View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

What We Are Really Doing with ICT in Physical Education: A National Audit of Equipment, Use, Teacher Attitudes, Support, and Training

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: What We Are Really Doing with ICT in Physical Education: A National Audit of Equipment, Use, Teacher Attitudes, Support, and Training
Language: English
Authors: Thomas, Andrew, Stratton, Gareth
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. Jul 2006 37(4):617-632.
Availability: The British Psychological Society, St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road, EastLeicester, LE1 7DR UK. Tel: 0116-254-9568.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2006
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Teacher Attitudes, Physical Education, Information Technology, Educational Administration, Questionnaires, Physical Education Teachers, Teaching Methods, Educational Equipment
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00520.x
ISSN: 0007-0998
Abstract: This paper reports on the results from a detailed national audit of information communication technology (ICT) in physical education (PE), examining attitudes, training, numbers of pieces of equipment and hardware owned, and its employment and use across nine Local Education Authorities, six types of schools, and four types of Specialist College. After setting the context, a summary of the survey methods used and an overview of the findings from 500 schools are presented. Results from 252 questionnaires returned suggested that the majority of PE teachers felt that ICT was a valuable teaching tool; however, parity of training and ownership of equipment were not standard across the range of schools or regions. Furthermore, the data suggest a growing trend in ICT use in PE across England.
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 24
Entry Date: 2006
Accession Number: EJ736368
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG8g39pE73Q3tBlHHOeFBJ2AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLeIbvNQ_wNmZkMkFwIBEICBmndq3R5L7PNBt1h6NAy8Tfk5U4RKUh7wyNeBM9StXVu_IFQdCtVu36yOuppCEe7Jo5iiBx2mp8p_4aLuKTzfcViVmmc3mdxdX6yXpe5xm37ERic9J9skRUjgx2Pt7sUC4weg94dVXS7SMf29-Uhjcd4TR2S_GT6ZFPjgZ_EekOEgEsNSpVpb4Ai9u9jptEYyFJHfGW21xSvzvIY=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0020856994;58i01jul.06;2019May28.12:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0020856994-1">What we are really doing with ICT in physical education: a national audit of equipment, use, teacher attitudes, support, and training. </title> <p>This paper reports on the results from a detailed national audit of information communication technology (ICT) in physical education (PE), examining attitudes, training, numbers of pieces of equipment and hardware owned, and its employment and use across nine Local Education Authorities, six types of schools, and four types of Specialist College. After setting the context, a summary of the survey methods used and an overview of the findings from 500 schools are presented. Results from 252 questionnaires returned suggested that the majority of PE teachers felt that ICT was a valuable teaching tool; however, parity of training and ownership of equipment were not standard across the range of schools or regions. Furthermore, the data suggest a growing trend in ICT use in PE across England.</p> <p>The use of information communication technology (ICT) in the modern world has helped the human race improve many things and has claimed to improve 'thinking, communication, and problem‐solving skills through a wide range of software and input devices'; however, as [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>] notes, little has been made of the use of ICT in the development of students' gross motor skill outside of a commercial setting and this is especially true in physical education (PE) lessons. For practitioners, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>], p. 4) state that, 'society is undergoing a fundamental transformation from the industrial age to the information age. Those who realign their practices most effectively to Information Age standards will reap substantial benefits'. Yet, in the UK's Office for Standards in Education's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref3">18</reflink>], p. 3), the lack of inclusion of ICT in lessons is regarded as an area of weakness, where it concludes that, 'teachers often see the use of ICT in PE as a distraction from what they regard as the more important practical, active focus of the subject'. Combining the 'new' interest of these students with the age‐old institution of the PE lesson could see results boom and levels of attainment increased.</p> <p>The concept that ICT could be beneficial to education has been argued by the UK's [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>]. However, the benefits of ICT in PE did not form part of the comprehensive study and support activities for this area of the curriculum, despite the [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]. Thus, empirical research is required to validate these claims that 'physical education can benefit from the integration of ICT'. United with these claims are the statutory requirements that are seen in the UK's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority National Curriculum for PE ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>], p. 38) that states that students should be, 'given opportunities to apply and develop their ICT capability through the use of ICT tools to support their learning in all subjects'. The present problem for the PE teacher is how to best resource and deliver this curriculum goal. In Devon, the advisory service is initiating the use of Dart Fish software into schools. Dartfish is a camcorder technology package that allows immediate feedback to learners using digital video. However, the rationale is based on a belief that, 'it is becoming clear that the use of ICT in physical education can provide a range of tools, physical education that can have a significant impact on motivation and standards' (<ulink href="http://www.devon.gov.uk/dcs/dartfish/video.html">http://www.devon.gov.uk/dcs/dartfish/video.html</ulink>), although the use of ICT does not provide tools.