100% Original, Plagiarism Free, Tailored to your instructions

Order Now!

Critique of Instructional Models for PE

Critique of Instructional Models for PE
Order Description
check “PE Education Essay Instruction.pdf” which I will upload later for details.
– We only have access to EBSCO HOST (database). Please do not use any supporting documents which are not available for free on the internet and not in this database.
– Please use Australian Curriculum http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/health-and-physical-education/curriculum/f-10?layout=1
– Please contact me if you do not have access to EBSCO HOST and need more journal articles.
– Please do not use many big words or very complicated grammar structure as English is not my first language.
– Please use PDF files that I upload on top of the above textbook. I need at least 6 sources included in the essay, but you can use as many as you want.
Essay requirements:
2000 Words
Choose two models from the following list: Direct Instruction; Cooperative Learning; Sport Education; Peer Teaching; Inquiry Teaching; and Tactical Games (Metzler,
A variety of instructional models can be used for teaching Physical Education. Apply critical thinking in order to compare and contrast two models with regards to the
theories of teaching and learning in Physical Education and the complexities in HPE.
Draw upon relevant peer reviewed theory and research, and the current curriculum for HPE in order to construct your critique.
Metzler, M. (2005). Instructional models for physical education. (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers. (Please refer the summarised PDF file “Metzler
Instructional Model.pdf”)
This assessment item provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of the following learning outcomes:
(1) Describe students’ common stages and patterns of development in HPE
(3) Understand complexities in HPE as a discipline including its description in AusVELS and the Australian Curriculum
(4) Develop a range of pedagogies to enable students’ effective learning about and through HPE including the use of digital technologies
Copyright Regulations 1969
This material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of Tabor
College Victoria pursuant to Part V8 of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act). The material
in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further
reproduction or communication of thís material by you may be the subject of copyright
protection under the Act.
Do not reniove this notice.
Eu ropean Phy,Fjffi!,H$ysation Review
Proposing conditions for assessment efficacy in physical education
Peter Hay and Dawn Penney
European Physical Education Review 2009 15: 389
DOI: 1 0.1 177 I 1356336X09364294
The online version of this article can be found at:
http ://e pe. sa ge pu b. com/contenV 1 5/3/389
Published by:
http ://wwr,v.sagepubl i cations. com
On behalf of:
North West Counties Physical Education Association
Additional services and information for European Physical Educatíon Review can be found at:
Email Alerts : http://epe.sagepu b. com/cg i/aleds
Subscriptions: http://epe.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints : http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://r,vww.sagepub,com/journalsPermissions. nav
C itations : http://epe.sagepub. com/contenVl 5/3/389. refs. html
>> Version of Record – Jul 12,2010
What is This?
Downloaded from epe.sagepub.com al Charles Sturt Un¡versily on January 22,2012
Volu me I 5 (3) :3 89405:3 6429 4
Proposing condition¡ for a¡¡enm?nt efficacy
in physical education
Peter Hay University of Queensland, Australia
Dawn Penney University of Tasmania, Australia
ln arguing for more comprehensive practice, policy and research considerations of
assessment in physical education (PE),this paper outlines and discusses four integrated
conditions of assessment effìcacy for the development and promotion of productive
assessment rn PE. These conditions are prefaced by the proposition that quality PE
requires the concerted and considered alignment of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment
and the inclusion of a primary focus on assessment for learning; authentic,
integrated assessment; assurance of construct validity; and socially just approaches to
assessment, The conditions themselves are not new however their integration has
been a notable omission from PE literature in the pasl lmplicit in these conditions is
a call for a broadening of the curriculum content of PE and an employment of physical
activity as site for learning in multiple domains in addition to its recognition as a
learning focus,
Key-words: assessment effìcacy . domain content . integration
In recent years the importance of assessment in and for physical education (PE) has
been increasingly recognized within the international PE community (e’g’ Hay, 2006;
Hardman and Marshall, 2000; Redelius et al., 2009; Rink and MitcheIl, 2002;
Thorburn, 2007). lØhile a steady increase in the volume of assessment research is
commendable, a coherent theoretical rationale for assessment practice, policy and
resea¡ch in the Êeld has been surprisingly elusive. Certainly there has been solid
consensus regarding the necessity for assessment that is learning oriented (e.g.
Richard and Godbout, 2000; Yeal, 1992a, I992b, 1995) and authentic in nature
(e.g. Mohnsen, 1997; Oslin, 2003; Oslin et aI., 1998), however these respective
emphases and other considerations such as validity have rarely been discussed o¡
researched in an integtated manner. Øith this is mind, we believe it is timely to
articulate an inregrated set of conditions for the pursuit of asses¡ntent fficøcy in PE, and
to prompt further theoretical, critical and practical discussions to this end.
Copyríght @ 2009 North West Counties Physicol Educotion Associotion ond SAGE Publicotions (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi ond Singoþore)
www,sogeþublicotions.com Domloaded from epe sagepub.com at charles Slurt LJniveßify on January 22,2012
Considerations of assessment efficacy in PE draw our attention to the desired
outcomes and effects of assessment and the factors that contribute to rhese outcomes.
In this paper we argue thar assessment should be viewed as a process through which
learning can be promoted, and that the satisfaction of this learning intent through
the authentic, valid and socially just alignment of assessment, curriculum and
pedagogy is a basis for claims of efficacy. The assertions of this paper are noc ignorant
of the inherenr conrenrions associated with atrempting to define or describe the basis
and content of learning in PE, Nor do they ignore the significance of assessment as a
mechanism for accountability (Green,2OOl;Hardman and Marshall,2000;Rink and
Mitchell, 2002) or as a potentially problematic contributor to the neo-libe ral management
processes of contemporary western education systems (Ranson, 200Ð where che
assessment outcomes of school cohorts are used for making judgements and comparisons
for the purpose of regulation, control, attrition and change within the system
(8a11,2003;Meadmore and Meadmore,2004).In proposing conditions for assessment
effrcacy we hope, rather, to bring such learning contentions to rhe fore and challenge
PE stakeholders to ‘think both critically and imaginatively about the values and
logical basis’ of learning for which an account can be meaningfully and validly given
through assessmenr (Thorburn, 2007: 21I).
