Evaluation Model for Physical Education at Preparatory Class

Abstract

The paper proposes an evaluation model designed for the children from preparatory classes, who participated in physical education activities, created in relation with the admission requirements for children at the beginning of the primary school and with school curriculum at physical education. The importance of this topic is confirmed by the fact that the preparatory class became the first class of the Romanian primary cycle of education (starting with school year 2012 - 2013). However, even under these circumstances, the National Assessment System for Physical Education and Sport Area (official document for this curriculum area from 1999) does not include specifications for this school population. Following the inclusion of the preparatory class in the primary school cycle we believe it is appropriate to introduce some tests capable to highlight the skills acquired by the little scholars. These tests were set taking into account the level of children development as well as the peculiarities of the educational process in physical education. Thus, the evaluation model tested in our research provides important methodological benchmarks for the specialized teachers and helps them achieve all three essential forms of assessment: predictive, formative and summative. In order to integrate the evaluation in the educational process, the model proposed an integrative vision on the children’s physical and psychomotor development, assessed in terms of aptitudes and abilities (including those achieved by children during kindergarten).

Keywords: Physical educationevaluation modelpreparatory class

Introduction

Pre-school education is, like the other stages of education, going through a dynamic process of

restructuring and adjustment in this field. Since any reform must end with an evaluation of the results,

this component is reconsidered and regulated on the basis of new criteria.

To accomplish the evaluation of the preparatory class students in physical education and sport, the

teacher must take into account the specific features of the physical and motor development of children

that could be successfully used in the instructive - educational process.

In order to integrate the evaluation in the educational process we propose an integrative vision on

physical and motor aspects, illustrated by the answers provided in the assessment to questions about the

level at which a preschool pupils knows his own body and possibilities of movement, motor actions

performed in relation to the environment, how they know how to be careful and be aware of the danger.

(Stanescu, 2012) In this light, the central objective of physical education at this age is aimed at structuring

the whole personality of the child, fostering the development and adapting the motor behaviors, as well as

the emotional, social and cognitive environment, in the dialectic relationship body - subject -

environment.

At this age there can be many aspects allowing the assessment of the growth and development

level in children. In somatic terms we noted that pupils grow in height, with annual average values that

are relatively small compared with the previous age and increasingly higher weight values. Development

of the cardiovascular and respiratory apparatus creates favorable conditions for the child's involvement in

various motor activities that require a suitable dosage of the exercise capacity. In recent years, assessing

the physical development of children and its impact on health have become topics of great interest. The

evaluation is used to measure the children's progress, so it is an important tool in understanding and

supporting the development of small schoolchildren. (Cojocaru et al., 2015)

In the motor development, which concerns matters pertaining to the general motor skills, specific

to a certain age, we can evaluate that the overall motricity of the children, the fine motor skills,

psychomotor development and its components. Also, other issues can be evaluated, such as the elements

related to a number of specific acquisitions linked to the habits aimed at preserving health, hygiene and

personal security. (Stanescu, 2012)Some authors emphasize that the fitness of the children improved best

if they had access to a program centered on developing proper skills (Pescari, Popescu, 2012).

On the motor level, the 6-year old child is in stage when movements are maturing, a phase when

locomotor skills (running, walking, climbing, jumping, crossing over obstacles), handling skills

(throwing, grip, hit, volley, running, throwing) and stability (twisting, turning, maintaining balance) are

formed and strengthened.

At the same time, it is the age when they develop favorable attitudes for the practice of physical

activity. The importance of this process is significant if we consider the trend of inactivity that still exists

at this age. The literature states that only 7% of preschool children are involved in activities with medium

and high intensity for 60 minutes per day, while only 26% reach the standard of 120 minutes / day.

(Cardon, De Bourdeaudhuij, 2008) Williams et al. (2008) report that children showing a low level of

performance are less physically active than children who show a good level of motor skills. This

relationship can be the target of educational programs aimed at the prevention of obesity and taking place

in the educational partnership school - family - society. (Tokmakidis, Kasambalis, Christodoulos, 2006;

Stănescu et al., 2015)

Research Methodology

Results

In the standard 1, knowing one’s own body and movement possibilities, we noticed an increase by

42.22% of the achieved indicators, the final assessment, compared with the initial assessment and a

decrease in the unachieved indicators and of those in progress by 8.89%, and by 33.33%. (Graph 1 )

Among the indicators, the greatest progress was recorded in the indicators regarding the body parts, a

result that is consistent with the literature on the characteristics of the body scheme at this age. Thus, it

appears that the proposed training program, in accordance with the provisions of the specific curriculum,

has been effective.

See Full Size >

The analysis of the observation sheets for standard 2, on the correct body posture, indicates that

both during the initial and the final assessment, shows indicators achieved by all students. Thus, we can

say that students have no difficulties in terms of maintaining a correct body posture. Due to the fact that

in terms of posture, at that age there were no difficulties, we believe that this standard may remain an

optional one, possibly to be applied only to children with deficient postural attitude.

After analyzing the results for standard 3, on using fundamental motor skills, it was found that the

training program considerably improved the student achievements. Thus, if at the beginning of the

training, only 14.44% of the indicators were achieved, in the end the percentage reached 62.22%. The

indicators in progress improved from 53.33% to 33.33%, while the unachieved indicators dropped in

frequency from 32.22% to 4%. (Graph 3 ) the highest progress was achieved for the locomotor skills.

See Full Size >

Concerning the standard 4, the use of fine motor skills for the execution of various tasks, it has been observed that from 14.44%, the percentage of indicators rose to 62.22%. The unaccomplished indicators decreased from 32.22% to 4.44%, while the indicators in progress decreased from 53.33% to

33.33%. (Graph 3 ) For this indicator, the fine motor skills (to use writing and self-service tools) recorded

a similar relative progress, as a result of the exercise practices by students during lessons.

