Innovative and Inclusive Physical Education

BERA Conference UMIST September 17th 2004

INNOVATIVE AND INCLUSIVE PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Dr Elizabeth Marsden, Carrie Weston and Mario Hair,

School of Education, University of Paisley

Recent reports on the worrying prognosis of British children’s health due to poor diet and lack of exercise, has highlighted the importance that Physical Education should have on the curriculum of our schools. Claims have also been made that well-taught and imaginatively created movement programmes not only enhance body management and physical health but also improve concentration and social development in children of all ages and abilities. The Sherborne Developmental Movement programme (SDM) was designed to be both innovative and inclusive and Veronica Sherborne herself claimed that children’s motor, cognitive and social development was improved by participating in this type of programme. These claims have remained untested for 30 years. This study has found that Year 1 children undertaking 6 months of SDM (n=32) showed significant improvement in body management, co-operation, turn-taking and sharing compared with a control group (n=16) undertaking a traditional PE programme. Initial concentration levels in boys in both control and experimental groups were shown to be significantly poorer (p=0.01) than concentration levels in girls but only those boys participating in SDM showed significant improvement.

Implications of this study are that innovative Physical Education may have wide reaching effects on the cognitive and social development on our young children as well as the very important effect on physical development and health.

AIMS

To ascertain whether young children who are exposed to Sherborne Developmental Movement during their first year at school show a greater increase in development in body management, relationship building and the ability to concentrate compared with a control group of children of similar age, abilities and background.

MAIN OBJECTIVES

(1)to analyse specific body management activities such as jumping, rolling, running, sliding, balancing and sequence making of Year 1 children before and after a six month exposure to SDM

(2)to assess relationship building skills such as sharing, turn taking and co-operating with adults and peers of Year 1 children during class time and break times before and after participating in a six months exposure to SDM

(3)to observe and record the on/off task classroom behaviours of Year 1 children before and after a six month exposure to SDM

RATIONALE

Health benefits derived from physical activity are well known (Pate et al, 1997) and good physical education has been promoted for many years by researchers concerned with the health of the nation (Allied Dunbar Study, 1992). More recently the problem of obesity amongst children has been brought to the public conscience and once again the importance of physical education in the curriculum has been expounded, especially in Scotland where deaths from inactivity have been recognised as 42 per week (Let’s Make Scotland More Active, 2003). Yet curriculum change is slow and physical education remains as only a part of the Expressive Arts in Scotland and is still not regarded as a core subject in England and Wales. Local authorities and schools may be reluctant to make more time available for physical education as this would necessarily put more pressure on the “academic” areas of the curriculum. Earlier studies have failed to show consistent relationships between physical activity and effects on cognitive and social development although Pollatschek’s work (1989) was promising. However, a more recent study from New Zealand (Parrott, 1997) has shown improved social and affective development for babies and preschool children through participation in physical activity designed to use physical play activities such as swinging, jumping, rolling and play involving others. Improved self esteem, physical confidence and feelings of well-being have been reported in participants. The physical activity programme in the New Zealand study is based on similar principles as SDM but has only been used on babies, toddlers and preschool children.

During the last half of the twentieth century, physical education in British schools was based on movement principles developed by Rudolph Laban. These movement principles provided a framework for teachers both to successfully observe movement and also to teach movement holistically and inclusively (Laban, 1998). The main principles are centred around BODY, SPACE, DYNAMICS and RELATIONSHIPS. Veronica Sherborne, a physical education teacher and qualified physiotherapist, began to emphasise the BODY and RELATIONSHIPS elements in her movement programmes with children with severe and profound learning disabilities. Her style of working became known as Sherborne Developmental Movement (SDM) and is presently being practised in Japan, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Belgium, Poland, Finland, Brazil, Italy, Germany and the UK. Sherborne, herself, claimed that SDM encouraged children of all abilities and disabilities to “feel at home in their own bodies” and to form relationships (Sherborne, 2001). Researchers in Sweden (Klinta, 1999) and Poland (Bogdanowicz, 1992) have shown increases in relationship building and ability to communicate after sessions of SDM with special populations such as children with autism, learning difficulties and behavioural problems. Sherborne also claimed that her style of movement education improved self esteem and encouraged children to focus and attend so that concentration levels were raised (Sherborne, 2001) There are many anecdotal reports of how children in mainstream education have improved in physical, social and academic development after following SDM teaching but to date, there has not been a controlled study to examine the claims from the SDM practitioners.

