Teacher Effectiveness

A Comparison of Physical Education Teachers Categorized as Most and Least Effective

D. Allen Phillips and Cynthia Carlisle University of Northern Colorado

The emphasis o f research on t h e analysis o f teaching appears focused on a g roup of variables o r behaviors which are f o r t h e most p a r t alterable i n nature. The isola- t i on and s tudy o f teacher and s tudent behaviors which relate h igh ly t o s tudent achievement and which can be al tered is an exc i t ing and challenging t h r u s t f o r phys i - cal educators who are interested i n t h e improvement o r acquisit ion o f motor ski l ls. Variables found i n t h e teaching effectiveness l i t e ra tu re which appear t o be h igh ly alterable include behaviors such as s tudent achievement, time-on-task, presentation o f content, performance feedback, use o f objectives, and teacher management. Many o f these studies have shown signi f icant di f ferences on alterable behaviors between effec- t i v e and ineffect ive teachers. Good and Grouws (1977) found t ha t teachers who were rated as more effect ive praised t he i r students less than low-rated teachers. Higher ra ted teachers were bet ter classroom managers, presented t he i r students w i th a plearer focus o f t h e learning outcomes, and prov ided more performance feedback than 'teachers who were categorized as less effect ive. I n a similar study, Evertson, Emmer and Brophy (1980) found t ha t more effect ive teachers were more ef f ic ient a t making managerial t ransi t ions, used less g roup discipline, and more discussion than teachers ra ted as less effect ive. They also found t ha t more effect ive teachers used s ign i f i - cant ly more performance feedback and less behavioral feedback than t he i r less effec- t i v e colleagues.

I n t h e Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study, Fisher e t al. (1978) reported s ign i f i - cant relationships between such alterable variables as Academic Learning Time (ALT), Engaged Learning Time (ELT), low e r r o r ra te and t h e amount t ha t students learn. They also repor ted signi f icant relationships between such variables as knowledge o f content, ab i l i t y t o analyze s tudent needs, teacher presentation time, and s tudent achievement.

Teacher effectiveness studies i n physical education have yielded similar resul ts re la t ive t o t h e al terable na tu re of teacher and s tudent behavior and s tudent achieve- ment. Ol iver (1978) concluded t ha t t h e teacher's knowledge o f content and sk i l l were related t o t h e student 's achievement. He also found t h a t such teacher presage var ia- bles as sex, years o f teaching experience, and prev ious experience were related t o s tudent achievement i n a physical education volleyball class. McLeish, Howe and Jackson (1981) found t ha t teachers categorized as most ef fect ive spent less t ime i n management tasks, prov ided more pract ice time, and more task pract ice motor easy t ime (TPME) f o r t he i r students than teachers categorized as average o r poor. They found no di f ferences i n t he amount o f t ime t ha t these t h ree groups of teachers ut i l ized i n t h e presentation o f content. Yerg (1981), i n a control led s tudy invo lv ing t he use of modified experimental teaching u n i t found signi f icant differences i n favor o f h igher ra ted teachers on a posttest o f t h e basic cartwheel sk i l l a f te r a 20-minute lesson. She

SPRING 1983 55

Phil l ips & Carlisle

was not able t o f i n d signi f icant differences on any of t h e teacher o r student behaviors which were observed i n her s tudy although she d i d indicate t ha t pract ice time-on-task seemed t o be an indicator of student achievement.

Research which may be used t o v e r i f y t he contr ibut ion of such alterable variables as teacher inst ruct ion time, management time, and s tudent engaged sk i l l learning time t o t h e amount t ha t students learn i n actual physical education classes taught by experienced teachers i s d is t inct ly limited. Therefore, it was the purpose of th is s t udy t o compare most and least ef fect ive teachers on a selected g roup of teacher and s tudent behaviors i n an actual classroom set t ing wi th a minimum of outside experimen- ta l controls.

Procedures

Teacher behavior data were obtained f rom 18 experienced physical education teachers i n th ree jun ior h igh schools, f i ve middle schools and s ix elementary schools who volunteered t o teach a 10-lesson beginning volleyball u n i t us ing t he i r own indi- v idual teaching styles. Teachers were inst ructed t o teach t he f i v e volleyball psycho- motor ski l ls of set, serve, overhead pass, forearm pass, and spike wi th no emphasis on t h e cogni t ive o r affect ive skil ls. No f u r t h e r attempt was made t o standardize con- t en t i n an e f f o r t t o maintain natural classroom situations.

