Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 407–418, 2013

Copyright q AAHPERD
ISSN 0270-1367 print/ISSN 2168-3824 online
DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2013.844018

SPECIAL TOPICS: Effective Teaching in Physical Education

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness in Physical

Education
Judith E. Rink
University of South Carolina
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

This article summarizes the research base on teacher effectiveness in physical education from
a historical perspective and explores the implications of the recent emphasis on student
performance and teacher observation systems to evaluate teachers for physical education. The
problems and the potential positive effects of using student performance scores as well as
establishing a comprehensive evaluation program are explored with supportive evidence that
some level of accountability is necessary in our field to make significant change.
Keywords: accountability, program effectiveness, teacher evaluation

The move to rethink how to evaluate a teacher’s performance follows.The impetus for much of the reform in teacher
and explicitly tie assessments of teacher performance to evaluation has come as a result of the federal government’s
student achievement marks an important shift in thinking grant program to states known as the Race to the Top Fund.
about teacher quality. The demand for ‘highly qualified’ Race to the Top is part of the 2009 American Recovery and
teachers is slowly but surely being replaced by a call for Reinvestment Act granting 11 states $4.35 million to reform
highly effective teachers. (National Council on Teacher education in their states, including a heavy emphasis on
Quality [NCTQ], 2011)
student achievement scores and accountability for student
achievement (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
In a 1991 article on good teaching, Donald Cruickshank and 2009, 2009). As a result, states, including those not part of
Donald Haefele argued that there are many kinds of good the federal program, have been systematically changing the
teachers—some of them are effective at producing high criteria used to evaluate teachers to include student
levels of student performance and others are good for other performance scores as part of required teacher evaluation
reasons. Since the publication of that article, the education programs. According to the NCTQ (2011), 30 states now
community has moved steadily toward the notion that good require that teachers are evaluated at least in part on
teaching is teaching that results in student achievement. objective evidence of student learning. This represents
A concern for teacher effectiveness largely follows the support for the idea that our education system can be
national standards and assessment movement designed to improved if we evaluate teachers on their effectiveness,
hold states, districts, schools, and teachers accountable for therefore begging the question, “what is teacher effective-
student performance on designated outcomes. Standards ness and how is it best measured in physical education?”
would define what every student should know and be able to
do, curriculums would be designed to be aligned with the
standards, and assessment would measure the extent to
which students achieved the designated outcomes. Assess- TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH:
ment of teacher effectiveness in this process naturally A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The study of teacher effectiveness is not new. Medley

Correspondence should be addressed to Judith E. Rink, 309 Stoney (1979) traced the development of conceptions of teacher
Pointe Circle, Chapin, SC 29036. E-mail: [email protected] effectiveness up to that point as: (a) the possessor of
 408 J. E. RINK

desirable personal traits, (b) the user of effective methods, Necessary but Not Sufficient
(c) the creator of a good classroom climate, (d) the master of
Research in physical education and motor learning identified
a repertoire of competencies, and (e) the professional
several variables with a strong relationship to student motor
decision maker. Although it is not the purpose of this article
skill performance. Among those identified in validation
to review the research on teacher effectiveness in education
studies to be highly related to student learning outcomes was
or physical education, it is important for the reader to have
Academic Learning Time –Physical Education (ALT –PE)-
some perspective on how we have come to this point. The
motor engaged (Silverman, Devillier, & Ramı́rez, 1991),
earliest research on teacher effectiveness in the classroom
meaning the amount of time students spent in class engaged
began in the 1940s with a somewhat futile search to link
in motor activities related to the content. Poor management
teacher characteristics to student learning. In 1974, Dunkin
skills decreased ALT – PE. Clarity in task presentations
and Biddle established a model for the study of teaching and
identified the constructs of teacher characteristics, student (Werner & Rink, 1989) and the manner in which the teacher
characteristics, process variables (including teacher and develops content (French et al., 1991; Gusthart & Springings,
student behavior and characteristics), product variables, and 1989; Masser, 1985; Rink, French, Werner, Lynn, & Mays,
the relationship between these constructs as primary targets 1992) were also investigated and shown to have a
for research on teaching (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). The early relationship with students’ motor skill learning. However,
studies focused on relationships between process variables none of these variables could be characterized as the “silver
bullet” that ensures student learning, in spite of efforts to
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

(process –process studies).

The study of teaching shifted from process –process refine their definitions (e.g., the transition from allocated
studies to process – product studies. What is important to time to on-task behavior, to motor-engaged time, to good
note is that from a research perspective, effective teaching practice). They became part of a body of knowledge that is
has consistently meant student learning. Given the probably best described as “necessary but not sufficient”
difficulties with measuring student learning and using conditions for learning. In other words, if you provide
student learning to evaluate teachers, researchers were maximum practice time, you are not guaranteed learning, but
hoping to identify a proxy for student learning. Most of if you do not provide enough practice time, it is likely that
this search was for process variables that could be learning will not occur. Much of this research is synthesized
observed and had a high relationship to student learning in the works of Graber (2001), Silverman and Ennis (2003),
outcomes. Brophy and Good (1984) identified and and Silverman and Skonie (1997).
reviewed the research from the early 1970s to early The difficulty in identifying the concept of effectiveness
1980s. Their work focused on: (a) the opportunity to in teaching lies in the complexity of teaching. Many
learn/content; (b) teacher expectations/role definitions/ researchers perceived the process – product paradigm as an
time allocations; (c) classroom management/student oversimplification of a very complex process that is largely
engaged time; (d) success level/academic learning time; a multifaceted interaction between the student, the teacher,
(e) active instruction by the teacher; (f) group size; (g) the content, and other contextual variables. Attention would
presentation of information (structuring, sequencing, turn to the role of the student and content in the search to
clarity, enthusiasm); (h) asking questions (difficulty both understand the teaching/learning process and to be able
level, cognitive level, wait time, selecting respondents, to identify how best to ensure positive program outcomes.
providing feedback); and (i) handling seatwork and There would also be a shift from process –product studies to
homework assignments. Brophy and Good (1984) qualitative research methodologies (see, e.g., Hemphill,
concluded that the decade had been productive to varying Templin, Richards, & Blankenship, 2012).
degrees in identifying effective teaching but that the More recent research in our field has focused primarily
quality of the research varied. on the student as the mediator of instruction and the
Effective teaching research in physical education was processes involved in the dynamics of student motivation
largely related to the work being done in the classroom. (e.g., perceived competence, self-efficacy, expectancy
Each one of the research foci identified by Brophy and effects, and achievement goals; e.g., A. Chen, Martin,
Good (1984) has a counterpart in the research on teaching Ennis, & Sun, 2008; Sun & Chen, 2010; Zhang, Solmon,
in physical education. The search for the “silver bullet” Kosma, Carson, & Gu, 2011). Although some of these
even in physical education quickly shifted from more mediating variables are beyond the control of the teacher,
indirect teaching characteristics, such as teacher warmth, many are not (e.g., mastery vs. performance climate). The
types of questions, praise, and flexibility, to those more challenge is to link these variables first to teacher behavior
consistent with direct teaching (task-oriented, structured and then to outcomes of instruction. With some exceptions,
learning experiences, student activity time, active much of the more recent research has sought to understand
monitoring, and feedback). The product measures of the teaching process and the role of the student in that
most of the literature in our field focused on motor process, but researchers have struggled to tie that work
skill learning. directly to learning outcomes (Reeve & Halusic, 2009).
 MEASURING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 409