METHODOLOGY

Three Year 1 classes in an infant school in Kent were identified for this study. The Headteacher estimated that each class contained children from a similar background, were of a similar age range and were developmentally similar. All children received traditional physical education input 3 x per week, normally taught by their own class teacher. 16 children (8 boys and 8 girls) from each class were randomly chosen from the register as research project children (n=48). Each group of 16 children underwent the following tests: in January of the school year-

(a)observation of body management abilities by Research Assistant 1 using a video recording of a specific gymnastics session using a physical observation schedule (Sherborne, 2001)

(b)observation of relationship building in both the classroom setting and at break times by Research Assistant 2 using an adapted observation schedule (Sylva, 1980)

(c)observation of on/off task behaviours in the classroom setting by Research Assistant 2 using a video recording and observation schedule (Sylva, 1980)

Baseline scores were then recorded

For the next 6 months (ie until July). Class A participated in 2 traditional PE lessons per week taught by their own teacher and then 1 SDM session taught by the teacher of Class C who was specially trained in SDM. Class B participated in 3 traditional PE lessons per week taught by their own class teacher. Class C participated in 2 traditional PE lessons and 1 SDM session per week, all taught by their own teacher.

Classes A and C became the treatment groups (n=32) and Class B acted as the control group (n=16).

After 6 months, the battery of tests were repeated by the same Research Assistants using the same schedules. The Research Assistants were not informed whether the children were from a control group or a treatment group.

RESULTS

Body Management

Using ANOVA and the Mann-Whitney test, results showed highly significant differences (p<0.001) in BODY, SPACE, DYNAMICS and RELATIONSHIPS for children in both Class A and Class C compared with Class B (control). There were no significant differences between the two treatment classes.

The control group, Class B, showed slight improvements in the 4 elements but none were significant.

Social Development

CLASS A (exp) CLASS C (exp) CLASS B (ctrl)

Jan / July / P= / Jan / July / P= / Jan / July / P=
Co-op / 54 / 100 / 0.01 / 64 / 86 / 0.05 / 32 / 57 / Ns
Turns / 28 / 93 / 0.01 / 59 / 77 / 0.14 / 56 / 43 / Ns
Share / 0 / 68 / 0.01 / 60 / 61 / Ns / 18 / 24 / Ns

These results show different values in social development in each class in January. Estimates of similar classes across Year 1 were inaccurate and discussion with the teachers and teaching assistants verified the dissimilarity of the classes in January. Observations by Research Assistant 2 also revealed that each class teacher gave their children different amount of opportunities for co-operating, sharing and turn-taking which must of necessity, affect the results.

It is very clear, however, that the children in Class A showed the biggest improvements in social development with Class showing improvements in co-operating and turn-taking. They already had a very high value for sharing in January and it is not surprising that this only improved minimally. Class B (control group) showed only small improvements in 2 elements and actually showed less turn taking in July!

Concentration/Attention (on/off task behaviours)

Children were assessed for 5 separate minutes in January and then again in July. For each minute, Research Assistant 2 decided whether the observed child was on task or off task. For each child, a total concentration score was computed that could range from 0 to 5.

On first viewing of the results, there seems to be little difference between the treatment groups and the control group. However, on closer examination, it is clear that in January, girls in all groups concentrated significantly better than the boys in all groups with an average score for boys of 2.1 and girls of 4.2 (p<0.01 t-test)

In July, however, the gap had dramatically closed with boys scoring 4.0. Girls increased their value to 4.8 and so remained significantly better than boys (p<0.05). But it was only the boys in the treatment groups that had significantly changed their concentration scores (p<0.01). Boys in the control group had not.

DISCUSSION

This project was designed to check the claims made by Veronica Sherborne regarding her style of inclusive and innovative movement. The design was experimental in nature and teacher personality effect was addressed by having 2 treatment groups, one of which saw the SDM teacher only for 30 mins per week. Results do suggest that Sherborne Developmental Movement may make highly significant differences in body management development in Year 1 children. Activities in the SDM programme are inclusive, allow children to work on their own challenges, encourage children to be creative with space and body actions and are fun.

Relationship play is also at the heart of SDM. There are strong indications that social development is significantly improved by SDM, especially for those children showing lower initial scores. There were two non-significant scores recorded for treatment class C but it can be seen that the “sharing” element score in January was very high (60) so it is not surprising that the score in July would not be much higher. The control class B show very small gains in sharing and co-operation which could be expected in normal development of Year 1 children. Class A show significant improvements in all scores.

Only boys undergoing SDM show significant improvement in concentration though scores recorded for girls were consistently higher than the boys in January and July. During observations of children on/off task, it became clear that deciding whether children were actually concentrating on the task or daydreaming was a difficult decision that the Research Assistant had to make. In turn, this has lead on to a second section in this discussion i.e. methodology in classroom research.