Student behavior data were obtained f rom 144 students i n grades f i ve through e ight who were enrolled in t he classes o f t he 18 teachers. The number of students included f rom each grade level was: f i f t h grade (n = 56), 39%; s ix th grade (n = 24), 17%; seventh grade (n = 321, 22%; and e ighth grade ( n = 32), 2290. Because one of t he purposes of th is s tudy was t o analyze average student behavior wi th in physical education classes, e ight students were selected randomly t o represent t he behavidrs of

teacher and student behaviors i n physical the PETAl was developed t o measure speci i n physical education classes. Definit ions presented i n Table 1. The PETAl is prese

Teacher Effectiveness

TABLE 1

Definitions of the PETAI Behaviors

1. ANALYZING STUDENT NEEDS: The teacher's ability to recognize the variation in the skill ability of individual students and to make appropriate decisions for individual development.

2. TEACHER INSTRUCTION TIME: The total amount of time the teacher utilizes in presentations, monitoring, and providing feedback to the students.

3. TEACHER MANAGEMENT TIME: The total amount of time the teacher is engaged in class organization, not directly related to instru7- tion time.

4. STUDENT ALLOCATED SKILL LEARNING TIME: The total amount of time available to students to learn and practice skills.

5. STUDENT MANAGEMENT TIME: The total amount of time the student is engaged in class organization, not directly related to skill learning time.

6. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: Student learning as measured by the differ- ence between a pretest and a posttest of skill performance.

videotaped sessions were qui te minimal. Two cameras were ut i l ized du r i ng the taping. One camera was focused on the teacher a t all times. The second camera was focused on t he ac t i v i t y area so tha t all of t he students were observed most o f the time. Fol- lowing t he taping, data were recorded us ing both category change and continuous time on t h e PETAI Data Collection Sheet.

Data f o r 6.0) student achievement were obtained f rom the differences i n scores attained on t h e f i v e volleyball sk i l l pretests administered p r i o r t o t h e 10-lesson un i t and t he posttests administered a t t h e conclusion of t he uni t . The f i ve volleyball ski l ls and tests administered were: (a) overhead pass measured w i th the AAHPER face pass wall volley test, (b) set measured w i th t he Phil l ips-Carlisle set tes t f o r accuracy, (c) forearm pass measured w i th t h e Brumbach forearm wall vol ley test, (d) serve meas- u red w i th t h e AAHPER serv ing accuracy test, and (e) sp ike measured wi th t he Stan- ley spike test. Val idi ty, rel iabi l i ty and procedures f o r each of t he tests have been previously reported (Carlisle, 1981). The achievement gain scores were determined by computing t he average differences o f all o f t h e students i n each class between t h e pretest and posttest f o r t he total scores obtained from t h e f i v e volleyball ski l ls tests.

Reliabil i ty on t h e PETAI teacher and s tudent behaviors, instruction time, manage- ment time, and allocated skill learning time was established th rough test- retest and in te r - ra te r re l iab i l i ty procedures us ing f ou r t ra ined observers. Reliabil i ty coefficients ranged f rom .76 t o .95 i n al l instances (Phil l ips & Carlisle, 1983). Logical rel iabi l i ty has been accepted f o r t he teacher behavior, analyzing student needs (Phil l ips & Hor- nak, 1979). Reliabil i ty f o r t he student achievement gain scores was determined by test-retest procedures on t he f i v e volleyball sk i l l items. Reliabil i ty coefficients ranged from -80 t o .93 (Carlisle, 1981).

SPRING 1983 57

Phillips & Carlisle

TABLE 2

Physical Education Teacher Assessment Instrument

1.0 Analyzing Student Needs

1.1 Awareness of skill level- 1.2 Knowledge of content - 1.3 Identifies objectives - 1.4 Utilizes testing - 1.5 Flexibility - 1.6 Appropriatness of

instruction -

4.0 Student Allocated Skill Learning Time

4.1 Warmup activities time 4.2 Engaged skill learning

time 4.21 Success time in ESLT 4.3 Non-engaged skill

learning time 4.4 Engaged game

playing time - 2.0 Teacher Instruction T i m e 4.41 Success time in EGPT -

4.5 Non-engaged game 2.1 Presentation-planned - playing time 2.2 Presentation-response - Student learning time

Total presentation - (4.21 + 4.41) - 2.3 Monitoring-observation - 2.4 Monitoring-questions -

