HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014 March ; 85(1): 6–13. doi:10.1080/02701367.2014.872979.

The Role of Students and Content in Teacher Effectiveness

Catherine D. Ennis
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Abstract
The process of effective teaching—teaching that directly leads to student learning of standards-
based content—is tenuous at best and easily disrupted by contextual and behavioral factors. In this
Author Manuscript

commentary, I discuss the role of student support and mediation in teacher effectiveness and
curricular reform. The most vocal students in physical education classes appear to thrive in the
current multiactivity, recreation-oriented sport culture that dominates many U.S. physical
education programs. They expect lessons with minimal skill and tactical instruction and with
maximum opportunities to play ball. I also comment on Ward’s emphasis on the value of content-
rich definitions of teaching effectiveness and argue for additional disciplinary-based, concept-rich
cognitive outcomes for physical education to complement and enrich skill, sport, and physical
activity performance. I lend my voice to Rink’s call for comprehensive measures of teacher
accountability as the most critical next step in physical education reform. I conclude by contesting
McKenzie and Lounsbery’s accusation of “muddled goals” in physical education. Although
physical education advocates may present diverse content perspectives, student learning is the
primary goal of physical education.
Author Manuscript

Keywords
learning; physical education; student behavior; teacher knowledge

Let’s be clear. There are many effective physical education teachers working at all school
levels and in all geographic areas of the United States (National Association for Sport and
Physical Education [NASPE], 2013b; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,
2013). Each has a clear vision for her or his program and specific objectives that present
students with multiple opportunities to learn standards-based physical education content.
These physical educators have energy, commitment, and dedication to their students and to
the profession of teaching physical education. Teachers with these goals allocate time to
Author Manuscript

planning, present tasks with clarity, differentiate content based on student ability, and
continue to teach until students have learned. By earning administrators’ and classroom
colleagues’ respect, they successfully protect physical education instructional time for every
student, secure necessary equipment and access to facilities, and receive released time to
advance their professional knowledge and skills by participating in professional
development opportunities often at their own expense. They do not need to be held

Copyright © AAHPERD
Correspondence should be addressed to Catherine D. Ennis, Department of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro,
1408 Walker Avenue, Greensboro, NC 27412. [email protected].
 Ennis Page 2

accountable by others because they hold themselves to the highest professional standards
Author Manuscript

(e.g., Ennis, 2008, NASPE, 2013b).

Although these physical educators do not need inspections to motivate them to work hard
every day, they appreciate the acknowledgement, recognition, and praise that sometimes
accompany evaluations of their teaching. They are not concerned about outside observations
or evaluations but instead are pleased to share their programs and are proud of their
students’ performances. They measure their success by how broadly and deeply their
students have learned and can perform, how positively students view physical education and
physical activity, and how engaged they are in physical activity outside of physical
education. They use many forms of assessments to assure themselves that their students are
engaging in physical activity and learning standards-based content. They are effective
teachers.
Author Manuscript

The thought-provoking articles in this special topic provide exceptional guidance in

identifying the characteristics of effective teachers. Rink (2013) and Ward (2013) provided
excellent summaries of effectiveness research and highlighted both the necessary and
essential teaching characteristics that contribute to student learning. McKenzie and
Lounsbery’s (2013) article contributes another dimension, not connected to student learning,
that holds different challenges for physical educators. Although some constructivists (e.g.,
Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2008) argue that our gaze should not be on what the teacher
does, but on how students respond, Rink and Ward remind us, yet again, that teaching and
learning are an inextricably linked process.

The process of effective teaching—teaching that directly leads to student learning of

standards-based content—is tenuous at best and easily disrupted by many contextual and
Author Manuscript

behavioral factors, including ineffective teaching behaviors, decreasing instructional time,

and lack of student support for curricular innovation (Ennis, 1996, 1998). In this
commentary, I will begin by discussing the role of student support and mediation in teacher
effectiveness and curricular reform. Next, I will agree wholeheartedly with Ward’s (2013)
point that definitions of teaching effectiveness can never be content-free—although I will
argue for additional disciplinary-based, concept-rich, cognitive outcomes for physical
education to complement and enrich skill, sport, and physical activity performance. I will
lend my voice to Rink’s (2013) call for comprehensive measures of teacher accountability as
the most critical next step in physical education reform. Finally, I will push back at
McKenzie and Lounsbery’s (2013) accusations of “muddled goals” in physical education.
Although physical education advocates may present diverse content perspectives, student
learning of performance-based skills, fitness, and physical activity content is the primary
Author Manuscript

goal of physical education.