</p> <p>The current problem is that there is no independent baseline measure of ICT use in PE in England. Technology is developing so rapidly that a baseline study at the start of the evolution of ICT in PE is warranted. Moreover, survey data would provide a quick and straightforward approach to ICT use across England including the range of school categories that currently exist. The data produced would enable further research to be targeted, depending on the survey results.</p> <p>The aims of this study were to investigate (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>) what equipment is used, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>) staff training received, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>) teachers' attitude towards, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>) the teaching approach taken when using ICT in PE. In March 2003, a random stratified survey of ICT use in PE departments across England was conducted to answer the study aims.</p> <hd id="AN0020856994-2">Methodology</hd> <p>The work of [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]) was used to design a method to collect the data. The works of [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>]); [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]); [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>]); [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]); and [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref16">19</reflink>]) suggested that mail interviews produce more reliable data than telephone interviews; this being consistent with the work of [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]). For this study, a questionnaire was used following the style used by the US Census Bureau 2000 because of the huge amount of research that had been conducted by [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>] in questionnaire layout and design ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]). The questionnaire consisted of a minimal number of open‐ended questions to mainly establish fact than opinion. By limiting the number of open‐ended questions, time was saved and responses were controlled for analytical purposes. Therefore, closed questions with categorical responses such as 'yes' and 'no' responses were preferred, as seen in Figure 1. Using closed questions did mean that there was a lack of flexibility for the respondent and that there was little room for unanticipated discoveries and respondents that they may have felt that their response did not fit any of the designated answers.</p> <p>Graph: 1 Questions 1 to 12 of the questionnaire</p> <p>The DfES listed a total of 3832 schools in England as of May 2003, predominately offering mainstream secondary education. Schools are categorised depending upon their admission policy or funding. The categories are:</p> <p></p> <p>• 1</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Community schools (CY)</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 2</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Voluntary controlled (VC)</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 3</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Voluntary aided (VA)</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 4</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> City technology colleges (CTC)</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 5</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Foundation (FD)</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 6</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Independent (IND)</item> </ulist> <p>Specialist college status is possible for CY, VC, VA, and FD schools and colleges on completion of a successful bid to the government. These existed in the following subjects:</p> <p></p> <p>• 1</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Art (including fine art, performing arts, and media arts)</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 2</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Languages</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 3</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Technology (including mathematics and sciences)</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 4</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Sport (including PE)</item> </ulist> <p>The percentages of these schools making up the 3832 schools in England are outlined in Table 1.</p> <p>1 Number and percentage of types of schools in England (May 2003)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>Total schools</th><th>CY</th><th>VC</th><th>VA</th><th>CTC</th><th>FD</th><th>IND</th><th>ART</th><th>Lang</th><th>Tech</th><th>Sport</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Total</td><td>3832</td><td>1966</td><td>95</td><td>497</td><td>15</td><td>446</td><td>815</td><td>87</td><td>117</td><td>333</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>% of total</td><td>  100</td><td>  51.3</td><td>  2.5</td><td> 13</td><td>  0.39</td><td>  12</td><td>  21</td><td>  2.27</td><td>  3.05</td><td>  8.68</td><td>  2.55</td></tr><tr><td>13% (sample)</td><td>  498.16</td><td>  256</td><td>12</td><td> 65</td><td>  1.95</td><td>  58</td><td>106</td><td>11.3</td><td>  15.2</td><td>  43.3</td><td>  12.7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Following a pilot study involving 10 schools to test the questionnaire's reliability, 500 questionnaires were sent to a randomly selected and nationally representative sample of schools.</p> <p>A target response of 50% was set, which equated to 6.5% of the national total.