Aktuelno stanje i odnos nastavnika prema praćenju fizičkog razvoja i motoričkih sposobnosti učenika u okviru nastave fizičkog vaspitanja

8/13/2019 Aktuelno stanje i odnos nastavnika prema praenju fizikog razvoja i motorikih sposobnosti uenika u okviru nast

1/26

76

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

*

* 796.012.1:371.12

**

*,

**,

,

.

,

. 189 ,

.

,

. , , ,

,

, ,

.

, , .

: / / / /

/

: , ,

156, 11030 , e-mail: [email protected]

,

.

,


2/26

77

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

(., 2004).

, ,

. , ,

,

-

,

( ., 2004).

, - 30 60

,

(Strong et al., 2005; Pate et al., 2006).

-

,

45

,

,

,

.

, .

,

.

,

,

.

, (-

)

-

-

XX . -

-

-

,

, , -

-

. -

-

,

-

(, 1996). -

: -

(), -,

.

() , -

-

.

, , .

.

,

. -, -

.

.

-

, -

-

. , -

-

,

.

:

, ,

-

. -

-

.

- : -

, , ,


3/26

78

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

. -

, -

-

(., 1975). , -

,

.

, ,

, , -

-

,

-

, : , ,

().

, -

.

- . ,

( -

). -

-

. , -

,

, 1995. -

.

(1).

1

5 -7

/ ;

;

, 120s;

1;

;

30 .

7 - 10

1995/96 O1995/96

/ ;

;

3x10 .;

2;

.

/;

2 ;

, 120s;

;

30 .

11 - 14

1995/96 O1995/96

/ ;

;

;

;

4 ;30 ;

800//; 500 //.

/ ;

, 120s;

;

;

4 ;30 ;

800//; 500. //.

15 - 19

1995/96 O1995/96

/ ;

//;

//;

;

;

6 //, 4 / /;

30 ;

800//; 500. //.

/ ;

, 120s;

;

;

6 //, 4 //;

30 ;

800//; 500. //.


4/26

79

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

, ,

-

-. ,

,

. ,

( , 2004),

.

.

, -

-

-

, -

, ,

(Mood et al., 2007; Freedson et al., 2000).

, ,

(Morrow & Ede, 2009; Ma-

har & Rowe, 2008; Harris & Cale, 2006; Keating &

Silverman, 2004).

.

XX ,

,

.

a a ,

, ,

, physical

fitness, physical fitness-

(Ortega et al., 2008). physical fitness,

, ,

(U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, 1996).

health-related construct,

,

physical fitness-a . Baum-

gartner Jackson (1987) ,

physical fitness-a

, . heal-

th-related fitness-, physical

fitness ,

,

, ()

,

(Mar-

sh, 1993).

, , ,

, .

( ),

()

,

().

physical fitness-a,

,

physical fitness-a.

XX ,

()

physical

fitness-a

physical fitness-a,

.

. ,

,

.


5/26

80

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

tapping/, / - Handgrip/,

/ - Flamingo balance/,

/- Bent arm hang/,

/- Standing broad jump/, -30 .

/ - Sit-ups/, 10 x5 / - Shuttle-run10x5 m/, / - Sit and

reach/ 20-

/ - 20 m

endurance shuttle-run/, -

- PWC170

..

,

-

-

-

.

,

: The Healthy Lifestyle in Europe by

Nutrition in Adolescence .

-

(, -

, , ),

-

,

(Ruiz et al., 2006).

: , , , , -

, , , .

physical fitness-a

-

-

Fitnessgram .

health-related

physical fitness . -

, , . muscular

fitness-, ,

(2).

fitness-a

. / -

cut-off points/ fitness-a

,

.

/-Criterion-Referenced Standards/

(Harris & Cale, 2006).

,

fitness-a

a,

fit, -

(Harris & Cale, 2006).

-

, , -

. -

-

-. 1988. -

The Eurofit Physical Fitness Test

Battery, -

(Council of

Europe, Committee for the Development of Sport:

European test of physical fitness) -

-

(Eurofit, 1993). -

, -

, -

-

, , , -

.

(): , ,

/-BMI/

(m. triceps brachii), (m.

rectus abdominis), -

: -

25 /- Plate


6/26

81

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

,

,

.

-

-

.

-

, -

2

E

20-m -()

+ +

/BSSR/+

+

-

/-/+

E +

-, ,

+ +

,

- 4x10-m +

+

+

+

+

-

,

,

,

-

.

()

-

,

,

,

-

.


7/26

82

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

,

.

189 ,

, .

