perceptions of home-schooled physical education: views from parents, students, and preservice...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Prince Edward Island]On: 23 November 2014, At: 12:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & DancePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrd20
Perceptions of Home-Schooled Physical Education:Views from Parents, Students, and Preservice TeachersBrett Everhart aa Department of Health, Leisure, and Exercise Science , Appalachian State University ,Boone , NC , 28608Published online: 22 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Brett Everhart (1998) Perceptions of Home-Schooled Physical Education: Views from Parents,Students, and Preservice Teachers, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69:9, 51-55, DOI:10.1080/07303084.1998.10605632
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1998.10605632
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Perceptions of Home-SchooledPhysical Education
Views from Parents, Students, and Preservice Teachers
BRETT EVERHART
According to the U.S. CensusBureau, close to one millionstudents are taught at home
today (Lines, 1995). This trend continues to gain popularity as more parents lose faith in the public schoolsystems of the United States (Lines,1991,1995). Although in the past, parents began schooling children at homefor religious reasons, the most common reason today is that public schoolsare simply scoring low marks in parents' "grade books." It is clear thatphysical education teachers must bebetter prepared to ensure a higherquality public school education (atleast in physical education). One wayto do this is to target the home-schooling population as a clinical teachingopportunity for preservice teachers(Everhart & Harper, 1997).
Everhart and Harper (1997) described two clinical teaching programsthat demonstrated two major needs.One need was for preservice teachersto have ample practice opportunitiesaway from the traditional supervisingtriad (for early field experiences andstudent teaching). Another need wasfor the home-schooled students to receive quality physical education. Theoriginal program at one of the universities described by Everhart andHarper (1997) was set up so thatpreservice physical education teachereducation programs could invitehome-schooled children to attendphysical education classes taught bypreservice physical educators and supervised by teacher educators. Students were grouped by grade levels(K-3 and 4-6) and a select group of
preservice teachers rotated planningand teaching during the course of asemester. Although the initial two yearsof the program were successful in providing developmentally appropriatephysical education for home-schooledchildren as a group, some changeswere needed in order to enhance theprogram for everyone.
At the beginning of the third yearof the program, those changes weremade at one of the universities. Todetermine whether the changes havebeen successful, the author researchedthe perceptions of participants in theclinical program. For example, whatdo the parents of home-schooled children think about how the clinical program is meeting their needs? What dostudents think about the program?What do preservice teachers thinkabout working with home-schooledchildren in physical education? Andwhat do the parents and students thinkabout the changes? This article is designed to describe the changes andpresent the perspectives of those involved with the clinical teaching program: home-schooling parents, students, and preservice teachers.
Program ChangesThe clinical program initially met in alocal church gymnasium once perweek with one class for kindergartento grade 3 and one class for grades 4to 6. The classes were eventually subdivided further into kindergarten tograde 1 and grades 2 to 3 for the firstclass and grades 4 to 6 for the secondclass. Possible changes to the clinicalprograms of Appalachian State Uni-
versity (ASU) and Asbury College weresuggested in the original article(Everhart & Harper, 1997). The following revisions were made to thehome-school physical education clinical teaching program at ASU.
Revised ProgramA meeting of the home-schooling association for the region was held anda physical education teacher educator(who is also the clinical supervisor)met with the parents at the meeting.The program revisions were outlinedfor the parents and a question-andanswer session followed. Two weeksbefore the new school year began, theparents received a newsletter that provided a list of physical activities inwhich students could enroll for theupcoming semesters. This was brokendown by age groups so that the clinical program supervisor could identifystudent interests and assign teachersto classes based on those interests. Forthe 5- to 6-year-old and 7- to 8-year-oldclasses, the teachers focused on a traditional elementary physical educationcurriculum with special emphasis onthe state's suggested activities. Thisemphasis included fitness, motor skills,rhythms, gymnastics, and games. Forthe 9- to Ll-year-old classes, the students chose from among classes onbasketball, volleyball, and fitness/games. Because many of the same students selected both fitness/games andone of the other two options, therewere not enough students to continuethe fitness/games class for the firstsemester. For all students who were9 years old or older, fitness develop-
November/December 1998· JOPERD· Vol. 69 No.9 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 1
2:45
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
mentwas integrated with sport instruction (Everhart, Everhart, Sands, &Dunaway, in press); therefore, fitnessand sport objectives were met simultaneously. In the middle of the semester, a two-week unit on tumbling andstunts gave the students a break before moving back to the original content. This was deemed appropriatesince no student attended more thantwice per week, and many met onlyonce per week. Other classes were provided for students aged 12 to 18. Oneclass taught lifetime pursuits such asarchery and also utilized communityresources for a bowling and swimmingunit. Another option was a racketsports unit that taught the basic skillsand strategies of net/wall games (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997) and allowed students to choose a racketgame to learn. A third option for theolder group was a class on cross-training and personal fitness, in which students used computers to track personal progress on individual fitnessprograms. The computer work (Multimedia Workout from Human Kinetics) accompanied a fitness/wellnessprogram planned and facilitated byphysical education preservice teachers. The number of students per classtypically ranged from 12 to 18.
