Ability Grouping in PE

1. Ability Grouping in PE Richard Vanstone - May 2010

2. Introduction • Research Question • What is the effect of ability grouping on student’s attitudes and participation in PE?

3. Why is this important? • Differentiation within mixed ability classrooms is a goal of the school and is supported by research as “best practice”. • I feel there are significant differences in PE that make a case for some form of ability grouping. • We face increasing rates of preventable diseases related to physical fitness. “Getting it right” in PE in order to promote healthy living is an incredibly important goal.

4. Review of Literature • Students' Experiences of Ability Grouping - disaffection, polarization and the construction of failure (Boaler, William, and Brown, 2000) Many students in homogeneous ability grouped mathematics classes experienced either restrictions in opportunities to learn if they were grouped in low ability classes or were being asked to learn at a pace that resulted in limited understanding if grouped in high ability classes.

5. Review Continued… • Caldwell and Ford (2002) explored at length the rational for moving away from fixed ability groups in school reading programs in order to positively impact student learning in this area of the curriculum.

6. Research Continued… Gender Equity in Ability Groups. • “Ability ranking in one or more combined classes at the beginning of a unit may result in instructional subgroups composed of one sex or predominantly one sex.” (Oregon State Department of Education, 1990).

7. Research Continued… • When students where given the choice of who to partner with during PE classes that “High ability subjects preferred to compete with partners of equal ability, while low ability subjects were found to regard both low and average ability partners as equally desirable opponents” (Duquin, 1978). • Gender played an important factor in Duquin’s research as he noted that males generally preferred grouping with other males where females where not as likely to differentiate based on sex.

8. Research Continued… • Intrinsic motivation is cited as an important indicator of student success in PE (Ntoumanis, 2001) and “intrinsic motivation is based on people’s need to be competent and self-determining” (Ferrer-Caja and Weiss, 2000).

9. Research Continued… • Goudas and Biddle (1994) found that in order to foster intrinsic motivation in physical education classes a climate focused on mastery as opposed to one focused on performance was beneficial. • Research by Ames indicates an important aspect of developing a climate of mastery lies in creating an atmosphere where skills are “optimally challenging” (as cited in Ferrer-Caja and Weiss, 2000).

10. Research Continued… • Given the important benefits to our society of developing healthy individuals who are intrinsically motivated to maintain active participation in physical activity beyond their school years (Russel et. al., 1995) we should take note of studies that indicate that regular and positive experiences in physical education classes can potentially influence peoples health choices in later life (Sallis & McKenzie, 1991; Telama et. al., 2005).

11. Sample • Convenience Sample - 73 Grade four and five students. • Co-Educational classes. • Purposeful Sample - 6 students in each class (2 high athletic, 2 medium and 2 low).

12. Data Collection • Two Group Pre/Post test design. • Attitude Scale administered pre and post intervention for both experimental and control group. • Performance measured pre/post intervention using tally mark records of targeted behaviours for students in the purposeful sample.

13. Threats to validity • Researcher Bias • Did I treat all students equally when recording performance behaviours? • Was I fair when recording my observations so that I did not purposefully “prove” the hypothesis I had. • Subject History • This study did not take into account student experience outside of class to the units of study inside class. • Depending on the unit being studied at the time the Likert was administered student attitudes may have been affected. • Mortality • Some students left the school, some in the purposeful sample were away for periods of time, some students were unavailable for pre/post test Likert surveys.

14. Results: Attitudes • The one tailed t-test showed no significant improvement in student attitudes towards PE class. (t = 0.2158, df 62, P = 0.4149).

15. Attitude Experimental/Control Comparison: Table 1A

16. Attitude Mean Gain/Loss

17. Results: Behaviour • The one tailed t-test showed significantly greater improvement in behaviour in students under grouping conditions. (t = 1.8622, df 22, P = 0.038).

18. Behaviour Experimental/Control Comparison: Table 1B

19. Pre/Post Performance Mean

20. Discussion • Attitudes: No Significant Change • Behaviour: Behaviour improved as a result of ability grouping.

21. Action • Discuss and share results with teaching partner. • Take advantage of opportunities to create ability groups within PE classes where appropriate. • Explore further the role gender might play in PE classes.

22. References • Boaler, J., William, D., Brown, M., (2000), Students' Experiences of Ability Grouping - Disaffection, Polarisation and the Construction of Failure in British Educational Research Journal. Vol 26, Issue 5, 631-648. Retrieved April 16th, 2010 from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713651583&db=all • Duquin, M., (1978), Partner Choice in Cooperative and Competitive Sport Settings. (Eric document Accession Number ED 157875) • Ferrer-Caja, E., Weiss, M., (2000). Predictors of Intrinsic Motivation Among Adolescent Students in Physical Education in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 71, No. 3, 267-279. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://psicdesp.no.sapo.pt • Goudas, M., Bidde, S. (1994). Perceived Motivational Climate and Intrinsic Motivation in School Physical Education Classes in European Journal of Psychology of Educaiton, Vol. 9, No. 3, 241-250. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://www.springerlink.com/content/b8xh703q32r75n77/ • Ntmoumanis, N., (2001). A Self-Determining Approach to the Understanding of Motivation in Physical Educationin British Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol 71, 225-242. Retrieved April 12, 2010 from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjep/2001/00000071/art00003 • Oregon State Dept. of Education, Salem. (1990), Achieving High Quality, Equitable Physical Education. Physical Education Concept Paper, Number 2. (Eric document Accession Number ED 324301) • Pate, R., Pratt, M., Blair, S., Haskell, W., Macera, C., Bouchard, C., . . . Buchner, D. (1995). Physical Activity and Public Health – A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://aepo-xdv-www.epo.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000391/p0000391.asp#head001000000000000 • Sallis, J.F., & McKenzie, T. L. (1991). Physical education’s role in public health in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 62, 124 -137. • Schudt Caldwell, J., Ford, M (2002). Where Have all the Bluebirds Gone? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. • Telama, R., Xiaolin, Y., Viikari, J. Valimaki, I, Wanne, O., Raitakari, O. (2005) Physical Activity from Childhood to Adulthood: A 21-year Tracking Study in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, Issue 3, 267-273. Retrieved April 16, 2010 from http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797(04)00339-3/pdf