.

(, -

, ,

),

-

,

-

.

(

). -

SPSS 10.0 for Windows.

,

,

-

(, ,

). -

, , 124 (65.6%)

, 65 (34.4%) .

30 60 ,

168 (88.9%), 9 (4.8%)

30 12 (6.3%) -

60 .

: 10 -

69 (36.5%), 10-20 -

60 (31.7%), 20-

30 40 (21.2%)

30-40 20 (10.6%) -

. 189 -

, 66

(34.9%)

, 65 (34.4%)

, 33 (17.5 %) -. 25 (13.2%) -

-

.

-

,

, -

.

, -

-(

),

. 83.1%

-

, 16.9 %

.

41 (21.7%) ,

129 (68.3%) ()

19 (10.1%)

. 82 (43.4%) , -

, -,

, -

, , 91 (48.1%)

. 16 (8.5%) -

.

-

-.

-

, 154

(81.5%) -

. 47.1%

(-

), 34.4%

()

. -

, 13 (6.9%)


8/26

83

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

-

(, 1996).

,

,

-

. -

,

, ,

.

38 (20.1%)

,

(27%),

,

(4).

-

, 22 (11.6%) -

,

(3).

3

f %

13 6.9

-

()

65 34.4

-()

89 47.1

,

22 11.6

-

(81.5%),

-

,

.

-

,

:

,

,

() ,

( )

,

.

, -

,

( ) -

. (43.4%)

-


9/26


10/26

85

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

.

, ,

,

, (Flohr & Williams, 1997;

Hopple & Graham, 1995; Keating, 2003). -

-

, -

, -

, ,

, -

,

,

(Corbin, 2002).

5

f %

/.

81 42.9

.32 16.9

/

, .54 28.6

3 1.6

(48.7%)

-

(6). -

-

, ,

.

(24.9%)

-

,

. ,

,

. ,

,

6

f %

,

26 13.8

47 24.9

.92 48.7

.

3 1.6

2 1.1


11/26

86

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

(13.8%)

,

(1.6%) -

, , -

. -

-

,

,

.

-

,

-

, -

. -

-

-

-

. -

, .

-

-

. -

,

(Ortega et

al., 2008), -

-

,

-

. ,

-

-

, ,

, -

-

.

- ,

.

, .

, ,

,

.

,

.

,

,

.

,

.

-

-

, -

-

, -

.

-

,


12/26

87

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

12. Keating, X.D., & Silverman, S. (2004). Teach-

ers Use of Fitness Tests in School-Based Physi-

cal Education Programs.Measurement in Physi-

cal Education and Exercise Science. 8(3). 145-

165.

13. , ., , ., , .,

, ., , ., -,. (1975).

.:

..

14. Mahar, M.T., & Rowe, D.A. (2008). Pracitcal

Guidelines for Valid and Reliable Youth Fitness

Testing.Measurment in Physical Education and

Exercise Science, 12, 126-145.

15. Marsh, H. (1993). The multidimensional Struc-

ture of Physical Fitness: Invariance Over Gender

and Age. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 64(3), 256-273.

16. Mood, D.P., Jackson A.W., & Morrow, J.R.

(2007). Measurement of Physical Fitness and

Physical Activity: Fifty Years of Change. Mea-

surement in Physical Education and Exercise

Science, 11(4), 217-227.

17. Morrow, J.R., & Ede, A. (2009). Research Quar-

terly for exercise and Sport Lecture Statewide

Physical Fitness Testing: A BIG Waist or a BIG

Waste? Resrch Quarterly of Exercise andSport,80, 696-701.

18. , .. (2006).

. :

.

19. Ortega, F.B., Ruiz, J.R., Castillo, M.J., & Sjos-

trom, M. (2008). Physical fitness in childhood

and adolescence: a powerful marker of health.

International Journal of Obesity, 32, 1-11.

-

.

,

-

1. Baungartner, T.A., & Jackson A.S. (1987).Mea-

surement for Evaluation in Education and Ex-

cercise Science. Dubuque: Brown.

2. Corbin, C.B. (2002). Physical activity for every-

one: What every physical educator should know

about promoting lifelong physical activity.Journal

of Teachingin Physical Education, 21, 128-144.3. Eurofit (1993).Eurofit Tests of Physical Fitness,

2nd Edition, Strasbourg.

4. Flohr, J.A., & Williams, J.A. (1997). Rural

fourth graders perceptions of physical fitness

and fitness testing.Health Source, 54,78-87.

