Self-supervision: a "help yourself" approach to better teaching and increased student learning.

Shelton, Steve ; Hawkins, Andrew H.

Supervision in physical education has been defined as a specialized form of feedback given to a practicing teacher that is systematic and intentional with the purpose of developing, improving, and maintaining instructional effectiveness (Metzler, 1990; R. L. Wiegand, personal communication, January 20, 2010). This feedback is strategic information provided after a teaching episode and communicated individually to teachers taking into account the specific stage of a teacher's development, current skill level, and work context. Ideally, supervisors monitor practicing teachers using systematic observation techniques, compile objective data on performance, and give feedback to assist teachers with an increase in their instructional effectiveness (Metzler, 1990).

Unfortunately, supervision techniques in physical education appear to suffer from many of the same deficiencies experienced in other areas of education. Metzler (1990) stated "supervision has failed to look upon itself as a teaching process, one in which the supervisor helps the teacher learn the many complex tasks, skills, and decisions necessary for effective instruction in schools" (p. 7). Inadequacies within physical education supervision are complicated by the fact that few supervisors have experience teaching in public schools, have no specialized training in the area of supervision, and are assigned a myriad of professional duties that may limit their ability to deliver appropriate supervision on a regular basis (Metzler, 1990).

Mosher and Purpel (1972) described the condition of traditional measurement strategies by reporting "the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from any review of the literature is that there is virtually no research suggesting that supervision of teaching, however defined or undertaken, makes any difference" (p. 50). Despite the acknowledged importance of effective supervision, Metzler (1990) concluded "supervision suffers from inadequate conceptualizations of what it is about, who should conduct it, and where it should happen" (p. 12).

In some instances supervision isn't simply missing the target, it is missing entirely. Many elementary physical educators are often the only teacher at their assigned schools teaching their specialized subject matter. This isolation from colleagues who are conversant with the planning, content development, and pedagogy specific to physical education often leaves physical educators without a peer or supervisor to provide essential feedback.

Often the only feedback provided to teachers comes after the use of traditional supervisory methods such as checklists and rating scales and their associated rubrics. Although these techniques can assist teachers in becoming more aware of certain aspects of their teaching not specific to systematic assessment such as enthusiasm and decision-making, these conventional systems should be used in a limited fashion to supplement systematic observations (Metzler, 1990).

When appropriate and frequent supervision do occur, the teacher's current stage of development is a critical component in considering the appropriate supervision techniques to be used. Metzler (1990) reported that "supervision faces its most difficult task in trying to help experienced teachers improve their instruction. Experienced teachers are likely to have deeply ingrained instructional patterns and sometimes little incentive for working on new teaching skills" (p. 20).

He continued by suggesting "peer supervision and self-supervision are the most viable instructional improvement strategies for veteran teachers" (Metzler, 1990, p. 20). Similarly, Cusimano, Darst and van der Mars (1993) reported "perhaps the most useful evaluation is self-evaluation because the more involved you are in the process, the more aware you become of behaviors you might want to modify" (p. 27).

Rink (2010) noted the significance of treating systematic observation as a process and acknowledged the importance of collecting accurate and reliable data by following several critical steps:

1.) Decide what to look for.

2.) Choose an appropriate observational method.

3.) Learn to use the observational method in an accurate manner.

4.) Collect data.

5.) Analyze and interpret the meaning of the data.

6.) Make changes to the instructional process.

7.) Monitor changes in instruction over time.

Deciding what to look for

A critical priority of successful supervision should be the acquisition and enhancement of effective teaching skills (Metzler, 1990). Rink and Hall (2008) reported "teaching must be effective if children are to acquire the skills to lead a physically active lifestyle" (p. 207). The authors noted key characteristics of effective elementary physical education programs which help define successful lessons. These characteristics included content development, management techniques, communication, teacher feedback, and time engagement with content.

