Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D....

22
Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. [email protected] Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. [email protected]

Transcript of Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D....

Page 1: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve

Learned from Year One

Kevin Lorson, [email protected]

Steve Mitchell, Ph. [email protected]

Page 2: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Overview• Ohio is one of the few states with:

1. Standards.

2. Required assessments for all standards.

3. Data for all standards reported to the Ohio Department of Education.

4. Performance rating on school’s report card.

5. Model curriculum.

Page 3: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Purpose: • Discuss what we’ve learned from the first year of implementation:1. Summarized data from across the state.

2. Profile of a school at each level.

3. Teacher’s perception of the impact of the assessments.

Page 4: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Ohio Assessment Overview• At the completion of 2012-13 (by June 2013) districts will report student progress towards the achievement of benchmarks.

• Part of school’s report card, but not a high-stakes achievement test.

• Collect assessment data and report to ODE.• Data is reported by school, not by individual student

• Assess and report student data once in the grade band, not in each grade.

• Assessments must be completed by the end of the benchmark.• e.g. – Assess students in Standard 1B in Grade 2

• NO WAIVERS for ASSESSMENTS.

Page 5: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Ohio Physical Education Academic Content Standards

1. Demonstrates competency in motor skills and movement patterns needed to perform a variety of physical activities.

2. Demonstrates understanding of movement concepts, principles, strategies, and tactics as they apply to the learning and performance of physical activities.

3. Participates regularly in physical activity.4. Achieves and maintains a health-enhancing level of

physical fitness.5. Exhibits responsible personal and social behavior that

respects self and others in physical activity settings.6. Values physical activity for health, enjoyment, challenge,

self-expression, and/or social interaction.

Page 6: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Standard K-2 3-5 6-8 9-12

Standard 1: Motor Skills & Movement Patterns

A: Locomotor & non-locomotor skills.

A: Combine locomotor and non-locomotor into movement patterns.

A: Movement skills and patterns in a variety of activities.

A: Combined movement skills and patterns in authentic settings.

Locomotor Skills Assessment

Creative Movement Pattern

Locomotor Activity Skills or Movement routine

Skills & Patterns Assessment

B: Fundamental manipulative skills.

B: Fundamental manipulative skills in basic settings.

B: Specialized manipulative skills in a variety of settings.

B: Specialize manipulative skills in a variety of settings.

Manipulative Skills Assessment

Manipulative/Sport Skill Invasion, Net/Wall, Striking, Target Skill Assessments

Invasion, Net/Wall, Striking, Target Skill Assessments

Standard 2:Knowledge of movement concepts, principles, strategies and tactics.

A: Knowledge of movement concepts.

A: Movement concepts and principles of movement.

A: Apply tactical concepts and performance principles.

A: Apply tactical concepts and performance principles in authentic settings.

Movement concepts performance

Tactical Test Bank or Game Performance Assessment

Game Performance Assessment

Analytical Portfolio Tactics & Strategies

B: Knowledge of critical elements.

B: Knowledge of critical elements.

B: Knowledge of critical elements & biomechanical principles.

B: Apply biomechanical principles.

Critical Elements Test Bank

Skill Analysis & Practice Plan

Skill Analysis Analytical Portfolio Biomechanical & Practice

Standard 3: Participates in physical activity

A: Engage in physical activity (PA) inside and outside of school.

A: Engage in PA inside and outside of school

A: Engage in PA inside and outside of school.

A: Engage in PA inside and outside of school.

Physical Activity Recall

Physical Activity Recall Physical Activity Recall Physical Activity Recall

B: Recall physical activities.

B: Self-monitor PA. B: Create & monitor a personal plan for PA.

B: Create & monitor a personal plan for PA.

Physical Activity Picture Log

Physical Activity Log Personal Physical Activity Plan

Personal Physical Activity Plan

Page 7: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Standard K-2 3-5 6-8 9-12

Standard 4: Health-enhancing level of fitness.

A: Demonstrate health-related fitness

A: Demonstrate health-related fitness

A: Demonstrate health-related fitness

A: Demonstrate health-related fitness

Fitness Performance Rubric

Criterion Referenced Fitness Test

Criterion Referenced Fitness Test

Criterion Referenced Fitness Test

B: Understand principles, components & practices.