5. Fox, K.R., & Biddle, S.J. (1988). The use of fit-

ness tests: Educational and psychological con-

siderations.Journal of Physical Education, Rec-

reation & Dance 59(2), 47-53.

6. Freedson, P.S., Cureton, K.J., & Heath, G.W.(2000). Status of Field-Based Fitness Testing in

Children and Youth. Preventive Medicine, 31,

77-85.

7. Harris, J., & Cale, L. (2006). A review of chil-

drens fitness testing. European Physcical Edu-

cation Review,12(2), 201-225.

8. Hopple, C., & Graham, G. (1995). What children

think, feel, and know about physical fitness test-

ing.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

14, 408-417.

9. , . (1996). . :

.

10. Jackson, J.A. (2000). Fitness testing: Student and

teacher perspectives. Journal of Health, Physical

Education, Recreation & Dance, 38(3), 29-31.

11. Keating, X. D. (2003). The current often imple-

mented fitness tests in physical education pro-

grams: Problems and future directions. Quest,

55, 141-160.


13/26

88

., . ... 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

23. Strong, W.B., Malina, R.M., Blimkie, C.J., Dan-

iels, S.R., Dishman, R.K., Gutin, B., Hergenro-

eder, A.C., Must, A., Nixon, P.A., Pivarnik, J.M.,

Rowland, T., Trost, S., & Trudeau, F. (2005).

Evidence based on physical acitivity for school-age youth.Journal of Pediatrics,146, 732-737.

24. , ., , ., , .

(2004). -

. :

.

16.11.2010.

20.12.2010.

20. Pate, R.R., Davis, M.G., Robinson, T.N., Stone,

E.J., McKenzie T.L., & Young C.J. (2006). Pro-

moting Physical Activity in Children and Youth

A leadership Role for Schools. Circulation -

Journal of American Heart Association, 114,1214-1224.

21. ,

10, , 2004.

22. Ruiz, J.R., Ortega, F.B., Gutierrez, A., Meu-

sel, D., Sjostrom, M., & Castillo J.M. (2006).

Health-related fitness assessment in childhood

and adolescence: A Europen approach based

on the AVENA, EYHS and HELENA studies.

Journal of Public Health, 14, 269-277.


14/26

76

MilanoviI., et al. The Current Status and Teachers Relationship... PHYSICAL CULTURE 2010; 64 (2): 76-88

PROFESSIONAL PAPERS

Ivana Milanovi*Sneana Radisavljevi* 796.012.1:371.12Milan Pai** Professional papers

*Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade**Elementary school Ivo Andri, Belgrade

THE CURRENT STATUS AND TEACHERS RELATIONSHIP

TOWARDS MONITORING PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT

AND STUDENTS MOTOR ABILITIES

IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHING

Abstract

Bearing in mind the importance given to the perception of feasibility and appropriateness of monitoring physical development and motorabilities of children and young people in physical education instruction in Europe and the U.S., a need has arisen to analyze the currentsituation and the relationship of our physical education teachers to this issue. This paper aims to identify and analyze the current situationregarding the monitoring of physical development and motor abilities of students in our country based on our previous views, relationsand ways of monitoring the physical development and motor abilities of students in physical education instruction by physical educationteachers. In a sample of 189 physical education teachers, a non-standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information about thecurrent state and the relationship of teachers towards monitoring the physical development and motor abilities in physical educationinstruction. A high percentage of physical education teachers monitor and test physical development and motor abilities to some extent,which suggests that teachers are aware of how important and significant this segment of physical education classes is. However, using adifferent battery of tests, individual tests in these batteries, as well as the interpretation of tests of teachers own choice in monitoring thephysical development and motor abilities of students in physical education, conceptually speaking it is not good, both for understandingthe usefulness of such monitoring, and from the aspect of continuous monitoring and comparability of the obtained results. The absenceof a legitimate and meaningful concept in monitoring the physical development and motor abilities in physical education, and adequatebattery of tests appropriate for school setting in which PE teaching is applied, suggests a necessity of establishing a uniform model inSerbia.Key words: TEACHING PHYSICAL EDUCATION / PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT / MOTOR ABILITIES / STUDENTS / TESTING

Correspondence to: Ivana Milanovi, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of BelgradeBlagoja Parovia 156, 11030 Belgrade, e-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

