JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1992, 11,411-425

Analysis of Task Systems in Elementary Physical Education Classes

Diana L. Jones Western Illinois University

The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze task systems in elementary physical education classes. Two elementary physical education specialists were observed during 34 classes. Systematic observation strategies were used to describe and analyze classroom events. Data supported the existence of managerial and instructional task systems along with an informal social task system. Students complied with managerial tasks; modifications were not evident. Students' responses to instruction were either (a) on the stated task with success or little or no success, (b) upward or downward task modifications, or (c) off-task. Primarily, students stayed on-task whether they were successful or not. Relationships among tasks within lessons indicated that the teachers used a pattern of informing, extending, and applying tasks. A less formal accountability system was evident as children were not involved in the formal exchange of performance for grades. Managerial, instructional, and social task systems did not operate exclusively but interacted with one another.

To gain a better understanding of the ecological dynamics of physical education classes, the task systems model has been used to analyze and interpret classroom events. The concept of task systems is based primarily on the work of Doyle (1979), who suggested that an ecological model be used as the analytical framework for understanding how classrooms operate. From an ecological perspective, Doyle (1977) described a classroom in terms of "a set of overlapping task structures, each consisting of a goal and operations to achieve that goal and specifying a behavior ecology" (p. 176). In his research, Doyle (1979, 1985, 1986) identified two major task systems in classrooms: (a) managerial or order, and (b) instructional or learning. These task systems provide an organizing reference for interpreting the various events and actions that occur in the classroom.

At times, however, tension exists between the two systems; teachers often become preoccupied with managing or order, which results in an emphasis on accomplishing "work" rather than promoting learning. A good example of this may be the typical math worksheet-students sit quietly in their seats and produce

Diana L. Jones is with the Department of Physical Education at Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455.

412 JONES

a multitude of answers to the same type of problems. Order is maintained, and work is accomplished; however, how much learning is actually taking place?

In physical education, too, the teaching-learning process can be viewed as an ecology with three systems: managerial, instructional, and social. Each system is developed around a series of tasks to be performed by students. The interactions among the three systems form the ecology of physical education (Siedentop, 1991). The managerial system includes those tasks that are necessary to create an facilitate an environment where learning and instruction can take place. Examples of managerial tasks are getting equipment, selecting teams, establishing rules, and moving from one place to another. In contrast, the instructional system involves the presentation and practice of subject matter. These tasks are primarily movement activities or the acquisition of knowledge related to the activity, such as rules and strategy. The social system is primarily directed by students who have their own social agenda. Social tasks involve ways students seek social interactions during class (Siedentop, 1991).

The notion of a task involves four components: (a) the goal or end product to be achieved, (b) a set of operations or procedures used to achieve the goal or end product, (c) resources or conditions that are available to attain the goal or generate the product, and (d) a means of accountability that indicates the importance or significance of the task to the overall operation of the classroom (Doyle, 1985). For example, in physical education classes, a goal or end product may be to perform a legal tennis serve. The set of operations are the critical elements or techniques used to execute the serve and the rules governing serving. Available resources and conditions are the racket, balls, court, and practice time. As an accountability measure, students may be required to perform 7 of 10 legal serves to get an A in the class. Simply stated, the task would be to perform 7 out of 10 legal serves using proper technique.

Initially, teachers usually describe managerial and instructional tasks ver- bally. However, during the course of a class, the actual managerial and instruc- tional tasks are often a result of how the teacher responds to students' efforts. The actual tasks performed may not match the tasks as they were originally described because the teacher does not demand strict compliance to stated tasks (Siedentop, 1991). In essence, the task model examines a three-stage process where the teacher presents a task to his or her class, students then respond to the task demands, and finally the teacher responds to students, holding or not holding them accountable for the task.