STUDENT SUPPORT FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND CURRICULAR

REFORM
Not until William G. Anderson and Gary T. Barrette’s (1978) groundbreaking monograph
“What’s Going on in Gym” did scholars begin to focus on complex contexts in which
physical educators teach and students learn. Additional research in the gym during the last

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 3

40 years has provided a wealth of information about contextual and behavioral factors that
Author Manuscript

promote and constrain teacher effectiveness and curricular change. Each of the featured
authors in this series acknowledges a host of challenges that constrain teachers’
opportunities to impact students’ skill development, physical activity, and well-being.
Additionally, Ward (2013) acknowledges that students themselves can be a limiting factor,
not just in teacher effectiveness, but also in generating and sustaining widespread curricular
reform.

Students’ opinions and support play a critical role in physical education teachers’
willingness to teach effectively and implement changes in their curriculum and teaching. In
research I have conducted during the last 25 years, including our most recent National
Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored clinical trials, teachers’ first and most persistent
concern when considering teaching and testing a new curriculum is, “Will my students like
it?” Physical educators in our elementary and secondary school studies have been keenly
Author Manuscript

aware of the role that student mediation in the form of motivation and interest plays in
making their jobs easier and making teaching possible (Chen & Ennis, 2004, 2009; Solmon,
2006; Sun, Chen, Zhu, & Ennis, 2012). There appear to be certain students who have more
influence over teacher content selection decisions than others (Cothran & Ennis, 1997;
Ennis, 1995, 1996, 1998; Ennis et al., 1997). In these students, physical educators may
recognize some of the same characteristics they themselves exhibited as students in physical
education. These students often are the most skillful, vocal, dominant players in sport-based
physical education. When they are willing to give effort and appear to enjoy physical
education, physical educators feel a sense of satisfaction that they are in fact effective
teachers. However, when these bellwether students resist or refuse to participate in the
lesson, the teaching enterprise becomes substantially more challenging (Ennis, 1996, in
press; Ward, 2013). Clearly, these most vocal students in physical education classes thrive in
Author Manuscript

the current multiactivity, recreation-oriented sport culture that dominates many U.S.
physical education programs. They expect lessons with minimal skill and tactical instruction
and with maximum opportunities to play ball (Ennis, in press).

In examining this phenomenon further, we asked teachers in our current NIH research
studies (e.g., Sun et al., 2012), “Which students are you most concerned about liking the new
[concept-oriented, fitness-based] curriculum?” (Ennis, in press). The reply often was, “Our
athletes and students who like sport. The sporty kids … most of them are the boys who also
play on the school teams that I coach” (Ennis, in press). In other words they explain, “…
students who are most like us. These are the ones who are eager to participate and give effort
in our current sport and physical education programs. They make my coaching and teaching
enjoyable, and they really like PE!” (Ennis, in press). Over the years, physical educators
Author Manuscript

who decline invitations to participate in our research often tell us, “Sorry, but we just can’t
lose their support” (Ennis, 2013c).

Interestingly, in the sport-based units these physical educators are attempting to protect,
most nonsporty secondary students no longer want to learn, give effort, or engage (Ennis,
1998). For many reasons, they have not learned to play the game, perform the skills, or
appreciate sport as physical education. Unfortunately, it seems these students actually expect
to fail in physical education and tell us frequently, “I am not very good at physical

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 4

education.” Certainly, these are the saddest (and most infuriating!) words spoken about our
Author Manuscript

subject area. Nevertheless, chronically disenfranchised students resist by refusing to dress or

participate in sport-based physical education. These are the very students most likely to be
sedentary and the ones that many innovative approaches to curriculum and teaching are
attempting to reach (e.g., Oliver & Hamzeh, 2009; Penney & Hay, 2008).

To what extent does student resistance play a critical factor in teacher ineffectiveness? Is the
ability to engage all students in learning yet another indicator of effective teaching? Do
effective teachers not only provide opportunity to learn, but also convince most, if not all,
students to engage and give effort when teaching students’ nonpreferred content. Although
McKenzie and Lounsbery (2013) point out that engagement also is central to the goals of
physical activity participation, I expect Rink (2013) and Ward (2013) would argue that
engagement is another of those necessary but insufficient variables for student learning. It is
one, though, that limits learning opportunities for many physical education students—most
Author Manuscript

of whom are not “like us” (Ennis, 1998, in press). These students need to be taught by
highly competent teachers how to engage in enjoyable, educational physical activity now
and need to learn attitudes, skills, concepts, and behaviors needed to be physically active
later, when they are on their own (Ennis, 2010; Penney & Jess, 2004).

