Planning and Evaluating

Physical Activity Programmes/Experiences

Workshop Overview

• Warm-up donut activity – sharing stories

• Introduction to the specifications • Previous scholarship questions• What the examiners look for• Likely scenarios for 2008 • Using a debate to explore a

scholarship question

Definitions• A physical activity programme or

experience may include:– A personal fitness programme– An outdoor education experience– A triathlon– Leisure-based activities– Aerobics routine– Dance performance– Stage Challenge– Festivals that involve movement– Other appropriate programmes/experiences

Brainstorm of Experiences• What programme or experience did you plan?

PAP OE

Sharing Stories – Round 1

1. What programme or experience did you plan for A.S. 3.1 and evaluate for A.S. 3.2?

2. Was it a physical activity plan or an outdoor experience plan or something else?

3. Share some of the pluses and minuses of the experience.

Sharing Stories – Round 21. What programme or experience

did you plan for A.S. 3.1 and evaluate for A.S. 3.2?

2. What were the expected outcomes of the programme?

3. Were they achieved? Why / Why not?

Sharing Stories – Round 3

1. What programme or experience did you plan for A.S. 3.1 and evaluate for A.S. 3.2?

2. How could the planning have been improved?

3. Why would it make a difference?

Sharing Stories – Round 41. What programme or experience

did you plan for A.S. 3.1 and evaluate for A.S. 3.2?

2. What factor had the biggest positive impact on success of the programme?

3. How did it impact? Why?

Sharing Stories – Round 51. What programme or experience

did you plan for A.S. 3.1 and evaluate for A.S. 3.2?

2. What factor had the biggest negative impact on your wellbeing?

3. How did it impact? Why?

2008 SpecificationPlanning and/or evaluating physical activity programmes/experiences

drawing upon knowledge underpinning achievement standards 90739 and 90740.

A.S. 3.1 & 3.2

Previous Scholarship Questions

Scholarship 2007 (A.S. 3.1 & 3.2)PAP OE

Question 1 Scenario A Question 1 Scenario B

Student uses internet to design her PAP programme.

Teacher George’s planning for a 3-day tramp.

Evaluate the process that took place.Hypothesis of the outcome.Depth & breadth of biophysical and socio-cultural factors

Evaluating the process that took place. Hypothesis of the outcome.Depth & breadth of issues related to OE experience, planning, implementation & management processes.

Previous Scholarship Questions

Scholarship 2006 (A.S. 3.1 & 3.2)

PAP (+ A.S. 3.3) OE (+ A.S. 3.5)

Question 3 Question 2

PE teacher Taylor Smith provides a programme for his PE class to train for a 10km run.

Principal’s decision to review place of school camps due to associated risks.

Evaluate the one size fits all method of programmingDepth & breadth of biophysical and socio-cultural factors (specific aspects are identified in the question)

Evaluating the principal’s concernsConsider benefits & problems, the nature of risk, risk management planning tools, principles of risk management.

The assessment schedule and examiners reportInformation on the NZQA Website:http://nzqa.govt.nz/scholarship/subjects/resources.html

• Check the assessment schedules from 2006 & 2007– Content information– Markers schedule

• Check the examiners report from 2006

The examiners report 2006

The best performing candidates most commonly demonstrated the following skills and /or knowledge:– Ability to take a position in regards to the

statements and argue it convincingly– Critical examination of the examination

statements / positions– Evidence of higher level content and wide

reading– Excellent essay writing and time

management for 3 essays.

The examiners report 2006

Candidates who did NOT achieve scholarship...– Used prepared answers that were irrelevant

to questions provided

– Lacked content knowledge and/or depth of knowledge

– Used incorrect or incorrectly applied PE terminology

– Lacked ability to critique statements

The examiners report The examiners report 20062006

For Question 2 on Outdoor Experiences, For Question 2 on Outdoor Experiences, candidates who did candidates who did NOTNOT achieve scholarship... achieve scholarship...

