LIBRARY

MIchIgan State
Unlvorslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.

 

MTE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

”DEC 06 7004

W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 mimosa.“

 

CONTENT PRIORITIES AMONG REPRESENTATIVE
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS FOR PHYSICAL

EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN:
A DELPHI STUDY

By
Ray Allen

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science

1998

ABSTRACT
CONTENT PRIORITIES AMONG REPRESENTATIVE
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS FOR PHYSICAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN
By

Ray Allen

The purpose of this study was to identify stakeholders’ views of the relative
importance of content appropriate for inclusion in K-12 physical education programs in
Michigan. The study engaged 350 stakeholders in a three-round modified Delphi Technique
to Obtain rankings Of the relative importance of discrete elements of physical education
content.

Fifteen school districts in the lower peninsula participated in the study, and were
represented by central and building administrators, school board members, classroom
teachers, physical education teachers, parents, students, and community recreation
directors. Other stakeholders from across the state included content experts from colleges
and universities, Officers from Michigan’s Association of Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, representatives from Intermediate School Districts responsible for
supporting physical education programs, and state legislators.

Five research questions were used to guide the study of: 1) the relative importance
assigned by stakeholders to lifelong activities and program objectives; 2) the efficacy of the
Delphi Technique to increase agreement on the relative importance of lifelong activities and
program objectives, within and across stakeholder groups; and 3) the effect of demographic
variables of interest (e.g., gender, region of the state, family income) on such agreements.

The results of the study indicate that stakeholders in Michigan perceive swimming,
jogging/powerwalkin g, and strength training as the three most important lifelong activities

for students to acquire as a result of a quality physical education program. Stakeholders

also hold the acquisition of personal/social/attitudinal character traits in highest regard,
followed by the ability to manage one’s own health-related fitness.

A convergence in priorities occurred within and across all Stakeholder groups and
demographic variables through the course of the study, supporting the position that the
Delphi Technique was an effective procedure for creating a consensus on the relative value

assigned to lifelong activities and program objectives.

Copyright by
Harold Raymond Allen
1998

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Judy,
who has, and continues to help me see and
appreciate what really matters, and to Jesus

Christ who continues to show us both.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Virtually countless people contribute to academic endeavors of this size. In this
case, I feel compelled to extend special appreciation to the following:
- Dr. Paul Vogel, for his moral and intellectual support over the years, including the
informal conversations that kept us both from our work but challenged and crystallized my
thinking;
- Dr. Sam Reuschlein, for guiding me through my academic program and persevering well
into retirement to see the dissertation completed;
- JoAnn Janes who is solely responsible for getting me over countless administrative
hurdles as I traveled a very unorthodox path through my Masters and Doctoral programs;
- Michigan’s Exemplary Physical Education Program, which funded the study and actually
employed me to pursue my passion over the final years of my program;
0 my sister Cherie for her support, enthusiasm and care;
0 Judy, and our children, Andi, Bethany, and Heather, who were either unaware of the
sacrifices they made, or felt the price they paid was somehow counterbalanced.

Whereas the true value of this dissertation will be determined only by the degree it
and its derivatives positively impact the lives of peOple, the value of people like these is

immeasurable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ iv
CHAPTER 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ....................................................... 1
Statement of the Purpose ................................................................ 6
Research Questions ...................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study ................................................................ 7
Definition of Terms ...................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................. 12
Present State of Curriculum Design .................................................... 12
Curriculum Perspectives ........................................................ 13
Value Orientations ............................................................... 15
Disciplinary Mastery ................................................... 15
Social Reconstruction .................................................. 16
Learning Process. ...................................................... 16
Self-Actualization ....................................................... l7
Ecological Integration .................................................. 17
Curriculum Models .............................................................. l8
Developmental Education .............................................. 19
Humanistic Physical Education ....................................... 20
Movement Education ................................................... 20
Kinesiological Studies. ................................................ 21
Sport and Play Education .............................................. 22
Personal Meaning. ..................................................... 23
Health-Related Physical Fitness. ..................................... 24
Eclectic Model ............................................................................ 25
Problems with a Value-Orientations Approach to Curriculum Design . . . . 26
Description of an Alternative Curriculum Development Model ............ 34
Step 1. ................................................................... 36
Step 2. ................................................................... 38
Step 3. ................................................................... 39
Establishing Consensus on Relative Imporrance of Content ............... 40
Summary .................................................................................. 46
Appropriateness of an eclectic model ......................................... 46
Curriculum balance: kind and amount ........................................ 46
Stakeholders ..................................................................... 47
Appropriateness of the Delphi technique ..................................... 47
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 49
Description of the Sample ............................................................... 50
School Related Sampling Procedures ......................................... 50
Sampling Subject Matter Experts and Institutions ........................... 52
Description of the Survey Instrument .................................................. 54

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d).

Data Collection Procedures .............................................................. 56
Preparation Phase ............................................................... 56
Round One. ............................................................. 57
Round Two. ............................................................ 58
Round Three. ........................................................... 59
Data Analysis ............................................................................. 59
Question 1: Determining Overall Priorities ................................... 59
Question 2: Measuring Convergence in Priorities
by Subgroups to All Other Participants ........................ 60
Question 3: Determining if Differences Exist Between
Groups at the Study’s Conclusion .............................. 60
Question 4: Measuring Convergence/Divergence in
Ratings Within and Across Groups. ........................... 61
Question 5: Measuring Changes in Relative Priorities Across Rounds. . . 61
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ..................................................................................... 62
Study Sample ............................................................................. 62
Question 1 ................................................................................. 65
Question 2 ................................................................................. 74
Question 3 ................................................................................. 76
Lifelong Activities ............................................................... 76
Program Objectives. ............................................................ 85
Stakeholders ................................................................. 88
School Districts. ............................................................ 89
Question 4 ................................................................................. 92
Qrestion 5 ................................................................................. 94
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSION ............................ 100
Introduction ............................................................................... 100
Sample ..................................................................................... 101
Overview ......................................................................... 101
Discussion ........................................................................ 102
Conclusion ....................................................................... 105
Recommendations ............................................................... 105
Results of the Prioritization Process ................................................... 106
Overview ......................................................................... 106
Discussion ........................................................................ 108
Conclusion ....................................................................... 1 14
Recommendations ............................................................... 1 15
Effectiveness of the Procedure .......................................................... 117
Overview ......................................................................... 1 17
Discussion ........................................................................ l 17
Conclusion ....................................................................... 1 19
Recommendations ............................................................... l 19
Conclusion ................................................................................ 120
Limitations ................................................................................ 121

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d).

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Invitation to Participate ................................................ 122
Appendix B: Consent Form and Demographic Information ...................... 128
Appendix C: Round One Instrument ................................................. 131
Appendix D: Round Two Instrument ................................................ 144
Appendix E: Round Three Instrument. .............................................. 153
Appendix F: Rank Order of Lifelong Activities .................................... 162
Appendix G: Rank Order of Program Objectives ................................... 171

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................ 188

Table 1:

Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of participants by region,

school size and stakeholder type ............................................... 53
Characteristics of Stakeholders. ............................................... 63
School District Demographic Data ............................................. 64

Rankings, mean ratings and rating dispersions of lifelong activities
for all stakeholders for the first and final round. ............................ 67

Rankings, mean ratings and rating dispersions of general
program objectives for the first and final round. ............................ 70

Changes in rank correlations on Lifelong Activities and Program
Objectives between specific groups and all other participants .............. 75

Number of lifelong activities that demonstrate high ranges in
rankings across stakholder groups, school districts, regions
of the state, by gender and across income brackets. ........................ 77

Rank, range in rankings, and average dispersion in
rankings for the 15 highest ranked lifelong actiities by
subgroups at the conclusion of the study ..................................... 80

Kendall’s rank order correlation of the 15 highest rated
lifelong activities by stakeholder groups, school districts,
regions, household incomes and gender ...................................... 83

Number of general program objectives that demonstrate high
ranges in rankings across stakholder groups, school districts,
regions of the State, by gender and across income brackets ................ 87

Kendall’s rank order correlation of the 50 highest rated
program objectives by stakeholder groups, school districts,
regions, household incomes and gender ...................................... 90

P-values measuring the probability of rating convergence
on 87 lifelong activities and 98 program Objectives ......................... 93

P-values for changes in rankings of lifelong activities
and program objectives from the first and third rounds ..................... 97

CHAPTER 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Various national organizations and documents have endorsed the inclusion of
quality physical education programs in public school curricula (American Academy of
Pediatrics, 1987; Fletcher et al., 1992; Pate et al., 1995; United States Department of
Health and Human Services [HHS], 1991, 1997; Wynder, 1981). This growing base of
support for physical education is derived from studies connecting health benefits to regular
physical activity (Blair et al., 1989; Dishman, 1992; Hagberg, 1990, King, Taylor, Haskell
& DeBusk, 1989; Marcus et al., 1992; Morris et al., 1990; Paffenbarger & Lee, 1996;
Powell & Thompson, 1987). Beyond the direct benefits to individuals, participation in
regular physical activity results in a savings of health care costs (Hatziandreu, Koplan,
Weinstein, Caspersen & Warner, 1988) whereas sedentary lifestyles accrue increased costs
in public health care (Keeler, Manning, Newhouse, Sloss & Wasserrnan, 1989). Because
public schools service a vast majority of the nation’s children, health promotion agencies
acknowledge the potential for physical education to contribute to the total health of the
general public (Iverson & Kolbe, 1983; Iverson, Fielding, Crow & Christenson, 1985;
Koplan, Caspersen & Powell, 1989).

Despite the documented benefits of physical activity and the growing number of
endorsements for quality programs, physical education programs struggle to become a
respected component of public education. The data available suggest physical education is
not a high priority for schools (Bain, 1990; Graham, 1987; Siedentop, 1987; Taylor, 1987;
Templin, 1987). Parents and administrators hold low expectations for significant outcomes
in physical education (Y 0th Sports Institute, 1985). They attribute skill learning to youth
sport programs, learn-to-swim programs and other community-based activities. Outsiders
often see physical education as glorified recess and physical education teachers as highly

paid recreational specialists. Some members from most stakeholder groups see physical

education as an opportunity for children to blow off steam and/or give students and
teachers a break.

Clearly, resources available to schools are limited, and resources are used where
people feel they have the greatest impact (Crum, 1987; Staffo, 1990). It is unfortunate that
even where need is demonstrated, physical education is one of the first programs to be
eliminated or reduced when cuts have to be made (Crum, 1987).

In response to the discrepancy between program potential and perceived value,
professional organizations have established content standards for K- 12 physical education
programs. When operationalized by clearly Stated program objectives, content standards
define the knowledge, skills, fitness capacities, and values students must acquire to be
labeled as physically-educated. In 1992, the National Association for Sport and Physical
Education (NASPE) produced a definition of a physically educated person comprised of 20
outcome Statements (NASPE, 1992). A national task force drew upon this definition to
create and publish seven physical education content standards and example benchmarks
suitable for guiding the selection of content and assessing student achievement (NASPE,
1995). Michigan’s Department of Education developed a similar document consisting of
sixteen content Standards and grade level benchmarks. Michigan’s standards are consistent
with those proposed by NASPE, but provide a more complete structure for identifying and
selecting curricular content (Allen, DeJong & Vogel, 1996).

Content standards are advocated because they enhance program description by
communicating intended student outcomes to students, teachers and other stakeholders
(Berg, 1988; Taylor & Chiogioji, 1987). Standards also provide a framework for program
evaluation, teacher preparation, and professional development programs (Berg, 1988;
Curry & Temple, 1992; Crum, 1987; Lawson, 1986; Staffo, 1990; Steinhardt, 1992).
However, it is unknown if the creation of such documents can improve program
effectiveness. While these documents identify content that Should be included in a

comprehensive program, doing so exacerbates the problems teachers face because few

physical education programs, if any, possess the resources (instructional time, equipment,
facilities, personnel, etc.) necessary to effectively address all of the implied content.

National figures indicate that perhaps 36 percent of public school children and
adolescents are provided daily physical education (HI-IS, 1990). A recent survey by
Michigan’s Department of Education (1997) indicates that while 71 percent to 84 percent of
public schools in Michigan require physical education in grades K-5, only 8.9 percent to
16.8 percent of those students are offered physical education three or more days per week.
The same survey indicates that time allocated to physical education is eroding. The
percentage of public school districts requiring physical education in grades 5-8 has dropped
8 to 16 percent among those 356 school districts reporting.

Reductions in resources (especially instructional time) available to physical
education programs requires a reduction in the amount of content included in the
curriculum. Failure to reduce the content, in accordance with less than comprehensive
resources, necessarily results in a program that merely exposes children to content rather
than developing competence on some subset of higher priority program objectives. The
creation of standards documents without clear articulation of procedures necessary to match
content with resources can reduce rather than improve the effectiveness of local physical
education programs.

Evidence of ineffective physical education programs is quite strong. Vogel (1986),
in a chapter titled, “Effects of Physical Education Programs on Children,” found evidence
of effectiveness attributed to programs of physical education. However, he noted that the
research methodologies used in those studies were flawed to the degree that no skeptic
would be persuaded by the attributions reported. Results obtained from two Statewide
assessments of motor skills and fitness objectives at the fourth, seventh and tenth grades in
conjunction with the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) indicate student

performance well below targeted Standards and no differences between students who do

and do not participate in physical education programs (Michigan Department of Education,
1982, 1985).

The ineffectiveness of physical education is in part a curriculum problem (Berg,
1988; Curry & Temple, 1992; Steinhardt, 1992). The number of defensible program
objectives defining a physically educated person is larger than the amount of instructional
time available to assure their attainment by students. Accordingly, practitioners are left with
the dilemma of what to include in their curricula. Most often the choice is to expose
students to a wide range of objectives (all those included in the Standards documents). This
results in insufficient instructional time devoted to the individual objectives to create real
change in student performance.

Many authors concur that it is critical for the future of the profession to identify a
common set of objectives that all physical education programs should teach (Lawson 1986;
Steinhardt, 1992; “Physical Education for the Elementary School Child”, 1984). But if
content standards documents represent what students need to be physically-educated, and
the total number of objectives necessary to achieve those standards extend beyond the
capacity for most K-12 programs to address, can a subset of objectives be identified as
essential for all graduates to obtain? If it can, that essential content has not yet been
identified (Jewett, 1980; Steinhardt, 1992). This is evidenced by the number of, and
diversity in, existing curriculum models that appear in the physical education literature.

Curriculum models are designed to assist curriculum designers with the selection
and organization of program content based on a sound rationale. They typically limit
content according to a consistent focus (e. g., fitness or sport skill) or conceptual
framework (e.g., movement concepts or kinesiological studies). Although the models vary,
and curriculum theorists expound on the strengths and weakness of each, most are
considered an acceptable way to select and organize curricular content. Curriculum

theorists most often urge curriculum designers to select or construct a model consistent

with their personal values (Jewett, 1994; Jewett & Bain, 1985; Seidentop, Mand & Taggart
1986).

Following the advice of curriculum theorists in this regard has two shortcomings.
First, if curriculum models are based on the assumption that the designer or the conceptual
framework is the definitive source of what is important in content selection, then values
held by other key stakeholders are omitted from the process. This position fails to consider
the wisdom of diverse stakeholders (including board members, administrators, parents,
subject matter experts, etc.) and could also limit the ability to meet the needs of diverse
learners. Second, most models fail to address the issue of systematically matching the
amount of content included in the program to the resources available. Accordingly,
practitioners with limited instructional time are left teaching more content that can be
acquired by their students. Priorities must be established to resolve the issue (Webster,
1988).

The core issue in content selection for physical education is not one of importance,
because all the content delineated by content standards is important. Rather the question
becomes the importance each element of content relative to other elements of content that
compete for inclusion in a program.

Different stakeholders hold different perspectives which are important to consider if the
curriculum’s goal is to best serve its constituency. This raises the issue concerning who
Should be involved in deciding what content is most important, and thus included in the
program. Certainly physical educators should be involved, but their perceptions of the
relative importance of the purposes of physical education may differ from those of other
stakeholders (Jewett, 1979). Physical educators also have differing opinions as to what
constitutes quality in physical education programs (Bain, 1988; Jewett 1979; Kirk, 1988;
Reed, 1983; Steinhardt, 1992; Webster, 1988). Those responsible for educational

programs also need to remember that parents, community leaders, business persons and

others who financially support the school system rightfully deserve a voice in determining
the substance of its intended educational outcomes.

Subject matter experts need to be included as well. While stakeholders rightfully
represent what is most valued within the community, some things they desire of a physical
education program (and their rationale for desiring it) may not be consistent with the
professional literature. Subject matter experts must make sure programs can deliver on
what the curriculum professes to provide.

Clearly, physical educators, subject matter experts and other stakeholders need to
be engaged in a systematic procedure designed to clarify the purpose and prioritize content
appropriate for inclusion in physical education programs. The inclusion of stakeholders and
the leadership of subject matter experts is essential. Physical Education’s continued
existence in public education depends in part on its effectiveness in meeting the public’s
needs (Crum, 1987). It is imperative then to include their voices in determining priorities
necessary to achieve balance between program resources and content included. Establishing
priorities without stakeholder involvement will regularly result in inclusion of content that
would not represent the values of those who financially support the program.

Research is needed to systematically identify program objectives generally agreed to
be of highest priority by stakeholders. The results of such research will assist school
districts in the important process of balancing content with local resources. It will also
promote better inforrrred choices and reveal differences in opinions held by stakeholder
groups. This can focus discourse, research, and/or the education of stakeholder groups in a
way that will reduce differences and build support for quality programs.

Summarizes:

The purpose of this study was to identify the priorities held by stakeholders
concerning content appropriate for inclusion in K-12 physical education programs in the
schools Of Michigan. The study involved stakeholders in a modified Delphi Study (Dalkey,

1967) designed to generate rankings of the relative importance of potential physical

education content. The degree to which rankings changed within and across stakeholder

groups, participating school districts, and selected demographic variables was also

assessed.
Researcbflumims

The study was framed by the following five research questions:

1. What is the relative importance assigned by stakeholders to lifelong activities and
program objectives suitable for inclusion in K—12 physical education programs?

2. Did the ratings assigned to lifelong activities and program objectives by each
stakeholder group, school district, and selected demographic variable converge with the
priorities held by all other participants?

3. Do differences in the final rank orders assigned to lifelong activities and program
objectives exist between the stakeholder groups, school districts, and selected
demographic variables at the conclusion of the study?

4. Did the ratings assigned each element of program content converge from the initial
round to the final round of a modified Delphi study within all participants, stakeholder
groups, school districts, and selected demographic variables?

5 . Did the rank order of relative importance on program content change from the initial to
the final round of a modified Delphi study for the participants as a whole, or for
representatives of stakeholder groups, school districts, and selected demographic

variables?

War
This study will provide a view of the relative importance of potential physical
education content assigned by physical educators and other important stakeholders. It will
also provide a basis for prioritizing content when resources are insufficient to include all
content that should be incorporated into a quality program. Seefeldt maintains that we must

clearly define what we stand for and demonstrate what we can accomplish in order to

restore our status as an integral part of public school education (“Physical Education for the
Elementary School Child”, 1984). If programs of physical education use systematic
selection procedures, programs with comparable time allocations and similar contexts
(including community values) should contain Similar content. Large discrepancies in
offerings undermine the profession’s credibility by conveying the message that content is
of importance only as a variable of individual instructor preference.

The process and product of prioritizing content provides the profession with a
common platform to present content to the public. Utilizing a defensible procedure for
prioritizing content can establish credibility in the eyes of skeptics. With respect to common
content, Steinhardt (1992) stresses the need for practitioners to educate the public on the
purposes of physical education. Identification of content common to all programs is a
critical part of this need in that it will provide the profession with relevant, defensible
content prioritized by stakeholders. Creating a consensus on priority content for physical
education also has the potential of refocusing some of the debate from what should be
presented as content toward how to best facilitate Students learning.

Defining essential content for physical education will also serve to focus research
efforts. It is Steinhardt's contention that more effort has been directed towards developing
theoretical models and debating the value of physical education than to conduct the research
which supports such models (Steinhardt, 1992). She maintains that the lack of agreement
on a few goals that can be accomplished in physical education programs has limited
progress in physical education curricular research. Results from this study identifies
priority content for curriculum research. Perhaps more importantly, it identifies why
selected groups feel the way they do. This information can be used to frame research
efforts that will provide evidence to help resolve such differences of opinion.

Focused research efforts can serve the profession by providing physical educators
with the kind of information that will facilitate programmatic endeavors to serve students. It

will reduce the vagueness that often exists in messages found in the literature on

curriculum, and will provide teachers with specific and practical examples that Doyle and
Ponder (1977) suggest teachers need prior to being willing to implement educational
innovations at the local level.

In addition to the benefits derived from refocused research efforts, defining high
priority content can improve the quality of the teaching-leamin g process in a number of
ways. Adequate teaching of subject matter in physical education is impossible without a
clear definition of intended outcomes. Clear definitions of high priority content depict what
is to be learned and the standards of performance that are acceptable for teachers, learners
and other stakeholders. Common content in schools could facilitate meaningful discourse
between physical education practitioners with respect to sharing effective classroom
procedures and instructional techniques. Accordingly, classroom practices could become
more effective and efficient, thereby allowing for the inclusion of additional content within
the same time constraints.

Finally, the identification of high priority content and a procedure for balancing
curricular content with resources can have two major impacts on professional development.
First, common content will result in identifying common problems of practice. Common
problems can result in collaborative problem-solvin g efforts, thus enhancing the quality of
collegiality as well as the potential for providing high quality professional development
services. Second, common content in physical education programs can result in greater
uniformity in teacher preparation programs. Research and practice in teacher preparation
will become more focused, and teacher educators will be in a better position to share
successes and resolve common problems associated with preparing students to teach in

school districts with diverse contextual circumstances.

Eli" [T

For the purposes of this Study, the following terms have been defined:

1.

Content - Intended student learning outcomes contained in a program expressed as

program objectives.

. Curriculum - The product resulting from, planning formal instruction. It is intended to

describe what is’taught, why it is taught, when it is taught, and the desired student

outcomes. It constitutes the plan for promoting learning (T aba, 1962; Vickers, 1990).

. Curriculum Framework - A document that reveals the knowledge, skills, attitudes and

or behaviors including processes students should know and understand about a
particular discipline. It provides a structure within which to organize the other
components of the instructional system (Curry & Temple, 1992). It is used to construct
the curriculum (Jewett & Mullan, 1977) by providing a systematic approach to
decision-making in terms of selecting, structuring and sequencing elements of content
(Beuchamp, 1981).

Curriculum Model - A procedure for developing a curriculum for particular educational
settings (Jewett & Bain, 1985). It is based upon fundamental decisions that clarify
program emphasis (Lambert, 1989). Models draw from a specific curriculum
framework and provide program designers with a systematic procedure for content
selection (Jewett & Bain, 1985), scope and sequence (Jewett, 1994, Goodlad & Su,
1992), and continuity (Goodlad & Su, 1992).

. Goals - Broad general statements of program intent representing large, areas of

curriculum content (V ogel & Seefeldt, 1988). Program goals are descriptions of general
“areas” of outcomes (e. g., achieve health-related levels of physical fitness) desired for
each student as to achieve a result of participation in curriculum activities. (Jewett &

Bain, 1985).

10

6. Program Objectives - Discrete elements of potential program content that operationally
define program goals (Vogel & Seefeldt, 1988). Program objectives can be represented
by a word or a few words, but ultimately must clearly communicate what students must
know or be able to do to demonstrate mastery of the objective.

7 . Ideologies - Belief systems (integrated assertions, theories and aims) that provide the
value premise from which decisions about practical educational matters are made
(Eisner, 1992). They are manifested as the beliefs about what schools should teach, to
what ends and for what reasons.

8. Instruction - The process of selecting, developing and refining teaching/learning
activities to facilitate intended learning. The teaching/learning process for implementing
the curriculum (Jewett, 1980).

9. Outcomes - Statements clearly describing what students should know and be able to do
as a result of instruction (Curry & Temple, 1992).

10. Stakeholders - Individuals or groups of individuals who have an interest in, are

serviced or are affected by, or are responsible for administering a physical education

program.

11

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to identify priorities stakeholders hold concerning
content appropriate for inclusion in K-12 physical education programs in Michigan. The
study involved stakeholders from Michigan in a modified Delphi Study (Dalkey, 1967) to
generate a ranking of the relative importance of potential physical education content. The
degree to which rankings changed within and across stakeholder groups, participating
school districts, and selected demographic variables was also assessed.

In this chapter several critical issues related to curriculum design are reviewed.
They include: perspectives on education, the role of value orientations in curricular
decisions, predominate models for curriculum decision making in physical education, and
how they inter-relate. Arguments for and against eclectic approaches to curriculum
construction are then presented. An advocacy-building model selected for use in this study
will be described in detail. Finally, a process suitable for building a consensus among .
stakeholders on content decisions is reviewed.

E S E C . l E .

The most fundamental issue in curriculum design is determining what content is of
most worth (Broudy, 1988; Diez & Moon, 1992; Jewett & Bain, 1985; Schubert, 1986;
Walker, 1990). Most curriculum work in physical education to date focuses on what
content is of most worth and why, but the issue is unresolved (Ennis, 1992; Steinhardt,
1992; Vickers, 1990). This leaves practitioners with a multitude of curriculum options, but
with little help in the actual task of selecting curricular content (Ennis, 1992; Melograno,
1988; Vickers 1990).

The physical education literature contains numerous curriculum models designed to
assist in content selection (Dauer & Pangrazi, 1989; Hellison & Templin, 1991; Jewett &

Bain, 1985. Lawson & Placek, 1981; Siedentop, Mand & Taggart, 1986; Vickers, 1990;

12

Vogel & Seefeldt, 1988). Significant differences in the models are typically centered
around the purpose of schooling and the values and beliefs held by those constructing the
models (Jewett, 1994).

According to Jewett and Bain (1985) curriculum models provide for a clear
description of the value base (beliefs and goals) underlying a given program. The role that
value orientations should play in curriculum construction is a prevalent issue in curriculum
literature. Some authors (Siedentop, Maud, & Taggart, 1986; Jewett, 1994; Jewett & Bain
1985) argue the need for developers to clarify their beliefs relative to content selection and
other curriculum procedures, then make curriculum decisions based upon those values and
perspectives. Other authors (Brandt, 1988a, 1988b; Jackson, 1992; Reid, 1992) perceive
curriculum construction as a complex process where perceived values and perspectives held
by designers are relevant , but only part of the complex process.

Clarification of the purpose of education, value orientations, and physical education
curriculum models provide developers with a basis for comparing different strands of
thought. These clarifications will assist developers in organizing their own thoughts, and
understanding the motivations behind the positions others hold. This information also
provides a foundation upon which a defensible, systematic approach to decision-making
can be established. Accordingly, it is important to understand these perspectives, models
and value orientations and how they are interrelated in order to determine their value in the
process of content selection.

C . l E .

Differences in curriculum models can often be tied to differing opinions concerning
what should be taught in schools (Broudy, 1988; Eisner, 1992; Jewett & Bain, 1985).
According to Fraleigh (1990), adopting a primary purpose of schooling establishes the
grounds for value compatibility and consistency through the curriculum development
process. Attempts have been made to categorize various beliefs into ideologies or

perspectives on the purpose of education (Eisner & Vallance, 1974; Jackson, 1992;

13

Kleibard, 1987; McNeil, 1981). Ideologies implicitly represent educational philosophies
with different assumptions about human nature, society and education. In general all
perspectives on the purpose of education appearing in the literature can be categorized into
six basic strands of thought, five of which directly relate to the selection of subject matter.

One predominant perspective is that the purpose of school is to maintain status quo
in the society. Often referred to in the literature as traditional curriculum, academic
rationalism and/or structure of knowledge, emphasis in this perspective is to transmit the
existing culture (social, academic, etc.) to the next generation. The main purpose of school
is to provide youth with the tools and knowledge to successfully participate in the
traditional culture. Advocates emphasize the need for youth to acquire the most powerful
products of accumulative historical understanding, and endorse the maintenance of present
subject matter divisions.

A second perspective is that schools should create societal reform (Apple, 1982;
Giroux, 1983). Proponents of this position can be classified as social reconstructionists
with reformist views. This perspective is also reflected in writings advocating emancipatory
education (Greene, 1978). Advocates maintain that schools should prepare citizens to
identify social injustice and actively intervene to facilitate changes for the better.

A third perspective shares a focus on social reconstruction but emphasizes the
desire to create change for the individual. It is referred to in the literature as an adaptive
view of social reconstruction, emancipatory education (Bain, 198 8), and/or curriculum for
self-actualization (Eisner & Vallance, 1974). Proponents of this position view social issues
and change as a crucial context for personal deveIOpment. Their position is that citizens
nwd to develop tools necessary for individual adaptation to a world involved in constant
change. To apply this perspective, schools would increase students’ access to opportunities
that enable citizens to reflect on personal conditions and actively work towards personal

liberation and development (Dewar, 1987; Griffin, 1985).

14

A fourth perspective is to perceive school as an agent to develop cognitive
processes (Papert, 1980). Advocates assert that the school’s responsibility is to teach
citizens how to teach themselves because the body of knowledge is rapidly growing and
changing today’s society. Educational outcomes are the processes of thinking in contrast to
learning specific subject matter.

A fifth perspective, clearly articulated by Brandt (1988a, 1988b) is eclectic in
nature. Advocates of this position suggest that those involved in designing curriculum hold
multiple perspectives, and that these perspectives are important in degrees that are
dependent upon the circumstances surrounding specific curriculum decisions. Those
circumstances include the variations in local cultures and history, national directives, health
initiatives and personal experiences. Because perspectives vary according to circumstances,
which perspective predominates in any given circumstance should be a function of the
unique set of circumstances.

I! I Q . .

The educational perspective a person favors is related to their organized set of
values (Fraleigh, 1990). The argument is that differing value priorities suggest different
ways of organizing and managing content (Fraleigh, 1990; Jewett, 1994). Jewett and
Bain’s (1985) value orientations are intended to provide a means of classifying sets of
values that inspire educational decisions. Their work delineates five basic value
orientations: disciplinary mastery, social reconstruction, learning process, self-
actualization, and ecological integration. It has been suggested that most curriculum work
in physical education shares some of the basic underlying notions with Jewett and Bain’s
approach to curriculum theory and practice (Kirk, 1988; Steinhardt, 1992). The following
is a brief description of the five value orientations.

Disciplinary Mastery. Those predisposed to a disciplinary mastery orientation
place the mastery of an organized body of knowledge to the forefront of learning and

evaluate students on the content mastered. Advocates assert mastery of subject matter is the

15

key to schooling, and they design curriculum to facilitate such mastery (J ewett, 1994).
Their position is that the acquisition of a predetermined, body of knowledge in the form of
knowledge, skills and values allows recipients to successfully participate in (and contribute
to) a specific cultural condition. This position reflects the curriculum perspective that
schools should maintain and extend the current culture.

Disciplinary mastery is the most prevalent orientation in practice within physical
education (Siedentop, Mand & Taggart, 1986; Newell, 1990) and is the focus of most pre-
professional and staff development programs (Newell, 1990). According to Fraleigh, skill
acquisition provides recipients with the opportunity to experience satisfaction with personal
performances and to successfully partake in a range of movement experiences. The
approach is conducive to the transmission of procedural and propositional knowledge
(Scheffler, 1965), and according to Fraleigh (1990) could provide the medium for
developing intrinsic values as well

Social Reconstruction. Social reconstruction, according to Jewett and Bain, is
based on the concept that the curriculum should be used to address critical social, political
and economic issues as a means to creating a better society. In this curriculum approach,
physical education needs to incorporate learning opportunities related to social issues, and
instruction should emphasize interpersonal sensitivity, awareness of others, and the
development of social skills (Fraleigh, 1990). Student evaluation would be based on
attitudes and personal and social character traits displayed. J ewett and Bain delimit this
value orientation to stressing societal gain over individual gain. It therefore reflects a more
reformist view of social reconstruction.

Learning Process. Proponents of the learning process value orientation advocate
the need to develop process skills that can be applied independently to learning whatever
becomes important to learn over a lifelong (Fraleigh, 1990; Jewett & Bain, 1985; Papert,
1980). The process by which knowledge is generated is viewed as content (Fraleigh 1990;

Jewett, 1994), including the processes of acquiring motor skill and creative movement

16

(Jewett & Mullan, 1977). Curriculum design in this perspective seeks to facilitate use of
principles to analyze and evaluate performance (Lawson & Placek, 1981). Jewett (1994)
contends that this value orientation places a priority on both the learner and the subject
matter. Advocates take a narrow view of both however, in that they focus on the individual
as a learner and on the process for mastering subject matter in contrast to mastering a wide
range of product knowledge. The learning process value orientation thereby reflects a
cognitive concepts perspective on education. According to Fraleigh (1990), play and
movement is used as a context in which students develop competency in the skills of
learning, and student evaluation should focus on the student’s ability to learn
independently.

Self-Actualization. Curriculum decisions for those oriented towards self-
actualization center around helping students achieve their personal potential. The
educational goal from this perspective is to help Students develop a positive sense of
autonomy and a self-concept which enables them to become self-directed, independent
learners (Eisner & Vallance, 1974; Jewett, 1994; Maslow, 1979; Rogers, 1983). Individual
achievement of excellence and self-direction takes precedence over subject matter or societal
concerns (Fraleigh, 1990; Jewett, 1994). This orientation reflects an adaptive view of
social reconstruction as an educational perspective. The classroom is managed through
strategies which cause students to interact with content selected to help them achieve
individual excellence (Fraleigh, 1990).

Ecological Integration. Proponents of this value orientation emphasize the need
to find a balance between subject matter, needs of the learner and social goals (Colwell,
1985; Jewett & Ennis, 1990). According to Jewett (1994), advocates of this position
emphasize a personal search for meaning, but assume personal meaning can be achieved
only by integrating the natural and social environment As students engage in a search for
personal meaning, they learn to integrate personal needs and interests in a larger social and

natural environment (Colwell, 1985; Jewett & Ennis, 1990). Curriculum construction is

17

approached as a means of manipulating subject matter in a way that enables students to
adapt to present circumstances and develop skills to allow them to contribute to a planned
and improved future for all in an ever changing world (Fraleigh, 1990; Jewett, 1994). This
orientation reflects a societal perspective of social reconstruction

WEI:

Curriculum models appear in the literature as a means of providing practitioners
with a systematic, logical approach to the selection, and organization of program content.
Descriptions of a variety of models can be found in the literature (Dauer & Pangrazi, 1989;
Hellison & Templin, 1991; Jewett & Bain, 1985. Lawson & Placek, 1981; Siedentop,
Mand & Taggart, 1986; Vickers, 1990; Vogel & Seefeldt, 1988). There appear to be 13
distinct models, differing in program goals, structure, content, and value orientations
(Bain, 1988; Jewett & Bain, 1985, Steinhardt, 1992). Some authors assert that differences
in curricular models are tied to differences in opinions concerning what should be taught in
schools and what knowledge is of most worth (Broudy, 1988; Jewett & Bain, 1985).
However, most models are process oriented, providing little or no assistance in selecting
subject matter.

Many authors suggest that the prevalence of different models imply that physical
educators hold inordinately diverse opinions regarding what constitutes a quality physical
education program (Bain, 1988; Jewett, 1994; Kirk, 1988; Reed, 1983; Steinhardt, 1992).
Some contend that curriculum designers should select or construct a model consistent with
a predetermined value orientation (Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986). The strengths and
weaknesses of this position will be discussed in detail in the next section.

In The Curriculum Process in Physical Education, J ewett and Bain (1985) identify
seven unique curriculum models that are described in the physical education literature.
According to Steinhardt (1992), virtually all curriculum writing in physical education
concerning cmriculum construction is represented by one of these models. The seven

models, are described below with reference to their corresponding value orientations and

18

curriculum perspectives. It should be noted that there is substantial variability in how
models are described by different writers. The following descriptions attempt to present
points of general agreement by most writers.

Developmental Education. The developmental education model is best
represented by the common phrase “education through the physical.” The developmental
model is characterized by using physical activity to contribute to the social, emotional,
intellectual and physical development of the individual (Melograno, 1979; Pan grazi &
Darst, 1985; Thompson & Mann, 1977). The focus of physical education programs for
advocates of this model is on the development of the learner over mastery of subject matter
(Jewett, 1994). The conceptual framework for program design is predicated on the notion
that all learners progress through common developmental patterns. As such, this model
reflects a self-actualization value orientation. The program design is derived from research
on theories of human development and hierarchies of objectives reflecting achievement in
cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains (Siedentop, 1980).

With respect to physical movement, this approach attempts to educate children to
use their bodies more effectively in a wide variety of fundamental movements, sports,
dances and aquatic skills (Bain, 1988). Curriculum construction evolves from a process of
goal clarification, searching for appropriate strategies to implement the model, and
effectively evaluating results (Steinhardt, 1992). Physical education teachers are expected
to select and sequence learning tasks based on research describing children’s developmental
patterns, interests and Skill capabilities (Thomas, Lee & Thomas, 1988).

The developmental model is probably the most frequently used today, and some
professionals feel it is infused throughout all models. Some of the criticism voiced against
the approach stems from a lack of evidence of its effectiveness. Critics assert there is
insufficient evidence that physical education can produce the broad range of outcomes it

claims, that participation in physical education programs contributes to the development of

19

desirable personal and social character traits, and that the model in practice fails to account
for individual needs of the learner (Lawson & Placek, 1981).

Humanistic Physical Education. A humanistic model is based on the
assumption that physical education should be student oriented, contributing to the total well
being of the individual. Whereas the developmental model assumes the developers know
the general course development must take and how to guide it, the humanistic model
stresses the uniqueness inherent in each individual. Humanistic physical education places
emphasis on student self-awareness as the basis for personal choice (Jewett & Bain, 1985).
It acknowledges the need for individuals to make sense of their existence.

Represented most clearly by the writings of Hellison (1985, 1987), the model uses
physical activity as the medium physical educators use to enhance the social development of
students. Teachers assist students in their search for personal identity and understanding as
they progress through a social hierarchy that begins with irresponsibility and culminates in
caring for others. As such, advocates of this model reflect a self-actualization value
orientation (Jewett & Bain, 1985) and/or social reconstruction, depending upon the
teacher’s priorities (Fraleigh, 1990).

Critics of humanistic models maintain that the intended outcomes are common to all
subject areas, and should not be the primary focus of physical education. Program
effectiveness may also rely heavily on the quality of the personal relationship between
teacher and student (Jewett & Bain, 1985). Siedentop (1980) adds his concern that the
concept of self-actualization is unclear in nature, which results in program objectives being
insufficiently clear to drive instruction or evaluation. Finally, as with the previous model,
questions exist concerning how well physical education programs can contribute to the
development of desirable personal and social character traits in students (Lawson & Placek,
198 1).

Movement Education. The movement education model defines content for

physical education as human movement (Jewett & Bain, 1985). The notion behind this

20

approach is three-fold. The first is that the primary goal of physical education is to teach
children to move skillfully, with a knowledge of how they move and how their movement
is meaningful (Logsdon et al., 1977). The second is that the development of movement
competencies is hierarchical in nature, and understanding and acquiring basic concepts and
movements enhances the acquisition of more complex movements. Third, engaging
students in meaningful movement results in an intrinsic appreciation for movement.

The conceptual framework for the model is based on Laban’s (1963) classification
of 16 movement themes. The curriculum is based on the study of the principles that govern
the control of human movement while providing for the acquisition of skill required to exert
that control (Stanley, 1969). Leaming tasks are designed sequentially from general and
basic to specific and complex (Barrett, 1988). According to Fraleigh (1990), teachers are
responsible to comprehensively analyze movement, then use this information to design
instructional objectives and learning activities. A problem-solving, guided discovery, or
exploratory teaching approach is typically used (Jewett & Bain, 1985; Logsdon, 1984) to
provide students with experiences that enhance their ability to move, engage them in
thought process, and contribute to the development of their value system (Logsdon et al.,
1977). Value orientations held by advocates of movement education represent a
combination of disciplinary-mastery, learning process and self-actualization.

Critics of the movement education model argue that teaching general movements as
a way to prepare students for more complex movements depends on the unsubstantiated
supposition that such learning will transfer (Locke, 1969; Lawther, 1977; Siedentop,
1980). They also claim that use of the teaching approaches advocated by the model
exacerbate the problems associated with the excessive constraints on available instructional
time. Finally, critics point to a lack of evidence to support the practice of using discovery
teaching styles to teach movement skills (Dauer & Pangrazi, 1989; Siedentop, 1980).

Kinesiological Studies. Proponents of the kinesiological studies model

emphasize the need to acquire knowledge of movement which in turn allows individuals to

21

become independent consumers as they participate in their movement culture. As such, the
overriding goal in this model is understanding and mastering human movement (Jewett &
Bain, 1985). The conceptual framework upon which the curriculum is based is derived
from the disciplinary foundations of human movement such as exercise physiology,
biomechanics and motor development. It is concerned mainly with the process by which
students learn. Practitioners are expected to provide students with opportunities for self-
directed learning and problem-solving through a combination of classroom lectures and
gymnasium/laboratory activities to enable them to independently adapt to, and participate
in, an ever-changing movement culture. Value orientations held by advocates of this model
are similar to those who advocate movement education. Because of the emphasis on higher
order thinking, forms of this model most often appear at the secondary level. Although few
examples of this model exist in practice, many schools include one or two concept units in
their overall curriculum, usually in conjunction with teaching health-related physical fitness
(Pangrazi & Darst, 1985).

As with movement education, critics of this model oppose emphasizing intellectual
development at the expense of participating in physical activity. Critics also question the
effectiveness of discovery teaching methods in teaching athletic skills (Dauer & Pangrazi,
1989; Siedentop, 1980).

Sport and Play Education. There are references in the literature for play
education and sport education as well as with the two combined. Siedentop defines sport as
playful competition and as such considers the sport education model an extension of play
(Siedentop, 1980). The sport and play education model is predicated on the notion that play
and participation in sport is intrinsically valuable. Participants voluntarily participate in it
outside the classroom for its own sake. The mandate for physical education then is to
provide individuals with the skills, knowledge and fitness levels to successfully participate
in desired activities. Physical education is conceptualized as an essential form of play

education where play education is defined as any process that increases an individual’s

22

tendency and ability to participate in competitive, expressive and/or gratifying motor
activities. The curriculum is constructed in a systematic way to help Students become
skilled sport participants and behave in a way that allows them entry into the specific sport
culture (Siedentop, Mand & Taggart, 1986). The emphasis in this model is on becoming
proficient at physical activities over the development of inner self or physical fitness.
Advocates therefore tend to hold a disciplinary mastery value orientation. Teachers design
tasks in which students learn specific skills, rules and Strategies while developing an
appreciation of customs and traditions specific to each activity.

A major criticism of this model is that it is difficult to justify curriculums
emphasizing play to administrators in the presence of fiscal constraints common to today’s
programs. Lawson and Placek (1981) also note significant conceptual differences between
sport education and physical education. Their most critical point is that participation in
physical education is mandatory whereas participation in sport and play is voluntary. Jewett
and Bain (1985) express concern that the model assumes that increases in skill will result in
increases in participation, and that sport behavior learned when young will carry over to
adulthood. Neither is documented.