Focus

Programmatic research regarding task systems in physical education has been done at The Ohio State University over the past 9 years (Alexander, 1982; Marks, 1988; Son, 1989; Tinning, 1983; Tousignant, 1982). This study was a step in this chain of programmatic research. The primary purpose was to describe and analyze task systems in elementary physical education classes. Because past research has shown two primary task systems operating in classrooms (i.e., managerial and instructional), this study focused on the unique aspects of each system.

Within the managerial system, three areas were considered. First, how compliant were students to the task (i.e., did they comply or not?)? Second, how

TASK SYSTEMS 413

quickly did students comply with managerial task demands? Third, what type of events followed compliance or noncompliance? Within the instructional system, the focus was on the description of the task itself, in particular, the explicitness and length of the task description. Second, student responses to tasks were examined. This involved the number of opportunities to respond and/or the amount of engaged time, students' success rates, and task modifications. Third, consideration was given to the teachers' responses to students and to the consequences for student performance.

A second purpose of this study was to identify relationships among tasks. These relationships may be within one lesson or across lessons. Movement experiences in elementary physical education should build upon each other so that a child gains a broad movement repertoire. The concepts of extending, refining, combining, and applying skills are integral parts of elementary physical education programs (Rink, 1979). Therefore, it becomes important to describe and analyze not only the tasks but also the relationships among the tasks.

Another purpose of this study was to determine the types of accountability systems existing in elementary physical education classes and how they operate. As stated earlier, accountability measures indicate the importance or significance of the task to the overall operation of the class or lesson. On the secondary level, the typical focus of accountability for managerial tasks has been on attendance, dress, and being a member in good standing. In contrast, the focus of accountabil- ity for instructional tasks has been on and performance. Accountabil- ity measures have been both formal and informal (Tousignant, 1982). However, at the elementary level, there is no formal exchange of performance for grades. Thus, the question to answer is how elementary physical educators keep children on-task during a lesson to ensure learning when there is no formal grade exchange. In other words, what means were used to facilitate performance in both managerial and instructional areas? In addition, the relationship between student behavior and type of accountability system was examined. Tousignant (1982) noted, "Students behaved differently under different accountability systems, and most of them behaved in such a way that they met the task requirements for which they were formally held responsible by the teacher" (p. 139).

Finally, the task system model "represents teaching-learning as a set of interrelated systems, in which changes in one system are likely to influence behavior in other systems" (Siedentop, 1988, p. 3). Gaining and maintaining the cooperation of students is a primary goal of teachers. To achieve this cooperation in the managerial system, teachers often lessen or eliminate demands in the instructional system (Doyle, 1979, 1986; Siedentop, 1988). Therefore, the final purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between the managerial and instructional task systems.

Methods

Subjects and Settings

Two elementary physical education specialists served as subjects. Both were female and taught in suburban elementary schools in similar school districts. Ms. Fit (the teachers' names are pseudonyms), a veteran teacher of 17 years, was selected on the basis of previous working relations as a cooperating teacher and

414 JONES

her reputation as an effective teacher. Sixteen consecutive observations were made of one of her fifth-grade classes. The class met once a week for 50 minutes. During data collection, Ms. Fit taught units in fitness, cooperative games, gymnastics, and basketball.

The second subject, Ms. Strong, was a first-year teacher, having graduated from The Ohio State University the previous year. During her preservice educa- tion, Ms. Strong had demonstrated potential as an effective teacher and was recommended by several faculty members to participate in the study. One of her fifth-grade classes, which met every fourth school day for 50 minutes, was observed for 18 consecutive classes. Units taught during this time were soccer and gymnastics.

Data Collection Methods

A total of 34 classes were observed over a 4-month period, beginning at the start of the school year and concluding prior to Christmas vacation. Classes were conducted as usual; the researcher assumed the role of a nonparticipant observer. Systematic observation strategies were used to describe and analyze what occurred during each lesson. A detailed account of classroom events through observation systems and field notes, and quantitative measures were obtained for each lesson. Two specific observation systems were used to collect the data: the Rules, Routines, and Expectation (RRE) System (Siedentop & Fink, 1988) and the Task-Structure Observation System.