(a)The observation process

It is worth raising a few points about the research method and some of the pitfalls of naturalistic observations of young children. Given that this research was focussing on the social development of young children, it is interesting that the social and interactive behaviour of young children was so difficult to observe, record, classify and analyse. A great deal of time has been spent, both before and after the observations, discussing this and whilst it is a difficulty often acknowledged in literature, it is a problem we found particularly difficult to solve in this research. Sociologist Howard Becker comments;

"We may have understated a little the difficulty of observing contemporary classrooms*.I have talked to a couple of teams of research people who have sat around in classrooms trying to observe and it is like pulling teeth to get them to see or write anything beyond what 'everyone' knows."

(Becker, 1971, p.10)

Becker's point here seems to be that it is difficult to see beyond the familiar, and for most educational researchers, the classroom is a very familiar place.

The purpose of observation, as Sylva and Lunt (1986) point out, is to note what is seen and to make sense of it. The example is given:

"How do I know you are hungry? Because I can see you ogling the food and licking your lips." (Sylva, 1989)

However, this involves some form of interpretation of what is seen. It requires the observer (usually adult) to make sense of the child's world. In the example given by Sylva, this is probably correct, based on an adult understanding of social and physical clues and general worldly knowledge. But what of a child crying? What is the child crying for? What feelings / emotions is the child experiencing? How do we know these things? Do we not need to know what meaning the child places on any action or utterance, rather than attributing our own?

For the purpose of these observations it was necessary to focus on the social development seen in the children between January (prior to SDM) and July (after SDM).

(b)The aimless gaze or wander

Sylva uses this as a recording category - but how do we know it to be a true reflection of what is happening? In this research, children were frequently observed in a moment of doing, apparently, 'nothing'. Most often this involved the child sitting at a table, hand cupped under chin or fingernails being chewed, elbow resting on the table, eyes looking into the distance, sometimes out of a nearby window. Is this child day dreaming - or thinking? Who can be sure? Is this child on or off task? It is a difficult one to call*.

(c)The solitary child

What about a child alone? What are we to conclude from a child who appears to have no interactions at all during their 6 minutes of observation? During one observed incident, a group of girls were eating their packed lunch together, with plenty of chatter and apparent enjoyment. Suddenly, one of the girls shut her lunch box and declared, "Let's go and play!" The other girls packed away their unfinished lunches and ran after the first child, their mouths still full. However, one of the girls began to pack away her lunch and then seemed to change her mind. She then unwrapped a particularly tasty piece of cake and sat eating, alone. I watched her eating for a further three minutes. How should I record these observations? How should they be categorised? Was this a solitary child, with no evidence of social interaction, possibly unpopular with the other girls; or was this a very self-confident child who didn't feel obliged to follow her friends but was able to make her own choice and felt comfortable enough to finish lunch alone? There were a number of occasions when children were observed in solitary activity, even during playtimes, and the dilemma of how to record this became apparent.

(d) The stranger factor

It is impossible to escape the fact that the observer is an intruder in the child's world. It is hard to judge the effects of this on what is seen. Mandell (1991) advocates that the observer should try to be the 'least adult' in order to control for observer effects. Fine (1988) argues that it is impossible for the observer to go unnoticed, although King (1978) attempted (unsuccessfully) to hide in the 'home corner' when observing an infant classroom. I found being an observer (and a teacher at that!) particularly difficult during playtime observations, where, as an adult on the playground, children wanting to report minor squabbles, grazed knees, etc frequently approached me. There was also a tendency for children in the classroom to want to talk to me or ask questions, although they had been told that I was coming in to 'see' the class. How a non-participant observer affects behaviour and interactions (of both adults and children in the classroom) remains difficult to ascertain. .

(e) Children talking

Children's use of language socially, to peers, may be qualitatively and quantitatively different to that used with adults. Some of the observations that include both child-to-child and child-to-teacher interactions appear to suggest this. For example, one pupil, described as an 'elective mute' was engaged in animated conversation with peers! Davies (1982) noted such differences and describes two separate and distinct linguistic worlds. Again, as a 'stranger' in the classroom, and one constrained by time limitations, it is impossible to reflect on how relationships, past history and prior events effect the quality and meaning of observed interactions.

(f) Real life in schools

Things happen in schools! There are things that cannot be controlled; yet the time available for observations remains unchangeable very often. Only a very large research budget would overcome this obstacle! The timed observations were not always good samples, for example, if the bell rang then a child was observed lining up at the end of play. The scope for social interaction would be largely diminished. Watching children at play brings it's own problems; children move very fast, games rarely stay in one spot, and, it seems, all children wear the same coat! Keeping 'track' of children at play is problematic. Hearing conversations is very difficult outside - recording them in driving January sleet is even harder!