Lacked ability to comment on aspects of risk and did Lacked ability to comment on aspects of risk and did not always distinguish between the nature of risk or not always distinguish between the nature of risk or types of risktypes of risk

Focused more on risk and did not address the Focused more on risk and did not address the benefits and / or issues relating to schools providing benefits and / or issues relating to schools providing OE opportunitiesOE opportunities

Did not address safety managementDid not address safety management

The examiners report 2006The examiners report 2006

For Question 3 on Physical Activity For Question 3 on Physical Activity Programmes, candidates who did Programmes, candidates who did NOTNOT achieve scholarship...achieve scholarship... Did not make a case for whether or not it was a Did not make a case for whether or not it was a

good thing to have a one size fits all good thing to have a one size fits all programmeprogramme

Assumed that physical activity was sportAssumed that physical activity was sport

Successful candidates in 2006Successful candidates in 2006

Question 2: OE contextQuestion 2: OE context Identified that for the principal the key factors were the risk of Identified that for the principal the key factors were the risk of

injury / consequences for school / school responsibility & time injury / consequences for school / school responsibility & time out of class.out of class.

Discussed Safety Management Systems beyond just Discussed Safety Management Systems beyond just completing SAPS / RAMScompleting SAPS / RAMS

Drew on own experience to justify their stance e.g. about the Drew on own experience to justify their stance e.g. about the benefits of outdoor educationbenefits of outdoor education

Provided a good reasoned argument about the role & place of Provided a good reasoned argument about the role & place of outdoor educationoutdoor education

Applied a good reasoned argument about the nature of risk, Applied a good reasoned argument about the nature of risk, types of risk & ways of managing risktypes of risk & ways of managing risk

Successful candidates in Successful candidates in 20062006

Question 3: PAP contextQuestion 3: PAP context Used the scenarios of the four students to explain the Used the scenarios of the four students to explain the

different needs and goals and the effects of different needs and goals and the effects of overtraining for the swimmer / sportsman overtraining for the swimmer / sportsman

Discussed the specificity of training i.e. while the Discussed the specificity of training i.e. while the swimmer would have a good aerobic endurance the swimmer would have a good aerobic endurance the muscle development would be specific to swimming muscle development would be specific to swimming not runningnot running

Provided a sound argument against a one size fits all Provided a sound argument against a one size fits all programme programme

Acknowledged some good points of everybody doing a Acknowledged some good points of everybody doing a programme together but then provided ways of still programme together but then provided ways of still catering to individual needscatering to individual needs

Possible OE scenarios 2008

• Risk & Crisis management• Prevention of risk• Emergency procedures

Examples• Extreme surf skier• Tasman crossing kayakers

Possible PAP scenarios 2008 • Effectiveness of a particular aspect of programming

– e.g. periodisation, fitness testing, pre-testing, application of training principles

• The effectiveness of a programme to achieve its outcomes – e.g. Peaking individuals for an event; unexpected outcomes:

fatigue, overtraining; injury, illness, dehydration, heat exhaustion

• The effectiveness of programmes in general – e.g. The value of having a programme plan

• The effectiveness of a programme for a particular:– Person e.g. Individual needs in a team sport or group situation– Purpose e.g. Specificity to a playing position; peaking for an

event vs maintaining performance over a season; well-being vs sport

The debate & PMIS tools

• For the debate, the whole group will split into

1. The OE group (small room)2. The PAP group (main room)

• Each debate will have three groups1. The Plus group2. The Minus group3. The Judge & Jury group

• The debate is aligned to the essay writing process using PMIS as shown in the next slide

Essay Descriptors Debate

Introduction • Key words Relevant content Hard facts

• Background – own experiences this year

Facilitators

Pluses • Positive view point

What do you agree with?

• Own experience OPV Strengths

Plus group

Minuses • Negative view point

What do you disagree with?

Weaknesses

• Who benefits? Errors of logic OPV Own experience

Minusgroup

Issues • Examine bias Challenge

validity

• Challenge assumptions

Judge &Jury group

Suggestions

• Initiatives New ideas

• Alternatives All

Conclusion • Reflect Main points All