</p> <p>It was important that this target was met for each of the six types of schools as well as the four types of specialist schools. Table 2 shows the number and percentage of questionnaires returned for each Local Education Authority (LEA) and type of school. After one month, 201 schools had responded after one initial contact by letter (40.2% response rate). After a follow‐up consisting of a second mail drop and reminder, a total of 236 schools had returned questionnaires, bringing the response rate to 47.2%. Fourteen schools were successfully followed up by telephone. Following this additional 5.55% sample of data collected (based on 252 total collected) two further questionnaires were returned late as a result of the second contact by mail. In total, 252 schools participated, giving a 50.4% response rate and a 6.58% sample of the national total. Differences between regions, types of schools, and specialist colleges were recorded. Data were entered into the mathematical processor SPSS v.11 to provide statistical measures and data displays.</p> <p>2 Number and percentage of questionnaires returned for each Local Education Authority</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th>Total</th><th>Community schools</th><th>Voluntary controlled</th><th>Voluntary aided</th><th>City technology colleges</th><th>Foundation</th><th>Independent</th><th>Art</th><th>Language</th><th>Technology</th><th>Sport</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>East England</td><td>26</td><td>11</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>East Midlands</td><td>19</td><td>12</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>North‐east</td><td>10</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>North‐west</td><td>32</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>London</td><td>41</td><td>16</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>South‐west</td><td>23</td><td>12</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>South‐east</td><td>53</td><td>20</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>17</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>West Midlands</td><td>25</td><td>17</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Yorkshire and  Humberside</td><td>23</td><td>17</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>13% of population</td><td>499</td><td>256</td><td>12</td><td>65</td><td>1.95</td><td>58</td><td>106</td><td>11.3</td><td>15.2</td><td>43.3</td><td>12.7</td></tr><tr><td>Totals returned</td><td>252</td><td>129</td><td>6</td><td>32</td><td>1</td><td>30</td><td>54</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>22</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>6.55% Target</td><td>250</td><td>128</td><td>6</td><td>33</td><td>1</td><td>29</td><td>53</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>22</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Following this initial audit, an ethnographic study was conducted to generate more detail on how ICT was used and what problems are faced by the PE teacher. The participants in this part of the study were selected on the basis of ICT competency as it was felt that these practitioners would have a better understanding for the potential of ICT in PE as well as recognise the strengths and weaknesses of its use. Six schools across the country were highlighted as schools that were leaders in ICT in PE. The selection was based on the work conducted by the person‐in‐charge of the ICT in the PE department, where national recognition had been gained. The criteria for national recognition were based on having publications in this field, national research conducted in this area, 'good' or 'excellent' OFSTED reports for the use and delivery of ICT in PE, membership to appropriate national organisations for ICT in PE, or conferences delivered in this area.</p> <p>The participants chosen and the type of schools they represented can be seen in Table 3 below.</p> <p>3 Showing type of school representation of participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th>Number</th><th>Region</th><th>Local Education Authority</th><th>Type of school</th><th>Specialism</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>South‐west</td><td>Torbay</td><td>Community schools</td><td>Sport</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>North‐west</td><td>Wigan</td><td>Voluntary controlled</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>London</td><td>Wandsworth</td><td>Independent</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>North‐west</td><td>Bolton</td><td>Voluntary aided</td><td>Sport</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>North‐west</td><td>Sefton</td><td>Community schools</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>North‐west</td><td>Wigan</td><td>Voluntary controlled</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>North‐west</td><td>Liverpool</td><td>Community schools</td><td>Sport</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Using instant messenger systems such as MSN and Yahoo!, a live online semi‐structured questioning session was planned with each individual subject, where scripts could be saved and examined. Questions that were used included:</p> <p></p> <p>• 1</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is it 'good' using ICT in PE?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 2</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Why do children learn more effectively?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 3</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What/How/Why do you use various types of ICT?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 4</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What/How/Why do you do things differently when you use ICT in lessons?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 5</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What/How/Why does limited equipment hold you back? What else are the barriers in using ICT in PE?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 6</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What/How/Why was the support you were given to develop your ICT skills good/bad/indifferent?