A second more recent focus on research on teaching in schools—they are just not valued to the same extent that
physical education has been the study of the effect of “core” subjects are. The physical education profession tends
different orientations to teaching the content on student to be saddled with the perceptions of policymakers whose
outcomes (e.g., sport education, teaching games for personal experience with physical education was not
understanding, constructivist orientations; W. Chen, positive. While the other “noncore” subject areas like art
Rovegno, Cone, & Cone, 2012; French, Werner, Rink, and music have a large political constituency, physical
Taylor, & Hussey, 1996; Penney, Clarke, Quill, & Kinchin, education does not. Health professionals, who could be
2005; Sweeting & Rink, 1999). These studies have had potential advocates in the age of an “obesity” crisis, have
mixed results. While the work on the student as the mediator been supportive if not collaborative.
of instruction has sought to understand the role of the Physical education has for the most part been kept
student, this work has sought to understand the role of away from the center of attention, influence, or power at
content and how it is delivered. both the national and state levels or has not sought to be
The work done in the paradigm of process –product included. In one sense, this has allowed good programs to
studies has become part of the effective teaching literature become creative and to tailor what they do to the
in physical education and is used extensively to train individual needs of their students. The result has not been
teachers and observe teaching. The instructional skills a healthy neglect. It has protected programs from having
identified in the process – product paradigm have become to define or measure outcomes in a political environment
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

generic instructional skills, meaning they are necessary but where data count.
not sufficient characteristics of effective teaching for most
contexts in physical education where there is a learning
Consensus on What Students Should
objective (Rink, 2013). The work focusing on students and
Learn/Outcomes
different approaches to teaching the content is just
beginning to identify the implications for what the teacher One of the major obstacles to evaluating teachers on student
should do. The teacher and what the teacher does are critical performance is defining what students should learn and the
to whether the student learns or does not learn (Castelli & outcomes of teaching. Not only have teachers in physical
Rink, 2003; Gates Foundation, 2013a), which is why the education been given freedom to teach what they consider
current emphasis on the outcomes of instruction has important and appropriate content for their students, but
refocused educators on the teacher and what students learn there is no consensus in the profession on what is important
from the teacher. for students to learn (if anything). Although most of the
teacher effectiveness research done in our field has made the
assumption that motor skills are important learning
PROBLEMS WITH STUDENT PERFORMANCE outcomes, the current literature would suggest that may be
SCORES AS AN EVALUATIVE MEASURE a false or incomplete assumption (Metztler, McKenzie, van
der Mars, Barrett-Williams, & Ellis, 2013). Although
The education community has historically resisted using curriculum and learning expectations in the classroom have
student performance scores to evaluate teachers for a variety been more specifically identified, physical education
of reasons. This is more problematic in programs lacking teachers have had only loosely framed curriculums or
clearly defined outcomes and when the outcomes are not none at all to direct what they teach.
measureable by standardized tests. Most of the problems The national content standards developed for physical
surrounding the use of student performance scores in education (National Association for Sport and Physical
evaluating teaching in physical education are associated Education [NASPE], 1995, 2004) were a good step in
with the following issues: a marginalized subject area; no defining the exit outcomes for programs but did little to
consensus on what students should learn; a culture that does identify grade-level outcomes until the recent 2013
not value assessment; lack of program time and other version. There is consensus that the goal of programs
barriers; unavailability of valid and reliable measures of should be the development of a physically active lifestyle.
student performance; diversity of student potential for The national standards are designed to develop a physically
learning; and the willingness of policymakers to invest active lifestyle, but the contribution of each of those
resources to develop a valid and reliable evaluation of standards to this goal is critical and yet to be determined.
teacher effectiveness. The work done with PE Metrics (NASPE, 2010, 2011),
although not comprehensive of what is taught in most
school programs, identified the most critical skills and
Marginalized Subject Area
knowledge to be taught in physical education from each of
Physical education has historically been a marginalized the standards and provided valid and reliable assessment
subject area in the education system. It is not that good materials that have the potential to be used as measures of
physical education programs are not valued in many student performance.
 410 J. E. RINK

