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,

2005).
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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Copyright Regulations 1969
WARNING
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:
Osner
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
EUROPEAN PHYSICAL EDUCATION REVIEW [DOl: I 0. I I 77l I 356336X09364294]
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
and
Dawn Penney University of Tasmania, Australia
Abstract
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
lntroduction
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
390 EUROPEAN pHYStCAL EDUCATTON REVIEW l5(3)
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
HAY & PENNEY: PROPOSING CONDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT EFFICACY lN PE
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).
39¡
Downloaded from epe sagepub.com at Charles Sturt LJn¡vers¡ly on Jan!ãry 22,2012
392 EUROPEAN PHYSTCAL EDUCATION REVIEW rs(3)
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
HAY & PENNEY: PROPOSING CONDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT EFFICACY lN PE
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
393
Oownloaded from epe sagepub.com al Charles Sturt Universily or January 22’2012
394 EUROPEAN PHYSICAL EDUCATION REVIEW I5(3)
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
HAY & PENNEY: PRoPoslNG CoNDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT EFFICACY lN PE
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
395
Domloaded from epe.sagepub.com at Charies Sturl Un¡versify ot Janvary 22,2012
39ó EUROPEAN PHYSICAL EDUCATION REVIEW ls(3)
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
HAY & PENNEY: PROPOSING CONDITIONS FOR ASSESSMENT EFFICACY lN PE
(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
conc