THE ROLE OF CONTENT SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT IN EFFECTIVE

TEACHING
In physical education, teachers are active curriculum makers (Craig & Ross, 2008) who
make content selection decisions based on many factors. Ward (2013) makes a strong
argument for the need to assist teachers in teaching “beyond the standards.” Certainly, a
primary focus of a beyond-the-standards emphasis should be to aspire to rich content
Author Manuscript

development with the goal of enhanced student engagement and learning. Expectations for
comprehensive, in-depth content coverage continue to increase as professional associations
in other subject areas push for concept transfer and higher-order thinking skills essential to
problem solving and decision making (National Research Council, 2012). In science
education, for example, the 2013 science education content standards were built on an
innovative conceptual framework that consists of three dimensions: practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Practices include asking questions, defining problems, and
developing and using models. Crosscutting concepts include a search for patterns, while
disciplinary core ideas reflect the foundational knowledge central to K–12 science
education. To support students’ meaningful learning, all three dimensions are integrated into
standards, curricula, instruction, and assessment. In physical education, we already
incorporate aspects of these dimensions in innovative curricular models with powerful
Author Manuscript

results.

Connecting Models-Based Programming to Definitions of Teacher Effectiveness

One of the appeals of models-based programs is their tendency to examine a content area
deeply and with complexity (Ennis, 2013a). The Teaching Games for Understanding family
of models, for example, provides a physically active context for problem posing and
problem solution that permits students opportunities to think deeply about performance

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 5

options and apply knowledge to achieve meaningful solutions (e.g., winning!). Likewise,
Author Manuscript

evidence-based, fitness concept-based approaches, such as Science, PE, & Me! (Ennis &
Lindsay, 2008; Sun et al., 2012) and Science of Healthful Living (Ennis, 2013c), provide
multiple opportunities for students to apply fitness concepts to examine the effects of
exercise on their bodies. These curricula provide blueprints for teachers to use moderate-to-
vigorous physical activity as an environment for problem solving within situationally
interesting tasks (Chen, Darst, & Pangrazi, 2001).

Reinforcing Connections to the Disciplinary Knowledge Base of Kinesiology

Most physical education curriculum models define content as more than physical activity or
performing physical tasks. These models facilitate connections between understanding and
performance and provide guiding structures to help teachers integrate behavior with
cognition. Some concept-based curricular models, such as Fitness for Life (Corbin &
Author Manuscript

Lindsay, 2007), Science, PE, & Me! (Ennis & Lindsay, 2008; Sun et al., 2012), and The
Science of Healthful Living (Ennis, 2013c), directly tie operationalized fitness content to the
disciplinary knowledge base of exercise physiology and exercise psychology, reminding
parents, principals, and classroom teachers that physical education can be an active partner
in the educational process and can contribute directly to the academic mission of schools.

Physical education content enjoys deep roots in the kinesiology disciplinary knowledge base
(e.g., Abernathy & Waltz, 1964; Brown, 1967; Bulger & Housner, 2009; Cassidy, 1965).
This foundation is clearly articulated in our physical education teacher education (PETE)
programs and some learning-based physical education programs. Kinesiology is the
disciplinary foundation of our subject area—our guiding roadmap in the future of standards-
based content design. Although disciplinary knowledge is Standard 1 in the NASPE
Physical Education Teacher Education Standards (NASPE, 2009), it continues to remain
Author Manuscript

hidden in the new physical literacy-oriented National Content Standards, which reinforces
the disconnect between these two sets of guiding standards (NASPE, 2013a). Disregard of
the disciplinary knowledge base places our subject area in great peril when defending
educational conceptualizations of physical education.

From a curricular perspective, in the disciplinary-driven world of schools, a teacher’s ability

to provide great task presentations is a good start. The job, however, is not finished until we
answer the “why” questions. Explaining, for example, why we can create more power using
a particular skill technique provides the missing link in our educational anchor chain and
presents a welcome connection for some students who may not yet see the link between
sport and their future careers as scientists or engineers. Likewise, helping students
understand why “physical activity is good for you,” using scientific principles to explain
Author Manuscript

relationships among heart rate, perceived exertion rate, number of steps, and physical
activity intensity, for example, can make physical education content more meaningful to
students and relevant for a lifetime. Providing content-rich presentations enhances task
complexity and increases students’ situational interest in physical education (Chen et al.,
2001).