Inherent in this endeavour is a query over the appropriateness and breadth ofpast
conrenr and assessment foci in PE, For example, while we acknowledge the veracity
of Rink and Mitchell’s assertions in light of communiry health concerns over increasing
rates of lifestyle diseases that PE is in an excellent position to ‘obtain support for
irs programs’ (2002:254),we argue rhat the PE community’s capacity to account for
the impact of PE on health is quite limited. Moteover, such a curriculum focus on
health intervention raises questions about the types and educational worth of assessmenrs
thar mighr be employed to provide such an account. Øe also note that rhe
curriculum accounted for by assessment in many itetations of PE has tended to be
overly narrow, typically focusing on either the individual execution of skills (both
processes and products) and/or the strategic awareness of students in performance/
game contexts (e.g. Nadeau et al., 2008; Oslin et a1.,1998).In our view such narrow
foci potentially stifle the possibilities for more sophisticated learning in the subject.
The work of Macdonald and Brooker (1997a, r991b) (Queensland) and Thorburn and
Collins (2006) (Scotland) are examples of aberrations to this trend in that the curricula
represenred by the assessments proposed have been much broader, requiring
the application of conrenr from several subdisciplines of human movement such as
motor learning, sport and exercise psychology, sociology, to movement itself.
Condltions of assessment efficacy in PE
The promorion of assessmenr effrcacy requires a clear understanding of the desired
effects of assessment as well as the conditions necessary for optimizing their realizarion.
Before atrempting co articulate an integrated statement of these conditions it
is necessary to make some definitional clarifications about assessment. Sadler (2005)
Downloaded from epe.sagepub.com at Charles Slurt Univers¡ly o Januøry22,20’12
noted that discussions about assessment were notoriously hampered by semantic
differences in che defrnition of terms and their theoretical and practical employment.
In this paper we define assessment as the collection and interpretation of information
about students’ learning in PE. This information and its consequences vary in scope
and depth depending on the process used to collect the information and che purpose
for that collection (Hay,2006). Our definition recognizes the multiple forms and foci
of assessment, including such purposes and practices as formative and summative
assessment. It also deliberately returns to rhe original conceptions of these terms as
proposed by Bloom et aL (1971), wirh the emphasis therefore that the terms apply
to the uses of the collected information rather than the rasks themselves. Hence, we
are of the opinion that establishing assessment effrcacy necessitates che transcending
of divisions in purpose, and that meaningful and considered assessment can achieve
multiple purposes, a proposition previously attested to by Gipps (1996) and reaffirmed
by Lingard et al. (2006).
In proposing conditions of assessment efÊcacy in PE we contend that ‘qualicy
assessment’ can only be understood and rcalized in relation to quality curriculum and
pedagog¡ and the clear and enacted alignment of these three message systems. Our
references to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment as message systems are cognizant
of Tinning’s (200Ð definitional concerns about curriculum and pedagogy and are thus
drawn from Bernstein’s (1971) quite explicit explanation of message systems as the
means of selection, classifrcation, transmission and evaluation of educational knowledge.
rüØe propose that quality assessment tasks should provide students with opportunicies
co demonstrare rhe valued learnings defrned by the curriculum ‘in’ and ‘about’
movemenr, without compromising the benefrcial affective effects rcalized’through’
movement. Furthermore, assessment should be supported b¡ and an informant to,
pedagogies that provide students wirh the requisite skills and knowledges to
complete the tasks (Lingard et aL.,2006) in relation to these dimensions.
The conditions of assessment efficacy that we propose here are informed by this
overarching condition of quality and, if enacted effectivel¡ may contribute to the
consolidation of quality curriculum and pedagogy in PE. These conditions include:
. a primaty focus on assessment for learning;
. aurhentic assessment and thus, where possible, assessment that is ‘integrated’;
o assurance of validiry;
. socially just approaches to assessment.
Ir is important to nore thar we do not view these elements as hierarchical, but rather
equally and conjointly signifrcant in the construction and enactment of assessment in
PE. It is rhe interdeþendence of these elements, more so than their individual logic, that
underpins the pursuit of assessment effrcacy.
The conditions rhemselves are not new from eicher a broad education or PEspecifrc
perspective. Their stipulation in relation to each other has, however, been a
glaring omission from PE literature. In discussing each condition we draw, in part,
upon the ‘productive assessment’ framework proposed by Hayes et aI. (2006).
Downloaded from epe sagepub.com at Charles Sturt LJn¡vers¡ly on Jan!ãry 22,2012
Although noc specifically focused towards PE, the work of Hayes et al. serves as a
useful reference point because ofthe concerted attention it affords learning in relation
to assessment and because ir, too, recognizes the importance of aligning curriculum,
pedagogy and assessment in the pursuit of productive student outcomes. Furthermore,
rhe notions of intellectual rigour’, ‘connecredness’, ‘supportive classroom
environmenr’, and ‘working with and valuing differences’ that feature in the produccive
assessmenr framework¡timuløte imporcant questions and discussions about the
constitution of PE and the potential substance of its educative claims,
Assessment for learning
‘Ässessment for learning’ (Black and rViliam , 1998), ‘educative assessment’,
(Øiggins, 1998), and ‘formative assessment’ (Pryor and Crossouard, 2008) are terms
that have variously been employed to distinguish assessmenc as having a learning
focus. Although there are differences in the formaliry and extent of assessment deÊned
by these terms, all reflect rhe fundamental interest in learning that in our view is a
necessary focus for assessment in PE, including for tasks that may also generate information
for more summative purposes such as grading and reporting (Gipps, 1996).
In proposing rhis view of assessment and its relationship to purposes other than
studenr learning we are not unaware of their influence in schools or their potential
impact on students as mechanisms for sorcing and selection (see e.g. F{ay and
Macdonald, 2008; Penney and Ha¡ 2008). Rather, it is because of the well reported
problematic outcomes of privileging grading and reporting in the classroom context
(e.g. Hay and Macdonald, 2008; Redelius et al., 2009; Tholin, 2006) that we are
promoting an engagement with assessment where teachers make a deliberate and
explicit effort to promote assessment for learning and teach their students how to
‘read’ assessment information in like manner. Øhile a grading-free PE is perhaps
desirable, it is highly unlikely for the systemic imperatives we have already described.
Øe propose rhen that it is necessary to both explicitly privilege the learning focus of
assessmenr and work to limit the potential problematic consequences of grading and
reporting through rhe assurance of construct validity and an associated tangible
commirment to socially just assessment. Øe will say more on these elements in later
sections of the paper.
Assessmenr for learning is fundamentally grounded in constructivist theories of
learning (Shepard, 2000). The constructivist theory recognizes that learning occurs
as a result of interactions between learners and within contexts, and that students
actively appropriate and adapt new knowledge in relation to former understandings
and cognitive srructures, Such an approach recognizes that learning is not a passive
process of knowledge transmission. Rather, it is a complex process dependent upon
studenrs’ previous knowledge, the mode of learning (e.g. kinaesthetic, visual,
auditory), the context and the task. Assessment that has a learning focus provides
information for teachers on the progress of their students’ learning so that appropriate
adjustments in curriculum and pedagogy can be made to optimize future learning.
