Freedman

A Model for Teaching Reading in the Physical Education Content Area

Mark S. Freedman Greater Miami Jewish Federation

Introduction

A student teacher i n physical education begins he r n in th grade basketball class w i th t he utmost confidence. Roll e f f ic ient ly taken, t h e twenty-seven students are d iv ided i n t o groups of th ree and assigned var ious tasks at stations strategical ly placed around t h e gymnasium. Each student is g iven a " task sheet" (see F igure 1) which provides an ac t i v i t y f o r t he day's lesson. The s tudent teacher ins t ructs each g roup o f students t o "read t he inst ruct ions on t h e task cards, perform t he activit ies, and complete them b y t he end o f t he class." Convinced t ha t she has designed a learning experience o f reasonable qual i ty, t he s tudent teacher circulates about t he gymnasium t o prov ide feedback t o t h e n in th-graders as t hey pract ice t he ski l ls l isted on t h e task sheets.

About ten minutes in to t he lesson, t he student teacher notices t ha t few, if any, students are work ing on t h e assigned act iv i t ies. She at t r ibutes th i s t o "socializing" and chastises several students. The pa t te rn of o f f - task behavior continues th rough- o u t t h e lesson, much t o t h e chagr in and disappointment o f t h e novice physical educa- t o r . Du r i ng t he lesson post rnortem, t h e student teacher a t t r ibutes t he fai lures of t he lesson t o poor classroom management, s tudent apathy, and t he lack o f adequate time f o r teaching sk i l l progressions. The cooperating teacher requests t o look at t h e les- son plan and t h e task cards. A f t e r musing over them f o r several minutes, t h e coop- eratin? teacher re tu rns t he materials t o t h e d issp i r i ted in te rn w i th a single explana- tion, O f course t h e lesson went sour. A good three-quar ters o f t he k ids probably couldn' t read these task sheets."

The s tudent teacher was confronted wi th a rea l i ty which f requen t l y occurs i n t he classroom b u t less often i n t he gymnasium, below grade-level reading ab i l i ty . Most physical education teachers, because o f t h e preponderance o f t radi t ional teaching hethods, ra re ly incorporate reading tasks i n t o t he i r lessons. When a lesson, fai ls as it did i n t h i s case, a def in i te need emerges f o r physical education teachers t o teach reading also. l nnovat ive physical education lessons should in tegrate psychornotor and cognit ive components. The purpose o f th i s ar t ic le is t o demonstrate t h e need f o r t h e teaching o f reading i n physical education classes both i n elementary and secondary settings; t h e p r imary focus wi l l be upon secondary education. A model f o r teaching reading th rough physical education content wi l l be proposed and b r i e f l y discussed.

28 JTPE

Model f o r Teaching Reading

Name Style B Class Date

Task Sheet # S. S./M.T.

Basketball: Dribbling

To the student: Your task is to practice the following skills as described and as demonstrated.

Logistics:

Tasks :

1. All the basketballs are in the bin in the NW cornor of the gymnasium.

2. At the end of the episode, return all the balls to the appropriate bin.

3. You will have minutes for the task,

1. Dribble the ball with the right hand, bouncing it to knee level, ten times in a row (a set).

2. Dribble the ball as before, three sets of ten, with ten second intervals between sets.

3. Repeat #1 with the left hand. 4. Repeat #2 with the left hand. 5. Dribble the ball with either hand between

any two points while walking ten steps. 6. Repeat #S with light jogging.

Figure 1--Basketball Task Sheet

(Mosston, 1981. Reprinted with full permission.)

Current Practices

While no descr ipt ive l i terature exists t o prov ide a clear p ic tu re o f t h e number of physical education programs and/or teachers teaching reading through content, one can safely assume tha t number t o be extremely low. I n fact, there is l i t t le evidence t o suggest tha t teachers of health education, who depend heavi ly on p r in ted media and textbooks e i ther confront o r resolve t he reading di f f icul t ies o f t he i r students. On ly recent ly have several states mandated t h e teaching o f reading f o r al l prospect ive teachers inc lud ing physical educators (Ohio i n 1975, New Jersey i n 1978).