See Full Size >

Regarding the standard 5, manifestation of the perceptive-motor conduct according to different pointers, notice that from 25% the percentage of accomplished indicators rose to 76.67%. The unaccomplished indicators decreased from 6.67% to 0%, while the indicators in progress have dropped from 68.33% to 23.33%. (Graph 4 ) For this indicator, the greatest progress was achieved for the indicator regarding the reproduction through motor actions of the whole body and its segments, natural forms and phenomena; followed by the structure of movements based on temporal pointers and execution of coordinated movements based on spatial pointers. We consider these results as being important milestones for the design of didactical activity and for the orientation of the content of lessons to those indicators whose progress is slower.

See Full Size >

Regarding standard 6, manifestation of an age-appropriate exercise capacity, the student progress is noticeable, by the increase of the accomplished indicators (by 65.56%) in the final assessment, compared with the initial assessment. The unaccomplished indicators decreased to 2.22%, while indicators in progress dropped from 70% to 18.89%. (Graph 5 ) Under this standard, students record better results in covering distances in uniform tempo, compared to the varied efforts, specific for outdoor motor activities

See Full Size >

Regarding standard 7, demonstrating the behaviours aimed at preserving health and personal hygiene,

note the student progress by increase of the accomplished indicators during the final assessment

(83.33%), compared with the initial assessment. Unaccomplished indicators decreased to 0%, while

indicators in progress decreased from 68.83% to 16.67%. (Graph 6 ) Under this standard, students

recorded well-balanced results in all indicators within the standard.

See Full Size >

Please note that in preparatory classes, 73.33% of students manage to obtain at the end of the

school year a “very good” rating. (Graph 7 ) This rate was proposed by the teacher, even it is not

compulsory for this class, just in order to establish a comprehensive rate for the children.

See Full Size >

As it can be noticed in table 1 , the final results (reflected by the total number of indicators

achieved by the children) are significantly different from the initial evaluation, at p=0.05. So, we can

confirm the positive influence of the educational program, but especially the capacity of our evaluation

model to identify the modifications at children physical and motor level, but also at attitudinal level.

Conclusions

As a result of the model application, we consider this could be a relevant tool to be used in

preparatory class. Its well informed theoretical basis allowed identifying the main evaluation directions

proper for this pupils’age.

During physical education activities we noticed a significant progress in some initially achieved

indicators, and in some that were initially declared unachieved. Among the proposed standards, one failed

to capture the changes, namely the one regarding body posture, which was correct both in the initial and

in the final assessment. The result enables us to state that although this standard reflects an important

aspect of health it may remain optional and can be used only in cases where the teacher identifies certain

faults in attitudes. From another perspective, it is confirmed that posture deficiencies are not obvious at

this age yet. The risk increases with age, when sitting for too long in school benches favors posture

disorders.

Regarding other assessments standards, we notice significant differences between the initial and

the final evaluations, in relation with the share of certain indicators that are already underlined in the

literature as reflecting the characteristics of children from 6 to 7 years. (the body scheme, reproduction

through motor actions of the whole body and its segments natural forms and phenomena, locomotor

skills, fine motor skills, covering distances in uniform tempo).

Our results highlight the advantages and limitations of the evaluation model, in relation to the

training methodology applied at preparatory class.

We believe the close cooperation between professionals (teachers, physical education teachers,

school medic, and parents) is very important to assess preschoolers. Compliance for a succesfull

assessment is necessary in order to develop some decision aimed at the improvement of activity. So, we

support the assessment in the preparatory class, even if currently could be only partially achieved. The

model proposed in this paper is an alternative for the quality increase of physical education evaluation.

References

1. Cardon, G.M., De Bourdeaudhuij, I.M.M (2008). Are Preschool Children Active Enough? Objectively Measured Physical Activity Levels. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol.79, 2008. Issue 3,326-332.
2. Cojocaru, V., Stănescu, M., Tudor, V., Ciolcă, C., Stoicescu, M., Mujea, A.M. (2015). Raport privind evaluarea potențialului somatic, funcțional și motric al populației școlare din România. Editura Discobolul, București
3. Papp, E.G., Neagu, N., Szasz, S., Bako,A.T. (2014) Contributions to the psychomotor development of preschool children, through specific kinetoprophylactic exercises. Palestrica of the third millennium – Civilization and Sport, Vol. 15, no. 4, October-December, 312–316
4. Pescari, T.A., Popescu, L. (2012). The importance of preschool education of psychomotricity component to prevent the instrumental disorders. Academica Science Journal, Psychologica Series 1 (2012): 25-30.
5. Stanescu, M., Ciolca, C., Paunescu, A., Tudor, V. (2015) Analysis of body mass index in Romania’s school population. 5th International Congress Of Physical Education Sport And Kinetotherapy (ICPESK 2015),European Proceedings of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (EpSBS).
6. Stanescu, M. (2012) Domeniul dezvoltare fizică și motrică. În: Manolescu, M. (coord.) Ghid metodologic de evaluare a elevilor din clasa pregătitoare. POSDRU, MEC, CNEE, 28 – 40.
7. Tokmakidis, S.P., Kasambalis, A., Christodoulos, A.D., (2006) Fitness levels of Greek primary schoolchildren in relationship to overweight and obesity. European Journal of Pediatrics, December, Volume 165, Issue 12, p. 867-874
8. Williams, H.G., Pfeiffer, K.A., O’Neill J.R., Dowda, M., Mclver, K.L., Brown, W.H., Pate, R.R. (2008). Motor Skill Performance and Physical Activity in Preschool Children. Obesity – a Research Journal. Volume 16, Issue 6, June 2008, 1421–1426