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 7</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What/How/Why does your management team support your ICT development (or the opposite)?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 8</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What/How/Why do you use ICT in your planning?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 9</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What/How/Why did you use a particular strategy to implement an ICT policy into your department/lessons/teaching/managing, etc?</item> </ulist> <p>A second email was sent to participants following the response of the first, asking for their biography. This included:</p> <p></p> <p>• 1</p> <p></p> <p>• age;</p> <p></p> <p>• 2</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> number of years teaching;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 3</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> amount of schools taught in;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 4</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> position in the school;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 5</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> philosophy of PE;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 6</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> journal articles written and conferences given;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 7</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> influential people who encouraged their use of ICT and ICT in PE;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 8</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> experiences outside of teaching;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 9</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> type of school they teach in with regards to facilities and grades achieved;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 10</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> university(ies) attended/degrees awarded or pending;</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• 11</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> any other achievements or information on ICT in PE.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0020856994-3">Research findings</hd> <p>The majority of PE departments reported that ICT was a valuable tool in PE (92%, <emph>n</emph> = 231). A positive attitude towards the use of ICT was reported by PE teachers in specialist colleges where 98% of the staff supported the use of ICT in this subject (see Figure 2). Eighty‐eight per cent of PE departments owned a compact disc (CD) player, which was the most commonly owned piece of ICT equipment (see Figure 3). The study could not identify if the CD player was being used to play music for dance lessons, or for general music in the background in an attempt to help stimulate learning, reduce deleterious behavior, or increase work rate ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref20">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: 2 Support for ICT in PE</p> <p>Graph: 3 Percentage ownership of CD players</p> <p>Schools reported that ICT was mainly used to monitor, assess, record, and report (MARR) in PE (54%, <emph>n</emph> = 136; Figure 4). The majority of schools (40%, <emph>n</emph> = 39) also reported that performance analysis technology was consistently used in PE. This rose to 63% (<emph>n</emph> = 26) in specialist colleges. Differences in attitudes existed between LEA regions where 12% (<emph>n</emph> = 3) of schools in the East England was mostly negative towards using ICT in PE. Schools in this region had the least amount of ICT equipment and hardware, perhaps offering an explanation for this negative attitude.</p> <p>Graph: 4 Main use of ICT in PE departments across the regions</p> <p>The study also found that schools in London were least likely to use ICT in PE, where teachers received the least training in ICT use (see Figure 5) and had the lowest amount of staff with management responsibility for ICT in PE. Schools in this region, the West Midlands, and The East Midlands also owned the least amount of ICT hardware and software. London schools reported the lowest use of ICT in PE, alongside schools in the east of England and the north‐east. Although schools in the south‐west recorded the highest levels of training, schools in the north‐west owned the most number of ICT equipment.</p> <p>Graph: 5 Confidence interval (95%) for mean number of members trained under NOF by region</p> <p>However, where PE departments in the East Midlands recorded the lowest amount of hardware and software ownership, schools in this region more often used ICT in PE lessons. This could suggest that whilst these departments lack quantity of varying pieces of equipment that are seen as surplus to requirement, departments have concentrated on gaining specific equipment that is highly valued as a tool to be used more often. A significant correlation coefficient between staff that had undergone In Service Training (INSET) in ICT and staff with email accounts was found to exist (<emph>r</emph> = 0.144, <emph>p</emph> = 0.026) and between staff ICT INSET and departments with Web pages (<emph>r</emph> = 0.153, <emph>p</emph> = 0.018), but were less likely to use digital cameras (<emph>r</emph> = −0.197, <emph>p</emph> = 0.015), video projectors (<emph>r</emph> = −0.304, <emph>p</emph> = 0.016), or laptops (<emph>r</emph> = −0.225, <emph>p</emph> = 0.008). The data revealed that INSET that has been received by PE departments has largely been centred around email and web page design for individual sports. The study also found that significant correlations existed between those schools that had undergone government [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>] and certain pieces of equipment owned by PE departments. These included televisions (TVs): <emph>r</emph> = 0.295, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001; video cassette recorders (VCRs): <emph>r</emph> = 0.370, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001; camcorders: <emph>r</emph> = 0.234, <emph>p</emph> = 0.008; laptops: <emph>r</emph> = 0.248, <emph>p</emph> = 0.005; and personal computers (PCs): <emph>r</emph> = 0.459, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001.