Elementary physical educators, especially those who teach lessons stressing ef f i - ciency o f movement, generally integrate reading readiness o r pr imary reading inst ruc- t ion i n t o t he i r teaching. I n some instances such inst ruct ion is incfuded by design, b u t i n o ther situations it is unsystematically presented t o students. The state o f Flo- r ida (1975) developed a curr icu lum t o help physical educators and classroom teachers see t h e pedagogical relationship between pre-reading, reading, and movement skil ls. The curr icu lum suggests act iv i t ies i n such areas as oral language skills, visual d iscr i - mination, audi tory memory and discrimination, decoding, and contextual analysis. Freedman and Rucksthul (1978) designed a fou r -par t reading module f o r preservice health and physical education teachers. The components o f t he model include textbook evaluation, designing comprehension tests th rough t he Cloze technique (Robinson,

SPRING 1984 29

Freedman

1972), a l ter ing reading levels, and estimating readabi l i ty (Fry, 1972). The modules have been successful because preservice teachers have t h e oppor tun i ty t o apply t he i r classroom work t o t he i r f ie ld experiences. Student teachers and preservice teachers exposed t o these modules have integrated t h e teaching of reading w i th physical educa- t i on lessons i n aerobic exercise, movement education, team sports, and sex education.

The teaching o f reading i n elementary physical education, ei ther as p a r t of t h e planned curr icu lum o r t he "hidden" curr iculum, enjoys f a r be t te r status than reading inst ruct ion i n secondary physical education programs. It is, i n fact, d i f f i cu l t t o establish a core o f objectives f o r secondary programs. Genti le (1980) has suggested f i v e areas i n which general reading sk i l ls are per t inent t o secondary physical educa- t ion classes: (1) reading t o follow a sequence of direct ions and reiat ing these t o dia- grams and charts; (2) understanding specif ic vocabulary and terms of multiple mean- ing; (3) making inferences and assumptions based on diagrammed plays; (4) reading t o understand t h e h is to ry o f a spor t o r game; and (5) reading sports articles i n newspapers o r magazines. A s ix th area should be added t o th i s l ist : reading mater- ial a t var ious cogni t ive levels and decoding such material for psychomotor funct ioning. Had t h e s tudent teacher described i n t he beginn ing o f th i s ar t ic le accounted f o r th i s s i x t h area, he r lesson might have met w i th success. Certain physical educators and reading specialists have suggested act iv i t ies o f a ra ther electic nature t o improve reading sk i l ls i n physical education' (Maring & Ritson, 1980; Shepherd, 1982; Lamberg & Lamb, 1980; Thomas E Robinson, 1972). Now a four-stage model shall be proposed which incorporates reading inst ruct ion w i th a well recognized psychomotor instruct ional model, and an assessment component which can measure both physical performance and reading achievement.

Reading Instruction in Physical Education Model

The design o f a model f o r teaching reading i n t he secondary physical education content area must recognize several mit igat ing factors: (1) expenditures on textua l materials i n most physical education programs are v e r y limited; (2) most reading "assignments" i n physical education classes are incidental t o in-class learning (e.g., reading a book about a football s ta r du r i ng a f lag football un i t ) and are not system- at ical ly incorporated in to class learning experience; (3) teaching environments l i ke gymnasiums do no t lend themselves well t o extensive reading programs; and (4) many secondary physical educators and programs are philosophically or iented toward recrea- t ional activit ies, lacking academic r igo r .

Th i s model, an in teract ive system, contains f i ve components based upon t he prac- t ice s ty le o f teaching physical education (Mosston, 1981). The par ts of t he model (see F igure 2) include: (1) Reading Inst ruct ional Design, (2) Psychomotor Ins t ruc - t ional Design, (3) Practice Style o f Teaching, (4) Psychomotor-Cognitive Functioning, and (5) Academic Learning Time (ALT) . The f i r s t two components involve pre-class decision-making and are related t o t h e planning and execution of t he t h i r d component, t he Practice Style o f Teaching. The f i r s t two components are h igh ly interact ive t o t h e extent t ha t s tudent behavior i n reading wi l l ult imately cont r ibute t o t he quality, quant i ty, and/or location o f t he psychomotor (physical) performance. The Practice Sty le o f Teaching wi l l be discussed i n more detail i n a later section o f th i s article.

Psychomotor-Cognit ive Funct ioning re fers t o s tudent outcomes and can be measured by t h e evaluat ive and f ina l stage o f t he model, Academic Learning Time. The compo- nents o f t he model wi l l now b e discussed i n more par t icu lar detail.