The classes met twice per week onthe university campus, enabling thehome-schooled students to use morefacilities and better equipment during physical education class. Parentshad the option ofsending students onboth days or just one of the days. Atthe beginning of each semester,preservice teachers were assignedclasses for which to plan and teach.They also were required to turn inindividualized educational programs(IEPs) on students in their classes inorder to track the students' progressindividually. Three or more parentsstayed during each class to help monitor individual classes and to provideescorts to rest rooms when necessary.Since parking is a problem at manyuniversities (ours is no different), theparents dropped off and picked uptheir children at a designated place.The students entered the physical edu-
cation facility and sat down in a designated area until class began. They wereprohibited from arriving more than20 minutes before class. After class,the students sat in the same area asbefore, waiting to be picked up. On aregular basis, up to 100 students finished class and were picked up withina ten-minute transition period.
Interview MethodsDuring the second year of the firstversion of the clinical program, elevenparents of home-schooled studentswere interviewed for up to 30 minutesusing a set list of questions developedby the lead investigator. The interviewswere audio recorded and transcribedinto typed notes. Subsequently, parents with children in the revised version of the clinical program were interviewed.
Seven students (ages 9-17) were interviewed concerning the revised version of the clinical program. Thosewho had been enrolled in the initialversion answered questions that compared the two versions. The interviewswere conducted from a list of questions developed by the investigator andwere audio-recorded with the consentof the students.
Determining PreserviceTeachers' PerceptionsTwo preservice teachers (PTs) in theirfinal semester before student teaching gave informed consent to serve assubjects in the project. Together, theytaught a weekly physical educationclass to 20 home- schooled students inthe second and third grades. The PTsrecorded all critical incidents in ajournal. Also, they observed each otherteaching and wrote summaries of theirobservations. Both PTs later participated in a round-table discussion at anational AAHPERD convention tohelp formulate their perceptions ofworking with this population group.
Nine other PTs each kept a continuous journal of reflections on every teaching experience with homeschooled and public-schooled students. Their reflections were basedon the individual lessons they taught
and their perceptions ofworking withthe students. The PTs were asked tofocus on instructional, managerial,and interactive incidents that occurredwhile teaching the students.
Parents' PerceptionsPhysical Education Today. The parentscollectively viewed physical educationas vital to society today if it promotesstudent achievement. Two major goalswere given: (1) to promote lifelongphysical fitness and (2) to provide aforum for developing affective qualities such as teamwork and social interaction. The following comments arerepresentative:
I would like to see more preventive things
like stretching and warm-ups as well as
nutrition. (Lana, parent)
I would like to see habits that we can
develop at home such as toning, calis
thenic type things, and getting into things
that will form life-time habits as opposed
to games, and get them into a program
where they don't have to compete with
each other and where they can work on
their physical fitness at home or wher
ever. (Danette, parent)
My main purpose in having my son in PE
would be teamwork, learning the basics
of the sport, and social interaction.
(Wendy, parent)
We do a lot ofrunning around the house
and we like the games with other kids [in
the clinical program] and I think that is
good. He's [son] got to realize that there
is more give and take and that he has to
be part of the team. I like that teamwork.