B: Understand principles, components & practices.

B: Understand principles, components & practices.

B: Understand principles, components & practices.

Fitness Test Bank Fitness Test Bank Personal Fitness Plan Personal Fitness Plan

Standard 5: Personal and social behavior

A: Follow safe procedures

A: Safety & personal responsibility

A: Safety & personal responsibility

A: Safety & Etiquette

Personal Responsibility Observation Assessment

Personal Responsibility Observation Assessment

Personal Responsibility Observation Assessment

Personal Responsibility Observation Assessment

B: Cooperation & consideration of others.

B: Cooperation & respect. B: Communicate and respect others

B: Communication and social responsibility.

Social Responsibility Observation Assessment

Social Responsibility Observation Assessment

Social Responsibility Observation Assessment

Social Responsibility Observation Assessment

Standard 6: Values physical activity

A: Enjoyment A: Self-challenge & enjoyment

A: Self-challenge & personal growth

A: Use PA to promote growth, goal setting & enjoyment.

Enjoyment Assessment

Advocacy Physical Activity Advocacy

Physical Activity Marketing

B: Physical Activity promotes self-expression and social interaction

B: Appreciate physical activities

B: Select PA that promote self-expression and interaction

B: Pursue PA that promote self-expression & social interaction.

Activity Identification Advocacy Physical Activity Advocacy

Physical Activity Marketing Plan

Page 8: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Ohio Benchmark Assessment Scoring System

•3, 2, 1 rating for each benchmark3 = Advanced

2 = Proficient

1 = Limited• Leave blank if they could not participate (not calculated in summarized data)

• ODE provides an excel file to input data and automatically calculate data to report to ODE.

• 12 benchmark scores averaged together for an overall score for each student (Advanced, Proficient, Limited).

• Student score then used to calculate overall school score.

Page 9: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND WELLNESS MEASURE REPORT CARD FORMAT FOR THE 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEAR

September 2011

Physical Education Index Compliance with Local

Wellness Policy

Participation in Body Mass Index (BMI) Screening

Participation in Physical Activity Pilot Program

MODERATE(Click HERE for detailed

information about your district)

YES(Click HERE for detailed information

regarding the federal wellness policy)

YES(Click HERE for detailed information

regarding BMI screening requirements and waivers)

NO(Click HERE for detailed information regarding participation in a Physical

Activity Pilot Program)

The extent to which students are successful in meeting the benchmarks contained in Ohio’s physical education standards. •Building composite score and overall district composite score determination will be “High”. “Moderate” or “Low”.

Compliance with the federal requirement for implementing a local wellness policy. •Overall district composite score will be a “Yes” or “No”.

Compliance with completing BMI screening requirements instead of operating under a waiver.•Overall district composite score will be a “Yes” if completed BMI screening or “No” if requesting a waiver, non-submission of waiver or non-completion of BMI screening.

Whether the district is participating in the option of a daily Physical Activity Pilot Program.•Overall district composite score will be a “Yes” or “No”.

The Physical Education and Wellness Measure provides information about a district’s policies and practices with regard to physical activity, health and wellness. It will first appear on the reports that are issued at

the end of the 2012-2013 school year.

Page 10: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

What we’ve learned: State-wide Assessment Data

Summarized data from Ohio Department of Education:

Page 11: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

State-wide Data Reflection:• A majority of schools scored in the moderate category

• First year for data collection & implementation• Expect higher scores in future years• Scoring system based on overall student averages

• Student would have to score at least 90% of the possible points possible.

• Limited time allocated to physical education.• K-8: No minimum time requirement, only part of “well-rounded

education.”• High School Grad Requirement: ½ credit = 120 hours of instruction.

Page 12: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Individual School District Data

• District Characteristics:

• Rated “Excellent”• Students: 2,058

• Physical Education Program• One semester each year

in middle school.• Approximately 45 minutes

each day.

• Teachers:• Two middle school

teachers

• Other notes: • Began standards-based

curriculum in 2010.

Page 13: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Individual School Level DataBenchmark Advanced Proficient Limited

1A 36 34 11B 35 36 02A 58 13 02B 38 28 53A 23 42 63B 71 0 04A 33 28 104B 6 64 05A 10 56 56A 4 60 76B 57 14 0

Totals 57 14 0

Page 14: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Impact of the Assessments

• Method• Emailed survey to 589 Ohio physical educators.

