This paper provides observations of physical fitness testing in Texas schools and physical education teachers' insights about large-scale testing using the FITNESSGRAM[R] assessment (Cooper Institute, 2007) as mandated by Texas Senate Bill 530. In the first study, undergraduate and graduate students who were trained to observe and assess student fitness testing in grades 3 through 12 provided observations. In the second study, physical education teachers responded to selected interview questions during a focus group discussion. From the observations and responses, specific themes emerged related to teachers knowledge and training about conducting fitness testing and managing data, students' knowledge and motivation, support and resources far conducting fitness assessments, and complexity of the fitness situation.
Key words: behaviors, perceptions, physical education teachers
Physical fitness and physical activity levels in children and adolescents have long been a topic of interest, especially to physical educators, exercise scientists, health agencies, and private organizations dealing with sport and fitness (Safrit, 1990). Knowledge that children and adolescents in the United States are more obese and possibly less physically fit than their counterparts in other developed nations has been highlighted for more than two decades (see DiNubile, 1993; Freedson, Cureton, & Heath, 2000; Seefeldt & Vogel, 1989). A number of nationwide youth fitness school-based physical education programs have been developed over the past 50 years, during which time several reports critically examined the strengths and weaknesses of the fitness batteries used in the programs (e.g., Freedson et al., 2000; Keating, 2003; Safrit, 1990; Safrit & Wood, 1995). Hence, examining physical education classes or fitness assessment protocols to improve the experiences of all those involved is not a new concept (e.g., Stewart, Boyce, Elliot, & Block, 2005). The beneficial impact of fitness testing programs, components, and certain test items has met with some skepticism due to the increased number of overweight children and adolescents and overweight, inactive adults (Keating, 2003; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2008). Findings from a few studies suggested that high physical fitness during childhood and young adulthood is related to a healthy risk factor profile later in life; however, youth physical activity levels do not necessarily influence cardiovascular disease in later life (Harris & Cale, 2006; Twisk, Kemper, & Van Mechelen, 2002a, 2002b).
Education, government, healthcare, and business institutions, as well as parents and families should share the responsibility for U.S. children's and adolescents' health and fitness (Austin, Fung, Cohen-Bearak, Wardle, & Cheung, 2006). Positive attempts to make large-scale changes include legislation such as Texas Senate Bill (SB) 19, requiring students in publicly funded elementary and middle schools to participate in physical activity; SB 42, that schools implement a coordinated health program; or SB 530, mandating fitness testing of grade 3-12 students (e.g., Kelder et al., 2009). However, there is limited information about the issues and barriers teachers and administrators face when making these changes (e.g., Green & Thurston, 2002). By documenting testing errors and best practices during large-scale fitness testing, a comprehensive understanding may guide future endeavors to ensure accountability and success. Thus, this paper reports on teachers' experiences during the Texas state-mandated physical fitness assessments conducted in the second year of implementation.
Through anecdotal reports, experiences, and observations from physical education teachers and trained college students who conducted the mandated fitness testing, we provide an understanding of the issues and barriers to conducting physical fitness assessments and maintaining annual statewide physical fitness data. This paper entails two separate studies, (a) the observations of undergraduate and graduate students trained to use the FITNESSGRAM[R]/ACTIVITYGRAM[R] assessment tools (Cooper Institute, 2007) and (b) physical education teachers' thoughts and opinions about the state-mandated fitness testing program and the FITNESSGRAM/ ACTIVITYGRAM assessment tools. The themes and the concerns that emerged from these investigations are presented here to aid future large-scale fitness testing.
Study 1: Testing Observations
The research team included one graduate student and eight undergraduate students enrolled in the Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion, and Recreation at the University of North Texas (Morrow, Martin, & Jackson, 2010). All were trained in FITNESSGRAM test administration, which included reading the training manual, watching an accompanying DVD demonstration, completing the online certification, hands-on training at The Cooper Institute and the University of North Texas, and practice testing at two local middle schools prior to beginning the study. In addition, team members were trained to use standardized testing forms that listed specific criteria for FITNESSGRAM test items (e.g., 15-m PACER [Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run], 20-m PACER, curl-up, pull-up, etc.). They also practiced observing and recording errors in the testing procedures.
Expertly trained testing teams of two to four people traveled to schools to either observe teachers administer the fitness test items twice within a 2-week period or observe teachers administer the fitness test items and then within 2 weeks re-administer the same test items (for additional information on the protocol see Morrow, Martin, & Jackson, 2010). Hence, at least two team members were present in each session to record observations of teacher-administered testing or to conduct the testing. They recorded daily observations journals and test results on the standardized FITNESSGRAM testing forms.
Recruiting and Scheduling Schools
Schools were recruited through telephone, email, fliers, and in-person meetings with teachers and district physical education representatives. Elementary school teachers showed the most interest in study participation and signed up quickly for the research. They were placed in one of two groups: the teacher-administered fitness group, or the teacher-administered followed by expert team-administered fitness group. Many elementary school physical education teachers already incorporated fitness testing elements into their curriculum and devoted entire units to teaching the FITNESSGRAM test battery; these factors provided an ideal opportunity for them to schedule time to participate in the study. Recruiting middle and high school teachers and their students was difficult due, in part, to the physical education and physical activity requirements defined in SB 530 (Morrow, Martin, & Jackson, 2010), which are different from those for elementary schools. The physical activity requirements for elementary school (first through fifth grades) are 30 min/day or 135 min/week (45 min three times per week) or 225 min over 2 weeks (45 min three times the first week, and 45 min twice the second week). Only four of six semesters of physical education were required in middle school (sixth through eighth grades), and the high school physical education requirement was 1.5 years. Not all students were required to enroll in physical education at the middle and 'high school levels. At some schools, nonphysical education students were released from other classes to complete the mandated physical education fitness testing. Conversely, other schools opted to test the entire school over 1 or 2 days and recruited teachers from other departments to help administer the test. Because secondary school physical education teachers were not necessarily those responsible for administering the test at their school, it was difficult to find those willing to take time away from their schedule to participate in the study.
The expert trained team observed 29 classes in 17 different …