Management of student practice time is a critical variable associated with student learning (Hawkins, 2009). Academic Learning Time--Physical Education (ALT-PE) is the amount of time in which students are engaged with motor activities related to lesson objectives at an appropriate level of difficulty and at a high rate of success (Siedentop, Tousignant, & Parker, 1982). In fact, time engagement in subject-matter content is reported to be "the single most critical variable related to whether or not students learn in physical education" (Rink & Hall, 2008, p. 212). Because successful participation in motor activities is highly associated with skill acquisition (Hawkins, 2009), allocating a maximum amount of class time for student involvement in these actions is vital for program effectiveness.

In the interest of objectivity, limitations associated with the use of ALT-PE should be noted. ALT-PE estimates the frequency and duration of target behaviors and is an approximation of student learning rather than an actual determinate of achievement. Because ALT-PE uses interval recording the events that are documented are only sampled from actions occurring in real time.

Additionally, Parker (1982) reported that ALT-PE is not a solid indicator of practice quality, not always sensitive to lesson goals, and does not describe precisely what students are doing during various activities. For example, within a single lesson a unit of ALT-PE could represent a student dribbling a basketball or guarding a classmate with success.

Despite its limitations, ALT-PE remains a useful tool for determining how often students are engaged with motor-related subject matter during a physical education lesson and is "presently the best estimation of student learning in physical education" (R. L. Wiegand, personal communication, March 2, 2010). Thus, for the purposes of the self-supervision narrative that follows, ALT-PE units were coded and referred to as motor appropriate behavior.

The presence and rate of additional teacher and student behaviors believed to have a corresponding relationship with student achievement have also been identified as important by experts and were noted during this evaluation project. Teacher behaviors that enhance learning opportunities such as low durations of verbal instruction and management time and high rates of feedback are preferred.

Low percentages of instructional time may well point to the effective use of brief instructional episodes interspersed with motor response opportunities (Hawkins, Wiegand, & Landin, 1985). The use of management systems that promote students to self-manage allows the teacher to act primarily in the preferred instructional role of teaching rather than managing student behavior (Hawkins et al., 1985). High rates of feedback are "essential because a student needs to know if the performance was correct or where improvements are needed" (Hawkins et al., 1985, p. 248) and characteristic of a teacher who is actively teaching students in close proximity.

Conversely, student behaviors that do not promote learning, such as off-task, waiting, and motor inappropriate (tasks too difficult or too easy) should be minimized. High totals of these data profiles likely result from planning errors, instructional system deficiencies, and ineffective management strategies (Hawkins et al., 1985). In addition, key teaching sequences such as verbal instruction + specific observation + corrective feedback should occur at high rates (R. L. Wiegand, personal communication, March 14, 2010).

The number of key teacher and student behaviors to be observed should be manageable. Metzler (1990) advocated for a reasonable approach to self-supervision by stating "teachers probably cannot provide themselves with the full range of supervisory functions, but they can achieve noticeable results on a limited set of teaching skills" (p. 40). Consequently, for this project, the teacher decided to devote particular attention to the following teacher and student behavior categories: (1) verbal instruction, (2) management, (3) feedback, (4) motor appropriate, (5) waiting, (6) off-task, and (7) motor inappropriate.

Choosing an appropriate observational method

Accomplishing this important step requires the use of an observation system designed specifically for physical educators that explicitly defines teacher and student behaviors typically observed in physical education class. One such method, The West Virginia University Teaching Evaluation System (WVUTES), was designed to enable researchers and practitioners to evaluate the teaching-learning environment by studying the actual behavior of students and teachers. It was meant to overcome the limitations of high-inference approaches to instructional evaluations like rating scales whose data have no direct reference to actual behavioral events. WVUTES, on the other hand, generates data which derive directly from events occurring in real time.

There are two parts to WVUTES, a student behavior system and a teacher behavior system. The student behavior system was drawn directly from the ALT-PE system (Siedentop et al., 1982). The original ALT-PE system was a multi-layer category system which included a context level and a learner involvement level. WVUTES adopted only the learner involvement level. The teacher behavior system was developed by WVU faculty by watching numerous lessons and following a typical process for developing behavior analytic category systems. First, narrative recordings (i.e., verbal descriptions of all teacher behaviors) were made of the lessons. Next, behaviors were grouped by common function (e.g., disparate teacher behaviors, like high-fives, verbal praise, and thumbs-up, following appropriate student behaviors in which the teacher appeared to want the behavior to continue were grouped together as positive feedback). Then the categories were field tested and modified to make sure every teacher behavior would be included in some category, and that a reasonable number of categories were retained. The result was an eight behavior student category system (the eight learner involvement categories in the ALT-PE system) and an 11 behavior teacher category system.

