Dissertation: Physical Education and Academic Performance – Literature Review

http://www.urgentcustomessays.com/blog/2010/01/dissertation-physical-education-and-academic-performance-literature-review/Dissertation: Physical Education and Academic Performance – Literature ReviewEssay Blog

Researchers (Caterino & Polak, 1993; Caterino, & Polak, 1999; Labarre, Jequier, Shephard, Lavalle, & Rajic, 1984; Shephard, 1997) have supported the many benefits of a quality physical education program. First and foremost, physical education helps fight the growing problem of childhood obesity and the health problems that come from being overweight. However, many people do not realize how beneficial physical education can be towards academic learning. Carlson (1982) stated that cognitive function appears to improve while participating in physical activity. He also suggested that the increase of mental alertness and performance are popular research conclusions of being physically active. One of the major claims in recent years has been the link of increased physical education and improved academics. There have been several earlier studies (Caterino & Polak, 1993; Caterino, & Polak, 1999; Labarre, Jequier, Shephard, Lavalle, & Rajic, 1984; Shephard, 1997) that examined the relationship of physical education and academic learning. However, at the present this claim is still scientifically very weak. Sallis, McKenzie, Kolody, Lewis, Marshall, and Rosengard (1999) investigated increased physical education time on academic achievement.  Subjects were randomly assigned to various groups.  All subjects were in a Southern California suburb in a single school district. Achievement was measured by a the Metropolitan Achievement Test. The sample was stratified into groups by percent ethnic minorities. Each school was then placed in one of three groups. A control group, a physical education specialist taught group, and a regular classroom teacher trained group. SPARK (Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids curriculum) was used at all schools involved in the study. The SPARK curriculum involved fourth and fifth grades at all public schools and was designed to promote physical activity both in and out of school. This program was designed to be implemented three times a week, and focused on health-related fitness, movement skills, and positive socialization. All schools were provided with supplies and equipment needed to implement the SPARK physical education program. Salis, et al (1999) divided the subjects into three groups. Group one was the trained teacher group, where teachers were trained on how to effectively teach a physical education program. Group two was assigned physical education specialists to implement the curriculum. Lastly, Group three was the control group. This group was to continue as usual with what ever physical education they were providing. The results of Salis, et al (1999) study showed that spending more time in physical education was not harmful to academic achievement test scores in elementary children. Data was analyzed using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Achievement test scores greatly exceeded the national average at baseline (range: 58.5-80.9). There were declines from second to sixth grade in percentile rankings in all experimental conditions.
As for the intervention of the SPARK curriculum, in language all three groups declined in percentile ranking with the specialist group declining the least. On Reading scores the specialist group increased in percentile ranking, while the control students decreased. This difference was significant. These results give physical education the support it needs validate the argument that increased physical education is not harmful to academic learning.Strengths of Salis et al (1999) were the fact that subjects were randomly selected, and the study used both a pre-test and post-test. Splitting the sample into three groups may have effected the statistical power but proved to be essential in detecting significant differences among the groups. One major weakness that was out of the researcher’s control was the change in the type and timing of the achievement test for group one and two. Group one was given the MAT6 in the spring of the second and fifth grade and group two was given the MAT6 in the spring of the second grade, but given the MAT7 in the fall of the sixth grade. Based on previous studies, (Caterino & Polak, 1993; Caterino, & Polak, 1999; Labarre, Jequier, Shephard, Lavalle, & Rajic, 1984; Shephard, 1997)) the results were consistent, which added validity to the study. The study strongly supported that increased physical education does not hurt academic performance. The one area where this study disagreed with previous findings was the fact that it did not report any increases in math performance. The Canadian (Shephard et al., 1994) and Australian (Maynard et al., 1987) studies both reported improvements in mathematics. This suggested that there needs to be further research in this area to determine if in fact math scores can be improved by increasing quality physical education.

Incoming search terms:

• physical education helps academics (14)
• discussion Physical activity academic achievement (4)
• how does physical education promote academic learning (4)
• How does Physical education link with the academic learning (4)
• physical education improves academic performance (3)
• Caterino and Polak 1999 (3)
• PE promotes academic learning (3)
• how does p e promote academic learning (3)
• academic performance literature (3)
• how does p e improve academical performance? (2)

Tags: adacemic performance, literature review, physical education, sample dissertation