</p> <p>When examining types of schools, the study found that VC schools were most likely to use ICT in PE more effectively, where these schools were found to have the most positive attitude towards training in this area; owned the most amount of equipment; and subsequently used ICT in PE the most. IND schools reported the lowest amount of training and ICT management points, ownership of hardware and software, and use of ICT in PE lessons (see Figure 6). The National Curriculum (NC) is generally not used in IND schools, and it is not surprising to find this lack of 'interest' or availability to use ICT in PE. Further research is needed to assess why VC schools are seen to place more emphasis on ICT in PE than any other.</p> <p>Graph: 6 Amount of laptops, Internet, and OHPs used between the different types of schools</p> <p>The study discovered that differences also existed between specialist colleges, where art colleges had the least amount of training and the lowest ownership of equipment and software (see Figure 7). Sport colleges owned the most amounts of hardware and software, and used ICT in PE more than any of the other specialist colleges. The study found that technology colleges used ICT in PE the least. This is perhaps a somewhat surprising result, where the specialist technology college should aim to raise attainment through technology across all subjects in the school.</p> <p>Graph: 7 Levels of training, amount of HRMs owned and used in specialist college</p> <p> <bold>The results of the second study</bold> discovered that many trends were seen to exist between the responses of the participants despite the range of ages and experiences. It was clear that the PE protagonists of ICT development all believed that ICT had a good effect on the teaching and learning of PE. What was also clear was the fact that whilst common applications were being used, such as email, Word, and Excel for everyday administration, Power Point and video analysis were being favoured as the tools for teaching, and considered to be the principal ICT components of PE. This reflected the results of the national audit. The typical use of ICT in PE for these participants was for indoor lessons such as athletics, basketball, badminton, dance, or gymnastics (eg, most PE teachers found that the use of ICT outside was limited because of the power supplies required or the logistics of using a laptop and video camera in the wet on a rugby pitch). Here, a video camera would be used to capture the movement. With the use of FireWire, the camera was connected to a laptop and the movement was saved as an Audio/Video Interleave (AVI) file via one of two major pieces of kinematic software that have been designed for the PE lesson: DartTrainer and Kandle. Using this software, the movement can be further analysed and provide feedback to the student. In the majority of cases, teachers are instructing the students how to use this equipment and software as part of the lesson, and how the students can become assistant teachers in a reciprocal teaching setting. This was listed as one teaching approach that was different compared to other PE lessons.</p> <p>From this secondary study, time was seen as the major barrier in using ICT in PE, because the time needed to set up the equipment was limited. An argument was made for the need for trained technicians to be employed within the department to alleviate this issue. In addition, the time required to produce resources such as Power Point presentations for lessons was also recorded. The cost of equipment also gave cause for concern, where budgets are restricted and the need for reliable and effective equipment is required.</p> <p>Lack of time was also seen as a barrier in using ICT with regards to time for training, where training is required to deal with problems and computer glitches that may occur in the lesson, as well as to understand the equipment and software.</p> <p>There was also a clear need for the development of different teaching styles and different and specific ICT in PE pedagogy if the staff are to become fully committed and competent in this area. Where the staff reported a lack of clear instruction from the NC for PE and the ICT requirement, there was also a call for new and precise models of good practice to be invented in this area.</p> <p>This national audit found that 41% of PE teachers had undergone NOF ICT training for PE. However, only one participant in this study reported that the staff had undergone such training.</p> <hd id="AN0020856994-4">Discussion of the results</hd> <p>Where the NC for PE demands that the students 'plan, perform, and evaluate' their work, it is perhaps not surprising that PE teachers valued the power of ICT in this part of the learning process. Coupled with a significant requirement for analysis of performance at General Certificate for Secondary Education (GCSE) and Advanced Supplementary (A/S) level PE, this result suggested that there was a need for the significant use of TVs, VCRs, camcorders, digital cameras, and camcorder software such as Dartfish and Kandle. However, the study found that most hardware and software appropriate for this type of use were being used predominately at key stage 4 (school years 10 and 11) and then key stage 3 (school years 7, 8, and 9), with key stage 5 (sixth form or years 12 and 13) seeing more use of ICT in theory lessons (such as overhead projectors, video projectors, VCRs, and the Internet).