Personal Meaning. The personal meaning model is based upon the precept that
any experience must have meaning and significance for the individual to be educational
(Jewett, 1994). Because learning depends upon meaningfulness and significance for the
learner, discovery and creation of meaning is the central focus of education.

Advocates of this model see physical education using the medium of movement as a
means of learning rather than learning to move. The model’s emphasis is on the holistic
development of the individual along with a concem for social responsibility and world-
wide citizenship. As such, the selection of educational experiences is founded on the social
context in which it occurs, thereby reflecting an ecological integration value orientation
(Jewett & Ennis, 1990). Societal context and concerns receive more attention than in

previous models.

23

The central task in curriculum construction is assisting the learner to discover and
create personal meaning by moving and interacting with the environment. Teachers must
analyze potential sources of meaning, then provide a wide range of opportunities and
respond supportively as individuals search for meaning. The process of learning is
considered the content of physical education. Students are assisted in understanding and
knowing how to use the learning process to achieve the purpose of the lesson.

A major criticism of the personal meaning model is that there are few examples in
practice. Practitioners find it difficult to translate the purposes for participating in physical
activity into statements of program goals. Others see defining physical education as
“education through the physical” as too broad to be achieved with limited resources thereby
diminishing physical education’s unique contribution to education and rendering it as
expendable in the eyes of administrators (Crum, 1987).

Health-Related Physical Fitness. The goal of a health-related physical fitness
model is the development and maintenance of individual fitness. Achievement of the goal is
attained by the acquisition of fitness through progressive increases in appropriate physical
activity, development of competency in appropriate movement patterns, and acquiring the
knowledge necessary to provide individuals with the ability to monitor, modify and
maintain healthy levels of physical fitness.

The conceptual framework for curriculum construction is the delineation of the
components of fitness, including cardiO-respiratory fitness, muscular strength and
endurance, flexibility and body composition. Teachers are expected to provide students
with appropriate kinds and amounts of physical activity to produce desired outcomes in
conjunction with knowledge about how the components are affected by exercise. The
ultimate purpose of the model is to facilitate adherence to a personal regimen of exercise.

The fitness model has received criticism for being too narrow in scope (Lawson &
Placek, 1981). Others have stated that there is insufficient time to achieve necessary levels

of fitness within existing time constraints (Crum, 1987).

24

W21

Most physical education programs reflect an “eclectic” approach to curriculum
construction. Eclectic models combine selected parts of various models. The basis for the
majority of criticisms directed at an eclectic approach to curriculum design is that they are
atheoretical. Cruriculum theory can be described as a process of defining and describing
events which provide a systematic basis for making curriculum decisions (Jewett, 1994),
and it is argued that curriculum development should be based on theoretical and conceptual
foundations that clarify program emphasis and guide the structuring, selecting and
sequencing of content (Jewett & Bain, 1985; Lambert, 1989).

It is argued that the lack of a theoretical base (resulting from the absence of a
common value orientation) limits program effectiveness in that there is no systematic basis
to control and guide the direction of learning activities (Ennis & Hooper, 1990; Jewett &
Bain, 1985). This often results in educational efforts working towards conflicting purposes
which may negate potentially beneficial outcomes (Curry & Temple, 1992). Critics also
contend that the lack of a consistent theoretical base impedes the advancement of
knowledge concerning specific phenomena (Jewett & Bain, 1985). They claim
reverberating between various models, educational theories and practices limits the potential
impacts that might be derived from a unified theoretical focus.

Criticisms of eclectic approaches to curriculum stem from a number of pragmatic
issues as well. First, physical education has historically tried to achieve such a wide range
of outcomes that programs have lacked a central focus (Steinhardt, 1992). Second, eclectic
designers accept the notion that the curriculum needs to consider all areas valued within the
profession or by the stakeholders associated with the program. This places a tremendous
burden on curriculum designers to accommodate competing claims for time and attention
(Brandt, 1992). Finally, issues of accountability and objective standards to use for

evaluative purposes is yet to be fully resolved (Steinhardt, 1992).

25

A major contention by various authors is that the selection or construction of a
curriculum model must be preceded by clear identification of personal value orientations of
the developers or participating stakeholders. According to Eisner and Vallance (1974),
difficulties in resolving curriculum conflicts can most often be traced to recognizing
conflicting conceptions of curriculum. It’s clear that value orientations influence
philosophical positions. Curriculum goals are typically derived from personal beliefs
(Dauer & Pangrazi, 1989; Siedentop, Mand & Taggart, 1986), and differences in value
priorities result in differences selecting, organizing and managing educational experiences
(Fraleigh, 1990). Therefore, many contend that the selection of a curriculum model and
intended educational outcomes should be consistent with one’s value orientation (Ennis &
Zhu, 1991; Jewett, 1994; Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986). Jewett and Bain contend that
value orientations clarify the implementation of contrasting educational philosophies by
describing major points of focus, emphasis and practice. They stress the need to identify
and develop curricula consistent with one’s value orientation, and they criticize eclectic

models because they avoid addressing theoretical positions which underlie program

effectiveness.

 

Those who advocate a values-based approach to curriculum design maintain that
curriculum construction should begin with a curriculum theory based upon the designer’s
value orientation. The principles and curriculum goals delineated in the theory should guide
the construction of a curriculum framework which in turn should be used to select or
design a curriculum model (Jewett & Bain, 1985). The critical component to Jewett and
Bain’s curriculum theory is clear and concise articulation of the curriculum designer’s value
orientation (Jewett, 1994; Jewett & Bain, 1985), for it is this that drives various definitions
of technical terms and serves as a basis for subsequent decisions. There are several

problems associated with this approach to curriculum construction.

26

1. No authentic curriculum theory defined in this manner currently exists for physical
education.

The pm'pose for using a curriculum theory is to provide a systematic basis for
decision-making when selecting, structuring and sequencing potential content (Jewett,
1994). Curriculum theorists in physical education agree that the field’s primary subject
matter is human movement. However, there are at least three ways in which movement can
be perceived as educational. First, physical education can seen as education about
movement. From this perspective, educational experiences become a cognitive study.
Second, education can be through movement. Physical education can use human movement
as a means to achieve outcomes that may be extrinsic to the activity itself such as personal
health, socially-redeemable character traits, moral training, self-actualization, etc.. Third,
physical education can be seen as education in movement. Here human movement results in
intrinsically valuable and culturally significant movement abilities.

All three perspectives provide the basis for valid conceptual frameworks that may
be highly valued by stakeholders responsible for and/or served by the physical education
program. All three suggest different ways of perceiving relationships among the elements
of movement and, when considered separately, result in curriculum frameworks very
different in structure and purpose. Such curriculum theories fail to meet the criterion of
authenticity in that differences in constructs are products of the perspectives of their
authors, and do not consider the perspectives of other major stakeholders.

2. There is no empirical evidence available showing that a consistent theoretical base
for physical education curriculum produces effective, efficient, and valued curriculum
practice.

According to Jewett (1994) components of a curriculum theory include definitions
of technical terms; statements consisting of facts, propositions and assumptions; underlying
value orientations driving the decision-makin g process; program content, and cuniculum

goals. The qualification implied by the mum of a consistent theoretical base in this context

27

is that all components of the theory are understandable and in accord, or at least are
compatible with, the designer’s value orientations. The theory’s purpose is to direct
cuniculum development, implementation and evaluation. Consequently, evaluation of a
curriculum theory’s effectiveness in producing a quality curriculum must address at least
two basic issues:

a) When different curriculum designers adhere to a single curriculum theory, consistent
curriculum practices should result.

A curriculum theory should provide purpose and direction in the construction of a
curriculum framework, cuniculum, instruction and evaluation. The power of a theory
resides in its ability to drive the decision-making process. Assessing a theory’s
effectiveness must address issues of feasibility and replicability. With respect to
replicability, adherence to a specific theory should lead to instructional decisions and
practices that are transportable across practitioners. The connection between theory and
practice is enhanced if evidence can be presented that a particular program can be
successfully implemented (Steinhardt, 1992). A theory’s power is also reflected in the
degree to which it becomes manifested in classroom practice. Program designs true to a
specific value orientation must result in programs that stakeholders value.

b) Students achieve the intended outcomes articulated in the cuniculum theory as a result of
participating in programs designed and implemented in accordance with the theory.

Regardless of how those holding different value orientations conceptualize what
must be done, the most basic goal of all curriculum theorists is to improve the quality of life
for its constituents. Hellison (1989) points out that research can not tell us what is worth
doing. However, it can tell us if a specific model can achieve its intentions. To date there is
little empirical evidence to support the notion that any of the models are effective in
providing participants the short and long term benefits they are designed to facilitate.

Until evidence is obtained that a particular curriculum theory results in the

implementation of replicable practice, and that the practice results in students achieving the

28

intended outcomes, there remains no compelling argument to advocate use of a consistent
theoretical base over a more eclectic approach.
3 . It is unlikely that any single theory can encompass the needs of many individuals.

Amid all curricular debate, curriculum theorists must agree on two basic premises
that underlie formal public education. The root purpose of formal education is to improve
the quality of the lives for those it serves, and that all citizens deserve access to the best of
what public education has to offer. In addition to these two premises, curriculum theorists
in physical education must fulfill the unique contributions the field can provide to the total
educational enterprise. Two issues arise concerning the ability of a model derived from a
consistent value orientation to sufficiently affect quality of life:
a) The model must adequately represent what the field of physical education has to offer.

Complaints have been rendered that curriculum development in physical education
has not kept pace with the increasing body of knowledge (Ennis & Chen, 1993; Vickers,
1992). Issues have been raised concerning the ability of conceptual frameworks and
subsequent models to adequately represent the field’s body of knowledge. The main point
behind curriculum perspectives and value orientations is that discussions of curriculum
must proceed from assumptions about the nature of knowledge and purposes of education
(Brandt, 1988a). Selecting and organizing curriculum content in accordance with a model
representing a single value orientation contributes to excluding or de-emphasizing content
and/or procedures that are unique to physical education and valued by stakeholders. A
health-related physical fitness model is an example of a model based on a consistent
defensible goal that receives criticism for being too limited in scope (Lawson & Placek,
198 1).

Process-based models also receive criticisms because their focus on processes
excludes or de-emphasizes the importance of achieving specific subject matter-related
outcomes (Brandt, 1988a; Cheney, 1987; Eisner & Vallance, 1974; Ravich & Firm, 1987;

Reid, 1992). Eisner and Vallance stress the need to strike a balance between concern over

29

how a child learns (process) and mastery of the subject matter in which they are engaged.
This is especially significant in that, according to Vickers (1992), most models that appear
in physical education literature are process oriented. Such models are in conflict with the
fundamental notion that the subject matter of physical education is human movement
(Arnold, 1979; Brown, 1967; Crum, 1987; Jewett, 1994). A fundamental decision
curriculum designers must make concerns the selection of content skills, knowledge,
behaviors and values that enable successful participation in a movement culture. Process-
based models run the risk of excluding potentially valuable subject matter because of the
natme of their conceptual framework.

b) A curriculum model based on a single value orientation may not meet the needs of a
heterogeneous population of students.

There is considerable agreement in the literature on three fundamentals of selecting
curriculum content (Brandt & Tyler, 1983; Jewett & Bain, 1985; Schrag, 1992; Tyler,
1949). The first is the nature of the students themselves. Content selected for inclusion
must be relevant to students’ needs, interests, and nature as learners.

Better understanding of Students’ attitudes and beliefs about physical activity and
physical education can greatly influence teacher effectiveness in designing programs that
address the needs of students (Steinhardt, 1992). We know different persons have different
needs, interests, and attitudes, and that they participate in physical activity for different
reasons. We also know that children differ from adults physically, psychologically and
emotionally. Programs with narrow foci can limit the achievement of immediate and long-
term needs of a diverse population of students (Reid, 1992). In all probability, such
programs engage less than a sufficient number of students in a meaningful way.

A second major consideration for the selection of content is the nature of the subject
matter. The major objectives physical education programs address can be categorized as
physical fitness, motor skill, social efficiency, cultural acclimation, recreational competency

and intellectual competency. Data obtained from numerous studies confirm that various

30

objectives under each of these categories are held in high regard by stakeholders
(Michigan’s Exemplary Physical Education Project, 1995). A fundamental axiom in
curriculum construction is that emphasis placed on hi ghly-regarded content necessarily
results in a de-emphasis on content viewed as less important when resources are finite.

Selecting content based on a single value orientation is defensible in that it is
systematic, and conceptually based and theoretical. A major weakness in this approach
however, is its inability to include content valued by important stakeholders. Put simply, a
singular value orientation limits the ability of curriculum designers to meet the needs of
various segments of their constituency.

A third consideration for content selection is the social context in which school
exists. Meeting the needs of students is foundational to the purpose of schooling, and it is
impossible to meet student needs without considering the local context. Reid (1992)
contends that a single value orientation lacks the flexibility to: address diverse settings,
adapt as circumstances change, or to adjust to curriculum mismatches or malfunctions as
they becorrre apparent.

4. The notion of designing a cuniculum consistent with a single value orientation
conflicts with common practice.

Steinhardt (1992) makes the case that the link between cuniculum theory,
suitability, practicality and practice is enhanced where evidence is presented that a particular
program can be successfully implemented. At present, there is considerable evidence to
indicate practitioners and curriculum theorists in general do not think in terms of
emphasizing a single value orientation. Several studies support the notion that physical
education teachers possess an inclination towards more than one value orientation (Ennis &
Hooper, 1988; Ennis & Zhu, 1991; Martin, 1993) and generally integrate components of
more than one model in selecting content (Ennis & Hooper, 1988; Steinhardt, 1992).
Caldwell and Bain (1985) found university physical educators’ perceptions of appropriate

physical education curricula were consistent with concepts addressed in health-related

31

physical fitness, sports education and movement education models. They also found that
the university professors considered all three models equally important.

Results from a 1991 study lead Ennis and Zhu to the conclusion that it is doubtful
that teachers’ value orientations manifest themselves in the curriculum decision-making
process as pure perspectives. Ennis describes them as one of a number of strong influences
on the decision-making process. Jackson (1992) holds a stronger position in regard to the
role value orientations play in teachers’ decision-making process in education in general.
He feels most practitioners have not even thought about value orientations and presents a
credible argument questioning why they should. His contention is that individuals’ value
orientations will be embedded in their arguments for proposing and opposing potential
curriculum decisions.

Clearly, practitioners and other stakeholders hold a number of value orientations
and components of various models in high regard. AS a consequence, if curriculum
construction is intended to enhance the quality of the educational experience, the practice of
designing curriculum based on a single value orientation must be questioned. Developing a
curriculum is not the prerogative of one or more developers who represent a single value
orientation. Rather, it requires input from participating teachers, and should involve many
other stakeholders.

5. Value orientations may be misrepresented.

The call to clarify value orientations as an early step in the design process (Ennis &
Zhu, 1991; Jewett, 1994, Jewett & Bain, 1985; Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986), and then
select or construct models consistent with those positions, illustrates a perspective of what
value orientations are and how they need to become manifested in actual experience. A
major contention with this approach has to do with the nature of value orientations and the
milieu in which curriculum construction occurs.

Dissenting voices (Brandt, 1988b; Jackson, 1992; Reid, 1992) point out that value

orientations originally appear in the literature as a way to categorize conflicting opinions on

32

the purpose of the curriculum and/or the primary purpose of schooling. They were created
to provide a means of clustering those who share predominant values and opinions for the
purpose of understanding variance in the cuniculum decision making-process. Research
shows value orientations may be held in varying degrees by curriculum designers (Ennis,
Ross & Chen, 1992). It is questionable if they exist in pure form (Eisner, 1990), or are
defined well enough to be mutually exclusive. The latter argument stems from descriptions
of disagreement between those who share perspectives (Brandt 1988b, Eisner, 1990; Reid
1992). A comparison of categorizations by different authors (e.g., Eisner & Vallance,
1974; Orlosky & Smith, 197 8) stands as evidence that no set of categories represents all
possible conceptions of cuniculum. As a result, Brandt and Reid argue they are not
representative of actual views held by particular individuals.

Critics also contend that advocates do not come to hold their perspectives by careful
consideration, as curriculum designers are advised to do. Jackson insists proponents of a
particular orientation came to that orientation as a result of becoming immersed in an
educational issue and then acquiring an Opinion on that issue (Jackson, 1992). These
opinions are then nurtured through investigation and reinforced by exchanges with
associates with similar experiences and perspectives. In contrast, curriculum design occurs
within institutionalized settings where the socio-political dynamics of each institution and
the value orientations held by individual stakeholders are negotiated, compromised, and
combined to reach mutually-acceptable goals (Brandt, 1988b; Eisner, 1990; Reid, 1992).
6. Models do not adequately address problems of priorities.

An added pressure imposed upon actual practice is the critical constraint of
resources. Practitioners are often asked to consider a multitude of cuniculum options and
expected to use mandates in the form of state and national content standards, while
resources (particularly instructional time) are severely restricted. Most existing cuniculum
models provide little direction for matching content and resources through the use of
prioritizing student learning (Crum, 1987; Ennis & Chen, 1993; Melograno, 1988;

33

Vickers, 1990; Webster, 1989). Unless a model guides practitioners in limiting content in
proportion to the amount of instructional time available, cuniculum products typically
become a “mile wide and an inch deep.” Rarely do practitioners determine what content is

of most worth and then systematically include an amount of content that matches local

resource constraints.

 

Based upon the previous discussion, the model used in this study is based upon a
pragmatic, or political perspective to curriculum planning. A pragmatic perspective,
according to Reid (1992), Jackson (1992), Brandt (1988b) and Gay (1980) acknowledges
that in practice, curriculum construction contains a political component in which personal
inclinations are debated, negotiated, and decided in a way that results in a product
representative of multiple orientations held by multiple stakeholders. These authors
maintain an eclectic curriculum design model is better able to serve its constituents (than a
single theme model) for three reasons. First, a political approach by nature assigns value to
all perspectives. The result is that decisions are modified in accordance with the
appropriateness of the value orientation for a particular context. Second, a political model
shifts decision making power from a small number of persons who cannot represent the
values of other important stakeholders to a representative group. Third, it better
approximates actual practice.

The following narrative describes a political/professional model for the selection of
content. It is at the content selection phase of curriculum construction where the voices of
representative stakeholders must be engaged. Doing so insures their values and interests are
represented when limited resources affect the amount of content included in a program.

Clearly, physical education programs function with variable resources. They render
services in a milieu where multiple voices, representing various value orientations, must be
processed, and they are faced with a vast and growing body of content deemed appropriate

for inclusion in their programs. It becomes imperative, then, that program content selection

34

proceed in a clearly defined, systematic fashion that results in the inclusion of defensible
content that is held in high regard by all stakeholders. An acceptable procedure must
address four basic questions:
0 What content should be considered for inclusion in the selection process?
0 How should content appropriate for inclusion in a K- 12 program be represented for

accurate consideration by decision-makers?
0 Who should participate in the process of content selection?
- What procedure(s) should be used to select content?

The procedures used in this study are a modification of those outlined by Vogel and

Seefeldt (1988), and provide a systematic approach to the selection of content for a K-12
physical education program. The steps are comprehensive in that they address each of the

questions above. The rationale for each step is provided in detail.

 

Steps for the Selection of Content for an
Exemplary Physical Education Program

Step 1. Identify potential content for inclusion in the physical
education program that is defensible for inclusion in public
education and organize it into categories of student
outcomes.

Step 2. Clearly define each potential content element and specify the
standards of performance that operationally define the
achievement of the program objectives.

Step 3. Obtain evidence about what stakeholders think are the most
important program objectives to be acquired as a result of

participation in the K-12 program.

 

 

 

35

Step 1. Identify potential content for inclusion in the physical education program
that is defensible for inclusion in public education.

Historically, content taught in physical education has focused on education about
movement (cognitive study about physical movement), through movement (using human
movement as a tool to achieve worthwhile objectives such as personal health and affective
character traits), and in movement (engaging in movement as an holistic and intrinsically
valuable experience). These historical perspectives, coupled with the ever-increasing body
of potential content has left physical educators with more potential content than can be
included in their programs. As financial resources dwindle and potential content expands,
educational agencies will need to become more concerned with what is included in their
programs. It becomes increasingly important, therefore, for physical education programs to
articulate and defend their intended outcomes. Content initially included in programs should
be restricted to that which matches available resources and is defensible and relevant in the
eyes of the program’s stakeholders. Therefore, content considered for inclusion should
meet three criteria.

First, content considered for inclusion in physical education programs must be
deemed important to stakeholders. The issue in determining what is included in a school’s
cmriculum (or excluded) is one of determining relative importance Of the content. Physical
education’s strongest argument for inclusion in the school program is its ability to reduce
the health risks associated with living a sedentary lifestyle and improve the general quality
of life, coupled with its ability to reach virtually all students. A significant element of
justifying its position in public education, then, is to promote content that is linked to
documented benefits to health and well-being.

Second, the content should be unique to physical education programs and
achievable by a large portion of the population. Potential content selected must represent a
contribution to a citizen's well-being that otherwise will not be filled, or perhaps would not

be filled as well were physical education excluded. Advocating content that can be fully

36

addressed by other subject matter areas negates the physical education program’s relative
importance and weakens its legitimacy.

A third criterion is that the acquisition of the knowledge, attitudes, fitness capacities
and/or behaviors represented by potential content depends upon effective instruction.
Acquisition of intended outcomes by individuals independent of formal, effective
instruction negates the need to invest limited resources into expensive instructional
programs.

Content that meets these criteria can best be communicated to stakeholders when it
is represented as a series of clear, discrete statements organized into meaningful categories.
Categories provide a structure that quickly communicates the scope of defensible content
while maintaining the potential to include or exclude discrete elements of potential content.
Discrete elements of content operationalize the meaning of the categories in terms that are
clear to stakeholders. Accordingly, they communicate potential beneficial outcomes at a
reasonably precise level. They also provide the framework for specifying clear standards
necessary to evaluate program effectiveness.

Various endeavors to specify the content of physical education have resulted in
similar documents. The National Association of Sport and Physical Education (NASPE)
recently published a document providing a structure to the potential content for physical
education in the form of seven content standards (NASPE, 1995). The State of Michigan's
Model Core Curriculum in Physical Education is a Similar document consisting of four
cruricular areas, subdivided into 16 content standards (Michigan Department of Education,
1994). The Michigan document includes all of NASPE’S standards, but provides greater
detail and clearer definitions of intended program outcomes. The Michigan document,
therefore, enables greater consistency in content selection, than does the NASPE
document.

The instrument used in this study closely parallels Michigan’s document. The major

differences are in definitions of competence. The Michigan document defines competence

37

on the potential elements of content as achieving proficiency at a functional level (i.e.,
master the element of content in accordance with an authentic standard of performance on
that element). This study extends the definition of competence to include contextual
performance (i.e., using the element of content at authentic levels of mastery while
participating in physical activity). The difference eliminates two content standards that
appear in Michigan’s document that are based on using various elements of content in
combinations.

Step 2. Clearly define each potential element of content and specify the standard(s)
of performance that operationally define(s) its achievement.

Each category of potential content must be represented by discrete elements of
content (Vogel & Seefeldt, 1988). For this study, these elements are called program
objectives. Program objectives, according to Vogel and Seefeldt ( 1988) are words or short
phrases that, when operationally defined precisely articulate intended outcomes of
instruction. Selection of content is made, therefore, by selecting program objectives for
inclusion in the program. In this study, program objectives were also categorized into four
logical content categories. Representing potential content under content categories as
program objectives serves the content selection process by: 1) clarifying both general and
specific outcomes required to achieve competence in a program, and 2) clearly defining
intended outcomes of potential content in a comprehensive and thereby unbiased manner.

Perhaps no aspect of the content selection process is more important than clearly
defining intended outcomes of instruction. Each program objective must be clearly defined
so those engaged in debate over its relative importance can focus on importance rather than
intended meaning. To that end, stakeholders must be provided with performance standards

students must attain to master each program objective.

38

Step 3. Obtain evidence describing the relative importance stakeholders assign to
each program objective.

The rationale for initiating the prioritization process is the interplay between the
amount of defensible content to teach and the limitations imposed by resources, such as the
amount of instructional time available. Content standards documents such as those
sponsored by NASPE and Michigan’s Department of Education define what it means to be
physically educated and reflect key elements of curricular models and perspectives common
to the physical education literature (Steinhardt, 1992). Potential content is comprehensive in
amount. It represents much more however, than almost all programs are able to include
when student competence rather than exposure is the intended outcome. Selecting content
in this way shifts the debate away from what is important to what is most important and
why.

Identifying and engaging representatives from various stakeholder groups in the
process of content selection pays a number of dividends. First, it provides a systematic
process for incorporating values, interests and priorities within the community into the
program content selection process. Doing so enables physical education programs to
defend the content of their programs with evidence that the program incorporates content
deemed most important to its constituency. Second, it serves as a medium for
communication and education of stakeholders with respect to purpose, rationale,
organization, implementation and evaluation of high quality physical education programs.
Stakeholders and physical educators alike benefit from the dialogue by obtaining a better
understanding of what should be taught in physical education and why. It also provides a
medium through which assumptions held can be addressed and altered. Engaging
stakeholders results in better informed citizens, better informed program developers, and
typically creates a group of advocates for the program that represent all stakeholder groups.

Perhaps even more importantly, a process engaging all stakeholder groups in

assigning relative importance to content serves as an agent to temper personal bias. If in

39

fact value orientations are a result of personal experiences and interactions within personal
spheres of influence, one must acknowledge this influence as a limitation affecting
programmatic decisions which need to serve a broad range of clients. Selecting content
based on the values of one or two curriculum writers, or a large number of individuals who
only represent one stakeholder group, can not be justified.

E l l' l . C E l . I E 2

The Delphi method was originally developed by the Rand Corporation in the 1950's
to establish consensus of opinion regarding future trends for the sake of guiding decision-
making processes (Dalkey, 1967; Helmer, 1994; Ono & Wedemeyer, 1994). The method
provides a systematic procedure for soliciting and facilitating a convergence in opinions
from within a controversial socio-political arena of debate (Helmer, 1966; Lundberg &
Glassrnan, 1983; Penland, 1983; Sandow, 1972; Spinelli, 1983; Weaver, 1972). The
Delphi technique is designed to explore and expose underlying assumptions or information
leading to differing judgments and educate respondent groups as to the diverse and
interrelated aspects of the topic (Penland, 1983).

Features which separate the Delphi technique from conventional survey research
include guaranteed anonymity, interchange of ideas and opinions, the ability to share
conflicting opinions in non-threatening environments, successive interaction and
continuous aggregation of informed judgments (Brown, 1968; Penland, 1983; Spinelli,
1983). Expert panels establish priorities to relevant policy-making objectives by using a
Series of questionnaires. Successive questioning occurs without face-to-face
confiontations, and are interspersed with controlled feedback of the groups’
reasons for supporting the various items of the instrument (Hakin & Weinblatt, 1993;
Helmer, 1966). The purpose of feedback is to effect interaction and create consensus
among respondents who otherwise operate in a totally independent manner. The process
results in a systematic informed consensus of opinion while identifying important

divergence in opinions (Penland, 1983).

40

5".—

 

 

 

Agreement on goals and/or courses of action are often hindered by divergence of
ion, strong allegiances and varying vested interests. When self-serving motives,
onal bias and incompatible values are present, effective methods must be used to sort
3 diverse elements on the merit of their supporting arguments (Lundsberg & Glassman,
l). The Delphi technique, according to Helmer (1994), may be the most efficient means
[able for determining degrees of consensus and/or dissension among decision-making
.ps. It does so by avoiding undue influence on outcomes of some dominant individuals
errnitting independent thought and reducing the reluctance by some participants to
don positions previously made public. It also has the potential to enhance clarification
.e issues and the attainment of a fair outcome.

The Delphi technique has been found to be an effective tool for assessing clientele
ls, desires and opinions as institutions re-examine their goals (Cyphert & Gant, 1971;
o, 1985; Uhl, 1983), allowing dialogue between geographically separated experts
kin, 1994), and facilitating the convergence of highly diverse opinions (Blohm &
rbuck, 1975). The literature also contains documentation of the Delphi’s effectiveness
lucating participants on pertinent issues (Raskin, 1994).

A variety of curriculum studies have also found the Delphi technique an effective
for building a consensus in opinions with respect to educational priorities and issues.
vo separate endeavors, Raskin (1983, 1994) found it effective in obtaining consensus
rsues concerning the administration of instruction in the field of social work. Results
1 separate studies using random and convenience samples lead Martorella (1991) to
:lude a national consensus among social studies educators exists concerning cuniculum
5, problems in the field, and needed areas of research. Similar results have been found
eming objectives for environmental education (Hammerrnan & Voelker, 1987) and
collegiate business communication courses (Martin & Chaney, 1992). The procedure
>een effectively implemented in institutional goal setting (Cyphert & Gant, 1971;

veigert & Schabacker, 1974; Uhl, 1971) and in curriculum planning and development

41

 

projects (Fazio, 1985; Todd & Reese, 1989; Uhl, 1983; Weaver, 1988).

The Delphi technique was used in the field of physical education to validate twenty-
three purposes for moving, grouped into seven major categories, that appear in J ewett and
Mullan’s Purpose Process Curriculum Framework (Jewett & Mullan, 1977). Using
curriculum theorists, researchers, directors, supervisors and teachers as stakeholder
groups, LaPlante (1973) determined all seven categories of movement purposes were valid
for providing guidance in program development.

The basic procedure used with the Delphi technique is described in the literature by
a variety of authors (Helmer, 1994; Huchfeldt, 197 2; Martin & Chaney, 1992; Penland,
1983; Race & Planck, 1992; Uhl, 1983). In its basic form, the initial step is to invite panel
members, or stakeholders, to participate. Respondents selected to participate must provide
a broad representation from competent and interested individuals in the area being
investigated. Although most research using the Delphi engages individuals deemed
“experts” within the realm of investigation, Uhl (1971, 1983) found no dilution in results
by including lay persons. Participation by invitation (Huchfeldt, 1972; Uhl, 1971) and
providing participants with incentive to remain interested (U hl, 1983) are cited as crucial
components to reduce attrition rates.

The Delphi technique consists of a series of questionnaires dispensed in a number
of rounds. Typically, round one is designed to solicit opinions of experts (stakeholders) as
a means of identifying and framing potential issues, and/or generating a list of options for a
specified purpose. In educational research, the technique is most often used to identify
educational goals or objectives. The opinions received from the first round are aggregated
and categorized. The information is then reduced by a project committee to the least number
of discrete statements possible without the loss of information.

In round two, respondents are provided the revised list of items. They are asked to
rate each item according to its importance, and provide statements (rationales) defending

items they selected as being of highest priority.

42

A number of studies have circumvented the first step (utilizing an open-ended
questionnaire) by providing a defensible list of items in place of the first round (referred to
in the literature as a structured format). With this structured format, respondents are asked
to rate the importance of each item, and are given the option of adding items they feel have
been overlooked. They are also asked to provide the rationale for their additions, which in
two is included in subsequent rounds. Both techniques produce similar results, but those
using open-ended questionnaires can expect higher dropout rates (Uhl, 1983).

The ratings obtained from the second round are aggregated and represented by
statistical measures of central tendency. Most often, means or medians are reported as
measures of central tendency, and at least one measure of dispersion is reported. Brown
(1968) and Helmer (1994) found the median to be the best single number representative of
a group’s collective opinion, and suggested the interquartile range be used as a measure of
divergence of opinion among respondents. The statements (rationales) provided by
respondents for each item are reviewed and summarized by a project committee. The main
points of each argument are represented in concise statements and are included with the
item and its descriptive statistics in the next round.

The information from each item (along with its statistical analysis and rationales for
its rating) is provided to participants in the third round. Respondents are directed to read
and consider the feedback provided by others and re-rate items in light of the descriptive
statistics and written rationales. Any time their new ratings fall outside a prescribed range -
usually the interquartile of ratings - they are asked to provide a rationale defending their
decision. The purpose of this requirement is to force participants to reflect on their
positions and provide others with information they might not have considered.

The measure of dispersion on item responses tends to decrease in successive
rounds (Helmer, 1994). Ideally, successive rounds (consisting of providing participants
with descriptive statistics and rationales for rating items outside the named range of

dispersion) continue until the measure of dispersion for each rating stops decreasing.

43

However, the researcher must balance the quality of information obtained with the
respondent time and the potential for increased rates of attrition with each round as interest
wanes (Uhl, 1983; Zoski & Jurs, 1990). Most of the change in the rating dispersion
typically occurs during the first three rounds (Cyphert & Gant, 1971; Scheibe, Skutsch &
Shofer, 1975).

Time to complete the rating process and time allotted between rounds should be
allocated in a way that provides sufficient time for decision making, while minimizing the
length of the study to restrict attrition. Administrators should allow enough time between
rounds to prepare and distribute feedback, but not so much that the participants lose
interest. According to Uhl (1983) results are maximized if participants return questionnaires
in five days or less, and no more than three weeks elapse between rounds.

Experts rarely agree on a single answer to a question, or arrive at a single value.
Therefore a consensus provides a more valid estimate of diverse needs than the judgment of
only one expert (Brown, 1968; Kean, 1982). The Delphi technique provides a process for
resolving key issues in a way that neutralizes politics and accentuates defensible rationale.
At a minimum, even where a wide divergence of opinion exists, the Delphi technique
results in an acceptable level of agreement by most stakeholders (Bryson, 1988). In cases
where no definitive agreement can be attained, the Delphi isolates the sources of dissension
and helps identify the kind of information that might reduce the divergence of opinions
(Helmet, 1994).

The Delphi technique provides a means to portray various perspectives and
informed judgments so the results are derived from many and complex mutual interactions
while minimizing many of the problems associated with group dynamics (Jones & Twiss,
1978; Bryson, 1988). It allows for representation of subgroups’ (or minority) opinions and
insights, and it allows respondents to provide responses in deference to authority (Jones &
Twiss, 1978). The technique avoids domination by subgroups or strong personalities

(Asch, 1958; Kelly & Thibault, 1954; Powell, 1993). The technique eliminates the

discussions in group situations directed towards individual and/or group interests and
focuses the work on the task at hand. Finally, the Delphi technique minimizes the
reluctance by experts to modify previously-expressed opinions while diminishing the
bandwagon effect (Jones & Twiss, 1978).

' The Delphi technique is an especially effective tool when the problem: 1) needs to
be solved using the collective judgments of more than one group (U hl, 1983), 2) can
benefit from subjective judgments (Race & Planck, 1992), 3) involves individuals
representing diverse experiences and expertise (Race & Planck, 1992), 4) circumstances
make face-to-face meetings impractical (e.g., number of participants necessary, conflicting
schedules, cost of travel for multiple meetings, etc.).

Potential users of the Delphi technique should be cautioned that the technique is not
appropriate when analytical or calculable methods are available (Jones & Twiss, 1978).
Users of the Delphi technique are faced with the difficulty of sifting through and accurately
representing potentially large numbers of responses (Zoski & J urs, 1990). Different from
empirical techniques, administering the technique at times relies on a series of value
judgments and depends upon individual interpretations. It is also important to note that the
procedtu'c is a consensus-buildin g technique. Finally, under the best of conditions, each
item’s importance is represented by a measure of central tendency within some deviation of
the total distribution (Keen, 1982). This leaves the interpretation of the strength of
agreement in the hands of those administering and rcactin g to the results of the endeavor.

Weaver (1972) cxposits two other concerns. First, the Delphi technique makes little
distinction between the desirable and the plausible. How feasible potential results might be
to implement is at times difficult to separate from its value in the minds of participants.
Secondly, opinions are not always distinguishable as rational judgments. Care must be

taken to represent the Opinions of those participating.

45

Summers:

E . E l . l I

This study was based upon an eclectic approach to curriculum construction. Eclectic
models are characterized by accommodating the interplay of values, interests, demands and
powers of stakeholder groups in the selection of content, thereby approximating what
occurs in daily practice (Gay, 1980). Advocates of eclectic models emphasize the
imprOpricty of one curriculum designer imposing his/her value base on diverse groups.

The model assumes a pragmatic approach to the selection of curriculum content,
basing decisions upon the premise that outcomes students need to acquire prior to
graduation should be determined as carefully as possible using relevant stakeholder groups.
Examples of eclectic approaches and their defense appears in Reid's (1992) discussion of a
deliberative model, Brandt's (1988b) discourse on a utilitarian perspective, and Vogel and
Secfeldt’s program design model in Physical Education (V ogcl & Seefeldt, 1988).
C . l l l . I . l l

Steinhardt, in her review of the field of physical education, notes several studies
supporting the notion that physical education teachers generally teach using more than one
curricular model, providing logical support for an eclectic approach as well. The concept of
a balanced curriculum incorporating variety in the kinds of objectives- in contrast to
cmriculum models advocating a narrow focus- has received support in the literature (Dauer
& Pangrazi, 1989; chwold, 1983). An eclectic approach necessitates representing all
potential inclusions in the program, reaching consensus on what elements are deemed most
important in the eyes of the stakeholders, then balancing content with available resources.
The process accommodates the consideration of all value orientations and curriculum

models, and the result is a curriculum product that includes all orientations and models in

varying degrees.

46

Stakehnldm

Assigning relative importance to the content appropriate for K- 12 physical
education programs that truly represents the best thinking of all stakeholders requires the
inclusion of a representative group of stakeholders in the decision-making process. This
study engaged all pertinent stakeholder groups in establishing content priorities.
Stakeholders appropriate for inclusion in the content selection process include central
administrators, building administrators, school board members, classroom teachers,
physical education teachers, community recreation directors, parents and students.

9 . E l I! l l . l .

The Delphi Technique (Dalkey, 1967) was used in this study to engage
representative stakeholders. In general, a number of characteristics made the Delphi
Technique an appropriate procedure for this study. The Delphi technique facilitates the
systematic collection and analysis of judgments on key issues by experts within a common
field (Martorella, 1991). It is widely accepted as an effective method of obtaining
consensus from a group of experts (Blohm & Steinbuch, 1975, Helmer, 1994, Jones &
Twiss, 1978; Martorella, 1991). Brown, Cochran and Dalkey (1969) reported no loss in
effectiveness when non-experts were included as long as a number of participants are
knowledgeable about the subject area. The Delphi technique has a history of use in
curriculum planning and development (Fazio, 1985; Judd, 1971; Martin & Chaney, 1992;
LaPlante, 1973; Reeves, G. & Jauch, L. R., 1978; Todd & Reese, 1989; Uhl, 1983;
Weaver, 1988) and goal setting (Cyphert & Gant, 1971; Schweigert & Schabacker, 1974;
Uhl, 1971).

The Delphi technique consists of en gagin g a broad representation of competent and
interested individuals in a series of surveys. In each survey round, respondents share
opinions and receive feedback with respect to the items of interest. Respondents review

summarized ratings and their associated rationales and are then provided the opportunity to

47

revise their responses based upon their assessment of the new information (Race & Planck,
1992).

The measure of dispersion on item responses tends to decrease in successive
rounds (Helmer, 1966). While the ideal would be to continue rounds until the measure of
dispersion stops decreasing, the number of rounds suitable for a study becomes a function
of balancing the quality of information with the amount of time consumed and the potential
for increased attrition with successive rounds. Generally speaking, it appears most change
in the degree of dispersion on rating of items occurs by the third round (Cyphert & Gant,
1971; Scheibe, Skutsch & Shofer, 1975). Accordingly, this study used three rounds.

48

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to identify stakeholders’ views of the relative

importance of content that is apprOpriate for inclusion in K-12 physical education programs

in Michigan. The study involved stakeholders in a modified Delphi technique to obtain

rankings of the relative importance of discrete elements of physical education content. The

degree to which rankings changed within and across stakeholder groups, participating

school districts, and within selected demographic variables was also assessed. The study

was framed by the following research questions:

1.

What is the relative importance assigned by stakeholders to lifelong activities and
program objeetives suitable for inclusion in K-12 physical education programs?

. Did the ratings assigned to lifelong activities and program objectives by each

stakeholder group, school district, and selected demographic variable converge with the

priorities held by all other participants?

. Do differences in the final rank orders assigned to lifelong activities and program

objectives exist between the stakeholder groups, school districts, and selected

demographic variables at the conclusion of the study?

. Did the ratings assigned each element of program content converge from the initial

round to the final round of a modified Delphi study within all participants, stakeholder

groups, school districts, and selected demographic variables?

. Did the rank order of relative importance on program content change from the initial to

the final round of a modified Delphi Study for the participants as a whole, or for
representatives of stakeholder groups, school districts, and selected demographic

variables?

49

D . . E l S l

The sample for this study was drawn from a population of stakeholders residing in
Michigan. Stakeholders are individuals who are served by K- 12 physical education
programs or influence what content is taught. School-related stakeholder groups were
identified by synthesizing the literature that addresses those who influence or are influenced
by what is taught in schools (Brandt & Tyler, 1983; Ennis, 1992; Faucette, 1986; Jewett &
Bain, 1985; Levine, 1990; Ratliffe, 1986; Tyler, 1949). School-related stakeholder groups
pertinent to content selection in physical education include: central administrators, building
administrators, classroom teachers, physical education teachers, school board members,
parents, community recreation directors, and current students or recent graduates. Other
stakeholder groups pertinent to content selection in physical education include: subject
matter experts, state professional physical education association officers, state legislators,
and representatives from Michigan Departments of Education and Community Health,
intermediate school districts, and Michigan Recreation and Parks Association.
Wm

Different regions of the state vary in population density, terrain, weather, political
allegiance, and amount of rural/urban populations. It was assumed that these variables,
along with variation in lifestyles, family incomes, and preferences for public or private
education could affect attitudes towards curricular content. Accordingly, the state was
divided into five regions: upper peninsula, northern lower peninsula, the western, central,
and eastern regions of the remaining lower peninsula. A purposeful sampling procedure
was implemented to acquire four representative schools from each region. The intent was to
obtain combinations of public/private, large/small, urban/rural, poor/affluent school
districts from each region to represent these differences in suprpulations.

Invitations were extended by mail to six school districts from each region, varying
according to the prescribed criteria, six weeks prior to the scheduled start of the study. The

invitation, appearing in Appendix A, consisted of a cover letter, a flier describing the study,

50

the study’s schedule of events, a description of a district facilitator’s responsibilities, and
criteria for the selection of representative stakeholders for the district. The cover letter
explained that the study would be limited to the first 20 school districts that agreed to
participate and provided the right combination of prescribed demographic criteria.

The invitation encomaged school districts to participate by explaining that those
who participate would receive important information reflecting priorities held by the local
community. This information would allow them to:

0 customize their curriculum based on local values and interests;

- compare local values to other school districts in the state and the state as a whole;

0 receive acknowledgment in Michigan’s Alliance for Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance professional journal as a participant in the statewide study;

- complete a substantial amount of work towards achieving criteria necessary for

recognition in the Govemor’s Exemplary Awards Program.

Follow-up phone calls were made to school districts seven to ten days after the
mailing to answer questions and encourage participation. As some school districts chose to
participate and others decided not to, additional school districts were selected and invited to
participate to balance the desired demographic characteristics. Seventeen school districts
agreed to participate prior to the deadline of October 15 (see the study schedule in Appendix
A), and fifteen of those completed the study. No school from the upper peninsula agreed to
participate.