I think he is fairly well-coordinated but
he certainly has work for improvement
[in motor skills]. (Sharon, parent)
Perceptions of the New Version of theClinical Program.The original programgenerated positive feedback from theparents despite being limited in classavailability and in the small range ofages to which it was geared. As theprogram continued to develop, improvements were made (e.g., furthersubdividing the grade ranges of the
52 Vol. 69 No.9' JOPERD' November/December 1998
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 1
2:45
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
classes), eliciting even more positiveresponses from the parents and fewercomplaints. Also, the program supervisor continues to hear praises of thenew program from parents. In theolder version, the parents said thatthey received good reports about theprogram from their children, whichmay have increased their enthusiasm.One difference may be that the parents are now more directly involvedby helping to supervise on a rotatingbasis. This has also benefited the program supervisor and teacher educator. It not only helps prevent largescale discipline and liability problems,but it allows the parents to see theprogram and interactwith all involved.Parents contrasted the older and revised versions of the program in termsof meeting more often and the availability of facilities for more classes.
Well you are able to offer more [in the
new program] and that waswhat we were
pleased about. The facilities were nicer
and we were able to go two days a week
and my kids loved that. I was excited
about the two days. They are both just
really social butterflies and [my son] is
very athletic and enjoys anything to do
with sports ofany kind. (Colleen, parent)
I felt the more teachers [in the new
program] was helpful. It seems more
focused. [Mydaughter] came home very
excited about learning specific things
about basketball passing. She was actu
ally getting techniques and skills. (jas
mine, parent)
One parent who recently moved tothe local town from another state wasexcited about the opportunities forher children with the new program.
It has just blown me away that you do
that [teach physical education to home
schoolers]. Everyone that I have toldjust
can hardly believe it. I just really want
you to know that it is so valuable to us
and I think to the whole home-school
ing community. We are thrilled and the
boys are going to do two days [per week]
next semester because they have just
loved it. (Doris, parent)
Students' PerceptionsThe home-schooled students who wereinterviewed about the physical education clinical program said that theylooked forward to the social interaction with the other children and thephysical activity. One student said thatshe enjoyed learning the skills thathelped her improve in certain sports.
I don't have a lot of places where I can
set up a volleyball net and basketball
goals. It [physical education] helps you
a lot. At church they would have the
volleyball nets up and I wanted to play,
but I'm not good at it. Now that I have
learned how to play volleyball I can play.
(Monique, 10 years old)
Another student (nine years old)said that he enjoyed the basketballclass because he was learning a gamethat he had not learned before.
During the first semester, themiddle school and high school students received less instruction thanthe program supervisor and teachereducator had wanted. This was unintentional, but the students noticed it.
As far as the teaching goes with the col
lege students, what happened was when
we played racquetball, they said go pick
out a court and go play. That didn't
teach me very much and I didn't know
the basic game. All they said was hit
between these lines. (Sam, ninth grade)
In changing classes between semesters, this problem was rectified so thatall classes receive instruction. In a subsequent semester, it will be interestingto find out from the older studentswhether their perceptions of theclasses have changed.
Some students have participated inthe clinical program since its inception, when it was housed at a localchurch gymnasium. They reportedthat it was more enjoyable at the university because of the availability offacilities and the variety of classes.
I like it this year [at the university] better
just because it was bigger and we all got in
different groups and ages and that really
made a difference. When I went from the
volleyball [9- to 11- year-old class] to the
teens [I enjoyed it more]. I am not put
ting it [volleyball class] down. Itmay have
been exciting for someone else, but it
wasn't for me. (Christine, 12 years old).
At the church gymnasium, the students were placed in grade-group classes(kindergarten to first, second to third,fourth to fifth, and sixth grades) withno choice of subject matter. At theuniversity, the classes were based onage, and the 9-year-olds and above hadchoices of subject matter. When students turned 12, they were moved upto the older group at the earliest convenience. Christine (above) was referring to this. The consensus among allstudents interviewed was that the university program was more enjoyable.
It is interesting to note that thehome schoolers talked about their previous physical education experiences.Some played on city recreationalleague teams for various sports. Others went to the YMCAfor exercise andleague sports. Still others were taughtby their parents at home in a type ofsupervised play time. That makes aclinical program like this even moreimportant, so that this populationgroup has access to a broader spectrum of physical education activities.