</p> <p>Although the study cannot conclude that NOF money was used to purchase TVs, VCRs, camcorders, laptops, and PCs, it could be suggested that if they had, NOF training has essentially been centred on these pieces of equipment. The evaluation of NOF ICT training by MirandaNet (see [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]) found many issues that arose from the scheme from problems with planning, timing, and access of equipment and delivery of the programme. It was also noted that some schools had been given a 'standardised' package of training for all teachers, where others had been able to select relevant training or indeed had been offered subject‐specific training, and it was clear that the parity and quality of the training were inconsistent. One respondent had written on the questionnaire, 'Please tell me where I can access good training'. All in all, ICT in PE‐specific training was largely criticized for its lack of direct relevance to the active classrooms that PE teachers lived in for most of their teaching day. OFSTED also noted that NOF training, when completed, often increased teachers' confidence in the classroom, but only rarely added to their 'pedagogic expertise' ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>], p. 3). 'Training in around six out of every ten secondary schools and half of primary schools had so far failed to tackle adequately those issues relating to the quality of ICT use in classrooms. Training materials for specific subjects at secondary level often failed to excite teachers. In many secondary schools the programme has simply ground to a halt'.</p> <p>The study could not determine why schools in London reported the lowest amount of use of ICT in PE and requires further investigation. Perhaps because school teachers in this area received the least specific ICT training for PE, and on closer inspection, training in this area was organised and run by external agencies with limited amounts of spaces. When compared to other LEA areas such as the south‐west, the training was organised through an internal member of staff that was trained and subcontracted by a third party. Those teachers would then train their own staff in house. The evaluation of NOF ICT training by MirandaNet found that teachers were more likely to consult with colleagues on training issues, than 'trainers', arguably making training more successful. In an area where staff turnover is at its highest, a lack of stability may also be given as an explanation for this result.</p> <p>Where VC schools are seen to place a greater emphasis on the use of ICT within PE, further research is required to discover why.</p> <p>Although the national audit found that the CD player was the most commonly owned piece of equipment within the school with 88% of PE departments owning one, none of the participants in the second study stated that they used it. Where the national audit found that 92% of the teaching population rated ICT as a valuable tool in PE, this follow‐up study found that when using ICT, the teachers felt that effective learning was taking place due to a more professional approach being adopted by the staff and being accepted by the students as part of the technological era they surround themselves in. In addition, whilst a 'novelty' value was seen, the staff felt that such effective learning was also due to the students being able to take more responsibility for their and their peer's learning and becoming more empowered through the visual feedback given. This was especially true when using video analysis ICT and when having taught the students how to record and interpret the data for themselves, having had training on the use of the ICT themselves.</p> <p>Lack of time was found to be a barrier by a recent research project undertaken by [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]) into barriers to the uptake of ICT by the teaching profession. The research found that teachers required more time for setting up lessons with ICT, locating Internet advice, preparing resources, exploring and practising using the technology, receiving training, and dealing with technical problems. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]) found that teachers were very concerned about the lack of time given to technology where preparation and planning are concerned. In a recent study by Tearle (2004) of Exeter University, for Becta, time was reported by educators as the second biggest barrier to ICT use in the classroom mainly for learning, practising, planning, and trying to integrate ICT into teaching programmes. Where time was identified as a barrier to using ICT in PE in this study by competent ICT users, there is a clear argument that it is required by those not as proficient in such technology to learn and develop skills in ICT for PE. It is also clear that where the profession identifies video hardware and software as the most effective form of ICT in PE, time is now required to train staff across the country into the use of such technology. This becomes more apparent where the national audit discovered that 66% of PE departments owned a camcorder, but 36% stated that they were rarely used, possibly due to lack of training and understanding of its use. This is possibly also true for Power Point, where the national audit discovered that 52% of schools had access to it, but 31% rarely used it, where there is an argument that time is required not only to set up the lesson, but also to produce the slide show.</p> <p>Where time is seen as a barrier in using ICT in PE, a reliable equipment is required to reduce crashes and aid with the flow of the lesson. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]) discovered that there was a link to the number of technological problems such as crashes and failures, and the confidence of teachers in taking up further ICT for the classroom. This is supported by [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]) survey, which reported the respondents' concerns that included technology that did not work, or, 'computers that freeze while in the middle of a lesson'.</p> <p>Although staff may have been trained in the use of a particular application, a full understanding of the system used is also required to understand how to deal with computer failure. It is also argued that whilst staff may have been trained in a particular application such as Kandle or Dartfish, they also need to have the basic knowledge of how to apply teaching principles to the results of the data collected. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]) supported this and found that there was a significant need for providing teachers with non‐contact time to undertake ICT training during school time. The need for such training is furthered by the reports that all the participants felt that there had been a lack of support to develop their skills in ICT in PE. There is also a case for initial teacher training to include the use of ICT in PE, and is perhaps the area where new pedagogy must be developed. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]) found that a lack of ICT pedagogical training at teacher training colleges was a barrier in using ICT in the classroom. Their studies found that although individual ICT skill may have been high for personal use, the transfer of these skills to the classroom was problematic. This was supported by one of the protagonists who said, 'Controversial as it may sound I believe that the real problem is a lack of technical knowledge in relation to the activity being taught'.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]) reported that there was a lack of encouragement for student teachers to use ICT in the classroom, but as [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref31">7</reflink>]) found, this was due to barriers that affected staff's own use.</p> <p>As the results of this study found that senior management teams were supportive of ICT in PE, it would be hoped that models of good practice and ICT in PE‐specific training would be encouraged and supported in PE departments across the country and become a part of the department's policy.</p> <hd id="AN0020856994-5">Conclusions and recommendations</hd> <p>The aims of this study were to investigate (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>) the equipment used, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>) the training received, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>) the attitude towards, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>) the teaching approach taken when using ICT in PE. In March 2003, random but stratified national audit of ICT in PE departments across England was conducted to answer the study aims.</p> <p>The research found that differences in ownership of hardware and software and their application are apparent across the PE departments in England, and where there is a lack of consensus and standardisation in training and type of hardware and software being used, it is difficult to claim that such tools improve learning.</p> <p>This research shows that, on the whole, the PE fraternity welcomes the integration of ICT into PE and sees the use of technology as a valuable tool in promoting effective teaching and learning. Models of good practice are certainly now required to ensure that the best use of ICT is given to students and to reduce making errors in the purchasing of equipment which then lends itself to techno‐tainment, rather than an informative edutainment environment ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]). This in turn requires standardisation of INSET and training. The heads of PE departments are left unguided when ordering such equipment and writing schemes of work. This then leads to unqualified decisions that are driven by the need to satisfy policy, rather than produce effective teaching and learning with ICT in PE. Research is now required to discover if ICT in PE is effective in the development of motor skill, and if so, how best to deliver the lesson utilising such equipment.</p> <ref id="AN0020856994-6"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Becta (1998). From <ulink href="http://www.becta.org.uk/page%5fdocuments/research/ICT%5fin%5fSchools%5fSurvey%5f2004.pdf">http://www.becta.org.uk/page%5fdocuments/research/ICT%5fin%5fSchools%5fSurvey%5f2004.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref8" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Becta (2004). Retrieved December 5, 2004, from <ulink href="http://www.becta.org.uk/page%5fdocuments/research/barriers.pdf">http://www.becta.org.uk/page%5fdocuments/research/barriers.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bishop, G. F., Hippler, H., Schwarz, N. & Strack, F. (1988). A comparison of response effects in self‐administered and telephone surveys. In R. Groves (Ed.), Telephone survey methodology (pp. 321 – 240). New York: Wiley and Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brick, J. M., McGuinness, R., Lapham, S., Cahalan, M. & Owens, D. (1995). Interviewer variance in two telephone surveys. In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 447 – 452). Orlando, FL: American Statistical Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref14" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cook, D. J., Guyatt, J. E., Griffith, L., McIlroy, W., Willan, A., Jaeschke, R., et al (1993). Interviewer versus self‐administered questionnaires in developing a disease‐specific, health‐related quality of life instrument for asthma. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 46, 6, 283 – 534.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref26" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cuban, L. (1999). The technology puzzle. Education Week, 18, 43. Retrieved December 5, 2004, from <ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/cgi‐bin/texis/search?querystring=technology+puzzle&source=all&date=all">http://www.edweek.org/cgi‐bin/texis/search?querystring=technology+puzzle&source=all&date=all</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref29" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cuckle, P. & Clarke, S. 2002. Mentoring student‐teachers in schools: views, practices and access to ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18, 3, 330 – 340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Department for Education and Skills' (DfES) funded Curriculum IT Support (CITS) projects (1998). From <ulink href="http://www.becta.org.uk/technology/software/curriculum/reports%5fpdf/pe.pdf">http://www.becta.org.uk/technology/software/curriculum/reports%5fpdf/pe.