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 6

Designing Content-Rich Task Presentations

Author Manuscript

Ward (2013) provides an interesting comparison of two task presentations used to teach the
chest pass. The first task reflects a traditional format, while the second reflects a more
complex, content-rich problem to be solved. The task quality/complexity that Ward
describes in the chest-pass example is due primarily to the higher-order thinking task
requirements (level of cognitive engagement) in the problem-based task. A major difference
between the two tasks is in the additional cognitive load requirements needed to perform the
4-v-1 task (Plass, Moreno, & Briünken, 2010).

A task analysis of the relatively stationary chest-pass task places the cognitive requirements
in the lower-order thinking-skill categories of memory or comprehension. The teacher might
present this task by saying, “Watch Sandy and John as they demonstrate the chest pass.
Think about these cues as you practice …” Chi (1981) would point out that the first
Author Manuscript

informing statement with demonstration emphasizes the “what” or declarative knowledge

associated with recognizing and naming the chest-pass task. The teacher explains the cues as
students demonstrate the procedural knowledge of “how” to perform the task (Chi, 1981).
Further, the first chest-pass example possesses few of the characteristics of a situationally
interesting task to increase its appeal to students (i.e., novelty, challenge, attention demand,
instant enjoyment, exploration intention, stimulating analysis, inquiry, or discovery; Chen et
al., 2001). Thus, the lack of cognitive complexity, situational interest, and student decision
making in the initial chest-pass task may limit students’ engagement and opportunities to
learn about key game situations or conditions in which players perform chest passes.

Ward (2013) then compares this lower-order thinking task with a 4-v-1 keep-away game
with varying defensive levels, cutting patterns, and feints. This substantially more complex
task assumes students possess declarative and procedural knowledge of passing and
Author Manuscript

challenges students cognitively to focus on conditional knowledge (Alexander, Schallert, &

Hare, 1991; Rovegno, 2006). When the lesson is structured to answer the question, “Under
what game conditions will the chest pass be successful?” students begin to consider
temporal and spatial elements of passing. This question/problem requires them to analyze
the situation, synthesize what they know about passing situations (e.g., offensive and
defensive player positioning), and evaluate when the temporal and spatial conditions are
right for a successful pass. Additionally, the task provides feedback (results) to each
individual passer and other student observers engaged in the 4-v-1 game to permit them to
adapt and refine their understandings in preparation for the next attempt. This problem is
cognitively engaging for most students, provides opportunity for skill practice and physical
activity, and can contribute to student engagement. Although our understanding of cognitive
task demands and cognitive task complexity in game play and physical performance
Author Manuscript

(Griffey & Housner, 2007; Plass et al., 2010) has increased substantially over the years, the
basic fact that students learn more effectively when engaged in tasks with greater cognitive
demands remains a basic learning premise (Kester, Paas, & van Merriënboer, 2010).

Task presentation within this perspective requires the addition of higher-order questioning,
emphasizing authentic performance conditions in addition to a demonstration of what to do

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 7

and how to do it. According to instructional design practices emanating from cognitive load
Author Manuscript

theory:

authentic learning tasks have many solutions, are ecologically valid, cannot be
mastered in a single session, and pose a very high load on the learner’s cognitive
system. Consequently, complex learning has little to do with learning separate
skills in isolation, but foremost it deals with learning to coordinate the separate
skills that constitute real-life task performance. (italics in the original; Kester et al.,
2010, p. 109)

Additionally, in complex tasks, such as the one Ward (2013) describes, effective
performance depends on integration of skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Further, it requires
task differentiation by demanding the performer recognize both large and small differences
in the environment (e.g., changing positions of other players on offense and defense) that
directly impact how the pass must be executed to achieve success (Kester et al., 2010).
Author Manuscript

There is a mismatch between presenting the simple chest-pass task and then expecting
students to implement it in a fast-paced game. Interestingly, although my undergraduate
physical education majors agree with this premise in the methods classroom, when
designing their own lessons for secondary students in field experiences, they proceed to
teach passing as a stationary, isolated skill. When asked to comment on the mismatch, they
patiently explain that this is the way to teach passing. In other words, this is the way they
were taught to throw and catch. They do not seem to notice that the lower-skilled students,
who prior to the lesson, did not know when and where to pass, are still lost conceptually
when placed in game situations.