A Culture That Does Not Value Assessment Diversity of Student Potential for Learning
Most educators outside of the physical education field see Physical educators can expect to have a range of motor skill
assessment of student performance (both summative and abilities in their classes. Although most classroom teachers
formative) as an equal partner in the plan –teach –assess in a heterogeneous grouping are likely to have the same
process of teaching. Many physical educators see assessment problem, physical educators have struggled to find
as time spent that can better be used for other purposes. instructional methodology that would meet the needs of
Assessment of outcomes or the effectiveness of instruction is such diverse groups. While most classroom teachers tend to
not part of our culture. Physical educators have not had to teach to the middle, many physical educators are more
assess and practitioners largely do not value assessment as likely to teach to the more skilled by moving on in their
part of the teaching– learning process. The lack of consensus teaching when important steps in a progression have not
on what should be learned, lack of appropriate tools for been learned.
measuring student learning, and the fact that few schools A major problem associated with using student
require teachers in our field to assess learning have all likely performance scores in any evaluation of a teacher or a
played a role in developing this culture. program is the potential of students to demonstrate growth.
Students have different potentials for learning what is
assessed. Teachers who work with high-ability students may
Lack of Program Time and Other Barriers
be at a disadvantage on standardized tests simply because
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

One of the barriers to developing a national perspective or high-ability student scores top out, meaning the potential for
accountability for student learning in physical education is gain is not there. Students at the other end of the continuum
the great diversity in the amount of program time devoted to may not show a great deal of improvement because the
physical education—not only nationally but within the same measure is inappropriate for where they are in the content.
state. It is difficult to hold teachers accountable for more Teachers are not in control of the many variables that may
than minimum expectations for learning when teachers do affect how a student performs, and this makes the use of
not have the time needed to teach for those expectations and absolute standardized test scores a real problem for
when we have very little information on how much time it identifying effective teachers.
takes for students to become competent in an outcome. Educators have tried to solve the problem of potential for
Likewise many physical education programs are faced with learning by using pretest scores and establishing an
large classes, isolation, and a lack of administrator support “expected” score for a student. The expected score is then
(Ennis, 1992; Mackenzie, 1983). compared to the “real” score the student receives, and the
difference becomes the residual score given to the teacher.
Value-added modeling (VAM) uses student achievement
Valid and Reliable Measures
data over time (preferably more than 1 year) to measure the
Assessment materials in most core subjects are developed learning gains students make (Sanders, 2006). VAM is not
nationally by commercial companies whose expertise lies in without its critics. Educators have attributed differences in
the content and measurement and evaluation. One of the teacher scores from year to year to differences in students
problems in physical education has traditionally been the and student behavior rather than what the teacher has done
lack of practical, reliable, and valid measures of program (Hill & Herlihy, 2011). There is also a big concern that the
objectives other than fitness. The two volumes of PE current research base is insufficient to support the use of
Metrics (NASPE, 2010, 2011), one for the elementary level value-added scores for high-stakes decisions and appli-
and one for the secondary level, took more than 10 years to cations (McCaffrey, Koretz, Lockwood, & Hamilton, 2004).
complete and began with the identification of performance VAMs are considered to be fairer than simply comparing
indicators for each standard. Assessment tasks were students’ achievement scores or gain scores without
designed for a sample of the performance indicators and considering potentially confounding context. Nevertheless,
were not intended to be comprehensive of an indicator or the states and districts across the country forced to consider
standard. The PE Metrics material does provide programs student learning in their evaluations of teachers have
with valid and reliable measures. Because physical embraced VAM as a way to measure teacher effectiveness,
education has few permanent products, the motor either as the primary evaluation of teaching or as part of a
performance assessments require video recording, which more comprehensive system (NCTQ, 2011).
to some extent reduces their practicality from a teacher’s When a subject area is a nontested content area, meaning
perspective. The usefulness of the material is also reduced that standardized, national assessments are not available,
because the material only samples potential outcomes for not approved to be used, or not used, most states are using
broad standards, and it is quite likely that assessment what are commonly referred to as “school scores” to
materials would not be available for the all the content that evaluate teachers in these subject areas. School scores are a
programs would define as important outcomes. compilation of the academic scores of student achievement
 MEASURING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 411

across the tested content areas. For teachers who teach in narrowing the curriculum (teaching to the test) but increases
nontested subject areas like physical education, this means the probability that those minimal expectations will be
that they are evaluated using student performance in content achieved by students.
areas they do not teach.
Advocacy
POTENTIAL POSITIVE EFFECTS OF MEASURING One of the unintended consequences of high-stakes
STUDENT OUTCOMES assessment in the schools is the effect it has had on
outcomes and content areas not part of the core academic
Many of the problems and issues associated with using subjects. What is not measured does not count. What does
student performance outcomes to evaluate physical edu- not count does not receive the support and resources needed
cation programs and/or teachers have been discussed in this and may even be eliminated from the school program. One
article. In spite of the problems associated with the use of way to maintain resources and get support, particularly for
student performance as part of a teacher evaluation system, marginalized program areas, is to become part of the reform
there may be merit in using student scores at least as part of a movement. Currently, that means clearly identifying
teacher evaluation system. This section focuses on the outcomes, supplying policymakers with data on student
potential positive aspects of making the decision to do so. achievement, and looking carefully at how we evaluate
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

programs and teachers.