Moreover, the information generated by assessment should also be utilized by
DoMloaded from epe sagepub.com at charles Sturt Un¡versily on January 22,2012
students to monitor and adequately plan for their own learning, a process requiring
srudents’ access ro the information and their understanding of what to do with the
information (Sadler, 1998). For example, in the movement performance domain of
PE, students should have ready access to the evidence of and associated feedback on
their performances. Such evidence might include video excerpts of their performances
and spoken or written feedback. Students should also be provided with performance
exemplars (rhrough criteria sheets or video excerpts) to provide a reference point for
their own reflections and learning adaptations.
.A,ssessment for learning is not merely concerned with the contribution of assessment
to the learning process. It is also concerned with the nalilre of learning being
promoted and achieved. Here we consider the ‘productive assessment’ element of
‘intellectual rigour’ (Hayes et aI.,2006) to focus onwhar learning (content and process)
could be undertaken in PE and addressed in assessment design and enactment. The
pursuit of intellectual rigour in assessment involves the construction of assessment
tasks and conrexts that promote high-quality academic outcomes based on higher
order thinking, the consideration ofalternative solutions or knowledges, the construction
of knowledge, rhe articulation of and engagement with discipline knowledge in
a sufÊcienr depth (in relation to content and process), and the communication of this
knowledge in multiple modes, including the physical. In most other curriculum
domains, rhe absence of intellecrual rigour precipitates questions of quality and the
subjecc’s contribution ro the education of children (Lingard er aL.,2006). In our view,
it is timely for the PE community to consider whether this educational construct is
worthwhile pursuing, and if so, to then articulate how it may be developed in the
curriculum, pedagogy and assessment of PE.
The promotion of intellectual rigour as we view it is not a synonym for the scientizatio¡
of PE subject marrer (rùØhitson and Macintosh, 1990), nor a justification for
more performance oriented iterations of PE. Rather, it represents an interest in the
porenrial learning demands that are made of the students irrespective of the source
or narure ofthe conrent. A broadening ofthe domain specifrcations ofPE beyond the
performance of physical activiries co include the study of biophysical, sociocultural
and health oriented conceprs would allow for the promotion of intellectual rigour in
PE. Obviously rhis could be achieved through the direct study of these subdisciplines’
Flowever, we advocate for a more integrated approach in which the learning of the
subdiscipline contenr occurs through its application in the movement context and to
the movement context. In this way the importance of physical activity is not
diminished, but rather viewed as a context for learning beyond the psychomotor
domain. 7e frnd that Arnoldt (1935) seminal work articulating dimensions of
movemenr continues to be useful in situaring physical activity as a site for learning
and assessmenr, and promoting integrated thinking about content and contexts of
learning in PE. ,{rnold’s dimensions of movement prompt more concerred attention
to the possible depth and quality of learning and assessment in PE.
Arnold articulated three dimensions of movement – ‘in’, ‘through’ and ‘about’.
He described the dimension of in’ as the knowledges and skìlls acquired to Participate
in the specific acriviry conrext itself, The dimension ‘about’ encompasses ‘the
Oownloaded from epe sagepub.com al Charles Sturt Universily or January 22’2012
rational study of movement'(1985: 52) in which students develop knowledge and
understanding of movement concepts. The frnal dimension, ‘through’, represents the
use of movement as a context to promote the aesthetic appreciation of performance,
moral and social responsibility, and dispositions to physical activity. These three
dimensions provide a rationale for multiple foci and modes of assessmenr, as reflected
in, for example, the Queensland Senior PE syllabus, where ceachers are required to
provide learning experiences and assessmenc tasks ‘that allow studenËs not only to
undersrand the relationships between physical activity and the complexity of factors
underlying performance, but also to experience such relationships themselves (that is,
rhe close inregration oflearning experiences in, about and chrough physical activity)’
(Queensland Studies,tuthorit¡ 2004: 2).
Øithin an integrated approach to assessment in PE, tasks would thus require
students to develop and utilize their understanding of a particular concept such as
biomechanics or health promotion to improve their own performance or participation
(or that of another person) in a focus physical activity. Such incegrated applications
demand higher order cognitive processes such as application, analysis, synthesis and
evaluation (Bloom, I956) and knowledge utilization, metacognition and self-system
thinking across learning domains (Marzano,2001), thereby optimizing the cognitive
demands and expectations of learning in PE. In the next section, focusing on the
closely aligned notion of authenticity, we provide an example of assessment that
encompasses a focus on integrated learning in authentic contexts.
Authentic and integrated assessment
Authentic assessment has been promoted for some time as means of countering the
educational limitations of traditional tests. Other terms such as ‘performance-based
assessment’ have been used, particularly in the USA (Lund and Tannehill, 2005), to
describe mo¡e meaningful approaches to assessment. tù7e prefer, however, the term
‘authentic’ because of its international history and development, and its conceptual
breadth, allowing for more overr opportunities to develop integration possibilities in
PE assessment. Äuthenticity in assessment is conce¡ned with the relationships
between learning conrent and contexts and their connection with the world beyond
rhe classroom. Such tasks acknowledge that solutions to real-world challenges will
rarely come from a single discipline. Yet the notion of authenticity also goes beyond
a multidisciplinary approach. fn summarizing the original and key elements of
authentic assessment (or as it was originally referred to, ‘authentic achievement’),
Cumming and Maxwell (1999: 179) explained that each assessment ‘should involve
constructive learning, disciplined enquiry, and higher-order thinking and problemsolving.
It should also have a value dimension, of aesthetic development, personal
development or usefulness in the wider world.’ Recognizing that student learning and
quality performances depend, in part, upon students’ motivation, and that this
motivation can be affected by the assessment contexts provided (Cumming and
Maxwell, 7999), authentic assessment pursues tasks and foci thac are meaningful to
Downloaded from epe.sagepub.com at Charles Sturt Un¡vereiW on Janvary 22,2012
students and that have value and meaning beyond the instructional context. This
pursuit, in addition to the expectations of students to ‘communicate their knowledge,
present a product or performance, or take some action for an audience beyond the
teacher, classroom or school building’ (Hayes et al., 2006: 98) are elements of
authentic assessment that Hayes et al. (2006) have referred to as ‘connectedness’.
