Analysis of Stay in Step Assessment Data, and rationale for follow-up lesson.

1. SEMESTER
2
2011
SSEH7689
Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
Assignment
2
Fundamental
Movement
Skills
‘Stay
in
Step’
Assessment
Report
Due:
Friday
November
18th
2011
Sharon
McCleary
19113469
Unit
Co-­ordinator:
Julia
Creasy

2. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
List
of
Tables:
Table
1:
Summary
of
Stay
in
Steps
FMS
Rating
Categories
Table
2:
Methods
Used
To
Reinforce
Key
Skill
Criteria
List
of
Appendices:
Appendix
1:
Stay
in
Step
Test
Procedure
and
Rating
Category
Charts
Appendix
2:
Stay
in
Step
Lesson
Plan
and
Test
Results
Appendix
3:
Intervention
Lesson
Plan
Sharon
McCleary
2

3. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
Contents
Introduction .........................................................................................................................4
Stay
in
Steps
Screening
Test
Administration..........................................................................4
Analysis
of
Results .....................................................................................................................................4
Identification
of
Areas
of
Need .............................................................................................5
Intervention
Lesson
Plan.......................................................................................................5
Intervention
Lesson
Plan
Rationale ...........................................................................................................5
Reflection
of
Testing
and
Intervention
Process .....................................................................7
Implementation
of
Stay
In
Steps
Screening
Test .......................................................................................7
Implementation
of
Intervention
Lesson ....................................................................................................7
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................9
References..........................................................................................................................10
Sharon
McCleary
3

4. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
Case
Study
Report
from
Stay
in
Steps
Screening
Test
Introduction
This
report
outlines
findings
generated
using
the
Stay
in
Steps
Screening
Test
as
a
method
of
identifying
Fundamental
Movement
Skills
(FMS)
requiring
intervention/further
consolidation
with
Pre-­‐Primary
age
students.
The
test
procedure
is
included
for
reference
in
Appendix
1.
Stay
in
Steps
Screening
Test
Administration
The
Stay
in
Steps
Screening
Test
was
administered
to
two
Pre-­‐Primary
aged
children
in
a
West
Australian
primary
school
on
21st
October,
2011.
The
first
child
(male,
5yrs)
was
affected
by
autism
and
did
not
complete
the
testing;
consequently
testing
was
carried
out
with
a
second
child
(female,
5yrs).
The
lesson
plan
and
test
results
are
included
for
reference
in
Appendix
2.
Analysis
of
Results
The
results
for
the
second
child
were
analysed
and
a
rating
allocated
to
each
skill
using
the
Rating
Categories
for
5-­‐year-­‐old
Girls
(Martin,
Hands
&
Lynch,
2001,
see
Appendix
1).
The
test
results
are
summarised
below:
Fundamental
Movement
Skill
Type
Overall
Rating
Skill
Balance
on
One
Leg
Body
Management
High
Bounce
and
Catch
Object
Control
Very
Low
Hop
for
Distance
Locomotor
Low
50m
Sprint
Run
Locomotor
Medium
TABLE
1:
Summary
of
Stay
in
Steps
FMS
Rating
Categories
Sharon
McCleary
4

5. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
Identification
of
Areas
of
Need
The
child’s
main
area
of
need
is
the
Bounce
and
Catch
skill,
as
evidenced
by
the
‘Very
Low’
rating
category.
A
secondary
area
of
need
is
the
Hop
for
Distance,
which
achieved
a
‘Low’
rating.
The
results
for
Balance
produced
a
‘High’
overall
rating,
however
the
figures
have
been
skewed
by
the
figure
for
the
right
leg.
The
low
result
for
the
left
leg
indicates
it
would
benefit
from
intervention.
Intervention
Lesson
Plan
The
intervention
lesson
plan
(see
Appendix
3)
focuses
on
the
main
area
of
need;
secondary
areas
are
used
in
transitions,
in
order
to
provide
variety,
maintain
confidence
and
ensure
success
in
some
areas.
Intervention
Lesson
Plan
Rationale
The
child
is
in
the
Elementary
Stage
of
the
Fundamental
Movement
Phase
of
Motor
Development,
as
indicated
by
her
age
and
performance
during
the
test
(control,
rhythm
and
temporal/spatial
sequencing).
Although
this
stage
is
age-­‐related,
the
acquisition
of
FMS
is
not
age-­‐dependent,
but
related
to
numerous
factors
within
the
task,
individual
and
environment,
specifically
opportunities
for
practise,
encouragement,
instruction
and
ecological
context
(Gallahue
&
Ozmun,
2006).
The
lesson
aimed
to
provide
these
opportunities,
in
order
to
build
knowledge
and
understanding
of,
and
consolidate,
the
main
focus
skill
in
an
enjoyable
context,
supporting
the
aim
of
promoting
positive
values
towards
physical
education
(Curriculum
Council,
1998).
The
warm-­‐up
exercises
targeted
pre-­‐requisite
skills,
increasing
the
chances
of
success
when
practising
the
main
skill
(i.e.
balancing
on
fingertips
prior
to
throwing/catching
the
ball).
The
body
of
the
lesson
consisted
of
four
activities
related
to
the
focus
skill,
increasing
in
difficulty
as
the
lesson
progressed.
It
used
the
Practise
Style
(Mosston
&
Ashworth,
1986)
because
it
provides
clear
role
expectations,
efficient
use
of
time
and
productive
learning
conditions
for
average-­‐ability
children
(Goldberger
&
Gerney,
1986),
as
well
as
games
and
Sharon
McCleary
5

6. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
open-­‐ended
skills.
Links
to
other
curriculum
areas
were
also
made
(i.e.
Mathematics:
estimating,
counting
the
number
of
bounces;
English:using
letter
sounds
to
create
words).
Research
on
the
effectiveness
of
intervention
indicates
that
“skill
acquisition
emerges
from
the
interaction
of
the
child,
the
task
and
the
environment”
and
indicates
that
interventions
concentrating
on
the
underlying
motor
skills
and
those
focused
on
teaching
functional
tasks
specifically
aimed
at
the
deficient
area,
both
produce
significant
improvements
(Kirby&Drew,
2003,
pg
166).
Both
of
these
strategies
were
used,
as
can
be
seen
by
the
Balance
on
One
Foot
practise
incorporated
in
the
warm-­‐up,
which
is
a
supporting
skill
for
Hop
for
Distance,
and
the
“Popcorn”
game,
which
uses
direct
instruction
to
identify
key
components
of
the
Bounce
and
Catch
skill.
The
lesson
concluded
with
assessment
of
the
child’s
achievement
of
the
main
outcome,
through
questioning
and
re-­‐administering
the
20s
Bounce
and
Catch
Test,
as
a
game.
This
form
of
Ipsative
assessment
(i.e.
comparison
with
previous
personal
results)
(Atherton,
2011)
emphasises
the
link
between
quality
practise
and
positive
outcomes,
increasing
self-­‐efficacy.
Sharon
McCleary
6

7. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
Reflection
of
Testing
and
Intervention
Process
Implementation
of
Stay
In
Steps
Screening
Test
The
demonstrations
in
the
screening
test
were
the
child’s
first
exposure
to
formal
instruction
for
several
of
the
skills,
directly
illustrating
the
common
misconception
among
educators
that
FMS
abilities
are
maturationally
determined
and
be
will
learned
automatically
(Gallahue
&
Ozmun,
2006).
The
‘task-­‐analysis’
(Krause,
2010)
nature
of
the
instructions
allowed
her
to
easily
‘learn’
the
correct
procedure,
however
she
was
clearly
operating
in
the
Cognitive
Stage
of
motor
learning
(Hill,
1993)
while
attempting
to
perform
some
skills;
as
a
result
her
performance
in
these
areas
was
highly
variable
and
characterised
by
a
large
number
of
errors
(Lay,
2011,
Slide
2).
I
was
surprised
at
the
low
results
for
some
of
the
tests,
and
related
it
to
limited
opportunities
for
practise,
one
of
the
main
factors
affecting
FMS
development.
The
child
regularly
participates
in
gymnastics,
and
displayed
relatively
strong
results
for
Balance,
reinforcing
the
validity
of
exposure
to
practise
influencing
skill
acquisition.
I
realised
integrated,
quality
physical
activity
experiences
are
a
crucial
requirement
for
students
to
progress
to
the
next
stage
of
motor
development
(i.e.
Mature
Stage),
and
that
these
opportunities
are
essential
for
their
social,
physical
and
emotional
development
and
should
be
provided
as
part
of
their
education
(CPAC,
2008).
Implementation
of
Intervention
Lesson
The
warm
up
games
and
transitions
were
effective
ways
of
increasing
lesson
FMS
content
and
providing
positive
experiences
which
maintained
engagement,
maximised
enjoyment
and
influenced
student
affect
positively.
The
affective
and
cognitive
domains
of
student
behaviour
have
the
potential
to
influence
motor
development
and
learning
(Gallahue
&
Ozmun,
2006;
Subramaniam
&
Silverman,
2007),
therefore
maintaining
high
levels
of
student
affect
is
essential
to
ensuring
motor
development.
Practising
the
skill
in
varied
contexts
with
increasing
degrees
of
difficulty
allowed
the
child
to
build
on
each
new
skill
learned
to
develop
the
next,
more
complex
skill,
as
described
by
Keogh
and
Sugden
(cited
in
Kirby&Drew,
2003),
providing
the
necessary
challenge
required
to
maintain
engagement.
The
child
actively
displayed
perseverance,
Sharon
McCleary
7

8. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
one
of
Carroll’s
five
factors
influencing
learning
(cited
in
Ennis,
2009).
Using
games,
variety
of
activities
and
incorporating
a
strong
skill
focus
at
the
appropriate
developmental
level
are
effective
strategies
in
ensuring
sucessful
learning.
Repeated
reminders
of
the
skill
criteria
using
different
methods
directly
contributed
to
the
child
understanding
key
criteria,
re-­‐inforcing
links
between
the
Cognitive
and
Associative
stages
of
motor
development.
These
are
listed
in
Table
2
and
can
be
used
in
future
lessons.
Methods
Used
To
Reinforce
Key
Skill
Criteria:
Directly
stating
key
elements
during
demonstration
Questioning
during
practise
to
encourage
self-­‐assessment
and
metacognition
Using
specific
positive
feedback
e.g.
“I
like
the
way
you’re
looking
at
the
ball!”
Using
directed,
goal-­‐oriented
corrective
feedback
“Make
sure
you
keep
your
eyes
on
the
ball
when
it
comes
back
up.”
Demonstrating
incorrectly
and
requesting
corrective
feedback
from
the
child
(i.e.
identify
missing
elements,
or
incorrectly
performed
skill
components.
Using
fingers
as
memory
pegs
when
stating
each
criteria
in
sequential
order
of
performance.
TABLE
2:
Methods
Used
To
Reinforce
Key
Skill
Criteria
The
High
Ball
Throw
was
not
productive
because
the
child’s
ability
to
throw
vertically
was
insufficiently
developed,
resulting
in
excessive
intertrial
variability
i.e.
the
skill
practise
was
no
longer
closed/performed
in
a
predictable
environment.
During
the
lesson,
the
ball
was
thrown
for
the
child,
however,
it
still
proved
difficult
for
her
to
catch.
A
less
demanding
activity
(Ball
Rolling)
was
introduced
to
encourage
her
to
visually
track
the
ball.
Reducing
the
degree
of
difficulty
by
controlling
the
intertrial
variability
assisted
her
confidence,
allowing
the
level
of
difficulty
to
be
gradually
increased.
If
I
were
to
re-­‐deliver
this
lesson,
I
would
begin
with
rolling
the
ball,
and
using
Gentiles’s
Skill
Categories
gradually
vary
the
Environmental
Context
(ball
speed,
direction)
to
provide
controlled
intertrial
variability,
progressing
visual
tracking
to
a
speed
similar
to
that
of
the
bouncing
ball.
I
would
then
incorporate
tactile
learning
by
using
scarves
for
throwing/catching
(i.e.
introducing
the
vertical
element,
encouraging
hand-­‐eye
co-­‐
Sharon
McCleary
8

9. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
ordination),
before
progressing
with
the
Popcorn
Bounces.
I
would
also
use
pictorial
teaching-­‐cards
to
reinforce
key
elements.
Conclusion
The
Stay
in
Steps
Test
procedure
provides
an
efficient
and
effective
method
of
assessing
children’s
levels
of
performance
for
key
FMS.
The
rating
categories
give
quantitative
performance
guidelines
for
children
aged
between
4
and
7;
it
is
therefore
a
valuable
tool
for
identifying
FMS
in
need
of
improvement.
Deficiencies
can
be
rectified
early
through
tailored
intervention
programmes,
allowing
children
to
consolidate
key
skills,
progress
motor
development
and
meet
their
movement
skill
potential.
(1208
words)
Sharon
McCleary
9

10. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
References
Atherton, J.S. (2011). Teaching and Learning: Assessment. Retrieved from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/teaching/assessment.htm
CPAC. (2008). Charter for Active Kids: A Blueprint for active and healthy children in
Western Australia. Perth.
Curriculum Council (Ed.). (1998). Curriculum Framework, Kindergarten to Year 12
Education in Western Australia (Health and Physical Education Learning
Area Statement). Curriculum Council of Western Australia. Perth. WA.
Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.wa.edu.au
Ennis, C., & Chen, A. (1993). Domain Specifications and Content Representiveness of
the Revised Value Orientation Inventory. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport. 64(4). 436-446.
Gallahue, D.L. & Ozmun, J.C. (2002). Understanding Motor Development: Infants,
Children, adolescents, adults. 5th Edition. McGraw Hill, New York.
Griffin, L., Dodds, P., Rovegno, I. (1996). Pedagogical Content Knowledge for
Teachers: Integrate everything you know to help students learn. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 67(9). P58-61.
Goldberger, M. & Gerney, P. (1986). The Effects of Direct Teaching Styles on Motor
Skill Acquisition of Fifth Grade Children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport. 57(3). 215-219.
Hill, D. (1993). Taking Action: Personal Development, Health and Physical
Education, Longman Cheshire, Australia.
Housner, L., Metzler, M., Schempp, P. & Templin, T. (Ed.). (2009). Historic
Traditions and Future Directions of Research on Teaching and Teacher
Education in Physical Education. Fitness Information Technology. West
Virginia.
Sharon
McCleary
10

11. Physical
Development,
Movement
and
Health
SSEH7689
Kirby, A. & Drew, S. (2003). Guide to Dyspraxia and Developmental Coordination
Disorders, David Fulton Publishers, London.
Landy, J. & Burridge, K. (2000). Ready-to-Use Motor Skills and Movement Station
Lesson Plans for Young Children: Teaching, Remediation and Assessment,
The Center for Applied Research in Education, USA.
Landy, J. & Burridge, K. (1997). 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Raise a Child
Who Is Physically Fit, Macmillan, USA.
Lay, B. (2011). Introduction to Motor Learning & Motor Skills, Powerpoint Slides,
16/08/2011, School of Sport Science, Exercise & Health, UWA.
Lees, A. & Lees, R. (2006). Personal Development, Health and Physical Education,
Book 2, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill Education, NSW, Australia.
Martin, M., Hands, B. & Lynch, P. (2001). Fundamental Movement Skills Learning,
Teaching and Assessment: Preparing Children for an Active and Healthy
Lifestyle. Steps Professional Development. Western Australia.
Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching Physical Education. 3rd Edition.
Merrill Publishing Company. Sydney.
Pangrazzi, R. & Beighle, A. (2011). Dynamic Physical Education for Elementary
School Children. 16th Edition. Pearson Education Inc.. California.
Prusak, K. (2005). Teacher Talk. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance. 76(5). p21-25.
Rink, J. & Hall, T. (2008). Research on Effective Teaching in Elementary School
Physical Education. The Elementary School Journal. 108(3).p207-218.
Silverman, S., Tyson, L. & Krampitz, J. (1992). Teacher Feedback and
Achievement in Physical Education: Interaction with Student Practice.
Teaching & Teacher Education 8(4). p333-344.
Subramaniam, P. & Silverman, S. (2007). Middle School Studentsʼ Attitudes Toward
Physical Education. Teaching & Teacher Education. 23. P602-611.
Sharon
McCleary
11