WVUTES is a category system which has the characteristics of being both comprehensive and mutually exclusive. Comprehensive means that every student behavior must be coded within one of the eight student behavior categories, and that every teacher behavior must be coded into one of the 11 teacher behavior categories. In other words, there is no "other" category for either student or teacher behavior. Mutually exclusive means that each behavior can only be coded into one category, and that there is no overlap between categories. Mutual exclusivity was not a problem with the student categories; however, with the teacher categories it was necessary to prioritize certain behaviors when they occurred simultaneously. For example, it is possible for a teacher to use verbal instruction while modeling a task. Only one of those behaviors, however, may be recorded in a mutually exclusive system. Priority was given in that case to modeling for the following reasons: a) most of the time teachers verbally instruct while they model so we can assume that a lot of verbal instruction takes place during modeling; b) if we gave verbal instruction priority, we would seldom code modeling since teachers usually verbally instruct when they model; and c) we value modeling in a movement-oriented subject matter--showing is better than telling.

The original WVUTES was designed for data collection using a research-oriented real time system by taking advantage of computers (i.e., every behavior was recorded as it occurred in real time so that both duration and frequency measures could be generated). However, it retained the flexibility for data collection by non-researchers by using more traditional methods, like interval recording. Interval recording generates an estimate of duration and frequency by sampling behaviors during an observational session. An interval recording system was used by the teacher in this self-evaluation project.

A summary of WVUTES follows in Tables 1 and 2 in which the definitions of each category are listed with examples.

Learning to use the observational method in an accurate manner

Inaccurate data collection by the observer may incorrectly identify behaviors in need of being changed and produce invalid results. This can be avoided by observers who clearly understand which behaviors to observe, the definitions of those behaviors, and how to record them correctly. Lacy and Hastad (2007) noted that "usually, problems in establishing reliability in systematic observation can be traced to vague or unclear definitions of the behaviors being observed" (p. 386). The WVUTES observational system minimizes this concern by providing understandable behavior definitions and examples.

The teacher in this evaluation project was recently instructed on the proper use of the WVUTES observation system during requisite coursework as a student at West Virginia University (WVU). Since the summer of 2002 the College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences at WVU has offered a Master's of Science degree in Physical Education Teacher Education. This hybrid model combining online and classroom-based components was specifically designed for practicing teachers. It includes 12 three-credit classes, and introduces students to systematic observations during the course, PET 685 Supervision Techniques in Physical Education. (For a thorough program description and assessment that quantified program graduates' perceptions of all courses, produced feedback on the blended learning experience, evaluated effectiveness in achieving faculty goals, and identified needed program revisions, see Ramsey, Hawkins, Housner, Wie gand, & Bulger, 2009.)

Because the teacher was working without help, intraobserver agreement (IOA) procedures were used to determine an acceptable percentage of agreement between the initial and final viewings of each teaching episode. Van der Mars (1989) reported "intraobserver agreement refers to the situation in which one observer makes an observation of the events on one day and then comes back at a later point in time to observe the same events" (p. 54). The time period between the two observation sessions was one week and the record of the first observation was not accessed during the second observation (van der Mars, 1989).

Rink (2010) suggested "for purposes of self improvement, the reliability of the tools teachers use should be at least 70 percent" (p. 316). However, the teacher decided to set an IOA goal of 80 percent, a level of agreement considered necessary by experts for self-evaluation purposes (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000) and calculated reliability as follows:

[Agreements/[Agreements + Disagreement]] x 100 = % of IOA

Because interval recording was the selected observation method, the IOA is "based on agreements and disagreements of how many intervals are coded for the defined behavior categories" (Lacy & Hastad, 2007, p. 387).

