Dr.Hab., Dr.Phys. Ed.Sp., Professor I.G. Maksimenko^1,2,3
Dr.Hab. Russia and Ukraine, Professor G.N. Maksimenko³
PhD, Associate Professor V.V. Sokorev¹
PhD S.V. Rylskiy^{1                           
1}Belgorod State National Research University, Belgorod
²Voronezh State Institute of Physical Culture, Voronezh,
³Lugansk Taras Shevchenko National University, Lugansk

Keywords: knowledge, motivation, skills, evaluation, program, testing, skill.

Background. As reported by the World Health Organization, the persistent physical health and fitness sagging trend is currently common for young population groups the world over [3, 5]. One of the reasons for this negative trend is the low efficiency of the school physical education system. This problem is quite critical for the national school system in Russia [3]. Extensions of the weekly training hours may be viewed as only a partial and non-efficient solution, whilst efficient physical progress rating system applicable in the school physical education discipline could largely contribute to the solution [1, 3].

Objective of the study was to analyze the progress rating system applied in the school physical education discipline in the US.

Study findings and discussion. As things now stand in the CIS school systems, the trainees’ physical progress is rated by a variety of standard exercises with the trainees expected to demonstrate certain execution standards. The highly physically fit students normally face no problems in getting excellent marks for execution in contrast to the students with health disorders/ limitations that can hardly cope with the standard exercises and, hence, are reluctant to attend physical education sessions [1] being poorly motivated for physical progress. The physical education community in the US believes that the core mission of the school physical education service is to cultivate a sustainable interest in physical culture in the trainees [3], although acknowledge that not every American school has been successful in this mission due to the school physical education system being rather inconsistent, with the physical training hours, for example, varying from one to six across the country [2]. Some schools even keep physical education beyond their formal education service lists and offer different off-class sporting/ physical training models instead. Some of the US researchers believe [3, 5] that the school system shall widely apply the physical education service format developed by a public school in Evanston (Illinois) that includes the following elements: obligatory daily physical education lessons with optional courses for the 9^th and 12^th grade students; courses of teacher’s own design for 10^th and 11^th grade students; plus at least 20 optional sports and physical training models for off-class practices. It should be mentioned that physical progress of schoolchildren in the US is tested twice a year with the test data fixed in special individual records. Of special interest are the physical education curricula of some other schools in the US that train students 4-5 times a week.

Let us analyze the progress rating system applied by the leading schools in the US [3, 4]. Progress is formally marked by staged theoretical knowledge and physical progress tests. The US education community classifies tests by their objectives as follows: physical progress tests; multisided physical execution quality tests; theoretical and practical knowledge tests to rate students’ awareness of different physical education models; motivations for physical education rating tests; and students’ personality qualities rating tests. It should be emphasized that the teachers are recommended to customize the tests to for them to be well-designed, accessible and providing dependable/ objective test data. High-quality tests in the CIS countries are required to be informative, dependable and equivalent [3]. Generally, progress tests in the US school system are designed in compliance with the age-specific content of the physical education curriculum.

Let us consider three progress rating models currently applied in the US. The first progress rating model includes the following components: (1) Physical progress and motor skills rated within 30% of the total score; (2) Knowledge rated within 20% of the total score; (3) Attendance of school lessons and contributions to the sport events rated within 20% of the total score; and (4) Motivations for physical education and cooperation with teacher and classmates rated by 30% of the total score. The second progress rating model prioritizes the following 5 credentials of a “physically cultured individual”: (1) Motivations for the trainings rated by the teacher within 15% of the total score; (2) Skills and abilities rated by teacher’s monitoring and practical tests within 25% of the total score; (3) Physical progress rated within 20% of the total score; (4) Knowledge of the physical education basics including hygienic standards, rules of competitions and self-control, tested by written essays and rated by the teacher within 20% of the total score; and (5) Social qualities, behaviour, knowledge of safety rules and healthy lifestyle rated within 20% of the total. And the third progress rating model includes the following elements: (1) Physical fitness, skills and abilities rated within 60% of the total; (2) Knowledge of the physical education basics including hygienic standards, rules of competitions and self-controls rated within 20% of the total score; and (3) Emotional balance skills in the physical education process and sport events rated within 20% of the total score. The final progress rates in the US are scored on the following scales: А (excellent): 90-100% points; В (good): 80-89% points; С (satisfactory): 70-79% points; D (poor): 60-69% points; and F (failed tests): 0-59% percentage points.

