Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury №7 2019

Dr.Sc.Phil., Professor V.P. Babintsev¹
Postgraduate Ya.A. Goncharuk¹
PhD, Associate Professor S.V. Goncharuk¹
PhD, Associate Professor I.G. Komarova^1
1Belgorod State National Research University, Belgorod

Academic physical education system may be described as the association of interrelated cooperating institutions which mission is to protect and improve health in the academic education process by efficient physical education and cultural services. Objective of the study was to analyze the current institutional situation in the national academic physical education system. Contributing to the study were the academic faculty and researchers (n=300) and the academic education system management (n=140). The study was designed to assess the overall institutional situation of the academic physical education system; management system quality; available resource; and efficiency of the management technologies. A questionnaire survey under the study found the academic faculty and research staff being on the whole reportedly satisfied by the existing institutional provisions for the academic physical education service; and clearly understanding the academic physical education service management technologies. The academic management staff members were found prone to the modern project management approach which they rate the most efficient physical education system management tool. It is concluded that the key success factor for the modern institutional structure of the academic physical education service is the strong commitment of every contributor to the physical education service, with a special role played by improved institutional integration and cooperation in the academic physical education service including the permanent flow of critical information and feedbacks to assess efficiency of the management decisions. In practical terms, the modern academic physical education service management models are recommended to give a special attention to the project method with its models, efficient progress criteria and progress testing toolkits.

Keywords: institutional structure, academic physical education system, project management technology.

References

1. Bekker I.L., Zhuravchik V.I. Obrazovatelnoe prostranstvo kak sotsialnaya i pedagogicheskaya kategoriya [Educational space as a social and educational category]. Izvestiya PGPU im. V.G. Belinskogo. 2009. no.12 (16). pp. 132–140.
2. Bykov V.S., Viktorov D.V. Fizkulturnoe obrazovatelnoe prostranstvo v Uralskom federalnom okruge [Physical education space in Ural Federal District]. Vestnik YuUrGU. Ser. «Obrazovanie, zdravookhranenie, fizicheskaya kultura». 2015. v. 15. no. 3. pp. 5-117.
3. Vydrin V.M. Istoriya i metodologiya nauki o fizicheskoy kulture [History and methodology of the science of physical culture]. SPb GAFK, 2012. 151 p.
4. Lubysheva L.I., Filimonova S.I. Sovremenny podkhod k issledovaniyu prostranstva fizicheskoy kultury i sporta [Modern approach to study of physical culture and sport environment]. Sotsiologiya, ekonomika, menedzhment nauka v olimpiyskom sporte. 2013. no. 2. pp. 69-72.
5. Pravdov M.A. Model otkryitogo fizkulturno-obrazovatelnogo prostranstva pedagogicheskogo vuza [Open physical education and educational space model for pedagogical university]. Study guide. Shuya: ShB IvSU publ., 2013. 102 p.
6. Azzarito l., Solmon M. (2009). Aninvestigationofstudents' embodieddiscoursesinphysicaleducation: A genderedproject. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28(2), 173-191.
7. Casey A., Dyson B. (2009). The implementationof models-based practice in physical education through action research. European Physical Education Review, 5(2):175-199.
8. Evans J., Davies B. (2011). Newdirections, newquestions? Social theory, education and embodiment. Sport, Education&Society, 16(3), 263-279.