School districts were required to designate a local facilitator to recruit participants,
distribute and collect study materials, and return all materials to Michigan State University.
Their responsibilities are described in a flier in Appendix A. The flier describes how
subjects were to be sampled in a replicable fashion across districts. Facilitators were
provided a $100 honorarium at the completion of the study.

Each school district was represented by participants in each school-related

stakeholder group. The number of participants varied according to the size of school (c.g.,

51

a large school with multiple buildings was often represented by numerous building

administrators, while a small school where administrators have more diverse roles typically

had fewer participants). The participants by region of the state, school size and stakeholder

type are summarrzed’ in Table 1.

S I. S I . I I E l I . .

Invitations to participate in the study also were extended to individuals who teach
physical education curriculum and/or pedagogy courses at every college and university in
Michigan that provides teacher preparation programs in physical education. Michigan has
21 such institutions. Additionally, all officers in Michigan’s Association for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (MAHPERD) for the 1996-97 school year with
a primary focus on physical education were invited to participate.

An attempt was made to enhance participation and minimize attrition rates by:

- emphasizing the importance of the study’s findings to the conduct of physical education
teacher education in Michigan,

- stressing the importance of completing all three rounds,

0 reminding participants that involvement in the study was a good way to contribute to
Michigan’s Exemplary Physical Education Cuniculum Project, and as such was a form of
professional service,

0 informing them their participation in the study would be acknowledged in the MAHPERD
Journal.

Representatives of the other groups that have a stake in the content of physical
education programs were also extended invitations to participate in the study. They include:
- state senators and representatives serving on education and appropriations committees,
and those representing school districts that agreed to participate;

- members of the Departments of Education and Community Health that are responsible for

educational programming;

0 a random sample of members of the Michigan Recreation and Parks Association.

52

Table 1: Distribution of participants by region, school Size and stakeholder type.

 

Stakeholdeflype

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

udeSIg- ’
Region Size1 School cad bad sbm crt pet pnt std rec nated Totals
North K A f 1 2 3 13 2 0 1 1 23—
D B 2 1 o 4 2 3 2 o 1 15
C C o 3 o 3 3 2 2 o 3 16
West fl 0 3 1 3 8 4 o 1 0 2'0—
C E o 3 2 4 3 3 1 o 2 18
D F 1 o 1 1 2 8 1 o o 14
A G 1 2 o 5 12 10 1 3 1 35
“CeTtraT b H o T 1 2‘3"“; 0 0 7—13—
D I 1 1 1 3 1 4 o 1 3 15
B J 1 3 3 3 8 4 1 3 2 28
C K o 1 o 2 2 5 2 o o 12
"East A L T 1 o 1 11 2 o o 1 18
B M 1 3 1 4 2 3 o 1 4 19
A N o 4 o 3 5 4 0 o 6 22
A O 1 3 2 2 13 8 o 2 3 34
'TtTtars 15— T’H 14 4M

 

 

 

Legend: cad= central administrator, bad= building administrator, sbm: school board
member; crt= classroom teacher; pet: physical education teacher, pnt= parent; std: student;

rec= community recreation directors.

 

' Schools in Michigan are divided into quartiles by the Michigan High School Athletic Association to
equalize competition between like-sized schools. Class A schools represent the 25% of schools with the
largest student population

53

All stakeholders outside of school districts were mailed invitations to participate that
included the following:
0 a cover letter,
0 a flier describing the study and listing their responsibilities and benefits from
participation,
0 a study timetable,
0 a consent form (Appendix B).
Stakeholders indicated their willingness to participate by filling out the consent form and
returning it in the enclosed self-addressed envelope.
I2 . . E l S I

The survey instrument was designed to represent discrete units of potential content
(program objectives) either included or advocated in the NASPE and Michigan content
standards for physical education. Because of basic differences in how program objectives
included in those documents are represented, the instrument was divided into two parts.
Part 1 contains leisure activities in the form of games, sports and activities commonly
included in programs of physical education. Part 2 represents program objectives that
overarch lifelong activities, such as fitness capacities, personal/social skills, activity-related
cognitive concepts and fundamental motor skills.

The rationale behind dividing the survey into two parts is that a physically-educated
person demonstrates mastery on a variety of objectives that transcend specific leisure
activities (i.e., general program objectives). They would also be expected to have mastered
a selected number of specific lifelong activities. The leisure activities are fundamentally
different in that each sport contains several program objectives. For example, gaining
competency in basketball requires mastering program objectives such as: control dribble,
rebounding, shooting lay-ups, person-to-person defense, two-on-two offense, and

knowledge of rules.

54

The instrument used in the first round of this study appears in Appendix C. The
first part of the instrument was printed on yellow paper and was used for rating the relative
importance of leisure activities often included in physical education programs. The second
part was printed on white paper, and was used for rating all other program objectives.

The part of the instrument used to prioritize general program objectives is divided
into four content domains common to physical education literature and used in the Michigan
Content Standards document. These include the psychomotor skills, fitness capacities,
activity-related cognitive concepts, and personal/social/attitudinal character traits. Content
from each domain is subdivided into one of 15 content areas that parallel Michigan’s
content standards. Each content standard is further reduced to a list of discrete, ratable
program objectives. Although the document is comprehensive in nature, participants were
allowed to add program objectives they felt should be included in subsequent rounds.

Each of the 15 content standards includes a statement of rationale for its content (see
Appendix C). The program Objectives that represent each Standard were accompanied by
definitions of competence. Definitions of competence were intended to describe levels of
performance that allow graduates to use the objective effectively in real world settings. The
definitions allowed participants to rate the relative importance of each program objective in
the presence of a common outcome expectation. The definitions were provided to enhance
participants’ ability to make distinctions of their relative importance and communicate
rationales for their ratings.

Demographic data were collected as part of the consent to participate form. The
form appears in Appendix B. Participants were asked for the following information: 1) the
school district they were associated with (if appropriate), 2) the primary stakeholder group
they were representing, 3) their gender, 4) the category which contained their household
income. Due to the difficulty in defining and measuring socio-economic status, household

incomes were used as a general indicator. Income brackets were determined by identifying

55

the state’s median household income, then estimatin g cut-points above and below the

median that would generally subdivide the state’s household incomes into quintiles.
MW

W5:

A project Delphi Committee of nine individuals was assembled during this phase of
the study. Seven members of the committee had advanced degrees in the field of physical
education (six Ph.D.’s, one Ph.D. candidate/University tenured faculty). The remaining
two had extensive experience in curriculum construction and possessed strong
writing/editorial skills. The committee consisted of four women and five men.

Committee members were convened following completion of the data collection for
rounds one and two. Their charge was to review the rationales for each item, eliminate
arguments that were inconsistent with the physical education literature, categorize like
rationales, and then represent each unique, discrete rationale in a concise statement to be
included for consideration by participants in the subsequent round.

Project team members were trained during their initial meeting. The training
consisted of communicating the purpose of their involvement, the criteria to use in
representing stakeholder rationales and the procedure to use in processing their assigned
tasks. After the procedure was explained and demonstrated, a question and answer session
terminated the training.

After round one and two data were obtained, project team members were randomly
assigned to groups of completed items and their corresponding rationales. Each program
objective was assigned to two committee members, who analyzed the rationales
independently. Their edited statements of rationale(s) were forwarded to a third committee
member, who compared the results and resolved discrepancies. The final statements of
rationale for each item were then reviewed by a grammatical editor, to assure clear

communication.

56

Round One. The first survey round was initiated in the following manner:

- for school districts, surveys were mailed or delivered to the district facilitator, who then
distributed individual surveys to participants. Participants were provided with envelopes.
They were instructed to complete the survey, insert the completed survey into the envelope,
then seal and return the package to the facilitator to insure confidentiality. During the five
day response period, facilitators collected the surveys and returned them to the study center
at Michigan State University.

0 for all other participants, surveys were mailed directly to their preferred addresses. They
were requested to return the completed survey within five days. A self-addressed envelope
with retum postage was provided to facilitate return of each survey.

Participants were first asked to assign priorities to what they considered to be the
most important lifelong activities to teach in a K— 12 physical education program. They were
asked to rate 15 of the 96 lifelong activities, using the following procedure:

0 assign a 5 rating to the tluec activities they felt were most important for students to master
as a result of participation in a K-12 physical education program.

- assign a 4 rating to the three next most important lifelong activities,

- assign three 3 ratings, three 2 ratings, and three 1 ratings in a similar fashion.

This forced-choice method of rating was adopted on the assumption that a very limited
amount of time was available to teach physical education content in most Michigan school
districts. It was used to avoid the risk inherent in absolute rating, which is the assignment
of equally high or peak values to all content. Each participant was then asked to provide a
statement of rationale supporting their three highest choices. They were told that these
rationales would be shared anonymously in the next round

Participants were then asked to use the following procedure to rate 50 of the 98
general program objectives on the second part of the instrument:

0 read the directions, rationales for content categories, and definitions of competence for

each program objective,

57

- assign a 5 rating to the ten objectives they felt were the most important for students to
master in their physical education program,

- assign a 4 rating to the next ten most important program objectives, and

0 continue in the same fashion to assign ten 3 ratings, ten 2 ratings and ten 1 ratings.
For each objective assigned a rating of 5, participants were asked to provide a rationale
explaining why that objective was given the highest rating.

Mean values were calculated for each lifelong activity and separately for each
program objective. Dispersions in ratings were represented by interquartile ranges.
Rationales for highly-rated lifelong activities and program objectives were compiled and
processed by the project committee as described earlier. All of this information was
incorporated into the second round instrument.

The second round instrument again separated lifelong activities from general
program objectives. The items in each part appeared in rank order according to mean
ratings, and were accompanied with their overall rank, mean rating, interquartile range, and
statements of rationales constructed by the project committee. A sample from the second
round instrument, illustrating the insuument’s format and rationales, appears in Appendix
D’. The study schedule allotted a maximum of seventeen days to construct the second
round instrument and initiate the second round of data collection.

Round Two. The distribution, completion, return procedures, and timelines for
the second and third rounds of the survey were the same as for the first round.
Respondents were given the data from round one on the second round instrument.

Using the two parts of the instrument separately, participants were asked to review
each item’s rank order, mean rating, and the rationales for those rated in the highest
category. They were then asked to rc-rate the items on both parts of the instrument using
the same procedure as the first round. When participants rated an item outside the

interquartile range from the previous round (thus assigning either more or less relative

 

2 The complete iretruments used for rounds two and three can be obtained by contacting the author.

58

importance to the lifelong activity/program objective than at least half the participants of the
prior round) they were asked to provide a statement of rationale for why their rating was
appropriate-

The data were processed in the same manner used for the first-round. The rationales
were sorted into those supporting higher ratings and those supporting lower ratings on each
item. The project committee represented each unique rationale statement as a discrete
statement for participants to read and consider in the third and final round A sample from
the instrument used for the third and final round, illustrating the instrument’s format and
rationale statements, appears in Appendix E.

Round Three. The third round instrument presented the items in rank order based
upon data obtained in the second round. Each item was accompanied by its mean rating and
interquartile range, and the rationales for rating the item higher and/or lower. Participants
were asked to consider the rank order, mean ratings, and arguments for rating the item
higher or lower, and then re-rate each objective in the same manner used in the second
round. The data obtained in this round were used to compile the final prioritized list of
program objectives.

with

Data were obtained separately for lifelong activities and program objectives
commonly taught in physical education programs. Both sets of data were analyzed in the
same fashion.

0 .111 .. Q "2....

Mean ratings were calculated from respondents’ ratings for each item at the
conclusion of each survey round. Items were ranked according to mean ratings in
descending order. Results from the first round represents priorities held at the onset of the
study, and results from the third and final round represent the priorities established as a
result of the Delphi process. The data also were separated according to subgroups specified

in the design and prioritized in the same fashion.

59

Or. not ' um11° 101"'1"t'uo ° ' o .0941.-. o .1 0 1' 2.1 v.1.
The relative importance of the lifelong activities and program objectives,
represented by rank order, were calculated for the first and final rounds for each
stakeholder group, school district, level of household income, and region of the state. The
degree to which the priorities held by each group converged to those held by all other
participants at the conclusion of the study was calculated in the following manner:
- Kendall’s rank order correlation coefficient was calculated between each group’s ranking
from the first round, and the final round rankings of all other participants combined;
- Kendall’s rank order correlation coefficient was calculated between each group’s ranking
from the third (final) round, and the final round rankings of all other participants combined;
0 the degree of convergence in rankings was determined by comparing the two coefficients
(e.g., if the correlation coefficient comparing the final round rank order for any group to
the final results of all other participants was greater than the coefficient comparing their first
round rankings to the other participants’ final results, a convergence in opinion occurred).
Statistically significant changes in rank order correlation were determined by comparing the
significance of the change in correlation coefficients, using the method described by
Bruning (1991).
.1. H. . ,A- .m--H,- .'- -l- - ‘1‘.-. “JQ I- U . H H
Differences in the relative importance on lifelong activities and program objectives
were determined by calculating the range of rankings for each objective among stakeholder
groups, school district, household income, gender and region of the state. Kendall’s rank
order correlation was administered to calculate the amount of agreement between groups.
Additionally, the number of lifelong activities and program objectives that actually differ
between specified groups for a quantity of items that commonly occur in programs of

physical education in Michigan was examined to assess the degree of variability between

groups.

.l‘ IOI‘U‘s II‘ 0| "’I '1’o'"l’liel‘ Allen. 5.910 “,0

The dispersion in ratings for each item was calculated by averaging the absolute
difference between each participant’s rating and the item’s median rating. Changes in
dispersion from the first to the final round were represented by computing the difference in
mean absolute differences from the first and third rounds on each item. The Binomial Test
was administered to test the probability that the observed number of items that experienced
a decrease in rating dispersion would occur by chance. The procedure was used to identify
a significant convergence or divergence in ratings for each item. It was applied to all

participants together, and then for each stakeholder groups, school district, household

income, gender and region of the state.

 

Rank orders for items from the first and final rounds were compared for all
participants together, and then by stakeholder groups, school districts, genders, household
incomes, and regions of the State. Wilcoxon’s Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was used
to determine if statistically significant changes in rank order occurred. The test assesses the
degree to which the distribution of objectives around their median were significantly
different from the first to the third round. The Wilcoxon test takes into account the degree

of change that occurs on each item.

61

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Smdxfiamnle

Three hundred fifty of the 412 (85.0%) stakeholders that agreed to participate
completed all three rounds of the study. The composition of the stakeholder groups appears
in Table 2. The attrition rate was similar across stakeholder groups, with the exception of
students, and representatives from the Departments of Education and Community Health.
Only 10 of 22 students who began the study, and no one from the Departments of
Education and Community Health, completed all three rounds. While seven legislators
agreed to participate by returning consent forms, the data obtained could be matched to only
two of the consent forms. The rcrrraining legislators either reconsidered, or the instruments
were filled out by staff members who used uninterpretable identification numbers, making
it impossible to match the data with the appropriate demographics. The response rates for
the remaining groups ranged from 97.8 percent (classroom teachers) to 72.7 percent
(MAHPERD representatives).

The nature of the participating school districts is summarized in Table 3. Data are
presented concerning the sample size representing each school district, the region of the
state in which the district is located, each district’s total student enrollment, whether the
school is public or private, urban or rural, and the district’s general economic status.
Dashed lines appear where data were not available.

The data from Table 3 suggests that the demographic data was reasonably balanced in
every category mentioned above. Each school district was represented by 12 to 35
participants. The number of participants was directly related to the size of the school. Three
school districts were located in the northern part of the state. Each of the other regions was
represented by four school districts. The school districts’ student enrollment was equally

distributed around the state mean and reasonably distributed within each geographic region.

62

Table 2: Characteristics of Stakeholders.

 

 

 

Was
Percent
_nQ. Completien Gender.
12 75.0 Central School Administrator 144 Male
31 83.8 Building School Administrator 132 Female
14 73.7 School Board of Education 276 Total1 _
43 97.8 Classroom Teacher
88 87.1 Physical Education Teacher Wm
65 92.9 Parent 1 less than $15,000
10 45.5 Student (current or former) 10 $15,000 - $29,999
16 85.7 Community Recreation Director 38 $30,000 - $44,999
6 75.0 Intermediate School District 79 $45,000 - $69,999
2 28.6 legislature 135 $70,000 or more

 

8 72.7 MAHPERD Representative 262 Total1
17 94.0 University Physical Education

0 0.0 Department of Education

0 0.0 Department of Health
38 undesignated

 

_
350 85.0% Total‘

 

 

‘ Differences in total number of respondents in each group (stakeholder group, gender, household income)
is a result of participants not designating their gender or income on the demographic data portion of the
consent form.

63

 

Table 3: School District Demographic Data.

 

No. of No. of % Med. Fam.
School Subjects Region Students Type % urban“ poverty Income
A 25 North 11,085 public 25 outside 7.8 $29-$67-
B 15 North 1,002 public 0 18.4 $18.280
C 16 North 1,897 public 0 22.3 $20,092
D 20 West 3,342 public 96.2 inside 1.8 $38,180
E 18 West 1,395 private 43.6 inside 4.22 $35,475
F 14 West 955 private 45 inside ---------------
G 35 West 6,554 public 71.4 inside 3.6 $39,031
H 13 Central 1,087 public 0 12.4 $25,102
I 15 Central 1,010 public 0 9.3 $31,907
J 28 Central 3,354 public 41.9 outside 6.8 $33,499
K 12 Central 1,324 private 98 inside ---------------
L 18 East 24,600 public 100 inside 32 $18,742
M 19 East 2,105 private 92 inside 0 ----------
N 22 East 12,825 public 99.2 inside 3.7 $44,004
0 34 East 15,800 public 98.5 inside 3.5 $49,047

 

 

 

 

 

63 inside

8 outside

$3 1 ,020

 

 

7 * Outside refers to populations defined as urban, but located outside urbanized areas.

Inside refers to populations defined as urban and located inside urbanized areas.

 

Of the seven districts that had student enrollments above the state mean, one was located in
northern Michigan, two were in the western region, one was in the central region, and three
were in eastern Michigan. Four school districts were private schools. Two were located in
the west region, one in the central region and one was in the east.

Data on urban/rural locations appear in the Sixth column. Definitions for urban, urban
areas, and rural were extracted from the Census Bureau. The terrrrs “inside” and “outside”
refer to whether the district’s population resides inside or outside an urban area. Urban is
defined as all territory, populations and housing areas inside urbanized areas, and places of
2,500 persons or more outside urbanized areas. Urbanized areas are defined as a central
place and surrounding territory that together have a minimum of 50,000 persons. The
surrounding areas must have a population density of at least 1000 persons per square mile.

Of the 15 participating school districts, four were completely rural while six were at
least 92 percent urban inside urban areas. The remaining four districts demonstrated
varying combinations of urban and rural populations.

The percent of the population below the poverty level and the median household
income were used to indicate the socio-economic status of residents of the district. The data
were extracted from Michigan’s Department of Management and Budget 1990 Census Data
for school districts. The dashed lines indicate no information was available. The median
family income was above the state’s median family income in six of the 12 school districts
where figmes were available. For the other six, the income level was virtually equal to the
state’s figure in one district, and less that the state figure in five districts.

QuestierLl
What is the relative importance assigned to lifelong activities and program objectives
suitable for inclusion in K- 12 physical education programs?

Data on the relative importance assigned to selected lifelong activities were collected
separately from data on the relative importance assigned to program objectives. Mean

ratings of relative importance for lifelong activities were calculated by assigning zeros to all

65

lifelong activities that were unrated by the 350 participants. Ratings were then averaged
across each activity. The lifelong activities were then ranked according to their mean ratings
in descending order.

Data from the lifelong activities appear in Table 4, listed according to their final rank
order by all participants. The same information is provided for all program objectives in
Table 5. Each activity and program objective is accompanied by three sets of data. The first
set, consisting of the three left-most columns, provides the item’s final ranking, overall
mean rating and average rating dispersion from the final round. Dispersions of ratings were
calculated by averaging the absolute value of the difference between each participant’s
rating and the item’s median rating.

The middle set of data consists of the same information for each item from the
study’s first round. The right-most set, shaded in gray, provides the changes that occurred
in overall rank, mean rating, and rating dispersion from the first to the final round.

While mean ratings and dispersions were rounded to the nearest hundredth in the
tables, exact values were used to determine rank order. Four program objectives appearing
in Table 5, sportsmanship, self-respect, shoot a basketball overhand, and knowledge: size,
did not appear in the initial instrument addressing program objectives. They were added to
the second round instrument upon suggestion by participants during the first round.
Consequently, no data appears for these items under the columns titled First Round and

Changes.

66

Table 4: Rankings, mean ratings, and rating dispersions of lifelong activities by all
stakeholders for the first and final rounds.

Final Round First Round Changes

Activity Rm Mean Drsp. Rank Mean Drsp. A... _
swimming 0.36 4. 20 0. 80 0044-044
Jogging/Powcrwalking 4. 32 o. 68 3.06 1.81 0126113
strength training 3.64 1.22 2.35 1.85 3;; 4129-063
“8km“ 3-15 1-23 2-61 1-59 1855036
tennis 3-06 1-14 2-40 148 154;:0664334
”um" 2-85 1-10 1.90 150 .2095”,
M 252 1-38 2-33 150 1;*P‘i::0;1f8§§;fi§-0T.;12%
”Cling 2'33 1-46 1-76 168 1057022
softball 2.321.27 .

2.02 1.51
dancezaerobic 2.11 1.43 1.73 1.72
soccer 2.02 1.24 1.72 1.61
walking 1.55 1.41
skiing: crosscountry 13 1.33 1.22 13 1.22
track: running 14 1.00 1.00 16 1.00
hiking 15 0.99 0.99 12 1.30
skating: inline 16 0.82 0.82 15
dance: social 17 0.70 0.70 17
bowling 18 0.70 0.70 14
rope jumping 19 0.69 0.69 18
swimming: lifesaving 20 0.68 0.68 20
gymnastics: tumble /floor 21 0.47 0.47 23
badminton 22 0.38 0.38 26
step aerobics 23 0.32 0.32
racquetball 24 0.31 0.31 24
football: flag/touch 25 0.29 0.29 19
track: field 26 0.19 0.19 30
camping 27 0.19 0.19 21
hockey: ice/inline/floor 28 0.17 0.17 27
backpacking 29 0.15 0.15 31
dance:an 30 0.12 0.12 41
skating: ice 31 0.12 0.12 28
dance: square 32 0.11 0.11 43
tabletennis 33 0.10 0.10 33
skiing: downhill 34 0.09 0.09 29
swim: W81 35 0.09 0.09 40
self defense 36 0. 07 0.07
tai-chi 37 0.06 0.06 44
fishing: baitcasting 38 0.05 0.05 32
frisbee: skills/games 39 0.05 0.05 36
martial arts: karate 40 0.05 0.05 37
canoeing 41 0.05 0.05 25
archery 42 0.04 0.04 34
wrestling 43 0.04 0.04 42
skating: roller 44 0.04 0.04 35
orientcering 45 0.04 0.04 38
teamhandball 46 0.04 0.04 53
dance: modem 47 0.03 0.03 56
dance: creative 48 0.03 0.03 50

 

fizgcmqauhwwww
:chmmawmwn

O O O N
o
5:90;..3‘ng f;
O ‘ L.

t I

C
W
q

{2.30 11 0 00;
35310 01 0 01 3
~:.;;_.;;—O; 31 -0 31%
wwi:;,.eiiiirsf~.(1,1,.8... _..:~0..1.8%
‘2’- 016-016
034034
7.3-0 12 -0 12;
gal-0 05’ +0 05%

8883
O
N

\O
1
“N.

 

'tgifuo 28 -o 28
"(ff—0. 51 +0 51?
fr:f¥~0 16 -0 163;
Sui-o 47 -0 47;
go 22 -.o 22;
'0 20 ‘0 20
it? 11111.30 05 «0.05%
E? 0.50 15 +0:153
STE-0. 28 «0 282
:.;i_ . -5‘.f3-g'-O 08-0 08;

~17? 008 -0 08:
6 f-«iii-‘O. 20 .0 20%
at; 3

3

once o0
_I. I
N. 1“

00

U!

\I
HWNHUJr—UJWO‘UJmM waxxrooooo

Hri—wuwwotdoom WONQOOOOO

\l

r—oxuo

*-0 16-0 16:
.30. 14 »0 14;
g:(}‘ 16.531.011.36 -0 365
:8;=-:-i;5~0 19 «0 19%
' '1i;;:.;j:§e;ii-0 11 -0 I t:
9019"0 19
7 015015
7 005005
*9 9:03-30:03?
~2 008008

999999999999 999999999999 9999999
A
999999999999 999999999999 9999999999
OQOOONUIJ>HOHQU$ \IQUIcAOOQDb‘OONUIOO \OHWH&O\
I
had
H

HOOHNr—NANNNH

OGOOONLh¥HO
HOOHNHNJANNNH

67

Table 4 (cont’d).

Activity

Final Round

Rm Mean Drsp. R

First Round

Changes

 

 

martial arts: others

crew
card games

snow shoeing

gymnastics: apparatus
dance: folk/ethnic

speedball
handball
lacrosse

fishing: spincasting

sailing

shuffleboard

kayaking
hocker
horseshoes

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

55

99
CO
v-txl

99
CO
r—le.

752340 04 4o 04

:ijV-O 04 «0 04
Aliig‘ff-O. 15 -0 15
'??l§§5§fé;{»0 03 »0 03'
‘ifsjf'i-O 10 -0 10
{if:2jf¥~0 02-. «0 02
gift-0 II w-O 11
74"}7‘90. 10 no 10
O 04 -0 04
1f.:,lji«-0;. 03 .«0 03
3;)“; 0.00 0 00
723353120. 09 -0 09

1:3}:-*-i4i.;:vgix;:§-o 03 40 03
’~;:f--;16=?f-*;};;~0 11 4011
9:921:41). 06 -o 06
gigg-g’46i‘;j-o or 4o 61
3;}; {42:340. 11 4o 11
ir8xo094uo
2922;?117:;‘1'i:i=é;;1+0 07 ~10. 07
22.???191352‘??er.0.6 006
iféliisgi13111229540406 i' 0065
112;" 3513;: 73$;ji3'-'0;.06. 006
120 05. ~0 05
1.10:5.j-o 04 -0 04

' 0 03 40' 03
‘-Ti:.;§i;=;§f‘+10 03 *0 03
51:i;f2;:§}§§;.§;-0 03 -o 03
002 -0 02
o 02 :40. 02
o 02 40 02
4:0. 021 o. 02
{1140.02 440 02
:40 02 :40 02
0 or 4o 01
'fa::;j;;;j.yo. 0115-40 or
{:«0012001
‘i-",.;iIf§-f0401fiii‘iOsOlfié
36001300E
-.:.;,:;i;j-0.01go 01
*-~Q;‘=:§i‘:~0.0 1:"- 140 01
iwmmcmo
_-;i';L_-i_z‘0.._00i 0 00
aawmcmo

skiing: water 64
hockey: field 65
shooting: riflery 66
boxing 67
walking: race 68
horseback riding 69
gymnastics: rhythmic 70
fishing: flycasting 71
climbing (rock) 72
diving: SCUBA 73
frisbee: ultimate 74
paddlcball 75
pickle ball 76
martial arts: judo 77
diving: springboard 78
shooting: clays/trap 79
dance: jazz 80
dance: tap 81
fencing 82
water polo 83
croquet 84
dance: ballet 85
diving: skin 86
bocce ball 87
swimming: synchronized 88
tennis: platform 89
tether'ball 90
shooting: other 91
squash 92
aerial darts 93
rugby (modified)

korfball

OHOOOOOHHOHOHO
OV-‘bOr—k'Jn-Iva—Urxlm
O‘H-bOHAMv—va—Utfla

OOOOOOOHQ CHOOOOOHHOHOHO

99999999999999999999999999 99999999999999

0\

p—s
9.9.999PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP 9.9999995399395399
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHa
v-U-H-U—r-H-n—NNNNNNwww-bhmatotmxloww

9999999999999999999999999999999999
8888888888888888888888888888888822
9999999999999999999999999999999999
8888888888888888888888888888888828
\l
O
t-U-H-H-H-H—HNNNNNNwww-ISAUIONONQQOHH

:eeeaee4ssaammmeeeeep

snow boardin g

68

According to the results summarized in Table 4 for all respondents, the single most
important activity for students to master through participation in a quality physical
education program is competency in swimming. The activity’s mean rating of 4.64 was
0.32 higher than the next activity, and its final mean rating dispersion 0f 0.36 was nearly
half as large as any other of the hi ghest-rated activities. The next ten activities in rank order
of preference, with their mean rating in parenthesis, consists of jogging/powerwalking
(4.32), strength training (3.64), basketball (3.15), tennis (3.06), volleyball (2.85), golf
(2.52), cycling (2.33), softball (2.32), aerobic dance (2.11), and soccer (2.02). Of the first
eleven activities, swimming, jogging/powerwalking, strength training, cycling, and aerobic
dance can be classified as fitness oriented, while basketball, volleyball, softball and soccer
are more skill and team oriented.

Of the 87 lifelong activities listed on the survey in the first round, 64 received ratings
in the final round. Walking and step aerobics were added after the first round as a result of
participants’ recommendation, even though walking is included in the activity of
jogging/powerwalkin g, and step aerobics is a form of aerobic dance. Because of the
difficulty in providing effective rationales to anonymous contributors as to why their
suggestions were disregarded, it was decided to include them among potential activities in
subsequent rounds. Self defense, card games, snow shoeing, and boxing were also added
as per participants’ suggestions.

Based on the ratings of the program objectives summarized across all respondents
(Table 5), the most important outcome of a quality physical education program is the
achievement and maintenance of health-related aerobic fitness. The second most valued
outcome is assigning value to living an active lifestyle, followed by knowing the potential
benefits of engaging in regular physical activity. Seven of the first 10 program objectives,
and 19 of the first 40, are from the affective domain. No motor skill appears in the first ten
rankings, and only two (relaxation in response to stressful situations, and competence in

running) are among the first twenty.

69

Table 5: Rankings, mean ratings, and rating dispersions of general program objectives
from the first and final rounds.

Final Round

Program Objective

aerobic fitness

value an active lifestyle
benefits of physical activity
nutritional habits

respect for others
cooperation

best effort

responsibility
self-control

appreciation of fitness
respect for rules

design a personal activity

program
follow directions
how to learn motor skills
strength: abdomen/low back
relaxation
prevent injuries
decision-makin g
run
leadership
perseverance
compassion for others
flexibility: hip/low back
assess health-related fitness
indicators
lean/fat ratio
respect for property
throw: overhand
enjoyment of movement
realistic perception of ability
strength: legs
posture: walk/stand
initiative
catch: fly balls
strength: arms
detrimental affects of
physical activity
care for common athletic
injuries
competitiveness
posture: lift and carry
sportsmanship

First Round

Rm Mean Drsp. Ra-nk Mean Drsp.

Changes

 

 

17 T “73:5 20 19019

 

l
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10

11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25
26
27
28
29
30
3 1
32
33
34
35

36

37
38
39

4.54 0.46
4.50 0.50
4.48 0.52
4.34 0.66
4.21 0.79
4.20 0.80
4.04 0.96
4.03 0.97
3.95 0.94
3.86 0.90
3.79 0.81
3.73 1.18

3.63 0.94
3.29 1.09
3.28 1.13
3.25 1.14
3.16 1.08
3.08 1.16
3.00 1.08
2.96 1.15
2.87 1.28
2.83 1.16
2.62 0.96
2.56 1.15

2.45 1.34
2.41 1.08
2.39 1.22
2.34 1.15
2.33 l. 14
2.29 1.02
2.28 1.02
2.11 1.13
2.10 1.20
2.04 0.93
2.00 1.26

1.92 0.98

1.16
1.03
1.50

1.91
1.88
1.84

70

H“ H

NNHHNI—II—it—it—I
NJAQVOOOOAv-‘UI

NUJN
WOUI

-§ NAW‘D‘HWWNNWH
N HHQHAMNGOOUJW

NN
\OQ

4.35
3.77
4.29
3.81
3.37
3.50
3.53
3.39
3.30
3.31
2.81
3.19

2.83
3.21
3.03
2.78
2.69
2.72
2.79
2. 37
2. 58
2. 27
2.10
2.48

3.16
2.06
2.19
2.23
2.08
1.99
2.03
2.08
1.85
1.66
2.60

1.49

2.22
2.14

0.65
1.16
0.71
1.07
1.24
1.15
1.18
1.24
1.29
1.30
1.41
1.46

1.38
1.42
1.46
1.62
1.38
1.52
1.63
1.53
1.46
1.61
1.51
1.67

1.57
1.47
1.73
1.55
1.51
1.43
1.58
1.46
1.61
1.42
1.44

1.48

1.59
1.48

. :1 0
1}: 341232122??? 073066
' 10 53041
i:- ~ 3 0 83045
is 1.0Tiizii;g-;;:;0 701149.35:
2
1
41
1
45
0

o 54
20 80

 

:L‘Lo 333$
j‘je-O 41;?

o 49;

Table 5 (cont’d).

Final Round First Round Changes
. . a . . .
Program Objective Rank Mean Drsp. R Mean Drsp. " ' '

balance: dynamic upright 40 1.71 0.96 40 1.66 1.46
appreciationof skilled 41 1.51 1.07 38 1.71 1.43
performance

jumprope 42 1.42 1.00 46 1.33 1.19
dribble: withhands 43 1.31 1.00 45 1.33 1.28
courage 44 1.27 0.97 37 1.73 1.48
strength: shoulders 45 1.22 0.97 48 1.24 1.24
flexibilityztrunk 46 1.21 0.91 50 1.18 1.17
knowledge: personal space 47 1.18 0.90 44 1.40 1.33
knowledge: body parts 48 1.15 0.99 51 1.06 1.06
skip 49 1.01 0.89 43 1.41 1.36
knowledge: body actions 50 0.85 0.85 63 0.78 0.78
jump: vertical 51 0.84 0.84 49 1.20 1.20
self-respect 52 0.82 0.82

throw: underth 53 0.79 0.79 59 0.90 0.90
bat 54 0.79 0.79 54 1.01 1.01
posture: push and pull 55 0.74 0.74 55 0.98 0.98 _
strike: forehand 56 0.73 0.73 66 0.70 0.70 .j;i-*;.4;;}g.f'__~
posture: sit 57 0.71 0. 71 47 1.26 1.21 iii?!"€;1Q§§§§1}25f3-0 55 0 50E
effects of selected 58 0.70 0. 70 39 1.68 1.39 iii-971:19:323:40 98 40 69;:
performance modifiers zéLéfigf-aj-"ifzjfieg ugi
evenbeat 59 0.62 0.62 52 1.03 1.03
dribble: with feet 60 0.59 0.59 68 0.66 0.66
flexibility: shoulder 61 0.53 0.53 56 0.94 0.94
kick: instep 62 0.50 0.50 71 0.61 0.61
knowledge: boundaries of 63 0.48 0.48 65 0.72 0.72

S

mlwge: use of force 64 0.48 0.48 69 0.66 0.66
strike: overhand 65 0.47 0.47 83 0.39 0.39
hop 66 0.43 0.43 58 0.91 0.91
flexibility: neck 67 0.38 0.38 61 0.87 0.87
jump: horizontal 68 0.36 0.36 57 0.91 0.91
tempo 69 0.35 0.35 53 1.01 1.01 . ,. .
balance: static upright 70 0.33 0.33 64 0.74 0.74 *f-‘j6§§ff€s§§fia40 40 «0 40?
leap 71 0.30 0.30 70 0.65 0.65 iii-121:;;i:ijsa_;;;_-0 3540 35;;
catch: rolling balls 72 0.29 0.29 73 0.58 0.58 gggjgii41f.:;;js;£-j-0 29 -0 29;
gallop 73 0.28 0.28 67 0.66 0.66 60 38 40 38‘;
strike: backhand 74 0.27 0.27 91 0.31 0.31 :ng4417257ng04 40 044
kickztoe 75 0.25 0.25 74 0.56 0.56 10 30 4o 30;
strike: underhand 76 0.23 0.23 95 0.24 0.24 .j;;s419;§j-_~;i5-0 02 40 02;
pass chest 77 0.22 0.22 81 0.46 0.46 ~40 24 40 24:
slide 78 0.22 0.22 72 0.60 0.60 iézfi‘fij;§*61;:i-i§i5:540 38 4o 38;
flexibility: ankle 79 0.21 0.21 62 0.81 0.81 3351752:5jS~0 60 40 60.;

 

 

 

 

71

Table 5 (cont’d).

Final Round First Round Changes

Program Objective Rm Mean Disp. Rank Mean Disp. 1......“
strength: neck 80 0. 20 0. 20 60 0. 87 0. 87
knowledge: use of time 81 0.20 0.20 86 0.37 0.37 ‘
land from a horizontal fall 82 0.18 0 18 76 0.48 0.48

shoulderroll: forward 83 0.18 0.18 77 0.48 0.48
knowledge: positions in 84 0.17 0.17 78 0.48 0.48

space

pass: overhead 85 0.16 0.16 89 0.34 0.34
rollaball 86 0.16 0.16 80 0.46 0.46
shoot a basketball overhand 87 0.15 0.15

knowledge: twist/rotate 88 0.14 0.14 75 0.52 0.52 .555. . 5;
knowledge: directionsin 89 0.13 0.13 90 0.31 0.31 1_ -'- ~0 19"4019ff

knowledge: body planes 90 0.12 0.12 92 0.29 0.29 :' 421112.113-0 18 -0 18;
punt 91 0.10 0.10 96 0.23 0.23 ;-:,-5-ris{§;;;;240134013;;
knowledge: levels of space 92 0.08 0.08 97 0.16 0.16 , ~51-{75Q-0 08 -0 108.3
shouldcrroll: backward 93 0.08 0.08 84 0.38 0.38 r 9133 ff *0 31 ~0 31
uneven beat 94 0.08 0.08 87 0.36 0.36 V: 7,}.1-0 29 -0 29;:
climbarope ladder 95 0.05 0.05 85 0.38 0. 38 1051240 33 40 33;
balance: inverted 96 0.05 0.05 82 0. 43 0. 43 411.145.4350 38 40 38:3
knowledge: use of flow 97 0.03 0.03 94 0.26 0.26 j»::3_§;frj§f¢~0 22 ~0 22E
knowledge: shapes 98 0.02 0.02 93 0. 28 0.28 5:411:30 26 -0 26
knowledge: size 99 0.02 0.02
knowledge: turn 100 0.01 0.01 79 0.47 0.47 21.,~.{jf-0.46 4-0 46if
vault 101 0.01 0.01 98 0.13 0.13 341;:1401140115;
accent 102 0.01 0.01 88 0.35 0.35 1413140 35 40 35;

   

 

 
 
 
  
 

40 18 4o 18‘;
'0 30 *0 30.}
*5‘1-0 30 40 30:
[4.14-0.31 «0 314%

" * «if-€3.40 174017

  

72

€09
3:5?

d)?

Aside from the dominance of program objectives from the affective domain (only
three affective program objectives appearing on the final instrument failed to make the first
40 objectives), program objectives from the remaining three areas (fitness, motor skill,
cognitive concepts) appear a similar number of times within the first 40 program objectives.
Six fitness capacities, eight cognitive concepts, and seven motor skills (two locomotor,
three non-locomotor and two object control) are included.

Generally speaking, the priorities depicted in the 40 hi ghest-ranked program
objectives suggests a priority be given to the development of appropriate personal/social
behavior and to the tools necessary to personally manage the acquisition and maintenance
of health-related levels of fitness. Along with the seven fitness objectives, all eight
cognitive concepts address knowing how and why to direct a safe, effective personal
activity program. The seven motor skills appearing in the top 40 include relaxation,
dynamic upright balance, and correct posture when lifting and carrying objects. Only two
program objectives - overhand throw and catching fly balls - would be construed as
objectives designed to prepare graduates to participate in sport-related activity.

The twenty lowest-ranked program objectives consists of 11 cognitive concepts and
nine motor skills, with no fitness or affective—related objectives. All 11 cognitive concepts
fall into the movement concepts category (i.e., turn, size, shapes, use of flow, etc.). Only
three movement concepts, knowledge of personal space (ranked 47th), body parts (ranked
48th)and body actions (ranked 50th), appear among the first half of ranked objectives (see
Table 5). The nine motor skills appearing in the lowest 20 consist of five non-locomotor
skills (forward shoulder roll, backward shoulder roll, climb a rope ladder, inverted
balance, and vault) and four object control skills (overhead pass, roll a ball, shoot a

basketball overhand, punt).

73

Questicnl
Did the ratings assigned to lifelong activities and program objectives by each stakeholder
group, school district, and selected demographic variable converge with the priorities held
by all other participants?

The degree to which priorities held by sub—groups of participants converged toward
the final priorities held by all other participants was determined by:

- correlating the rank order of items by each sub-group from the first and final round with
all other participants’ final round;

0 testing the significance of the change in correlation coefficients using the method
described by Bruning (1997).

Bruning’s procedure was used to determine if the observed change in correlation was
statistically significant. This procedure was used for all school districts, stakeholder
groups, household incomes, and regions of the state. The results appear in Table 6.

The correlation coefficients (i.e., agreement in rankings) increased in every case.
With respect to lifelong activities, increases ranged from 0.0295 to 0.2113 among school
districts, from 0.0339 to 0.1911 among stakeholder groups, from 0.0419 to 0.2563 among
different income brackets, and from 0.0180 to 0.2056 among different regions of the state.

The increase in agreement in rankings was significant at the .05 level in one school
district (0). Physical education teachers were the only stakeholder group that experienced a
statistically significant increase. Significance was also obtained for participants with
household incomes of more than $45,000, and those from all regions of the state except
region 4 (eastern lower Michigan).

For the program objectives, increases ranged from 0.053 to 0.2993 among school
districts, 0.0266 to 0.1819 among stakeholder groups, 0.1187 to 0.1480 among different
household incomes, and 0.1172 to 0.1214 across different regions of the state. Statistics
could not be calculated for legislators, or for the income bracket of less than $15,000,

because of an insufficient number of subjects.