Some level of accountability for program and/or teacher
Shared Vision
effectiveness can help prevent program erosion and act as a
One of the positive effects of the standards and assessment very powerful advocacy tool. Teachers, programs, and
movement is the potential to create a shared vision of what schools do not want to be perceived as low-performing in
students should know and be able to do. Creating standards any category or content area of a school program. They will
and holding educators accountable for outcomes related to do what they need to do to improve their status whether or
those standards also has the potential for creating a national not there are high-stakes consequences for not being good.
dialogue about what those outcomes might look like once For physical education, this means the potential for more
developed in the school program. Since the original content program time, more teachers, more equipment, support for
standards for physical education were published in 1995 professional development, competent leadership, and some
(NASPE), most states have either adopted or adapted the level of accountability for teachers.
national standards, which can be considered at least some
level of support for the notion of a shared vision. Unlike the
Teacher Development
academic subject areas in the school curriculum that rely
largely on the selection of textbooks to define the content When teachers and schools are evaluated on student
and its progression through the program, physical education performance, the focus is on teaching for learning. This is
has for the most part assumed that teachers in a school true in the academic areas as well as physical education
district can define the content of a good physical education (Werner & Rink, 1989). One of the positive effects of
program and develop it throughout the school program collecting student performance data is that it motivates
independently. This is particularly problematic when teachers to seek help in how to better facilitate student
districts do not have supervision with content expertise in learning through professional development experiences and
our field and has resulted in varied interpretations of the encourages districts to provide that support.
standards and less-than-effective programs. Although much
of our literature in the past has assumed that teachers in the
Accountability
field do not support defining student outcomes or
curriculum, there is little evidence that this is true (Fleming, Setting high standards for achievement has the potential to
1998; Rink, Jones, Kirby, Mitchell, & Doutis, 2007). inspire greater effort (American Educational Research
The standards and assessment movement has always Association, 2010). Academic programs have traditionally
assumed that if you designate what should be taught and had some level of accountability for student outcomes.
hold educators responsible for the content, they should be Parents want their children to be able to read and do math.
free to develop that content appropriately for their context. Schools want students to do well on national tests. On the
Standards were designed to describe minimal expectations other hand, physical education programs have had little
for students rather than be inclusive of what a good program accountability for student outcomes. Parents and many
should teach. “Indicators” of the standards must be policymakers and administrators tend to be uninformed
described when assessment material is designed to measure about the objectives of the program, other than opportunities
the standards. This narrows the inclusiveness of the to develop fitness. Program assessment is largely nonexis-
assessment and therefore increases the potential for tent. Lack of accountability has allowed programs to be free
 412 J. E. RINK

from the negative effects of top-down supervision. More would be accompanied by extensive teacher development
often than not, lack of accountability has reflected a status as programs. The program was designed to collect student
an unimportant subject area, has protected poor teaching and performance data as an indicator of program effectiveness.
poor programs, and has inhibited the incentive to do better. Early on in meetings with high school teachers, it became
clear that teachers wanted data reported by teacher as well.
Good teachers wanted credit for their teaching and did not
THE SOUTH CAROLINA EXPERIENCE want their data combined with those in their departments
who they felt were not doing a good job. Ultimately, reports
One of the more comprehensive efforts to improve physical were designed to include state-level data, school-level data,
education programs through standards, assessment, and and teacher data for each of the four performance indicators.
accountability began in South Carolina in 1994 with the School reports were sent to teachers, principals, super-
publication of state standards to be followed by the intendents, and the South Carolina Department of
development of assessment materials for those standards Education.
and the first mandated statewide data collection on student Teacher effects in classroom literature have been
performance in 2000. The process involved building reported to be large (Nye, Konstantopoulus, & Hedges,
consensus, developing materials, establishing state policy, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004).
and extensive teacher development. The beginning stages of Differences between teachers even in the same school
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

the program involved more than 100 professionals from all teaching the same performance indicator in the SCPEAP
school levels and representatives from almost all of the data were also very large (Mitchell, Castelli, & Strainer,
teacher-training institutions in the state doing much to 2003). The effect of reporting teacher data to administrators
create that shared vision. was to increase teacher incentive to do well and to have the
Five years of high school student performance data and 1 administrators question differences in student performance
year of elementary and middle school data were collected, between teachers, which in itself acted as a mechanism for
and 1 year of elementary and middle school data was accountability.
collected before the economic recession forced the state to
put on hold all assessment other than that federally
Narrowing the Curriculum
mandated. The South Carolina experience can inform the
discussion on collecting student performance data to Standardized assessment material was not available at the
evaluate teachers and/or programs. The process, program, onset of SCPEAP. NASPE assessment materials were not
and results of the 1st-year data collection appear as a published until 10 years after the program’s onset.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education monograph Performance indicators and assessment tasks would have
(Rink & Mitchell, 2003). to be developed to collect student performance data on the
Teacher evaluation systems seek to measure student standards. The goal was to identify minimal expectations
growth. This means you need to have some kind of for student learning that could be achieved by all students
premeasure of student learning. The decision was made by with effective instruction. One of the major criticisms of
physical educators in the state to focus on program standardized testing is that it narrows the curriculum to
assessment and not to ask teachers already reluctant to give what is tested. Given the poor quality of many programs
up class time for assessment to collect data twice. The South throughout the state, the assumption was made that if the
Carolina Physical Education Assessment Program assessments were good and representative of a good
(SCPEAP) was designed to collect data for a school every program, then the idea of assessment driving the
3 years. The program did not collect pretest data and it curriculum was a good thing. Teachers will do whatever
sampled classes for each teacher, therefore making it far less they need to do to ensure that their students will do well on
than a comprehensive assessment program and subject to all the test (Linn, 2000). However, if the assessments are
the disadvantages of using student performance scores narrow representations of what should be a broad
discussed earlier in this article. In spite of these weaknesses, curriculum and assessment drives the curriculum, it is a
the potential for positive change has been documented (Rink bad thing. Grade-level task forces were established to work
& Stewart, 2003). on both the development of the performance indicators and
assessment tasks. College and university faculty across the
state played a major role in developing the assessments and
Program Assessment or Teacher Evaluation?
piloting all of the materials. Four high school indicators
One of the major decisions facing SCPEAP was how the were developed as exit criteria for the high school program
data would be reported and for what purpose. The purpose as follows:
of the program was always to create a shared vision of what
good programs can and should be doing and to develop . Performance Indicator 1: demonstrate competency in
some level of accountability for doing so. Assessment at least two movement forms.
 MEASURING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 413

. Performance Indicator 2: design and develop an Change in Student Learning

appropriate physical fitness program to achieve a desired
The goal of the assessment program was to increase student
level of personal fitness.
learning in the state standards. The 1st year of data collection at
. Performance Indicator 3: participate regularly in health-
a school would act as a baseline to document change. Because
enhancing physical activity outside the physical
schools were evaluated every 3 years, only the high school
education class.
. Performance Indicator 4: meet the gender and age-group
data were available to document change in student
performance from one data collection to the next. Changes
health-related physical fitness standard as published by
in school data and teacher data from the first time data were
NASPE.
collected for a school to the second time indicated a significant
change in student competency in three of the performance
indicators: competency in at least two movement forms, the
ability of students to design and develop an appropriate
To prevent a narrowing of the curriculum, assessment
physical fitness program to achieve a desired level of personal
rubrics for 23 different activities were developed at the high
fitness (Stewart & Mitchell, 2003), and student fitness levels.
school level with the option for programs to submit others.
Performance Indicator 3—participate regularly in health-
The indicators and assessment materials were designed to
enhancing physical activity outside the physical education
give programs flexibility in the content.
class—was high at the first data collection (Hall, French,
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