The imporrance of authentic assessment has previously been advocated in PE
(e.g. Melograno,I))4; Mohnsen, 1997; Smith,1997; Smith and Cestaro, 1998) and
has been justiÊed in ¡elation to the employment of contextual and games-based
curriculum approaches to PE such as Teaching Games for Understanding (Oslin,
2003; Oslin er al,, 1998) and sport education (Siedentop et aL., 2004). Veal (I992a)
asserted that the ‘role of authentic assessment in creating real physicøl edacation is to
help students learn by providin g a formal feedback loop that results in instructional
strategies and achievement of skill and attitudinal goals’ (p, 89; our emphasis)’
Ahhough acknowledging che connection to student learning, Veal’s deÊnition is
somewhar limited in its lack of reference to ‘connectedness’ consistently attended to
in other defrnitions. Orher descriptions of authentic assessment in PE have been
similarly lacking in explicit connecrions with contexts and audiences beyond the
movement context. Sport education provides, to some extent, an exceprion co this
observation, given the explicit interest in the successful completion of tasks ‘in a
context that is relevanr to how the task is done in the larger world’ (Siedentop et al.,
2OO4: 718). Nevertheless, we suggest that other more broad and sophisticated
learning outcomes are possible,
Consistenr with the broadening of rhe PE curriculum domain that we proposed
in relation to assessment for lea¡ning, we agree with Thorburn (2007: 27 I) of the
‘need to ensure that the learning aims associated with inregrated learning are
authentic rarher than contrived and do genuinely contribute towards the achievement
of high levels of artainment’. Furthermore, the deÊnition of authentic experiences in
PE should capture the possibilities for integrated learning. Such a defrnition was
offered by Hay (2006:317) who proposed that:
, . . aurhenric assessment in PE should be based in movement and capture the
cognitive and psychomoror processes involved in the competent performance of
physical activities. Furthermore, assessment should redress the mind/body
dualism propagated by traditional approaches to assessment, curriculum and
pedagogies in PE, through tasks that acknowledge and bring to the fore the
interrelatedness of knowledge, process (cognitive and motor), skills and the
affective domain.
This perspective aligns with ou¡ claims rcgarding the potential broadening of
learning foci through assessment in PE, and the need for assessment to promote
learning thar is intellectually rigorous, and integrated. Yet Hay’s proposition also falls
short of mainsrream understandings of authenticity because of its lack of refe¡ence to
rhe connectedness of the rask with potential experiences and audiences beyond the
school conrexr. To this end, we propose that authentic assessment in PE should be
Domloaded from epe.sagepub.com at Charies Sturl Un¡versify ot Janvary 22,2012
based in movemenr and include che integration of movement-associaced concepts in
and ro movement contexts in modes reflective of their appropriation beyond the classroom,
Integrated tasks, for example, may be framed in relation to coaching, sports
management, or public health interventions. Clearly the possible integrations are
numerous and could serve multiple agendas while maintaining an initiative towards
the educative rigour of the subject.
Senior PE, a’high-stakes’subject offe¡ed in the Australian state of Queensland,
is an example of an iteration of PE that has pursued a broader perspective on the nature
and educative substance of PE (Macdonald and Brooker, 1997a,19976)’ This elective
subjecr has been successfully delivered in Queensland schools since 1998 such that
Senio¡ PE has the fourth highest student enrolment of any subject in Queensland,
Senio¡ PE closely reflects the learning and authenticity conditions proposed in this
secrion (Macdonald and Brooker,1997a),and provides an example of the way in which
movement concepts (such as motof control, exercise physiology or sport sociolog¡
etc.) can be meaningfully engaged with ‘in’ and ‘about’ physical activity. A unit, for
example, could involve the study of the psychology of golf (with psychology serving
as rhe concept focus and golf the physical activity focus). The assessment within this
unir would require the teacher’s judgements of the s¡udents’ capacities to acquire,
apply and evaluare skills and strategies in golf. The second assessmen¡ element of the
unit may involve an assignment in which students investigate the effects of arousal
on rheir own golf performance, including the application and evaluation of their use
of strategies ro optimize cheir arousal levels and thus performance in golf. In this task,
students learn the movement concepts in the authentic context of golf, satisfring the
learning and authenticity condicions we have proposed. Although the high-scakes
situation of Senior PE demands levels of content sophistication that would be above
and beyond PE in earlier phases of learning, it demonstrates that integrarion is
possible and that orher more simple concepts such as ‘simple physiological responses
to exercise’ or ‘promoting positive relationships’ could be conceivably engaged with
in physical activities by students in earlier phases of leatning.
Valid assessment
Validity could well serve as an overarching condition of assessment in PE in the same
manner as the necessity for a concerted alignment of the three message systems of
education. That is, unless the proposed assessment is valid (and by implication,
reliable) its usefulness as a means of information collection and as an informant to both
ongoing learning and reporting is questionable. Nevertheless, we addtess this efficacy
condition ar this point, recognizing that the substantiation ofvalidity requires the definition
of the domain construcr (learning content and processes of a curriculum), and
is necessarily instantiared in the construction and enactment of particular tasks.
In our opinion, validiry has not been sufficiently aftended to in PE assessment.
In part this is due to historically shallow or menial assessment and reporting foci
DoMloaded from epe.sagepub.com at Charies Sturt Univereify on January 22,2012
(Siedentop et aL.,2004). It is also the consequence of narrow domain de6nitions and
chus validity applications. For example, while validity has been the focus of some
research endeavou¡s (Nadeau et al., 2008; Oslin et a1.,1998), the focus is generally
either on score validation rather than more encompassing and integrated notions of
validity (Messick, 1995), or addresses the validity of assessment in relation to a
narrowly deûned domain consrrucr. In fact, the question of what might constitate
construcr validity in PE assessment has been broached in but very few substancial
research pieces (see e.g. Hay and Macdonald, 2008).
The international change in assessment focus from traditional style tests to
authentic tasks, which we advocate for in chis paper, has aligned with a change in
conceprions of validity from measurement-oriented or psychometric approaches based
on score theory to an emphasis on ‘the appropriateness of assessment tasks as indicarors
of inrended learning outcomes, and on the appropriateness of the interpretation
of assessment outcomes as indicators of learning’ (Cumming and Maxwell, 1999:
177). Funhermore, some have described authentic assessment, itself, as an intention
towards broader notions of ‘ecological validity’ (Kirk and O’Flahert¡ 2004; liggins,
1998).In a sraremenr rhar encompassed traditional psychometric notions of validity
as well as rhese alternarive perspectives, Messick explained that ‘validicy is an
integrated evaluative judgement of the degree to which empirical evidence and
theoretical rarionales suppoft the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences anà actions
based on test scores of othef modes of assessment’ (1989: 13; our emphasis). In other
words, what need to be valid are rhe information collected, the interpretation of the
scores, and the implications and consequences for action that such meaning entails.