In accordance with the set objective of physi-cal education related to proper physical and mentaldevelopment of students, one of the most importanttasks of teaching should be encouraging their physi-cal development and motor abilities improvement.Only the appropriate level of motor abilities enables

a successful learning of complex motor tasks, theadoption of abilities and creating habits (Visnjic etal., 2004). Therefore, the development of motor abili-ties, acquisition of useful abilities and building use-ful habits should be viewed as inseparable factors

of the integral development of a child. However, it


15/26

77


should be emphasized that, because of limited dura-tion and number of classes within the curriculum,despite the different organizational forms of method-ological work to improve the physical development

and motor abilities of students in PE class, physicaleducation teachers are unable to affect the visible im-

provement in the physical development and motorabilities of students (Visnjic et al., 2004). The largestnumber of authors, who study the physical activityof children, recommended a minimum of 30 to op-timal 60 minutes of practicing physical activity dur-ing one day to ensure proper development of a child(Strong et al., 2005, Pate et al., 2006). Since the timefor realization of the subject curriculum Physicaleducationand a compulsory subjectPhysical educa-tion chosen sportwithin the national program forelementary school, which is three 45-minute classesweekly does not meet the recommended optimaltime for participation in physical training, it is veryimportant that physical education teachers encourageand urge students to engage in some sporting activityor physical activities during leisure time. Encourag-ing students to be engaged in certain physical activi-ties in their leisure time for maintaining good physi-cal fitness and health, is not at least simple. One of

the possible ways to additionally motivate students tobe engaged in some other physical activities in theirleisure time is to inform students and their parentsof their individual physical development and motorabilities. This information could be conveyed by theirPE teachers if they would continuously monitor the

physical development and motor abilities of studentsin physical education.

As a part of physical education in our country,there was only one organized model (system) of mon-itoring the physical development and motor abilities

of children and young people in Belgrade from theseventies to the mid nineties of the twentieth century.The model called The system for continuous moni-toring of physical development and physical abilities

of male and female students in elementary and high

schools in Belgrade was aimed, based on the datacollected in this way, analyses, conclusions and as-sumptions, to inform the responsible factors and otherstakeholders about the state of physical developmentand physical abilities of children and young people.Then, on the basis of the same data, to permanentlyenable planning and programming of the physicaleducation of young people for the proper and healthy

way of living, in which care for the physical develop-ment and physical disabilities had to be a matter ofthe society and every individual (Ivanic, 1996). Thesystem functioned on the basis of four subsystems:

the Institute of Physical Education and Sports Medi-cine (YIPESM), schools, the City Office of Statisticsand the Secretariat for Sports of the City of Belgrade.The scientific team from the Institute (YIPESM) per-formed all the scientific, technical and other activitiesrelated to the functioning of the System. All techni-cal preparations for the campaign of students mea-surement were also performed in the Institute. Themeasurement was performed every year during May.PE teachers in junior and senior grades of elementaryschools and teachers in high schools were required

to measure all capable students during the month ofMay and to fill in the results in the appropriate lists.The copies of these lists were sent to the Office, and,after the professional and technical processing, theywere sent the City Office of Statistics. The data werestatistically processed there in a form adapted for sci-entific and technical analyses. A number of these datawere withheld by the Office for its own purposes,while the main part was sent to schools as a feedbackon the results of measurements of physical develop-ment and physical abilities of students in that year.

In that way, the teachers, based on the data collectedby them, got the final results which could be used forthe work programming for the following school year.The schools were required to notify: students, their

parents, Teachers Council about the information re-ceived, and to take all measures to eliminate all inad-equacies of the previous period, or at least to mitigatethem in the following school year. Test batteries ac-cording to age categories were constructed to collectdata on physical development and physical abilities.During the battery construction, the common prin-ciples of scientific research for determining: the va-lidity, reliability, discrimination, objectivity and ad-equacy of tests were respected. All tests were chosenon the basis of scientific knowledge, experience anda number of studies presented in published scientific

papers of the field (Kurelic et al., 1975). However, itmust be stressed that the scientific team of researchand development unit had some other suggestions forthese batteries, but also that these proposals were notfully accepted at the level of the expert group formedat the request of the Ministry of Education of Serbia.In addition, for pragmatic reasons, such as, for ex-

ample, measuring conditions in schools, the battery


16/26

78


of tests could not include a large number of tests, andfor that reason one test was selected for monitoringeach of the basic components of human physical abil-ities, namely: power, speed, endurance and flexibility

(pliability). During the long existence of the System,almost every year, various weaknesses in the Systemappeared. Most of them were of operational and tech-nical nature and were easily corrected for the follow-

ing measurements. However, it was much more dif-ficult to work out the tests (measuring instruments).Some of the approved tests showed their weaknessesover time, but it was difficult to replace them with the

other for formal reasons. Despite all the difficulties,during the period of the System application, certaincorrections were made, and the most important onewas done in 1995. The following test batteries basedon age categories were applied (Table 1).