Collecting the data

Throughout the month of October, data collection on three individual lessons occurred during a four-week floor hockey unit. The data were collected on the teacher and his class of 22 fifth grade students who were video recorded during all three teaching episodes.

Each lesson was video recorded from an elevated angle which allowed the teacher to view every part of the gymnasium. The first two lessons were video recorded nine days apart, while twelve days elapsed between the second and third lessons. The time between taping sessions provided the teacher with the opportunity to view each lesson, establish acceptable IOA percentages with a second viewing one week later, analyze data, and set improvement goals for each ensuing lesson.

While reviewing each teaching session, the teacher used a five-second observe/record protocol and a coding form designed specifically for this self-evaluation. Student behavior was coded during the first two-minute segment totaling 24 five-second intervals. During the subsequent two-minute segment, teacher behavior was recorded in an identical manner. Each time student behavior was coded a different student was selected by alternating between a high, medium, and low ability student as determined by the teacher. Altogether, 192 intervals were recorded for student behavior while 168 intervals were recorded for teacher behavior during each 30-minute lesson.

During the screening of each teaching episode, the teacher paused playback at five-second intervals using a timer visible on a computer monitor and recorded each behavior. Although time consuming, the teacher viewed this procedure as best practice to ensure consistency of recordings. IOA percentages substantiate the utilization of this approach as results of reliability checks ranged from 75 to 88% in all behavior categories across all three lessons.

Interestingly, unforeseen patterns of recording disagreements emerged during reliability checks. For example, the difference between general observation and specific observation was problematic at times. The precise distance between teacher and student that constituted a "proximal" position was questioned when the teacher appeared to be relatively close to a student and was looking in their general direction during subject-matter tasks. On several occasions, deciding between cognitive and off-task was difficult to resolve and resulted in minor recording disagreements. For instance, a student appeared to be looking at the teacher, however, whether or not they were actually engaged in the learning process was difficult to ultimately determine (i.e., was the student listening to the teacher but looking away momentarily or merely daydreaming?).

During periods of active participation, the coding of motor appropriate or motor inappropriate behavior was not always easy to determine (i.e., a student passed a ball to a teammate with proper mechanics but the pass was moderately difficult to receive because of its speed and trajectory). Even with clearly defined behaviors and examples, an observation system can still present experienced teachers with difficult decisions regarding how to accurately record authentic behavior during a lesson.

Overall, the teacher felt positive about the coding decisions and the consistency they provided to the self-evaluation process, despite such minor indeterminate "gray areas." The teacher found revisiting behavior definitions and maintaining focus on lesson goals helped settle recording discrepancies.

Analyzing and interpreting the data and making changes to the instructional process

The initial lesson involved an overview of game safety and an introduction to tap-dribbling and trapping skills. Students progressed through a variety of tap-dribbling tasks from beginning levels to more advanced levels throughout the lesson. WVUTES results for the lesson are summarized below in Figure 1.

Data from lesson one revealed high percentages of sampled behavior were spent in verbal instruction and modeling resulting in high cognitive totals for students. This data summary is not uncommon for an introductory lesson at the beginning of a unit during the initial months of the school year. However, teaching episodes were few in frequency but occupied a significant amount of class time resulting in low motor appropriate totals.

Management time was higher than expected as the teacher devoted time to continue establishing a structure of rules and routines to be maintained the remainder of the school year. On several occasions, the teacher strategically placed equipment in critical areas during activity time in anticipation of upcoming transitions. The teacher managed the use of music effectively as part of the classroom attention/quiet routine but was observed nearer to the music source more often than to the students themselves.

Thus, feedback rates suffered, averaging just one per minute. Corrective feedback was provided more often than positive feedback. This was, in part, due to mistakes made by students while learning to manipulate equipment with long-handled implements during the first lesson placed in the unit. Additionally, a low percentage of specific observation indicated the teacher was not active enough when students were engaged in activities.

