Introduction
Physical education is continually fighting for its place within school curriculum. It is still seen by the more traditional subjects to be a marginal subject of lesser importance. It is important that physical education continues to demonstrate the same educational structure and experiences of the other school disciplines as it competes for school funding and other resources with other highly valued school subject areas (Ennis, 2006). Whilst some think of physical education as merely a form of keeping students active and moving (Lacy, 2011), the message is clear. Physical education can’t wait around to be reduced or eliminated. It must instead proactively justify its role within the overall school curriculum through the creation and delivery of a comprehensive and measurable physical education curriculum (Kelly & Melograno, 2004).
What is a Curriculum?
In today's accountability-driven environment, educators strive to develop an integrated, relevant, and measurable curriculum (Drake, 2007). The role of a curriculum is to define all the experiences a student will have, it also helps predetermine and identify the outcomes of what students should be taught. As stated by (Kelly & Melograno, 2004) a curriculum outlines what students learn, how they acquire the learning and how the learning is verified. Another definition given by Oh and Rozycki is that a curriculum “is the knowledge and skills that students are expected to learn as they progress through our school system” (2017, para. 4).
Physical education emphasis has evolved over the years and this has led to a variety of different physical education models as we know them. From the total fitness model of the 1950’s to the more recent promotion of active and healthy lifestyles. These changes contribute to, and highlight the challenges that physical educators can have in standardizing programs for students. It reinforces that the physical education experience that a student receives can be affected by the preference of an individual teacher. As outlined by Allen (2002) there are many teachers that are confident in the learning experience they provide, however often question if they are delivering the same content as other teachers in the same grade level. There is a difference between instructional effectiveness and program effectiveness with the latter requiring a well-developed and structured curriculum.
According to Lund and Tannehill (2015) a Standards-Based Curriculum model (SBC) is a curriculum that is developed to meet the State and National grade level standards. These standards are based on students meeting specific and predetermined psychomotor, cognitive or affective objectives by certain grade levels. An SBC helps align teachers focus. It can reduce the risk of teacher bias or preference and should be seen as a resource and tool for teachers to use in order to maximize educational and instructional effectiveness.
Benefits of a Standards-Based Curriculum (SBC)
An SBC gives exact outcomes for teachers, parents and students to aim for at each grade level. “In many schools and districts where the curriculum was once only loosely organized, standards now offer to students, teachers and principals a consistent and coherent guide” (Ogawa, 2003, p.147). Whilst for some teachers it offers a refreshing amount of guidance as to what should be taught, it also makes others focus on developmentally challenging instructional content, rather than just sticking to tried, trusted and engaging physical education activities. In an SBC whilst the learning outcomes and standards have been predetermined there is still room for instructional flexibility in how they are achieved. It is important that teachers have this input into curriculum development as when they do, it improves overall effectiveness (Allen, 2002), They should be involved in the curriculum process as designers rather than just merely curriculum consumers (Kelly & Melograno, 2004).
SBC’s should help offer a consistent education to all students across the same grade level. All students in Kindergarten should finish their grade-year being able to accomplish specific outcomes. These outcomes are sequenced for the teacher, with them being introduced in a logical order for student development. This sequencing is continually developed and revised, taking into consideration that the culmination, is what the students are expected to accomplish by the end of their scholastic experience. The collaborative nature of a school administered curriculum offers a wide variety of perspectives and ensures a consistent and quality education for all students. “Moreover, by providing uniform expectations for the performance of all students, standards can equalize content and instruction and thereby close the achievement gap for schools serving students from minority and low-income backgrounds” (Ogawa, 2003, p.147).
An SBC allows for more accurate assessment of individual students progression against age appropriate standards. Measuring second grade throwing ability as an example, it should not matter if a student is in the bottom ten percentile of the class for throwing distance. This is a relative assessment. All students have the chance to be assessed as successful if they are able to carry out the behaviors and actions expected for their age as determined by National or State standards and descriptors. With this perspective on assessment it helps teachers, parents and students identify accurate and appropriate intervention techniques when students require assistance if they are assessed as falling behind in a specific aspect of the curriculum. This is due to transparency in the standards and clear descriptors of what is expected from students.
There are only a certain number of hours to spread across all subjects. The physical education curriculum developers often have to decide which State or National grade level outcomes they will prioritize. A consistent outcome based curriculum takes this prioritization away from an individual teacher and places it in the hands of the curriculum development committee. It is not the role of a single teacher to determine which outcomes can and cannot be taught when time is restricted. A collaborative process within the curriculum committee should make such decisions if the diagnosis is that instructional time does not allow for all outcomes to be mastered. These decisions should also be monitored and reevaluated regularly for efficiency.