30 JTPE

Psychomotor I n s t r u c t i o n a l

R e a d i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l

P r a c t i c e S t y l e o f T e a c h i n g

P s y c h o m o t o r - C o g n i t i v e

Academic L e a r n i n g T ime

Model f o r Teaching Reading

P r e - I n s t r u c t i o n D e c i s i o n M a k i n g

~ n s t r u c t i o n a l Me thod

s t u d e n t Outcomes

I

F i g u r e 2--A Mode l f o r T e a c h i n g R e a d i n g i n Seconda ry P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n

I

I Reading Instructional Design and Psychomotor Instructional Design I I

I Ber l iner (1980), i n discussing the relationship between reading and content areas, makes the following statement: "Other th ings being equal, t he more time allocated t o t he content area of reading, t he h igher the academic achievement i n tha t content area"

I (p. 206). In tu i t ive ly one might assume tha t careful ly designed reading activit ies may posit ively influence physical performance. While th is assumption might be a generali- zation open t o ra ther broad debate, it shall be asserted i n th is model tha t if reading act iv i t ies a re prerequisi te t o physical ac t i v i t y performance (as i n ou r student teacher's class) physical performance may indeed be influenced by reading achievement levels.

I n t he design of task sheets f o r use i n physical education classes it would seem tha t certain aspects of reading instruct ional design must be considered. For example, t h e teacher must decide a t which cognit ive domain level t o d i rect reading materials t ha t wi l l be used i n class. Student performance on physical performance activit ies wi l l cer ta in ly va r y if comprehension is expected on an inferent ial level b u t is achieved on ly a t t he l i teral level (Smith & Barrett , 1979).

I SPRING 1984 31

i

Freedman

A c r ~ t i c a l aspect o f performing physical ski l ls f rom pr in ted media such as task sheets involves t he student's ab i l i ty t o organize material o r equipment, choose a s t ra- t egy f o r performance and follow a sequence via a translat ion process from t he wr i t ten word t o t h e actual action of t h e physical ac t i v i t y . Finally, i n some way t he s tudent must be able t o assess the quan t i t y and/or qua l i t y o f t h e performance. Rarely is a s tudent requi red t o accomplish such a broad range of objectives i n mathematics o r sci- ence lessons. Reading inst ruct ion must be geared t o meet t he fol lowing student needs if it is t o be e i ther a prerequis i te o r corequisite t o psychomotor performance:

1. Mult i - reading level task sheets must be designed t o account f o r t h e usual dispersion o f reading levels wi th in a heterogenously grouped class.

2. When learning act iv i t ies are described in reading passages, directions must be wr i t ten which wi l l be clear ly understood by t h e reader(s). Therefore, specialized vocabulary, abbreviations, symbols, and acronyms should be incorporated in to sk i l l progressions and accounted f o r i n subsequent instruct ional sequences.

3. Comprehension checks should be planned and related t o t he students' abi l - ity t o understand t h e con.crete words, phrases, clauses and sentence pat- te rns used i n task sheets.

4. Picture clues may be used t o help c la r i f y t he meaning o f a d i f f i cu l t passage o r concept.

5. When a s tudent is called upon t o self-evaluate a p e r f o r ~ l a n n or t o assist i n t h e evaluation o f another student, he/she must be prepared adequately i n in te rp re t i ve reading ski l ls such as understanding and ut i l iz ing pred ic t ing outcomes, drawing conclusions, and perce iv ing relationships. Students must also possess reorganizational reading sk i l ls such as summarizing and sequencing.

6. Finally, if students are t o prov ide t he i r chssmates wi th augmented feed- back o f psychomotor performances, t hey must be prof ic ient i n ident i fy ing relevant and i r re levant information, an ab i l i ty which entails cr i t ica l reading ski l ls.

I n th i s pre- instruct ional phase o f t h e model, t h e teacher is called upon t o consider reading inst ruct ion decisions as an in teract ive process o f subsequent physical pe r fo r - mance. If reading ab i l i ty is low, a student's poor psychomotor behavior may be incorrect ly a t t r i bu ted t o poor motor ab i l i ty when, i n fact, t he problem may stem f rom poor cogni t ive funct ioning. Once t h e teacher has carefu l ly considered pre- inst ruc- t ional decisions, t he model can be advanced t o t h e actual instruct ional method and t h e s tudent outcomes based upon t ha t method.

Practice Style of Teaching Psychomotor-Cognitive Functioning P '5

If t h e teacher o f physical education is also t o be a teacher o f reading, an inst ruc- t ional method should be selected t ha t permits t h e two educational domains (psychomo- t o r and cognit ive) a broad scope o f interact ion. The pract ice s ty le (Mosston, 1981) can be effect ively incorporated in to th i s model. I n essence, the pract ice s ty le permits students t o per form tasks presented by the teacher a t a h igh ly individualized level. Students are no t taugh t i n t h e more rigid command s ty le (Mosston, 1981) which i s neat ly categorized by the expression "I say, you do." Since t he teacher assigns greater responsibi l i ty t o t he student, t h e learner's role i s expanded t o include many decisions, such as location, quant i ty, and pacing, typ ica l ly made by teachers i n more t rad i t ional instruct ional methods. Because t h e learner i s g iven greater latitude, task