Preservice Teachers'PerceptionsThe preservice physical educationteachers who taught the second andthird graders at the church gym during the initial version of the clinicalprogram noticed a gender balance inathleticism and that the children appeared to grasp new activities quickly.On the negative side, group interactions were often problematic-thechildren had short attention spans,enjoyed developmentally inappropriate games, and some had poor motorskills and hand-eye coordination.
These children loved to run and play, but
when rules were added, one could tell that
it took a while for them to catch on and
some never really did. With more time,
this population could really prove to be an
November/December 1998 • JOPERD • Vol. 69 No.9 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 1
2:45
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
excellent clinical population for preservice
physical education teachers. (PT #1)
The PTs who taught in the revisedversion of the program indicated theexcitement of actually teaching as opposed to "book learning" and simulated teaching with peers. They alsoexpressed a desire to focus on skills.
The students need skills and I am going
to teach them skills. I'll also let them
play, but I want them to understand how
important skill development is to game
play. (John, PT #3)
In addition to being excited aboutteaching real children, some of thePTs found that the home-schooledchildren needed to be managed similarly to public-schooled children. Forexample, if equipment was not placedappropriately for retrieval by the children it would be a problem; however,this allowed the PTs to experienceproblems and adjust accordingly. Thiswas evidenced in a 5- and 6-year-oldsclass in which "gator balls" were usedfor a catching lesson.
We worked on catching skills today and
they [the children] seemed to like this
skill a lot more than throwing skills. 1
had a minor scuffle at the beginning of
class. I always lay the bag of balls out and
have them [do locomotor skills] to pick
out a ball and peform the same activity
back after getting the ball. I had stu
dents fighting over the balls. Two wanted
the blue ball and one kid ended up chas
ing the other who had the ball so I had
to settle the dispute. (PT #4)
This PT made changes accordinglyfor the next lesson.
I decided to hand out the balls today
instead of having everyone trying to get
their balls at the same time. This may be
a little more time consuming, but it pre
vented them from fighting and arguing.
For some reason everyone wanted the
blue gator balls instead of the white ones.
This method worked better. (PT #4)
Although seasoned teachers may
frown on handing out equipment individually to each student in class, thisequipment management method allowed the PT to adjust and see howthe changes worked out. With moreopportunities to adjust, he might comeup with a more appropriate method,such as having equipment placed indesignated areas for students to pickup when arriving at stations. With feedback from the teacher educator andby analyzing his own teaching performance in the pedagogy lab with a computerized systematic observation instrument (Everhart & Harper, 1997),it is more likely the PT will come upwith a better solution more quicklythan if he relies on trial and error.
Social skills is another issue. Although the literature is not clear onhow home-schooled children interactwith others, some of the PTs statedthat sometimes it was different interacting with these children as comparedto children in the public schools.There is no research completed onthis topic at this point in our program, but one PT (#5) said:
I feel the students are bright individuals,
but a few of them lack the social skills that
I acquired in the public schools. Many of
the children seem so distant, and when
[we] would joke around about things,
they would not laugh or get the joke.
This seemed to occur in matters ofdiscipline as well, in that some children who misbehaved needed a sternreprimand before their behaviorwould change. On the other hand,the children who had attended theclinical program in previous years appeared to follow the set routines andrarely displayed any discipline problems. These are generalizations, anduntil research provides some answers,one camp will say that the homeschooled children behave well in interactions with others and the othercamp will say it is easy to see that theydon't interact with others as well aspublic-schooled children. With moretime in the program, perhaps thehome-schooled children will betteradhere to the clinical program's rou-
tines and the number of disciplineproblems will diminish.
Another issue was the perceptionsof teaching outcomes that the PTs hadfrom working with the home-schooledstudents. These perceptions were thesame as if they had been working withpublic school children. However, theypaint a picture of how early teachingexperiences benefit preservice teachers in physical education.
