Integrating Cooperative Games in Elementary Physical Education

1. Integrating Cooperative Games in Elementary Physical Education Susan Neumann California State University, Northridge

2. Introduction

3. Games and play • Personalities • Socialization • Positive behaviors not always exemplified • Lack of Fun Disinterest in cooperation tarnished physical skills activity

4. Solution? Teach cooperative activities in Physical education classes

5. What is cooperative learning? • Small groups • Solve a common problem • Success of the group • Individual learning • Focus = process used

6. Why Cooperative Learning? Benefits from problem solving activities: • Communication skills • Positive social interaction • Critical thinking development • Reduced aggressive behavior • Increased self-esteem

7. Purpose

8. To investigate the effects of integrating cooperative activities in elementary physical education programs

9. Methods

10. Subjects • 2 fifth grade classes • 1 elementary school in Southern California • 20-25 students per class • 2 physical education specialists

11. Procedures • Informed consent, health clearances • Traditional lesson plans • Cooperative lesson plans • P.E. for 30 minutes, 3 times a week for 12 weeks

12. Data Collection • Teacher interviews • Student interviews • Student self-batteries, tests • Teacher questionnaires • Field observations

13. Severy’s (1975) questionnaire Horrocks’ (1979) Prosocial Play Behavior Inventory (HPPBI) New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills Teacher Report Form (TRF) Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) Instruments • Social Interaction • Behavior • Critical Thinking • Aggression • Self-Esteem

14. Hypothesis

15. Students participating in cooperative activities as part of a physical education program will exhibit signs of increased communication, positive social interaction, critical thinking skills, reduced aggressive behavior, and higher self-esteem

16. Results

17. Findings supported the researcher’s hypothesis • Teacher Interviews • Students in cooperative activities showed: • Increased signs of communication • Positive social interaction • Increased critical thinking skills • Reduced aggressive behavior • Higher self-esteem

18. Student Interviews “Now I feel like more a part of the group” “I get along better with others” “Classmates include me in games at recess” “I have more friends now”

19. Severy’s Questionnaire

20. Horrocks’ Prosocial Play Behavior Inventory

21. Cooperative P.E. Pre-test: 26.53 SD=6.53 Post-test: 29.49 SD=6.49 Difference of t(25)=6.51 Traditional P.E. Pre-test: 25.68 SD=6.59 Post-test: 26.29 SD=6.99 Difference of t(25)=1.70 New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills

22. Before intervention: At risk = 25.00 (sd dev. = 11.10 Comparison = 1.86 (sd dev. = 1.96) After intervention: At risk = 3.67 (sd dev. = 1.18) Comparison =0.67 (sd dev. = 1.06) Teacher Report Form

23. Self-Perception Profile for Children

24. Discussion

25. Severy’s (Social Interaction) • Helping behavior significantly higher • Increased socialization • Horrocks’ (Behavior) • Higher scores in judgment, reason, intention and behavior • New Jersey Test (Critical Thinking) • Critical thinking scores were higher after intervention

26. TRF (Aggression) • Increase engagement of antisocial children • Decrease aggression • SPPC (Self-Esteem) • Positive effect on the self-conceptions of students

27. Conclusion

28. Results from interviews with students and teachers, along with findings from questionnaires and tests confirm cooperative activitiesas part of a physical education program produce:

29. -Increased communication -Positive social interaction -Increased critical thinking skills -Reduced aggressive behavior -Higher self-esteem

30. Limitations

31. -Small sample size -Student self-reported information not completely reliable -Some bias in teacher reports might exist -Physical education teachers not specifically certified in elementary