Waiting time was reasonably low which indicated the teacher provided enough equipment for all students and designed tasks such that students were active without using lines or taking turns. Off-task behaviors were too high and generally recorded during lengthy periods of verbal instruction and modeling behavior.

Goals for the subsequent lesson were generated from these data profiles and included: (1) decrease verbal instruction by shortening the duration of demonstrations and instructions and reducing the use of whole-group instruction, (2) decrease management by designing tasks that allow students to self-manage, (3) increase feedback rates to three per minute by becoming more active and offering additional positive feedback to individual students, and (4) increase the rate of teaching sequences such as verbal instruction + specific observation + positive feedback or modeling + specific observation + corrective feedback. These critical teaching chains were observed just four times during the entire first lesson.

During the second teaching episode the lesson focus involved the use of student-selected tap-dribbling tasks from a checklist located on the classroom whiteboard. Then, students played a game using safe space (Housner, 2001). This spacing design separated offensive and defensive players on the court using lines and allowed players to handle the ball without being confronted by an opposing player (Griffey & Housner, 2007).

The employment of additional small group and individualized instruction and shorter teaching episodes increased opportunities for motor responses and reduced the amount of time spent in verbal instruction and modeling. Lower instructional time decreased cognitive behavior and influenced motor appropriate behavior positively.

Allowing students to select tasks influenced the attainment of goals set following the first lesson. Management behavior decreased from 23 to 16% and motor appropriate increased from 20 to 30%. Providing students access to a visual, task-related checklist freed the teacher to increase feedback behavior and reduce verbal instruction. Positive feedback increased noticeably from 2 to 15% between lessons and the rate of feedback was two and a half per minute for the lesson.

Data from both lessons revealed motor inappropriate behavior to be minimal. Possible reasons for such a desired outcome included: effective planning, use of understandable verbal instructions, and task difficulty that matched student ability levels. WVUTES data is reviewed below in Figure 2.

Using evidence from the previous two lessons, goals were formed to promote sought after behavior changes during the final session which included: (1) increase motor appropriate percentages to 40% or greater by designing and implementing station activities, (2) decrease waiting time, (3) decrease verbal instruction by introducing additional task-oriented activities in which students read posted directions, (4) decrease management by using a timer that cues when to rotate to the next station promoting greater self-management responsibility for students, and (5) increase positive feedback rates to greater than three per minute.

During the final lesson, the teacher planned a variety of floor hockey activities at various stations (see Figure 3 for a description of station activities). Following a brief set induction, students were divided equally among station areas and activity began. Visual prompts were employed at each station allowing students to read activity directions and seek teacher assistance on an individual basis as needed. Students self-managed their rotation schedule by relying on the cue of a timer that sounded at preset intervals.

The students were actively involved in subject-matter content at activity stations that provided visual, task-oriented activities, including the use of a reciprocal task sheet at station four. Written directions were thorough enough to promote task understanding yet concise enough to avoid excessive use of activity time for interpretation. Motor appropriate and cognitive totals, which represented total learning time, totaled 65% of student behavior.

Motor supporting behavior was higher than in prior lessons and particularly evident during the "shots on goal" station. This activity required goaltenders to frequently return the ball to a partner so consecutive shots could be taken. The teacher noted instances of interim behavior at this station due to several inconsistent shots which required students to retrieve "lost" balls.

Waiting and off-task behaviors were minimal. The task experiences appeared to be perceived as interesting to all students. Inherent feedback (i.e., the sound of a shot hitting the goal) and the use of goal orientations such as accuracy ("Count how many cones you can dribble between as you travel"), have been regarded as essential in creating and maintaining student attention during learning experiences (Housner, 2001) and contributed to this desirable data profile.

Verbal instruction was at its lowest level during the evaluation project due to the effective use of the aforementioned station format during the seventh lesson placed late in the unit. Management time was recorded at just 9% and generally associated with the teacher explaining station rotations and collecting reciprocal task sheets during the lesson. The use of a timer cueing activity rotation allowed students to self-manage with minimal assistance from the teacher.

Figure 3. Lesson three station activity descriptions.

Station #1
Shots on Goal

Take 3 shots on goal against your partner from the blue line
then switch positions and continue. Get started quickly!