National and State Standards in Physical Education
In 2014 the Society of Health and Physical Educators America (SHAPE) identified a series of standards and grade-level outcomes to help describe what is expected from a physical education program. These standards were built around what a physically competent person should know, and the premise of what a student should be able to accomplish in order to enjoy a lifetime of physical activity. There are five main standards as outlined by SHAPE (full list available in Appendix A). These broad standards outline areas for development including but not limited to, motor skill competence, application of tactics, knowledge of physical fitness, social behaviors, and value of physical activity in social interaction (SHAPE, 2014). The California Department of Education (CDoE) have their own grade level standards for physical education and whilst there are many similarities between them and the State standards, the biggest difference is that CDoE have differentiated the standards expected at elementary and middle school to those of high school (see Appendix B for full list of CDoE Standards).
With both SHAPE and CDoE the grade level outcomes demonstrate a clear progression from basic motor skill movements in the elementary years, to the more advanced concepts and theories in high school. The evidence of curriculum mapping and sequencing is clearly evident, with pre-requisites being delivered early in the school program. Locomotive skills such as running, hopping, turning and jumping are emphasized early in elementary school and then a clear progression to the high school experience, which represents the culmination of an individual’s physical education (CDoE, 2010). Whilst the standards outline what should be taught “each school board is responsible for incorporating these standards into its curriculum in an instructional sequence that best serves its own students” (Kelly & Melograno, 2004, p.51). The standards and outcomes are a springboard on which regional curriculum committees can create or revise their own age grade-level goals, objectives and standards from.
Achievement Based Curriculum Design Process
An Achievement Based Curriculum (ABC) is not so much a curriculum model but a process model (Kelly & Melograno, 2004). It is a systematic process to sequentially plan, implement, adapt and evaluate an instructional program, such as a curriculum, based on essential goals and objectives (Kelly & Melograno, 2004). An ABC is a top-down bottom-up curriculum design process. This is a different process than simply a bottom-up approach as it takes into consideration the framework, limitations and parameters that the school has to work within. ABC design “is a generic process for developing the physical education curriculum that focuses on the goals and outcomes you are seeking, and how you can accomplish them within your given time period and contexts” (Kelly & Melograno, 2004, p. 64). The ABC design process enables a local school curriculum committee to take National and State standards and make them appropriate for their environment. Below are the 11 steps in the formation of an ABC and an explanation of how they contribute to overall educational effectiveness in physical education. The steps are also listed sequentially in Appendix C.
11 Steps of Curriculum Development Process
In step one of the development process both the program philosophy and mission statement for the program are created. The value of this step is that it outlines the overriding purpose of the program and every other step should be related to these statements. An example of this could be a faith-based school verses public school. Whilst each program may seek the same grade level outcomes the way they teach them may vary considerably. The philosophy and mission of the program also make it very clear to the teachers, parents and students of the exact purpose, principles, priorities, and values of the program. These are tremendously important statements and great thought should be placed on their creation.
Step two is defining program goals which are “broad statements of what the students will be able to do when they have completed the program” (Kelly & Melograno, 2004, p104). They need to be anchored to the National and State Standards, whilst also being aligned with the program philosophy. There are two reasons why this step helps with educational effectiveness. The first reason is that it begins the process of starting with the end in mind. It states what students should be able to achieve when they exit the program, and from there committee members and teachers have something to build towards. The second is the consensus building technique that is utilized in ranking each individual committee members goals. The consensus building technique and collaborative exercise helps rank goals by importance based on the group and reduces or eliminates the dominant opinion of one person.
In step three the policies and resources that are available to the program need to be identified. In a top-down bottom-up curriculum development process, it is not just about what students need to learn, you also have to outline the resources and policies that you require to support your program, or that may reduce or enhance the opportunities for educational effectiveness. An example of a policy issue that is often addressed surrounds the time allocated to physical education, and how that time will be distributed at each grade level. An example of a resource limitation can be in equipment or facilities, and how a lack thereof can impact the curriculum execution.
In step four the curriculum committee delineates objectives for each goal into smaller and more specific learning objectives. These more detailed learning objectives will ultimately be placed into the yearly teaching maps. There is not a restriction to how many objectives can be identified for each goal. Each objective should have outcomes for each learning domain and be stated in observable and measurable terms as it will be utilized for assessment of mastery. The curriculum committee should work closely with the SHAPE and CDoE standards when creating these objectives as much of this work is available to be utilized as they deem appropriate. This step is important to educational effectiveness as it starts the process of identifying and standardizing exactly what the students will learn, and how the learning will be assessed.
In step 5 the curriculum committee establishes the emphasis or importance of each goal at the varying levels of the program. In early elementary grade levels for example psychomotor or basic movement goals should have greater emphasis than something like physical fitness. This will allow for an appropriate amount of time to be spent on the goals at the varying age levels. This process again takes the form of the collaborative consensus building technique with each committee member being asked to weight all the goals at each grade level. In this step there can be several rounds to the consensus building technique, with committee members having the chance to discuss results between rounds. At the end of this step all the goals should have a weighted emphasis at the varying levels of curriculum that will be utilized to distribute instructional time for the most effective and efficient learning process to take place.