The RRE System is an observational protocol for recording events related to the development of rules, routines, and expectations in physical education classes at the start of a school year. The RRE System was used for the first four lessons of each teacher to determine the specific rules, routines, and expectations that were established and operated in these classes.

By combining past research (Doyle, 1979; Marks, 1988; Rink, 1979), the researcher developed the Task-Structure Observation System, which focuses on specific classroom tasks and events and provides for the recording of qualitative and quantitative data. The primary focus of the observer is one target student selected randomly at the beginning of each class. The responses of each target student are recorded on observation sheets. However, observer comments and field notes are not limited to the target student as information recorded about other students and the class in general provide a richer picture of the context and events of the lesson.

Three primary categories comprise the Task-Structure Observation System: (a) the teacher's description of the managerial or instructional task, (b) the target student's response to the specified task, and (c) the teacher's response to and/or the consequence of student behavior. In addition, managerial tasks are further classified on coding sheets as relating to conduct, organization of students or equipment, transition, and/or routine. Instructional tasks are placed in categories of informing, extending, refining, applying, and/or reviewing. The instrument also focuses on quantitative measures, such as opportunities to respond (i.e., a frequency measure) and duration time measures (e.g., the length of the task description, compliance time, and engaged time). A chronograph is used to record time measurements. The Task-Structure Observation System was used for all 34

TASK SYSTEMS 415

The researcher's primary activity during each lesson was to observe, listen, and record events of the class in as much detail as possible on observation coding sheets. In addition, each lesson was either audiotaped or videotaped. After the lesson was completed, the researcher listened to the audiotape or viewed the videotape to fill in any information or details that had been missed on the coding sheets. The chronograph was also used during this time to check the accuracy of the times recorded on coding sheets.

Analysis of the Data

After the data were collected through the two observation systems, the qualitative and quantitative measures had to be processed, reduced, and/or calculated to gain information about the tasks. Each aspect of the observation systems was analyzed separately through this process:

1. Calculation of interobserver agreement measures for RRE and Task- Structure Observation System;

2. Classification of tasks as to type (i.e., managerial or instructional) and function within the managerial and instructional categories;

3. Explicitness and length of task descriptions; 4. Classification of student responses to managerial and instructional tasks

and number of discrete opportunities to respond; 5. Examination of students' negotiation strategies; 6. Categorization of events subsequent to managerial tasks and number of

occurrences of the various subsequent events; 7. Classification of teacher responses as managerial, instructional, or social; 8. Identification of accountability systems and measures; and 9. Analysis of the relationships between task systems by the identification of

managerial and instructional routines and patterns and evidence of a social task system.

Results

Interobserver Agreement Measures

The first four lessons of each teacher were coded using the RRE System. To assess interobserver agreement, another trained observer coded one lesson for each teacher. Interobserver agreement measures were calculated by a frequency count of (a) the number of coded events during class, and (b) the categories of teacher behaviors. For Ms. Fit's lesson, the observers had 92% agreement on the number of coded events and 98% agreement on the teacher behaviors. For Ms. Strong's lesson, 87% agreement on the number of coded events and 100% agreement on the teacher behaviors was obtained.

The Task-Structure Observation System was used to record tasks as they occurred in all 34 lessons. To establish reliability measures, 6 lessons were observed and coded by a trained observer. Frequency measures were calculated for the number of tasks, categories of tasks, student responses, and subsequent events for each lesson. For Ms. Fit's 3 lessons, observers had 92.5% agreement on the number of tasks, 93% agreement on task categories, 89% agreement on student responses, and 80% agreement on subsequent events (see Table 1). For

Table 1

Interobserver Agreement Measures for Ms. Fit's Class

Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Total YO Observer A B A B A B A B

No. of tasks Categories

MI0 M/C MTT MIR lllN IIE llRE I/RV 11R Total

Students' responses Subsequent events

Note. M =managerial, I = instructional, 0 =organization, C = conduct, T = transition, R = routine, IN = informing, E = extending, RE = refining, RV = reviewing.

