. Jiang, A. Jull, H. Prapavessis, and A. Rodgers. 2008. Couch potatoes to jumping beans: A pilot study of the effect of active video games on physical activity in children. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5(1):8. Morgan, C. F., A. Beighle, and R. R. Pangrazi. 2007. What are the contributory and com- pensatory relationships between physical education and physical activity in children? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 78(5):407-412.

OCR for page 197
254 Educating the Student Body Morgan, P., and S. Bourke. 2008. Non-specialist teachers’ confidence to teach PE: The nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 13(1):1-29. Morgan, P. J., and V. Hansen. 2008. Classroom teachers’ perceptions of the impact of barriers to teaching physical education on the quality of physical education programs. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79(4):506-516. Mowling, C. M., S. J. Brock, K. K. Eiler, and M. E. Rudisill. 2004. Student motivation in physical education breaking down barriers. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 75(6):40-45. Munson, W. W. 1988. Effects of leisure education versus physical activity or informal discussion on behaviorally disordered youth offenders. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 5(4):305-317. Munson, W. W., S. B. Baker, and H. M. Lundegren. 1985. Strength training and leisure counseling as treatment for institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 2(1):65-75. Myers-Schieffer, T., and K. T. Thomas. 2012. Fifteen years of promise in school-based interventions: A meta-analysis. Kinesiology Reviews 1:155-169. Nader, P. R., E. J. Stone, L. A. Lytle, C. L. Perry, S. K. Osganian, S. Kelder, L. S. Webber, J. P. Elder, D. Montgomery, H. A. Feldman, M. Wu, C. Johnson, G. S. Parcel, and R. V. Luepker. 1999. Three-year maintenance of improved diet and physical activity: The catch cohort. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 153(7):695-704. NASBE (National Association of State Boards of Education). 2012. State School Health Policy Database. http://www.nasbe.org/healthy_schools/hs (accessed May 1, 2013). NASPE (National Association for Sport and Physical Education). 2003. Parents’ view of children’s health and fitness: A summary of results. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. NASPE. 2004. Physical activity for children: A statement of guidelines for children ages 5-12. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. NASPE. 2004. Moving into the future: National standards for physical education. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. NASPE. 2007a. Initial guidelines for online physical education: Position paper. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. NASPE. 2007b. Position statement: What constitutes a highly qualified physical education teacher. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. NASPE. 2009a. Physical education trends in our nation’s schools: A survey of practicing K-12 physical education teachers. Port Washington, NY: Roslow Research Group. NASPE. 2009b. School physical education program checklist—how does your program rate? Reston, VA: AAHPERD. NASPE. 2009c. NASPE resource brief: Quality physical education. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. NASPE. 2010. Opportunity to learn: Guidelines for elementary, middle, and high school physical education. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. NASPE. 2012. Instructional framework for fitness education in physical education. Guidance document. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. NASPE and AHA. 2010. Shape of the nation report: Status of physical education in the USA. Reston, VA: AAHPERD. National Physical Activity Plan. 2010. National Physical Activity Plan. Columbia, SC: The National Physical Activity Plan. http://www.nationalactivityplan.org (accessed February 1, 2013). Nike. 2012. Designed to move: A physical activity agenda. Beaverton, OR: Nike. Parker, M. B., and M. Curtner-Smith. 2005. Health-related fitness in sport education and multi-activity teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(1):1-18.

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 255 Pate, R. R., M. G. Davis, T. N. Robinson, E. J. Stone, T. L. McKenzie, and J. C. Young. 2006. Promoting physical activity in children and youth: A leadership role for schools. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee) in collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation 114(11):1214-1224. Pate, R. R., J. A. Mitchell, W. Byun, and M. Dowda. 2011. Sedentary behaviour in youth. British Journal of Sports Medicine 45(11):906-913. Perna, F. M., A. Oh, J. F. Chriqui, L. C. Mâsse, A. A. Atienza, L. Nebeling, T. Agurs- Collins, R. P. Moser, and K. W. Dodd. 2012. The association of state law to physical education time allocation in US public schools. American Journal of Public Health 102(8):1594-1599. Perry, C. L., E. J. Stone, G. S. Parcel, R. C. Ellison, P. R. Nader, L. S. Webber, and R. V. Luepker. 1990. School-based cardiovascular health promotion: The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). Journal of School Health 60(8):406-413. Peterson’s. 2013. Physical education colleges. http://www.petersons.com/college-search/ SearchResults.aspx?q=%22physical%20education%22&c=UG (accessed March 18, 2013). Presidential Youth Fitness Program. 2013. Presidential Youth Fitness Program: Promoting health and activity for America’s youth. http://www.presidentialyouthfitnessprogram. org/index.shtml (accessed March 1, 2013). Rainey, D. L., and T. D. Murray. 2005. Foundations of personal fitness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Robinson, L. E. 2011. Effect of a mastery climate motor program on object control skills and perceived physical competence in preschoolers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 82(2):355-359. Robinson, L. E., and J. D. Goodway. 2009. Instructional climates in preschool children who are at risk. Part I: Object-control skill development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80(3):533-542. Romero, A. J. 2012. A pilot test of the Latin active hip hop intervention to increase physi- cal activity among low-income Mexican-American adolescents. American Journal of Health Promotion 26(4):208-211. Sallis, J. F., and T. L. McKenzie. 1991. Physical education’s role in public health. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62(2):124-137. Sallis, J. F., T. L. McKenzie, J. E. Alcaraz, B. Kolody, N. Faucette, and M. F. Hovell. 1997. The effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students: Sports, play and active recreation for kids. American Journal of Public Health 87(8):1328-1334. Sallis, J. F., J. J. Prochaska, and W. C. Taylor. 2000. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32(5):963-975. Sallis, J. F., T. L. McKenzie, T. L. Conway, J. P. Elder, J. J. Prochaska, M. Brown, M. M. Zive, S. J. Marshall, and J. E. Alcaraz. 2003. Environmental interventions for eating and physical activity: A randomized controlled trial in middle schools. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24(3):209-217. Salvy, S.-J., J. N. Roemmich, J. C. Bowker, N. D. Romero, P. J. Stadler, and L. H. Epstein. 2009. Effect of peers and friends on youth physical activity and motivation to be physically active. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 34(2):217-225.