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Physical education: the national curriculum for England. London, England: Dfee/QCA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolence, M. G. & Norris, D. M. (1995). Transforming higher education, society for college and university planning. Michigan, MI: Ann Arbor.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartveld, A., Hegarty, J. R. & Blurton, A. (1996). Tools to give computer feedback to movement. Physiotherapy 82, 509 – 513.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manternach‐Wigans, L. K. & Bender, C. L. (1999). Technology integration in Iowa high schools: perceptions of teachers and students (monograph). Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Technology Research And Evaluation Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHorney, C. A., Kosinski, M. & Ware, J. E. (1994). Comparison of the costs and quality of norms for the SF‐36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. Medical Care 32, 6, 551 – 567.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton, L. L., Kershner, J. R. & Siegel, L. S. (1990). The potential for therapeutic applications of music on problems related to memory and attention. Journal of Music Therapy 17, 195 – 208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, C. & Greenwood, L. (1998). Effective integration of information and communication technology in teacher education. Journal of Technology for Teacher Education 9, 3, 413 – 429.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OFSTED (2002). OFSTED report. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from <ulink href="http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/public/docs01/subjects/secpe.pdf">http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/public/docs01/subjects/secpe.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Toole, B. I., Battistutta, D., Long, A. & Crouch, K. (1986). A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview. American Journal of Epidemiology 124, 317 – 328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snoeyink, R. & Ertmer, P. (2001). Thrust into technology: how veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 30, 1, 85 – 111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> TES. (2001). New opportunities fund ICT training attacked. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from <ulink href="http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/database/ICTschool.html#NOF">http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/database/ICTschool.html#NOF</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, A. & Stratton, G. (2003). Physical edutainment. British Journal of Teaching Physical Education 34, 3, 15 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Times Educational Supplement (2004). NOF training. Retrieved July 25, 2004, from <ulink href="http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/ftp/nof1.zip">http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/ftp/nof1.zip</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Census Bureau. (1985). Evaluating census of population and housing, statistical training document ISP‐TR‐5. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Andrew Thomas and Gareth Stratton</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ736368
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: What We Are Really Doing with ICT in Physical Education: A National Audit of Equipment, Use, Teacher Attitudes, Support, and Training
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas%2C+Andrew%22">Thomas, Andrew</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stratton%2C+Gareth%22">Stratton, Gareth</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. Jul 2006 37(4):617-632.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: The British Psychological Society, St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road, EastLeicester, LE1 7DR UK. Tel: 0116-254-9568.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Technology%22">Information Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Administration%22">Educational Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Equipment%22">Educational Equipment</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00520.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper reports on the results from a detailed national audit of information communication technology (ICT) in physical education (PE), examining attitudes, training, numbers of pieces of equipment and hardware owned, and its employment and use across nine Local Education Authorities, six types of schools, and four types of Specialist College. After setting the context, a summary of the survey methods used and an overview of the findings from 500 schools are presented. Results from 252 questionnaires returned suggested that the majority of PE teachers felt that ICT was a valuable teaching tool; however, parity of training and ownership of equipment were not standard across the range of schools or regions. Furthermore, the data suggest a growing trend in ICT use in PE across England.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 24
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ736368
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ736368
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00520.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 617
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Equipment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: What We Are Really Doing with ICT in Physical Education: A National Audit of Equipment, Use, Teacher Attitudes, Support, and Training
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas, Andrew
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stratton, Gareth
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2006
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 37
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1