Validit¡ therefore, is a principle ¡elevant to øny process or practice of observing or
documenting behaviours or attributes (Kane, 2001) and is thus an important
consideration for assessment in PE.
Messick (I99Ð argued that the validation of any assessment task should incorporate
six aspects of consrruct validity: content, substantive, structural, generaliz’
abilit¡ exrernal, and consequential. These elements refer to complementary forms of
evidence thar are integrated to produce an overall judgement ofconstruct validity. In
relation to authentic or performance-oriented (Messick, 1994) PE assessment we
summarize that, when planning for assessment, attention be given to:
the content relevance and representativeness of the planned tasks to the PE
domain content (conrent);
a cleat alignment ofstudent response processes and content and the processes and
content characteristic of the subject domain (substantiue);
the development of scoring or grading approaches (e,g. criteria and standards)
that are reflective of task and domain structure (structural);
the recognition of and response to facrors such as time, context and assessors that
may affect the generalizability of the information and particularly the reliability
of assessment evidence and judgements;
Downloaded from epe.sagepub.com at Charies Sturt Universily on January 22,2012
convergenr and discriminate correlations of the assessment scores with orher
sources of capability evidence and the utility of the scores for applied purposes
such as learning and/or accountability (externaf; and
an investigation of the positive and negative, intended and unintended conseqnences
of the task and its outcomes for PE scudents (consequentia[).
In attending to Messick’s (1995) six elements, we reassert chat a careful consideration
and then articulacion of the domain boundaries and curriculum detail of PE,
including the attributed knowledge, skills, processes and integrations, should
underpin considerarions of construct validity in PE assessment. These domain specifrcations
serve as a guide for the content of the tasks as well as the types of tasks or
contexts that should be included in an assessment programme. Accordingly, PE
teachers developing ¿rssessment tasks and defrning assessment contexts need to ensure
that the rasks and contexts, over a specified period, arc reþrerentøtiue of and demand the
dernonsTrøtion by the students of these knowledges, skills, processes and integrations.
Furrhermore, rhe tasks should generare defensible evidence on which to base judgemenrs
of performance, and teachers should ensure that this evidence is readily
accessible and understandable for students. Øe believe that teachers should consider
the permissibility of performance evidence generated from beyond a specifred task
(such as coaching, training or performing in community settings for example) to
corroborate the evidence collecced through the task. Actention should also be given to
the processes by which performance evidence is referenced against criteria in the
derermination of students’ grades ro ensure that they are reliable, reflective of the task
demands, and free from construct irrelevant factors such as students’ dispositional and
behavioural characteristics.
Socially just approaches to assessment
This fourrh condition of assessment effrcacy is concerned with the opportunities ø//
students are given to engage in assessment, receive attention and recognition for
demonstrations of performance, and learn as a consequence of their engagement in
assessment. This could be best summarized as an intention towards ‘inclusion’ (Forlin,
2OO4) and, more broadly, ‘social justice’ (Lingard, 200Ð. Øhile Lingard (2005)
asserrs that the provision of quality assessment opportunities supported by quality
curriculum and pedagogy is in and of itself a social justice issue, Hayes et aI. (2006)
suggesr that the pursuit of socially just assessment requires a supportive classroom
environment and the working with and valuing of sudent differences. In planning
assessmenr for a unit of work in PE, teachers should be considerate of the learning
needs of their students and the importance of providing multiple fesponse opportunities
through avariety of assessment modes.
Øe argue that an inclusive, socially just approach to assessment in PE requires
that all students are awarre of how to engage in an assessment context or with an assessment
task at the level valued by the assessors. This necessitates the provision of
Downloaded from epe.sagepub.com at Charles Sturl Universify on January 22,2012
adequate task scaffolding or instructional cues (Hayes et al., 2006) through communicacive
modes that are nor socially or culrurally exclusive, Moreover, students need to
be let in on the secret of teachers’ grading decisions through access to explicit and
understandable criteria for the judging of quality performances (Hay and Macdonald,
2008; Sadle r, 7998). Beyond social jusrice, these initiatives reflect a primary focus on
assessment for learning rarher than accountability-associated sorcing and selecting
purposes, and a shift away from what Bernsrein (1996) described as performance
modes – approaches to rhe education of students that are predicated on’different from’
relations (what sets students apaft) and the establishment of hierarchical student
distinctions. This does not mean that the generation of indicators of achievement
quality (i.e. grades) is foregone, but rather thar the teachers’ interest is Êrst on the
learning and achievement of all students rather than the qualitative or quantitative
distinctions between them.
In addition ro supportive conditions for discrete tasks, inclusion and social justice
in assessment requires rhar students be given multiple opportunities, in varying
conrexts, to display and receive recognition for the valued attributes of the domain
construcr. That is, decisions concerning students’ learning in a unit of work should
be based on rhe collecrion of information ovet a period of time and through mulriple
modes of assessment rather than as discrete or point-in-time exercises. Furthermore,
students should have ready access to this evidence to increase their engagement in’
and accountability for, the learning process. Notably, the provision of these opPortunities
is not only a social justice issue, it is an important factor in the negotiation
of construct-irrelevant variance in students’ assessment responses (Øiliam and Black,
1996).’Point in rime’ and narrowly defined assessment moments do not adequately
accounr for the variety of properties to a response at a particular point in time. These
properties may include language (and other cultural codes), the context of the
required response, the student’s emotional and physical state at the time of assessmenr,
etc. tViliam and Black explain chat the aim of ongoing and multiple modes of
assessment is to ‘average out all those effects which are not desired and so enhance the
signal to noise ratio for the effect [or learning attributeJ of interest’ (1996: 53Ð’
Messick’s (1995) 6nal element of construct validity (consequences as validity
evidence) draws atrenrion to the imporrance of taking into accoun t the ffict of assessmenr
and its outcomes on students, and is thus also a consideration in relation to the
promotion of social justice and, ultima rcly, efficacy in assessment. For example, if the
inrenrion of rhe task is for learning, it is necessary to establish what inrended and
unintended learning has occurred (Messick, 1995) and the aspects of the assessment
approach employed that may have led to any unintended learnings. The key interest
here is the negative consequences of assessment such as a student’s diminished sense
of capacity in the PE freld and their disconnect with physical culture in and beyond
rhe classroom, as well as the learning of undesirable ideologies such as elitism, sexism,
racism, erc. (Tinnin g, I99O). If assessment in PE contribures ro negative and unintended
learnings such as these, then its construction and employment in the subject
musr be rigorously reviewed. All too often in mainstream education differences in
Downloaded from epe sagepub,com at Charles Sturt Un¡versiTy oî Jaîuary 22′ 2012
students’ achievements are attributed to the meritocratic claims of student ability and
effort rather than problems with the measures used to generate the achievement
(Benjamin, 2003; Harc, 1998).lùØe believe that the PE community should be wary
of this tendency and give due care and attention to socially just assessment pracrices.