74

 

Table 6: Changes in rank correlations on Lifelong Activities and Program Objectives
between specific groups and all other participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lifelong Activities Program Objectives
N first final t first fi-naf t
corr. corr. change (if statistic corr. corr. change (if statistic
Districts
A 7W. 1 .755 .1539 27778—1. 9 .77 .8 .18 .
B 15 .5388 .7361 .1973 12 1.1195 .6483 .8010 .1527 12 1.1169
C 16 .5789 .6611 .0822 13 0.4261 .6475 .8608 .2133 13 1.8982
D 20 .6319 .7103 .0784 17 0.6535 .7356 .6826 .0530 17 0.4212
E 18 .6257 .7574 .1317 15 0.9791 .7165 .8691 .1526 15 1.6798
F 14 .6475 .6887 .0412 11 0.2536 .7522 .8991 .1469 11 1.6488
G 35 .6450 .7198 .0748 32 0.7435 .7520 .8693 .1173* 32 2.0685
H 13 .5685 .6886 .1201 10 0.6349 .7051 .8515 .1464 10 1.2609
I 15 .5894 .7123 .1229 12 0.7584 .7641 .8701 .1060 12 1.1442
J 28 .6495 .8188 .1693 25 1.9347 .7357 .8917 .1560* 25 2.5568
K 12 .6581 .7317 .0736 9 0.4215 .7051 .8079 .1028 9 0.7378
L 18 .5952 .7358 .1406 15 1.0056 .7173 .8726 .1553 15 1.6929
M 19 .5457 .7141 .1684 16 1.1037 .5231 .8224 2993* 16 2.1831
N 22 .6788 .7083 .0295 19 0.2266 .7647 .8286 .0639 19 0.7376
0 34 .5759 .7872 .2113* 31 2.2306 .7254 .8873 .1619* 31 2.8570
takeholder Groups
V6223 .3982 .0756 9 0.3626 .7687 .8823 .1136 9 1.1192—
bad 31 .6954 .7293 .0339 28 0.3416 .7588 .8525 .0937 28 1.4033
sb 14 .6041 .6669 .0628 11 0.3456 .7109 .8342 .1233 11 1.0793
en 43 .6372 .7904 .1532 40 1.9779 .7744 .8770 .1026* 40 2.2906
pct 88 .6672 .8372 .1700* 85 3.5144 .8414 .9074 .0660* 85 2.6584
put 65 .6185 .7519 .1334 62 1.6968 .8075 .8650 .0575 62 1.4957
std 10 .5278 .6535 .1257 7 0.4304 .7272 .7569 .0297 7 0.1417
rec 16 .6391 .7705 .1314 13 1.0718 .7072 .8891 .1819* 13 2.2377
isd 6 .5139 .7050 .1911 3 0.5463 .5962 .7391 .1429 3 0.4278
leg 2 .4183 .5491 .1308 --------- .4338 .5728 .1390 ---------
mpd 8 .5708 .6453 .0745 5 0.2066 .6102 .8193 .2091 5 0.7603
sme 17 .6066 .7850 .1784 14 1.3596 .7659 .7925 .0266 14 0.2346
ouseholdl Tncomes
815K 1 .4877 .5296 .0419 ---------- .5960 .6542 .0582 ----------
<$30K 10 .6027 .6972 .0945 7 0.4264 .6919 .8166 .1247 7 0.7847
<$45K 38 .6561 .7923 .1362 35 1.6185 .7901 .9088 .1187* 35 2.7925
<$70K 79 .6676 .9239 .2563* 76 7.2505 .7965 .9445 .1480* 76 6.2434
>$70K 135 .6884 .9226 .2342* 132 9.0367 .7826 .9116 .1290* 132 5.6249
Regions of the State
rg .101. ..l7 .5 5' .00: .7’05 .‘lo‘ .11 5
rg2 92 .6169 .8103 .1934* 89 3.7857 .7890 .9062 .1172* 89 4.4217
rg3 68 .6199 .8015 .1816* 65 3.0416 .7561 .8757 .1196* 65 3.2229
1rg4 96 .7561 .7741 .0180 93 0.3924 .7978 .9162 .1184* 93 4.4602

 

 

* Statistically significant at p<.05.

75

Significant changes among program objectives were more prevalent. Data from four
school districts G, J, M, and 0 were significant at the .05 level, as were the correlations for
classroom teachers, physical education teachers, and community recreation directors.
Changes in correlations for groups with household incomes over $30,000, and all regions

of the state were also significant.

5 on
Do differences in the final rank orders assigned to lifelong activities and program objectives
exist between the stakeholder groups, school districts, and selected demographic variables
at the conclusion of the study?
Lifelong Agtjvigfi

Table 7 presents a summary of the distribution of ranges in rankings of lifelong
activities by sub-groups. The rank order of all lifelong activities by stakeholder groups,
school districts, region of the state, and household income in appears in Appendix F.
Similar data for program objectives appear in Appendix G. In both documents, the range of
rankings by item across specified groups appears in the second column from the right. The
right-most column presents the average absolute difference between each group's rank and
the item's median rank.

The number of items displaying large ranges in overall rank between stakeholder
groups was relatively large. The range varied from 20 to 29 places on 28 lifelong activities,
30 to 39 places on 11 activities, and 40 to 49 places on three activities. Consequently 42 of
the 64 activities (66%) displayed a range in rankings of 20 places or more. Those activities
with the greatest range in rank included social dance (43), ice/floor hockey (41), and step
aerobics (41) (see Appendix F). Lifelong activities that demonstrated the greatest average
absolute differences in rank among stakeholder groups include team handball (10.58), self
defense (9.58), square dancing (9.50), tai-chi (9.42), folk/ethnic dance (9.25), and step
aerobics (9.17).

76

Table 7: Number of lifelong activities (LAs) that demonstrate high ranges in overall rank
across stakeholder groups, school districts, regions of the state, by gender and across
income brackets.

All Lifelong Activities (N=64)

 

range of rankings stakeholder school district region gender income

 

 

2029 28 17 10 2 12'—
3039 11 22 4 0 1
4049 3 6 0 0 0
50+ 0 0 0 0 0
total 4? 45 14 7 13‘"
% of total 65.6% 70.3% 21.9% 3.1% 20.3%

 

No. of [Ewan mean
dispersion ranges >10 1 3 3 2 0

 

 

 

15 Highest Rated Activities

 

range of rankings stakeholder school district region gender income

 

 

"—20:29 1 0 0 0 0
3039 0 1 0 0 0

4049 0 0 0 0 0

50+ 0 0 0 0 0

total 1 1 0 0 0
% oftotal 5.4% 5.4% 0% 0% 0%

 

No. of LAs with mean

dispersion ranges >10 0 0 0 0 0

 

 

77

 

The data from Table 7 show that the variability in the rankings of lifelong activities
was greater between school districts than stakeholders. Forty-five lifelong activities
(70.3%) displayed a range in ranking of 20 places or more (compared to 42 activities
among stakeholder groups), and a larger number of activities displayed ranges at 30 or
more places among school districts than in stakeholder groups. The range in rankings
varied from 20 to 29 places on 17 lifelong activities, 30 to 39 places on 22 lifelong
activities, and 40 to 49 on six lifelong activities.

Activities that demonstrated the greatest range in ranking by districts were badminton
(43 places), line dancing (42), square dancing (46),baitcastin g (45), team handball (42) and
modern dance (40) (see Appendix F). Three lifelong activities displayed average absolute
differences in ranks greater than 10.0: self defense (11.80), square dance (10.47), and
team handball (10.47).

The range in rankings of lifelong activities across regions of the state was minimal.
No lifelong activities displayed a range of 40 places or more, four displayed ranges from
30 to 39 places, and ten displayed ranges from 20 to 29 places. Only tai-chi, team handball,
and snow shoeing displayed an average absolute difference in rank across groups of 10 or
more.

The range in rankings of lifelong activities across income brackets and by gender
were less variable than the other groups. With respect to household incomes, one lifelong
activity (crew) displayed a range in ranking of 30 to 39 places, and 12 lifelong activities
displayed ranges of 20 to 29 places. Gender groups differed by 20 places or more on two
activities. Females ranked self defense 26 places higher than males, and males ranked snow
shoeing 23 places higher than females. With these two exceptions, no lifelong activities
displayed a mean absolute difference in rank over 10.0 by gender or across income
brackets.

The ranges of rankings assigned to lifelong activities presents a convincing argument

that large differences in the priorities of lifelong activities are held by various stakeholder

78

groups and that these priorities differ across school districts. It is important, however, to
limit the analysis of these data to the number of activities that can reasonably be considered
for inclusion in physical education programs in Michigan. Individuals experienced with
curriculum revision projects among the school districts in Michigan suggests that few, if
any, school districts have enough instructional time to address even 15 lifelong activities in
their core cuniculum Accordingly, the data for the 15 hi ghest-ranked activities by
stakeholder group, school district, region, gender and household income are included in
Table 8 and described in the following paragraphs.

The greatest range in rankings among the 15 highest ranked lifetime activities was 23
places for basketball, 17 places for softball and soccer, and 14 places for tennis and track:
running (see Appendix F). All but four activities - three of which appear among the three
highest ranked activities - display double-digit ranges in rankings. The two stakeholder
groups with the greatest discrepancy in rankings from the other groups are students and
legislators. Students were the only group to rank jogging outside the top two places.
Students also ranked basketball, volleyball, soccer, and track: running higher than other the
stakeholder groups, and assigned jogging, strength training, golf and cross-country skiing
lower relative priorities. Legislators assigned a higher priority to cycling, aerobic dance,
walking and track: running, while assigning lower priorities to strength training,
basketball, tennis, volleyball, golf and softball.

The average absolute difference in ranks from the median for all participants is a
good indicator of overall variation. Rankings for soccer had the highest difference in rank
(3.08), followed by track: running (2.92), and golf (2.75). Seven of the 15 activities had
an average variation from the median of 2 or more places, and eight had a average variation

of less than two places.

79

Table 8. Rank, range in rankings, and average dispersion (disp.) in rankings for the 15
highest ranked lifelong activities by sub-groups at the conclusion of the study.
I Stakeholder Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity all cad bad sb crt pet pnt std rec isd leg mpd sme range disp.
swrmrmng 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2'1?!
'og/powerwalk 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 2 2 9 0.75
strengthtralmng 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 10 4 3 7 0.83
basketball 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 1 4 4 24 5 6 23 2.42
tennis 5 6 4 5 4 4 9 6 5 5 l7 3 4 14 2.00
volleyball 6 7 6 6 6 6 5 4 10 6 12 10 7 8 1.58
golf 7 5 8 11 7 7 10 15 6 9 16 6 5 11 2.75
cling 8 10 7 8 9 10 8 9 7 11 1 7 11 10 1.83
softball 9 9 9 8 9 6 8 9 7 23 12 10 17 2.25
dance:aerobic 10 8 13 9 10 8 11 16 11 8 5 9 8 11 2.00
soccer 11 11 10 10 11 11 7 3 8 15 20 16 9 17 3.08
walking 12 13 12 15 12 12 13 ll 13 10 4 8 12 11 1.75
ski:Xcountry 13 12 11 12 13 13 15 22 12 13 9 11 13 13 1.83
track:running 14 15 15 14 15 18 14 7 16 12 6 19 20 14 2.92
hiking 15 17 14 13 14 16 16 13 17 17 13 23 16 10 1.92
School Districts
Activity A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 range
W71 1 1 1 1 1 ”2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"‘1—l
jog/powerwalk 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2
strengthtraining3443853333434435
basketball 7 2 3 6 4 4 4 4 6 6 3 4 5 5 4 5
tennis 4 9 5 5 6 3 5 9 8 4 7 6 2 3 6 7
volleyball 9 5 7 4 3 6 6 8 7 7 5 5 10 6 5 7
golf 8 7 6 9 11 9 11 5 4 5 10 9 7 7 9 7
cling 6 13 9 11 5 7 7 7 5 9 8 10 6 10 12 8
l‘sttball l3 6 8 7 7 10 10 6 9 11 6 7 9 11 8 7
dance:aerobic 10 15 38 8 12 11 8 14 11 8 11 8 12 8 7 31
soccer 11 8 10 10 9 8 9 10 12 10 9 13 8 9 10 5
walking 15 1'1 11 18 10 15 13 12 13 12 12 11 16 12 11 8
ski:Xcountry 5 10 16 13 13 12 14 11 10 14 15 17 11 14 17 12
track:running 18 14 15 16 16 13 15 19 16 16 13 12 13 16 13 7
{hiking 14 12 14 15 15 14 19 13 14 19 22 19 17 18 14 10

 

 

80

Table 8 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Regfirn Gender I
Activity 1 2 3 4 mg. disp. ma frn rng. disp.
swimmlng 1 1 l 1 Sam: 1 1

jog/powerwalk 2 2 2 2 0 0.00 2 2 0 0.00
strength training 3 3 3 3 0 0.00 3 3 0 0.00
basketball 4 4 4 5 1 0.25 4 5 1 0.50
tennis 5 5 6 4 2 0.50 5 4 1 0.50
volleyball 7 6 7 6 1 0.50 6 6 0 0.00
golf 6 10 5 8 5 1.75 7 8 1 0.50
cycling 9 7 8 10 3 1.00 9 9 0 0.00
softball 8 8 9 9 1 0.50 8 7 1 0.50
dance: aerobic 13 11 10 7 6 1.75 11 10 1 0.50
soccer 11 9 11 11 2 0.50 10 11 1 0.50
walking 12 12 12 12 0 0.00 12 12 0 0.00
.ski: Xcountry 10 13 13 14 4 1.00 13 13 0 0.00
track: running 17 16 14 13 4 1.50 14 16 2 1.00
hiking 14 15 15 16 2 0.50 15 14 1 0.50

Household Income

Activity <fi5K <$30K <$45K <$70K >$70K rng. disp.
m 4 1 1 1 1 W
jog/powerwalk 10 2 2 2 2 8 1.60
strength training 1 3 3 3 3 2 0.40
basketball 5 4 4 4 5 1 0.40
tennis 3 5 5 5 4 2 0.60
volleyball 14 6 6 6 6 8 1.60
golf 8 9 9 8 7 2 0.60
cycling 2 7 10 10 8 8 2.20
softball 13 8 7 10 6 1.80
dance: aerobic 21 15 11 9 13 3.80
soccer 6 10 11 9 11 5 1.40
walking 12 12 12 12 12 0 0.00
ski:Xcountry 9 13 13 13 13 4 0.80
track: running 7 18 14 15 15 11 2.40
hiking 11 16 15 17 14 6 1.60

 

 

 

 

81

Kendall's rank order correlation coefficients were calculated to measure the degree of
agreement in rankings of the 15 hi ghest-rated lifelong activities between stakeholder groups
at the conclusion of the study. Results appear in Table 9. The range of correlation
coefficients was .0609 (legislators and students) to .9238 (classroom teachers with both
building administrators and physical education teachers).

The highest correlation in rank order between stakeholder groups occurred between
classroom teachers and building administrators (.9238), classroom teachers and physical
education teachers (.9238), classroom teachers and school board members (.9048),
physical education teachers and subject matter experts (.8995), and physical education
teachers and central administrators (.8995) all of which are significant at the p<.01 level.
Correlation coefficients are not significant (p=.05) for legislators with any other group, and
students with central administrators, MAHPERD representatives, physical education
teachers, or subject matter experts.

A correlation coefficient of .70 would imply that a rank by one group would account
for 49% of the variation in the other group’s rank. While it represents a relatively strong
relationship in the rankings, it leaves more than half of the Variance accounted for by other
variables. Accordingly, while moderately strong relationships exist between parents and
central administrators (.7019), parents and MAHPERD representatives (.6184), school
board members and MAHPERD representatives (.7020), parents and recreation directors
(.7019), and parents and subject matter experts (.6827), each relationship demonstrated a
relatively high degree of variance.

The range in rankings among the 15 highest rated activities was less variable across
school districts than across stakeholder groups (see Table 8). Only three lifelong activities
displayed ranges in rankings of 10 places or more. The range was 31 places for aerobic
dance, 12 places for cross country skiing, and 10 places for hiking. The mean absolute
difference in rankings from the median exceeded 2.0 on only four activities: aerobic dance

(3.73), cross country skiing (2.33), hiking (2.27), and cycling (2.07).

82

ecu—m w. Nada—d 3x 033 83.30: on. So a 353% 38a .5635 833:8 3. «8.8358 «3:3. 832 Emacs. ammo?!

3:835 3886: :3 «039..

@8333: 03:3

 

 

 

_ F 3 8a Inn was KW 83 :9 :3 an 38 :3 ma
Tflu
95 .qum
a: .ouwm .mANH
*8 .qqu .mw Ha .mumm
.nm .quo .~©o~ .quo .Nqu
83 .33 .38 .32 .3: .88
to" .mbqo .moou .ONwm .maqw .Hmmw muum
can .quq .qouo .qmbq .qcmw .HOOH a—mh .qom—
:8 .mme mqu .mowm .qwhw .HQON .mwoo .mowm .qowc
mu:. .mme thq .OOAm .mqmo .N0m~ .QONO .mNmm .m&NH .uhak
Eda .mcwm mAGN .mmOA .qquc .N—oo .qomw .mocu .omNQ .qqmm .quq
man .thb me0 .&OOO .Awwu .OQOO Nmao .wwum .mmmc .bwuo .Amqo .wQNm

 

 

marg— 9:2.an

.QNHN
.uqoq .q_mc
.mw—m .amoc
mmcc .qnqw

.mmau
.QHmA
.quq
.mNuo

.aqu
.anqu
.ouHN
.muHN

.qhoa
.muou
.mch
.q0m:

.qmeq
.oqu
.qcou
.qq~h

.omuq
.qwaw
.mwum
.amcq

 

.GNHN .qmnq .mmow
.qaao .queq .mmow
.qcmH .eoam .omuq
amec .qq—¢ .qcm~

.muqo
.qmaq .qqmo
.c_mq .mNuo .mwmo

 

 

 

83

.55.: w A8533.

Esme—SE E85»

 

 

 

.88
.38
.33

 

 

.onm
.33 .33

 

 

 

. .qoom .quwh

.mgm

 

 

9232.

 

Ban

moan?

beg

Ban

 

 

84

Kendall's rank order correlation for the 15 highest-ranked activities by school district
appear in Table 9. Two correlation are extremely high - district L with district 0 (.9187),
and district I with district N (.9048). In contrast, 55 of the 130 correlation coefficients are
.7020 or lower. Although the correlations are moderately strong, they leave more than half
of the variance accounted for by other variables. Rankings by certain school districts were
markedly different from most other districts. District A displayed a correlation coefficient of
.7020 or less in combination with the 13 other school districts. Two districts (B, E)
displayed similar correlation coefficients in combination with 10 districts. One district (H)
displayed the same results with nine districts, two (I, M) displayed the same results with
eight districts, and two more (D, N) displayed the same results with seven districts.

Rankings of the 15 highest rated lifelong activities were similar across regions, by
gender, and across household income brackets. No range in rankings exceeded six places
for regions or gender (see Table 8, top half), and their correlation coefficients between
groups in Table 9 range from .7524 (west region to east region) to .9048 (males to
females). The range in rankings across household incomes exceeds 10 places for two
activities: aerobic dance (13), and track: running (1 1) (see Table 8, bottom half). The
correlation coefficients in Table 9 show extremely low values for all comparisons including
household incomes less than $15,000. All other correlation coefficients exceed .80.
WW

Appendix G presents the rank order of program objectives by stakeholder group,
along with each objective's range in rank and average absolute difference in rank from the
median. Table 10 presents a summary of the distribution of ranges of program objectives.

The range in item rankings across stakeholder groups equals or exceeds 50 places on
12 program objectives, was between 40 and 49 places on 11 program objectives, between
30 and 39 places on 37 program objectives, and between 20 and 29 on 25 program
objectives. Those program objectives demonstrating the greatest range in rank (see

Appendix G) include: slide (89), punt (86), roll a ball (82), underhand throw (67),

85

overhand strike (60), forehand strike (60), catching fly balls (59), use of time (56),
knowledge of size (56), body planes (55), underhand strike (53), and shooting a basketball
overhand (50). The average absolute difference from the median equals or exceeds 10
places on 17 of the 102 items, which includes: use of flow (13.92), vault (13.42),
forehand strike (13.00), use of time (12.42), slide (12.33), punt (12.08), body planes
(11.75), shapes (11.33), directions in space (11.25), boundaries in space (11.17),
overhand strike (10.92), catch fly balls (10.67), underhand throw (10.58), overhand throw
(10.50), shoot a basketball overhand (10.33), accent (10.08), and underhand strike

( 10.00) .

The range in rankings were less variable for school districts than for stakeholder
groups (T able 10). Ranges equaled or exceeded 50 places on three program objectives, was
between 40 and 49 places on 5 program objectives, between 30 and 39 places on 25
program objectives, and between 20 and 29 places on 43 program objectives. The program
objectives with the greatest range in rankings (Appendix G) across school districts are:
courage (51), lift/carry posture (51), and push/pull posture (51). The average absolute
difference in the range of rankings across districts exceeded 10 on only two program
objectives: push/pull posture (10.40) and shooting a basketball overhand (10.20).

Few differences in rankings of program objectives exist across regions of the state,
by gender or across household income categories (see Table 10). With regard to regions,
no program objective displayed a range in rankings of 30 or more. Only six objectives
demonstrated a range of 20 to 29 places. They are: shoot a basketball overhand (28),
positions in space (25), slide (24), ankle flexibility (22), underhand strike (21), and neck
strength (20). Differences in rankings by males and females never exceeded 15 places, and
exceeded 10 places on only four program objectives. They are: forward shoulder roll (14),
ankle flexibility (14), shoot a basketball overhand (14), and even beat (12).

86

Table 10. Number of general program objectives that demonstrate high ranges in

makings across stakholder groups, school districts, regions of the state, by gender and

across income brackets.

All Program Objectives (N=102)

 

 

 

range stake-holder school district region gender income
7039 25 43 6 0 20
30-39 37 25 0 0 4
40—49 11 5 0 0 1
50+ 12 3 0 0 0
total 85 76 6 0 25
% of total 83.3% 74.5% 5.9% 0% 24.5%

 

No. of LAs with mean

dispersion ranges >10

 

17 2 2 0 2

 

First 50 Program Objectives

 

 

 

 

 

range stake-holder school district . region gender income
2029 15 21 0 0 10
30-39 16 9 0 0 0
40-49 3 2 0 0 0
50+ 1 2 0 0 0
total 35 34 0 0 10
% of total 70% 68% 0% 0% 20%
No. of LAs with mean

0 O 0 0 1

dispersion ranges >10

 

87

 

 

The range in rankings of program objectives across categories of household income
was between 20 and 29 places on 20 objectives, between 30 and 39 places on four
objectives, and exceeds 40 places on one objective (posture: sit).

As with lifelong activities, it is important to analyze the data using a number of
objectives that can reasonably be accommodated in typical physical education programs.
Individuals experienced with curriculum projects in the school districts of Michigan suggest
that few, if any, school districts have enough instructional time to include more than 50
program objectives in their core curriculum. Accordingly, comparisons of rankings of the
50 highest-rated program objectives will be described for stakeholder groups, school
districts, regions of the state, gender and household income brackets.

Stakeholders. The data in Table 10 show that the range in rankings across
stakeholder groups on the first 50 program objectives was between 20 and 29 places on 15
objectives, between 30 and 39 places on 16 objectives, between 40 and 49 places on three
objectives, and over 50 places on one objective. The average absolute difference in ranks
from the median rank for stakeholder groups (from Appendix G) exceeded 10.0 on two
program objectives: catching fly balls (10.67) an overhand throw (10.50). For all other
program objectives, high ranges are the result of outliers by a small number of
stakeholders.

Table 11 provides Kendall's rank order correlation coefficients comparing
relationships between stakeholder groups on the 50 hi ghest-rated program objectives. The
groups demonstrating the strongest relationships were parents with building administrators
(.8976), parents with classroom teachers (.8827), and classroom teachers with building
administrators (.8613). The groups demonstrating the lowest correlations were MAHPERD
representatives with legislators (.3897). subject matter experts with students (.4095), and
legislators with subject matter experts (.4279). Forty-two of the 66 combinations (63.6%)
demonstrate correlation less than .70. Three stakeholder groups, classroom teachers,

representatives from intermediate school districts and subject matter experts, displayed

88

correlation coefficients of less than .70 in every combination with other stakeholder
groups.

School Districts. Data comparing rankings in Table 10 across school districts
display variability similar to that found in stakeholder groups. Twenty-one program
objectives displayed a range in rankings of 20 to 29, nine program objectives displayed a
range of 30 to 39, two displayed a range of 40 to 49, and two objectives had ranges of
greater than 50. The average absolute differences from the median rating in Appendix G
was 8.20 or less on every objective.

Kendall's rank order correlation coefficients, comparing the 50 highest-rated
program objectives appear in Table 11. All correlation coefficients are less than .70
(indicating less than 50 percent of the variability in one ranking can be accounted for by the
other's rank) for every comparison with school D, 13 of 14 comparisons with school M,
and 12 of 14 comparisons with school B. Excluding these schools, only five of the
remaining 66 comparisons result in a correlation of less than .70.

Little variability in rankings appears among data across regions of the state, income
brackets or gender. The range in rankings did not exceed 14 points on any program
objective and all average absolute differences in median rank were below 6.00. Data by
gender was even more homogeneous. Males and females agreed on rankings for 20 of the
first 50 program objectives, and varied by one place on nine others. No range exceeded 6
places. With respect to income brackets, the range in ranking fell between 20 and 29 on ten

program objectives and were less than 20 on all other objectives.

89

H35 3. 3:5»...3 Bar 052. 83.30: 3. :5 me 5533. 885 33 3.838 3. 38.8352. «3:3. .83. 5.8.08. 8«.o:m.

3:835 .3088 E5 «:32.

«8.3352. 96:3

 

 

9. WW .9 B . . . ... . a. an 33 m3 «5
3
85
on
.2. .33
.o« .uan .33
8.5 .33 .umc. .33
3. .33 bNaw beam .03”.
.5. 5qu .mNNw .88 .oQNo «.3
an .33 .33 he“... .33 .33 .«Nao
mg: .3... .awNN be: .33 .m..N «So .33
man .umuo am... .aNqo .33 3on .83 .mEN 3.3
35 Now”. .3». .353 .mmoo but .33 .305 3.3... Loom

 

 

 

 

 

«23:. 6.32.5...

 

ozgrx~~mmmmcowx

.qumN
.«mc«

.33
N35

.52..
.«ONm

 

use.»
.33

H.w~q. .omau H.~.u .3333

.38 .chq .33

 

.33 .qmmm

 

90

an...» a. .2523.

magma—5... 5.255

 

 

 

 

 

 

nAwaoo A3980 Ammuboo Am 3% . . . Nana a. 1
A??? ‘
Amuoboo .umwm
Amnuboo .ua. . ham
Amqoboo .30.. .33 .maum
Mmqoboo 03m .3... .33 .32.
”8.2. 3 :5 m8.» G232.

 

 

 

 

.33 .35

 

 

 

91

QuestimA
Did the ratings assigned each element of program content converge from the initial round to
the final round of a modified Delphi study within all participants, stakeholder groups,
school districts, and selected demographic variables?

The overall results for lifelong activities from Table 4 show that the number of
activities receiving a rating decreased from 81 activities in the initial round to 64 activities in
the final round. Only thirty-seven lifelong activities received ratings by 10 or more of the
350 respondents who completed this section of the survey. Of those that received ratings in
the first round, the mean rating dispersion increased on two activities (track: running and
crew), stayed the same for two other activities (cross country skiing and hooker), and
decreased on the other 82 (95.3% of the activities).

The Binomial Test was used to test the probability that the observed number of
lifelong activities that experienced a decrease in rating dispersion from round one to round
three would occur by chance. The results, appearing in Table 12 for all participants,
indicate that the convergence obtained is highly significant (p=.0000). Table 12 also
displays the number of lifelong activities that experienced a decrease in rating dispersion for
each subgroup. The ratings of lifelong activities also indicate a significant convergence
within all stakeholder groups and all school districts, across all household incomes, regions
of the state and both genders.

Similar convergence was observed for the program objectives. The rating dispersion
decreased on 95 of the 98 program objectives (97.0%) that appeared on the first-round
instrument. The rating dispersion decreased by more than 0.50 on fifteen program

objectives, and by at least 0.30 on 32 of the first 40 objectives (80 percent of the items).

92

Table 12. P-values associated with the probability of rating convergence on 87 lifelong

activities (LAs) and 98 program objectives (POs).

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. of p No. of p No. of p No. of p
LAs value POs value LAs value POs value
9.12mi! 84 .0000 95 .0000
Stakeholder Groups School District
cad W 78 .0000 A 80 .0000 96 .0000
bad 81 .0000 90 .0000 B 71 .0000 74 .0000
crt 80 .0000 92 .0000 C 76 .0000 62 .01 16
pet 82 .0000 92 .0000 D 85 .0000 62 .01 16
pnt 77 .0000 93 .0000 E 75 .0000 93 .0000
sbm 82 .0000 88 .0000 F 84 .0000 90 .0000
std 72 .0000 82 .0000 G 77 .0000 81 .0000
rec 77 .0000 81 .0000 H 75 .0000 79 .0000
isd 74 .0000 58 .0859 I 81 .0000 96 .0000
sme 73 .0000 72 .0000 J 74 .0000 97 .0000
mpd 80 .0000 79 .0000 K 80 .0000 8 l .0000
leg 75 .0000 77 .0000 L 80 .0000 88 .0000
M 73 .0000 62 .01 16
W N 76 .0000 73 .0000
< $15 K 87 .0000 82 .0000 O 77 .0000 95 .0000
< $30 K 81 .0000 93 .0000
< $45 K 80 .0000 97 .0000
< $70 K 87 .0000 85 .0000
> $70 K 79 .0000 84 .0000 Region
North 78 .0000 89 .0000
My; West 64 .0000 88 .0000
female 75 .0000 93 .0000 Central 80 .0000 98 .0000
rmle 80 .0000 96 .0000 East 80 .0000 91 .0000

 

93

 

Results of the Binomial Test are also reported in Table 12. As with lifelong activities,
participants’ ratings of program objectives converged as a result of participating in the
Delphi procedure. The convergence of ratings by all respondents was significant (pg .01).
The data also indicate a significant convergence within all stakeholder groups (p=.0000)
except for representatives fiom intermediate school districts (p=.0859), all school districts
except three (schools C, D, M) (p=.0116), all household incomes, regions of the state and
both genders.

Quesfimi
Did the rank order of relative importance on program content change from the initial to the
final round of a modified Delphi study for the participants as a whole, or for representatives
of stakeholder groups, school districts, and selected demographic variables?

Changes in rankings of lifelong activities by all participants between the first and
third rounds is portrayed in Table 4. Changes in rank must be observed with caution,
because of the addition of lifetime activities included after the first round For example, the
ranking for every activity appearing after boxing (ranked 67) increased six places due to the
inclusion of six activities after the first round (walking, step aerobics, self defense, card
games, snow shoeing, and boxing). The total increase in this case is not related to changing
opinions or priorities.

Lifetime activities demonstrating the greatest increase in rank (subsequent to
adjusting for the effects of including the six additional activities‘) , and corresponding
decrease in overall priority, include crew (32), hocker (27), lacrosse (19), line dancing (13)
and square dancing (13). Lifetime activities demonstrating the greatest decrease in rank and
corresponding increase in priority include race walking (40), horseback riding (16),
canoeing (13), rhythmic gymnastics (12), field hockey (11), fishing: flycasting (1 l), and
folk/ethnic dance (9).

 

‘ Adjustments were made by excluding those activities that did not appear in the initial instrument.
Accordingly, the numbers that appear here may not correspond exactly to those appearing in Table 4.

94

Wilcoxon’s Matched-Pairs Si gned-Ranks Test was used to determine if a statistically
significant change in rank order occurred. The test assesses the degree to which the
distribution of lifetime activities around their median is significantly different from the first
to the third round. Wilcoxon takes into account the degree of change that occurs on each
item. The p-values from the Wilcoxon test appear in Table 13.

The tests indicate the rank order of the entire list lifelong activities for the participants
as a whole changed significantly from the first and final round (p=.0000). With respect to
stakeholder groups, the rank order from the first and final rounds differed significantly at
the .01 level for building administrators, classroom teachers, physical education teachers,
parents, and school board members. The rank order changed significantly for only one of
the fifteen participating school districts (school 0) at the 0.01 level, and three others(A, B,
G) at the 0.05 level of significance. The rank order changed for those with household
incomes of between $30,000 and $45,000 (p<.05), and for those with household incomes
of over $45,000 (p<0.01). The order changed for all regions of the state except west
Michigan (p<0.01), and for both males and females (p<0.01).

Information about significant changes in rank order is useful to justify the benefits of
sharing information when considering program inclusions. It may not be useful in the
practical process of selecting lifetime activities to include in a physical education program.
No school district has sufficient resources to produce competence in their graduates in all
lifetime activities. Most school districts in Michigan can effectively address only 10 to 12
lifelong activities. Accordingly, a practical approach to analyzing changes in relative
priority would be to analyze the 15 highest-rated activities (excluding walking, which is
embedded in jogging/powerwalking).

The 15 highest-ranked activities appear in Table 4. Analysis of the top 15 lifelong
activities shows few large changes in rank order among the 15 highest-ranked activities.
Fourteen activities remained among the top fifteen in both rounds. Bowling dropped out of

the first 15 and was supplanted by track: running. Five activities maintained their ranking

95

from the first to the final round, while five changed their rank one position, four moved
two positions, and one moved three places. In all, 10 of the 15 highest ranked activities
experienced a change in order.

The Wilcoxon Test was administered to determine the significance of the changes in
order of the 15 highest ranked activities. The p-values for the tests appear in Table 13. The
change in rank order of the first 15 activities for all participants as a whole was more than
what would have been attributed to chance (p=.0045). Among stakeholder groups, changes
for central building administrators, classroom teachers, and community recreation directors
were significant at the 0.01 level, while changes for building administrators, intermediate
school district representatives, physical education teachers, and parents were significant at
the 0.05 level. The p-values were below .05 for all school districts except one (G). The
changes in order were significant at p=0.05 for all levels of household incomes except
those earning less than $15,000 (p=.7695), both genders, and all regions of the state
except west Michigan.

Changes in rankings of program objectives by all participants between the first to the
third round can be seen by examining the data in Table 5. The mean values of 33 of the fust
34 program objectives increased from the first to the final rounds (only lean/fat ratio
decreased), resulting in a higher ranking for 19 objectives, a decrease in rank on 12
objectives, and no change on three. Correspondingly, the 34 lowest priority objectives
decreased in mean value, which resulted in an increased rank on 10 program objectives and
a lower ranking on 22 objectives.

The general objectives demonstrating the greatest increase in rank and the number of
places they decreased in parentheses are: underhand strike (19); overhand strike (18);
backhand strike (17); knowledge: body actions (13); and forehand strike (10). Although the
rankings for these objectives changed by 10 places or more, their mean ratings changed by
no more than 0.07. This suggests that the changes in rank are more related to changes in

the ratings of other objectives than in the ratings assigned directly to these objectives.

96

Table 13. P-values for changes in rankings in rankings of lifelong activities (LA) and

program objectives (PO) from the first and third rounds.

 

 

 

AH First All First All First AIl First

LAs 15 LAs PCs 50 PCs LAs LAs PCs 50 PCs
marticipants

.0000 .0045 .2502 .0002
Stakeholder Groups School Districts
cad .0745 .0045 .6817 .0022 A .0462 .0231 .0730 .0273
bad .0144 .0199 .0081 .0529 B .0362 .0309 .8373 .0038
crt .0046 .0064 .2759 .0004 C .0691 .0146 .2882 .2507
isd .9615 .0268 .0232 .0001 D .0531 .0171 .6438 .7538
leg .2473 .0571 .0000 .0000 E .1224 .0309 .2219 .0127
mpd .4180 .0571 .0049 .0000 F .0636 .0076 .5900 .0000
pet .0005 .0231 .0822 .0056 G .0146 .0884 .8319 .0027
pnt .0082 .0231 .2613 .0010 H .0959 .0115 .3757 .0010
rec .4712 .0054 .8165 .0023 I .0571 .0468 .0265 .0045
sbm .0025 .0736 .1185 .0025 J .0900 .0356 .1711 .0012
sme .1060 .0738 .0407 .1828 K .3769 .0022 .0756 .1583
std .1350 .2681 .6223 .0019 L .2265 .0018 .0429 .0727

M .4665 .0184 .9379 .0007

Region N .1361 .0268 .6601 .0196
North .0002 .0268 .0763 .0078 O .0059 .0184 .2155 .0000
West .2196 .0691 .6272 .0002 Gender
Central .0042 .0076 .4389 .0002 female .0002 .0106 .5535 .0001
East .0012 .0022 .6949 .0002 male .0007 .0064 .1834 .0008

 

97

 

Fourteen program objectives demonstrated a decrease in relative priority of ten places
or more. All fourteen also experienced a decrease in mean rating ranging from 0.30 to
0.98. Seven of the fourteen objectives fall into the category of movement concepts and
non-locomotor skills. Those objectives, listed with the number of places they decreased in
rank, are: sitting posture (10); inverted balance (14); climb a rope ladder (10); tempo (16);
twist/rotate (13); turn (21); and accent (14). The remaining seven objectives were three
fitness objectives: lean/fat ratio (12), ankle flexibility (17), neck strength (20); two
cognitive concepts: detrimental affects of physical activity (14), affects of performance
modifiers (19); one affective concept: dealing with competition (10); and one locomotor
skill: horizontal jump (19).

Results from the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Si gned-Ranks Test appear in Table 13.
The test indicates the rank order of program objectives for the participants as a whole did
not change significantly from the first to the final round (p=.2502). With respect to
stakeholder groups, the rank order changed significantly at the .05 level for school building
administrators, representatives from intermediate school administrators, legislators,
MAHPERD representatives, and subject matter experts. The overall rank order changed
significantly for only two of the fifteen participating school districts (I and L), and no
significant change occurred by household income, gender, or region of the state.

As with the lifelong activities, the rank order of all program objectives could be
misleading on two counts. First, participants rated only 50 program objectives each round.
This results in a zero being assigned to virtually half the objectives by default. The more
frequently participants selected the same 50 objectives in all rounds, regardless of their
order, the less often those that were never or seldom rated could experience rating changes.
Accordingly, the rating procedure could result in a significant change in order among those
program objectives receiving the bulk of the ratings while restricting the potential for
change in the objectives of lower priority. In this situation, the Wilcoxon test would be

expected to show insignificant findings overall, even though significant changes may have

98

occurred in the higher priority objectives. Second, and most important, physical education
programs do not have enough instructional time to teach all of the objectives if mastery
rather than exposure is the intended outcome. Most school districts are able to address only
half of the total number. Of more interest is whether the Delphi technique results in a
change in the rank of items that would typically be included in most K-12 programs.

The Wilcoxon test was administered to determine if significant changes in rank
occurred in the 50 highest-rated program objectives from the final round. Results appear in
Table 13. There was a significant difference in relative rank for the participants as a whole
(p=.0002). The rank order changed significantly at the .05 level for all stakeholder groups
except subject matter experts (p=.1828), for 11 of the 15 school districts, and all levels of
household incomes except those earning less than $15,000 (p=.7695). The rank order of
the first half of the program objectives also changed significantly within both genders and

across all regions of the state.

99

CHAPTER 5 ’
DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSION
Immdnsztign

The most fundamental issue in curriculum construction is determining what content
is of most worth (Broudy, 1982; Diez & Moon, 1992; Jewett & Bain, 1985; Schubert,
1986; Walker, 1990). Of similar importance is determining the amount of curricular content
that appropriately matches the resources available in a target school district. The
establishment of content priorities is essential to either increase the amount of instructional
time available to accommodate student mastery of content or to reduce content to the most
valued program objectives that can be accomplished in the time available (Glasser, 1992).

Although most curriculum construction models address content selection in some
way, only the eclectic model deals with a critical reality of curriculum construction. This
reality is that curriculum construction occurs in a heterogeneous environment. Important
stakeholders who should be involved in content selection have diverse backgrounds and
experiences, which result in competing values, needs and agendas. This heterogeneity,
however, should be embraced as a strength in the process of selecting appropriate content.
The content selection process occurs within institutionalized settings where the socio-
political dynamics of each institution and the value orientations held by individual
stakeholders should be heard, challenged, negotiated and combined to reach mutually-
acceptable goals (Brandt, 1988; Eisner, 1990; Gay, 1980; Goodlad and Su, 1992; Reid,
1992). Clearly, the content selection process should not be left to the prerogative of a
limited number of developers who may represent a limited set of values.

Assigning relative importance to the content appropriate for programs of physical
education that represents the best thinking of a programs stakeholders requires a procedure
that meets three criteria. First, stakeholders from all special interest groups need to be
engaged. Because stakeholders rarely agree on a single answer to a question, or arrive at a

single value, a consensus provides a more valid base for programmatic decisions (Brown,

100

1968; Kean, 1982). Second, the procedures used to obtain consensus must be defensible.
A strong rationale must be available to suggest that the procedure used will effectively
address the problems associated with decision-making in a value-laden arena, and that the
results will be better than if the procedure had not been used. Third, a consensus must be
obtained that provides a defensible basis for a course of action. The following discussion,
recommendations and conclusions reveal how these criteria were met in this study.

The chapter is divided into three sections, followed by a summary. The first section
discusses the sample. The second section addresses the first three research questions: the
overall results of the study, the degree of convergence in priorities across groups, and the
degree to which differences in priorities still exist between groups. The third section, which
discusses the appropriateness of the Delphi technique as a content selection tool in
crmiculum construction, addresses the fourth and fifth research questions: the degree to
which convergence in ratings occur, and the degree to which the Delphi technique facilitates
changes in priorities among stakeholders.

Each section consists of an overview, a discussion of the results, a conclusion, and
recommendations for future use and research.

Sample
meim
Representatives from 14 different stakeholder groups were identified and invited to
participate in the study. Participation through invitation was a critical part of the
methodology in two ways. First, participants were asked to engage in a rigorous process
where they would have to compare their own priorities and rationales with those of others
in three rounds of information processing. Individuals having no stake in the results would
be less likely to complete the consensus process. Second, a reality of curriculum
construction is that program content is affected by those who desire input. Those who have
a low stake in the results and/or choose not to participate are deferring their influence to

those who actively participate. Both issues, reducing attrition and engaging those who

101

would most likely engage in curriculum construction, enhance the utility of the results.

It is impossible to identify how many individuals were invited to participate in the
study because of the role facilitators had in the sampling process. Facilitators were engaged
within school districts and the Departments of Community Health and Education to recruit
subjects. Facilitators were oriented to their role and provided fliers describing the study and
criteria to be used for subject selection. Initially 412 subjects representing 14 stakeholder
groups agreed to participate in the study. Three hundred fifty participants completed all
tluec rounds (85.0%). Four of the 12 stakeholder groups that completed all three rounds
consisted of 10 or less subjects. Those groups were students (10), MAHPERD
representatives (8), representatives from intermediate school districts (6), and legislators
(2).

11' .

One of the causes of small sample size in some subgroups is that some of the stakeholder
groups represent a very small population of stakeholders. The MAHPERD board is small
in number, as are the number of individuals who maintain a strong interest in physical
education working in the Departments of Education and Community Health . Intermediate
school district organizations vary in size and structure, resulting in few individuals
identified who are responsible for physical education in their geographical regions.

Stakeholder participation may be related to the methods of data collection. Two
methods of invitation and data collection were used which appeared to affect the degree to
which participants completed the consensus building tasks. While some participants
participated directly through the mail, the majority of participants (304 of the 340
individuals who completed the study) were engaged through school districts.

It is interesting to note that five of the six stakeholder groups with the highest rate
of completion (classroom teachers, school building administrators, physical education
teachers, parents, and community recreation directors) were directly engaged in data

collection through school districts. In contrast, the three stakeholder groups with the lowest

102

completion rates (legislators, representatives from the Departments of Education and
Community Health) participated through direct mail and were part of governmental
agencies. The rate of completion of all three rounds of the study for those engaged through
school districts was 89.4%. For direct mail respondents, it was 74.2%.

Participants representing school districts were personally invited to participate by a
facilitator. Representatives from each school district and met as groups in their district to
complete the forms. When participants were unable to attend the meeting(s), facilitators
personally distributed and collected their survey forms and provided them with necessary
instructions.