Ms. Strong's 3 lessons, observers had 95.4% agreement on the number of tasks, 100% agreement on task categories, 91.7% agreement on student responses, and 92.3% agreement on subsequent events (see Table 2).

Type of Task Systems and Tasks

Evidence supported the existence of two primary task systems operating in these classes: managerial and instructional. In addition, a social system was apparent through teacher-student and student-student interactions. Managerial tasks were identified as behaviors that created the conditions for learning and were classified as relating to conduct, organization, transition, or routine. Each teacher taught and established routines for entry, warm-up, and exit behaviors, which became "established structures" in the gymnasium. An established struc- ture is a class routine that students have practiced and know. By establishing such routines, teachers do not need to explain over and over what students must do. Students know what is expected of them. In contrast, many tasks in physical education classes rely on "current interactions" in which teachers must direct and modify tasks through verbal and visual instructions. These tasks vary from lesson to lesson (Soar & Soar, 1979). Both teachers used signals andlor commands to start and stop activity, gather students, and accomplish transitions as quickly as possible. They also introduced managerial tasks related specifically to each unit-primarily routines for equipment and safety.

TASK SYSTEMS

Table 2

Interobserver Agreement Measures for Ms. Strong's Class

Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Total YO Observer A B A B A B A B

No. of tasks Categories

MI0 MIT MI0 & T MIR IIIN I/E IlRV IIA IIR Total

Students' responses Subsequent events

Note. M = managerial, I = instructional, 0 = organization, T = transition, R = routine, IN = informing, E = extending, RV = reviewing, A = applying.

Table 3

Comparison of Type and Frequency of Instructional Tasks

Teacher Unit Informing Extending Refining Applying Reviewing Routine

Ms. Fit Fitness 18 4 1 0 4 2 Gymnastics 9 3 1 1 27 3 Basketball 2 2 0 5 8 4

Total 29 9 2 6 39 9

Ms. Strong Soccer 11 6 0 12 9 7 Gymnastics 12 3 1 4 22 6

Total 23 9 1 16 31 13

The instructional system involved teacher presentation and student practice of subject matter. Both teachers emphasized skill acquisition and physical fit- ness in the instructional system. Instructional tasks were categorized as in- forming, extending, refining, reviewing, applying, or routine. Table 3 com- pares the types of instructional tasks presented by both teachers. As can be

418 JONES

noted, informing (52), reviewing (70), and applying (22) tasks occurred most frequently.

Explicitness of Task Statements

Task statements presented by teachers were either fully explicit, partially explicit, or implicit. In general, both teachers primarily communicated tasks in fully or partially explicit statements. Ms. Fit used fully explicit task statements 51% of the time for managerial tasks and 60% of the time for instructional tasks. Ms. Strong used partially explicit statements 59% of the time for managerial tasks and fully explicit task statements 56% of the time for instructional tasks. Initially, managerial tasks were stated explicitly, and then implicit statements or signals were used when routines were f i l y established. If an instructional statement was not fully explicit, it usually lacked the criteria to define task accomplishment. However, both teachers attempted to be clear in their task demands and expectations. Teachers directed task accomplishment through established structures (i.e., routines) or relied on current interactions.

Students' Responses to Tasks

Within the managerial structure, students' responses to tasks were observed as compliant, slow to comply, or noncompliant. A student was considered slow to comply if he or she had to be prompted to hustle or was one of the last students to comply with the task. Of the 34 lessons observed, target students complied with managerial tasks 83.7% of the time, were slow to comply 11.1% of the

, time, and were noncompliant 5.2% of the time. Students' responses to instructional tasks were classified as either on the stated

task with success, on the stated task with little or no success, upward task modification, downward task modification, or off-task. Success was determined by topographical and/or product responses, depending on what had been specified in the task statement. Task modifications in either a downward or an upward direction were recorded when the target student modified the stated task so that it became easier or more difficult to do. Off-task behavior was recorded when the target student failed to do the stated task and engaged in behaviors not established by the teacher.