Elementary and middle school materials were developed

Webster, Harvey, & Crollick, 2009; Heidorn, 2007).
several years after the high school materials. The
elementary level was the most problematic in terms of the
implications for curriculum. At the lower grade levels, there Advocacy
are many essential fundamental motor skills and all could Research done on teacher perceptions of the program at the
not be assessed without making the assessment impractical. high school level supports the idea that assessment can act
Ultimately, the most critical skills in all three curricular as an advocate for programs. Before the mandated data
areas—educational dance, gymnastics, and games—were collection, teachers saw the efforts to establish indicators
determined, and assessment material was developed for and assessment as something being done “for them” and not
those skills. The potential for narrowing the curriculum at “to them” (Fleming, 1998). Likewise, teachers who had
the elementary level was high but would encourage the done the assessment saw the assessment program as support
development of fundamental skills considered essential for for their programs within the school (Castelli & Rink,
the development of a physically active lifestyle (Stodden 2003). Many programs were able to get reduced class sizes
et al., 2008). The development of the middle school data and equipment they needed and were able to obtain
was less problematic in that students at this level can scheduling concessions from guidance counselors. When
combine skills in activities in one assessment task. physical education programs have expectations for what
Indicators would have to be designed so that programs students should learn, the programs are put on more equal
had a choice for activities to teach, but the assessment tasks footing with other content areas within the school.
assessed students at the same level between activities.
Each of the performance indicators represented a Level of Accountability
significant curriculum change for most high school
programs dominated by team sports and elementary The South Carolina experience with state-level assessment
programs that did not include one or more of the curriculum was a positive one and would support the idea that high-
areas being assessed. In spite of the short duration of data stakes assessment is not needed to produce change but some
collection, change in high school curricula as a result of the level of accountability is needed. Reports were given to
assessment program was documented (Fleming, 1998; administrators. Some administrators created a dialogue with
Pebworth, 2006; Stanne, 1999; Wirszyla, 1998). This teachers on the content of the reports and some did not. The
supports the positive effect that assessment of student South Carolina Department of Education received reports
performance accompanied by extensive teacher develop- for all the schools but applied no accountability for low-
ment can have on curriculum change. The standards and performing schools. In this experience, the idea that data are
assessment materials for the state were used “voluntarily” collected and reported to someone outside the gym was
before the assessment program was mandated. A study of sufficient to create a level of accountability for change.
the high- and low-performing high schools indicates that
low-performing schools did not begin to make changes until MULTIPLE MEASURES FOR TEACHER
the assessment was mandated, providing evidence that EVALUATION
policy that creates some kind of accountability for change
may be necessary if large-scale change is to be produced What is clear in the literature is that most professionals look-
(Castelli & Rink, 2003). ing at the evaluation of teachers support a multidimensional
 414 J. E. RINK

model (Kane & Staiger, 2012). Although there is a clear trend and many of the variables articulated in the tool are
toward using some kind of objective measure of student components of teacher observation tools now being used
learning (30 states; NCTQ, 2011) and VAM has the best across the country. The tool itself provides indicators for the
predictive value for identifying effectiveness (Kane & Staiger, four domains (dimensions; only two of which are direct
2012), few states have made student performance on observation with students) and components (subcategories)
standardized tests the only measure of teacher effectiveness with very specific descriptions, examples of each, and a
or criterion for teacher evaluation. comprehensive scoring rubric. The domains and components
The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project of the FFT instrument are certainly appropriate for evaluating
(Gates Foundation, 2013a) was a 3-year study designed to physical education lessons. The problem is in the descriptors.
determine how to best identify and promote great teaching What is good grouping and management in the classroom
and concluded that student achievement gains and teacher is not necessarily good grouping and management in
observation together have the best predictive value (Gates physical education. Teacher questioning is a critical skill
Foundation, 2013b). Support for using each measure is used in the classroom to develop student understanding of
based upon differences in the predictive power, reliability, the content. Rink (1979) argued that the critical unit for
and diagnostic usefulness of the measure. content development in physical education is the teacher
An approach to identifying effective teachers and movement task and the student movement response to that
evaluating teachers using multiple measures is less likely to task. To use the FFT with any validity in physical education,
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