Total monitoring - 5.0 Student Management Time

2.5 Performance feedback 5.1 Beginning class - (positive) - 5.2 Recording tasks -

2.6 Performance feedback 5.3 Equipment management - (negative) - 5.4 Organization - Total feedback - 5.5 Behavioral feedback -

5.6 Ending class - 5.7 Other tasks -

3.0 Teacher Management Time - 3.1 Beginning class 3.2 Recording tasks 3.3 Equipment.management 3.4 Organization 3.5 Behavioral feedback 3.6 Ending class 3.7 Other tasks

6.0 Student Achievement Gain

6.1 Pretest - 6.2 Posttest -

Teacher Effectiveness

Analysis and Results

Most and least ef fect ive teacher groups were determined by c luster analysis us ing s tudent achievement on t he f ive- i tem vol leybal l ski l ls tes t as t he cr i ter ion. Cluster analysis is o f ten used t o iden t i f y classes o f individuals o r t o establish groups where t he ind iv idual is completely i n t h e g roup o r completely ou t o f t h e g roup (Gorsuch, 1974). The two groups of teachers were categorized as most ef fect ive (N = 5) and least ef fect ive (N = 13) based upon t he improvement o f t he i r students on t he vol ley- bal l tes t a f te r 10 lessons o f ins t ruct ion. A decision was made t o ut i l ize t he unequal h igh and low groups i n th i s analysis because t h e c luster ing procedure indicated a clear d i f ference between t h e f i ve teachers categorized as most ef fect ive and t he 13 teachers categorized as least ef fect ive. The teachers and t he i r respective student achievement scores are found i n Table 3.

TABLE 3

Most and Least Effective Teachers as Determined by Student Achievement Gains on a Volleyball Skills Test

Most Effective

Subject Grade Level Achievement Gain

Least Effective

Sub j ect Grade Level Achievement Gain

- Most effective-- X_ = 23.72 SD = 7.17 Least Effective-- X = 2.01 SD = 3.41 t = 8.88, p < -000

SPRING 1983 59

Phillips & Carlisle

The cluster analysis provided two dist inct ly di f ferent groups of teachers relative t o student achievement gains. The most effective teachers had a mean achievement gain of 23.72, whereas the least effective teachers had a mean of 2.01 on the student achievement scores. Highly significant differences were found between the two groups (p< . 000) .

Comparisons were made between the most and least effective teacher groups fo r each of the teacher and student behaviors observed i n th is study. These data are

d in Table 4

TABLE 4

son of Most and Least Effective Teachers on Selected Behaviors

1.0 Analyzing student Most 5 22.00 5.34 needs 2.19 .044

Least 16.15 4.98

1.1 Awareness af * Most 5 2.60 ' 1-14 skill levels -1.08 .294

Least 13 3.23 1-09

1.2 Knowledge of content Most 5 3.60 -89 1.60 -130

Least 13 2.85 -90

1.3 Identifies objectives Most 5 4.00 1.00 2.02 .060

Least 13 2.61 1.40

1.4 Utilizes testing Most 5 4.20 -84 2.97 .009

Least 13 2.54 1.13

1.5 Flexibility Most 5 3-80 1.30 1.84 -004

Least 13 2.62 1.19

1.6 kppropriateness of Most 5 3.80 1.64 instruction 2.71 .016

Least 13 2.31 .75 2-0 Teacher instraction Host 5 77.76 6.31

me 1.16 -265 Least -73 8-83

2.3 Presentation-planned Most 3-51 39 -182

4.92

2.2 Presentation-response Host 6.19 -43 .671

Least ,13 14,30 5.39

TOTAL PRESENTATION TIME 15

Least 1

Teacher Effectiveness TABLE 4 (con't)

PETAI Behavior Group N Mean SD T Prob.