Students in Ms. Fit's and Ms. Strong's classes tended to be on the stated task 82% and 78%, respectively, of the time. However, these percentages reflect both success and little or no success. Ms. Fit's students were successful 47% of the time; Ms. Strong's students were successful 60% of the time. Within the managerial system, task modifications were not evident. However, instructional- task modifications in both directions were evident 9% of the time in Ms. Fit's class and 14% of the time in Ms. Strong's class (see Table 4).

Students' Negotiation Strategies

Students were observed physically and verbally negotiating tasks. These negotiation strategies were used by students to modify tasks to what they actually wanted to do. Physical negotiations took place when students changed the stated task to meet their own abilities and/or interests without asking. Students learned to operate within a range of acceptable physical responses, determined by the teacher's supervision or lack thereof. If the teacher indicated a response as being inappropriate or unacceptable, students better understood the boundaries of task

TASK SYSTEMS 419

Table 4

Type and Number of Students' Responses to Instructional Tasks

Categories Ms. Fit's class Ms. Strong's class

On-task (S) 175 47% 225 60% On-task (UN) 130 35% 68 18% Task modification (-) 30 8% 28 7% Task modification (+) 4 1 % 25 7% Off-task 24 7% 22 6% Other 5 1 % 7 2%

Note. S = success, VN = little or no success.

not "caught" because of the complexity of the learning environment. Students also attempted to modify tasks verbally. Student negotiations were either accepted, rejected, or delayed by the teacher. In each situation, the teacher made a judgment about the appropriateness and acceptability of the proposed change and responded accordingly. It appeared that both teachers made concessions if they felt these changes would facilitate skill acquisition and not disturb class management.

Subsequent Events to Managerial Tasks

Events that occurred subsequent to managerial tasks were classified as waiting, social interaction, activity, off-task behavior, listening, watching, and waiting in line. Of the 34 lessons observed, the primary subsequent events to managerial tasks were waiting and waiting in line to leave or enter the gymnasium. These events occurred 43% and 30%, respectively, in Ms. Fit's classes and 31% and 29% in Ms. Strong's classes. The teachers gave information about managerial tasks, which students performed, and then students had to wait for further instructions or for transition to another area.

Teachers' Responses to Student Behavior

Three major categories emerged from the field notes to classify teachers' responses to students' behavior and responses: managerial, instructional, and social. Management responses displayed by teachers involved dealing with inappropriate behavior (i.e., desists, reprimands, warnings, and time-out), orches- trating transitions, setting up and taking down equipment, and treating injuries. Instructional responses involved various forms of monitoring: providing feedback, refereeing, working with individual students, answering questions, and modifying and adjusting tasks. Teachers' social responses involved informal social interac- tions, learning names, and physical displays of approval (i.e., shaking hands, "high fives," clapping and cheering, pats on the back, and hugs).

Accountability Measures

Accountability in elementary physical education is difficult to analyze because there is no formal exchange of performance for grades. In general, students were

420 JONES

evaluated on participation, effort, following directions, and good sportsmanship rather than on skill acquisition. The less formal accountability system was evident in that teachers recorded marks for sati$actory or unsatisfactory on students' report cards instead of a letter or percent grade. Ms. Fit's primary accountability measure involved six rules and earning stars toward a free activity period. The focus of these rules was appropriate conduct, proper use of equipment, and wearing tennis shoes. During some lessons, Ms. Fit also handed out "super kids" awards to students who followed directions and worked hard at the assigned task. In her evaluations, Ms. Strong attempted to use some skill evaluation along with student conduct, effort, and proper dress. Both teachers used praise and physical displays of approval to positively reinforce appropriate student behavior. These various means were used to hold students accountable for task performances. For these children, teacher approval, peer acceptance, special awards and activities, and other social reinforcers seemed sufficient to gain the performance desired by the teacher.