Representatives of small stakeholder groups may have had less motivation to
complete the study. One of the keys to minimizing attrition in a Delphi technique is
providing participants with an incentive to remain interested (U hl, 1983). The willingness
to participate may be directly related to comparing the costs of participation with the
perceived benefits. Students (36.4% completion) were the only group engaged at the
district level with a completion rate below 72%. Only two other stakeholder groups
representing school districts displayed a completion rate below 80%: central administrators
(75.0%) and school board members (73.7%). These groups in some ways are most
removed from judgments related to the content of the physical education program.

The three groups with the lowest completion rates (legislators, representatives from
the Departments of Education and Community Health) are also distant from the mechanics
of the content selection process. While these three groups were engaged by mail, two other
groups engaged by mail displayed high completion rates. Seventy-five percent of
MAHPERD representatives and 98 percent of subject matter experts completed the study.
The major difference between these groups and those direct mail groups with low returns
could be the perceived cost/benefit ratio and/or their long-standin g commitrrrent to selecting
appropriate content for inclusion in programs of physical education.

The cost/benefit rationale for lack of participation in some stakholder groups is

103

supported also by members of intermediate school districts. For example, representatives
from these regional school districts may see their role as more related to delivering
instruction than to the process of selecting content.

The demographic data on school districts found in Table 3 show that the fifteen
participating school districts provide balance across the four regions of Michigan’ lower
peninsula, with respect to the demographic variables. Districts involved include three
districts from the northern lower peninsula of Michigan and four districts each from west,
central and eastern lower Michigan. No school districts from the upper peninsula
participated in the study. Districts were nearly equally divided with respect to size (seven
above the state average and seven below), public and private (four private schools, at least
one from each region except the north), urban/rural setting (six urban, four rural, five a
combination), and economic status (six of twelve districts above the state median family
income and six below). Private institutions include three parochial and one non-parochial
institution. No academies participated in the study.

The number of participants from each district appears to be directly related to the
number of students enrolled in the school. Review of Table 3 shows that the four schools
with the largest student population (schools A, L, N, 0) were represented by 25, 18, 22
and 34 stakeholders respectively (mean =24.75), where as the four smallest school districts
(schools B, F, H, I) were represented by 15, 14, 13, and 15 stakeholders (mean =14.25)
respectively. Each school district had an acceptable number of representatives from each
stakeholder group, with the exception of a small number of students. As would be
expected, smaller districts had fewer administrators, and some districts had no community
recreation program.

The sample is reasonably balanced by gender (52.2% male, 47.8% female among
those who designated gender), and each four regions were represented by at least three
school districts. There are few participants however, with family incomes below $30,000.

The numbers in some groups limit the statistical analysis that can be conducted, but should

104

not limit the overall utility of the results.
Conclusion
Generally speaking, this study was adequately represented by stakeholders within and
across all demographic variables. Accordingly, it can be used to draw conclusions
concerning similarities and differences in content priorities held by different subgroups.
Care must be taken in generalizing and assigning statistical significance to stakeholder
groups with low numbers. The sample of school districts is also representative of public
and private institutions in lower Michigan, particularly those interested in the content
included in their programs of physical education. Results can not be considered
representative of academies, charter schools or schools in Michigan’s northern peninsula.

School districts that participated were also interested in improving their physical
education program, and stakeholders selected to represent their districts can be assumed to
hold the same interest. It then can be assumed that the responses obtained in this study
would be consistent with those found in other districts in Michigan interested in program
improvement.
Recommendan’nns
Future Delphi studies of this type could benefit by maximizing the amount of personal
contact that occurs with participants throughout the data collection process. Direct mail
participation may be enhanced by assigning a facilitator to each stakeholder group that is
recognizable and held in high regard by its members. Such a facilitator could maintain
contact and provide encouraging reminders to participants while conducting the study. The
focus of encouragement should revolve around the ways their participation can benefit the
students in the programs of their community.

Future studies should target obtaining better representation of participants with
household incomes under $30,000. Finances limit access to many kinds of activities and
experiences. Obtaining representation from these income brackets will provide better

information concerning content they value.

105

There is also a need for educating all stakeholder groups of the importance of
systematic content selection. Stakeholders who understand the importance of appropriate
content and the selection will become better advocates for quality programs. It is reasonable
to expect that informed stakeholders will have a greater commitment to the program, and to
participate in the rigors of content selection.

W

This study’s most practical finding is the overall priorities assigned to lifelong activities and
program objectives by Michigan stakeholders. Accordingly, these priorities will be
discussed in detail. The credibility of this information is enhanced to the degree that
priorities held by separate stakeholder groups converged from the first to the final round.
Convergence in priorities across stakeholder groups implies increased agreement. Increased
agreement in turn may result in increased advocacy for prograrrrs that consists of high-
priority content. Differences between sub-groups at the conclusion of the study also impact
the utility of the results. Accordingly, they will be discussed in conjunction with the overall
results.

The three lifelong activities held in highest regard by all participants are competence
in swimming, jogging/powerwalking, and weight training, in that order (see Table 4).
Swimming and jogging/powerwalking were ranked first and second, respectively in both
the first and final round. On the final round, the mean rating for swimming was .32 higher
than the second-highest activity (jogging/powerwalking), and jogging/powerwalking’s
mean was .68 higher than was weight training. Swimming and jogging/powerwalking
were the only lifelong activities with mean ratings over 4.00.

Swimming and jogging/powerwalking were ranked first and second respectively in
9 of 12 stakeholder groups (Appendix F). They were ranked in reverse order by central
administrators, second and tenth by students, and third and second by legislators. They

were ranked first and second in 11 of the 15 school districts. Two districts had their order

106

reversed, and two other districts ranked swimming first and jogging/powerwalking third.
The first and second-place ranking of swimming and jogging/powerwalking also held for
all four regions of the state, both genders, and all income categories except those with
household incomes less than $15,000.

Weight training was also held in extremely high regard. Ranked third overall, its
mean rating is .49 higher than the fourth-ranked activity, which substantially separates it
from the other lifelong activities. Weight training is ranked third by 9 of 12 stakeholder
groups, third or fourth by 13 of 15 school districts, and third by all regions of the state,
both genders, and all income groups earning more than $15,000.

While the three highest-rated lifelong activities have clear fitness-related value, the
next four lifelong activities in the rankings are sport-related. Of the first 12 activities
(excluding walking) from Table 4, seven could be categorized as individual activities and
five would be dual or team in nature. Swimming is unique in that its utility includes fitness,
sport, safety and recreation. It also provides a unique bridge to safe participation in many
other water sports. Six activities (swimming, jogging/powerwalking, weight training,
cycling, aerobic dance, and cross country skiing) are commonly used to achieve or
maintain personal fitness level. The high ratings are consistent with the growing body of
evidence heralding the benefits of participation in regular physical activity and the cultural
increase in physical activity seen in recent years.

Acquiring and maintaining aerobic fitness is the highest-rated program objective,
and has the lowest rating dispersion among the first 65 objectives (Table 5). The five other
fitness objectives appearing among the top 65 are: abdominal/low back strength, flexibility
in the hip/low back, healthy lean-to-fat ratios, the acquisition of muscular strength and
endurance in the legs, and acquisition of muscular strength and endurance in the arms. In
contrast, only three fitness objectives appear in the 40 lowest-rated objectives: flexibility in
the neck, flexibility in the ankle, and strength in the neck.

Nineteen of the 40 highest-rated program objectives are affective in nature (Table

107

5). Beyond the strong importance assigned to the affective domain, other priorities depicted
in the 40 highest-ranked program objectives suggests a concern for acquiring and managing
health-related levels of fitness. Six fitness objectives and nine cognitive objectives appear
among the top 40, and all are health related High ratings of motor skill objectives are
noticeable by their absence. Only 4 program objectives of a skill nature appear among the
40 highest-rated objectives.

The rank order correlation coefficients comparing the priorities of each subgroup’s
to those held by all other subgroups demonstrated relatively high levels of agreement (see
Table 6) in both the lifelong activities and program objectives. The coefficients increased in
value from round one to round three for all stakeholder groups, all school districts except
school D’s ranking of program objectives, all regions, gender, and categories of household
income. However, statistically significant differences could be found for only one
stakeholder group (physical education teachers), one school district (school 0), two of the
four income brackets ($45,000 to $70,000, and over $70,000), and three of the four
regions of the state (north, west and central).

The data from Table 6 clearly demonstrates that while there is substantial agreement
in overall rank order, differences in rankings of lifelong activities still exist between
selected groups at the conclusion of the study. Again, it should be noted that results from
students, legislators, and participants with household incomes less than $15,000, must be
viewed with caution due to the low numbers of respondents.

11' .

Stakeholders clearly assign high importance to the acquisition of program objectives
categorized as affective in nature (Table 5). Seven of the first ten, and 19 of the 40 highest
rated program objectives fall into this category. Additionally, no program objective fiorn
the affective domain appears in the 40 lowest rated objectives.

Because personal/social skills are of such high importance in the eyes of

stakeholders, and participation in physical activities provides an ideal environment to teach

108

them, programs of physical education would be well advised to pro-actively include
affective program objectives in their curriculum program planning. According to Fraleigh
(1990), one of the purposes of physical education is to provide students with access into
various movement cultures. Mastery of many of the 19 hi ghest-rated personal-social
objectives contribute to that end on two counts. First, socially acceptable behavior (e.g.,
cooperation, responsibility, respect for rules, competition, etc.) is an important component
of successful participation in lifelong activities. Second, personal character traits (e.g., best
effort, self-control, perseverance, etc.) are essential to engaging in activities in a manner
that results in social acceptance, thereby facilitating lifelong participation and its associated
health-related benefits.

It should be noted however, that this content is not unique to programs of physical
education. Therefore, basing a program exclusively or predominately on affective
objectives exposes the program to elimination or reduction in situations where resources are
limited, or it may be perceived that the outcomes can be achieved elsewhere.

While personal/social skills are of high importance, the amount of instructional time
needed for direct instruction on these skills is relatively small. Once the concept is
introduced, most of the instruction with respect to practice and providing feedback occurs
in the context of engaging in physical activity that can focus on other priority objectives. As
a result, inclusion of personal/social skill instruction minimally affects the inclusion of
orher priority objectives.

Next to the importance placed on affective character traits, stakeholders place the
highest importance on the ability to acquire and maintain their own health-related levels of
fitness. While seven of the first 12 lifelong activities can be considered fitness-related, the
remaining five are not void of fitness benefits and are also used by segments of the
population as ways of staying fit Eleven of the 12 highest-rated program objectives that are
not affective in nature are directly related to acquiring and maintaining health-related levels

of fitness. Of these 11, nine are cognitive objectives that address issues related to managing

109

one’s own personal activity program. The implication for programs of physical education is
that while attaining health-related levels of physical fitness is important, at least equally as
important is equipping graduates with the knowledge that will enable them to do it by
themselves.

The overarching mission of quality programs of physical education is to provide
graduates with the skills, knowledge, fitness capacities and attitudes necessary to obtain the
potential benefits of living an active lifestyle. Achieving this mission requires constructing a
curriculum with some degree of balance across the four domains as well as across
activities. The concept of a balanced curriculum incorporating content representing the four
common domains (skill, fitness, cognitive, affective) - in contrast to curriculum models
advocating a narrower focus- has received support in the literature (Dauer & Pangrazi,
1989; Legwold, 1983).

The combination of high-priority lifelong activities and program objectives from
this study supports the concept of achieving balance among the four domains. The high
number of affective objectives among the highest-rated program objectives is
counterbalanced to a degree by the number of skill and Cognitive objectives that are
embedded in learning lifelong activities. Among the non-affective program objectives
ranked among the highest 50, 12 are cognitive, eight are fitness, and nine are motor skill.
The motor skill objectives consist of three locomotor skills (run, walk, skip), four object
control skills (overhand throw, catch fly balls, jump rope, hand dribble), and two are
postural/non-locomotor (dynamic upright posture, lift and carry posture). Striking skills are
probably the only major exclusion.

The balance in relative priorities is further supported in that fitness objectives vary
in their relative importance rather than appearing clustered among the program objectives of
highest priority. After aerobic fitness (ranked first), the next highest fitness objectives are
ranked 15 (abdominal/low back strength), and then 23 (hip/low back flexibility). One-third

of the 12 fitness objectives appear among the lower half of the ranked program objectives.

110

The priorities assigned to program objectives categorized as movement concepts
does not support their use as a basis for curriculum construction. Program objectives
related to movement concepts are central to the movement education model discussed in
Chapter 2. Although movement education models are common in elementary physical
education programs, the highest-rated movement concept among participants in this study
was personal space, ranked number 47, and only three movement concepts appear among
the 50 highest-rated objectives. Additionally, eight movement concepts are among the 15
lowest ranked program objectives. A possible explanation for these data that could be
drawn from some of the stakeholder rationales provided during the study are that while
movement concepts may be of value in communicating intended learning and managing
students and classes, stakeholders see them as enabling objectives and not standing alone
as important outcomes.

Individuals responsible for the selection of content in physical education should be
interested to note that stakeholders in this study do not perceive movement concepts as high
priority content for students to learn. Failure to note these values by promoting a movement
concepts program may diminish the base of advocates necessary to build or sustain the
resources to develop or maintain a strong physical education program.

The correlation coefficients on Table 6, comparing the first and final rankings for
both lifelong activities and program objectives by all participants, increased. The rank order
correlation coefficients also increased for both categories (lifelong activities and program
objectives) for all stakeholder groups, school districts, categories of household income,
and regions of the state. While an increase in correlation occurred in 100 percent of the
cases, statistically significant changes occurred infrequently. The small number of
significant changes may be due in part to relatively low numbers of participants in some
subgroups. The fact remains, however, that while ratings were converging and the rank
order of lifelong activities and program objectives were changing within groups, no single

group’s priorities were diverging from those held by other participants.

111

The data from Table 6 indicate that there is more agreement on program objectives
than on lifelong activities. Less agreement on lifelong activities may be a result of a greater
familiarity and/or allegiance to specific lifelong activities than the relatively independent
program objectives. Another possible cause may be related to the data collection
procedures. Whereas participants rated 15 lifelong activities in each round, they were asked
to rate 50 program objectives. Additionally, the lifelong activities were rated prior to the
program objectives. Either or both factors may have contributed to the greater variance
obtained in the lifelong activities.

The data indicate that while there is a strong correlation among the various groups,
there is also a substantial degree of variability between some subgroups. This is most
prominent between stakeholder groups and school districts. The largest variation in lifelong
activities among stakeholder groups exists between legislators and students. The ten
students who completed the study value different activities than other participants. This
clearly identifies an area for further research. Understanding why students are attracted to
certain activities and not others, and discovering what rationales students offer or accept,
are important in understanding how to motivate them and prepare them to engage in a
lifetime of activity.

The practical implications of the existing variability in ratings can be observed by
determining how the variability would alter the content included in a program of physical
education. According to the Michigan Department of Education’s Physical Education Core
Cmriculum document, physical education programs should result in competence (mastery)
in selected lifelong activities and exposure-level competence in others. Accordingly, the
cmriculum construction process requires allocating sufficient instructional time for students
to master a given number of lifelong activities, and additional time for students to be
appropriately exposed to others.

The effects of the existing variability across groups could be observed by choosing

a number of lifelong activities that could commonly be addressed, given common amounts

112

of instructional time available to schools in Michigan, and then designating half of the
activities (those regarded most highly) for competency and the second half as exposure
activities. In this example, 10 lifelong activities and 45 program objectives (consistent with
resources available for physical programs in Michigan) will be used.

The rank order of the first 15 lifelong activities appears by subgroups in Table 8.
While the order varies somewhat with regard to stakeholder groups, the 10 hi ghest-ranked
activities match the overall order for three groups (central administrators, classroom
teachers, and physical education teachers), and differ by one activity for seven groups
(building administrators, school board members, parents, recreation directors, intermediate
school district representatives, MAHPERD representatives, and subject matter experts).
The student list differs by two activities, and legislators differ on five.

The first five lifelong activities are the same for seven groups and differ by one for
the other three groups. If 10 activities were included in the physical education program,
these five would be designated for competency. The second set of five activities would be
designated for exposure. The second five lifelong activities are the same as the overall
results for two groups, and differs by one activity in seven of the eight remaining groups.
The greatest deviation from the overall results appears in the ratings of subject matter
experts. They rate basketball and cycling lower, while rating golf and soccer higher

The end result is that 90 percent of the activities would be the same for all 10
stakeholder groups, and the degree of emphasis would be the same on 80 percent of the
activities for nine of the 10 stakeholder groups.

There is greater variability in the 10 hi ghest-rated lifelong activities among school
districts. The first five activities are the same as the overall results in five districts, differs
by one in eight districts, and differs by two in two districts. The next five activities exhibit
even more variability. The result is that the content does not match the overall results for
any of the school districts . The degree of emphasis on lifelong activities would differ by

10 percent in five school districts, 20 percent in two districts, 30 percent in five districts,

113

40 percent in one district, 50 percent in one district, and 60 percent in one district.
Accordingly, the amount of instructional time necessary to accommodate mastery on the
knowledge, skills and capacities that constitute these lifelong activities, would be very
different. This difference in lifelong activities supports deferring the selection of lifelong
activities to local districts.

The practical effect of variability in ranks between stakeholder groups has minimal
effect on the content that would appear in a program of physical education. The rank order
of program objectives by subgroups appears in Appendix G. With respect to stakeholder
groups, the program objectives that were rated in the top 45 would differ from the overall
results by one program objective if selected by building administrators, physical education
teachers, parents, or recreation directors. Two of the first 45 program objectives differ
from the overall results for central administrators, school board members, and students.
Three differences from the overall results emerge for classroom teachers and MAHPERD
representatives, six for intermediate school representatives, and nine for legislators.

The effect of variability in rank order of program objectives by school district is
similar. While the order of program objectives varied, the same program objectives
appeared among the 45 highest rated objectives overall for two school districts (F, O),
differed by one program objective for four districts (B, C, E, G), by two objectives in four
districts (H, I, L, N), three objectives in four districts (A, J, K, M), and eight objectives in
one district. Minor differences appear between respondents from different regions of the
state,
mansion

Swimming, powerwalking and strength training are the most highly regarded
lifelong activities by stakeholders in Michigan. Accordingly, and especially in the case of
swimming, assisting students in mastering these activities should be a high priority for all
physical education programs in Michigan.

Two overarching themes are inherent in the priorities of stakeholders in Michigan.

114

They are the acquisition of personal/social/attitudinal character traits and obtaining the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to manage one’s own health-attaining physical
acfivity program

Given the opportunity for systematic information exchange, relatively high
agreement exists in priorities across stakeholder groups and school districts, especially with
respect to program objectives. There was extremely high agreement on the rank order of
lifelong activities and program objectives across regions of the state, gender, and
household incomes. While there was some variability in overall rankings, the differences
were minimal among all stakeholders for the 45 program objectives that could be effectively
addressed in programs of physical education in Michigan. The differences among
participating school districts, however, was substantial enough to warrant local districts
using a Delphi technique to determine what content is most important for stakeholders in
their community.

Recommendations

The data obtained from this study represents the informed judgment of stakeholders
across Michigan’s lower peninsula interested in providing quality physical education
programs. It represents the best information currently available on what stakeholders in
Michigan think is most important to include in quality physical education programs.
Accordingly, the results are appropriate for use in establishing curriculum outcomes for
children enrolled in Michigan school districts.

Physical education programs in Michigan should establish and maintain a
curriculum balance in terms of skill, cognitive, fitness and affective program objectives.
Program objectives from all four domains are among the highest-rated program objectives
in this study. Including content from all four domains is more likely to result in equipping
graduates with the skills, capacities, knowledge and attitudes to live physically active
lifestyles than would a program of more narrow focus. Finally, it will be easier for

members of the community to advocate a program with content held in high regard by all

115

stakeholders from all four domains.

Although the priorities described here appropriately represent stakeholder values, a
higher standard is met when the final priorities are obtained fi'om district-specific
stakeholders, using standard data as a starting point. Emphasis on lifelong activities
differed among school districts in this study. While the rank order of program objectives
differed between school districts, the degree of variability in ranking was such that there
was little practical differences in what would be included in programs in individual school
districts. Due to the fact that the order of program objectives changed, and ratings
converged through the Delphi process, engaging local stakeholders could result in better
informed stakeholders and greater advocacy.

Based upon the results of this study, physical education programs in Michigan
should do everything in their power to include swimming in their curriculum. In addition,
quality programs should equip students with personal/social character traits, and the ability
to plan, implement and evaluate their own activity programs that result in achieving and
maintaining health-related levels of physical fitness.

Teacher preparation programs should prepare their students by informing them of
what content is held in high regard by Michigan stakeholders, preparing them to teach high
priority lifelong activities and program objectives, and teach the students these program-
design techniques. Like local programs of physical education, teacher preparation programs
are faced with having too much content to teach their students in too little instructional time.
Focusing on high priority content will enable them to prepare their graduates to teach
content deemed of highest priority by most stakeholders in Michigan.

While the results from this study may represent the best information available
concerning content priorities for stakeholders in Michigan, work must continue to refine the
priorities. Better information can be obtained from stakeholders if the number of lifelong
activities and/or program objectives under consideration is limited. This will also reduce

fatigue and increase motivation which in turn should provide better information. The data

116

can undergo a more thorough analysis if fewer items were rated using non-ordinal rating
techniques.

Priorities clearly changed through the course of this study, but little information is
available concerning what kinds of rationales are most convincing to specific audiences.
Futtn'e Delphi studies should focus on the kinds of arguments with which specific
stakeholder groups resonate. This will assist in meeting the needs of stakeholders,
motivating students and parents alike in learning and applying the content, and creating
advocacy for effective programs.

WW
mantis!

An integral part of curriculum construction should include building consensus
among stakeholder groups (Curry & Temple, 1992). The Delphi technique provides a
systematic procedure for achieving a consensus within a controversial socio-political arena
of debate (Helmer, 1966; Lundberg & Glassman, 1983; Penland, 1983; Sandow, 1972;
Spinelli, 1983; Weaver, 1972).

Using the Delphi technique to guide the selection of curricular content is justified
when the procedure meets two criteria. First, the technique needs to facilitate a convergence
in opinions. A convergence in opinions results in greater support of, and confidence in, the
results across stakeholder groups. Second, there should be change in the priorities
obtained as a result of the process. The Delphi technique is a rigorous and time consuming
procedure when used to prioritize potential content for educational programs. If the process
of sharing information and considering the opinions of others does not result in changes in
priorities held by stakeholders, then a simple survey technique would suffice.

11' .

This study resulted in a convergence in ratings of lifelong activities and general

program objectives. The number of lifelong activities that received a rating by any

participant in the first and final rounds decreased by 21 percent. The dispersion in ratings

117

on each activity also decreased on 95.3 percent of the lifelong activities. Results on the
general program objectives were just as convincing. Here the number of program
objectives rated in the final round was not different from the first, but the dispersion in
ratings decreased on 97 percent of the objectives.

The data were very similar when analyzed by stakeholder group, as demonstrated in
Table 12. There was convergence on a vast majority of lifelong activities for all stakeholder
groups, all school districts, within all regions of the state, for all divisions of household
income, and for both males and females. Convergence data were just as convincing for the
program objectives, with the exception of representatives of intermediate school districts
(convergence on 58 of 98 objectives).

The rank order of lifelong activities and general program objectives also changed
from the first to the final round, and the change was not attributable to chance (p=.0000).
The rank order of the 15 highest-rated lifelong activities‘ differed significantly from the
first to the final round for all participants. The order was significantly different for seven of
the twelve stakeholder groups at the .05 level. The same was true for 14 of the 15 school
districts, three of four income brackets, both males and females, and all regions of the state
except for the west.

The rank order of the 50 highest-rated program objectives2 also changed from the
first to the final round. The difference in rank order for all participants from the first to final
rounds was significant at the .05 level. The same was true for 10 of 12 stakeholder groups,
11 of 15 school districts, four of five income brackets, both genders, and all regions of the

state.

 

‘ The number of lifelong activities that can be accommodated by most physical education programs in
Michigan when competency, versus exposure, is the intended outcome for at least half of the activities
included.

2 Slightly more than the number of program objectives that can be accommodated by most physical
education programs in Michigan when competency, versus, exposure, is the intended outcome.

118

Cnnclnsicn

These data clearly support the notion that use of the Delphi technique can increase
agreement in ratings, and change stakeholder priorities when assigning relative value to
lifelong activities and program objectives suitable for inclusion in programs of physical
education. This finding supports, therefore, the use of the Delphi technique as a viable
process for establishing content priorities as part of a eclectic model for developing quality
programs of physical education.

Rmmmendatinns

One of the difficulties associated with the Delphi technique is requiring participants
to engage in multiple rounds. Ideally, successive rounds of the Delphi should be
administered until ratings on items stop converging. This requirement must be tempered by
the need to balance the quality of information obtained with the time consumed and the
potential for increased rates of attrition with each round as respondent interest wanes (Uhl,
1983; Zoski & Jurs, 1990).

While this study resulted in significant findings after three rounds, subsequent
studies should be conducted to determine how fewer or more rounds affect the results.
Such information may allow the process to be streamlined without compromising the
quality of the results. At this point, it is unknown how much convergence occurred from
the first to the second, or from the second to the third rounds of this study, or what change
would have occurred in subsequent rounds. If little change occurred in the latter round, it
may be appropriate to complete the content selection process using just two rounds.
Another way to reduce the number of rounds used is to begin the first round with the data
and principal rationales obtained in this study.

Finally, a future study should look at the degree to which engaging stakeholders in
a Delphi technique to establish content priorities affects advocacy for the program across
stakeholder groups. It is clear that the Delphi process used in this study increased

awareness of, benefits of, and rationale for, selected physical education content. It is

119

reasonable to assume that the procedure used in this study would result in increased
advocacy for a quality program of physical education. Evidence supporting these assertions
would provide another important reason for school districts use a Delphi technique in their
content selection process.

anclusinn

Engaging stakeholders in a Delphi procedure resulted in greater agreement in
content priorities with respect to potential lifelong games, sports and activities, and general
program objectives. The process resulted in a convergence in ratings, changes in relative
order, and greater agreement across stakeholder groups, school districts, regions of the
state, income bracket, and genders for both categories of content. Consequently, use of the
Delphi can increase the likelihood that content included in programs of physical education
better represent the priorities held by stakeholders.

Differences still existed in relative priorities on lifelong activities and program
objectives between stakeholder groups, and school districts at the end of the Delphi study.
However, a practical difference exists predominately with respect to the activities selected
by school districts. It would be wise then to engage school districts in selecting content that
best matches the needs and values of the local constituency.

Students participating in this study held markedly different Opinions on what
lifelong activities should be included in a program of physical education. Significant
differences in how lifelong activities are regarded do exist between school districts. The
acknowledgment that differences do exist is an important component in meeting the needs
of local constituents and creating advocacy for programs of physical education.

With regard to the procedure itself, special care must be taken to emphasize the
importance of participation in stakeholders who are not directly affected by the results.
Face-to-face invitation and personal contact through the procedure may result in larger

numbers completing the study.

120

Because the primary purpose of the study was identify the relative importance of
content appropriate for programs of physical education, the participants were asked to limit
the number of activities and program objectives assigned to each rating. This was done
because of the tendency to rate large numbers of items in the highest category, thus failing
to discriminate among them. While the procedure successfully ordered the potential
content, the resultant data were ordinal in nature. This restricted the kinds of research
questions that could be asked and limited the analysis to non-parametric procedures.

The data were collected from individuals and schools who were interested in
improving the quality of programs of physical education. Care must be taken then in
generalizing the results to all school districts and/or all stakeholder groups. The results may
or may not represent the priorities of all stakeholders. Stakeholders interested in providing
a quality physical education program that are engaged in a similar consensus-building

procedure can be expected to obtain similar results.

121

APPENDIX A

Invitation to Participate

Dam

Appropriate Name
School District Name
School District Address

Dear Administrator’s Name:

Your school district has been identified as a potential candidate to participate in a state-wide
study conducted by Michigan’s Exemplary Physical Education Curriculum Project (MI-
EPEC). The study, described in the enclosed flier titled “Identifying Content for Physical
Education Programs in Michigan,” will provide the project with information it needs to
assist schools in developing exemplary physical education programs.

Some of the products participating districts will receive include:

- a list of potential program objectives consistent with state and national content standards
documents, prioritized according to the values of stakeholders in the local community

- a parallel document representing the priorities of stakeholders state-wide

0 a document describing the procedures to use in conjunction with the documents above to
attain Level 4 of the Govemor’s Exemplary Awards Ladder

0 access to consultation in applying local results in the construction of a curriculum model

0 acknowledgment in state and national reports as having participated in this study

Some of the ways local districts can benefit from this information include:

0 the information allows programs to match the amount of program content (in terms of the
number of program objectives addressed) to local resources (including instructional time,
facilities, budget, etc.) in a defensible, systematic fashion

0 the resulting product clearly communicates the intent of the physical education’s program
to parents, administrators and students

0 the procedure engages stakeholders in the community, resulting in a consensus by all
participants as to the important potential outcomes that result from a quality physical
education program

0 the information allows local programs to tailor their program to meet the needs of their
unique constituency

There is no cost of participation beyond assigning a facilitator to recruit a representative
group of stakeholders to participate (see the enclosed document titled “Criteria for the
Selection of Stakeholders,” and conduct the three rounds of meetings described in the
enclosed document titled “Content Priority Meetings” (the first meeting needs to be held
between October 30 and November 5). The facilitator will be listed as a district facilitator in
state-wide reports.

Only 20 school districts from across the state representing a variety of demographic
variables will participate. Should you want to be a part of this important study and receive
the valuable information resulting from it, I urge you to determine your interest in
participating as quickly as possible. Direct your inquiries to the address provided on the
enclosed flier.

Sincerely,

Ray Allen
MI-EPEC

123

Identifying Content for Physical Education Programs in Michigan

Content (objectives) included in programs of physical education in Michigan should reflect
the values of all groups involved in the educational venture. Physical education specialists,
parents, building and central administrators, legislators, school board members, and other
teachers all have a perspective regarding what content is most important for graduates in the
general content areas of motor skill development, health-related physical fitness,
knowledge of activity, personal character traits and social skills. Michigan’s Exemplary
Physical Education Curriculum project (MI-EPEC) is conducting a study that will identify
and share these individual values with other study participants in a way that individual
perceptions inform each other, and a consensus regarding what content is most important to
include in quality programs of physical education is established We invite your
participation in this important study. The results of the study will be used to guide the
development of curriculum and instructional materials that will enable schools to create
exemplary programs for the children of Michigan.

 

Help us determine content priorities for Michigan!

The need for your participation

Selecting appropriate content for a physical education program is crucial to meeting the
needs of its graduates. Preparing graduates to engage in the right kinds and amounts of
physical activity over their lifetime requires decision makers to consider public needs,
opinions and priorities. Content decisions then should be based on informed judgments
resulting from an open exchange of information by all stakeholders. Yoru' opinions are
valued and necessary to meet the needs of the youth in Michigan and your community.

How to participate

Apply to participate in the study by:

0 enlisting a facilitator to oversee the recruitment of representative stakeholders from the
community and the data collection fiom those stakeholders

- identifying individuals from the local conununity that fulfill the criteria for the selection of
stakeholders willing to participate by completing three rounds of interactive surveys.

0 Contacting: Ray Allen

Room 39 I.M. Sports Circle Phone (517) 353-4805
Michigan State University fax (517) 432-5016
East Lansing, MI 48824 e-mail: allenhal@pilot.msu.edu

The benefits of participation

Results from the study will equip MI-EPEC to concentrate on developing materials and

procedures related to the values of important stakeholders.

Participating school districts will receive the content priorities resulting from data obtained

exclusively from their local stakeholders as well as from other districts across the state.

This information will allow districts to:

0 create or modify their K-12 curriculum content according to expressed client needs

0 balance curricular content with local resources in accordance with stakeholders’ values

. complete the steps necessary to achieve level four status on the Govemor’s Exemplary
Awards Ladder.

School districts participating in the study will also be included among the list of
contributors on the following documents:

0 state-wide and regional reports of content priorities for the children of Michigan

0 reports of priority content specific to school district(s) in your legislative area

0 articles published in Michigan’s Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance professional journal.

124

Content Priority Meetings

Tentative Schedule of Events

By October 15: Obtain administrative support

Discuss the opportunity to participate in the study with the person(s) responsible for

curriculum in the district.

Share the flier with them and point out the advantages in participating for the physical

education program.

Explain that participation will entail:

0 Inviting stakeholders to represent the values and priorities for the community

0 Conducting three sets of meetings. The meetings are tentatively scheduled on or near
October 31, November 21 and December 19. Participants will be asked to read
important information and fill out a survey at each meeting.

By October 25: Recruit representative stakeholders
Select individuals residing in the community that meet the criteria described in the
“Stakeholder Criteria” document.
Share the flier with them.
Describe the benefits that will be derived through their participation in the study.
Explain their responsibilities, should they choose to participate.
Share the dates of the meetings with them.

Between October 25 and October 28
Remind stakeholders of the meeting date(s).
Review the overheads and narrative. Call Ray Allen for any clarifications necessary.

Between October 30 and November 7
Conduct the meeting(s)l .
Use the overheads and narrative provided.
Remind them of the date(s) for the second meeting.

Between November 15 and November 18
Remind stakeholders of the meeting date(s).
Review the overheads and narrative. Call Ray Allen for any clarifications necessary.

Between November 20 and November 22
Conduct the meeting(s)
Use the overheads and narrative provided.
Remind them of the date(s) for the third meeting.

Between December 13 and December 16
Remind stakeholders of the meeting date(s).
Review the overheads and narrative. Call Ray Allen for any clarifications necessary.

Between December 18 and December 20
Conduct the meetings.
Use the overheads and narrative provided.
Inform them there will be a meeting scheduled after the first of the year to present their
results and discuss how those results will be used.

After January 15
Select a date to report the findings to the local district and discuss the implications.

 

‘ It is strongly recommended you schedule one two-hour meeting, with a second meeting scheduled for those
who are unable to attend.

125

Facilitator Selection
Facilitator Characteristics

Providing Michigan and your local community with concrete information upon which to

base physical education cuniculum decisions depends primarily on the effectiveness of the

person selected to facilitate the process in the local district.

The facilitator must be:

0 respected in the school and community

. organized and a good communicator

- possess the initiative and perseverance to execute the responsibilities listed below in a
timely manner

0 a physical education coordinator, teacher, or person connected to the physical education
department (e.g., curriculum director, assistant superintendent, principal, etc.)

Upon successful completion of the study, and for their crucial role in the collection of date,

the facilitator will receive:

0 a $100 honorarium

0 special published acknowledgment (e. g., the MAHPERD Journal) for their contribution
to the study.

Responsibilities

The facilitator for each school district involved in the study will be expected to:

l. Recruit participants from the local community who meet the criteria provided in the
Criteria for the Selection of Stakeholders document. Fulfilling this responsibility will
require the facilitator to communicate:

- the importance of the study’s results for the citizens of Michigan and the local community

0 the procedures that will be followed, including the participants’ rights and responsibilities
should they choose to participate

- How and when the facilitator will distribute and collect instruments during the three
rounds

2. Obtain confirmation of each individual’s willingness to participate through completion of
the demographic information form and returning them to the study center.

3. Provide participants with a schedule, outlining the dates in which each survey will be
distributed and collected.

4. Provide participants with the survey, and remind them of the dates they will be collected.

5. Collect the completed surveys within five days after distributing them.

6. Support local participants by entertaining procedural questions and contacting the study
center for information when necessary.

7. Encourage their state legislators to participate in the study by sending the attached letter
and complete the outlined phone call.

8. Plan local meetings in conjunction with school district administrators to disseminate local
results of the study. The meeting should include:

- orienting participants

0 sharing local results of the study

0 describing how the results will be used by the school district

Facilitators will be provided with all materials and checklists to help complete all

responsibilities.

126

Criteria for the Selection of Stakeholders

Participants representing school districts will be selected in accordance with the following
criterla.

Administration

Two central administrators (persons who service the entire school district. Examples
include superintendents, assistant superintendents and curriculum directors)

Smaller districts where the superintendent is the only central administrator may enlist
only one central administrator.

One high school building administrator
One middle school building administrator
At least one elementary school building administrator

Note: Participants representing the administration should be as equally divided by
gender as possible.

At least one male and one female school board member

Teachers

One classroom teacher currently teaching at the high school level, with at least three
years experience

One classroom teacher currently teaching at the middle school level, with at least tluec
years experience

One classroom teacher currently teaching at the elementary school level, with at least
three years experience

Note: Classroom teachers should be as equally represented by gender as possible.

All physical education teachers. If it is not possible, at least one high school, one
middle school and one elementary school physical education teacher.

Note: Physical education teachers should be as equally represented by gender as
possible.

Community

Two male and two female parents/guardians representing different children currently

enrolled in the elementary, middle and high school (a total of at least four parents).

Note: Select parents that represent different families (vs. a husband and wife), have
expressed prior interest in the school’s educational program, and are thought to
represent the demographics (e. g., cultural diversity and socio-economic status of
the district)

One male and one female student and/or recent graduate from the school district
Note: Students selected should be in or beyond the eleventh grade

One representative from the community recreation department

127

APPENDIX B

Consent Form and Demographic lnforrnation

Physical Education Content Prioritization Study
Consent form

The purpose of this study is to identify the relative importance of content (program
objectives) appropriate for inclusion ill physical education programs in Michigan. The
major focus of the study will be to rank the potential content using the relative importance
of ratings by stakeholders representing all areas of the state.

Participants in the study will complete three rounds of an interactive survey over a seven
week period. Completing each survey will require the participant to read statements
pertaining to program objectives, rate the importance of each objective relative to other
objectives, and provide briefly stated reasons for ratings made. Completing each instrument
will require approximately 45 to 75 minutes. Participants will also be asked to provide the
demographic information on the reverse side of this form to help interpret the survey data.

Participation in the study is voluntary. By completing and returning the demographic form,
you are indicating your agreement to participate. You may choose to not to participate, you
may refuse to complete certain procedures, or you may discontinue your participation at
any time without penalty. However, because an important component to creating consensus
is responding to arguments posed by participants in successive rounds, it is important that
those choosing to participate intend to complete all three rounds.

Your responses will be entirely confidential. Data will be analyzed by stakeholder groups
and not by individual participants. The last four digits of your social security number and
first letter of your last name will be used to match responses in survey rounds with
demographic grouping. To assure confidentiality, please do not put your name on survey
forms.

Your honest responses are valued. Thank you for your willingness to participate in this

study. If you have any questions or concerns regarding participation in the study, please
contact Ray Allen (phone # 517-353-4805).

129

Participation Agreement

filling read the information provided on the reverse side of this form, I understand the

o owrng:

- My participation is completely voluntary. I may choose not to participate, refuse to
complete certain procedures, or discontinue my participation at any time without penalty.
I do however, understand the important contribution my participation will play in
curaicular decisions in my local district and at state and national levels by completing the
stu y.

- Participating in this study will entail filling out three surveys on three different occasions
over a seven-week period.

0 All information I provide will remain confidential. Data obtained from my responses will
be recorded without reference to my name, and data will be analyzed and reported by
stakeholder groups, not by individual participants. The demographic information will be
used only to compare values and priorities of subpopulations of participants.

Finally, by completing the demographic items below, and signing and returning this form,

I consent to participating in this study.

 

Name: (signature)

(print)

 

Demographic Information

Last four digits of social security number

Name of Local School District:
Mailing Address
m

Stakeholder Group(s) Sex

Primary Association Secondary Association M F
(check only one) (check as many as appropriate)

Central School Administrator
Building School Administrator
Local Board of Education Member
Classroom Teacher
Physical Education Teacher
Parent
Student (current of former)
Community Recreation Reps.

 

 

 

 

 

Socio-Economic Status
(check the range representing
your total family annual income
less than $15,000

 

ISD Representative $15,000 - $29,999

Legislator __ $30,000 - $44,999

MAHPERD Representative $45,000 - $69,999

College/University Physical $70,000 or more
Education Rep.

Department of Education Rep.

Department of Health Rep.

13

O

APPENDIX C

Round One Instrument

Rating Potential Content for Physical Education Programs:
Overview of the Survey Materials

This survey consists of 2 separate documents:
1. BatinaEQrmmeiiclmgActimLties (yellow)
2. WW (white)

The W (yellow) will be used first. The form lists a variety

of games, sports and activities important to consider in preparing students for a lifetime of
physical activity. Filling out this form will enable our project focus on preparing materials
for lifelong activities that stakeholders across Michigan deem most important. It will
provide local districts with information that will help guide them in preparing their
graduates to live physically active lifestyles.

The W (white) provides a structure for organizing physical
education content and defines outcomes intended for successful graduates. The description
of program content has several important parts:

0 15 content areas

0 A rationale statement (immediately below each content area) explaining the value of
achieving competency in the area.

0 Several specific elements of content (called program objectives) under each content area,
in the left hand column. Each program objective represents a discrete element of potential
program content. By demonstrating competence on a selected number of these program
objectives, students demonstrate competence in the content area.

. Directly to the right of the program objectives is a brief description of competence for that
objective (i.e., what needs to be achieved before a person can be called competent). At
times, as with the locomotor skills under Content Area 1, competency is defined for
groups of program objectives by a single statement.

132

Rating Form for Lifelong Activities

*tt ' iii

The W (yellow) will be used first. The form lists a variety

of games, sports and activities important to consider in preparing students for a lifetime of
physical activity. Filling out this form will enable our project focus on preparing materials
for lifelong activities that stakeholders across Michigan deem most important. It will
provide local districts with information that will help guide them in preparing their
graduates to live physically active lifestyles.

Instructions for completing the form:

1 . Record the first letter of your last name and the last four digits of
your social security at the top of the page.

0 Review the games, sports and lifelong activities listed.

- List any games, sports and/or activities you think are high priority and have been
omitted on the lines provided.

2. Rate the 3 lifelong activities you believe are most important for graduates of a

physical education program to acquire with a 5.

Rate the 3 next most important with a 4.

Rate the 3 next most important with a 3.

Rate the 3 next most important with a 2.

. Rate the 3 next most important with a 1.

career»

N te: Rate only 15 of the lifelong activities.

7 . Record your top three games, sports and activities (those rated 5) in the space
provided on the bottom of the page.

8. Provide a reason for selecting these three as being higher priority than the other
activities.

133

First Letter of Last Name: Final Digits of Soc. Sec.# _-

Rating Form For Program Content

aerial darts
archery

back packing
badminton
basketball
bocce ball
bowling
camping
canoeing
climbing (rock)
crew
croquet
cyclin
dance:
dance:
dance:
dance:
dance:
dance:
dance:
dance:
dance: square
dance: tap

diving: springboard
diving: SCUBA
diving: skin
fencing

fishing: baitcasting
fishing: flycasting
fishing: spincasting
football: flag/touch
frisbee: skills/games

aerobic
ballet

line
creative
folk/ethnic
jazz
modern
social

Activity:

 

Rationale:

frisbee: ultimate

golf

gymnastics: apparatus

gymnastics: rhythmic

gymnastics: tumbling /
floor exercise

handball

hiking

hocker

hockey: field

hockey: ice/inline/floor

horseback riding

horseshoes

jogging/powerwalking

kayaking

korfball

lacrosse

martial arts: judo

martial arts: karate

martial arts: others

orienteering

paddleball

pickle ball

racquetball

rope jumping

rugby (modified)

sailing

shooting: riflery

shooting: clays/trap

shooting: other

shuffleboard

skating: ice

skating: inline
skating: roller
skiing: cross country
skiing: downhill
skiing: water
soccer

softball

speedball

squash

swimming
swimming: life saving
swimming: synchronized
swimming: WSI
table tennis

tai-chi

team handball

tennis

tennis: platform
tetherball

track: field

track: running
volleyball

walking: race

water polo

weight training
wrestling

additions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity:

 

Rationale:

 

 

Activity:

 

Rationale:

 

 

134

Rating Form for Program Content

fl" WW “"

The W (white) provides a structure for organizing physical
education content and defines outcomes intended for successful graduates. The description
of program content has several important parts:

0 15 content areas

0 A rationale statement (immediately below each content area) explaining the value of
achieving competency in the area.

0 Several specific elements of content (called program objectives) under each content area,
in the left hand column. Each program objective represents a discrete element of potential
program content. By demonstrating competence on a selected number of these program
objectives, students demonstrate competence in the content area.

