PhD, Associate Professor E.V. Tarabarina¹
Associate Professor V.V. Kononets^1
1Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University n.a. R.E. Alekseev, Nizhny Novgorod

Keywords: fitness, students, physical education and health activity, cultivation, components.

Background. Modern physical education may be classified by the following students’ physical education and health fitness aspects/ components in context of the modern activity theory [1-5]:

• Informational component that implies theoretical competency formed on an individualized basis as dictated by the individual values, priorities and predispositions, to encourage the self-reliant habitual physical education and health activity;
• Operational component indicative of the student’s self-identification and skills in the physical education and health domain and practical experience in the individual physical education and health system design and management issues; and
• Motivational component indicative of how well the trainee engaged and determined in every form of physical education and health activity of special appeal for him/her to facilitate progress in the cognitive processes and progress in the self-reliance, self-control and self-management abilities.

Objective of the study was to develop and test benefits of a new training model to encourage the students’ individual physical education and health activity.

Methods and design of the study. The individual physical education and health activity encouraging training model was designed and implemented in a few stages. A sample of technical university students was subject to the prior fact-finding study followed by the model design and testing stage and final stage. The prior fact-finding study was designed to analyze the research situation in the subject field. At the model design and testing stage we formed the model frame and content on a systemic activity-centered basis and tested the new training method in practice. And at the final stage we obtained the post-experimental test data arrays and compared them with the pre-experimental ones. In the physical education and health model design and testing stage we formed a new curriculum supported by the students’ physical education and health progress tests to rate their informational, operational and motivational fitness for the individual physical education and health activity [4, 5].

The informational component determines and analyzes the students’ theoretical physical education and health competency by a theoretical physical education and health knowledge test of 10 questions formulated reasonably extensively to test at least the physical education and health knowledge reproduction ability; with every right and wrong response scored by 1 and 0 point, respectively. The informational competency was tested prior to and after yearly testing experiment, with the prior (first-year students’) tests indicative of the background school knowledge of the physical education and health issues; and the post-experimental tests showing the yearly progress in these issues.

The operational component measurement implied self-rating of the own physical education and health agenda and progress [5], with the trainees offered to rate every specific aspect/ element of the individual physical education and health process design, planning, control and management. Every specific aspect/ element of the individual physical education and health was rated by standard judgments with the relevant scores on a 7-point scale.

The motivational component of the individual physical education and health agenda was rated with a top priority to the success motivation using 12 rating modules, with the trainees offered to check 1 of 4 statements in each module i.e. 48 statements in total; with the first, second, third and forth statements scored by 5, 3, 1 and 0 points, respectively; and with the interim scores of 4 and 2 points applied when the respondent was uncertain what of the close options to choose. Scores of every module were averaged to find the mean success motivation rate – and ranked on the relevant scale [5].

Based on the individual test rates of the informational, motivational and operational physical education and health components and their weight ratios, we obtained an integrated individual physical education and health quality rate – that may be described as a generalized measure of the individual physical education and health fitness variable within the range of 0.01 to 1.00, or alternatively from the worst 1 to the best 100 [5]. Sampled for the new model testing experiment were the first-year students split up into Experimental (EG, n=30) and Reference (RG, n=57) Groups.

Study findings and discussion. The prior tests scored the both groups low (unsatisfactory) on the informational physical education and health domain rating scale, with 26%, 46.6% and 26.6% of the EG tested with acceptable, critical and inacceptable physical education and health knowledge; and 43.8% and 43.8% (87.2% in total) of the RG tested with the critical and inacceptable, and only 12.2% with the acceptable physical education and health knowledge.

In the operational physical education and health domain (including the physical education and health technologies application skills), the tests rated 96.6% of the EG and 100% of the RG incapable to operate – that means that these students were tested unable to design and manage their own physical education and health activity; set goals and priorities for the physical education and health project; apply the most efficient training models and tools; test progress; and forecast the process results on a self-reliant basis.

In the motivational physical education and health domain, the both groups were rated satisfactory by the prior tests, with 93.2% of the EG tested with critical (6.6%) and acceptable (86.6%) success motivations; and 85.8% of the RG tested with critical (12.2%) and acceptable (73.6%) success motivations.

The pre-experimental integrated physical education and health quality of the both groups was rated critical i.e. insufficient for the individual physical education and health activity design and implementation purposes. It should be emphasized in this context that the university entrants’ fitness for the individual physical education and health activity was tested to vary from unsatisfactory to satisfactory. This means that the sample showed some basic knowledge and skills although still insufficient for the individual physical education and health process design and management on a self-reliant basis – that implies the ability to select due training methods, models and tools and being efficiently manage the own the training process.