3.7 Other tasks

TOTAL MONITORING TIME

2.5 Performance feedback (positive)

2.6 Performance feedback (negative)

TOTAL PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK TIME

3.0 Teacher manage. time

3.1 Beginning class

3.2 Recording tasks

3.3 Equipment managing

3.4 Organization

3.5 Behavioral feedback

3.6 Ending class

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most

Least

Most 5 -60 -90 -2.07 -055

Least 13 2.33 1.75

SPRING 1983 61

Phillips E Carlisle

TABLE 4 (con' t)

PETAI Behavior Group N Mean

4.0 Student allocated Most 5 82.80 skill learning time

Least 13 76.67

4.1 Warm up time Most 5 8.64

Least 13 8.57

4.2 Engaged skill Most 5 9.02 learning time

Least 13 3.73

4.21 Success time in ESLT Most 5 7.40

Least 13 2.72

5.0 Student manage. time Most 5 17.20

Least 13 23.33

5.1 Beginning class Most 5 1.90

Least 13 2.64

5.2 Recording tasks Most 5 2.74

Least 13 2.29

5.3 Equipment management Most 5 1.54

Least 13 1.27

5.4 Organization Most 5 9.67

Least 13 12.11

5.5 Behavioral feedback Most 5 .18

Least 13 1.03

5.6 Ending class Most 5 -71

Least 13 2.46

5.7 Other tasks Most 5 -46

Least 13 1.53

SD T Prob.

62 JTPE

Teacher Effectiveness

TABLE 4 (con't)

PETAI Behavior Group N Mean SD T Prob.

6.0 Student achievement Most 5 23.72 7.17 s 8.88 .OOO

Least 13 2.01 3.41

C- 6.1 Pretest Most 5 71.70 14.87

.90 .380 Least 13 64.84 14.29

6.2 Posttest Most 5 95.42 14.54 3.80 .002

Least 13 66.85 14.18

Differences existed between most effect ive and least ef fect ive physical education teachers i n t he i r ab i l i ty t o analyze student needs. Signif icant differences between the two groups (p<.10) were found f o r t he overal l analyzing student needs scores as well as for f ou r o f t he six subparts. With one exception, awareness of skills levels, t h e most effective teachers surpassed t he i r less effect ive colleagues i n knowledge of con- tent, use of obiectives and testing, flexibility, and a~propriateness of instruction.

The results f o r t h e teacher instruction time behav~o r were somewhat disappointing. Signif icant differences favor ing the most effect ive teacher g roup were found only f o r the performance feedback (posit ive) behavior and f o r total performance feedback. It should be noted, however, t ha t teachers grouped as most effect ive d i d spend approxi- mately 5% more of t he i r classroom time i n teacher inst ruct ion time and i n planned p re - sentation.

Similar results were found f o r t he teacher management time variable. Signif icant differences i n the amount of time tha t teachers ut i l ize i n behavioral feedback and "other" management tasks were found (pK.10) between t h e two teacher groups. I n these two management behaviors, as well as i n total teacher management time, begin- n ing class, equipment management, organization, and i n ending class, the most effec- t i ve teachers ut i l ized less time than the least ef fect ive teachers.

Dis t inct differences between t he two teacher groups were found f o r t he student behaviors, engaged skill learning time and success time during engaged skill learning time. The teachers i n the most effect ive g roup prov ided t he i r students wi th more than twice t h e amount of engaged sk i l l learning time and success time dur ing engaged sk i l l learning time than t he least e f f ec t~ve teachers. No differences were found f o r t he amount of warm u p time prov ided f o r t he students between t h e two groups. Even though it was found t ha t teachers i n t he most effect ive g roup prov ided t he i r students wi th 8% more allocated sk i l l learning time than t he least ef fect ive teachers, th is behhv- io r d i d no t reach signif icance a t t h e .10 level.

The results f o r t h e student management time variable were similar t o those found f o r t h e teacher management time variable. Only t he amount of time t ha t students spend i n ending class was signif icant ly d i f fe ren t between t he most and least ef fect ive teachers. However, less time was ut i l ized by students of t he most effect ive teachers i n overal l student management time, beginning class, organization, behavioral feed- back, and i n "other" management tasks. Even though t h e results form both t he s tu- dent and teacher management time variables a re similar, t h e wr i ters believe tha t both behaviors should be included i n a classroom observation instrument and assessment. It i s believed tha t th rough t ra in ing signif icant reductions can be obtained in student management time even though t h e teacher management t ime remains relat ively constant.