Cognitively Demanding Preservice Experiences

Author Manuscript

Most physical education majors were secondary students in “Easy Street” physical education
programs. Kretchmar (2006) characterizes the teacher’s role on Easy Street as one of
introducing, informing, and entertaining. He explained that on Easy Street, the physical
education focus is on introducing students to a series of mini-units to expose them to many
different physical activities with little hope or expectation that they will learn the skills,
tactics, concepts, or principles leading to sustained or intrinsic interest or comprehension.
Further, he argued that when informing students about performance or health knowledge,
Easy Street teachers use short sound bites with “little opportunity to actually experience the
psychological, sociological, and physiological benefits of a challenging physical education
program” (Bulger & Housner, 2009, p. 444) “which requires time, effort, and persistence …
factors that are not found on Easy Street” (Kretchmar, 2006, p. 350). Entertaining students
who might otherwise become behavior problems by enticing them to participate in “busy,
Author Manuscript

happy, good” environments continues to be the legacy of mini-units, with little student or
teacher accountability for student learning (Placek, 1982).

We need to begin to break the culture of “Easy Street” by increasing the cognitive demands
on preservice PETE majors to teach beyond their past experiences as former students on
Easy Street (Bulger & Housner, 2009; Kretchmar, 2006). Breaking out of the Easy Street
culture demands preservice teachers understand and perform the critically important

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 8

elements historically associated with direct teaching. Additionally, they need ample
Author Manuscript

opportunities to practice planning and teaching in which they learn to frame, teach, and
assess tasks that are situationally interesting and cognitively demanding for public school
students. This form of teaching and learning does NOT need to decrease the amount and
intensity of physical activity in the lesson. Instead, it provides a reason for students to give
effort and move with intensity (Chen, Martin, Sun, & Ennis, 2007). Early in their careers,
teachers need the opportunity to learn to be curriculum makers (Craig & Ross, 2008) who do
more than fill in a sports block plan and can conceptualize relevant educational problems
and effectively sequence and manage an integrated series of tasks, questions, and
assessments to lead students to meaningful solutions. For teacher educators, this is
demanding work and requires the same level of teaching effectiveness and accountability we
are asking from school-based physical educators.

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING WITHIN QUALITY

Author Manuscript

PHYSICAL EDUCATION
Because physical education is a required school subject, physical educators need to be
treated with the same respect, provided the same privileges, and held to the same
accountability standards as other teachers on the payroll. Teachers in tested subject areas,
however, moved from Easy Street (Bulger & Housner, 2009; Kretchmar, 2006) a decade ago
when No Child Left Behind legislation mandated intensive testing to assess student learning.
In the move, school administrators and classroom teachers left many physical educators
behind … on Easy Street. Administrators and classroom teachers focused their attention and
resources on increasing student test scores with a tunnel vision rarely seen or sustained in
American public schools. As Rink (2013) points out, this lack of attention to physical
education permitted principals, parents, and school district administrators to ignore program
Author Manuscript

and teaching quality in physical education.

HIGH-STAKES ACCOUNTABILITY CHANGES IN NORTH CAROLINA

High-stakes accountability has yet to reach Easy Street, but it is getting closer. Many
physical educators continue to present recreational programs to students, therefore
permitting those who want to be physically active the chance to play ball. There are new
initiatives today associated with Race to the Top legislation that focus administrator
attention on teaching effectiveness in all subject areas, including physical education. During
the 2013 legislative session, North Carolina lawmakers passed legislation eliminating
teacher tenure by the 2018–2019 school year in a move sponsors say will “make it easier to
remove poorly performing teachers” (Associated Press, 2013; see also Banchero & Rutland,
Author Manuscript

2013). The law replaces the current “career status” or tenured designation teachers can
receive after teaching 4 years in the same school district with what the bill calls
“nonprobationary status.” Teachers could lose even that status (and their jobs) if they
receive 2 consecutive years of poor evaluations. This bill transforms most teacher career
status contracts into 1-year to 4-year merit-based contracts with renewal dependent on
administrator observations and evidence of student achievement (Burns, 2013). Currently,
the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction is experimenting with additional ways
to evaluate physical educators using portfolio formats that can include as one of several

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 9

teacher effectiveness measures evidence of increases in FITNESSGRAM® scores from fall

Author Manuscript

to spring testing administrations. Physical educators, too, are beginning to discuss ways they
can demonstrate effectiveness. Those who team-teach have an additional burden to
demonstrate how each member of the teaching team makes meritorious, documented
contributions to student learning.