[In a volleyball class for 9- to l l-year-olds]
We reviewed what we went over last class
extensively because we had some new stu
dents. The tempo of the class was in
creased to keep them on task. The stu
dents were getting much better with their
form, however they still had trouble mak
ing contact with the volleyball. (PT #6)
[We] introduced the overhead pass and
reviewed the forearm pass. The students
had trouble understanding how to make
contact with the ball. Most of them were
slapping at the ball. We also began to play
modified games using the trainer balls, so
they would not be as scared of the ball
and we allowed two bounces to slow the
pace down so they could concentrate on
their skill development. (PT #6)
SummaryThe home-schooling parents in thisarticle mayor may not have sharedpositive experiences of their own physical education experiences, but all provided ongoing support for the clinicalteaching program for their children.The individuals studied in this articleprovided evidence ofan improvementin the new version of the clinical program in terms of how it meets theneeds of home-schooled students. Inaddition, the preservice teachers provided evidence of professional growthin the lessons they taught. With continued modifications to the clinicalphysical education program for homeschooled students, preservice teachers and home-schooled students willcontinue to reap the rewards ofsuch aprogram. With better student outcomes generated from research-basedteaching, parents will continue to
54 Vol. 69 No.9· JOPERD • November/December 1998
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 1
2:45
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Method of payment D check enclosed payable to AAHPERD D Visa D MC
Address _
Name _
Zip _
Total payment enclosed
Panagiota Klentrou is an assistant professor
in the Department of Physical Education at
Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario L2S
3A 7, Canada.
Wall,]., & Murray, N. (1994). Children &movement: Physical education in theelementary school. Madison, WI: W. C. Brown& Benchmark.
Warrell, E. (1978). Safety in using gymnas
tic equipment. Journal of PhysicalEducation, Recreation & Dance, 49(7), 12-13.
StateCity _
Number of Tickets __ @ $35 each $ _
(Tickets on site will be $40)
To order Luncheon tickets, please mail the following to: NAGWS,1900 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191
April 23, 199812:30 - 2:30 pm
Westin Hotel, Copley PlaceBoston, Massachusetts
Luncheon sponsored by JCPenney
NationalAssociationfOr Girls and WOmen in SportCentennial Celebration
AAHPERD National Convention
Please join us for our Centennial Celebration featuring:• Members of the Women's World Cup Soccer Team• 1999 NAGWS Award recipients• Donna de Varona, Olympic swimmer and speaker• Luncheon featuring Robin Roberts, ESPN sports
commentator• A modeling of Sports Wear Then and Now
Continued from jJage36
MacDonald & Evans.National Association for Sport & Physical
Education. (1995). Nationalphysical education standards: a guide to content andassessment standards. New York: Mosby.
Nilges, L. M. (1997). Educational gymnastics-stages ofcontent development.Journal of PhysicalEducation, Recreation& Dance, 68(3),50-55.
Klentrou
ReferencesEverhart, B., Everhart, L., Sands, C., &
Dunaway, D. (in press). The effects ofcombining a fitness emphasis duringmotor skill practice on third grader'senjoyment of physical education lessons. The Physical Educator.
Everhart, B., & Harper, T. (1997). Teachingphysical education to homeschooledstudents: Opportunities for studentteaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68 (5),51-55.
Griffin, L., Mitchell, S., & Oslin,]. (1997).Teachingsportconcepts and skills:A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
Lines, P. (1991). Estimating homeschooledpopulation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED337903)
Lines, P. (1995). Homeschooling. ERICDigest, 95 (EDU-EA-95-3).
spread the word that good things arehappening in physical education atthe university.
Perhaps it is time to design moreprograms like this at other universities around the country. Itwould benefit preservice teachers and the growing number ofchildren who are homeschooled. Teacher educators in physical education teacher educationprograms who are interested in developing similar programs should firsttry to contact people who can helpthem. Contacts may include state departments of education for homeschooling association phone numbersand local church parishioners whoeducate their children at home.Internet searches may also provideuseful information. Once contacts aremade, discussions can begin to determine whether local home-schoolingparents are interested in joining a cooperative group for physical education at a local university (or churchgymnasium) .
expiration datecredit card numberBrett Everhart is an assistant professor in
the Department of Health, Leisure, and Ex-
ercise Science at Appalachian State Univer- authorized signaturesity, Boone, NC 28608. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November/December 1998. JOPERD • Vol. 69 No.9 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Pr
ince
Edw
ard
Isla
nd]
at 1
2:45
23
Nov
embe
r 20
14