Academic physical education system: institutional structure and situation

Dr.Sc.Phil., Professor V.P. Babintsev1
Postgraduate Ya.A. Goncharuk1
PhD, Associate Professor S.V. Goncharuk1
PhD, Associate Professor I.G. Komarova1
1Belgorod State National Research University, Belgorod

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

Background. 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 educational process by efficient physical education and training services.
Objective of the study was to analyze the current institutional situation in the academic physical education system.
Methods and structure of the study. The sociological survey was conducted in the following universities: 1) Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. Shukhov (hereinafter - BSTU); 2) Stary Oskol Technological Institute named after A.A. Ugarova (branch) of the National University of Science and Technology MISiS (hereinafter - MISiS); 3) Belgorod State Institute of Arts and Culture (hereinafter - BSIAC); 4) Belgorod Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation named after I.D. Putilin (hereinafter - BelLI); 5) Belgorod State National Research University (hereinafter - BelSU); 6) Kursk Academy of State and Municipal Service (hereinafter - KASMS); 7) Lipetsk State Pedagogical University named after P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky (hereinafter - LSPU). Contributing to the study were the academic faculty and researchers (n=300) and the academic educational system management (n=140).
The study was designed to assess the institutional situation of the academic physical education system, including: 1) overall institutional situation of the academic physical education system; 2) management system quality; 3) available resources of self-realization of its contributors; 4) efficiency of the management technologies. For the purpose of objective evaluation of the academic physical education service management system, the respondents were asked to evaluate the given positions within the range from 1 to 10, where 1 was the lowest point, and 10 - the highest one.
Results and discussion. The academic faculty and research staff evaluated the institutional structure of the academic physical education system at 7.6 points. The highest estimate (8.7 points) was given by the MISiS respondents. The above average values were obtained among the BSTU (8.4 points) and BelLI respondents (8.1 points). Among the KASMS and BelSU respondents, this estimate was equal to 7.5 points. The BSIAC and LSPU respondents attributed the lowest rates to the academic physical education system management (6.7 and 6.1 points, respectively).
Thus, the academic faculty staff and researchers were generally satisfied with the existing institutional structure. However, some respondents considered it possible to make the existing structure more perfect, pinning their expectations on the introduction of modern management tools. In this view, it is fair to suggest that the academic physical education system management is usually based on traditional management technologies that are not always adequate to the challenges of the time, primarily to the requests of the university students and staff.
Almost half of the academic faculty and research staff believe that their opinion is not taken into account when deciding on the academic physical education system management. Therefore, to optimize the institutional structure of the academic physical education system, it is necessary to ensure continuous exchange of information about the decision results. Monitoring of the measurable interim results will make it possible to elaborate balanced organizational decisions based on a balance of interests of various contributors of the academic physical education system.
Only 22.3% of the academic faculty and research staff were fully satisfied with the administrative procedures in application to the academic physical education system management. Most respondents (43.3%) were mostly satisfied with them. 10.7% of respondents were dissatisfied with the technology they were practicing. These data confirm that the academic faculty and research staff are generally satisfied with the academic physical education service management system, but would like to take a more active role in this process.
The academic faculty and research staff found it quite easy to get the necessary resources of full self-realization within the academic physical education system. Thus, 22% of respondents believed that this could be easily done in full. Another 44.3% of respondents believed that it was mostly easy to obtain the necessary resources. The difficulty in accessing the resources of full self-realization within the academic physical education system was noted by 12.3% of academic faculty and research staff.
33.3% of respondents were prone to the modern project management approach which they rated the most efficient academic physical education system management tool. The second most popular management tool (21.7%) was functional management. Only 11.7% of respondents attributed project management to them. 6.3% of respondents emphasized the service level management. More than a quarter (27%) of respondents found it difficult to answer this question.
The academic management staff members found the institutional structure of the academic physical education system to be at a fairly high level. Thus, they rated the system of management of the academic physical education service at 7.7 points. The KASMS respondents rated the management system at 9.1 points – the highest estimate. Among the MISiS management staff members, this indicator was around 8.4 points, at BelSU - 8.3 points, at BelLI - 8 points. The lowest estimate of the system of management of the academic physical education service was observed at LSPU, where this indicator was 5.5 points. It can be argued that the existing system of management of the academic physical education service is more suitable for the academic management staff members, which is quite natural for this cohort and reflects their disposition, determined by the predominant position in the management system. This is modern university bureaucracy, among the distinguishing features of which is low reflection on its own working methods.
The greatest satisfaction with the management system was demonstrated by the representatives of those universities where they were active involved in the academic physical education service. Thus, it can be concluded that an important factor in creating an effective institutional structure of the academic physical education system is the direct involvement of its contributors.
The academic management staff members rated project management as the most efficient physical education system management tool (30% of respondents). Functional management was considered the most efficient by 28.6% of management staff members, other 27.1% of respondents considered process management as such. 14.3% of respondents considered management technologies to be the most effective. It should be noted that the management staff members, academic faculty and research staff evaluated the effectiveness of the functional management technologies and process management almost equally.
Conclusion. The academic faculty and research staff are generally satisfied with the existing institutional structure of the academic physical education system. To optimize the institutional structure of the academic physical education system, it is necessary to strengthen the institutional integration and cooperation between the subjects, and most importantly, to ensure a continuous exchange of information about the decision results, to take into account the opinions of various contributors. Since it has been established that there is no clear and stable understanding of the essence of management technologies, as well as their distinctive features among the academic faculty and research staff, it becomes evident that they should familiarize with modern approaches. In this view, the most promising approach is the project management one, which consists in designing innovative models localized in space and time, which effectiveness can be evaluated on the basis of progress criteria.

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, zdravoohranenie, 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]. SPbSAPC publ., 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. JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation, 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? Socialtheory, educationandembodiment. Sport, Education&Society, 16(3), 263-279.


Corresponding author: goncharuk_ya@bsu.edu.ru

Abstract

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.