The purpose of this paper has been to challenge the internacional PE community to
comprehensively consider assessment practices in PE. In particular we have drawn on
theoretical and ¡esearch-based principles of assessment to propose four inrerdependent
conditions of assessment effrcacy that reside within a concerted alignment of
curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, Underpinning our assertions has been an
argument for a broadening of the potential domain characteristics of PE to allow the
subject to better optimize its educarive substance as well as the unique learning
conrexr rhat ic can provide. Central to the integrity ofour efÊcacy proposal is the codependence
of the four conditions. It is not sufficient, for example, to enrich and
b¡oaden the learning foci of PE assessment tasks if the tasks or method of generating
grades are invalid. Moreover, if assessment outcomes are consumed by students in
such a way as to highlight their limitations rather than promote their future learning
and engagement in a movement culture, irrespective of the authenticity of the assessmenr,
its effects are undesirable. Beyond the policy and practice implications of ¡hese
co-dependent conditions, we suggest that research into assessment practices in PE
should likewise assume a more integrated approach.
Admittedl¡ the conditions are ambitious, particularly given a history of at times
trivial assessmenr in the subject (Siedentop et al., 2004) but are nevertheless possible,
Internarional sysremic variation in the constitution of PE domains means that the
provision of assessment exemplars is difficult. ‘We have provided some examples of
assessment that meet the proposed conditions from the Queensland context and
encourage international readers to consider the logic and applicability of the
conditions to rheir own cur¡icular contexts. In so doing a concerted and directed
dialogue can be established to consolidate and support effective practices and discuss
possibilities for assessment reform whe¡e needed. Thus, we welcome further
discussion, debate and crìtique to sharpen the understanding and practice of assessment
in the PE communit¡ and to optimize the educational rationale for the
subject. Such discussions need to be underpinned by targeted, concerted and cohesive
research approaches ro assessment in PE and a broadening of our pe¡spectives on the
educacive possibilities for PE.
I7e would like to thank rhe reviewers of this paper for rheir helpful reflections and suggestions
for strengrhening the paper, and for engaging with our work in a spirit of collegial discussion,
debate and critique.
Downloaded from epe sagepub.com al Châdes Sturt Un¡versify on January 22,2012
Arnold, P. (1985) ‘Movement, Physical Education and the Curriculum’, Balletin of Pbysical
Education 16(l):5-9.
Ball, S. (2003) ‘The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Performativiry’,Journal of Edacation Policy
r8(2): 215-28.
Benjamin, S. (2003) ”Whac Counrs as “Success”? Hierarchical Discourses in a Girls’ Comprehensive
School’, Discour¡e: Stadies in the C*ltøral Politic¡ of Education 24(1)r 105-18.
Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, Synbolic Control and ldentity: Theory, Re¡earch and Critiqae.
London: Taylor Francis.
Bernstein, B, (1971) Cla¡¡ Code¡ and Conirol. London: Rourledge.
Black, P. and ìØiliam, D. (1998) ‘Assessment and Classroom Learning’, Asse¡¡ment in Edøcation
Bloom, B. (1956) The Taxonorny of Educational Objectiaes: The Classiftratìon of Edtcøtional Goal¡.
New York: David Mckay Co.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T. and Madaus, G. F. (197 l) Handbooþ, on the Fonnatiae and Satnnariae
Eualaation of Stødent Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cumming, J. J. and Maxwell, G. S. (1999) ‘Contextualising Aurhentic Assessment’, Auesment
in Education 6(2): l7l-94.
Forlin, C. (2004) ‘Promoting Inclusivity in Øestern Australian Schools’, InternøtionalJounal
of Inclasìue Educatìon 8(2): L85-202.
Gipps, C. (1996)’Assessment for Learning’, in A. Little and A. lù(/olf (eds) A¡¡e¡srnent in Trantirion:
Learning, Monitoring and Selectìon in International Pasþectiue, pp. 251-62. Oxford:
Elsevier Science.
Green, K. (2001) ‘Examinacions in Physical Education: A Sociological Perspective on a New
“Orthodoxy”‘ , Britisb Joarnal of Sociology of Education 22(I): 5L-13.
Hardman, K. and Marshall, J. J. (2000) ‘Vorld-Vide Søruey of tbe Stare and Statøs of School Physical
E ducation. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Harr, S. (1998)’A Sorry Tail: Abitit¡ Pedagogy and Educational Reform’, Briti:hJoørnal of
Edacationdl S¡adie¡ 46(Ð: ffi-68.
Ha¡ P. J. Q006)’Assessment for Learning in Physical Education’, in D. Kirk, D. Macdonald
andM. O’sullivan (eds)TheHandbooþ,of PhyicalEducation,pp.ST2-25. London: SAGE.
Hay, P. J. and Macdonald, D. (2008) ‘[Mis]appropriations of Criteria and Standards Referenced
Assessmenr in a Performance-Based Subject’, Asse¡srnent in Educatìon I5(2): LJ3-68.
Hayes, D., Mills, M. Christie, P. and Lingard, B. (2006) Teachas and Schooling Making a
Dffirence. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Kane, M. (2001) ‘Cur¡enc Concerns in Validity Theory’, Journal of Edacational Measurernent
Kirk, D, and O’Flahe¡ry, M. (2004) ‘Learning Theory and Authentic Assessment in Physical
Educarion’, paper presented at rhe An¡ual Conference of BERA, Edinburgh, Scotland,
10-13 Sept.
Lingard, B. (2005) ‘socially Jusr Pedagogies in Changing Times’, lnternational Studies in
Sociology of Education I5(2): 165-86.
Lingard, 8., Mills, M. and Flayes, D. (2006) ‘Enabling and Aligning Assessment for Learning:
Some Research and Policy Lessons from Queensland’, Inîernational Studie¡ in Sociology of
Edacation I 6(2): 83-1.03.
Lund, J. and Tannehill, D. (2005) ‘Assessment in Curriculum Development’, in J. Lund and
D. Tannehill (eds) Standard:-Based Physìcal Education Curriculam Deaeloþment, pp. 4Ç76.
Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Macdonald, D. and Brooker R. (1997a) ‘Assessment Issues in a Performance-Based Subject: A
Case Study of Physical Educarion’, Stadìet in Educational Eaalaation 2)(l): 83-7O2.
