Evaluating Activities: Four Criteria
for a Learning Experience
written by Amber
D. Phillips, and Jennifer
Kahlig, Ball State University, IN
 In
my 'teaching methods' courses, both at the undergraduate and
graduate levels, I assign students the Hall
of Shame (Williams, 1992; Williams, 1994; Williams, 1996)
readings. We play some of the games using some of the inappropriate
practices (Williams, 1996), then discuss the feelings of students
put into these situations. Light bulbs go on for students,
when they are put into a situation with equally or higher
skilled people, for the first time and/or they hear their
peers' feelings and it becomes real for them.
The next task is to evaluate each of the games according
to Rink's four criteria for a learning
experience (Rink, 2009). We do this because most of these
games are still played, and inappropriate practices are still
used in some form in many physical education classes. I find
this perplexing.
Most of the arguments I hear, in favor of such activities
or practices, is that they can be modified to be appropriate.
This could be true, but I think it is important to put our
personal feelings aside (i.e. "I loved this
game!") and truly evaluate the game, activity, or teaching
behavior by the merit of the learning experience for the student.
I feel we have gotten caught up in trying to prove a point,
and it is time to move past that and do what is right for
the students.
If we want to truly have a valuable learning experience,
we can use Rink’s (2009) four criteria to evaluate everything
we use. We can try to modify activities and practices to meet
each criteria, but when that is not possible then it is time
to find something better. Rink's four criteria include:
- Improving motor skill performance,
- Being appropriate for the experiential
level of all students,
- Providing maximum practice time
for all students, and
- Integrating all 3
learning domains when possible.
Let us look at perhaps the most controversial Hall of Shame
activity of all time: Dodgeball.
I am not debating the value of dodgeball; rather, I am using
this as an example of how to apply Rink's four criteria to
critically evaluate all activities to determine their value
in physical education. Does dodgeball improve motor skill
performance? The answer is not a simple one, as there are
many parts to consider. Proponents of dodgeball will say it
teaches dodging, fleeing, throwing, and catching. Of course,
there are opportunities to use these skills in the game of
dodgeball, but does the game improve those skills?
In its unmodified version, the game does not improve motor
skill performance. The students who are successful at the
game are those who already have some level of skill. The students
who need the most practice are eliminated. In a modified version
where students are not eliminated, they still are not usually
practicing the skills named. Students are usually doing some
unrelated activity to get back into the game, where they are
quickly "not eliminated" again. Furthermore, there
is no extending or refining of said skills.
The motor skills need to be taught, and some level of competency
needs to be met in simpler games before advancing to more
complex games, as motor skill performance deteriorates during
game performance (Rink, 2009). Rink's game stages (2009) may
be helpful in progressing gameplay, but that is beyond the
scope of this article.
Is dodgeball appropriate for the experiential level of all
students? I have seen it played from grades K through 12,
which is a red flag. What is appropriate for grade 12 can
not possibly be appropriate for kindergarten, or vice versa.
Furthermore, we have to acknowledge the variation of skill
within a grade level. There are simply better games to use
to teach chasing, dodging, fleeing, throwing, and catching
than dodgeball.
I am pretty sure we can all agree dodgeball, in its original
form, does not provide maximum practice time for all students.
I have seen many modification attempts to address this criterion,
and some with great success. However, the problem then becomes
whether it's improving motor skill performance and whether
it's appropriate for everyone.
Many will then argue, we do not always have to work on motor
skills. The problem is, we are the only people in the schools
who address this area of development (Rink, Hall, & Williams,
2010). This is our unique contribution to the whole child.
If this is not our purpose in physical education, then who
is going to physically educate our children?
Finally, the learning activity should integrate all three
learning
domains whenever possible. This one is not always possible,
but usually at least two can be integrated. Cognitive and
affective goals can be integrated into this game. For example,
"During this round, work together to come up with three
different ways to dodge."
The problem with this game is there is no way to eliminate
the negative affect it has on students. It is the nature of
this game to target the weakest student. There are ways to
teach these skills where it is fair and fun for all. I think
we really need to focus on the positive affect of physical
activity and fitness.
My final task for students is to use Rink's (2009) four criteria
to evaluate a game they have played, or seen played in physical
education. I think this is a valuable part of the assignment
for two major reasons: (1) they have been in K-12 physical
education more recently than me so I am kept abreast of what
is being taught and (2) it gets them to think critically about
activities and
appropriate tasks or practices. A modified version of the
game is also given.
Game: Mission Impossible
Description: The class is divided into two
even teams. Mats are set up across the playing area - one
in each "end zone" and one in the middle. Each team
is given a set amount of supplies, which include scooters,
padded hockey sticks, and carpet squares. The object of the
game is to get every single team member to the other side
without having anyone touch the floor. If one person on the
team touches, the entire team starts over at the beginning.
Evaluation:
- Criterion 1: There is very limited potential to improve
motor skill performance. The most physical activity the
students are getting is trying to keep their body on a scooter
for a couple of seconds, or trying to keep their feet on
the carpet squares as they slide from one mat to the other
that is a couple feet away.
- Criterion 2: This game is inappropriate
for the experiential level of all students (see Criterion
4).
- Criterion 3: There is very little
activity time. The majority of students are standing and
cheering while the most active students in the class get
all the equipment and tell everyone else what to do, which
means that there is no time for improving motor performance
or fitness levels in this game.
- Criterion 4: The less athletic
and skilled students of the class are always the last to
get across the gym. It really affects a child's feelings
when they are always the one making the team restart because
they touched the floor. This game, overall, is not a game
to be played in a physical education setting.
Game modified to meet the criteria: Mission Possible
- Criterion 1: Use throwing and catching or kicking and
receiving skills.
- Criterion 2: Allow students to
pick their own partners and have equipment and/or space
modifications.
- Criterion 3: Use partners or small
groups (no more than 3). After a student throws, for example,
he can run and get to the next place to receive and progress
toward the finish line.
- Criterion 4: Focus on skilled performance
before, during, and after the game. Allow time for students
to work together and strategize. Use positive pinpointing
and share examples of strategies students discover.
Description: The class is divided into partner
groups. Cones (e.g.) are set up as a start and end zone. Each
pair has one ball. The players will throw and catch the ball
while advancing to the end zone. The person holding the ball
in his hand can not move. The object of the game is to get
both partners to the other side without dropping the ball.
If the ball hits the floor, the group starts
over at the beginning.
references
Rink, J. (2009).
Teaching
physical education for learning (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill:
Boston, MA.
Rink, J., Hall,
T, & Williams, L. (2010). Schoolwide
physical activity: A comprehensive guide to designing and
conducting programs. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL.
Williams, N. (1992).
The
physical education hall of shame, part 1. Journal
of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63 (6),
57-60.
Williams, N. (1994).
The
physical education hall of shame, part II. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 65 (2), 17-20.
Williams, N. (1996).
The
physical education hall of shame, part III. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67 (8), 45-48.
(back
to pelinks4u homepage) |