"Things to look for"

1. Slight backswing.

2. Contact the ball or puck with strong force.

3. Low follow-through.

Station #2

Tap-Dribbling Checklist

Perform each task for (5x2)--8 minutes. Select your favorite task
again If you have extra time.

1. x    Count how many taps on the ball as you travel.

2. x    Count how many poly spots you touch as you travel.

3. x    Count how many cones you can dribble between
        as you travel.

Station #3

Partner Passing Checklist

Watch the timer and perform each task for two minutes. Select your
favorite task again if you have extra time.

1. x   Count how many times you and your partner pass and
   receive the hall successfully using the red lines (20 feet apart),

2. x  Count how many times you and your partner pass and receive
   the puck successfully using the blue lines (40 feet apart).

Station #4

Grade your Partner

Use the task sheet to grade your partner as they tap-dribble across
the room. When your partner returns, switch jobs and continue.

"Things to look for"

                                      Very Good    Needs More Work

1. Keeps hair "within reach."             x

2. Eyes are up looking for
open space.                                              x

3. Uses both sides of the blade.          x

Feedback rates increased to nearly four per minute. Positive feedback was provided often and immediately following instances of specific observation during well-delivered teaching sequences. The lesson design allowed the teacher to move freely among all students to provide motivational comments intended to increase or maintain appropriate student behavior. The teacher was observed interacting with each student and using first names more often than during prior lessons.

These data profiles indicated the lesson was well-designed and goals were met with success. Overall, progress was made in a majority of behavior categories targeted for improvement. A summary of WVUTES data follows in Figure 4.

Monitoring changes in instruction over time

The three lessons analyzed in this article represented only 4% of total allocated time in physical education across an entire school year for the target class. This self-evaluation project was conducted during one unit of instruction to objectively document a small sample of critical teacher and student behaviors believed to be related to student achievement. Additionally, the project was designed to assist the teacher in becoming more aware of behaviors in need of being modified using an observation system that provided feedback strategies making change achievable.

This exercise in self-reflection indicated the teacher designed and delivered quality instruction. Necessary changes were identified, appropriate strategies were employed, and more effective teacher behavior occurred. Student learning was present and increased throughout the brief project period which was evidenced by accurate systematic data collection and analysis. However, additional work is necessary to make substantive changes in instructional patterns that become long-lasting. Perhaps this project may be used to create a blueprint for further self-evaluation by the teacher.

Supervision has its greatest chance to support physical educators when it is both systematic and ongoing. By using techniques that focus on relevant teacher and student processes, the teacher became more involved in the documentation of his own instructional patterns allowing his students to be the ultimate beneficiaries of improved teaching. Therefore, the use the West Virginia University Teaching Evaluation System is recognized here as a vital tool that assisted the teacher in achieving this end.

REFERENCES

Cusimano, B., Darst, P., & van der Mars, H. (1993). Improving your instruction through self evaluation: Part one: Getting started, Strategies, 7(2), 26-29.

Griffey, D., & Housner, L. (2007). Designing effective instructional tasks for physical education and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hawkins, A. (2009). Instructional methods. In Housner, L. (Ed.), Integrated Physical Education: A Guide for the Elementary Classroom Teacher, Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Hawkins, A., & Wiegand, R. (1989). West Virginia university teacher evaluation system and feedback taxonomy. In P. Darst, D. Zakrajsek & V. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd ed.) (pp. 277-293). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R., & Landin, D. (1985). Cataloguing the collective wisdom of teacher educators. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4(4), 241-255.

Housner, L. (2001). Teaching physical education with the brain in mind. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 12(5), 38-40.

Lacy, A., & Hastad, D. (2007). Measurement & evaluation in physical education and exercise science (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.