32 JTPE

Model f o r Teaching Reading

sheets (see F igure 1) are commonly used i n pract ice s ty le lessons. The purposes of t h e task sheet are: (1) t o assist t he learner i n remembering what t o do and how t o do it, (2) t o reduce t h e number o f repeated explanations by t h e teacher, (3) t o call t he learner t o greater concentration when l istening t o t he explanation t h e f i r s t time, (4) t o teach t he learner t o follow specific wr i t ten instruct ions and enhance precise per for - mance, and (5) t o keep t he teacher i n "control" by reducing discipline infract ions (Mosston, 1981, p. 38).

Teachers who commit themselves t o us ing task Sheets have established a defacto relationship w i th reading ab i l i ty . It is essential t ha t task sheets account f o r t he instruct ional needs o f students as readers, as well as t he i r needs as physical pe r - formers. I n addit ion t o incorporat ing reading instruct ional design strategies as men- t ioned i n t h e previous section o f th i s model, an effect ive task sheet must describe t he specif ics o f t he task, contain logistical instruct ions, and present tasks both i f r f in i - t i ve l y and imperatively (Mosston, 1981 ) .

Since students are g iven greater freedom d u r i n g pract ice situations i n th i s style, t h e teacher is available t o prov ide sk i l l feedback t o students on an individual basis, and a t a greater f requency than i n o ther instruct ional methods. A cr i t ical aspect of t ha t feedback should include student understanding o f t h e wr i t ten material on t h e task sheet. The teacher should determine if correct ive feedback should be targeted toward t h e student 's reading behavior, physical performance behavior o r both. A teacher's instruct ional decisions du r i ng class must focus on s tudent outcomes; it is ent i re ly possible t ha t a s tudent may be able t o funct ion i n one domain b u t not t he other. I n t ha t instance, t he teacher is confronted wi th a va r ie ty of instruct ional choices. Those options are out l ined in F igure 3. Teachers who carefu l ly analyze a student's cognit ive and psychomotor funct ioning i n class, should be able t o accomplish mult ip le objectives i n both domains.

S t u d e n t Response T e a c h e r A c t i o n

-Unde rs tands w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l , 1. T a r g e t feedback , Canno t p e r f o r m p s y c h o m o t o r t a s k . p s y c h o m o t o r i n s t r u c t i o n .

-Does n o t u n d e r s t a n d w r i t t e n T a r g e t f e e d b a c k i n t h i s o r d e r : m a t e r i a l . 1. R e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n .

-Canno t p e r f o r m p s y c h o m o t o r 2. O b s e r v e - - i f t a s k i s t a s k . p e r f o r m e d - - r e i n f o r c e .

3. T a s k n o t p e r f o r m e d - - p s y c h o m o t o r i n s t r u c t i o n .

-Does n o t u n d e r s t a n d w r i t t e n 1. D e t e r m i n e i f p s y c h o m o t o r m a t e r i a l . b e h a v i o r i s a c o p y i n g

-Can p e r f o r m p s y c h o m o t o r t a s k . r e s p o n s e o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s . 2. Supp lement w i t h r e a d i n g

i n s t r u c t i o n .

F i g u r e 3 - - D e c i s i o n L o g f o r Psychomo to r F u n c t i o n i n g

SPRING 1984 33

Freedman

Academic Learning Time (ALT)

The f ina l por t ion o f t h e model is an evaluation component which allows t he teacher t o assess t he amount of time students are act ively engaged i n cognit ive and psychomo- t o r tasks, as well as prov ide a general estimate of t h e level of learning d i f f i cu l t y t ha t occurs i n class. The s t ra tegy is called Academic Learning Time (ALT).

A complete discussion of ALT cannot be treated w i th justice wi th in t he context of th i s article. The reader should re fer t o Fisher, Filby, Marliave, Cahen, Disher, Moore, and Ber l iner (1978) f o r a complete descr ipt ion of t he A L T model and t o Sied- entop, Birdwell, and Metzler (1979) f o r an account o f t h e use of ALT in physical edu- cation settings. Br ief ly, ALT was designed b y a g roup o f researchers f rom t he Far West Laboratory f o r Educational Research and Development t o measure student time- on-task i n a s tudy of beginning teachers i n t he ear ly 1970's. The main components of in terest f o r th i s model include engaged time and success rate.