Teachers in North Carolina and nationally could benefit from broad-based

conceptualizations of effectiveness and accountability such as those Rink (2013) described.
Student learning is a complex process that includes teacher selection, development, and
implementation of quality standards-based content. Assessment includes the teachers’ use of
valid, reliable, and functional student measures. This is a critical next step in the
implementation of quality physical education programs. The new 2013 NASPE National
Standards promise to include grade-level benchmarks that can be used to set passing scores.
Additionally, PE Metrics (e.g., NASPE, 2011) is a significant step toward the validation of
Author Manuscript

authentic, standards-based measures of student performance. PE Metrics developers should

be commended for the foresight and perseverance to complete this difficult task. Yet, I think
they would agree, we are just beginning this process.

Rink (2013) points out the challenges developers faced when conceptualizing and validating
authentic, yet generic measures of game performance associated with PE Metrics (NASPE,
2011) assessments. The difficulty of videotaping, viewing, and scoring each student on each
task is especially arduous. Perhaps this project can lead to efficient rubric-based measures of
effective game play that fit on teachers’ clipboards. From the excellent work on PE Metrics,
a comprehensive, teacher-friendly assessment management system might evolve to assist
teachers in administering measures that have been validated. The system would include
administratively efficient, rubric-guided assessments of student skillfulness in game play or
Author Manuscript

game-related decision making. Testing protocols and evaluator training would be provided
as an essential step leading to reliable scoring. Of great importance, too, is a validated
system of criterion-based passing or “cut” scores associated with benchmarks that are
standardized and applied uniformly. This is no simple task but one that is critically
important both to evaluate teacher effectiveness and student learning and to communicate
student progress to parents and administrators (Campbell, 2013).

THE GOAL OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION IS STUDENT LEARNING

Finally, it is important to refute accusations by McKenzie and Lounsbery (2013) that
physical education’s goals are muddled and confusing. This is simply not the case. The goal
of physical education is student learning. Many content forms may be used appropriately to
address this singular goal. It is important, however, not to be distracted by the diverse
Author Manuscript

assortment of content that effective teachers use to enhance student learning of fitness,
skills, games, adventure, dance, gymnastics, and other movement forms. These are the
means to reaching the end goal of student learning. Effective teachers’ focus on student
learning is razor-sharp and the driving force in educational physical education. Although
student enjoyment and public health benefits are highly valued, when standards-based
content is selected and implemented effectively, enjoyment and health are necessary but

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 10

insufficient outcomes of learning-based physical education programs. Student learning is the

Author Manuscript

gold standard in school-based curricula.

CONCLUSION
As both Rink (2013) and Ward (2013) reiterate, the complexity of teacher effectiveness is
anchored in a collective dynamic of quality content selection and development, task
presentation, and student assessment. O’Sullivan (2013) described these as “pedagogic
action” or the “collective decisions made in choosing what to teach and how that knowledge
and performance can be communicated and assessed in the name of physical education” (p.
2). As emphasized in the Rink and Ward articles, what the teacher does in the teaching
process and how students respond are fundamental to curricular and instructional reform.
Although teachers do not work in a vacuum, they do have substantial control over what and
how students are taught, their opportunities to learn, and how well they learn. Physical
Author Manuscript

educators are central to the reform process and must be intricately involved in the
conceptualizations of teacher effectiveness, development of valid and fair measures of
effectiveness, and reasonable uses of evaluation outcomes in future program and career-
related decisions. Of equal importance is “who” will conduct the evaluation. Principals need
extensive mentoring at the national and school-district levels to recognize both essential
elements of quality programs and the nature of effective teaching in the gymnasium (Ennis,
2012). We acknowledge and appreciate the tremendous work that has defined the critical
elements of learning-based teacher effectiveness in physical education. To date, applications
of these in the South Carolina Physical Education Assessment Program (Rink & Mitchell,
2003) and PE Metrics (NASPE, 2011) provide valuable foundations for the next steps in
measuring teacher effectiveness and the delineation of fair and reasonable teacher
accountability criteria.
Author Manuscript

Teacher effectiveness has never been more important to define, measure, and implement in
both the educational and policy environments (Ennis, 2013b). Armour (2010) emphasized,
however, that teacher changes are most likely to occur and persist when teachers see
themselves as learners who are willing to grow in their understanding and ability to perform
on quality assessments. As part of this process, Armour encourages teachers to participate in
meaningful physical education-oriented professional development with persistent follow-up
leading to sustainable growth. Currently, however, the professional development
mechanisms are fragmented and not focused on the specific needs of physical education
(Armour, 2010). By welcoming teachers into the reform process, providing ongoing
meaningful administrative and professional support, and validating efficient tools to measure
teacher and student progress, there may be real opportunities for substantial, meaningful
Author Manuscript

change.