SPRING 1983 63

Phil l ips & Carl is le

A n analysis of t h e pretest and posttest data between t h e most and least ef fect ive groups and between t h e grade levels revealed no di f ferences (p<. 10) between t he s tu- dents sk i l l levels p r i o r t o the 10-lesson inst ruct ion un i t . It was evident f rom t he sig- n i f icant posttest differences t ha t t he students o f teachers i n t he most ef fect ive g roup gained considerably f rom t he 10-lesson volleyball un i t whereas no gains were found f o r t h e students o f t he least ef fect ive teachers. No di f ferences were found between grade levels on t h e posttest scores.

Discussion

Few studies have been completed i n physical education which involve real teachers teaching a series of actual lessons t o t he i r own students. Th is s tudy was an attempt t o make a cont r ibut ion t o t he teacher effectiveness l i t e ra tu re t ha t is practical, realis- t ic, and per t inen t t o "what's going on in t he gymnasium."

The data revealed t ha t some teachers do make a d i f ference relat ive t o t he amount t ha t students are learning. The student achievement data clear ly ident i f ied f i ve teachers as be ing most effective in improving volleyball sk i l ls i n t he i r students. The sample size in t h e s tudy precludes any generalizations o r inferences. However, cer- ta in of t h e teacher and student behaviors clear ly indicate a relationship w i th student achievement gain f o r th i s g roup o f teachers.

The teacher's ab i l i ty t o analyze student needs, par t i cu la r l y t h e teacher's knowledge o f content, use of objectives and testing, f l ex ib i l i t y and appropriateness of i ns t ruc - t ion, appears t o be a signi f icant con t r ibu to r t o t he amount t ha t students achieve. The t - tes t data i n th i s s tudy suppor t th i s contention as well as correlations which have been computed between each o f these variables and s tudent achievement gain (Table 5). These correlations ranged f rom .346 t o .580. If student achievement o f ski l ls is t h e p r imary concern o f physical education teachers, it is recommended t ha t teachers increase t he i r ab i l i ty t o analyze s tudent needs. These results are similar t o those repor ted b y Fisher e t al. (1978), Evertson, Emmer and Brophy (19801, and Good and Grouws (1977).

TABLE 5

Correlations between Selected Teacher and Student Behaviors and Student Achivement, Engaged Skill Learning Time and

Student Learning Time

PETAI Behaviors Achievement ESLT SLT

1.0 Analyzing student needs - .442* .615* .650* 1.1 Awareness of skill - -223 .510 .I20

levels 1.2 Knowledge of content .346* -637" .634* 1.3 Identifies objectives .369* .441* -454" 1.4 Utilizes testing .580* -493" -559" 1.5 Flexibility -368" .620* .609* 1.6 Appropriateness of .534* .597* .628*

instruction

2.0 Teacher instruction time .2 43 .304 .351 2.1 Presentation-planned -407" .394* -486 2.2 Presentation-response -. 076 - -225 -. 132

TOTAL PRESENTATION TIME .239 -137 -2 60

64 JTPE

Teacher Effectiveness

TABLE 5 (con't)

s PETAI Behavior Achievement ESLT SLT

2.3 oni it or-observation - -074 -043 - .044 rt

2.4 Monitor-questioning - .091 .066 -047

TOTAL MONITORING TIME - .093 .057 - -035 2.5 Performance feedback .410* .451* .521

(positive) 2.6 Performance feedback -. 071 - -094 - .089

(negative)

TOTAL FEEDBACK TIME -411" .452* .522

3.0 Teacher management time 3.1 Beginning class 3.2 Recording tasks 3.3 Equipment management 3.4 Organization 3.5 Behavioral feedback 3.6 Ending class 3.7 Other tasks

4.0 Student allocated skill learning time

4.1 Warm-up 4.2 Engaged skill

learning time 4.3 Student learning time

5.0 Student management time 5.1 Beginning class 5.2 Recording tasks 5.3 Equipment management 5.4 Organization 5.5 Behavioral feedback 5.6 Ending class 5.7 Other tasks

6.0 Achievement gain 6.1 Pretest 6.2 Posttest

*p> -10

SPRING 1983 65

Phil l ips & Carl is le

The data from th is s tudy have indicated t ha t t h e amount of engaged sk i l l learn- i n g time and success time du r i ng engaged sk i l l learn ing time are t he best indicators o f s tudent achievement gain. Correlations were computed which substantiate th i s rela- t ionship. The correlations between s tudent achievement and these two behaviors were f ound t o b e .806 and .798, respect ively. Factor analysis data have also shown these two s tudent behavior variables t o be h igh ly related t o s tudent achievement gains. It appears t ha t t he most d i rec t approach t o increasing a student's sk i l l level is t o increase t h e amount o f time t ha t t he s tudent is engaged specif ically on t he task t o be learned whi le experiencing a reasonably h igh ra te o f success. Similar f ind ings have been repor ted b y Fisher e t al. (1978) and McLeish e t al. (1981).