Downloaded from epe sagepub.com at Chades Sturt Un¡versify on January 22,2012
Macdonald, D. and Brooker, R. (1997b) ‘Moving Beyond the Crises in secondary physical
education: an Ausrralian iniciative’, Joarnal of Teaching ìn PÌ:yical Edacatìon, 16(2):
Marzano, R. J. (2001) Deigning a Neu Tøxonomy of Edøcational Objectiuu. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin Ptess.
Meadmore, D. and Meadmore, P. (2004) ‘The bouodlessness of performativity in elite
Ausrralian schools’, Discour¡e: Stødies in the Cultural Politic¡ of Edacation,25(Ð: )15-381 .
Melograno, V. J. Q994) ‘Portfolio assessment: documenting authentic student learning’,
Joarnøl of Physicøl Edacation, Rerearìon and Dance,65(8): 50-61,
Messick, S. (1989)’Validity’, in R. L, Linn (ed) Edacational Mea¡urement pp’ 13-103. íashingron
DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in
Messick, S. (1994) ‘The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance
assessme nts’ , Educational Researcher, 23(2)i 13-23 .
Messick, S. (1995)’standards of validity and the validity of standa¡ds in Performance Assessment’,
Edacational Mea¡øreruent: Ist¿er and Practices, l4(4): 5-8,
Mohnsen, B. (I9g7)’Aurhencic Assessmenc in Physical Education’, Learning and Leading tt,ìth
Technology 24(7 ): )0-3.
Nadeau, L., Richard, J.-F. and Godbour, P (2008) ‘The Validity and Reliability of a Performance
Assessmenr Piocedure in Ice Hockey’, Pbysical Education and Sport Pedagogy I3G):
Oslin, J. L. (2003) ‘The Role of Assessment in Teaching Games fo¡ Underscanding’, in
L. L. Grifûn and J. I. Butler (eds) Teaching Ganes for [Jnderstanding: Theory, Retearclt, and
Practice, pp. 125-36. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A. and GrifÊn, L. L. (1998) ‘The Game Performance Assessment
Invenrory (GPAI): Development and Preliminary Validation’, Joørnal of Teachìng in
P bysical Edacatior l7 (2): 23143.
Penne¡ D. and Ha¡ P. J. (2008) ‘Inclusivity and Senior Physical Education: Insights from
Queensland and Øestern Australia’, Sþort, Eduation and Society I3Ø): 431-52
Pryor,J. and Crossouard, B. (2008)’A Socio-Cultural Theorisation of Formacive Assessmenr’,
Odord Reuieut of Edacation 34(I)t l-2O.
Queensland Sudies ,tuthoriry Q004) Senior Syllabu in Physical Edacation. Brisbane: Queensland
Studies Authoriry.
Ranson, S. (2003) ‘Public Accountabiliry in the Age of Neo-Liberal Governance’, Joørnal of
Education Policy l8(5): 459-80.
Redelius, K., Fagrell, B. and Larsson, H. (2009) ‘symbolic Capital in Physical Educacion: To
Be, ro Do or co Know? That is rhe Gendered Question’, Sport, Edacation and Socìety l4(2):
Richard, J.-F. and Godbout, P. (2000) ‘Formative Assessment as ao Integral Part of the
Teaching-Learning Process’ , Pltyical and Health Education Journal 66(3): 4-lO.
Rink, J. and MitchelI, M. (2002) ‘High Stakes Assessment: A Journey into Unknown
Territory’, Qæ¡ t 54(3): 205-23.
Sadler, D. R. (1998) ‘Formative Assessment: Revisiting the Terricory’, Assessment in Education
Sadler, D. R. (2005) ‘Interpretarions of Criteria-Based Assessment and Grading in Higher
Education’, Asses¡ment and Eaøluatìon ìn Higlter Education 3O(2): I75-94.
Shepard, L. (2000) ‘The Role of Assessment in a Lea¡ning Culture’, Educational Re¡earcber 29(7):
Siedenrop, D., Hasrie, P. A. and van der Mars, H. (2004) Cornplete Gaid¿ to Spmt Education.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
DoMloaded from epe.sagepub com at Charles Slurl Universify on January 22,20’12
Smith, T. (1997) ‘Auchentic Âssessment: Using a Porcfolio Card in Physical Educarion’,Joarnal
of Physical Edacation, Rereation and Dance 68(4): 4Ç52.
Smith, T. K. and Cesraro, N. G. (1998) Stildent-Centered Physìcal Edrcation: Strutegies for Deueloþing
Middle School Fitness and Sþìlls. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Tholin, J. Q0O6) Att þann¿ klara sig i Ìiþänd natu: En stødie aa betyg zcb betygtkriterìer (To
Find the íay in Unknown Areas: A Study of Grades and Grading Criteria). Borås:
Högskolan i Borås.
Thorburn, M. (2007) ‘Achieving Conceptual and Curriculum Coherence in High-Stakes School
Examinarions in Physical Education’, Phyical Educøtìon and Sþort Pedøgogy l2(2): l6J-84,
Thorburn, M. and Collins, D. (2006) ‘The Effecrs of an Integraced Curriculum Model on
Srudent Learning and ,tttainmenc’, European Physìcal Educøtion Reuiew l2(l): )l-50.
Tinning, R. (1990) Ideology and Phyical Eduation: Opening Pandorø’s Box. Geelong: Deakin
Universiry Press.
Tinning, R. (2009) ‘Pedagogy, Sport Pedagogy, and the Field of Kinesiology’, Qttes 60(3):
Veal, M.-L. (1992a) ‘The Role of Assessment in Secondary Physical Education: A Pedagogical
Yiew’,Jotrnal of Pbysical Edacation, Rereation and Dance 63Q): 88-92.
Veal, M.-L. (1992b) ‘school-Based Theories of Pupil .Assessment: A Case Study’, Re¡earcb
Qlarterly for Exercise and Sport 63(I)t 48-59.
Veal, M.-L. (L995) ‘Assessment as an Inscrucrional Tool’, Strategìes 8(6): 10-15.
Øhitson, D. and Macintosh, D. (1990)’The Scientization of Physical Education: Discourses
of Performan ce’, Quest 42(l): 40-5I.