OCR for page 197
256 Educating the Student Body San Diego State University. 2007. Physical education matters: Success stories from California low resource schools that have achieved excellent P.E. programs. Los Angeles: The California Endowment. San Diego State University. 2008. Physical education matters: A full report from The California Endowment. Los Angeles, CA: The California Endowment. Sheehan, D. P., and L. Katz. 2012. The impact of a six week exergaming curriculum on balance with grade three school children using Wii Fit Plus. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport 11(3):5-22. Sherar, L. B., N. C. Gyurcsik, M. L. Humbert, R. F. Dyck, S. Fowler-Kerry, and A. Baxter- Jones. 2009. Activity and barriers in girls (8-16 years old) based on grade and matu- rity status. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41(1):87. Siedentop, D. L. 1994. Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Chicago, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D. L. 2009. Introduction to physical education, fitness, and sport. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Siedentop, D. L., P. A. Hastie, and H. Van der Mars. 2011. Complete guide to sport educa- tion. Chicago, IL: Human Kinetics. Sit, C. H., J. W. Lam, and T. L. McKenzie. 2010. Children’s use of electronic games: Choices of game mode and challenge levels. International Journal of Pediatrics [epub ahead of print]. SPARK (Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids). 2013. What is SPARK? http://www. sparkpe.org/what-is-spark (accessed March 14, 2013). Staiano, A., A. Abraham, and S. Calvert. 2012. Motivating effects of cooperative exer- game play for overweight and obese adolescents. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 6(4):812. Stevens-Smith, D. 2004. Teaching spatial awareness to children. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 75(6):52. Stodden, D. F., J. D. Goodway, S. J. Langendorfer, M. A. Roberton, M. E. Rudisill, C. Garcia, and L. E. Garcia. 2008. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest 60(2):290-306. Stodden, D., S. Langendorfer, and M. A. Roberton. 2009. The association between motor skill competence and physical fitness in young adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80(2):223-229. Stokes, R., and S. Schultz. 2002. Personal fitness for you Winston-Salem, NC: Hunter Textbooks. Stokes, R., and S. L. Schultz. 2009. Get active! Get fit! Winston-Salem, NC: Hunter Textbooks. Sun, H. 2012. Exergaming impact on physical activity and interest in elementary school children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 83(2):212-220. Sun, H., A. Chen, X. Zhu, and C. D. Ennis. 2012. Curriculum matters: Learning science- based fitness knowledge in constructivist physical education. Elementary School Journal 113(2):215-229. Trost, S. 2009. Active education: Physical education, physical activity and academic per- formance. San Diego, CA: Active Living Research, San Diego State University. Wallhead, T., and M. O’Sullivan. 2005. Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(2):181-210. Welk, G. J., J. A. Schaben, and M. Shelley. 2004. Physical activity and physical fitness in children schooled at home and children attending public schools. Pediatric Exercise Science 16(4):310-323. Weston, A. 1962. The making of American physical education. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.

OCR for page 197
Approaches to Physical Education in Schools 257 White, K., A. E. Kilding, and G. Schofield. 2009. Energy expenditure and enjoyment dur- ing Nintendo® Wii active video games: How do they compare to other sedentary and physical activities? New Zealand: AUT University, Center for Physical Activity and Nutrition (CPAN). Whitehurst, G. J. 2002 (March 5). Research on teacher preparation and professional devel- opment: A paper presented at the White House Conference on Preparing Tomorrow’s ­ Teachers. Washington, DC. Wiley, D. E., and B. Yoon. 1995. Teacher reports on opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(3):355-370. Williams, C. S. 2005. Personal fitness: Looking good/feeling good. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Wood, T. D. 1913. The ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (part 1). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wood, T. D., and R. F. Cassidy. 1930. The new physical education: A program of natural- ized activities for education toward citizenship. New York: Macmillan. Xiang, P., S. Lowry, and R. McBride. 2002. The impact of a field-based elementary physi- cal education methods course on preservice classroom teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21:145-161. Yoon, K. S., T. Duncan, S. W.-Y. Lee, B. Scarloss, and K. Shapley. 2007. Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007, No. 033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. http://ies. ed.gov/ncee/edlabs (accessed April 1, 2013).

OCR for page 197