- Directly to the right of the program objectives is a brief description of competence for that
objective (i.e., what needs to be achieved before a person can be called competent). At
times, as with the locomotor skills under Content Area 1, competency is defined for
groups of program objectives by a single statement.

Instructions for completing the form:

1 . Record the first letter of your last name and the last four digits of
your social security at the top of the page.

0 Read the rationale statement below each content area.

0 Review the program objectives and read the intended instructional outcome.

0 Record any program objective you think is of high priority that was omitted the
survey.

2. Rate the 10 program objectives WW you believe are

most important for graduates of a physical education program to acquire with a 5.

Rate the 10 next most important with a 4.

Rate the 10 next most important with a 3.

Rate the 10 next most important with a 2.

. Rate the 10 next most important with a 1.

Note: Rate only 50 objectives.

owner»

7. Record your top ten program objectives (those rated 5) in the space provided on the
last page.

8. Provide a reason for selecting the objective as being higher priority than the other
potential objectives.

135

First Letter of Last Name: Final Digits of Soc. Sec.# - - -

Rating Form For Program Content

 

[GoaiArealzDem onsn-atefcompetenceln 7 selected motor; SkfilsL-iii 72'-3;:5jS5ilgiifi$5213

 

 

outentArealDemonstratecompetenceinselectedfundamentarmotorskms.

Rationale: Fundamental motor skills (run, hop, throw, catch...) are prerequisites to successful
participation in the games, sports and other activities of the culture. Competence in
fundamental motor skills is a prerequisite to learning complex motor skills, provides the
basis for learning activities used to achieve and maintain fitness, and provides the base
for learning and participating in leisure activities that are not taught within the program.
Acquisition of motor skill positively influences a person's attitude toward participation in
physical activity, and successful participation in motor activities appears to contribute
to cognitive and social development.

2 QI'I' IIIIIII'IQI

Rating

Locomotor Skills

gallop Demonstrate competence when executing the skill (all key

hop elements of form) in the context of playing high

skip priority games, sports or activities.

slide

 

 

 

 

 

 

jump: horizontal Demonstrate all elements of form while executing the skill
jump: vertical well enough to use it successfully in games and activities
leap and in combination with other skills.

run

 

 

Object Control Skills
bat

catch: fly balls

catch: rolling balls
dribble: with hands
dribble: with feet
jump rope

kick: instep Demonstrate all elements of form while executing the skill
kick: toe well enough to use it successfully in games and

pass: chest activities and in combination with other skills.

pass: overhead

punt

roll a ball

strike: backhand

strike: overhand

strike: forehand

strike: underhand

throw: overhand

throw: underhand

 

 

 

136

 

 
 
 

Rationale. Proper posture in various posrtlons and movements helps prevent injury and
contributes to anatomical and physiological function, thus affecting
health, wellness, and the general quality of life.

 

WWW

 

Rating

_ posture: lift and carry

_ posture: push and pull Demonstrate appropriate postural alignment when executing
_ posture: sit the listed skills within their context of use.

 

posture: walk/stand

 

 

Rationale' Control of the body promotes kinesthetlc awareness a deterrence to injury, and
with fundamental motor skills, forms a foundation for acquiring sports, games and
dance skills. It also contributes to competence in physical tasks common to many work
environments. Learning body control skills also contributes to precise communication
to communication and understanding of movements necessary to learn other motor skill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Body control skills

balance: dynamic upright

balance: inverted Demonstrate appropriate balance when executing the

balance: static upright listed skill.

climb a rope ladder Demonstrate appropriate technique when climbing
and descending a lS-foot rope ladder.

land from a horizontal fall

shoulder roll: backward Demonstrate appropriate technique when executing the
shoulder roll: forward listed skills when fallirg
vault Demonstrate appropriate technique when

vaultirg over waist-high obstacles.

 

 

Non-Locomotor skills
relaxation Demonstrate the ability to systematically relax
the body's musculature in times of stress.

 

 

Content Area 4' Demonstrate competence in selected rhythmlcal skills g ,-
Rationale: Like fundamental motor skills and body control skills, basic rhythmical

skills provide a basis for acquiring competence in games, activities and dances

which require moving in time to rhythmical beats. Competence in rhythmical skills

like tempos and uneven beats can also facilitate the learning of some motor skills.

 

 

 

 

accent

even beat Demonstrate competence in moving in time to the selected
tempo rhythms at fast, moderate, and slow speeds using

uneven beat appropriate forms of locomotion.

 

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rationale. Cardiovascular fitness contributes to the quality of life and to the absence
of disease associated with sedentary living. For children, it is an important stimulus
to normal growth and development and contributes to motor skill acquisition,
health, and may be important to habituating lifelong particigation in physical activity.

 

 

 

E QI'I' lIlIlII'IQI
Rating

 

aerobic fitness Achieve and maintain health-related levels of aerobic fitness. 1

 

 

    
  

Content Area 1‘, ::;j:iiig;j,j'evelop and maintain health-related levels of . ' ~ 1 jfjpfjiggggf7?xféiygijpiigf
..-- .. ........... muscular strength and endurance ' ‘
Rationale. Muscular strength and endurance facrlitates motor sklll acqursrtlon,

reduces the potential for injury, and enhances the ability to perform motor skill.

 

abdomen, low back

 

 

 

 

: neck Achieve and maintain health-related levels of muscular
_ legs strength and endurance in the selected body parts.
__ shoulders
_ arms
gontent Areaf8’ffiéiiif? 'i‘veiop and maintain health-related levels of

 

----- flexrbllltyln selected body jomts -- ‘ ** ‘ ~2
Ratlonale. Flexiblllty facilitates motor skill acquisition, reduces potentlal for lnjury
and enhances the ability to perform motor skills.

 

 

 

ankle
: hip, low back Achieve and maintain health-related levels of flexibility
_ neck in the selected joints of the body.
__ shoulder
__ trunk

 

 

138

 

 

[Rationale° 'Appropnate ratios of fat-to-lean tissue affect both health and physrcal performance

 

l: QI’I' IIIIlII'IQI
Rating

lean/fat ratio Develop and maintain health-related ratio of lean to fat tissue. I

 

 

 

  

I,_jioai Area 3 Demonstrate the ability to apply selected l
actwlty-related cognltlve concepts ..... *’

 

Rationale. Knowledge of these concepts enable the precrse communication necessary
to provide specific feedback in setting up and safely managing a
physical education learning environment.

 

 

 

E Ql'l' IIIIIII'IQI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating
_ body parts Know selected body parts, planes (front, back, etc.)
_ body actions and actions (shaking, twisting, bending, etc.) well
_ body planes enough to correctly respond to teaching, feedback and
communications.
_ shapes Recognize selected words as they relate to shapes I
__ size (straight, bent, twisted, etc.) and size (big. small, etc.).
_ use of force Recognize words as they relate to the amount of effort
__ use of flow (hard, soft, etc.). the degree of smoothness (even,
use of time flowing, etc.) and periods of time (now, soon, later, etc.).
positions in space Recognize selected words as they relate to positions 7
levels of space (in, out, around, etc.). levels (high, medium, low),
directions ill space and directions (forward, up, diagonal) in space.
personal space Use one's own personal space (surrounding one's own body) 3
__ boundaries of space and general space (shared by others) while participating in
physical activity in a way that is safe and efficient.
tum Alter the direction (turning). or action A
_ twist/rotate (twisting/rotating) of the body, or body part in
compliance with instructions.

 

139

 

figment _Area11_lr...,.i§nowledge of how to learn a motor skill . .- ~~ - . ~ .
Rationale: Physical education programs can not include sufficrent instructlon on all

physical activities that should be incorporated in a comprehensive program.

Accordingly, knowledge of how to learn a motor skill enables graduates to

subsequently learn activities unavailable to them during their school years. It

also enables them to help others learn skills they have mastered.

P. QI'I' IIIIIII'IQI
Rating

 

 

 

 

Know how to identify the important components of a skill,
how to learn motor skills break them down into leamabie parts, practice and assess
progress in a way that results in skill acquisition.

 

Contentarsa'lz f‘Knowledge of the benef’clal and detrimental effects of

    

Rationale Knowledge of the potential detrimental and beneficral affects of parthlpatlng
in physical activity enables one to discern the benefits and risks of living an active
lifestyle. Egrally important is the knowledge of consequences of sedentary living.

benefits of physical Understand the immediate and long term affects of various A
activity kinds and amounts of physical activity on well-bein .

 

 

 

 

 

detrimental affects of Understand the potential dangers and risks associated with L]
physical activity participation in various kinds and amounts of physical activit

 

rContent Area’l3 Knowledge of how to desrgn, implement and evaluate a
- ~ -. ] personal phySlcal actrvrty program . ,
Rationale: Knowrng how to assess fitness levels, and how to design, implement and

evaluate a personal activity program to achieve health and/or performance related

standards allows graduates to assume the responsibility for their own fitness.

It also enables them to judge the appropriateness of commercial

materials and procedures advocated by commercial vendors.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ assess status on health- Demonstrate the ability to assess and interpret J
related fitness indicators one's health-related status.
_ prevent injuries Apply principles and take actions during the course of
__ care for common preparing for, participating in, and concluding
athletic injuries physical activity that optimizes safe participation.
_ design a personal Plan and implement an activity program that will result in I
activity program achievingjelmted health-related standards.
effects of selected Articulate the effects of substances, conditions (cold,

performance modifiers humidity, altitude, etc.) and health issues (high blood
pressure, nutrition, stress, etc.) that affect performance, and
apply actions that minimize the potential detrimental affects.

 

 

selected activity programs, resulting in the achievement

_ nutritional habits Specify and implement nutritional habits that match I
of intended outcomes in a safe, effective manner.

140

 

 

activity and assign value to ilvmg an active lifestyle

 

 

 

Demonstrate appropriate behavror on selected personal/social!
............ attitudinal character traits that are common to physrcal actlvrty settlngs.
Ratlonale There is a current surge in the understanding of the lmportance of selected

personal/social/attitudinal behavioral traits to maintaining a functioning democratic
society. While the teaching of affective behavior is not unique to physical education
and sport, it provides rich contexts in which such characteristics can be obtained.

 

Brnmmflbjectm

Rating

lntcndcdlnstructinnalflutcnmcs

 

best effort

Demonstrate earnest attempts to achieve educational
objectives through a consistent and
exemplary expenditure of energy and time.

 

competitiveness

Strive to achieve personal and/or corporate outcomes with
levels of intensity and at times that are appropriate for the
situation, reflecting the purpose of the activity, and respond
appmpriately to both winning and losing efforts.

 

cooperation

Restrain personal and immediate gratification while
working with others to achieve a
common end or mutual benefit.

 

compassion for others

Show interest in and concern for the struggles and

achievements of others and participate
in their suffering or celebration.

 

courage

Demonstrate a state or quality of mind and/or spirit that
faces difficulties or stress with
self-control and determination to achieve.

 

decision-making

Seek information and [or counsel, weigh consequences
and make decisions that are
consistent with the facts and good counsel.

 

follow directions

Listen to, seek to understand and implement instructions
provided by persons in positions of
authority over short and long duration.

 

initiative

Show enterprise and determination to identify and begin a
needed task without prompting or direction from others.

 

leadership

Encourage and guide the actions and opinions of others
so as to enhance their ability to achieve a common outcome.

 

perseverance

Adhere to a course of action, belief or purpose while involved
with a plan or task that requires care, effort and/or labor.

 

self—control

realistic perception
of one' ability

Display behavior during periods of stress conducive to the
safety and well-being of others.

Accurately assess personal competencies, attempt to perform
within one's abilities, and set challenging and achievable goals.

 

respect for others

Recognize the worth of others as exemplified by
consideration, appreciation, and tolerance of their weaknesses.

 

141

 

 

 

E 01' |'
Rating

Intcndcdlnstmctitmamrltmmes

 

respect for rules

Exemplifies an attitude of consideration and appreciation
for established procedures or behaviors
designed for the welfare of the participants.

 

respect for property

Show an attitude of consideration and appreciation for
materials, equipment and facilities owned by self and others.

 

responsibility

Consistently make rational decisions on one's own
and being accountable for one's behavior.

 

 

Rationale Physrcal actrvrty, when its benefits are understood and it is used to
appropriate ways, can influence health, performance, and the quality of life.
Competence in specific kinds of activity can result in personal satisfactions and
self-esteem, and an appreciation for the accomplishments others. Talent,
opportunity, and hard work resulting in elite performance can be
enjoyed for its artistry and enrichment similar to other forms of fine art.

 

Win
Rating

Intsndcdlmtructionalflutmmts;

 

appreciation of fitness

appreciation of
skilled performance

Recognize the value in being able to demonstrate
excellence on fitness indicators and appreciate the
dedication associated with meeting such standards.
Recognize and hold in high regard the talent, discipline and
hard work involved in acquiring outstanding physical skills.

 

enjoyment of movement

Display a desire for and pleasure in participating in and
watching others execute skillful movement activities.

 

value an active lifestyle

Articulate valuable reasons for and a desire to regularly
participate in physical activities.

 

142

 

 

Rationales for Assigning a 5 to Program Objectives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

APPENDIX D

Round Two Instrument

The

Rating Form for Lifelong Activities

iii ' r ' ***

° ' ' (yellow) will be used first. The first page of the

form lists all activities that received a rating from the first round in rank order according to
their overall mean ratings. Each activity is preceded by its overall rank and followed by its
mean rating. The first fifteen are preceded to the far left by numerals 5-1, designating
which activities would have received each rating on average. The rating form appears on

 

pages 2-11. Each activity is listed according to rank, and is accompanied by its mean,
interquartile range, and rationales as to why participants thought it should be one of the top

three activities. The interquartile range designates the range of the middle 50 percent of the
ratings given by participants. For example, if an interquartile range were 1-3, the middle 50
percent of the ratings were 1, 2, or 3. One-fourth of the ratings were lower (0 or 1) and
one-fourth were higher rating (4 or 5).

Instructions for completing the form:

I.

O\Ut§b)

Record the first letter of your last name and the last four digits of
your social security at the top of the page.

Read through the rank order of activities on the cover page, considering which ones
you agree with and which ones you think are out of order.

Read the rationales provided for those activities you think are rated too high or too
low. This is extremely important, in that we must seek to understand what others
were thinking and consider the strength of their arguments.

Rate the three activities you believe are most important for graduates of a physical
education program to acquire with a 5. '

Rate the three next most important with a 4.

Rate the three next most important with a 3.

Rate the three next most important with a 2.

Rate the three next most important with a 1.

N te: Rate only 15 activities.

7. Important: Provide a rationale each time you rate an activity outside the

interquartile range

Examples:

If you rate an objective “2” and the interquartile range is “3-5”, explain why you
think the objective was rated too high.

If you rate an objective “4” and the interquartile range is “0—2”, share why you think
the objective is rated too low.

If you rated the objective “4”, and the interquartile range is “3-5”, you need not give
a rationale.

145

82.68.?
”9.5%.

”.553 on ram—5m 2.3338 3 3a.... 5.55

was... 9... ”8......

”95%| 5:... >235.

 

m...

em

.3

Nd

Hi

38..
5:... >255

. «£55.5m PM.
N 3%5Qeosonsw—w5m 9.3
m 95.85»: Pmm
a. saw... 5.55m No—
u we... N8
a 82.9.5333. row
5 855 row
m 5:85.: 53
o 958“ 833.. an
5 883 r3
2 3.25m r3
5 255.5% :3 £25m PB
3 55.5 :c
E cot—5m 9cm
3 55% 90% 85.5. 93
3 585 2555 9mm
3 «5.5% 5.50 9.;
3 Bee .5255 93
5 8:8” moor.— 9.3
no 895:.” amgeeor 9.3
N. £w=n5m 9.3
NM 2565m 93
8 5.555 93
we 55% 85.5: 9%
NM gene»: 9%
no 855338” 8.3.55 x... 9%
3 £8555 93
mm woo—8v.” mega—mince. 9.8

 

no
8
3
mm
mu
we
um
mm
m.»
um
we
3
3
an

595% 3:3
8.55 25.05.
ow=85m
855338” 9398.8
55558..

555% .8

cocoa 5.:

door woo—dam

.3an no... «<88
92.8” 3:2
menace:

Emcee” «gimmick
958“ 3.58
820 8.5:.

3.55% caSwmaam
225$.

ran—non

55%.»:

Sea... 59 538
019.805m

Swan .55

9:8" 853.30
255.5% so”
Benz

358” 9893
55.38.. 1.55
92.8” 5....
255.5% $83358“

 

23.. 32:.
”925ml 5....» >255 ”35ml
93 um 95.2.5 385 9 .N
93 mo :53. 58508 9 5
92 8 5.88508 9:
9% o. 35.5% €503.5m 95
9am on 8.55338" 43.35.: 9 5
9mm 8 8m... 55%.»: 9 8
9w... a... woo—8v.” ~55 98
98. am 355% 385.5 98
9”: 3 «385% 3:03. 98
9.3 3 $55 98
9N0 am 55:: mam” 02.03 98
93 mo 55% £52 93
9mm .5 Emcee” 5.5:..." 98
9B 3 97.5% and—w». 98
9mm .3 958” 580.... 98
9- d 958” hams 9cm
9~N .E ocean—.05. 9?.
9 5 d 3an am: 99
95 .5 5.5:: 2.5” .55 9o...
93 .3 558" E. 98
9.... um 55% 85mg»:— 98
98 .3 .8350 98
93 mo ggmmommsam

9G
95
95
95
95

146

First Letter of Last Name: Final Digits of Soc. Sec.# - - -

Rating of Lifelong Activities:

 

Round Two‘I
Katina ,
_ Swimming Rationale:
3.5 Mean

5-2 Interquartlle Range

Swimming is an activity that exercises most of the major muscle groups.

It is a good cardiovascular activity that uses a relatively large number of kilocalories.
With the abundance of water in Michigan, the skill of swimming is important for

safety and an important prerequisite for participation in other water sports and activities.
With the availability of pools. it is an activity that can be done year round.

It is a relatively low impact exercise, and it can be done practically all of one's life.

It may enhance flexibility in the arm and shoulder joints.

It can be a recreational. social, or a competitive activity.

Because physical education services almost all students, it is a place to ensure all can swim.
It provides an activity to those unable to walk or run because of physical conditions.

Jogging/Powerwalking W

2.4 Mean

5-0 Interquartlle Range

An excellent cardiovascular exercise requiring little skill, so all ages and abilities can do it.

It is a relatively low impact type of exercise.

It is an effective method of weight control for anyone.

It can be done by an individual or by a group, as a recreation, competition or social event.

The intensity, duration and frequency is easily controlled by the participant.

Inexpensive activity, requiring little equipment.

It's health-related benefits may enhance one's ability to perform other related activities.

Teaching people how to do it properly can prevent injury and lead to lifelong participation.

It may contribute to stress reduction and lower high levels of blood pressure.

Low incidence of injury allows for long term participation and benefits from being
physically active.

 

 

 

 

 

Basketball Rationale;
2.3 Mean

4-0 Interquartile Range
A group activity that encourages team work or can be done individually.
It can be played throughout the majority of one's lifetime.

Good aerobic and conditioning activity that can help control body fat.

A popular activity with all ages that is relatively simple and inexpensive.
Requires hand/footleye coordination as well as use of fine and gross motor skills.

It requires strength, speed, agility, endurance. coordination, mental decision making skills.
An activity that provides opportunity to develop a healthy competitive outlook.
It is growing in popularity among women.

 

 

* This document is a sample of the study's round-two instrument. It's intent is to illustrate the
insu'ument's format and sample rationales. The complete set of data can be obtained by
contacting the author.

147

 

2.01 Mean

Weight Training Rationale; 1
4-0 Interquartlie Range

 

 

It can enhance the development of lean body tissue, including muscle mass,
bone density and tendon and ligament strength.
Ifdone correctly, it can help maintain flexibility and posture.
It builds muscular strength and endurance, as well as improve one's overall appearance.
Improving one's strength improves one's ability to participate in other activities.
It can be modified to meet our changing needs as we age, including loss of lean body mass.
Learning proper techniques and gaining necessary strength will minimize the risk of
injury for anyone, any time they need to life heavy objects.
Doing it can benefit anyone (young, old, disabled, etc.).
It can be an aerobic or an anaerobic exercise.
It is a relatively easy skill to learn, its inexpensive, and can be done most anywhere.

 

GO" W
2.0 Mean
4-1 Interquartlle Range

 

Most will have the chance to play as adults, but may not have the opportunity for
instruction outside physical education.
A life-long activity that one can benefit from playing as one gets older, into retirement.

Excellent form of outdoor exercise, readily available to the public.
Requires a high level of skill, but anyone of any skill level can play.

It is often used as a medium to conduct business.
Provides a context to learn patience.

Can be played as a recreation or competitively.
A low impact sport.
Can be played in a group or by an individual, locally or around the world.

 

Softball/baseball 333mm
1 .98 Mean
3-0 Interquartile Range

 

 

It is a sport that accommodates individuals of most ages and levels of ability.

It provides opportunities for social interaction, ranging from recreational play to
highly competitive athletics.

It includes the major skill areas of throwing, catching and striking, which
are critical for success in many other areas.

Through rule modifications, it can be played with small numbers or traditional teams.

Because of its popularity, softball diamonds and equipment are generally
available in each community.

Leagues with are available for all ages at various levels of ability and competition.

Summer recreation leagues are growing rapidly and a student is likely to get
involved after their education is done.

148

Rating Form for Program Content
*** Wad ***

Product

The document’s cover page lists all program objectives in rank order, according to overall
mean ratings. Each objective is preceded by its rank and followed by its mean. To the far
left, numerals 5—1 are placed to designate how on average the objectives would be rated
after the first round (i.e., the first 10 objectives would receive a “5” rating).

0n subsequent pages, the objectives are again listed in rank order. The objective’s mean
and interquartile range is immediately below each objective. The interquartile range is the
range in which the ratings of the middle 50 percent of the respondents fall. For example,
the interquartile range for aerobic fitness is 4-5. This implies that the middle 50 percent of
respondents rated this objective either a 4 or 5. Finally, the rationales provided by
participants is provided below the objective.

Instructlons tor completlng the form:

I . Record the first letter of your last name and the last four digits of
your social security at the top of the page.

0 Read through the rank order of objectives on the cover page, considering which
ones you agree with and which ones you think are out of order.

0 Read the rationales provided for those objectives you think are rated too high or too
low. This is extremely important, in that we must seek to understand what others
were thinking and consider the strength of the arguments.

2. Rate the 10 program objectives you believe are most important for graduates of a

physical education program to acquire with a 5.

Rate the 10 next most important with a 4.

Rate the 10 next most important with a 3.

Rate the 10 next most important with a 2.

Rate the 10 next most important with a 1.

Note: Rate only 50 objectives.

9‘???

7. Important: Provide a rationale each time you rate an objective outside the
interquartile range

Examples:
If you rate an objective “2” and the interquartile range is “3-5”, explain why you
think the objective was rated too high.
If you rate an objective “4” and the interquartile range is “0-2”, share why you think
the objective is rated too low.
If you rated the objective “4”, and the interquartile range is “3-5”, you need not give
a rationale.

149

”00.05 0.. 000000.: 60.000060 0.. .5000 ”0.50

 

 

 

80.000000
..00000.
E E000. 60.00000 3000
. 00000.0 0.0000 e.we
N 00000.0 0.. 0000.00. 000...... ebu
m 00.0.0000. 00.0.0 8....
e £000 00 000<0 0000.000 u...»
0 0000000000 who
m.0 0 000. 0....00. Pew
0 000000. ..00 0.0000 Pea
m 800000.005. 8.8..
0 002000.00. PE.
.0 000000.000: 0.. 00.000 8.8
. . .0300. 0000 u. .0
.N 00... .0 .0000 0.0.0.. 0.....0 8....
.u 000.%. 0 0000000. 000...... 0%.. 9.0
.e 0.80%.: 0000.000. .00. 000.. 98
e.0 .0 0000... 0.0000000 Nae
.0 000000. ..00 00.00 N8
.0 000 90..
.m 00.8.0000 who
.0 000.050-50.05 Nun
No 000<00. 5.00.00 ~00
N. 00.05.0000 00000.0 0.. 000.0. 00.. N00
NN 00000<000000 98
N. 000000 0.0.00” 00.000 50.00800 New
we .000000...0 ~80
nu 830000.00 ..00 0.0000 98
“0.0 N0 .0000: 9.000000 Nb.
3 005000080000 N. .m
Nm 00.30.00. 0.. 0.0.80.0... n. .0
N0 000.000. .5 000 005. N. .u
8 00.00.08.” .00. .00. 000.. N. .w

~.0

..0

8.
mm
8
we
um
80
3
mm
we
e0

e.

eN
em
ee
em
e0
e0
em
e0
me

u.

MN
8
0e
um
mm
.3
mm
we
8

”0000 O00 ”000:0

E wan-$5 O0..00..<0 2.000 ”0.... 000mg... ©3203 3000
5.00.0.0 No0 0. 00.00.06.” 000.. ..N
000.000” 0.050.000 Noe 0N 0.00.0.0...” 00.00 ..N
000000. ..00 0000000. Noe 8 000$.00m0. 0000. 000000 ..N
0000000 00000000.. 0.. 00.0.0. N8 0e 00.0000” 0.0..0 00050. ...
0.000%... .0m0 ..3 8 000000000. 00000 000000000 ...
00.00. 00. 00:0 ..0» 00 0.0.00. ..0000000 ...
8000m0 ..8 0.. «0:00 ...
00.0000“ 3.00.0.0 000m! ..0. am 000$.00m0” 000 00 00000 ..o
0.000%... 00.00 .00 00 .000 ..o
000000.08 0.....00 00000500000 .00 .5 0000.0. 00.0 ..00. ..e
0.0.00.0 0.. 000... 500.0000 ..0e 0. 0000 90
0000 000 0.0.000 5.00.00 ..ec ..N .00..” 50.00 90
0.00 ..eu .8 .00... .00 9..
00000050. 0000000. 00000 ..e. ..e 00.00” 00.05 0000 9m
.0000 0000 ..we .3 508.00%. 200.0088 9m
0000.0“ 0...... 00000 ..8 00 .000 000.0 0 000.0050. 00.. 9..
000.000. 0.. ..Nm .3 5.0.0.030. 000.0000 5 0000. 9m
0.000%... 0000.0000 ..Ne 0.. 0000.50.00” .000 9..
.0000” <00000. .. .0 00 0000.000 00... 002.000 9..
00.00.05.” 5.0.. .. .m we 00.. 0 00.. 90
9.00 000. ..u 0. 00.0000” .0<00.00 9..
5.0.0.030. 000v. 000.0 ..e mm 0000” 0000. 90
00. ..e 8 0000.000 00..” 000.3000 90
000.000” 0000 000 00.. ..e we 000<00 000. 90
.0500 ..u mu 0.0...0. 0<000000 90
0.0.00.0...“ 0000.000 ..w «0 0.....0 0 0000 .00000 90
.0000. 000.0005. ..w mu 00000080. 000 0.. 0.00 90
.0000: 000000000 ..u mm 0000... 90
000 ..u we ..000000mo. 0.0000000 .0 0000 9m
0.000%... 000.. ..N 8 0.0.00. 00000000 90

 

150

First Letter of Last Name: Final Digits of Soc. Sec.# - - -

 

Rating of General Program Objectives:

 

Round Two
Rating
Aerobic fitness W
4.34 Mean
54 Interquartile Range

 

 

Aerobic fitness is necessary for maintaining physical and mental health throughout life.
It is an essential component of total fitness.
It provides special health related benefits including the delay or prevention of
cardiovascular disease, obesity, high cholesterol, blood pressure and type II diabetes.

Benefits of aerobic fitness include reduction of stress and certain types of mental illness.
Its base should be established in childhood and maintained thereafter because many

of the degenerative diseases have their " genesis" in childhood.
It has been established as the foundation for anaerobic fitness, thus it rises to the top

priority in any program designed to promote total fitness.
Aerobic fitness is necessary to enable one to engage in daily activities,

both work and leisure and to be productive.
Aerobic fitness is a major component in weight loss or maintenance.
Aerobic fitness facilitates the strength and endurance to safely participate in all activities.
Aerobic fitness helps to develop strong muscles, heart and lungs in order to

combat major health concerns.

Benefits of physical activity

 

4.25 Mean Rationale;
5-4 Interquartile Range

 

 

People need to understand the benefits of activity to make healthy decisions.
Individuals who understand the benefits of physical activity are in the best possible
position to make informed choices about their own health status and quality of life.
Knowledge of activity's benefits is essential in order to dispel the myths

that surround activity programs.
Those knowledgeable about the benefits are more likely to initiate

and sustain program of physical activity.
Knowing what the benefits are helps us be smarter consumers, able to sift

through accurate and inaccurate information.

 

Nutritional habits Ratlanalct
3.8 Mean
5-3 Interquartile Range

 

 

Lack of knowledge of proper nutrition contributes to poor food choices.
Nutritional habits play a role in obesity and other diseases.

A balanced diet is essential to a healthy body.

Pr0per nutrition is necessary for successful participation in physical activity.

 

Value an active lifestyle 3mm;
3.72 Mean
5-3 Interquartile Range

 

 

Assigning a value to being active is important to developing a lifetime
commitment to physical activity and a healthy lifestyle.

This will influence behavior long after the student leaves physical education
class, having a long term positive affect on quality of life.

151

 

Cooperation Rationale;
3.50 Mean

5-3 Interquartile Range

 

 

Cooperation is necessary for groups to compete or perform at a high level.
Sharing one's contributions and enjoying those of others while working together
for a common goal is a positive experience that reinforces the value of teamwork.
Effective cooperative behavior is essential to successfully working with
others in all aspects of life.
Physical education provides an ideal setting for teaching cooperation.

 

Best effort Renews;
3.48 Mean

5-3 Interquartile Range

 

Giving one's best effort is a cross-curricular goal, essential to being
successful in all aspects of life.

Knowing what it means, and the value of acquiring it, will help people
learn how to be focused on their personal performance. drawing
satisfaction from their effort in contrast to potential outcomes (i.e., win or lose).

Learning how to give one's best effort consistently leads to improvement,
which will provide long term motivation.

This trait is necessary to becoming physically active and fit.

 

Respect for others Rationale;
3.40 Mean
5-2 Interquartile Range

 

 

Respect for others is necessary to foster posntive interactions between people.

A quality lacking in today's society, mutual respect for each other could
result in a happier, more peaceful place to live.

Physical activity offers an ideal environment to teach this trait.

Showing respect for others improves personal and professional relationships.

 

Responsibility Rationale:
3.37 Mean
5-2 Interquartile Range

 

 

People need to learn that their choices and actions can both
positively and negatively affect others.
Responsible behavior with cultivate a sense of trust and respect by others.

 

Self-control W
3.26 Mean
5-2 Interquartile Range

 

 

Self control is necessary for positive and effective interactions in personal,
social and professional aspects of life.

It is needed to develop and/or maintain habits that contribute to health-related
levels of body composition and/or fitness levels.

It is a necessary skill for dealing with the stress, frustration and
conflict that are natural parts of life.

Self control must be taught to counter the many examples of lack of
self control prevalent in the realm of sport today.

This will keep the individual accountable for his/her own activity.

152

APPENDIX E

Round Three Instrument

Rating Form for Lifelong Games, Sports and Activities

The

*t* h' ' tit

' l A 'v' ' (yellow) will be used first. The

form’s first page lists all activities in rank order, according to the overall mean ratings from
the second round. This page will be the recording sheet. The subsequent pages list each
activity in rank order. Each activity is followed by the rationales provided for rating the
objective higher, then the rationales provided for rating the objective lower. If either or both
categories do not appear below an objective, no rationales were provided.

Instructions for completing the form:

1.

owner»

Record the first letter of your last name and the last four digits of
your social security at the top of the rating form (next page).

Remove the rating form from the rest of the document.

Use pages 2—9 as a worksheet. Read through the activities, noting their order.
Read the rationales for rating objectives higher and lower before recording your
rating on the recording sheet (page 1). This is extremely important, in that we must
seek to understand what others were thinking and consider the strength of their
arguments.

. Rate the three activities you believe are most important for graduates of a physical

education program to acquire with a 5.

Note: Rate the activities you feel are the most important outcomes, regardless of
available facilities. The availability of resources will affect cuniculum
content, but should not diminish the intrinsic value of acquiring competency
in a specific activity.

Rate the three next most important with a 4.

Rate the three next most important with a 3.

Rate the three next most important with a 2.

Rate the three next most important with a 1.

N te: Rate only 15 activities.

Return the single page of the rating form only.

154

32. r35. om ram. 259

 

Zn: 5.38:...
human >335. 325
II mEBBEm #wa
III HommEQvesagw—Eam PS
I (<05? Han—Em ubw
ll wmmxopcé who
I Hanan w. 3
I Go: P3
I <o=8&w= uni
l mead»: Nam
Ill Ova—Em PM.»
I 02.8” 8830 who
I means. N. 5
III 293m” 03% 8.55. PM _
III Ema—Hm :3
ll .5.»an 2535 :K
I 28.5% SE5 9%
ll c5535 93
I 638” meow». 93
I was—5m Pm—
||| wove 556:5 Pow
I men—535% in 335 aha
ll. Owaammaom” EEG—o 38‘ 9.8
.II mooGw—r new aha
III: 95.3% chn
III w§§3 oh»
I .785 mo:— o<a=5 98
ll wean—:05»: c. 3
I wrmm—i" 3:2 93
I Zea». >3” .838 PS

 

 

wagueamsesa - - -

flea—in 2. SEE.» .3358” ”2::— .256

 

 

23¢ 5.3.35
5.2:” .533 33:
.520 55a 98
958:5 Pom
28.5% moo Pom
wmnwuwofiam 93
393m” capowmaam Poo
958“ :30 Poo
main” mossy:— Poo
Q58” 3:98 Poo
62.8” 9835 Poo
a”: Q: 93
mfiu 882nm Pom
>830. oba
$0838.» now—m c.9—
mthBEm” £9 Poe
mango“ mw=Em§8 P8
flows 5853: Pow
Zea»— mnmn .Eae Pow
€8m=Em Pow
Owes—538” «3‘53? 98
Zea»— snm“ 2:08 98
:83»: 98
688” 3:2 98
0:825 Q85 98
Q58” :6 Pen
33.8w.” no.5 98
Neva—mam Pom
magnum” «So—u. Pom
muotSOoEm Pom

 

 

22.. 5.3.3:»

5.2:" :33. 38:
9.3.5. 93
032538“ 2.25:5 PS
mum—5m 9o—

. 67.3% mngmcoma 93
3:95 99
Ema—fin $50895 99
mango” 5.558 99
(<32 “co—o ob—

Oma mean» 92
wean—ac»: ob—
mEEm” £29 0.3
moon... cw: 0.8

992 9.8
£8258 98
950.5% aging obs
$883: 98
>01». mg 98
woxmam obo
maxim Poo
Deacon Fun 98
635% mac?» 98
035% was 98
mum—mam” 36895 98
men—n2 9.8
flow—o a»: 98
553. AER—508 98

mo: 90:88 98
950.3% 252 98

155

Lifelong Activities Rationale Composite:
Round Three

Swimming (4.43)

Higher

Swimming ability, drownproofing and rescue skills saves lives and opens
doors to a wide array of active water sports.
It is a non-weight bearing activity where participation can extend throughout the lifespan.
Swimming and water activities can be designed which involve all the
muscles of the body, serving as a full body conditioner.

There is easy access for most people in most communities.

Lower
The special facility needs may reduce availability to some communities.
It requires access to pools to teach students.
Teaching a large amount of schools requires a significant amount of time and resources.

Jogging/Powerwalking (4.09)

Higher
It can be done by almost anyone, anywhere, any time of the day.
Because of the variability of intensity, it can be an appropriate conditioner at any age.
It is inexpensive and can be done year round.

Lower
It may result in injuries due to repetitive stress injuries.
It may not be an attractive activity to all ages.

Weight Training (3.33)
Higher
It is the primary way to increase and maintain muscular strength and endurance,
and can be used for a cardiovascular effect.

It can be used to improve flexibility and posture, and can be done at one's own pace.

Participation results in increases in lean body mass and body metabolism,
thus increasing the consumption of calories.

Participation is not dependent on extensive motor skills.

Few people understand how to do it safely, and in ways to derive specific
benefits. They need to be taught.

Anyone can participate, and participation aids performance of daily tasks
which requires muscular strength and endurance.

It can help delay the onset of osteoporosis- especially for women.

It is of high interest to students who are interested in shaping their
physique or enhancing their sport performance.

It can protect individuals from injury- particularly lower back pain-
and can contribute to the rehabilitation of injuries.

Lower

Participation typically depends upon extensive equipment and facilities.

It is not an acceptable activity to many females.

Improper lifting techniques can result in injuries.

It can be time consuming.

* This document is a sample of the study's round-three instrument. It's intent is to illustrate
the instrument's format and sample rationales. The complete set of data can be
obtained by contacting the author.

156

Basketball (3.30)
Higher
Basketball is a very popular sport, especially among students,
providing a social and/or competitive outlet.
It includes a variety of skills and mental alertness to play well.
It requires team work to succeed when teams are evenly matched.
It is a good aerobic and anaerobic conditioner.
Can be played by men and/or women, at various levels of intensity and
among groups of various sizes.
Adult leagues are commonly available.
Lower
Participation may not be suitable for older individuals and is
often contingent upon having teams.
There is substantial potential for injuries, especially to ankles and knees.
It requires cornpetence in a variety of skills, and lack of competencies
may limit the ability to participate.

Tennis (3.17)
Higher
It is relatively inexpensive to play, and facilities are readily available in most communities.
It can be played at varying intensity levels by people of most ages, and
by those with certain disabilities.
It contributes to aerobic and anaerobic fitness, eye-hand coordination
and strength of involved muscles.
It provides a challenging, competitive outlet.
Lower
The length of good weather in different parts of the state, and
the availability of courts may limit participation.
Most often, court time and partners need to be scheduled, and playing
the game normally takes at least one hour.
Skill competence is necessary to obtain full benefits.
Equipment and other expenses may make it prohibitive to some.

Golf (2.76)

Higher
A good lifelong activity with particular value for older individuals.
It can be challenging and/or relaxing.
It provides a competitive outlet.
A popular sport that can be enjoyed by either sexes and pe0ple with various skill levels.
Participation can contribute to the development of

personal-social skills such as patience, honesty and persistence.

It is expensive, but attainable for many pe0ple.

Lower
Golf is difficult to teach to large groups.
It is a difficult sport to master with respect to shooting low scores.
The exercise intensity is very low.
Participation costs, time blocks of two to four hours, and the

need for reservations may deter participation by some.

157

The

Rating Form for Program Objectives

tit ' ***

' (white) will be used second. The form’s first page lists

W
all program objectives in rank order, according to the overall mean ratings from the

previous round. This page will be the recording sheet. The subsequent pages list each
objective in rank order (paralleling the recording sheet). Each activity is followed by the
rationales provided for rating the objective higher, then the rationales provided for rating
the objective lower. If either or both categories do not appear below an objective, no
rationales were provided.

Instructions for completing the form:

I.

ONUtfsU-i

Record the first letter of your last name and the last four digits of
your social security at the top of the rating form (next page).
Remove the rating form from the rest of the document.

Use pages 2-11 as a worksheet. Read through the activities, noting their order.
Read the rationales for rating objectives higher and lower before recording your
rating on the recording sheet (page 1). This is extremely important, in that we must
seek to understand what others were thinking and consider the strength of their
arguments.

Rate the ten program objectives you believe are most important for graduates of a
physical education program to acquire with a 5.

Rate the ten next most important with a 4.

Rate the ten next most important with a 3.

Rate the ten next most important with a 2.

Rate the ten next most important with a 1.

N te: Rate only 50 objectives.

Return the single page of the rating form only.

158

0.00. 0.0.80 0.. 0.00. 20.00. 0.00. 90.0 0.. 000. 000... - - -

 

”0.0.0 0.. 080000. 030000.00.

 

 

 

 

”0000 .0080

200. 002.000 200. 000.0000 200. 003.000

.330 080.00. 00.00.30 2.000 .3000 E0000. O0..00..<0 .5000 .3000 080000. 00.00.30 2000
00830 0.0000 0.00 0000000 000000000 00 00...... N.N. I .0800 0.00
00000.0 0.. 0.0.0.00. 000...... 0.00 000000. ..00 08000.0. N... I ..030. 000.0030. 0.00
000.0000. 003.0 0.0.. 000.000. 0.0.5085 N. .0 I 000 0.....
000000. ..00 00.000 0.00 00.0... 0.. 0000 N. .0 I 0.50.5000. 000000000
.000 00 00..<0 500.000 0.00 00.0000..<00000 N00 .0 00000 0.00
000. 00.0.. 0.3 .0...0..<0 N00 I 000.000. 0000 000 00.. 0.00
0000000000 0.N0 0.00005. .000 N0. I 00030800030 0.00
800000.30... 0.NN 00.0000. 0.50.0.0 000.00. ..00 I .3030. 00.0 ..00. 0.00
00.0.0008. 0.0. 00000.... 0:00 ..00 I .00... .00.00 0.00
000.00 0 0000000. 000...... 00.0 0.0.. 000.000. ..0. 000 0000.. ..0N I 0033...... 0000.000 0.0N
0000030000 0.. 0.0000 0..: 000000.08 0.....00 00000030000 .00 I ..00£.0000.000 00 ..0000 0.N0
8:0... 0.0000000 0.00 0000 ..00 0.0.000 5.00.00 ..00 I 0053...... 000.. 0.N0
00.000000 0.0... 0000000 000 III 00.0000. 0.000 000.00. 0.Nm
00:. .0 .00... 0.0.00 0.....0 0.00 ..030 0000 ..00 I 00:00 0.N0
000000. ..00 00.00 0.0.. 00.030. 00.0 00000 ..NN I... 00.00. 00.000 00:0 0.N0
00000.0. 0000.000. .00. 000.. 0.3 .99....00000000000. 00000 ..N. I .000 0.NN.
.0000... 0000 0.N0 00000.0 0.. 0005050000 800.0000 ..N. I 0000. 0000. 0.N0
000 0.N0 0.00 .. .0 I 8.. 0 00.. 0.N0
000<00. 5.00.00 0.N0 0013...... .80.. ..00 I 5.0.0.5000. 000.0000
00009000000 0. .. 00000.... 00030000 0.00 .0 00000 0.NN
000.050-800.00 0.0N .900. <00..00. 0.00 I 0..00 0.NN
.0000000.0 N00 9.00 ..00. 0.00 I 05.8. 9.000000 0.N.
090000050 ..00 0.0000 N00 .89....0000. 000.. 000.0 0. 00 ..II 0033...... 00.00 0.N0
000000 00.80 30.00800 N00 000.000. 0.. 0.0N I .00... .00 0.0
0003...... 0.0. .9... 000.. N00 00. 0.00 I 0000.000 8... 002.000 0. 3
.0000... 9.000000 NMN 0.80.. 000000000 0.00 I 00000.0. 000.. 0.3
00.05000. 0.. 0.9.0.000. N00 0000:0000. 000.. 000000 0.00 I 0.0.00. 00000000 0. .0
00.0.8008. 00000.0 0.. 000.0. 00. N10 0.0.00. 00000000 0.00 I .80....0000000 0.. .000 0. .u

159

Program Content Rationale Composite:
Round Three“

Aerobic fitness (4.69)
Higher
Aerobic fitness is an important concept for all ages and genders, necessary
for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
It is needed as a base for sport involvement and effective
participation in a healthy lifestyle.
Lower
Obtaining fitness levels in our students does not guarantee they will be
active or fit over their lifetime.
Benefits of physical activity (4.59)
Higher
Those who understand the benefits are in a position to make
informed decisions and assign value to living an active lifestyle.
Lower
Benefits of physical activity are best learned in conjunction with other physical skills and
objectives, and does not have to be taught as a separate entity.
Nutritional habits (4.44)
Higher
Sound nutritional habits contribute to overall health, healthy function,
and growth and development.
Proper nutrition is a requisite for reaping the potential
benefits of participation in physical activity.
Lower
This subject matter is best taught in other classes or academic areas.
Students have little control over what they eat; they will eat what their parents provide.