produce fluctuating ratings from 1 year to the next and is more the descriptors and examples would need to be changed and
likely to identify teachers who produce better outcomes. observers would need to be trained to discriminate the
Although measuring the products of learning is critical for behaviors. The Physical Education and Lesson Observation
accountability, observation of teaching has become an Tool developed in Singapore is an example of a tool that
essential component of such systems and is critical for helping attempted to do so. An example from that tool for
teachers improve what they do so they can become effective. management is presented in (Table 2).
The problem with many existing observation tools used by NASPE (2007) developed a teacher observation tool that
many school districts and states is that the tools do not identifies several common constructs used in the evaluation
discriminate between effective and ineffective teachers. of teaching in physical education including: instructional
Observation instruments need to be comprehensive enough variables, evidence of student learning, management, class
to capture a robust vision of effective teaching without climate, and professionalism. Many of the components of
becoming so extensive that they become unmanageable for the constructs are very highly inferred. For the tool be used
observers. Many states and districts have begun the process of effectively and discriminate effective teaching, each of the
developing teacher observation tools that are generic and can components of a construct would have to be defined much
be used across content areas (NCQT, 2011). The difficulty has more clearly with specific examples. Rubrics with multiple
been in designing observation systems that discriminate levels of performance would also have to be designed.
between effective and ineffective teaching across content In physical education, it is likely that different curricula will
areas and designing a system for the use of those tools that is a emphasize different instructional arrangements and teach-
valid representation of a teacher’s work. ing behaviors. For example, it is likely that the evaluation
The observation tools developed and/or tested by the criteria for a sport education lesson or a lesson in teaching
Gates Foundation (2013a) for the classroom include both games for understanding will have some characteristics of
content-specific and generic approaches and clearly define what is considered good instruction that are different from a
the behaviors expected at multiple levels. The work of the lesson that utilizes direct instruction more exclusively.
Gates Foundation is not unlike the process – product studies Professionals who argue that moderate-to-vigorous physical
conducted in education and physical education referred to at activity (MVPA) should receive a great deal of emphasis
the beginning of this article. The intent in the design of the would certainly want to include that variable, although to
observation tool is to demonstrate a predictive value with use MVPA or any single variable exclusively as a measure
student outcomes. The tools were shown to have a high of teacher effectiveness is not advisable unless it is the only
relationship with student achievement, which means that the outcome desired. In other words, aside from the generic
teachers who scored high on the behaviors designated on variables identified in the FFT and most comprehensive
the observation tool produced a high level of student tools, the objectives of a program would need to be
achievement. When used with other measures of teacher considered in teacher observation tools.
effectiveness, high levels of predictability existed.
An outline of the content used in the Framework for
Problems With Teacher Observation as a Measure of
Teaching Evaluation Instrument (FFT; Danielson Group,
Effectiveness
2013) is provided in Table 1 as an example of a generic tool
found to be a reliable tool related to student learning in the One of the major problems with teacher observation tools is
academic areas. This is one of the most comprehensive tools, that they are designed primarily to observe the behavior of
 MEASURING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 415

TABLE 1 TABLE 1 – (Continued)

The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument, 2013
3B: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
DOMAIN 1: PLANNING AND PREPARATION
Quality of questions
1A: Knowledge of Content and the Structure of the Discipline
Discussion techniques
Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline
Student participation
Knowledge of prerequisite relationships
3C: Engaging Students in Learning
Knowledge of content-related pedagogy
Activities and assignments
1B: Knowledge of Students
Grouping of students
Knowledge of child and adolescent development
Instructional materials
Knowledge of the learning process
Structure and pacing
Knowledge of students’ skills, knowledge, and language proficiency
3D: Using Assessment in Instruction
Knowledge of students’ interests and cultural heritage
Assessment criteria
Knowledge of students’ special needs
Monitoring of student learning
1C: Setting Instructional Outcomes
Feedback to students
Value, sequence, and alignment: Outcomes represent significant learning
Student self-assessment and monitoring of progress
Clarity: Outcomes refer to what students will learn, not what they will do
3E: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
Balance: Outcomes reflect different types of learning, such as
Lesson adjustment
knowledge, conceptual understanding, and thinking skills
Response to students
Suitability for diverse students
Persistence
1D: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

DOMAIN 4: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Resources for classroom use align with learning outcomes.
4A: Reflecting on Teaching
Resources to extend content knowledge and pedagogy of teacher
Accuracy
Resources for students must be appropriately challenging.
Use in future teaching
1E: Designing Coherent Instruction
4B: Maintaining Accurate Records
Learning activities designed to engage students and advance them
Student completion of assignments
through the content
Student progress in learning
Instructional materials and resources appropriate to the learning needs of
Noninstructional records
the students
4C: Communicating With Families
Instructional groups to support student learning
Information about the instructional program
Lesson and unit structure to produce clear and sequenced lesson and unit
Information about individual students
structures to advance student learning
Engagement of families in the instructional program
1F: Designing Student Assessments
4D: Participating in the Professional Community
Congruence with instructional outcomes
Relationships with colleagues
Criteria and standards must be clearly defined.
Involvement in a culture of professional inquiry
Design of formative assessments as part of the instructional process
Service to the school
Results of assessment guide future planning.
Participation in school and district projects
DOMAIN 2: THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
4E: Growing and Developing Professionally
2A: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
Enhancement of content knowledge and pedagogical skill
Teacher interactions with students, including both words and actions
Receptivity to feedback from colleagues
Student interactions with other students
Service to the profession
2B: Establishing a Culture for Learning
4F: Showing Professionalism
Importance of the content and of learning
Integrity and ethical conduct
Expectations for learning and achievement
Service to students
Student pride in work
Advocacy
2C: Managing Classroom Procedures
Decision making
Management of instructional groups
Compliance with school and district regulations
Management of transitions
Management of materials and supplies Notes. These are the subcategories of the instrument. In a few cases,
Performance of classroom routines they have been shortened for space purposes. They are described with
2D: Managing Student Behavior examples of each and a comprehensive scoring rubric in the original
Expectations instrument. Adapted with permission from The Framework for Teaching
Monitoring of student behavior Evaluation Instrument (FFT), by Danielson Group, 2013. Copyright 2013
Response to student misbehavior by Danielson Group.
2E: Organizing Physical Space
Safety and accessibility
Arrangement of furniture and use of physical resources
DOMAIN 3: INSTRUCTION
3A: Communicating With Students the teacher. The instructional process is an interactive
Expectations for learning: goals communicated process. The appropriateness of teacher behavior depends
Directions for activities on what the students are doing and the appropriateness of
Explanations of content that behavior to the content. Task presentations are effective
Use of oral and written language
when students do what the teacher has asked and when the
(continued) information teachers give students is accurate. Feedback is
effective when students can use that information to change
 416 J. E. RINK

TABLE 2 teachers are consistent with the education literature (NASPE,

Singapore Physical Education Lesson Observation Tool (PELOT)— 2007). Teachers should:
Management Indicators for Physical Education

Lesson is managed to promote learning . be evaluated with standards, expectations, procedures,

and rigor that parallel teachers of other curricular areas;
Students are actively involved in tasks, with no delay in their participation . be observed, assessed, and evaluated by trained
when they report for lessons.
evaluators;
Routines and behavioral expectations are established and adhered to
by students. . be observed multiple times during the academic year;
Students are physically safe. . be observed for the entire class period, from beginning
The organization of space, equipment, and students supports instruction and to end;
allows for maximum practice. . be observed and evaluated as part of a comprehensive
Appropriate and sufficient equipment is used to maximize learning.
assessment plan, which should include formal con-
Task transitions promote maximum practice.
A positive learning environment is established. ferences, professional growth plans, etc.; and
On-task behavior is maintained. . be accountable for student achievement of state
standards in physical education or the NASPE (2004)
Note. Adapted with permission from Physical Education Lesson
in the absence of state standards (NASPE 2007).
Observation Tool, by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2013.
Copyright 2013 by the Physical Education & Sports Teacher Academy,
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

Ministry of Education, Singapore.