Perhaps t he most disappoint ing resul ts f rom th is s tudy were t h e lack of s ign i f i - cant relationships between s tudent achievement and teacher ins t ruct ion t ime behaviors and between s tudent achievement and teacher and s tudent management time var i fbles. Results repor ted by McLeish e t al. (1981) and Yerg (1981) also indicated t he lack o f a s ign i f icant relat ionship between these behaviors and s tudent achievement. Al though most of t h e di f ferences between student achievement and these three behaviors d id not reach signif icance between t h e most and least e f fect ive teachers, relat ively consistent means favor ing t h e most ef fect ive teachers were found. Th is would indicate t ha t teachers categorized as most ef fect ive do ut i l ize more o f t he i r gymnasium time in p re - sentation o f materials and performance feedback. I t also indicates t ha t these teachers are be t te r classroom managers, spending less t ime i n beginn ing class, equipment man- agement, organization, behavioral feedback, ending class, and in "other" management tasks. Likewise, students of these teachers categorized as most effective, spend less t ime i n management tasks.

The f ind ings i n th i s s tudy reinforce t h e conclusion made b y McLeish, Howe and Jackson (1981) t ha t engaged sk i l l learning time i s t h e single, most important cr i ter ion i n t h e determination of an effect ive physical education teacher. Teachers wi l l v a r y i n t he i r ab i l i t y t o analyze s tudent needs, t o p rov ide instruct ion, and in t he i r management sk i l ls . However, the re must be consistency i n t he i r e f fo r t s t o maximize t he amount of t ime t ha t students are engaged d i rec t l y i n t h e performance o f a motor sk i l l while experiencing reasonably h igh success.

References

Carlisle, C. A. An analysis of t he relationships between selected teacher process variables, selected sk i l l learning time variables, and student achievement i n physical education classes, grades f i ve th rough eight. Doctoral dissertation, l l n i ve r s i t y o f Colorado, Boulder, 1981.

Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T . , & Brophy, J. E. Predictors o f ef fect ive teaching In jun ior h i gh mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa- tion, May, 1980, 1 , (3), 167-178.

Fisher, C. W., Fi lby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S . , Dishaw, M. M., Moore, J. E'., & Berl iner, D. C. Teaching behaviors, academic learn ing time and s tudent achievement: F ina l r epo r t of Phase 111-5, Beginn ing Teacher Evaluation Study. Washington, D.C. : National Ins t i tu te o f Education, Department o f Health, Educa- t ion, and Welfare, 1978.

Good, T. L. , & Grouws, D. A . A process-product s tudy i n f ou r t h grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, May-June 1977, 28(3 ) , 49-54.

Gorsuch, R. L. Factor analysis. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: W. B. Saunders Com- pany, 1974.

McLeish, J., Jowe, B., & Jackson, J. Ef fect ive teaching i n physical education. Unpubl ished paper. Faculty o f Education, Un ive rs i t y o f Victoria, B.C., March 1981.

Phil l ips, D. A., & Carlisle, C. S. The Physical Education Teacher Assessment I nstrument. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Winter, 1983, 2 ( 2 ) , 62-76.

Teacher Effectiveness

Phil l ips, D. A., & Hornak, J . E. Measurement and evaluation in phys ica l education. New York, New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1979.

Siedentop, D. Developing teaching sk i l ls in phys ica l education. Boston: Houghton Mi f f l in Company, 1976.

Taylor, John L. Development o f t h e physical observation instrument us ing generaliz- ab i l i ty s t udy theory. Research Quar ter ly , 50(3), 468-481.

Yerg, B. 4. The impact of selected presage and process behaviors on t h e refinement . of a motor sk i l l . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1981, 7(1), 38-46.

SPRING . . 1983 67