Search

Copyright of Journal of Shanghai Physical Education Institute / Shanghai Tiyu Xueyuan Xuebao is the property of Shanghai Physical Education Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents a study which examines the classification of objectives in physical education teaching in elementary and middle schools in China. It notes that the study found that classification of objectives such as perception, affection, and skill were not made for the curriculum in physical education and were lacking for promoting the body development of students. Moreover, the study derived a clearer classification of objectives for promoting movement, body, and spirit development.

The Physical Education (PE) reform was suggested by the Hong Kong Government in 2000, in which formative and authentic assessment approaches were put forward. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the barriers to the implementation of PE assessment in Hong Kong secondary schools. The survey instrument, a questionnaire about barriers regarding PE assessment, were mailed to all secondary schools in Hong Kong (n=477). There were 205 schools (43%) that returned the questionnaire, which included a total of 317 PE teachers. The questionnaire which was used in this study has been tried out by pilot test with a small sample group of Physical Education teachers in order to check the validity (Wiersma, 2000). The questionnaire included three domains comprising 15 factors related to barriers towards PE assessment. They are the domains for ‘Understanding the assessment concept and method’, ‘Difficulties in implementation’ and ‘The barrier related to school policy and administration’. The results show that the barriers mainly related to the difficulties in implementation which were affected by the factors of school policy. PE teachers perceived that the PE assessment was of no value for school promotion, was not supported by parents, other colleagues and the school policy in general. Thus, they faced the implementation problems of ‘Too busy with school work’, ‘Insufficient time for PE teaching and assessment’ and ‘Too many students in each class’. PE teachers found there were fewer problems related to the concept of PE assessment when compared with the above factors. However, over half of the PE teachers did not understand the meaning of formative assessment (56%) and how to implement this approach (66.5%) in their school PE curriculum. Thus, PE teachers will face barriers with the new assessment trend, if they cannot solve the current problems or there is not sufficient support from the school policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the differences between the formally stated aims of education and the implementation of the school curriculum in order to show the divergence between what is initiated and what emerges as school practice. This implementation problem is examined from the policy-makers' and teachers' perspectives, with specific reference to physical education as a school subject in Hong Kong. First, it examines the existence and intention of educational policy towards curriculum as established by policy-makers. Second, the implementation process is evaluated from the teachers' perspective by employing a framework adopted by Cuban (1998) that utilized effectiveness, popularity, fidelity, adaptability and longevity. The data are derived from a case-study of a physical education programme that included document analysis, and interviews with teachers, parents and students. The case-study provided a subjective perspective of teachers and their work, while the framework assisted in demonstrating the absence of cohesion between the various government agencies. The resulting fragmentation of ideas leading to confusion and frustration for teachers also indicates that longevity and adaptability are likely to be the most constructive criteria for the assessment of curriculum change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]