Respect for others (4.38)
Higher
Respect for others promotes general learning.
Recognizing and appreciating the abilities of others, while acknowledging one's own
limitations, enhances the chances of developing successful relationships with others.
Treating others with respect is important enough to be taught proactively in the curricula.
Lower
Teaching basic skills to be physically active is more important.
Teaching respect for others is not unique to physical education and
should be addressed as a secondary objective.

Value an active lifestyle (4.36)

Higher

Assigning an importance to living an active lifestyle over the participation of

alternative activities is necessary for students to develop such a lifestyle outside school.

Lower

As students become proficient at activities and skills and learn the benefits of

physical activity, attaching value to living an active lifestyle will naturally occur.
Values are difficult to teach as unique entities and should be a
derivative of other meaningful experiences.

160

Best effort (4.27)
Higher
It is essential to being successful in all aspects of life, including
other objectives included in the physical education program.
An individual who learns to give their best effort assigns intrinsic value
to the process, regardless of the outcome.
Lower
This is not exclusive to physical education. It should be taught by all teachers
in all classes, and thus should be a secondary objective.

Cooperation (4.23)
Higher
It is an important interpersonal skill necessary at all ages and in all areas.
It is necessary for successful interactions with others, and
doing it will result in mutual benefits.
Lower
It is not unique to physical education and should be taught in all areas
all of the time as a secondary objective.
Teaching basic skills to be physically active is more important.
with personal/social skills existing as secondary objectives.

Responsibility (4.22)

Higher

It is important for students to take responsibility for their own learning
and lifestyles and know the implications in doing so.

Responsible behavior cultivates trust and respect from others.

Lower
Teaching basic skills to be physically active is more important.
This is very difficult to assess.
Teaching responsibility is not unique to physical education and

should be taught in other areas as well.

Self-control (3.91)
Higher
A skill that enhances interactions in personal, social and professional aspects
of life, and thus becomes essential to meeting all other educational objectives.
Learning self control enhances the chances of success in any stress-laden
endeavor, and sports and games provide an ideal situation to teach it.
Lower
Teaching fundamental motor skills is more important than teaching self control.
It should be a secondary objective, taught in the context of teaching
something specific to physical education.

Design a personal activity program (3.84)
Higher
Important to give students the skills to determine what activities they
like and how to incorporate them into a plan for a lifetime of activity.
It enables students to tailor their personal program to meet their specific needs
in ways that are consistent with their interests. which should enhance
the possibility of maintaining an active lifestyle.
It adds relevance to what is taught in physical education class.
Lower
This is an applied skill. Other prerequisites are of higher priority and should be taught first.

161

APPENDIX F

Rank Order of Lifelong Activities

Lifelong Activities:

 

 

 

Rankings By Groups
Stakeholders
Activity all cad bad sb crt pet pnt std rec isd legflmsme range disp.
swimming 12111112113112033
jogging/powerwalking 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 2 2 2 2 9 0.75
weighttraining 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 10 4 3 7 0.83
basketball 44545541442456 232.42
tennis 56454496551734142.00
volleyball 6 7 6 6 6 6 5 4 10 6 12 10 7 8 1.58
golf 7 5 8117 710156 9166 5 112.75
cycling 8 10 7 8 9 10 8 9 7 ll 1 7 11 10 1.83
softball 999789689723121017225
dance:aerobic 10 8 l3 9 10 8 11 1611 8 5 9 8 11 2.00
soccer 11 11 10 10 11 ll 7 3 8 15 20 16 9 17 3.08
walking 12 13 12 15 12 12 13 11 13 10 4 8 12 11 1.75
skiing: crosscountry 13 12 11 12 13 13 15 22 12 13 9 11 13 13 1.83
track: running 14 15 15 14 15 18 14 7 16 12 6 19 20 14 2.92
hiking 15 17 14 13 14 16 16 13 17 17 13 23 16 10 1.92
skating: inline 16 16 18 17 16 15 17 24 15 19 34 18 19 19 3.00
dancezsocial 17 14 20 18 17 l9 18 51 18 16 8 14 17 43 4.83
bowling 18 19 16 19 19 17 21 17 21 23 11 13 18 12 2.50
ropejumping 19 18 17 21 20 14 22 18 27 14 32 17 14 18 3.83
swimming: life saving 20 29 19 20 18 24 12 12 14 22 26 42 25 30 6.08
gymnastics: tumble/floor 21 20 25 16 21 23 20 30 20 18 33 15 22 18 3.75
badminton 22 26 30 22 25 20 32 19 31 21 35 21 15 20 5.08
step aerobics 23 48 26 44 24 21 24 23 19 40 7 39 31 41 9.17
racquetball 24 25 28 25 23 25 23 47 24 29 37 35 21 26 5.00
football: flag/touch 25 28 23 38 22 22 28 20 22 28 25 31 28 18 3.92
track: field 26 23 32 26 43 35 19 21 25 24 36 46 39 27 7.75
camping 27 21 21 24 26 28 26 31 41 26 14 22 23 27 4.42
hockey: ice/inlinc/floor 28 36 55 32 38 26 34 14 28 34 41 20 30 41 7.33
back packing 29 22 24 33 31 47 31 28 34 43 22 41 35 25 6.25
dance: line 30 27 40 41 32 29 44 48 32 30 21 25 26 27 6.58
skating: ice 31 31 33 23 3O 34 29 41 23 27 18 40 42 24 5.92
dance: square 32 24 29 46 29 27 57 61 4O 32 39 28 24 37 9.50
tabletennis 33 38 34 36 33 32 30 26 44 39 28 44 34 18 4.33
skiing: downhill 34 32 22 29 39 44 37 38 26 41 19 30 38 25 6.58
swim: W81 35 44 49 28 28 43 27 35 39 48 49 29 27 22 8.17
selfdefense 36 49 61 61 27 38 39 32 52 55 56 59 60 34 9.58
tai-chi 37 50 51 54 55 46 25 52 29 33 40 32 36 30 9.42
fishing: baitcasting 38 33 45 43 45 33 53 4O 30 37 15 33 41 38 7.17
frisbeezskills/games 39 3O 35 31 44 40 51 33 45 49 50 54 29 25 7.92
martial arts: karate 40 51 54 56 37 48 33 37 33 42 45 50 55 23 7.25
canoeing 41 34 39 27 48 42 38 43 42 20 29 26 37 28 6.58
archery 42 52 42 3O 41 41 55 36 37 46 30 27 33 28 7.00
wrestling 43 4O 46 50 52 31 52 39 43 38 44 49 54 23 5.67
skating: roller 44 53 43 34 50 36 50 29 35 44 46 51 45 24 6.17
orienteering 45 35 44 49 4O 45 43 25 50 53 54 37 32 29 6.92
teamhandball 46 41 52 37 47 3O 62 64 64 64 64 64 48 34 10.58

163

Lifelong Activities
Rankings By Groups (cont'd).

 

 

 

Stakeholders
Activity 31 cad bad sb crt pet pnt std rec isd leg mpdsme range disp.
dance: modem 47 54 31 35 53 51 45 49 56 57 57 24 49 33 7.92
dance: creative 48 55 60 60 42 37 56 34 48 31 38 47 43 29 8.42
martial arts: others 49 56 47 51 58 53 35 53 46 50 51 55 57 23 4.33
crew 50 57 38 47 62 64 36 54 58 36 43 48 53 28 8.33
cardgames 51 58 27 45 61 62 49 59 60 60 60 61 62 35 5.67
snow shoeing 52 59 62 62 63 39 42 56 59 59 59 60 61 24 4.42
gymnastics: apparatus 53 60 48 52 54 52 41 42 53 25 27 43 51 35 8.00
dance: folk/ethnic 54 39 41 48 34 54 54 60 61 61 61 34 44 27 9.25
speedball 55 61 63 63 64 50 47 44 38 47 48 53 56 26 7.17
handball 56 45 50 53 51 58 48 58 36 45 47 52 46 22 4.58
lacrosse 57 42 59 59 35 60 61 63 63 63 63 63 64 29 5.25
fishing: spincasting 58 46 57 42 46 55 46 57 49 52 53 57 40 17 5.17
sailing 59 43 56 57 36 56 59 45 54 35 42 36 50 24 7.92
sbuffieboard 60 47 37 40 56 49 63 46 55 56 31 45 52 32 7.08
kayaking 61 62 64 64 60 59 40 55 47 51 52 56 58 24 5.50
hooker 62 63 58 58 57 63 64 27 51 54 55 58 59 37 5.25
horseshoes 63 37 36 39 49 57 60 50 57 58 58 38 47 24 7.83
skiing: water 64 64 53 55 59 61 58 62 62 62 62 62 63 11 2.25

164

Lifelong Activities
Rankings By Groups (cont'd).

School Districts

 

Activity ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOrangedigp.
swimming 21111112111111110.13
jogging/powerwalking132222212222322 20.27
weighttraining 344385333343443 50.80
basketball 7236444466345545100
tennis 49556359847623671.67
volleyball 957436687755106571.40
golf 8769119115451097797180
cycling 613911577759810610128207
softball 1368771010691167911871.73
dance:aerobic 1015 38 8 1211 8 1411 8 11 8 12 8 7 31 3.73
soccer 1181010989101210913891051.07
walking 15 11 ll 18 10 15 13 12 13 12 12 11 16 12 11 8 1.60
skiing: crosscountry 5 10 16 13 13 12 14 ll 10 14 15 17 11 14 17 12 2.33
track: running 18 14 15 16 16 13 15 19 16 16 13 12 13 16 13 7 1.60
hiking 14 12 14 15 15 14 19 13 14 19 22 19 17 18 14 10 2.27
skating: inline 12 21 19 12 14 17 12 24 18 17 16 20 23 21 25 13 3.53
dance: social 16 23 37 24 20 39 22 20 23 13 18 16 15 13 22 26 5.27
bowling 20 16 12 19 19 19 16 15 17 18 21 14 25 20 27 15 2.87
ropejumping 22 18 20 14 18 20 20 18 19 22 14 15 19 40 15 26 3.40
swimming: life saving 17 20 17 23 28 16 18 27 15 15 19 27 14 17 16 14 3.47
gymnastics: tumble/floor 21 29 23 17 22 21 17 23 21 20 17 23 21 22 21 12 1.93
badminton 35 17 18 22 17 25 60 37 24 21 27 26 48 19 20 43 8.27
step aerobics 19 30 27 32 27 47 21 54 47 24 33 21 18 25 18 36 8.27
racquetball 23 35 22 30 21 29 27 31 29 38 26 18 34 15 19 23 5.47
football: flag/touch 30 19 25 21 24 28 24 22 20 23 23 22 22 31 24 12 2.47
track: field 36 48 24 35 26 27 23 35 26 25 24 25 29 33 41 25 5.60
camping 27 28 29 29 38 22 35 25 22 28 40 33 20 27 29 20 4.13
hockey: ice/inlinclfloor 31 22 31 28 34 26 25 50 39 27 20 36 39 44 23 30 6.80
back packing 26 24 33 42 41 24 29 16 25 30 34 47 46 39 28 31 7.33
dance: line 25 46 50 38 37 41 63 21 40 26 30 35 30 38 33 42 7.73
skating: ice 32 25 30 39 47 23 33 28 44 29 25 41 28 28 46 24 6.40
dance: square 58 59 13 36 30 40 57 56 46 49 57 46 55 37 32 46 10.47
table tennis 49 26 43 37 23 30 46 29 32 36 35 32 35 24 30 26 5.80
skiing: downhill 33 33 36 25 25 18 47 30 35 32 32 49 33 41 47 31 6.20
swim: WSI 24 53 51 44 35 35 28 44 53 37 31 28 36 30 37 29 7.20
selfdefense 55 60 60 46 52 46 31 58 61 34 59 31 32 23 31 38 11.80
tai-chi 60 41 54 45 51 50 26 40 55 55 50 30 31 32 52 34 8.80
fishing: baitcasting 42 43 40 49 62 43 58 17 30 39 38 38 42 47 53 45 7.40
fi'isbeezskills/games 46 31 39 27 31 32 41 39 31 43 37 56 51 34 38 29 6.13
martial arts: karate 28 40 46 41 32 33 30 51 52 54 43 24 27 43 48 30 8.20
canoeing 29 34 44 31 39 42 40 38 37 33 36 50 38 42 40 21 3.93
archery 39 49 41 43 29 37 56 26 33 42 41 48 47 46 43 30 5.73
wrestling 57 50 26 54 49 31 55 47 36 44 53 51 40 53 26 31 8.20
skating: roller 43 32 42 26 58 54 50 43 45 31 29 40 54 49 39 32 7.60
orienteering 40 39 53 59 36 49 42 61 34 35 39 57 52 29 35 32 8.40
team handball 54 38 32 20 33 62 38 53 49 60 55 59 57 62 42 42 10.47

165

Lifelong Activities
Rankings By Groups (cont'd).

School Districts

ABCDEFGH

50 61 21 55

 

I K L M N O rangcdisp.

I

mmmnfimmxfimmmmmxmmm
778785678565656546
mmwnwflfiflmnnufimnwuw
“Mfi%wflufififimfi$m&Mflw
55553 456 24556 35

1M710396835 49263
4 365642544 25655

532656 3 3544 654

68883526M1927421
45426445 6454565

57303211.. 89676 0021
44556665 45554 554

8798827101M634 0023
3555262554 545 446

9274238251w663925
5353564454 343464

543443 53453563 56

fiwfififlM%M$M%fiwflfimflw

18374386312200
5653345555665

219545 50029873
64334 5455246

44 37 56 47
59 36 58 40
38 56 57 6
64 52 6

63 27

62 54

34 44

 

Activity

fishing: spincasting

gymnastics: apparatus
sailing

dance: folk/ethnic

speedball

dance: modern
dance: creative
martial arts: others
crew

card games
snow shoeing
handball
shufi'leboard
kayaking
hocker
horseshoes
skiing' water

lacrosse

166

Lifelong Activities
Rankings By Groups (cont'd).

 

 

 

Region Gender

Activity 1 2 3 4 r_ge disp. male female range diso%.
swimming 1 1 1 l 0 0. 00 1 1 0
jogging/powerwalking 2 2 2 2 0 0.00 2 2 0 0.00
weight training 3 3 3 3 0 0.00 3 3 0 0.00
basketball 4 4 4 5 1 0.25 4 5 1 0.50
tennis 5 5 6 4 2 0.50 5 4 1 0.50
volleyball 7 6 7 6 1 0.50 6 6 0 0.00
golf 6 10 5 8 5 1.75 7 8 1 0.50
cycling 9 7 8 10 3 1.00 9 9 0 0.00
softball 8 8 9 9 l 0. 50 8 7 1 0.50
dance: aerobic 13 1 1 10 7 6 1.75 l 1 10 1 0.50
soccer 1 1 9 1 1 11 2 0.50 10 1 1 l 0.50
walking 12 12 12 12 0 0.00 12 12 0 0.00
skiing: cross country 10 13 13 14 4 1.00 13 13 0 0.00
track: running 17 16 14 13 4 1.50 14 16 2 1.00
hiking 14 15 15 16 2 0.50 15 14 1 0.50
skating: inline 15 14 19 24 10 3.50 19 15 4 2.00
dance: social 21 21 16 15 6 2. 75 20 18 2 1.00
bowling 16 18 17 20 4 1 .25 16 20 4 2.00
rope jumping 20 17 20 17 3 1.50 17 19 2 1.00
swimming: life saving 18 20 18 18 2 0. 50 18 17 l 0.50
gymnastics: tumble [floor 25 19 21 23 6 2 .00 21 23 2 1.00
badminton 19 24 23 21 5 1 .75 23 22 l 0.50
step aerobics 26 22 28 22 6 2.50 26 21 5 2.50
racquetball 24 26 32 19 13 3.75 24 24 0 0.00
football: flag/touch 23 25 22 25 3 1.25 22 27 5 2.50
track: field 32 23 27 31 9 3.25 28 25 3 1.50
camping 27 3 1 26 26 5 1.50 27 26 1 0.50
hockey: ice/inline/floor 28 28 31 27 4 1.00 25 32 7 3.50
back packing 29 34 24 39 15 5. 00 32 34 2 1.00
dance: line 33 44 25 33 19 4. 75 34 29 5 2.50
skating: ice 30 38 30 36 8 3. 50 29 35 6 3.00
dance: square 22 37 54 37 32 8. 00 33 28 5 2.50
table tennis 35 29 34 30 6 2. 50 30 38 8 4.00
skiing: downhill 37 27 33 52 25 7.25 31 39 8 4.00
swim: W81 34 35 39 29 10 2.75 36 30 6 3.00
self defense 62 39 40 28 34 8.75 57 31 26 13.00
tai-chi 57 33 56 32 25 12.00 38 33 5 2.50
fishing: baitcasting 52 59 29 53 30 7.75 35 54 19 9.50
frisbee: ski118/games 40 32 45 45 13 4.50 37 43 6 3.00
martial arts: karate 41 36 58 34 24 7.25 43 36 7 3.50
canoeing 38 45 38 40 7 2.25 39 41 2 1.00
archery 39 46 36 46 10 4. 25 44 46 2 1.00
wrestling 43 55 49 35 20 6. 50 40 59 19 9. 50
skating: roller 46 43 35 54 19 5.50 42 55 13 6.50
orienteering 53 48 41 38 15 5.50 46 37 9 4.50
team handball 44 30 62 57 32 11.25 49 45 4 2.00

167

 

Lifelong Activities
Rankings By Groups (cont'd).
Region Gender
Activity 1 2 3 4 range disp. male female
dance: modem 3 1 54 5 1 55 24 6.75 47 5 3
dance: creative 49 58 42 42 16 5.75 53 44
martial arts: others 50 47 59 41 18 5.25 45 56
crew 48 50 44 50 6 2.00 54 48
card games 63 52 37 51 26 6.75 56 40
snow shoeing 36 41 64 64 28 12.75 41 64
gymnastics: apparatus 60 5 1 47 43 17 5.25 48 50
dance: folk/ethnic 42 53 53 48 1 1 4.00 61 42
speedball 51 40 46 61 21 6.50 55 58
handball 47 57 52 56 10 3.50 50 60
lacrosse 64 64 63 44 20 5 .25 62 47
fishing: spincasting 55 49 50 58 9 3.50 58 51
sailing 54 60 57 47 13 4.00 59 49
shuffleboard 58 62 43 59 19 5.00 51 62
kayaking 61 42 60 62 20 5.25 52 61
hocker 45 56 61 63 18 5.75 64 52
horseshoes 56 61 55 49 12 3.25 60 57
skiing: water 59 63 48 60 15 4.00 63 63

 

168

rang EB

edi .
6 3.00

9
11
6
16
23
2
19
3
10
15
7
10
11
9
12
3
0

{1L . 'ifi-g

 

Lifelong Activities
Rankings By Groups (cont'd).

Household Income

 

 

Activity <$15,000 < $30,000 <$45,000 <$70000 2870.000 range disp.
swimming 4 1 1 1 1 3 0.67
jogging/powerwalking 10 2 2 2 2 8 1.67
weight training 1 3 3 3 3 2 0.83
basketball 5 4 4 4 5 1 1.00
tennis 3 5 5 5 4 2 1.33
volleyball 14 6 6 6 6 8 2.33
golf 8 9 9 8 7 2 1.83
cycling 2 7 10 10 8 8 3.17
softball 13 8 7 7 10 6 2.83
dance: aerobic 21 15 8 11 9 13 5.00
soccer 6 10 l 1 9 1 l 5 2.83
walking 12 12 1 2 12 12 0 2.00
skiing: cross country 9 13 13 13 13 4 2.83
track: running 7 18 14 15 15 11 4.50
hiking 11 16 15 17 14 6 3.83
skating: inline 22 14 17 19 16 8 4.67
dance: social 24 27 20 20 17 10 5.67
bowling 15 17 18 14 20 6 4.33
rope jumping 17 21 19 16 18 5 4.17
swimming: life saving 23 1 1 16 18 19 12 5.50
gymnastics: tumble [floor 27 19 22 22 21 8 5.17
badminton 26 22 21 21 24 5 5.00
step aerobics 25 30 25 25 22 8 5.50
racquetball 28 36 27 24 23 13 7.33
football: flag/touch 16 28 23 23 25 12 6.17
track: field 29 47 33 28 26 21 9.17
camping 3O 23 35 27 27 12 7.00
hockey: ice/inline/floor 18 33 29 26 29 15 7.83
back packing 19 25 3O 33 32 14 8.50
dance: line 32 48 31 37 31 17 9.17
skating: ice 36 34 39 32 28 11 8.17
dance: square 31 20 34 30 34 14 8.17
table tennis 39 41 24 29 39 17 1 1.00
skiing: downhill 40 51 43 31 30 21 12.17
swim: WSI 33 29 28 34 43 15 8.83
self defense 34 49 61 46 33 28 14.83
tai-chi 35 50 52 35 35 17 11.17
fishing: baitcasting 20 46 41 38 40 26 1 1.50
frisbee: skills/games 44 32 26 42 41 18 l 1.50
martial arts: karate 37 39 44 39 36 8 8.17
canoeing 42 24 36 47 49 25 13.00
archery 47 42 47 53 37 16 11.33
wrestling 59 35 45 43 44 24 11.67
skating: roller 55 57 50 48 42 15 12.00
orienteering 38 40 40 49 46 1 1 9.50
team handball 46 54 32 56 47 24 13.17

169

Lifelong Activities
Rankings By Groups (cont'd).

Household Income

 

 

Activity <$15,000 < $30,000 <$45,000 <$70000 2570.000 range disp.
dance: modem 54 38 55 36 60 24 15.83
dance: creative 45 3 l 57 50 45 26 12.67
martial arts: others 56 58 53 41 56 17 12.67
crew 49 26 37 52 57 31 15.83
card games 41 52 38 45 54 16 12.00
snow shoeing 64 64 64 40 50 24 17.00
gymnastics: apparatus 51 37 59 61 38 24 16.00
dance: folk/ethnic 43 5 3 46 54 51 1 1 l 1.50
speedball 58 60 42 57 63 21 13.67
handball 60 45 60 55 52 15 13.00
lacrosse 48 55 62 64 48 16 14.17
fishing: spincasting 52 44 49 60 55 16 12.33
sailing 50 43 48 58 58 15 12.50
shufl'leboard 62 62 56 51 61 1 1 13.00
kayaking 61 61 54 44 62 18 14.33
hocker 53 56 63 62 64 1 1 13.33
horseshoes 57 59 51 59 53 8 11.83
skiing: water 63 63 58 63 59 5 12.00

170

 

 

APPENDIX G

Rank Order of Program Objectives

 

 

Q32.»— Hunemnea 08.8.38" Hams—”Ham... 3. 9.2.3

 

 

 

 

 

map—850562 83m
HVBMBB 03.033 Ink. 8a cum 3 a: No. He... «E 80 H8 How 83 man Rama anemic:
3330 H.558 H N H N u H w 5 H H m u H 0 Nos
<ch¢ m: ~35 HHmomQHo N A A H A N H N u Hq HH N Hm NbN
gamma 3. H0392: 835. w w u N N u N a A N u m w m Hum
3.3302: H528 A H N w m A A u N u H c u m HbN
H.832 Hg. carom u a m A w a u m u H H Hq H Ha Ha PS
832.30: a q u Ho H u a .H HN a Hm N m HN N.mm
com. and: q o a c c m o c H H m A Hw q o :m
3&3:chqu m Ho 0 m a u m w .H HA Hm m Hm Hm PS
853:5: o Hm Ho a q H H q H Ho Ho q Hm Hm Abe
”38330: 0». m8««« Ho Hm m u H H 9 Ho HA m NH N HA Ha Ho Abw
H.832 H9. 2H3 H H H H H H H H Ho Hm H H A Hw Hm Au Ho Hm Aw Aux
gnaw: w Hen—.82: 833. enema—B HN u Hm HN Hm Ho HN Nm 0 m um Hm HH mm mbm
HdHHoé E3033 Hm HN Hm HA HN HN Hm HN Hm Hm mo A No Na mum
=9! 8 Hoe... 808.. «EHHm HA Hq Ho Hg Hm HA Hm Nu Hq No N m a No A.um
33m"? mgoaoaboé 3% H Ha Ho Hw No Hm Hm Nu Hu 0 3 NH 0 Nm mum
85x30: Ha HA HA No HA Hm Hg No m HN Na mu Nm No 9mm
H38<o=3acnom Hg Ho HN Hm Hm NH HA Ho HA A HH Hg Nw Ho 93
aoonHos-BmHnH=m Hm NH Hm Hm Ho Hq Hm Hm NH NA NN HN Nu Hm Poo
3: Ho m NH Ho Nu Hm NH NH No NN Am Nm HA 3 Mom
H0333. No Nw Hg NH 3 NN Ho HH Ha Na NA Na Na Hm who
Raga—goo NH Nu NN Nu Hm He NN NN He 3 NH Na NH NN Abe
88333: H9. 353 NN NN No Hm NH NA No Hm Nm No No Hm mo Hq A. Hq
moi—GE? 330% gr Nu Hm Nu Na Na Nw NH 8 NA q um Nu Ho Ne And
38mm 3383. 390%. NA Ne NA uN NA NH Nu Ac Nu Nu HA A He we 93
Hogan Baa Nu NA Nu wm No 8 Na Hm NN 8 0 AH NA mm FAN
H.332 men H.835. Na 8 Nu Na Nu Nm NA Hg mu Aw u Nw we mm NbN
"Edi” o<o3§n N4 N0 mu NN mm Nc wo mm A He He A A H98

172

5.88.: 6500.7... ”85:“... 3. 0.6.80 08...?

 

 

 

 

 

NEH.0H.oH.H0..0 .nu 8.8m
H088 03.00.80 ..HH 08 c8 8 0.. :0. H8. 0.: ..00 .8 H0m 88 080 880 8808...:
08.3. 0.. 89080:. Nm Nu NN Nu Nu Nu NH NH Nu Nu Hm No NN No A.uo
.0880 80.0008: 0.. 8:5. N0 N4 N0 Nc NN NH NN Na Ne NN Ha NH AH Nu Nam
38%? H0m0 No NH No Nm N0 N0 Nc NN Nu NA 0N NN No Nu Mom
8083.£0HE08: NH NN N: No NN Nm Nm NN No Ho NH Hm NH Nu MNN
8.8.7.0 NN NA NN Nu NN N4 No No NH No He No Ao NH A.NN
00.0... 3. 70H; NN No Nu NA Ao Na Ac AN Na Nu NH NN HN we H93
3059.80 NA NN NN NN Nu NN Nm NA No Nu mu NN NN NN A...
003808.: .500... 0.. 00.83. Nu Na NH NN No Na Nu NA AA mo 0H Ao mo Nu $3
080 ..e. 8880:8810... Na Na NA NH NN No NN NN NN NH NN Nu AA Hm NNN
8880988000 Nu AN No No NH NA NA Hm Nu am Nu AN 2 AN v.3
88.8.5.8: 83. NN Au Ao NA NA AH NN N... No Hm AH NN NN No MNN
08308888 No NN Na mu Nu NN AH Nu NN Ac 3 MN AN No ”3
H8800. 3:80 .618. Ac Nu Nm AN No AN Nu AN NN NN NA AN Nu No ANN
83090.0 05:8 00.8.8800 AH AA AH AH AH NN AN No Am 3 MN No A: NH Moo
.88. 8:0 AN Ao AN AN A0 Ac Am AN AN NN 4N NA Na AN PAN
8.320. 3.: H.894. AN NN A. Ac 3 AN AA AN AN AA QN Am NA No 93
8:080 AA mu AN AA AN A: No Nu AH 0N Nu mm 3 NH N.NN
88%... 89.503 AN AN AA mm AN AA AN AN Ac Au gm Am AN Nu MNm
30850.. 08:50. A: A0 Au 0H AN AN AN mm A: AH NN Ac Nm NN MNN
8.250an 88:8 8000 A.» AN A: NN AN NN A.» 3 NH AN No NH Ac NM 93
8930.50. 8.3~ H.030 AN NN Ac NN AA No No AN AN NN Nu AN AN Nu MNN
0E: Ac AH NH AN AN AN 3 mo 3 MN me No Nu Nu 93
80£H0.Hm0. H83. 008:0 Na 3 MN 3 MN 3 NH AH AN AN Nm 0N N. Na Sum
.88? 8803 NH AN ma Au 3 NH mu AA 3 No 3 AN 8 Na mac
005.0800. NN NN 3 AN AN um NN AN NN mm mu 3 Ac HN.H.H
9888888: NN NA 3 AN mN Aa 0H .3 No Am N AA MN .3 HPNN
a... uA Am um Am um NN um um uq .HN NA ma NA NN 0.2.

173

5.888 60000.30 ”8.050 3 9.05.0 38......

030;... 03.805

 

0008.0. .80.. 80 0::
0......0. 0000:80
H8080. 0..

0200.0 0.. 00.8.8800 80050.0
0<0: .00...

01:20. :00. ..00.
30.08:? :00H.

.00... 80.0..

_.:0€H00N0. 0080.500 .: 0800
803008. :00 0.. «0.00
05.8. 050.80

:0:

30.02.50 850

.880. 70188.:

.088

0.0800. 0.000 5.0%..
H08

00.0... .058 8:0
8:0:

0.1—.0. 0:05.80

50*. .00

00.0.0. 800880

H.000 0:00.

0:00

30.053... 88.
0.00:8. :00H.
H...0£H00N0. :00 0.. 080

 

 

II. N.:_.0H.0H00..0 I 808
IE 000 000 00 00.80.88 0.0 ..00 .00 How 88 080 880 0.80.0.0:
NN No AN No NN NN NA NA NN »N NN »o NA N» N.NN
NN NN NA NN NN Ac NA 0» NN AN NN NH N» 8 3.8
N» NN NA NA NH NN AN Nc Ac N0 AN »N No NN N.AN
NN N0 NN »N NN No Ac N» NN »N »o No NN NN Nbo
No No NN No NN NH NN »N NA NN NA No A» NH ».8
Na NN N» NN »N NA NN NN »N NN »N No AN N» N.NN
NH »N NN »N NN NN NN NH NN N.» »» NN »» N. N.NN
NN NN NN NH »A No »o »» NA No »N NN NN No N.»N
NN NN No 0N NA »H No NN NN No AN NN »A A0 HH.H»
NA NA »N NA NH NN NN NH NN »A »c NN NH NN N.NN
NN »o NH NN »N N» »A Hoo »N Ac N0 NN No No 8.3
NN NH No NN No NA »N N» NH »c NH NN NN No N.No
N» »» N» NN N0 »N No NH Nc NN NN NN N» No obN
NN NH »N NN NN »N NN NN N» NN NN NH No NN ».oN
N... »N »N 0H NN »c NN No NN NN No NN No NN ».oo
»0 NN NN NN N» »N N» No »o No No »0 NN No N.NN
»H 0N »H »N »N »N NN No No NA NA NA NN NN 0.NN
»N NN »o No »» NN No NN »N NN NA »H »H NA N.No
»N NH 0H »0 »o No NN »A NN »N NN NA NN N» N.NN
»A NN No No »0 N» NN HoH NN NN No 0N N» No N.NN
»N »H »N »o No »» »» NN NN NN N» NA co N» N.AN
»N NN NN NN Ne NN NA HoN NN »H Ac Nc »N NN Hobo
»» NA »» NN .»N »N NN »e NH NH No N» NH NN N.NN
»N N» NA »A NH »A NN 0N »N »» e No »N No HN.NN
»w No No NN NN NN .»o NN »A NN NH NN 0N N» o.»N
No 8 NN »N NA cc NN »N »N 0N NN NN we NN 0.NN
NH 0N »A No »H NN Ne NN No we Ac N» NN NN HN.AN

174

 

_ 341‘“

 

5.83.: 6583.6 ESE—fin 3. @355 A8533"

 

 

3853050an L 83:3
5.02 03.898 w: 83 can 8 a: 32 E: ma 80 m8 Km 33 «So Rama “magic:
:53 Woawmé mm 33 33 33 33 3a .2 33 .2 ma 3 3 3 3 3.3
90:59. 3:” 335 mm 33 3 3 3; mm .3 3w 3 3o 8 3o .3 mm 3.3
gas—canon 383ng £58 35 3 33 3o 3 33 33 on 3» 3 3 3 .3 3 3.3
3355383 mu :: 33 33 3 3o 8 3 3 33 ca 33 mn ”K 3.3
35.3: 3 mw mm mo mu 3 3 33 3 3 5 3 «A 3 3.33
wroogcmwwoncéoéaga 33 .3 33 z: co 3 3 mm 8H 3 3 z: 3 mo 5.3
gas—83o” 233388 33 3 an 3A 33 mm 3 33 33 3 B 3 mm 3 3.8
gas—ammonaaooaoaww: $80 33 33 3A 33 33 3 3 3 35 an 3 3 mm 3 3.3
rues—ammo” 603. 3:58 3o 3 3 33 3 3A 3 3 33 3 3 33 3 mm 5.3
9:: 3H 33 cm .2 3 33 33 wk 33 m3 3 33 33 33 3.3
552—839 555 on 259... 3n 3 33 5o 33 33 cu mu 35 z: 33 8o 33 3 3.3
90:59. 8:” awn—38d 33 «N 33 3 3» 3w 3 3w 3 mm mm 33 S 3 3.8
555: cow" 9. .3 mm 3A 8 33 3m 33 3o 3 33 3 3 mm 3.33
cmacwavo—waaoa cm 33 3M 3 3 3m 33 8 S 3 33 33 5o 3 3.8
.3558” $538 33 33 33 M: 3 33 3A 33 33 em 3 3 3 3 3.33
508—03950 023$ 33 mo 33 3 33 So 2 mu :5 3 3 2: NM 3.8
gas—amonmrmvom 33 33 So 33 5o 33 z: 33 33 5o 33 33 3 Sum
got—canon an." 33 EN EN EN an x: 33 3 SN 5w 3 EN EN 3 3.8
5.23839 83 :5 3b 3o cm 3 33 33 8 cm on 33 .3 33 mm 3.3
<3: 2: :5 HS 3» 2: EN EN .3 33 33 3A 3.“ 3 3.3

~82: SN 33 33 33 33 33 5o 3 3 3 33 33 5 5.3

175

 

5.333 633.23 5555mm 3. Q35! A855:

 

 

 

man—Eo— gmfina u Baum
Woman. 00.335 > w 0 U m m G I A u on r 2— Z O Rama amoonmmoa
8830 938%. A No A A u N A o m A N N Z A w No N.mo
<35 m: ”35 again A u w w A A N A N A N w o N A o N.AN
3338 on, gamma». ”.915 a A N o w A m A m N w _ N N N u #3
2332.»— :wcxm N m N 3 m o A u a N A N m w a 3 New
Raven" man 0908 m A A m 5 o m N N A u m A A m m 3 New
82833: M N A No A m u o w a o u w A A NA Now
com, 0203 o u o N— N o o 5 u _o A o m a u S Poo
nomvoamchQ N w m Nu _o o _o q A m 5 o —N No a NN who
85.833. 5 A A A A N S m w o m .A _o q o _o _ _ No.»
”38930: a». 380mm 2 N No Aw N .o o 3 o o AN 5 3 A o m _.mo
~8on non 3.3 N o o NN 5 AN N m _N Z 3 m A 2 AN 5 Poo
90am: w Ragw— moaSQ 2.383 m 3 AN 0 2 q 2 Am 3 N m 2 0 AN 5 Z N.No
3:92 E3933. 3 0 AA 3 HA 5 5 AN 3 S 0 N a 3 Z 5 NE
.52 8 58.: 808.. an? No om 3 a o 3 3 No B 3 Ho 3 3 m 3 No A.oo
madam?” mgoBoQ—ofi awn—n 3 mo 5 A 3 N— A No S G G 3 NA 3 A No N.AN
8.86:0: _o N_ 3 No 3 HA 3 HA 5 5 3 _A No 5 3 Am Poo
9.22: magma _A No 3 3 No 5 NA NA 3 3 2 3 _A 5 No 3 PNN
agmmwo=-3w_a=m 3 G 5 Ao G 3 NN Am AA A No No ow 5 5 Nu u.Ao
:5 No NN NN N 8 NA G No NN 5 NA 3 No 3 3 Nu ANN
~§3v€ G S 3 AA NA 5 Nu G 3 NA NN NA 5 No 3 Nm A.oo
3805358 NA 3 No NA Am 5 G 3 No NN Am NN NN NA NA NA A.3
ooBommmmoa mom 9:3 5 3 Nu 3 No No No 3 NA No 3 Am 3 Nu NN No Moo
3933:? 32.92 gar Nu m» um Z 8 Nu N— No Nu NA No No No No No NN A.oo
88mm v9.83... 9.8%. No we NH Nu NN No No Nu No Nu No 3 Au NN Nu NN Moo
.253: 83o NN No No No mu NN No 3 Nu No No NA No No NA 3 A.oo
now—82 man Boon—Q No No No Ao Nu No um NA Nw Nu uN Nu No N.» Nu mo A.oo
93%” 96325 NA AA mu m No 3 Am 3 ”N ”N 3 No 5 NH on No flNo

176

5.88:. C389?» 555:9 3. 03:3 A835:

 

 

 

I I N250— 9«32« Baum
mamas: Canons“ > w 0 U m m o I N N K N. Z Z O Rama A5388:
038. cm 805802 No AA No NN NN NN NN No NA N_ N_ No No No NM No A.AN
«8:30 38030: a». 3:5 NN No NN AM NN Na Na NN NN No NA NN Ao NH NN NM A.oN
«momma: _om« N— Ao NN No No NN NN NA No No NM NN NN Na No No A.NN
@883” £E«§o No NN No No Ao N_ N— NM NN No NM NN No NA No No A.No
5535 No NN NN AN NN No NA NN No NN NN No NA AN NN NA A.NN
88? 3% SE NN AN Ao N No NN NN Ao NN NA NN NN NA NM Ao NM moo
«noamnsnwaa NM NA NA N No NN NN NN No NN NA No No NN No NN N.MN
@0330:an £488 a». ”SEQ NN NA No MA NN NN AN NN NN NN No No NN No NA NN M.MN
83 m9. 8830: gang NN NM NN NM NN NA AM No NA NN NN NN A No NN No A.No
ooavnnmésofi No A NN MN NN NM NN NA NA No No NN NM AM NN AA M.NN
@888” 5." mag 85 No No NN NN No Na Na NN No NM Mo MM 3 NN NN MN N.No
«voanaEv NN NN NA MM AN AN No AN NM NN No Ao NM Ao NA NN N.AN
3:58” 35830 53%: Ao AN AN NA NM No NN AN AA AN AN AN NN No No No A.oo
”gang.“ «5:8 31.38958 AN NN AN oN NA Ao AA AA Ao Ao AN NA MN MN AN NM M.NN
NEE. 33 AN NM No NM AA AM AN AA Mo AN MN AN AN NN AN AN M.NN
9.3on «so. 35% M— NN AM NN AN AN AN AM AN AN MN AM AN NN AN NN A.oo
oocamo AN NN AN No AN AN AN NN AN AN AA AN AN MN AA MA M.NN
«5am? «30:55 Mo AN AN NA AM AA Ao MA AM AN AN AN AM AA AM NN N.oN
3053.5" «70:59. 3 No MA No NN MN MA MM M— MN AM NN NM NN Mo NN mbN
got—anon 380:»— «38 AN AM AN AN AN AN Mo No AN AN MN AN AN MN Am No M.oN
EEEENQGOQN 25.4. AM AN AA Mo AN AN MN AN AN AA AN AA 3 AN AN NN N.oN
«Ev AN AN MN Na AN Mo AN AN MN MN Mo AN MN AN MN NN A.AN
gas—8N9 con—N 8325 MN Ao MA 3 MN mo AN MM Ao Mo AN Mo NN 3 MA 3 ANN
.256” «daup— Mo Mo MN NN Mo AN AN MN MN MN mo AN MA Ao Mo No A.No
«own—«€02 AN MN MN No MN MN Mo AN AN MN MN Mo Mo No AN NA M.NN
93in canon—go MA Mm MM AN MN MN MN MN NM MN NA MN Mo AN MN NN A.AN
do. MM MN Mo NN Ac Mo MM Ac Mo MA No MN No MN 3 No M.oN

177

I'll
m i.l u. 14

.14

5.833 038.?» wan—«mag 3. 96:3 A835:

 

 

 

N252 93103 335
vamBB 03.835 > w 0 U m m 0 m N N W E Z Z O Sumo Nixie:
N88865: Ba 9.: MN NA MN No NA MN No No NN NN NN NA NN No No MA HN.AN
«3on 3333 MN Mo MN NN MM MA NN MN NN Mo NN No AN AN Mo AA N.NN
33.8” «x AN MA AN NN NN MM MN NN MN Ac MA NA AN NN MN No M.NN
among o... Bandage.“ 33503 MN NA AN NH MA MA MN Mo MA MM AN MN NN NN MM NN N.No
«<3 Noun Me NA NN Ne MN NM NA NN NN NH NN MN MN Mo MN AM M.oN
Amazon’s": man" No NN NN AN MN MN MN Mo NN NA NM NN MM AN NA NA N.NN
333%? 8% NM NN NN NN NN NM MN NN Mo NM Ac NA No NN NN NN N.AN
E05338 NN NN NN AA MA 3 NN NN NA NN NN NN MN MN NN NN N.NN