It should be mentioned that group scores of the prior informational physical education and health domain (0.53 vs. 0.51 in the EG vs. RG, respectively) were virtually identical (p> 0.05), with the physical education and health knowledge rated critical in the both groups. Upon completion of the yearly new model testing experiment, the physical education and health knowledge (informational physical education and health domain) in the EG was tested to grow by 0.11 points (by 21% to the prior test rate) versus no progress in the RG, with the post-experimental RG rates staying within the same critical range.

Therefore, we have good grounds to state that the new training model to encourage the students’ individual physical education and health activity was tested highly beneficial as verified by the EG versus RG progress in the theoretical physical education and health competency and knowledgebase – sound enough for the further progress on a self-reliant basis. Such knowledgebase may be considered a cornerstone of an individual physical education and health agenda and determination for progress.

An operational physical education and health domain test rate may be interpreted as indicative of the physical education and health skills maturity and versatility i.e. the individual range of the physical education and health process design, planning, control and management tools. The prior operational physical education and health domain scores (5.6 vs. 5.5 in the EG vs. RG, respectively) were virtually identical (p> 0.05), with the operational physical education and health domain rated critical in the both groups. Upon completion of the yearly model testing experiment, the operational physical education and health in the EG was tested to grow by 21.4% (p<0.05) to reach the optimal level; whilst the operational physical education and health in the RG was tested to stay within the same critical range (p> 0.02), with the pre- versus post-experimental test rates showing a meaningless difference.

The EG was tested with the similar progress in the motivational physical education and health domain. The pre-experimental tests showed insignificant differences in the intergroup test rates of 2.5 and 2.4 points falling within the acceptable range. The post-experimental tests showed the motivational physical education and health rate to significantly grow by 52% (p<0.05) in the EG – versus a 50% regress in the RG, down into the critical range.

The above componential physical education and health rates were used to compute the individual integrated physical education and health quality rates for the both groups. The integrated physical education and health quality rates in the EG was tested to grow by 0.36 points (p<0.05) – versus the RG regress by 0.08 points (p<0.05). This result is natural since the integrated physical education and health quality rate is a derivative of the informational, operational and motivational physical education and health rates that were all meaningfully (p<0.05) higher in the EG versus RG.

On the whole, the post-experimental test data showed the EG making a good progress in every element of the physical education and health fitness versus the RG. The new training model to encourage the students’ individual physical education and health activity helped the EG reach the optimal and acceptable test ranges in the informational physical education and health domain; acceptable range in the operational physical education and health domain; and the optimal range in the motivational domain. The RG was tested with regresses in the operational and motivational physical education and health domains and a minor progress in the informational physical education and health domain.

Conclusion. Theoretical trainings remain the core domain of the university students’ physical education and health fitness encouraging and building initiatives. A sound and efficient theoretical and practical training model helps activate and motivate students for the individual self-reliant physical education and health initiatives.

References

1. Akishin B.A. Formirovanie u studentov motivatsionno-tsennostnogo otnosheniya k fizicheskoy kulture [Formation of students' motivational value attitude to physical education]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2008, no, 12, pp. 77-79.
2. Davidenko D.N. Otsenka formirovaniya fizicheskoy kulturyi studentov v obrazovatelnom protsesse tekhnicheskogo vuza [Evaluation of formation of students' physical culture in technical university educational process]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2006, no. 2, pp. 12-14.
3. Efimova I.V., Kovalev N.K., Prokhodskaya R.F. Fizicheskaya kultura i individualnoe zdorovye [Physical education and individual health]. Teaching aid. Irkutsk: ISU publ., 2008, 43 p.
4. Tarabarina E.V. Formirovanie gotovnosti studentov vuza s oslablennyim zdorovyem k personalnoy fizkulturno-ozdorovitelnoy deyatelnosti [Training high school students with poor health for individual health and fitness activities]. PhD. Moscow, 2012, 169 p.
5. Chichikin V.T., Ignatiev P.V., Konyukhov E.E. Regulyatsiya fizkulturno-ozdorovitelnoy deyatelnosti v obrazovatelnom uchrezhdenii [Control of health and fitness activities in educational institution]. Nizhny Novgorod: NGT publ., 2007, 344 p.

Corresponding author: katrint2@yandex.ru

Abstract

The existing academic physical education curricula are generally designed to secure physical and cultural progress of the trainees both in the personality development and professional domains to motivate them for habitual physical education and health activity. Success of these efforts is measurable by the students’ progress in health agendas, healthy lifestyles and their physical development and fitness rates, with the academic physical education and health service viewed as the main driver for the progress. The progress, however, is often limited by the poor awareness of the health benefits of habitual physical trainings; poor if any motivations for the academic physical education; underdeveloped self-control qualities and skills; and overoptimistic ratings of the own health; and, therefore, the students’ health agenda are rather wishful than practical. This is the reason why the academic physical education service shall give a growing priority to the new physical education and health models, tools and methods to effectively encourage the students’ health-centered physical activity and progress, with due focus on the physical activation as the key factor for success of the academic physical education and health service.