In step six of the ABC process the amount of instructional time is calculated that will be available for teaching the curriculum. One of the principles of the ABC process is that the structure is built around time that is available. If physical education is taught for 30 minutes, twice a week for 36 weeks then there will be 32.4 hours per school year to assign to meeting grade level objectives or outcomes after factoring in 10% reduction for presumed time lost. This step is very important to educational and instructional effectiveness as it identifies how much contact time teachers will have with students purely in physical education at each grade level. It can also be used to justify why time cannot be taken away from physical education, and arguably, should be increased.
In order to determine what objectives can be delivered in the allotted time available, the committee must calculate how much time it takes to teach each objective. This can be a very challenging step as teachers just don’t know how long a motor skill or cognitive objective takes to master. It can also be because variances in class size, equipment required, resources available or even student age, can all impact mastery time. That being said in step seven the curriculum committee again use the consensus building process to calculate projected average mastery time for each objective and mastery time for all objectives in the curriculum. There are obvious challenges with such calculations and through this dynamic curriculum structure the committee can reevaluate and “refine the curriculum to accurately reflect the realities of their school district” (Kelly & Melograno, 2004, p.127).
Step eight of the curriculum building process calculates how much, and what content can actually be included in the curriculum. This is based on total number of instructional hours available from step six, and average mastery time that was calculated in step seven. In step eight you are also required to revisit step five to take into consideration the emphasis that was placed on each goal. The goals with greater emphasis getting more time and therefore more objectives in the curriculum at each grade level. In the situation where less time is available than goal objectives required, then priority should be given to the objectives that were ranked higher within the goal in step two. The value in this step in educational effectiveness is that it pulls together many parts of the previous steps which ultimately means that curriculum content is chosen in a systematic way, rather than just being chosen from a single teacher’s preference.
Step nine is like putting together the jigsaw. Objectives that have been selected for program inclusion are now sequenced throughout the curriculum developmentally and appropriately from the bottom-up starting at Kindergarten. If the estimated mastery time per objective was 400 minutes, then this may all be placed in Kindergarten or first grade for certain objectives, but potentially split across third, fourth and fifth grade for other more advanced objectives. If an objective is scheduled to be mastered by fourth grade, it will likely be started several years earlier and split across numerous grade levels. The national grade level outcomes identified by SHAPE and the State standards can assist tremendously with this step as they help identify grade level outcomes, that should form the basis of the curriculum sequencing.
In step ten it is the responsibility of the curriculum development committee to develop Yearly Teaching and Learning Maps (YTLMs), that organizes the content that has been identified to be delivered in logical groups and sequences for instruction (Kelly & Melograno, 2004). If 100 hours were assigned to catching in third grade, should that be delivered in 10 lessons of 10 minutes, five lessons of 20 minutes or some other method? This plan can be created at the individual level or small group level and teachers should reflect and evaluate their plan as it generates student performance driven results. This can be beneficial to educational and instructional effectiveness as yearly teaching plans or block learning plans can group objectives that require certain facilities or equipment that may be more or less available at specific times of the year. Also consider which objectives have similar characteristics such as needing a ball, or a specific amount of instructional space. This step is about taking the objectives for the year and mapping them to Block Teaching and Learning Maps (BLTMs) of three to four weeks with developmental and logistical benefits for instructional efficiency.
The final step in the ABC process is to create a Functional ABC Guide where administrators, parents, teachers and students can view all the different sections of the curriculum. The ABC Guide should have four sections including an executive summary, curriculum design, grade, and then evaluation section (Kelly & Melograno, 2004). This guide needs to be created in such a manner that it is beneficial to its primary consumer, the teachers, but also easily understandable for administrators, parents and students. This guide is important for educational and instructional effectiveness as it offers a transparent picture to all stakeholders of exactly what students will learn, how they will acquire the learning and how the learning will be verified (Kelly & Melograno, 2004). It will also demonstrate the systematic process of how the curriculum was formed and support the position of physical education in overall school curriculum for the psychomotor, cognitive and affective development of the students.
References
Allen, R. (2002). Using Assessment Data to Monitor Physical Education Programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 73(8), 25-30.
California Department of Education. (2010). Physical education model content standards for California public schools. Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA.
Drake, S. (2007). Creating standards-based integrated curriculum: Aligning curriculum, content, assessment, and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ennis, C. (2006). Curriculum: Forming and reshaping the vision of physical education in a high need, low demand world of schools. National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education. 58. p.41-59
Kelly, L. E., & Melograno, V. J. (2004). Developing the physical education curriculum: An achievement-based approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Lacy, A. (2011). Measurement and evaluation in physical education and exercise science (6th ed.). New York, NY: Benjamin Cummings
Lund, J and Tannehill, D. (2015). Standards-based physical education curriculum development 3rd Ed. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning
Ogawa, R (2003). The substantive and symbolic consequences of a district’s standards-based curriculum. American Education Research Journal. 40(1) p.147-176
Oh, L., & Rozycki, R. (2017). What exactly is curriculum? Education Elements. Retrieved online: https://www.edelements.com/blog/what-exactly-is-curriculum
Society of Health and Physical Educators America. (2014). National standards & grade-level outcomes for K-12 physical education. Reston, VA: Human Kinetics.
Comments