Metzler, M. (1990). Instructional supervision for physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Mosher, R., & Purpel, D. (1972). Supervision: The reluctant profession. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Parker, M. (1989). Academic learning time-physical education (alt-pe), 1982 revision. In P. Darst, D. Zakrajsek & V. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd ed.) (pp. 195-205). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ramsey, C., Hawkins, A., Housner, L., Wiegand, R., & Bulger, S. (2009). Finding the recipe for the best blend: The evolution and assessment of a blended master's degree program. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 5(2), 3-26. Retrieved from http://www.rcetj.org/ index.php/rcetj/article/view/10/13

Rink, J. (2010). Teaching physical education for learning (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Rink, J., & Hall, T. (2008). Research on effective teaching in elementary school physical education. The Elementary School Journal, 108(3), 207-218.

Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982). Academic learning time physical education: 1982 revision coding manual, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, College of Education, School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

van der Mars, H. (1989). Observer reliability: Issues and procedures. In P. Darst, D. Zakrajsek & V. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical education and sport instruction (2nd ed.) (pp. 53-80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Steve Shelton, M.S., Physical Education Specialist, Christiansburg Elementary School, Christiansburg, VA Andrew H. Hawkins, Ph.D., Professor, College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

Table 1. West Virginia University Teacher Evaluation System student
behaviors

   Student
  Behavior             Definition                    Example

    Motor       The student is engaged      Performing a folk dance
 Appropriate    in a subject matter         correctly
                motor activity in such a
                way as to produce a high
                degree of success

  Cognitive     The student is              Listening to a teacher
                appropriately involved      explain subject matter
                in a cognitive, subject     task, watching a
                matter task                 modeling episode

    Motor       The student is engaged      Spotting in gymnastics.
 Supporting     in a subject matter         feeding balls to a hitter
                motor activity the          in tennis, throwing a
                purpose of which is to      volleyball to a partner
                assist others to learn      who is practicing set up
                or perform the activity     passing

   On Task      The student is              Moving into squads.
 Management     appropriately engaged in    helping to place
                carrying out an assigned    equipment, counting off,
                non-subject-matter task     moving from the gym to
                                            the playing field

   Interim      The student is engaged      Retrieving balls, fixing
                in a non-instructional      equipment, changing
                aspect of an ongoing        sides of a court
                activity

    Motor       The student is engaged      Attempting a carlwheel
Inappropriate   in a subject matter         but unable to get feel
                motor activity but the      anywhere near over
                task is either too          hands
                difficult for the
                individual's
                capabilities or is so
                easy that practicing it
                could not contribute to
                lesson goals

  Off Task      The student is either       Behavior disruptions.
                not engaged in an           talking when a teacher
                activity in which he or     is explaining a skill.
                she should be engaged,      missing equipment.
                or is engaged in an         fighting
                activity other than the
                one in which he or she
                should be engaged

   Waiting      The student has             Waiting in line for a
                completed a task and Is     turn, waiting for the
                awaiting the next           next teacher direction
                Instructions or to
                respond

Hawkins, A. & Wiegand, R. (1989)

Table 2. West Virginia University Teacher Evaluation System teacher
behaviors

    Teacher
   Behavior              Definition                   Example

    General       The teacher is watching    Watching the whole
  Observation     student groups or          class as they do warm
                  individuals engaged in     up laps
                  any category of student
                  behavior. The teacher
                  must not he engaged in
                  any other category of
                  teacher behavior to code
                  this category

   Specific       The teacher is watching    Observation of one
  Observation     one student, pairs, or     player performing a
                  small groups engaged in    chest pass in basketball,
                  a subject matter task      watching five players
                  for the purpose of         execute a fast break
                  providing feedback
                  related to performance.
                  The teacher position
                  must be proximal to the
                  student

    Verbal        The teacher is verbally    Describing the
  Instruction     describing to the          boundary lines for
                  student how to do a        doubles in badminton
                  skill, or is using a
                  verbal prompt to direct
                  students in attempting a
                  skill or subject matter
                  activity

   Modeling       The teacher demonstrates   Teacher dribbles a
                  to students how to do a    basketball himself, then
                  subject matter task, or    says to the students,
                  participates with          "Now try it that way."
                  students in a subject
                  matter task or activity

   Physical       The teacher physically     A physical guidance
   Guidance       guides a student through   prompt or spotting, as
                  a subject matter task or   long as there is physical
                  activity                   contact

                  The teacher makes a        An instructional prompt
                  verbal statement before    such as, "you can do it."
                  the task in an attempt
                  to enhance the student's

 Encouragement    perception of their        or "if you did it last
                  ability to accomplish a    time you can surely do
                  subsequent task            it this way."

