O'Sullivan, M.; Tannehill, D.; Knop, N.; Pope, C.; Henninger, M. (1999). A

school-university collaborative journey toward relevance and

meaning in an urban high school physical education program. Quest,

51, 225-243.

Tyler Goad

Purpose of paper• Purpose: Present findings of a 4 year study

that examined the relevance and meaning of PE to students and faculty (Narrative)

• Focus: collaboration/ professional development supported by PETE institution – provide assistance/support for extended periods

of time

– ensure ownership of new PE program.

• Study addresses challenges encountered during this collaborative partnership

Background and significance of study

• School endanger of closing down– Venture Capital Grant (5 year)

– Increase student academic achievement

– Increase student enrollment via the school choice program

• Institution curriculum emphasis: ACE– Emphasis place on problem solving, critical thinking,

and teamwork

– Offer a unique curricular focus to make the school attractive to students from the feeder middle schools.

Setting of the Study

• Shady Wood High School

• “Real world practical setting”

• Wide gap in SES between inner city and suburban youth

• Friction among students based on race/gender

• Students from 24 different zip codes

Development Stage

• University personnel from all departments

• Initial meetings were awkward

– Unfamiliar with University personnel

– Faculty not a cohesive team

– Limited experience in curricular issues

– Faculty looked for university personnel for direction

– Commitment level was sketchy

– “Meetings to secure funds for our initiative kept us together.”

Characters in the Study

• Barry physical education teacher

– From middle class suburban

– 17 years and at 2nd urban school

– Sport education was new for him

– “My coaching and teaching is always controlled, and this is so different.”

Characters in the Study

• Marry – 5 years urban teaching experience– excited to implement changes.

• Nancy doctoral student– taught personal fitness to SWHS students– “in your face motivator”– Experienced “earthquakes” in implementing

curriculum (students not receptive)– Implemented journals, focus groups, worksheets,

discussions, and an observation system as a “warning sensor” to head them off.

Year 1

• 2 teacher education faculty, 2 exercise physiologists, and 2 graduate students

• Trust developed during this time

• University personnel helped develop curriculum– Personal fitness class 10-12 grades (exercise phys.)

– Sport education 9th grade

• SWHS faculty skeptical of curriculum ideas at this time– Felt it might go over the head of the students

Year 2

• Credibility established through time, effort, and funding meetings (none funded).

• Support from administration

• 2 day off campus retreat to plan PE/Health programs for following year

Year 3

• New teacher hired for ACE

• New class offerings: elective personal fitness, sport psychology, sport marketing, and sport nutrition

• Sport education model established and refined (Barry)

– Paradigm shift in teacher’s attitude.

– Now enthusiast and proactive in his approach

General Findings

• Common barriers found throughout the process where: – time constraints

– initial buy in

– Stereotypes

– maintaining momentum

• Two common themes arose; “a desire for change and a need to care.” – Two items helped in making the long term solution

worth all the small steps

New Insight • Vice principle, “There are lots of folk in the ivory

tower who have no clue about kids needs and what teachers need to help kids. I don’t see your group as being that.”

• Barry stated, “I mean, basically phys-ed is drills…We do a few drills, and we do some game.”

• Mary believed sport education worked very well– Gave students a choice to participate

– feel important/take ownership of learning

– more opportunities to succeed in PE

Personal Meaning

• Mentioned that the captain role can make or break a class in sport education…..have to look at this more closely next semester