For the last few years, the school physical education specialists in the US have increasingly preferred rating the students’ progress by their actual successes versus the progress milestones customized to their actual primary fitness rates rather than by the standard exercises. This system gives a top priority to the individual progress rating versus own past test rates rather than to successes in the students’ competitions for an absolute leadership – and such a model helps encourage physical progress on an individualized basis for every student including those with health disorders/ limitations. Of special interest, in our opinion, is the contractual system applied by some schools in the US with the contracts formed by teacher with every student. In every such contract the parties spell out the progress tasks with the relevant progress scoring points. The student, for example, would take a contractual obligation to attain certain progress goals in pull-ups on the horizontal bar, 100m sprint and 1 mile race tests; and teacher undersigns to score the accomplishments by the agreed points. As demonstrated by the actual practice, such contracts seriously motivate students both for disciplined attendance and for self-reliant practices in their leisure time. One more untraditional progress scoring system implies the student self-rating his/her own progress, or the individual progress being rated by the class votes. Such a method is believed to facilitate the students’ socializing process and prevent suspicions of the teacher being biased.

Conclusion. Analysis of the valid regulatory provisions shows that the school physical education programs in the US are still inconsistent, and many school teachers are free to design their own physical education programs and students’ progress rating systems. Benefits of the US school education system versus Russian and Belorussian schools appear to be due to the student’s individual progress being rated on an individual basis versus own past test rates and progress milestones rather than standard government-approved sets of test exercises. Such a progress encouragement and test model helps effectively motivate students for school physical education irrespective of their individual primary physical fitness rates and health statuses.

Of special interest is the practical experience of the American educators with the students’ physical and theoretical progress fixed in special individual records twice a year for the whole school period from the 1^st to the 12^th grade. The leading schools in the US rate the students’ progress in the physical and technical aspects plus their theoretical knowledge of the physical training and sport basics to encourage their motivations for the class/ off-class physical training models. The students are additionally motivated by special points for attendance of the school physical education lessons and contributions to sport events. The most beneficial elements of the progress rating systems applied by the US schools in the school physical education discipline are recommended for implementation in the national school system.

References

1. Bozhenova N.A. Sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya fizicheskogo vospitaniya v shkolakh SShA [Current state and development prospects of physical education in US schools]. Fizicheskoe vospitanie i sportivnaya trenirovka, Volgograd: VSAPC publ., 2015, no. 4, pp. 110-114.
2. Vorobyev N.V., Babashev A.E. Shkolnoe obrazovanie v SShA i Zapadnoy Evrope [School education in the US and Western Europe]. Lugansk: Alma-mater publ., 2003, 176 p.
3. Osadchaya T.Y., Maksimenko I.G. Fizicheskoe vospitanie shkolnikov SShA. Ucheb. posobie [School physical education in the US. Study guide]. Kiev: Olimp. l-ra publ., 2008, 144 p.
4. Wuest D.A., Bucher Ch.A. Foundations of Physical Education, Exercise Science and Sport (14th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby: Year Book Inc., 2003, 451 p.
5. Pratt M., Jacoby E., Neiman A. Promoting physical activity in the Americas. Food Nutr Bull, 2004, no. 25 (2), рp. 183–192.

Corresponding author: maksimenko_76@mail.ru

Abstract

As reported by the World Health Organization, the persistent physical health and fitness sagging trend is currently common for young population groups the world over. One of the reasons for this negative trend is the low efficiency of the school physical education system. This problem is quite critical for the national school systems in Russia and Belorussia with the physical education service quality and quantity still considered insufficient to notably improve the students’ health standards. The leading specialists tend to believe that school population physical fitness and functionality may be improved only by large-scale institutional and practical reforms in the system. A special priority will be given, among other things, to the trainees’ progress rating in the school physical education discipline. This was the reason for us to analyze and summarize the practical experience of the US school system in this domain for possible implementation in the national school system. Our analysis of the available study reports on the subject shows the studies being still inconsistent and their findings rather contradictory. We applied theoretical data analysis, synthesis and generalization of the US school physical education curricula and reports to analyze the existing progress rating system in the physical education discipline. The study overviews three versions of the progress rating system applied in the school physical education discipline in the US.