Interrelationships of Task Systems

Managerial, instructional, and social task systems did not operate exclu- sively but interacted with one another. To gain and maintain the cooperation of students, teachers established managerial routines to provide more time for instructional tasks. The importance of establishing such managerial routines was evident the first day of class as descriptions of rules, routines, and expectations occurred 13 times in Ms. Fit's class and 18 times in Ms. Strong's class. In addition, students practiced rules, routines, and expectations 64 times in Ms. Fit's first four lessons and 80 times in Ms. Strong's first four lessons. Teachers also prompted and questioned students about the rules, routines, and expectations and praised and reprimanded students for compliance and noncompliance to rules, routines, and expectations (see Tables 5 and 6).

In addition, some instructional tasks also became established structures, so teachers did not need to rely on frequent interactions to maintain control. For

Table 5

Frequency of Responses in Establishing Rules, Routines, and Expectations

Lessons

Ms. Fit's class 1 2 3 4 Total

Descriptions Opportunities to practice Prompts General praise Specific praise General reprimands Specific reprimands Reward-consequences Punishment-consequences Questioning

TASK SYSTEMS 42 1

Table 6

Frequency of Responses in Establishing Rules, Routines, and Expectations

Lessons

Ms. Strong's class 1 2 3 4 Total

Descriptions Opportunities to practice Prompts General praise Specific praise General reprimands Specific reprimands Reward-consequences Punishment-consequences Questioning

example, both teachers established a specific warm-up routine to be performed at the beginning of each class. These warm-ups emphasized various fitness components. Teachers explained and demonstrated each warm-up, and students practiced them. Eventually, students were so familiar with the warm-ups that only a few prompts were needed to get students started. Establishing this routine allowed teachers the freedom to devote attention to and interact socially with individual students.

Another example of a routine instructional task occurred in Ms. Strong's soccer unit. Ms. Strong introduced dribbling and passing drills to her students during the first few lessons. As the unit progressed, Ms. Strong used those same drills to prepare students for each day's lesson. Because students were familiar with these drills, few directions had to be given. As a result, Ms. Strong was able to help individual students, devote more time to other instructional tasks, and interact socially with the class. In these examples, established instructional tasks were used to facilitate both instructional and social tasks.

Managerial and instructional performances were also exchanged for social reinforcers. Teachers planned lessons for skill acquisition, yet students had fun doing the activities. Ms. Fit taught a unit on cooperative games at the beginning of the school year so that students would get to know each other and begin cooperating and working as a unit. In essence, social tasks were embedded into broader instructional tasks. Ms. Fit also exchanged earned stars for a free activity period. The stars had to be earned through appropriate behavior in managerial and instructional areas. Likewise, Ms. Strong held a team competition in gymnastics, and the winners received prizes in exchange for accomplishing specific instructional tasks. In essence, teachers used social tasks and reinforcers to accomplish managerial and instructional tasks.

Discussion

As in previous research (Alexander, 1982; Doyle, 1979; Marks, 1988; Son, 1989; Tinning & Siedentop, 1985; Tousignant, 1982), evidence supported both

422 JONES

managerial and instructional task systems. At times a social task system for students was also evident as students attempted to interact socially with each other and the teacher.

In general, within the instructional system, both teachers initially presented informing tasks, added extensions, and then applied skills to modified game situations. Review was also evident from one lesson to the next. Perhaps one of the most significant findings was the lack of refining tasks (see Table 3). Students were not asked to do refining tasks to improve and perfect skill performance. Teachers did not devote time to skill refinement but to basic skills and game play. Eventually, as units progressed, some instructional tasks became routine, which allowed classes to run more smoothly and provided more time for instruction.