CONCLUSION

what they do. Progressions are effective when students Establishing a valid and reliable system to evaluate the
experience success. Management is effective when students effectiveness of physical education teachers will require
have high levels of quality practice time. Observing resources beyond the principal making an occasional visit
teaching without also observing the effect of teacher into the gym to observe a teacher using generic criteria with
behavior on what the students do is problematic. Tools definitions more suited to classroom observations. If VAM
designed to look at what the teacher does exclusively are is used, there will need to be a great deal of record-keeping,
actually measuring many of the instructional variables standardized assessments, and training in how to administer
identified earlier as “necessary but not sufficient” for the assessments. Policymakers are not likely to be willing to
effectiveness. They are likely to identify teachers with less- make such an investment for a profession that does not value
than-adequate instructional skills, but teachers who score or work to make it so or without top-level policy that
high on the instruments may not necessarily produce the requires it (Kirby, 2005).
desired outcomes of that instruction. If physical education is to be a supported school
Observing the effectiveness and appropriateness of program, physical educators must be willing to define their
what the teacher does requires observers who know the program outcomes and ways to measure those outcomes.
content area. Physical education is at a disadvantage in They must also be willing to hold programs and
measuring products because we have no permanent practitioners accountable for effective teaching. Although
products of the process of motor skills unless they are having a shared vision of what those outcomes should be
video-recorded. Physical education is at an advantage in would do much to support advocacy for the profession,
that student behavior with the content is very observable. it is more important for programs to align outcomes,
The best observation systems would consider both teacher teacher evaluations, and student assessment with the
behavior and student behavior in the context of the designated outcomes of the program. It is unacceptable for
content. When the context and appropriateness of teacher students to be evaluated on content they have not had an
behavior are considered, tools become more highly opportunity to learn or for physical education teachers to
inferred and dependent on the competence of the observer. be evaluated on content they are not expected to teach.
School districts without a supervisor who is a specialist The profession is best served by the development of both
in physical education are likely not to invest the time student assessment and teacher evaluation materials that
in developing instruments for our field, which may match outcomes.
mean that tools with a manageable set of competencies The current emphasis on measuring teacher effectiveness
fully developed for different performance levels may will impact physical education either positively or
need to be more fully developed at the state or national negatively depending on the extent to which physical
level. educators become participants in the reform movement.
For a tool to be a reliable indicator of teacher Designing and conducting a quality teacher or program
effectiveness, three to four observations a year must be evaluation for physical education has the potential to be a
conducted (Gates Foundation, 2013b). The recommen- significant impetus for change in our field, in spite of the
dations of NASPE for the evaluation of physical education identified measurement weaknesses in available tools and
 MEASURING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 417

processes. Quality evaluation programs should minimally Gates Foundation. (2013a). Measures of Effective Teaching project (Final
include measures of student performance, and if possible, research report). Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/reports.php
Gates Foundation. (2013b). MET report: Teacher observation less reliable
growth as well as observations of teaching. Evaluating than test scores. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/reports.php
teachers provides an incentive for change and a foundation Graber, K. (2001). Research on teaching physical education. In
for quality teacher development both at the preservice and V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.)
in-service levels. (pp. 491–519). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Gusthart, J., & Springings, E. (1989). Student learning as a measure of
teaching effectiveness. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8,
WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD? 298–311.
Hall, T. H., French, K. E., Webster, C. A., Harvey, R. L., & Crollick, J.
(2009). South Carolina secondary physical education programs:
This article synthesizes the current work being done in
Improvement across three years [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for
measuring teacher effectiveness and emphasizes the Exercise and Sport, 80(Suppl. 1), A–58.
importance of developing and establishing valid and Heidorn, B. (2007). The effectiveness of an outside of school physical
reliable tools and processes of evaluation for the field of activity requirement for high school students (Unpublished doctoral
physical education. Assessment of teacher effectiveness has dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Hemphill, M., Templin, T., Richards, K., & Blankenship, B. (2012).
the potential to improve the practice of physical education
A content analysis of qualitative research in the Journal of Teaching in
through the development of clear outcomes, student and Physical Education from 1998 to 2008: Part one. Journal of Teaching in
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

