Using Content Maps to Measure Content Development in Physical Education: Validation and Application

Abstract

Purpose:This study reports on our efforts toward extending the conceptual understanding of content development in physical education by validating content maps as a measurement tool, examining new categories of instructional tasks to describe content development and validating formulae that can be used to evaluate depth of content development.Method:The reliability, content, and concurrent validity of content maps and formulae were evaluated together with an application of the content maps and formulae. Descriptive statistics were used to report the data.Results:The reliability and validity of content maps was established. The new categories allowed for a finer analysis of content development. All formulae differentiated among different content expertise.Discussion/Conclusion:If depth of content knowledge is evidenced by tasks designed to refine, extend and apply student performance, then the content map, categories and formulae reported in this study provide tools that have utility for teachers, teacher educators and researchers.

Japanese Physical Education Preservice Teachers' Specialized Content Knowledge

“…The validity, reliability, and concurrent validity of this measure have been previously established in differentiating between weak and strong SCK among teachers (Ward et al, 2017). Ward et al (2017) found that an SCK index score "3" is a cut-point which distinguishes between weak and strong SCK of teachers. A score three represents content development by a teacher that is three progressions beyond the initial task taught to the students.…”

“…Content maps were used to measure the SCK of participants (the detailed description of content maps can be found in Ward, Lehwald, and Lee, 2015). Content maps have been validated in a number of studies (Tsuda et al, 2019;Ward et al, 2018;Ward et al, 2017). A content map is a graphic organizer of SCK that defines the content that could be taught to students in an instructional unit of a particular duration (e.g., 5, 10, or 20 lessons; Ward et al, 2015).…”

Untitled

“…The selection and sequencing of instructional tasks, called content development or content progression, in a developmentally appropriate way so that students achieve an instructional outcome is a critical skill in teaching (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008;Rink, 2009;Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000;Ward, 2013;Ward et al, 2017). Effective teaching is characterized by the development of content that moves students through simple to complex learning experiences towards a higher level of competency (Rink, 2006;Rink & Hall, 2008).…”

“…Applying tasks focus on a student's ability to apply the performance in a particular context such as a game or it can be used as an assessment of student performance. Given the widespread development and implementation of instructional models using small sided games such as Teaching Games for Understanding (Griffin & Butler, 2005), Play Practice (Launder & Piltz, 2013) and Sport Education (Siedentop, Hastie, & van der Mars, 2011), Ward et al (2017) refined Rink's initial categories to describe content development within games more precisely by creating four additional tasks: extending-applying, refining-applying, applying-nongame and applying-game tasks. Extending-applying and refining-applying tasks are extending and refining tasks that occur in the context of small sided games or that might be used when teaching in a game.…”

“…Research using Rink's (1994) task categories has shown that in general, teachers have little content development beyond the initial informing task (Ayvazo & Ward, 2011;Gusthart, 1985;Ward, He, Wang, & Li, 2018;Ward, Tsuda, Dervent, & Devrilmez, 2018). Often, teachers implement an informing task followed by one or two refining or extending tasks before moving to game play, a combination usually resulting in poor student learning (Ayvazo & Ward, 2011;Kim, 2011;Sinelnikov, Kim, Ward, Curtner-Smith, & Li, 2015;Ward, Kim, Ko, & Li, 2015;Ward et al, 2017). Gusthart and Rink's (1983) study, investigating preservice teachers' (PST's)…”