Engaged time refers t o t ha t per iod i n which students are involved w i th content related t o t h e objectives of t he lesson. Therefore, reading task cards, pract ic ing motor skil ls, and receiving teacher feedback would be considered engaged time. I n Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE) developed by Metzler (1979) th i s engaged time is characterized as learner moves. Other act iv i t ies such as managerial episodes, t ransi t ional phases between activit ies, and wait ing would be considered non-engaged time.

Success ra te may be high, medium, o r low. These rates re fe r t o t he level of s tu - dent understanding and t o t h e d i f f i cu l t y level o f t he material and/or act iv i t ies encoun- tered du r i ng engaged time. For example, "h igh success" means t h e student under- stands t he task and makes on ly occasional careless er rors , thus t he task is "easy." Low success implies t he task is "hard" and t h e s tudent does not understand t h e task a t al l (Berl iner, 1981).

Teachers can ra ther easily keep accounts o f engaged time f o r a student o r a g roup o f students du r i ng teaching episodes b y us ing log sheets. Success rates are of ten more d i f f i cu l t t o determine and may requi re t he use o f a t ra ined ALT observer. The eff icacy of employing ALT t o evaluate a reading-physical education instruct ional model seems h igh ly desirable. ALT instruments ex is t f o r both cognit ive and psychomotor components. When applied t o t he pract ice s ty le o f teaching (wi th t he accompanying task sheets) ALT data wi l l prov ide teachers w i th t he fol lowing information: (1) engaged time and success ra te f o r task sheet reading act iv i ty, (2) engaged time and success ra te f o r psychomotor performance, and (3) a composite engaged time/success ra te f o r psychomotor-cognit ive funct ion ing du r i ng class.

The data obtained f rom ALT measures can be used i n several ways, including real- locating instruct ional time, a l ter ing reading levels on task sheets, and re- target ing teacher feedback du r i ng instruct ional episodes. I n summary, th ik proposed model places emphasis on t he teacher as an instruct ional designer both of reading and phys- ical education, as a prov ider o f concise and useful feedback, and as a ski l led evalua- to r . Such a notion assumes t h e teacher is committed t o improving students' reading ab i l i t y and physical ab i l i ty . It f u r t h e r recognizes t ha t these behaviors are in te r re - lated. If physical educators are t o avoid instruct ional problems such as t h e one described a t t h e outset o f t h e article, t hey must accept t he proposit ion t ha t cognit ive sk i l ls and psychomotor sk i l ls are no t taugh t i n isolation. Th is model seeks t o narrow t h e gap between t h e ctassroom and t h e gymnasium.

34 JTPE

Model f o r Teaching Reading

References

Berliner, D.C. (1981). Academic learning time and reading achievement. I n John T . Guth r ie (Ed. ) , Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 203-226). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fisher C.W., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L.S., Dishaw, M.M., Moore, J.E., t Berliner, D.C. (1980, June). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory f o r Educational Research and Development.

Freedman, M., & Rucksthul, M. (1978). Modules f o r teaching reading i n health and physical education. Unpublished document, Rutgers Universi ty.

Frye, E. (1972). Reading inst ruct ion for classroom and cl inic. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gentile, L.M. (1980). Using spor ts and physical education to s t rengthen reading ski l ls. Newark, DE: l nternational Reading Association.

Lamberg, W.J., & Lamb, C.E. (1980). Reading inst ruct ion in the content areas. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Maring, G.H., & Ritson, R. (1980). Reading improvement i n the gymnasium. Journal of Reading, 24(1), 27-31.

Metzler, M. (1979). The measurement of academic learning time i n physical education. (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State Univers i ty) . Un ivers i t y Microfilms No. 80093 74.

Mosston, M. (1981). Teaching Physical Education (Second ed. ) . Columbus, OH: C.E. Merr i l l .

Robinson, R.D. (1972). A n in t roduct ion t o the CIoze procedure: A n annotated bibli- ography. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Shepherd, D. L. (1982). Comprehensive high school reading methods (Th i r d ed. ) . Columbus, OH: C. E. Merr i l l .

Siedentop, D., Birdwell, D., G Metzler, M. (1979, Apr i l ) . A process approach t o measuring teaching effectiveness i n physical education. Paper presented a t t he AAHPERD National Convention, Boston. MA.

Smith, R. J., & Barrett , T . C. (1979). Teaching reading in the middle grades (Second ed. ). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

State of Florida, Department o f Education. (1975, Apr i l ) . Physical education and reading: A winning team. Tallahassee, FL.

Thomas, E. E., & Robinson, H . A. (1 972). Improv ing reading in every classroom. Boston: A l l yn and Bacon.

SPRING 1984 35