5.92—Gama” 3:38.33: «Eon NN MN Nc MN No NN NH MN MN Mo MM NN NN NN NN No A.NN

wage—8N9 c«a c». moan No M_ N_ NA NM NN NA NA MM NN NN MA NA NA NA No N.NN
«5on 30:53 NN NN NA MN NN NA NN NN NN No NN NM MN MA MN NH N.NN
Nov NN NN NN Mo NN NN NM NA NA No NN NN NN NA NN NN M.Ao
30x63? page NN NA NN NN NN NN NN No No NN NN No NA NN NA NN N.NN
.68? 301833 NA NM NN MN No NN NN No NA No NH NM NA NN NN No A.NN
883 N. NM NM NN No NN NN NH NN NN MN NN NN No No NN M.NN
cannon” «San 55%: NN NN NN NM NN No No NM NM NN MN Mo NN NN NN NA N.AN
.86 NN NN NN NA NM NA NA NN NN NN NN NM NN NN NN NN N.AN
88:“ 85am Nw=« NN NA NN NN NA No NN NN NN NN NA NN Me No NA NA N.NN
muse“. NN No NN NA NN No NN NM NN NA No NN NN NA NN HN N.NN
«aw—nongowuga NA NN NN No NN NA cc NN NN NM No No Nc MN NN NN N.NN
50.28 NN NM NA Nc NN NN NN NN NA cc NM No NN NA NM NN M.MN
«5.8” canon—wan NN NN NA NM NN NN NN NN NN NN NA No NA MM No NN M.NN
3% 2.8" NA No NN N No NN NA No NA NN NM NH NN NN 0N NN N.NN
«:8 NM N No MN No NM NA Ne NM 3 NN NN NM NM No NA Nbo
madam—N95...” AA MN MN AN Mo AN NN MN AN AM AN MN NN Mc AN No A.NN
«flog—N9“ anew NN Nc No NN No NN No co Nc N— NN 0N NA NN No No N.Ao
got—cams =«o 0356 NN 8 No 0M NA No NN NN No NA NN NN NN 8 NM NH N.NN

178

 

5.333 058.76 ”2.5.5 3. 93...! A835:

 

 

 

moron: Canoe h" Baum
563.3 03.896 > w 0 U m m 0 m _ H w r E Z O Bamo “5333:
San gammé mm am mo 3 3 mm 3m 3 mo .3 3 3 mm 3 3 3 93
arcs—a9. 8:" magma mm 3 .2 3N 3 3 .3 3 ma 3 mm mm 3 3m 3 3 93
gas—ammo” 33395 5 $58 3 3 cm 3 3 3 3 3 3 3a 3 3. 3 3 3 mm 3.3
3%” 30:53 3 3 mm 3m 3 3w 3 3 3 3 3o 3 3 3 .3 Nu M3
3:»3: 3 3 mm 3w 3 3.. mm 3 3 3 3 mm 3 8 mm mm 93.
£59 m 63.88»: 32:25 3 mm 3 3m 3 mm 3 3 mm 3 3 3 3o 3 an 3 5.8
wsoioamo” «($3388 3 3 3 mm 3 3 3 mo 3 ma 3 on mm mm 3 3 5.3
waoéoamo” E88053: «38 mo 3 3 ca 3 3 mo mm 3 3 3 3 am 3 3 No 93
wsoioqmo“ coav. Egg 3 3 co 3 3A 3 3 3 3 3 3o 3 3 mm mm wk PAC
9:: 3 um mm mu 3 .3 mm 3 3 3 3 3 3 3. 3 NM 93
5.9583” 555 cm 380 3 3 3 3 3 3 on 3 3 mo 3 3 3 3. 3 No 95
90:59. 8? cmowéma 3 co 3 mo 3 3 3 on 3 co 3 3 on we mm 3 PS
396: do»: 3 3 3 3 mm 3 3 3 3 mm 3 3m 3 3 3 3 93
0386332392 mo 3 3 3 .3 3 3 mm 3 3 3 3m 3 mm mo 3 93
wagon” 35:3 3 cm 3 3 3 3m 3 3 co 3 ca 3 3o 3 cm 3 P3
raoéoamo” :8 cm :92 3 3 3 3 cm 3 3a 3 3 3m 3 cm 3 on 3 u foo
rues—ammo” £538 3 3 So 3 3 3 5c 3 cm 3 3m 3 3m 3m 3m 3 TS
goioamouauo 3 3 on Sc :5 3 z: :5 3 3 3 ma 3 3 3 3 r3
got—name 83 So So I: on mo :5 SN mm So So So So So So So 3 N3
SE: :: 8H 3 5H 5H 5H 3 z: z: z: 2: z: 2: z: z: a 98

383 EN EN EN EN EN EN 3 EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN m 9.3.

179

5.335 03896 was—”Hana 3. 9.9.3 A8313"

 

 

 

flow? 885 02:5. 835
Tamas: 0&896 20:: (<9: 035: m8: Rama Ammonia: Baa monHo Rama aHmwoaHo:
8368 93% N H a N u H.Nu w H N H.oo
<35 8. ~35 HHmanHo u N H H N oNu N N o o.oo
gamma 3. Hermann: momiq H u A A w H.oo H N N H.oo
3.38:”: :35 A A N u N ohm A A o o.oo
8,609 Hg. 09.“; .H m w o A H.Nm m u o o.oo
833830: m o u u H o.Nu a a o o.oo
:8. «Ron m m o ,H N oho ,H .H o o.oo
nomvoachHHHQ o H H m m u H.Nm m o H o.uo
358:5: HN o q Ho m H.uo o m H o.oo
”630930: 0H. 93% Ho .H Ho H H A H.oo Ho Ho o o.oo
among H.o_. 3:8 0 HN H H o w H.Nm H H H H o o.oo
gnaw: m Ramona 8330. tam—«HS H H Ho Ho Ho w H.Nm HN HN o o.oo
moHHofi $3303 . HA Hm HN HN m H.Nu Ho Ho o o.oo
:92 8 H33 822 «EHHm NH Ho Ha HA m N.Nu HA Hm H oho
magma: ”cacao—$08 gar Hm HA Hm Hm A Hum Hm Ho H o.uo
5330: Ho Ha HA Hm m N.oo Ha HA N H.oo
320:. H3618 Hm Hm Hm Hg w H.Nu HQ Hq o o.oo
noonHos-waH=m Ho NH Ho No m N.Nu Hm Hm o o.oo
=5 No Ho NN Ho q N.Nu Ho Ho o o.oo
Hogoqmau HH Nu No He m N.Nu No No o o.oo
333:8 Ho No NH NN u H.oo NH NN H ouo
8:633: 3.. can? No NA Ho NH u H.uo NN NH H o.uo
mochHHHQ" EH59: 3% Nu NN Nu Nu m H.Nu Nu Nu N H.oo
3.8mm Ramona. 380mm NN Nu NA NA u H.Nu No NA H ouo
H853: Sac No No No No m ohm NA No u N.uo
3809 «9. H.333. Nu NH Nu No m N.uo No Nm N H.oo
93$" c<a~=w=n um Ho ow Nu HA who No Nu A N.oo

180

5.835 038.76 555:? 3. 63:? 823.5"

 

 

 

 

 

HWmHoa 835 0832. Baum
Emu: 03838 20:: 22: 035: m8. «mama ammo. 898 8:58 Bama ammonia:
830% CH. 508.82 MA mo Nu No Q N.NM No No w H.Mo
8&Hmmo 38830: c». ”EH5 NA MA No No Ho N.NM Nm MH M H.Mo
magma.” Homm 3 NM NH MN HA MNM mo N» w H.Mo
@888" stEmSEH Nm MN MM Nu m N.oo NH NM M N.Mo
3338 NM NM Nm MM ‘H N.NM MM MN m H.Mo
88H: av. 35 No No 3 NH HM A.NM MA NA o o.oo
magma: ”35 um Nm um MA Ho M.Mo mu Mu A N.oo
8333:: ~38on o». 885 MH AH Mo MM H H M.NM MN 3 M N.Mo
88 H.on 8330: Hacaam MN um MN um m N.oo Mo MM A N.oo
88833883 mo MM 3 Ao Ho N.Mo mm mm M N.Mo
H538” H5 85 83 No 3 we we Ho o.oo mm MM N H.oo
$9858.98 No AM NA MM H H N..HM MM Ao A N.oo
cannon” 35858 55%: AH MM AM 3 m N.oo Ao we H o.Mo
£68938 mEHHQH Ramona—.8 Ao AA Ao AN A H.Mo AH AH o o.oo
HdBHV Boa _ AN Mo Am AH o N.Mo AN AN o o.oo
omega” £3. 35% AM Ao AM AN M N.oo 3 AM H o.Mo
8:88 AM Am AH AM .H N.NM AM 3 N H.oo
£8.55” «H5588 Am AN AN AA M N.NM AM Am M N.Mo
machHHHQ" £5593 MH MN MM MM 0 N.Mo Mo MH N H.oo
HanoiHoamou H.383: woman AA AN AN AM M H..HM Am AM M N.Mo
HSoéHoamo” can; H55 AM MH AM AN M HNM AN AN o o.oo
mac Ac AM Mo Am A H.NM A0 A0 o o.oo
5.93259 H53~ 8325 Mo MN MH Mq .H N.oo MH MH o o.oo
“:3? 832: MM Mo Mm MH m N.Mo MN MN o o.oo
83.83. MH Mm Ac MM o N.NM Mo Mm m A.oo
53$" gnu—HEB MA MM mo Mo Ho N.NM MM Mo M N.Mo
can Mo Ao MM MA .H N.oo Mm MM u H.Mo

181

5.83:. ©8896 ESE—fin 3. 93:3 Ana—:53"

 

 

 

 

 

 

woman 885 0253 885
Elam—.8: OEooM<o 239 ion" 0&an Mum" Rama Emu. BwHo H.onHo Bamo MHmwoanoa
H5239 HEM: Ea HEHH Me MA MA MN M N.NM MM MA N H.oo
3:8” 383% MM MM Mo MN N H.NM MN MM N H.Mo
H.383” 9 MN MH MN Mo 0 A.oo MN MN 0 o.oo
03.88 c». 31658.8 Banana MN M3 MN MH 0 N.oo MA Mo M N.oo
0<0: can" MA MM MH MM 3 N.Mo MM MN HN 98
9.529 25. H.oo. MM MN MN MM 3 N.NM M3 M0 H 3.3
moxHMHHHQ” snow NA MN MN NH HH N.NM MM MN H 3.3
Haas 33% MN Mo 3 MN H H N.NM MN MN 3 o.oo
HBofiHoMNo” M05313 H: mung Mo MN MN MM H H A.NM MN MN 3 o.oo
HBosNHQHNo” :8 0H. moan MN MM MA MA N N.oc MH MM M N3
«5on 0<0:—Ea MN MN NA Mo HM N.NM MA MA 3 o.oo
:8 MN MM MM MN A H.NM MN MM N H.oo
:95:an ~5an NN NM MM NN NN M.Mo NN NN HA N.oo
H.559 reasons; NH MA NH NN c N.NM Me Mo 3 o.oo
83cc NN Mo MN NA N N3 3 MN N H.oo
3:58" mean 55%: NN NM MN 3 N N.Mo MN NM N N.Mo
Hog Me NH NM NN N N.oo NH NH o 3.8
88H: 35% MAHHm NM NN NN MN 3 N.NM NN 3 . N H.oo
NEHOH. NN 3 NN NM N N.NM NM NN A N.oo
$1on 305.33 NN NM NN MN HM A.NM NN NA H 93
E90 8o MN NA NN NN HM M.oo NA NM N H.oo
3:8” saga—.225 co NN NA Mo NH N.oo No NN H 3.3
H53 98. MM NN No No HA N.NM No No H 9M3
«Han NN NN NM NM NA M.Mo NN NN M N.Mo
moxHMHHHQu 5.an AN AN AA Ac M N.NM AM AM H 9M3
magma: anow No No NN 0N N3 M.NM NN NA N N.Mc
HBosNHRHNo” :8 cm Mao No NN NM NA HN A.NM NH NN H 9M3

182

5.83:. 033.75 555:? 3. 03:3 H8533"

 

 

 

 

- women gnaw
TONER 03035 203. 28" 02“an m8" Sumo M36.
.25 3.03 9 3: NA NN NH NN N H.oo
«H6252. BHH” 335 NM No 3 NN Ho M.oo
HSofiHonHNa” @8505 H: «Human NM 0A Mo 03 NM 333
Ram” 32.303 NN NA NM No N N.oo
3: m up: NN NH NM NH N N.oo
«H.oo. m Marga»: 03:53 3 cc 0N NN NN Ho.NM
waosHQHNQ gHdeSHo NM NN NN 0M HN A.NM
waoiHoaNou E8303 H: mumoa NH No NN No N N.NM
HSofiHoMNQ H53. HESS oH 0H N3 NN H H N.Mo
HEB No NM No 8 N N.oo
HSoiHQHNfl Ho<on 2. £58 3N 0M 03 NM 3 N.NM
«30:52. 8:” Mmowéed 0M 0N 8 NM HN A.NM
.533 com" 0N NN 0N 0A 3 N3
£56 M. BR H252. 0A 3 0H S N N.NM
Magoo” H2833 cN cN NN N H H A.oo
HBOSHQHNQ :8 0». mos 0N 3 33 cM N N.NM
HSoéHQHNo” arm—vow 8 0M 0A 8 M N.oo
wsosHQHNo” mHno 0M HON 0N 0N Ho N.oo
HSoéHQHNfl 83 SH oN 0M 33 M N.oo
<25 H8 33 HoH HcH H 9M3
883 SN HoH HON HoN H o.NM

Deana Baum
BwHo H.onHo Sumo MHmHVoBHo:

NA No A N.oo
NM No HA N.oo
NM NH A N.oo
NN NM N H.oo
No NN M N.oo
NN 0N HA N.oo
NN NN H 9M3
co NN N H.oo
0N NM M N.oo
NM 0N N N.Mc
oN co N H.Mo
0H 0A N H.Mo
0M 0H M N.Mo
0A 0M H 3.8
0M 0M H 3.3
0N 0N H 3.8
8 33 H 3.3
3 HON M N3
33 NN N H.oo
3H 8 N :3
SN HoH H 3.3

183

fl. kfiruknhrul ‘ -

5.833 638.?» Hana—”Ham 3. 9355 A853?

 

 

 

 

$05355 HsooBo Baum
HVBNBB 08.8%." ANHMboo ANNoboo ANAMboo ANNcboo WNNoboo Rama MHmewaHo:
83% 33.3 H H N H N N Ho N.No
$55 2. 83o HHmomQHa H H N N H N 98
35038 2. HVHQMHomH 835 HN N A H N H H N.Mo
25.30:»: H538 N N N M A M H.Mo
~8qu H.o~ 9H5; N A N M M A H.Ao
8333c: HN M M A N o N.Ao
com" ammo: A c N N M M H.Mo
RmeSmHMHHHQ M M o N N A H.No
858:5: M HN M o o M H.Nc
”638530: 0H. 93% HA Ho Hc HN Ho A H.Ao
~8on mo~ EH8 HM N HN Ho HN N N.oo
98$: 9 H8802: woaaQ BONES N HN HH H H HH M H.No
moHHofi E3303 Ao H H HN HN HN No M.oo
was 8 H83 808~ mHMHHm AH HN HA HM HA NN M.No
magma: meHoBoQHofi Humor NH NM HM HA HM H H N.Ao
~onwa0= N HM HN HN Ho H H N.Ao
H.852 H3613 AN HA NN HM HM NN M.No
MoonHos-BwE=N HM HN HM NM NM 0 N.Mo
:5 No NM He HN HN HN A.No
H3385» HN HM No He No M H.Mo
385358 HN NN HN NN HN M H.No
88338: mo~ 093.. c He NH NH NM HN N.Nc
maxHMHHHQ” EH39: Humor NN NN NN NA NN M H.Mo
38% 388E. «35% AN Nc NN NN NN No A.Ao
H853: Baa Ho NH No NM NA Ho N.NM
~8on H.o~ H.333. He NA NA NM NA NA M.No
53:: 96:53 Mo NN NM 8 NH No N.Nc

184

H. given: :1 2...!

5.83:. 6523?.» ”35:5 3. 03:? A835:

 

 

 

 

$08355 58:8 885
HUBNBB OEooM<o ANHMboc ANNoboo ANAMboo ANNcboo Nhgboo Rama MHmHuoaHoa
«33. OH. 33353 A NN NN NN NH NN M.No
~anHmMo 38830: 2. 3:3 NH No NN NN NN HN N.Ao
325:: Hon NN NN No No No HM N.No
H3353 imHHQmSEH NA NA NN NH NN HA N.Ao
H5333 NN NH NA NM NM M H.No
88? HHN ME; MH NN NM NM NN NN N.Ao
38%? ~35 NM AN NM NN No HN A.Mo
M21832: ”5,88 c». 835 NM NN AH NN NM HM A.Mo
88 H.o~ 8330: 3.25.8 NN NM NM NN NN M H.Mo
83333303 NN NM NH No NN HN N.Mo
vows—R” H5 25 83 NN No NN AM AN HA A.Ao
«Bamagmaw NA No AN NA NN HA N.Mo
cannon” 353:0 Sims. NM AM AN NN No N N.oo
”33058 meHHaM unloads—Hon AM AH NN AH AN N N.oo
.EBHV ~03 MN AN AM AN Ao HN N.Ao
91029 £9 35% MN Mo No AN AH HA A.Mo
noun—No NM NN Ac AN AN HN A.Mo
madam»? 30:53.. No MM AN AN AA NN M.oo
manMHHHQ" «H.858 NN Mo MH MH MM NN M.No
HanoiHoMNo” H8202: «Hyman AM AM AN AM AM N M.No
HSosHRHNo” Maw v38 AN AN ..A AM MM HN N.Nc
mHnHH. MA MH MH Ac AM N N.oo
HSOSHQHNQ can! mucosa MM AN MA Mo MN HM A.oo
N55? «639: MM MN AN MH MN N H.Mo
853mg. NN AA Me MM MA NH M.A¢
93$.” sage—M MN NH MN MA MN Ho A.Mo

62 MN MN MO MM Ac 9 N.oo

185

5.835 @3825 555:9 3. 03:3 H836:

 

 

 

 

$05255 H5830 BEE
Hv~oN~wB 03830 ANHMboo ANNoboo ANAMboo ANNoboo thboo ~w=No “H5838:
vows—8n Hucm: man 9.: No MH MM MN AN NN N.No
8&8” 3833 Me No MN MN Mo No M.Ao
@888” m: No MA MN Me Me AN 5.8
0288 OH. 84352.8 385a; Mo Ac Me MN MH HN N.No
«<0: Mom" MH MM MM MN MM N N.Mc
3529 $5. H.oo" MN NH MN MN MN NN M.No
moxmcHHHQ” :8.“ MN MN MN No NM HN A.oo
Ear” H326 MA NN MN Me Me HA N.No
waoéHflHNo” Mozzawnom H: 288 MM MN MA MA MM 0 N.oo
HSosHoaNo" :8 0H. moan MM MN MM MN NM No M.Mo
8.28” 3933 MN NN MN MM MN NA M.No
sou MN MA MN MM MN M N.oo
3059:? main Mo NN 0N NN No NN M.Ao
.EB? H5183»: No NA MM MN MN Ho A.No
88cc NH MN MN NN No HA A.Ao
Magoo” mSMo 81%: NN MM NN NH NH N H.Mo
H36 NN NN NN MN No HN N.Mo
88H: BHHH=N cwHHm NA NM No Me MN HN A.Mo
NwHHoHV NM M NH NA NN 0 N3
3&8” gogfia NM NM NM NN MA NN M.oo
EoHn 8a NN MN NN NM NN H H N.oo
3:8” 233.25 NN NN NN No Me HN A.oo
3mm 98. Ne NN NN NM NA HA A.oo
mHHMo No NA NM NN NN M H.Mo
3933:? 55: NH AM AM A MH NN N.Mc
magma: noow AN MN NN NN NM NN 0.NN
HBG€H2HN9 :8 0H. 38o Ac Me NN NM NN No HN.Mo

186

5.835 638.76 ”2.5:? 3 93:3 Haas—.3"

 

 

 

 

HHS—8:05 HzooSa Scam
N833 03033 ANHMboo ANNoboo AmAMboo ANNoboo WMNoboo 33mm MHmHuoaHoa
H85 H38 m 3: NN NM NA NN NH HA A.No
90:59. BHH” magma NN NN No No NN H H N.No
waoéHaqmo” N839; H: «Human NA NM NN NH NN HN N.NN
Nam” 0538a NM No NN NM NN N N.No
3: m an: NM NN NH NN NN Ho N.oo
£59 m M358»: 05385 NN NN NN NA NH No M.Ao
wsofiHoMmo" 233388 NN MN NA NH NN NN M.Ac
wsoiHoamo” 98303 H: meoo NN NN No NN NN HA N.Ao
waoéHoqma” coav. N538 No No NM NN NN NN M.No
NE: NH NH NN NN NA N N.Ao
raoéHoamou Ho<on 0H. 23.8 NN NN NH No NM M H.No
90:52. 8:” Mmowima NN NN Hoo NN NM HM N.oo
.596: do»: NA NA NM NM No Ho N.No
oHHBM m 3N0 5&2. NM NM HoH NA NN N N.oo
3:58” 3538 NM NM NA NM NA N N.No
waoéHQHmo” :8 cm 39: NN NN NN NN NM M H.No
waoéHoamo” «36am NN NN NM NN NN A H.oo
HSofiHoamo” .30 NN NN NN NN Hoo N 98
HBofiHQHNo” 83 H8 H8 NM Hoo NN A H.Ao
<2: HcH HoH HcN HoH HoH H N.NN
~82: HON HcN NN HoN HON M H.oo

187

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, R., DeJong, G., & Vogel, P. (1996). Establishing Physical Education as an
Important Component of the School Curruculum.
WWW, Spring. 1996 29- 32.

Apple, M. (1982). W. Boston, MA: ARK

American Academy of Pediatrics (1987). Opinion Statement of Physical Fitness and the
Schools. W (3), 449-450.

Arnold, P. (1979). Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education. London:
Heinemann.

Asch, S. E. (1958). Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of
Judgements. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L Hartley (Eds.,) Readingsjn
W (3rd ed..) London: Holt, Rinehardt, and Winston.

Bain, L. L. (1988). Curriculum for Critical Reflection 1n Physical Education. In R. S.
Brandt (Ed). WW (pp 133 147) USA:
Jarboe Printing.

Bain, L. L. (1990). Physical Education Teacher Education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.),
Wan (pp. 758-781). New York: MacMillan.

Barrett, K. R. (1988). The Subject Matter of Children’s Physical Education. W
W (2) 42- 46

Beuchamp, G. A. ( 1981). W (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Berg, K. (1988). A National Curriculum 1n Physical Education. W
W (8). 70-75.

Blair, S. M, Kohl, H. W., Paffenbarger, R. S. Jr. Clark, D. (3., Cooper, K. H, &
Gibbons, L. W. (1989). Physical Fitness and All- Cause Mortality. A Prospective Study of

Healthy Men and Women WW 2395- 2401

Blohm, H. & Steinbuck, K. (1975). MW. Lexington:
Saxon Houch, D. C. Heath and Co..

Brandt, R. S. (1988a). Introduction: What Should Schools Teach? In R. S. Brandt (Ed.)
WW 1--7) USA Jarboe Printing

Brandt, R. S. (1988b). Conclusion: Conceptions of Content. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.)
WWW<DP 187 197) USA: Jarboe Printing

Bramdt, R. S. (1992). A Fresh Focus on Curriculum. WW (8), 7.

Brandt R S &Tylcr.R W (1983) WWW
Decisions. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

189

Broudy, H. S. (1988). W. New York: Routledge.

Brown,B. B. (1968).
W- P-3925. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Brown, C. (1967). The Structure of Knowledge of Physical Education. W, 53-67.

Brown. Cochran and Dalkey (1969)-Ih1Dslnh1MthdJLSmmm£Exnenments
RM-5957. Rand Corporation.

3mg. I. (1991). W (3rd ed.)- Reading. PA:
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.

 

Jossey-Bass.
Caldwell, P., & Bain, L. L. (1985). The Multidimensionality of Curriculum Models. In M.
Education (pp. 223- 239). Athens. University of Georgia. I

Cheney,L. V. (1987). . m u ._ ’
W. Washington, D. C.: National Endowment for the Humanities.

 

 

Colwell, T. (1985). The Ecological Perspective 1n John Dewey’s Philosophy of Education.
W 255- 266

Crum, B. (1987). Physical Education 1n Tomorrows Schools- its legitimation and

recommendations for curriculum Planning. 111W
(3), 8-12.

Curry, 3., & Temple, T. (1992).
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Demelopment. Alexandria, VA.

Cyphert,F. R., &Gant, W. L. (1970). The Delph1 Techmque ATool for Collecting
Opinions inTeacher Education. MW, 417- 425.

Cyphert, F. R., & Gant, W. L. (1971). The Delphi Technique: A Case Study. M113
Kannmz. 272-273.

Dalkey, N. C. (1967)._Delphi. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Daucr. V P &Pangrazi R P (1989) W
W. New York: MacMillan.

Dewar, A. M. (1987). The Social Construction of Gender 1n Physical Education. W:
W 453- 466

Diez, M. E., & Moon, C. J. (1992). What Do We Want Students to Know?. .and other
Important Questions Wm (8) 38 41

Dishman, R. K. (1992). Psychological Effects of Exercise for Disease Resistance and
Health Promotion. In R. R. Watson and M. Eisenher (Eds), W, (pp.
179-207). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

190

Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977). The Ethic of Practicality: Implications for Curriculum
Development. W. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Eisner, E. (1990). Creative Curriculum Deve10pment and Practice. .LQumaLQf 21111153111111]!
W (1) 62- 73

Eisner, E. (1992). Curriculum Ideologies. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handhnkfleseamh
Wm, (pp. 302-326). New York. McMillan Publishing.

Eisner, E. & Vallance, E. (1974). Five Conceptions of Curriculum: Their Roots and
Implications for Curriculum Planning. In E. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds. ),

Wm (pp. 1- 18). Berkeley, CA. McCutchan Publishing.

Ennis, C. D. (1992). Curriculum Theory as Practiced: Case Studies of Operationalized
Value Orientations Ioumalgfleaghingjnfhxsicalfidueam (4). 358- 375

Ennis, C. D, & Chen, A. (1993). Domain Specifications and Content Representativeness

of the Revised Value Orientation Inventory. WW
(4), 436-446.

Ennis, C. D., & Hooper, L. M. (1988). Development of an Instrument for Assessing
Educational Value Orinetations. MW 277- 280.

Ennis, C. D., & Hooper, L. M. (1990). An Analysis of the Product Process Curriculum
Framework as a Theoretical Framework to Examine Teacher Priorities for Selecting

Cuniculum Content Resenhfluaneflxfonfimciseanifinomfil (1) 50- 58

Ennis, C. D., Ross, J, & Chen, A. (1992). The Role of Value Orientations in Curricular
Decision Making: A Rational For Teachers’ Goals and Expectations. W

W30) 38- 47.

Ennis, C. D. & Zhu, W. (1991). Value Orientations: A Description of Teacher’s Goals for
Student Learning WM 33- 40

Faucette, T. (1986). The Scapegoat Syndrome: Inservice Education. W
E l . E . l D 51 .

9

Fazio, L. S. (1985). The Delphi: Education and Assessment 1n Institutional Goal Setting.
AssessmemmdfixaluationJfl 147-158

Fletcher, G. F., Blair, S. N., Blumenthal, J, Caspersen, C., Chaitman, B. Epstein, 8.,
Falls, H. Froelicher, E. S, Froelicher, V. F, & Pina, I. (1992). American Heart
Association Medical/Scientific Statement of Exercise. W, 340- 344.

Fraleigh, W. P. (1990). Different Educational Purposes: Different Sport Values. Quest.
44, 77-92.

Gay, G. (1980). Conceptual Models of the Curriculum- -P1anning Process. In A. W.

Foshay (Ed) QonsidsredAetionfoLCummlumemxemem (pp 143- 167) Alexandria
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

191

Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theories of Reproduction and Resistance 1n the New Sociology of
Education WWW 257- 296

Glasser, w. (1992). The Quality School Curriculum. W (9), 690-694.

Goodlad, J. & Su, Z. (1992). Organization of the Curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed. ),
Warm (pp, 327- 345). New York. MacMillan Publishing.

Graham, G. (1987). Motor Skill Acquisition- An Essential Goal of Physical Education
Programs W58 (7) 44-48

Greene, M. (1978). Teaching: The Question of Personal Reality. W
80 (1), 23-35.

Griffin, P. S. (1985). Teachers’ Perceptions of and Responses to Sex Equity Problems 1n
a Middle School Physical Education Program MW
56, 103- 110.

Hagberg, J. M, (1990). Exercise, Fitness and Hypertension. In. C. Bouchare, R. J.
Shephard, T. Stephens, J. R. Sutton, & B. D. McPherson (Eds.,) WW
Health, (pp. 455- 566). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hakim, S, & Weinblatt, J. (1993). The Delphi Process as a Tool for Decision Making:

The case of vocational training of people with handicaps. Exaluanmndmgmm
W 25-38

Hammerman, E, & Voelker, A. (1987). Research Based Objectives for Environmental
Education. Consensusn on the past; a base for the future .Wumgmll (1), 29-
40.

Hatzriandeu, E.I., Koplan, J. P., Weinstein, M. C., Caspersen, C. J., & Warner, K. E.
(1988). A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Exercise as a Health Promotion Activity.

WW 1417- 1421
Hellison. D. (1985). WWW Champaign,

IL: Human Kinetics.

Hellison, D. (1987). The Affective Domain 1n Physical Education. W
W (6) 41-43

Hellison, D. R., (1989). A Qualitative Case Study of the Qualitative Case Study 1n
Physical Education Curriculum Research. In M. R. Mullan (Ed. ),

WWW (pp 113 122). Athens:

University of Georgia.

Hellison. D.. & Templin, T. (1991). W
W. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Helmer, O. (1966). W. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Helmer, O. (1994). Adversary Delphi. W (1), 79-87.

Huchfeldt, V. E. (1972).A_EorecasLoLChanges_in_EQstm1danLEdueation Boulder.

CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

192

Iverson, D. C., Fielding, J. E., Crow, R. S., & Christenson, G. M. (1985). The
Promotion of Physical Activity in the United States Population: The Status of Programs in
Medical, Worksite, Commuity and School Settings. WM 212-224.

Iverson, D. C., & Kolbe, L. (1983). Evaluation of the National Disease Prevention and
Helath Promotion Strategy: Establishing a Role for the Schools. 19W
53 (5), 294-302.

Jackson, P. W. (1992). Conceptions of Curriculum and Curriculum Specialists. In P. W.

Jackson (Ed). Handlmokgffiesemhmflunculum (PP- 3-41) New York: McMillan
Publishing.

Jewett, A. E. (1979). t - .. ' -
Paper presented to the Curruculum Academy, the American Alliance of Health, Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, New Orleans, March, 1979.

Jewett, A. E. (1980). The Status of Physical Education Curriculum Theory. (211251.32 (2),
163-173.

Jewett, A. E. (1994). Curriculum Theory and Research 1n Sport Pedagogy. W
Racism} (l) 56- 72

Jewett. A. E.. & Bain. L. L. (1985).Ihe_Cumeulum_Etoeesan_Ehxma1Edu§amn
Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

 

Jewett, A. E., & Ennis, C. D. (1990). Ecological Integration as a Value Orientation for
Curricular Decision Making MW, 120- 131

Jewett.. A. E., & Mullan, M. R. (1977).
Warning Washington D C: AAHPERD

Jones. R. & Twiss. B. C. (1978). Emcasfinglechnologflonfllanninfllecisim
London: MacMillan Press.

Judd, R. C. (1971). Delphi Applications for Decision Making. W,
151-156.

Keeler, E.I., Manning, W. G, Newhouse, J. P., Sloss, E. M., & Wasserman, J. (1989).
The External Costs of a Sedentary Life-Style.Amm§anJm1ma1_Q£flhhg_I-lea1th.12,975-
981.

Keen, P. G. (1982). Decision Support Systems: Lessons for the ‘80’s. W
11, 17-21.

Kelly, H., & Thibault, J. (1954). Experimental Studies of Group Problem Solving and
Process In G Lindzey. (Ed) Handhmknfioeialfimhologmz Reading. MA:
Addison- -.Wes1ey

King, A. C., Taylor, C. B., Haskell, W. L., & DeBusk, R. F. (1989). Influence of
Regular Aerobic Exercise on Psychological Health. Wham (3), 305-324.

Kirk. D. (1988) WWW London: Croon Holm-

193

Kliebard, H. M. (1987). The Effort to Reconstruct the Modern American Curriculum. In
L. E. Beyer, &M. W. Apple(Eds.,)
(pp. 19-31). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Koplan, J. P., Caspersen, C. J, & Powell, K. E. ( 1989) Physical Activity, Physical
Iziitgress and Health: Time to Act. W (17).
4 7

Laban, R. (1963). Wage (2nd ed.). Revised by L. Ullman. New
York: Frederick A Praeger.

Lambert, L. T. ( 1989). Making the Strange Familiar- Theory and Practice 1n Physical
Education MW (2). 51 -55

LaPlante,..M(1973) ._ rut . t ° I ' 101‘ o ’1 ' t. on 1'
WM. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin,
1973.

Lawson H A (1986) WWW Paper
presented at the Annual Convention of the American Alliance for Health, Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance. Cincinnati, OH: Educational RIC.

Lawson. H A &Placek J H (1981) EhxsicaLEducatiQninSechdanLSthls;
WW. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

Lawther. J. D. (1977). WWW Englcwood
Cliffs, NJ. : Prentice-Hall.

Legwold, G. (1983). New Verse, Same Cheers. Children Aren’t Frt Ihflhysjgianand
Smmcdicinml (5) 153- 155

Levine, D. U. (1990). Update on Effective Schools. Findings and Implications from
Research and Practice W52. (4). 577- 584

Locke. L. F. (1969)._Reseatchin21usicalfllucatiom_A_CtiticalMcw. New York.
Teachers College Press

Logsdon. B. J. (1984). WWW
Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.

Logsdon, B. J. Barrett, K. R, Ammons, M. Broer, M. R. Halverson, L. E., McGhee,
R., &Robertson, M. A. (1977).

W. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.

Lundberg, C., & Glassman, A. (1983). The Informant Panel: a retrospective methodology
for guiding organizational change WM (2). 249- 264

Marcus, R., Drinkwater, B., Dalsky, G., Dufek, J, Raab, D, Slemenda, C., & Snow-

Harter, C. (1992). Osteoporosis and Exercise 1n Women. Wm
WAG) (sapplu) S301— 8307

Martin, V. P. (1993). Educational Value Orientations and Physical Education Goals.
WWW (Suppl ) A- 89

194

Martin, J. S, & Chaney, L. H. (1992). Determination of Content for a Collegiate Course
in Intercultural Business Communication by Three Delphi Panels. W
W (3) 267- 283

Martorella, P. H. (1991). Consensus Building Among Social Educators: A Delphi Study.
W42 (1). 83- 94

Maslow, A. H. (1979). Humanistic Education. MW l9, 13-
27.

McNeil, J. D. (1981). W. Boston: Little, Brown &
Co.

Melograno, V. (1979). W. Dubuque, IA : Kendall-Hunt
Publishing.

Melograno, V. (1988). The Balanced Cuniulum: Where 1s it? What ts it? 1911mm
Physicalfiducammatimandflami (6). 21 -24

Michigan Department of Education (1982) MichimfiducatimalAssessmentEmgram:
Wm. Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Education (1985):Micbigan_EducationaLA_ssessmenLEmgtam1
MichiganEdncationJmmeRemn Lansing. MI

Michigan Department of Education (1994): EhxsicaLEducatiomLQmenLStaudardsand
Bmghmarks. Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Education (1997). W. Lansing,
MI.

Michigan’ 8 Exemplary Physical Education Curriculum Project (MI- EPEC). (P. G. Vogel
and C. T. Kuntzleman Co-Directors). (1995). n n Pr i
91"11 .‘1.'ur :'1111 .4 ..1’111'. 111 i '1 1111 I11 u'1':,1

W. Available from MI- EPEC, Room 40,1M Circle, Michigan State
University, E. Lansing, MI, 48824.

Morris, J. N., Clayton, D. G. Everitt, M. G., Semmence, A. M., & Brugess, E. H.
(1990). Exercise 1n Leisure Time: Coronary Attack and Death Rates. Britishflemh
1911mm 325- 334

Mustain, W. (1990). Are You the Best Teacher You Can Be? W
W (2). 69-7 3

National Association for Sport and Physical Education (1992). W
Plrxsicalflucan'onfimgrams ReSton. VA: AAHPERD

National Association for Sport and Physical Education (1995). W

s 11:1 :11 1 11’1 : .1 1:'11.‘. .1' 1 11'1:11. R.eston,

VA: AAHPERD.

Newell, K. M. (1990). Physical Activity, Knowledge Types and Degree Programs. Quest.
42, 243-368.

195

Ono, R., & Wedemeyer, D. J. (1994). Assessing the Validity of the Delphi Technique.
W (3). 289-304.

Orlosky, D. E., & Smith, B. O. (1978). Cuniculum Development: Issues and Insights.
Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co.

Paffenbarger, R. S, & Lee, I. (1996). Physical Activity and Fitness for Health and
longevity 82W (3) (suppl:).11-:28

Pangrazi: R P-: &Darst P W: (1985) MW
MW Minneapolis MN: Burgess

Papert. S: (1980): WSW New York:
Basic Books.

Pate, R., Pratt, M., Blair, S. N., Haskell, W. L, Macera, C. A., Bouchard, C., Buchner,
D., Ettinger, W, Heath, G. W., King, A. C., et a1. (1995). Physical Activity and Public
Health. A Recommendation from the Centers' for Disease Control and Prevention and the

American College of Sports Medicine WW
(5), 402-407.

Penland, P. R. (1983). Delphi Decisioning Process. WWW
M2dia..ll(1 ). 1 10:

Physical Education for the Elementary School Child: A Round Table (1984). Ihgfihymgan
W242 (4). 99-115

Powell, H. G. (1993).
' ° - ' i1 . Thesis, Ed.D Practicum
Report, Nova University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368 483).

Powell, K. E., & Thompson, P. D., (1987). Physical Activity and the Incidence of
Coronary Heart Disease: AWWM 253- 287:

Race, K., & Planek, T. W. (1992). Modified Scree Test. MW (2), 171-
183.

Ratliffe, T. (1986). Influencing the Principal. What the Physical Educator can do. .[Qumal
WM. 86-87

Raskin, M. S. (1983). A Delphi Study in Field Instruction: Identification of issues and
research priorities by experts. W, 38-48.

Raskin, M. S. (1994). The Delphi Study 1n Field Instruction Revisited: Expert Concensus
on Issues and Research Priorities. WW (1), 75- 89.

Ravitch, D., & Finn, C. E. Jr. (1987). - 7
WW New York: Harper and ROW-
Reed, B. (1983). ‘ 1 ° '

' ' ° 11 - . Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

196

Reeves, G. & Jauch, L. R. (1978). Curriculum Development Through Delphi. Wu
WW (2). 157-168.

Reid, W. A. (1992). ' ' ' i
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing.

Rogers, C. (1983). W. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Sanders, D. P, & McOJtcheon, G. (1986). The Development of Practical Theories of
Tcaching:12urnal_of..(2uni2ulum_and.81memision..2. (1) 50-67

Sandow, S. A. (1972). '
..RR-9 Syracuse: Educational Policy Research Center,
Syracuse University Research Corporation.

Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M, & Shofer, J. (1975). Experiments 1n Delphi Methodology. In
H A Linstone. & M: Turoff (Edsu) WWW:
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schrag, F. (1992). Conceptions of Knowledge. In P. W. Jackson (Ed. ), mm
W (pp. 268- 301). New York: McMillan Publishing.

Schubert. W. H: (1986): W: New York:
MacMillan.

Schweigert, R. L. & Schabacker, W. H. (1974). D 1
.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Chicago.

Seefeldt, V. (Ed.). (1986). Wu. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

Seefeldt, V., & Vogel, P. (Eds). (1986). W. Reston,
VAzAAHPERD.

Siedcnwp. D: (1980): W: Dubuque. IA: Wm.. C:

Brown.

Siedentop, D. (1987). High School Physical Education: Still an Endangered Species.
W58. 24- 25.

Siedentop,D, Mand, C., &Taggart, A. (1986).
W Mountain View. CA Mayfieid

Spinelli, T. (1983). The Delphi Decision Making Process. W
113, 73-80.

Staffo, D. (1990). A National K-12 Health and Physical Education Mandate is Needed: But
Changes Should be made First. MW (2), 2-6.

Stanley. W: B: (1969): WWW Montreal: McGraw-
Hill of Canada.

Steinhardt, M. A. (1992). Physical Education. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.,) Ham
WQp. 964- 1002). New York: McMillan Publishing.

197

 

Taba. H: (1962): WW2: New York: Harcourt.
Brace and World.

Taylor, R. G. (1987). The Goals of Public Education and Frictional Profits 1n a
Competitive Economy. A Source of Conflictfidugmjguhjfla, 119123.

Taylor, J. L. & Chiogioji, E. N. ( 1987). Implications of Educational Reform on High

School Physical Education Programs loumalnffihysmlfidnmmnand
Dance..58. 22- 23

Templin, T. J. (1987). Possibilities for Secondary Physical Education. LQumaLQflZhysjgal
W58. 26.

Thomas, J. R., Lee, A. M., & Thomas K. T. (1988). MW
W22. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Thompson, M. M., & Mann, B. A. (1977). '
' ' ' ' ° ' . Champaign, IL:
Stipes.

Todd, R. F. & Reese, C. C. (1989).

' R ° 1 ' . Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305342)

Tyler: R: W: (1949): MW: Chicago= University
of Chicago Press.

Uhl, N. P. (1971). W. Durham, NC: National Laboratory for
Higher Education.

Uhl, N. P. (1983). Using the Delphr Technrque 1n Institutional Planning. In M. W.
Peterson (Eda) W (37). 81 -94

US. Department of Health and Human Services (1990). W
W: Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (1991).

W
W: Washington: DC US Government
Printing Office.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997).
W. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Vickch,J...N(l990) 111 11 '4' '411 ‘: ’1 :.;1'1"‘.111.'.1"
WW. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Vogel, P. (1986). Effects of Physical Education Programs on Children, In V. Seefeldt, &
P. Vogel (Eds. ) (1986). MW. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

Vogel, P., & Seefeldt, V. (1988). i ' ' ' : '
. Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press, Inc.

198

Walker, D. (1990). Euudamtalsgffluujgulum. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich, Publishers.

Weaver, W. T. (1972)._121;luhj._A_ij§aLRflim. RR-7. Syracuse: Educational Policy
Research Center.

Weaver, M. (1988). Using Delphi for Curriculum Development. mm
W. 18-23:

Webster, G. E. (1989). Coordinating Curriculum in Physical Education. W
a, 48-50.

Wynder, E. L. (1981). W (PP. 337-340). The American Health
Foundation. New York: Franklin Watts..

Zoski, K., & Jurs, S. (1990). Priority Determination in Surveys- An Application of the
Scree Test: W44 (2). 214-219.

199

"‘1111111111111111“