   Positive       The teacher makes a        After student
   Feedback       positive verbal            successfully complete a
                  statement or gesture       high jump, the teacher
                  following an appropriate   says. "That time your
                  student behavior (skill    speed of approach was
                  or organizational)         much better."
                  clearly designed to
                  increase or maintain
                  such responses in the
                  future

  Corrective      The teacher makes a        Teacher tells student.
   Feedback       negative or critical       "The next time you have
                  verbal statement or        a fast break make sure
                  gesture following an       you cut to the basket
                  inappropriate student      when you get to the foul
                  behavior (skill or         line."
                  organizational) clearly
                  designed to decrease
                  such responses in the
                  future

  Management      The teacher is engaged     Setting up equipment
                  in carrying and a non-     taking roll, collecting
                  subject-matter task and    papers, explaining
                  may be directing           station rotations
                  students verbally in a
                  management task

   Off-Tats       The teacher is not         Teacher if making notes
                  paying attention to what   on what to do during
                  are clearly his or her     football practice
                  responsibilities
                  regarding the class at
                  hand

Non-Task Verbal   The teacher talks to       Commenting on
                  student about non-         student's clothing or
                  subject matter and non-    talking about what one
                  managerial subject         student did over the
                                             weekend

Figure 1. Completed West Virginia University Teaching Evaluation
System lesson one data summary.

Lesson One--Student Behavior

                        Percentage of        Behavior of
                        Student Behaviors     interest

Motor Appropriate                                20%
Cognitive                    44%
Motor Supporting              1%
On-Task Management            9%
Interim                       3%
Motor Inappropriate                               6%
Off-Task                                         11%
Waiting                                           8%

Lesson One--Teacher Behavior

                        Percentage of        Behavior of
                        Teacher Behaviors     interest

General Observation            9%
Specific Observation           8%
Verbal Instruction                               32%
Modeling                      15%
Physical Guidance              0%
Encouragement                  0%
Positive Feedback                                 2%
Corrective Feedback                               7%
Management                                       23%
Off-Task                       0%
Non-Task Verbal                4%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Figure 2. Completed West Virginia University Teaching Evaluation
System lesson two data summary.

Lesson Two--Student Behavior

                        Percentage of        Behavior of
                        Student Behaviors     interest

Motor Appropriate                                30%
Cognitive                    21%
Motor Supporting              5%
On-Task Management           14%
Interim                      11%
Motor Inappropriate                               5%
Off-Task                                          6%
Waiting                                           8%

Lesson Two--Teacher Behavior

                        Percentage of        Behavior of
                        Teacher Behaviors     interest

General Observation            7%
Specific Observation          16%
Verbal Instruction                               22%
Modeling                       9%
Physical Guidance              3%
Encouragement                  6%
Positive Feedback                                15%
Corrective Feedback                               4%
Management                                       16%
Off-Task                       0%
Non-Task Verbal                2%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Figure 4. Completed West Virginia University Teaching Evaluation
System lesson three data summary.

Lesson Three--Student Behavior

                        Percentage of        Behavior of
                        Student Behavior     interest

Motor Appropriate                                45%
Cognitive                    20%
Motor Supporting              9%
On-Task Management            9%
Interim                       7%
Motor Inappropriate                               5%
Off-Task                                          2%
Waiting                                           3%

Lesson Three--Teacher Behavior

                        Percentage of        Behavior of
                        Teacher Behavior     interest

General Observation            8%
Specific Observation          19%
Verbal Instruction                               13%
Modeling                       7%
Physical Guidance              2%
Encouragement                 10%
Positive Feedback                                21%
Corrective Feedback                               7%
Management                                        9%
Off-Task                       0%
Non-Task Verbal                4%

Note: Table made from bar graph.