Social interactions were by-products of the existing class structure, and students learned when these interactions were appropriate and acceptable. Teach- ers incorporated social skills into broader managerial and instructional tasks. For example, Ms. Fit taught cooperative games not only for skill development but also to allow students to get to know one another better. Teachers took time to interact with students during warm-up activities, at transitions, and at the beginning and end of class. When teachers did not reprimand students for social interactions, students continued interacting. It is possible that teachers allowed students to interact socially as long as they made efforts toward managerial or instructional tasks. Further, students may have had their own social goals and operations to achieve them, which even teachers were unaware of.

An examination of students' responses to task demands indicated that students complied with management tasks 83.7% of the time or were slow to comply 11.1%. Management tasks were clearly explained, and students usually responded appropriately. Factors that may have contributed to high task compli- ance were explicitness of task statements, appropriate teacher supervision, and students' motivation to play.

Interestingly, in the instructional system, students tended to stay on the stated task whether they were successful or not. In Ms. Fit's lessons, students were successful only 47% of the time yet stayed on-task. A high on-task and low success combination could be attributed to several factors. Both teachers had good control of their classes and monitored students closely. This supervision tended to keep students on the stated task. In addition, both teachers incorporated social reinforcers to reward appropriate behavior. However, in Ms. Fit's classes, the low success could be related to either inappropriate extending tasks, which students were not ready to perform, or the lack of refining tasks, which is where success could gradually be developed. Perhaps Ms. Fit asked students to perform tasks that were too difficult; students were either content without achieving success or modified the task in a downward direction (8%). Ms. Strong's students were successful 60% of the time, so these students were just as likely to modify tasks in upward (7%) or downward directions (7%) (see Table 4).

Instructional-task modification seemed to be influenced by the instructional format and the student's skill level, previous experience and interest, and social interactions. For example, because of the instructional format for gymnastics and the arrangement of small groups or teams, students often interacted socially when they were to be practicing gymnastic routines. Students who had previous experience with and instruction in gymnastics performed more difficult tasks, which were not specified by the teacher.

TASK SYSTEMS 423

Research has indicated effective classroom managers use the start of the school year to communicate and establish rules, routines, and expectations (Brophy, 1983; Emmer, Evertson, & Anderson, 1980; Fink & Siedentop, 1989). Establishing such rules, routines, and expectations contributes to the smooth operation of the classroom throughout the school year and enables teachers to attend to instructional tasks rather than managerial or behavioral problems. As effective managers, Ms. Fit and Ms. Strong took time during the first several class periods to establish and maintain the rules, routines, and expectations necessary to increase instructional time.

In conjunction with this, Allen (1986) found that students have two major classroom goals: to socialize and to pass the course. "For students, a class that allows them to socialize while learning something interesting as they pass the course is the best of classes" (Allen, 1986, p. 456). He concluded that good teachers find ways to accommodate the social system within the instructional system. As can be noted in this study, teachers used the various task systems to facilitate and enhance the operation of their classes and student learning.

Summary, Conclusions, and Implications

In summary, the elementary physical education classes observed in this study revolved around managerial, instructional, and social task systems. Teachers directed their classes through established structures and current interactions. In response to instructional tasks, students performed with success or with little or no success, modified the task in the desired direction, or went off-task. Teachers spent their time providing skill and behavior feedback, directing activities, and monitoring responses. In addition, students were observed physically and verbally negotiating tasks. Students exchanged performance for teacher approval, peer acceptance, special awards, and social reinforcers.

Three important findings emerged from this study. First, to gain and maintain the cooperation of students, teachers established their managerial systems from the start. For these teachers, the managerial system was the priority at the beginning of the school year, as can be noted in the first four lessons taught by each teacher (see Tables 5 and 6). Second, teachers in this study did not ask students to perform refining tasks. Only three refining tasks were observed and recorded in 34 lessons. Students spent the majority of class time on informing, extending, and applying tasks. Time was not devoted to skill refinement but to basic skill development and game play. Third, teachers found ways to accommo- date the social system within the broader managerial and instructional systems. All systems interacted with one another toward the larger goal of student learning. In essence, teachers managed very well and redirected students socially toward the facilitation and enhancement of instructional tasks.