REFERENCES
Abernathy R, Waltz M. Toward a discipline: First steps first. Quest. 1964; 2:1–7.
Alexander PA, Schallert DL, Hare VC. Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk
about knowledge. Review of Educational Research. 1991; 61:315–343. doi:
10.3102/00346543061003315.

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 11

Anderson W, Barrette G. What’s going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education classes.
Motor Skills: Theory into Practice. 1978 [Monograph 1].
Author Manuscript

Armour KM. The physical education profession and its professional responsibility … or … why “12
weeks paid holiday” will never be enough. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2010; 15:1–13.
doi:10.1080/17408980903413479.
Associated Press. Teacher tenure bill easily passes N.C. House. Virginian-Pilot. 2013 Apr 18.
Retrieved from http://hamptonroads.com/2013/04/teacher-tenure-bill-easily-passes-nc-house.
Banchero S, Rutland M. North Carolina ends pay boosts for teacher master’s degrees: Tenure for
elementary and high school teachers also eliminated. Wall Street Journal. 2013 Jul 26. Retrieved
from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323971204578630312785220612.
Brown C. The structure of physical education. Quest. 1967; 9:53–67.
Bulger SM, Housner LD. Relocating from easy street: Strategies for moving physical education
forward. Quest. 2009; 61:442–469. doi:10.1080/00336297.2009.10483625.
Burns M. Senate panel OKs eliminating teacher tenure. WRAL.com. 2013 Apr 10. Retrieved from
http://www.wral.com/senate-panel-oks-eliminating-teacher-tenure/12325214.
Campbell, C. Research on teacher competency in classroom assessment. In: McMillan, JH., editor.
Author Manuscript

Research on classroom assessment. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2013. p. 71-84.

Cassidy R. The cultural definition of physical education. Quest. 1965; 3:11–15.
Chen A, Darst PW, Pangrazi RP. An examination of situational interest and its sources. British Journal
of Educational Psychology. 2001; 71:383–400. doi:10.1348/000709901158578. [PubMed:
11593946]
Chen A, Ennis CD. Goals, interests, and learning in physical education. Journal of Educational
Research. 2004; 97:329–338.
Chen, A.; Ennis, CD. Motivation and achievement in physical education. In: Wentzel, K.; Wigfield,
A., editors. Handbook of motivation at school. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009. p. 553-574.
Chen A, Martin R, Sun H, Ennis CD. Is physical activity at risk in constructivist physical education?
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2007; 78:500–509. doi:
10.1080/02701367.2007.10599449. [PubMed: 18274221]
Chi, MTH. Knowledge development and memory performance. In: Friedman, MP.; Das, JP.;
O’Connor, N., editors. Intelligence and learning. New York, NY: Plenum; 1981. p. 221-229.
Author Manuscript

Corbin, C.; Lindsay, R. Fitness for life. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2007.
Cothran DJ, Ennis CD. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of conflict and power. Teaching and
Teacher Education. 1997; 13:541–553.
Craig, CJ.; Ross, V. Cultivating the image of teachers as curriculum makers. In: Connelly, FM., editor.
Handbook of curriculum and instruction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008. p. 282-305.
Davis, B.; Sumara, D.; Luce-Kapler, R. Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex times. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Routledge; 2008.
Ennis CD. Teachers’ responses to noncompliant students: The realities and consequences of a
negotiated curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1995; 11:445–460.
Ennis CD. When avoiding confrontation leads to avoiding content: Disruptive students’ impact on
curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. 1996; 11:145–162.
Ennis CD. The context of a culturally unresponsive curriculum: Constructing ethnicity and gender
within a contested terrain. Teaching and Teacher Education. 1998; 14:749–769.
Ennis CD. Examining curricular coherence in an exemplary elementary school program. Research
Author Manuscript

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2008; 79:71–84. doi:10.1080/02701367.2008.1. [PubMed:

18431953]
Ennis CD. Alliance Scholar Lecture: On their own: Preparing students for a lifetime. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2010; 81(5):17–22.
Ennis, CD. Innovative practices and programs in physical education. In: Theoharis, G.; Brooks, JS.,
editors. Instructional leadership for social justice: What every principal needs to know to lead
equitable and excellent schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2012.