• Identified as physical educator on school’s website.• Emailed three reminders to complete the survey.• Only complete if they taught in a public school in 2012-2013.

• Participants• 81 teachers (14% response rate).• 46 Females, 35 males• Grade Bands: 36 in K-2, 31 in 3-5, 30 in 6-8, and 22 in 9-12.• Teachers identified their schools as Rural (16%), Suburban (63%),

and Urban (21%)• Teacher Experience

Years 0-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+

% 5% 7% 12% 16% 23% 37%

Page 15: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Results• Survey prompts revolved around themes:

• Perceived Difficulty in Implementing each Benchmark Assessment

• Overall Thoughts• Professional Development• Credibility to Profession• Assessments & Change

• Curriculum, Teaching, Administration view of physical education

• Teacher Suggestions to improve Assessments

Page 16: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Teacher’s Perception of the Level of Difficulty Implementing each

Benchmark Assessment

• Difficult Benchmarks• 2B (Biomechanical Principles)

• 3A (PA Recall)• 6AB (Value PA), • 3B (PA Plan), • 4B (Fitness Plan)

• Easiest Benchmarks• 1B (Object Control/Sport Skills)

• 5AB (Personal & Social Responsibility)

• 1A (Locomotor/Movement Sequence)

• 4A (FITNESSGRAM)

Page 17: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Benchmark AssessmentsItem Strongly Agree -> Neither Agr/Disagr ->Strongly Disagree

Changed my approach to my physical education program

9 53 19 13 8

Clarified the major student learning outcomes for physical education

15 41 20 18 6

Taken up a large amount of my class time that I could use for other things

37 30 19 13 0

Led to new ideas or modified lessons that I have used in my classes

3 52 20 18 7

The students found the assessments too difficult

6 22 35 35 2

Students have learned more this year as a result of the assessments than previous years

2 17 31 35 15

Students found the assessments too difficult

6 23 35 34 2

Page 18: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Professional Development & ODEItem Strongly Agree -> Neither Agr/Disagr ->Strongly Disagree

Additional PD is needed to effectively implement the assessments

12 34 21 26 7

Needed additional guidance to develop or implement for students with disabilities

11 37 21 26 5

Item Strongly Agree -> Neither Agr/Disagr ->Strongly Disagree

ODE data sheet Excel file was easy to use.

9 49 17 22 2

Utilized technology to help implement the assessment or collect data

9 60 11 13 7

Page 19: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Credibility of the ProfessionItem Strongly Agree -> Neither Agr/Disagr ->Strongly Disagree

Had a positive impact on my teaching

4 34 27 19 16

Made it easier to communicate to parents and students about progress in PE.

5 36 16 27 16

Status of PE in my district or school has been elevated by the ODE Assessments

1 16 27 29 27

Increased accountability associated with assessing students and reporting the data to ODE has been a positive for the profession

15 26 25 19 15

Page 20: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Assessments & ChangeItem Strongly Agree -> Neither Agr/Disagr ->Strongly Disagree

Data was used by myself, my colleagues, or district to identify strengths and/or weaknesses of the program

2 37 25 31 4

Changes are planned or were made in your district/school’s program offerings or schedule as a result of the assessments

5 5 1 42 48

I (or teachers in the the district) revised our curriculum or course of study due to the assessments

14 44 11 22 9

My administrator have taken an increased interest in physical education in the past year due to the assessments

5 18 15 37 25

My district (K-12) meets more frequently to discuss physical education due to the assessments

10 17 9 35 28

Page 21: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Reflection & Future Directions

• Using the data to make a difference:• Students• Programs• School• Advocacy

• Refine data collection tool & process

Page 22: Ohio’s Physical Education Assessments: What We’ve Learned from Year One Kevin Lorson, Ph.D. kevin.lorson@wright.edu Steve Mitchell, Ph. D. smitchel@kent.edu.

Additional Information• Ohio Department of Education

• Assessments• Data Collection file• Other information about Ohio Physical Education

• Kevin Lorson• [email protected]

• Steve Mitchell• [email protected]