ìØiggins, G. (1998) Eùtcatiae As¡e¡¡rnent: Duigning Arie$mentr to Inform and Imprwe Stadent
Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
7iliam, D. and Black, P. (1996)’Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing
Formative and Summarive Functions of Assessmen r?’ , Britith Educational Retearch Joørxal
Les conditions de I’efficacité de l’évaluation en éducation
Contribuant aux débats pour une meilleure compréhension des pratiques, des politiques et
des recherches sur l’évaluation en Education Physique (EP), cet article décrit et discute quatre
conditions d’effìcacité de l’évaluation pour le développement et la promotion d’une
évaluation formative en EP Ces conditions sont sous-tendues à la proposition selon laquelle
une EP de qualité tient à une conception concertée des programmes, des pratiques
pédagogies et de l’évaluation, et à I’intégration de l’évaluation parmi les principaux facteurs
de I’apprentissage; à I’assurance de la validité de son élaboration; et à une approche
socialement juste de l’évaluation. Ces conditions elles-mêmes ne sont Pas nouvelles,
cependant leur prise en compte a été, par le passé, largement occultée par la littérature
spécifìque à I’EP De manière sous-jacente à ces propositions, nous lançons un appel à une
meilleure prise en compte de l’évaluation dans la conception des programmes d’EP et à une
conception de I’EP comme un lieu au service d’apprentissages dans des domaines multiPles
au-delà de sa reconnaissance comme un objet même d’apprentissage,
DoMloaded from epe.sagepub com at charles Sturl Un¡versily on January 22,20’12
Propuesta de condiciones para la eficacia de la evaluación en
educación física
Al abogar por una pníctica, una polrtica y unas consideraciones de la evaluación de la
invefigación en educación física (PE) más amplias, este documento presenta y discute cuatro
condiciones integradas de efìcacia de la evaluación para el desarrollo y la promoción de una
evaluación productiva en E,F, Estas condiciones están precedidas por la premisa de que la
educación física de calidad requiere de la confluencia acordada y consensuada del currículo,
la pedagogía y la evaluación, y la inclusión de un foco primario en la evaluación para el
aprendizaje; una evaluación auténtica e integrada, la garantía de la validez de constructo; y
socialmente meras aproximaciones a la evaluación. Las condiciones de por sí no son nuevas,
sin embargo su integración ha sufrido una omisión notable de la literatura sobre Educación
Física en el pasado, De manera implícita, con estas condiciones se reclama una ampliación
del contenido del currículo de educación física y un empleo de la actividad física como
contexto para el aprendizaje de varios dominios, además de su reconocimiento como un
foco de aprendizaje,
Vorschläge für wirksame Beurteilungsbedingungen im
Der vorliegende Artikel veranschaulicht und diskutiert vier integrative Voraussetzungen für
die Wirkamkeit von Beurteilung im Zusammenhang mit der Entwicklung und Förderung
produktiver Bewertung im Sportunterricht, Dabei wird für nachvollziehbarere Überlegungen
für eine Praxis, Politik und Forschung von Beurteilung im Sportunterricht argumentiert. Die
Voraussetzungen werden eingeführt mit der Absicht das qualitativ hochwertiger
Sportunterricht einen ausgewogenen und wohlüberlegten Abgleich von Curriculum,
Pädadgogik und Beurteilung braucht und folgende Aspekte integrieren sollte: die
Beruckichtigung eines primären Augenmerk auf die Bewertung von Lernfortschritten,
authentische und integrative Beurteilung, Sicherheit in der Aussagekraft der
Bewertungskriterien, sowie sozial gerechte Bewertungsansätze. Diese Bedingungen ansich
sind nicht neu, allerdings wurden sie in der Vergangenheit in Publikationen zum
Sportunterricht deutlich vernachlässigt. lmplizit liegt diesen Bedingungen der Aufruf zugrunde,
die Curriculumsinhalte von Sportunterricht zu erweitern und Sport und Bewegung als einen
Ort mit multiplen Lernbereichen in Ergänzung zu seiner Wahrnehmung als eigenes Lernfeld
Peter Hay is a Lecturer in the School of Human Movement Studies at the University of
Queensland. His research focuses on assessment policy and practice in Health and Physical
Education and the construction of students’ abilities in learning contexts.
DoMloaded from epe.sagepub.com at Charles Sturt Universily on Janvary 22,2012
Dawn Penney is Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Research) in the Faculty of
Education, Universiry of Tasmania. Dawn has researched and published prolifìcally in the
fìelds of physical education policy and curriculum.
Address for correspondence: Dr Peter Ha¡ School of Human Movement Studies,

Our Service Charter

  1. Excellent Quality / 100% Plagiarism-Free

    We employ a number of measures to ensure top quality essays. The papers go through a system of quality control prior to delivery. We run plagiarism checks on each paper to ensure that they will be 100% plagiarism-free. So, only clean copies hit customers’ emails. We also never resell the papers completed by our writers. So, once it is checked using a plagiarism checker, the paper will be unique. Speaking of the academic writing standards, we will stick to the assignment brief given by the customer and assign the perfect writer. By saying “the perfect writer” we mean the one having an academic degree in the customer’s study field and positive feedback from other customers.
  2. Free Revisions

    We keep the quality bar of all papers high. But in case you need some extra brilliance to the paper, here’s what to do. First of all, you can choose a top writer. It means that we will assign an expert with a degree in your subject. And secondly, you can rely on our editing services. Our editors will revise your papers, checking whether or not they comply with high standards of academic writing. In addition, editing entails adjusting content if it’s off the topic, adding more sources, refining the language style, and making sure the referencing style is followed.
  3. Confidentiality / 100% No Disclosure

    We make sure that clients’ personal data remains confidential and is not exploited for any purposes beyond those related to our services. We only ask you to provide us with the information that is required to produce the paper according to your writing needs. Please note that the payment info is protected as well. Feel free to refer to the support team for more information about our payment methods. The fact that you used our service is kept secret due to the advanced security standards. So, you can be sure that no one will find out that you got a paper from our writing service.
  4. Money Back Guarantee

    If the writer doesn’t address all the questions on your assignment brief or the delivered paper appears to be off the topic, you can ask for a refund. Or, if it is applicable, you can opt in for free revision within 14-30 days, depending on your paper’s length. The revision or refund request should be sent within 14 days after delivery. The customer gets 100% money-back in case they haven't downloaded the paper. All approved refunds will be returned to the customer’s credit card or Bonus Balance in a form of store credit. Take a note that we will send an extra compensation if the customers goes with a store credit.
  5. 24/7 Customer Support

    We have a support team working 24/7 ready to give your issue concerning the order their immediate attention. If you have any questions about the ordering process, communication with the writer, payment options, feel free to join live chat. Be sure to get a fast response. They can also give you the exact price quote, taking into account the timing, desired academic level of the paper, and the number of pages.

Excellent Quality
Zero Plagiarism
Expert Writers

Custom Writing Service

Instant Quote
Single spaced
approx 275 words per page
Urgency (Less urgent, less costly):
Total Cost: NaN

Get 10% Off on your 1st order!