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 12

Ennis, CD. The complexity of intervention: Implementing curricula in the authentic world of schools.
In: Ovens, A.; Hopper, T.; Butler, J., editors. Complexity thinking in physical education:
Author Manuscript

Reframing curriculum, pedagogy, and research. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013a. p. 14-26.
Ennis CD. Implementing meaningful, educative curricula and assessments in complex school
environments. Sport, Education and Society. 2013b; 18:115–120. doi:
10.1080/13573322.2012.707978.
Ennis CD. Reimagining professional competence in physical education. Motriz. 2013c; 19:662–672.
Ennis CD. What goes around comes around … or does it? Disrupting the cycle of traditional, sport-
based physical education. Kinesiology Review. (in press).
Ennis CD, Cothran DJ, Davidson KS, Loftus SJ, Owens L, Swanson L, Hopsicker P. Implementing
curriculum within a context of fear and disengagement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education.
1997; 17:52–71.
Ennis CD, Lindsay E. Science, PE, & me! Teachers manual. 2008 Unpublished manuscript. (Available
from first author).
Griffey, DC.; Housner, LD. Designing effective instructional tasks for physical education and sports.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2007.
Author Manuscript

Kester, L.; Paas, F.; van Merriënboer, JJG. Instructional control of cognitive load in the design of
complex learning environments. In: Plass, JL.; Moreno, R.; Brünken, R., editors. Cognitive load
theory. New York, NY: Cambridge; 2010. p. 109-130.
Kretchmar S. Life on Easy Street: The persistent need for embodied hopes and down-to-earth games.
Quest. 2006; 58:345–354. doi:10.1080/00336297.2006.10491888.
McKenzie TL, Lounsbery MAF. Physical education teacher effectiveness in a public health context.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2013; 84:419–430. [PubMed: 24592772]
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. National standards and guidelines for physical
education teacher education. 3rd ed. Reston, VA: Author; 2009.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. PE Metrics: Assessing National Standards 1–6
in secondary/elementary schools. Reston, VA: Author; 2011.
National Association of Sport and Physical Education. National standards & grade-level outcomes for
K–12 physical education. 2013a Retrieved from http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/standards/
nationalStandards/PEstandards.cfm.
Author Manuscript

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Teacher of the Year awards. 2013b Retrieved
from http://www.aahperd.org/whatwedo/awards/toy-awards.cfm.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Guide to national board certification. 2013
Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/candidate-center.
National Research Council. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
Oliver KL, Hamzeh M. Girly girls can play games/Las niñas pueden jugar tambien: Co-creating a
curriculum of possibilities with fifth-grade girls. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2009;
28:90–110.
O’Sullivan M. New directions, new questions: Relationships between curriculum, pedagogy, and
assessment in physical education. Sport, Education and Society. 2013; 18:1–5. doi:
10.1080/13573322. 2012.719868.
Penney D, Hay P. Inclusivity and senior physical education: Insights from Queensland and Western
Australia. Sport, Education and Society. 2008; 13:431–452. doi:10.1080/13573320802445074.
Author Manuscript

Penney D, Jess M. Physical education and physically active lives: A lifelong approach to curriculum
development. Sport, Education and Society. 2004; 9:269–287. doi:
10.1080/1357332042000233985.
Placek, JH. Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy, and good?. In: Templin, T.; Olsin, J.,
editors. Teaching in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1982. p. 46-56.
Plass, JL.; Moreno, R.; Brünken, R., editors. Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press; 2010.
Rink JE. Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport. 2013; 84:407–418. [PubMed: 24592771]

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.
 Ennis Page 13

Rink JE, Mitchell M. State level assessment in physical education: The South Carolina experience.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2003; 22:471–472.
Author Manuscript

Rovegno, I. Situated perspectives on learning. In: Kirk, D.; Macdonald, D.; O’Sullivan, M., editors.
Handbook of physical education. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2006. p. 262-274.
Solmon, M. Learner cognition. In: Kirk, D.; Macdonald, D.; O’Sullivan, M., editors. Handbook of
physical education. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2006. p. 226-241.
Sun H, Chen A, Zhu X, Ennis CD. Learning science-based fitness knowledge in constructivist physical
education. Elementary School Journal. 2012; 113:215–229.
Ward P. The role of content knowledge in conceptions of teaching effectiveness in physical education.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2013; 84:431–440. [PubMed: 24592773]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Res Q Exerc Sport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 25.