teacher assessment tied to those outcomes, and account- Physical Education, 31, 279–281.
ability for the development of those outcomes. Hill, H., & Herlihy, C. (2011). Prioritizing teaching quality in a new system
of teacher evaluation. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute
Policy Studies. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/policy/education/k-12
Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. D. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching:
REFERENCES Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and
achivement gains. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
American Educational Research Association. (2010). Position statement on Retrieved from http://metroproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_
high stakes assessment in pre-k –12 education. Retrieved from http:// Feedback_Research_Paper.pdf
www.aera.net/AboutAERA/AERARulesPolicies/AERAPolicyStatements/ Kirby, K. (2005). High school principal’s perceptions and support for a
PositionStatementonHighStakesTesting/tabid/11083/Default.aspx state physical education assessment program (Unpublished doctoral
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Pub. L. No. dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia.
111–5, § 14005-6, Title XIV. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher,
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1984). Occasional paper #73. East Lansing: 29(2), 4–16.
Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Mackenzie, D. (1983). Research for school improvement: An appraisal of
Castelli, D., & Rink, J. (2003). A comparison of high and low performing some recent trends. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 5– 17.
secondary physical education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Masser, L. (1985). The effect of refinement on student achievement in a
Education, 22, 512–532. fundamental motor skill in Grades K through 6. Journal of Teaching in
Chen, A., Martin, R., Ennis, C. D., & Sun, H. (2008). Content specificity of Physical Education, 6, 174–182.
expectancy beliefs and task values in elementary physical education. McCaffrey, D., Koretz, D., Lockwood, J., & Hamilton, L. (2004).
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 195–208. Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. New York,
Chen, W., Rovegno, I., Cone, T. P., & Cone, S. L. (2012). An accomplished NY: Rand Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/
teacher’s use of scaffolding during a second grade unit on designing monographs/MG158.html
games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, 221–234. Medley, D. (1979). Teacher competence and teacher effectiveness: A review of
Cruikshank, D., & Haefele, D. (1991). Good teachers, plural. Educational process product research. New York, NY: American Association of
Leadership, 58(5), 26–30. Colleges for Teacher Education, Committee on Performance-Based
Danielson Group. (2013). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Teacher Education.
Instrument (FFT). Princeton, NJ: Author. Metztler, M., McKenzie, T., van der Mars, H., Barrett-Williams, S., & Ellis,
Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York, NY: R. (2013). Health Optimizing Physical Education (HOPE): A new
Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. curriculum for school programs—Part 2: Teacher knowledge and
Ennis, C. (1992). Developing physical education curriculum based on collaboration. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 84
learning goals. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 63 (5), 25–56.
(7), 74 –77. Mitchell, M., Castelli, D., & Strainer, S. (2003). Student performance data,
Fleming, D. (1998). The impact of state-mandated change and a systemic school attributes and relationships. Journal of Teaching in Physical
inservice training project on high school physical education curriculum Education, 22, 494–511.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia: University of South National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995). Moving
Carolina. into the future: National standards for physical education. Reston, VA:
French, K., Rink, J., Rickard, L., Mays, A., Lynn, S., & Werner, P. (1991). Author.
The effects of practice progressions on learning two volleyball skills. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2004). Moving
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 261–274. into the future: National standards for physical education (2nd ed.).
French, K., Werner, P., Rink, J., Taylor, K., & Hussey, K. (1996). The Reston, VA: Author.
effects of a 3-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2007). Physical
instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal Education Tool. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.
of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 418–438. aahperd.org/naspe/publications/TeachingTools/observepe.cfm
 418 J. E. RINK

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2010). PE Sanders, W. L. (2006, October). Comparisons among various educational
Metricse: Assessing National Standards 1–6 in elementary school. assessment value-added models. Paper presented at The Power of Two—
Reston, VA: AAHPERD. National Value-Added Conference, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2011). PE http://www.sas.com/resources/asset/vaconferencepaper.pdf
Metricse: Assessing National Standards 1– 6 in secondary school. Silverman, S., Devillier, R., & Ramı́rez, T. (1991). The validity of
Reston, VA: AAHPERD. Academic Learning Time–Physical Education (ALT– PE) as a process
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). CTQ State Teacher Policy measure of student achievement. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Yearbook Brief Area 3: Identifying effective teachers. Retrieved from Sport, 62, 319 –325.
http://www.nctq.org/reports.do?d¼Stateþ Policy&searchTerm¼Identi Silverman, S. & Ennis, C. (Eds.). (2003). Student learning in physical
fyingþEffectiveþTeachers education: Applying research to enhance instruction. Champaign, IL:
Nye, B., Konstantopoulus, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are Human Kinetics.
teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, Silverman, S., & Skonie, R. (1997). Research on teaching physical
237–257. education: Analysis of published research. Journal of Teaching in
Pebworth, K. (2006). High school physical education curriculum in the Physical Education, 16, 300–311.
state of South Carolina (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Stanne, K. (1999). The effect of a varied and choice curriculum on the
of South Carolina, Columbia. participation, perceptions and attitudes of females in physical education
Penney, D., Clarke, G., Quill, M., & Kinchin, G. (2005). Sport education in (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina,
physical education: Research based practice. Philadelphia, PA: Columbia.
Routledge. Stewart, S., & Mitchell, M. (2003). Instructional variables and high school
Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2009). How K –12 teachers can put self- students’ knowledge and conceptions of health related fitness. Journal of
determination theory principles into practice. Theory and Research in Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 533 –551.
Downloaded by [Thomas Lawson] at 08:27 22 February 2016

Education, 7, 145–154. Stodden, D., Goodway, J., Langendorfer, S., Roberton, M., Rudisell, M.,
Rink, J. (1979). Development of an observation system for content Garcia, L., & Garcia, E. (2008). A developmental perspective on the role
development in physical education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship.
The Ohio State University, Columbus. Quest, 60, 290–306.
Rink, J. (2013). Teaching physical education for learning (7th ed.). New Sun, H., & Chen, A. (2010). An examination of sixth graders’ self-
York, NY: McGraw-Hill. determined motivation and learning in physical education. Journal of
Rink, J., French, K., Werner, P., Lynn, S., & Mays, A. (1992). The influence Teaching in Physical Education, 29, 262 –277.
of content development on the effectiveness of instruction. Journal of Sweeting, T., & Rink, J. (1999). Effects of direct instruction and
Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 139– 149. environmentally designed instruction on the process and product
Rink, J., Jones, L., Kirby, K., Mitchell, M., & Doutis, P. (2007). Teacher characteristics of a fundamental skill. Journal of Teaching in Physical
perceptions of a physical education statewide assessment program. Education, 18, 216–233.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 204–215. Werner, P., & Rink, J. (1989). Case studies of teacher effectiveness in
Rink, J., & Mitchell, M. (Eds.) (2003). State level assessment in physical physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4,
education: The South Carolina experience [Monograph]. Journal of 280–297.
Teaching in Physical Education, 22. Wirszyla, J. (1998). Case studies of state-mandated curriculum change in
Rink, J., & Stewart, S. (2003). Insights and reflections on a state assessment three high school physical education programs (Unpublished doctoral
program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 573–588. dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and Zhang, T., Solmon, M. A., Kosma, M., Carson, R. L., & Gu, X. (2011).
academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458. Need support, need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and physical
Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: activity participation among middle school students. Journal of Teaching
Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94, 247–252. in Physical Education, 30, 51–68.