Results from this study serve two broad purposes. First, previous research on task systems in physical education has been verified and supported, thus contributing to the growth of a knowledge base on task systems. Second, such knowledge can provide insight into the content and development of physical education teacher education programs. If type of task, task descriptions, task modifications, students' responses and negotiations, and accountability are signif- icant in promoting student learning in physical education, then these areas must be addressed in preservice programs. Results from this study and similar studies

424 JONES

should be considered when preparing students for their roles as future physical educators.

Doyle (1979) discussed the "reciprocal causality of classroom relation- ships" in which teachers and students continually react to and interact with one another. No longer can teaching be viewed as a unidirectional relationship in which teachers alone dictate student learning. Tasks are continually changing as both students and teachers, in response to each other, make appropriate adjust- ments and modifications. The notion of task systems in physical education serves to broaden our perception and understanding of the learning context. In essence, the task model provides another way of analyzing and interpreting classroom events as they occur in physical education classes.

References

Alexander, K.R. (1982). Behavior analysis of tasks and accountability in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Allen, J.D. (1986). Classroom management: Students' perspectives, goals, and strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 437-459.

Brophy, J.E. (1983). Classroom organization and management. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 265-286.

Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L.S. Shulman (Ed.), Review on research in education (pp. 163-198). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom tasks and students' abilities. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts,findings, and implications (pp. 183-209). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Doyle, W. (1985). Recent research on classroom management: Implications for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 31-35.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organizations and management. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.

Emmer, E.T., Evertson, C.M., & Anderson, L.M. (1980). Effective classroom management at the beginning of the school year. The Elementary School Journal, 80(5), 219- 231.

Fink, J., & Siedentop, D. (1989). The development of routines, rules, and expectations at the start of the school year. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8(3), 198-212.

Marks, M.C. (1988). Development of a system for the observation of task structures in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Rink, J.R. (1979). Development of a system for the observation of content development in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Siedentop, D. (1988, September). An ecological model for understanding teaching1 learning in physical education. Paper presented at Scientific Congress, Seoul, Korea.

Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing teaching skills in physical education (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Siedentop, D., & Fink, J. (1988). Rules, routines, and expectations observation system. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University.

Soar, R.S., & Soar, R.M. (1979). Emotional climate and management. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 97-119). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

-ap!p~ s!qi jo suo!lvmda~d Ieuy ayi ur suo!lsa88ns pue d~aq qaqi IOJ lI!yamL qwoqaa pm domapars d ha VqI oi ayII PInOM I

(I 6 122-28 'ON SUIILSOJ3JPI Kpua~run) .Li!s~ar\!un aleis o!qo aqL 'uo!ieuass!p p10130p paqs~~qndun .sassup uo!lvJnpa /v2!sXyd hvpu03as U? sam13nrrs ysur aqr JO S!SX~DUV '(2861) .pq 'i"a!snoJ,

'662-982 '(v)~ 'uo!zvmpg lv3!sXqd U! 8u.ty3va~ Jo lournof .3ury3eai mapnis ur hq1qernno33e pur! sy-i jo s3gsuai~emq3 ayL '(~861) 'a 'doiuapars .~g ''8 '~U~UUI~

-k!s~an~n aleis o!qo aql 'uogeuass!p je1013op paysgqndun -Su!rsaz 1vuo!s!nord puv luautdolanaa :8ulq3va~ luapnrs Jo Xroayl ysvz y '(£861) 'a '%utuu!~,

-A~~sIa~!un aiws o!yo aql 'uopepassyp 1e1013op paqsr~qndun .sassup uo!lv3npa lv3!sXyd looy3s alpp?w uvarol u! a3uan~8uo~ ysu~ go s~sic~uuv an!1dzr3saa '(6861) -13 'UOS

SZP SWZLShS XSVL