Table 1 Test batteries in the system for continuous monitoring of physical development and physical abilitiesof male and female students in elementary and high schools in Belgrade

AGE 5 -7

BH/ BM;

Standing broad jump;Bent arm hang, maximum 120s;1 kg medicine ball throw;Sit and reach on the bench ;30 m standing start running

AGE 7 - 10

Till 1995/96 Since 1995/96BH/ BM;Standing broad jump;Cone running 3x10 m.;2 kg medicine ball throw ;

Ball rebounding off the wall .

BH/ BM;Standing broad jump;2 kg medicine ball throw ;Bent arm hang, maximum 120s;

Sit and reach on the bench;30 m standing start running

AGE - 11 - 14

Till 1995/96 Since 1995/96BH/ BM;Bent arm hang mixed;Ball rebounding off the wall;Standing broad jump;4 kg medicine ball throw;30 m run;800m run /male/; 500m. /female/.

BH/ BM;Bent arm hang, maximum 120s;Sit and reach on the bench;Standing broad jump;4 kg medicine ball throw;30 m standing start running ;800m run /male/; 500m. /female/.

AGE - 15 - 19

Till 1995/96 Since 1995/96BH/ BM;Bent arm hang mixed /female/;Bent arm hang free /male/;Ball rebounding off the wall;Standing broad jump;Medicine ball throw 6 kg /male/, 4 kg / /female/;30 m run;800m run /male/; 500m. /female/.

BH/ BM;Bent arm hang, maximum 120s;Sit and reach on the bench;Standing broad jump;Medicine ball throw 6 kg /male/, 4 kg / /female /;30 m run;800m run /male/; 500m. /female/.


17/26


18/26

80


Union have appeared, such as the project: TheHealthy Lifestyle in Europe by Nutrition in Adoles-

cence Helena study. One of the objectives ofHel-ena studyis to serve as the basis of the methodology

in monitoring of such phenomena (physical develop-ment, motor abilities, physical activity, diet) and tofind some similarities and regularities in monitoringthese phenomena among young people in Europe onthe basis of harmonized and comparable insights, inorder to offer certain solutions based on them thatwould contribute to improving the general physicaland mental health of young people in Europe (Ruizet al., 2006). The project includes nine countries:Spain, Greece, Belgium, Austria, Germany, France,Italy, Hungary and Sweden. HELENA study usesthe battery of measuring instruments for physicalfitness assessment which emerged on the basis ofthe analysis and selection of measuring instrumentsfromEUROFITtest batteries and Fitnessgram test

battery, which belongs to so-called group of batteriesthat health-related physical fitness concept is char-acterized by. It consists of measuring instruments forcardio respiratory endurance, flexibility, so-calledmuscular fitness, speed, agility and body composi-tion assessment (Table 2).

Considering the importance given to the per-ception of feasibility and appropriateness of monitor-ing the physical development and motor abilities ofchildren and young people in physical education inthe U.S. and a number of European countries, as wellas the substantial changes that took place in monitor-ing the physical development and motor abilities ofchildren and young people in the same period in theeighties, there is a need to analyze the current situ-ation and the relationship of our physical education

teachers in this regard. The absence of a uniformconcept and the model (system) for monitoring the

physical development and motor abilities of studentsin the process of physical education in our countryrequires an analysis of existing situation, the analysisof conditions in which physical education is realized,the recognition of modern tendencies in the worldon this issue, in order to lay the foundations for auniform system for monitoring the physical develop-ment and motor abilities of students in physical edu-cation in our country. One of the first steps in these

efforts to establish such a system in the future is to

for each component of fitness, and the results be-low are classified to the group of results that should

be improved. Such kind of reference standard is re-ferred to as Criterion-Referenced Standards (Harris

& Cale, 2006). According to the leading authors inthis field, the use of criterion reference standards isrecommended because they are acceptable for mostchildren and young people and because they supporta link between the fitness and health, pointing tothe fact that someone can be fit without belongingto a group of elite athletes (Harris & Cale, 2006).

The researchers and experts from the field ofsport and physical education in Europe have alsorecognized the need for monitoring the physical de-velopment and motor abilities of children and young

people. By mid-eighties a variety of test batteries formonitoring and testing the motor abilities of childrenand young people were used in Europe. The coopera-tion of several European countries in 1988 resulted inThe Eurofit Physical Fitness Test Battery, a stan-dardized battery of tests recommended by the Coun-cil of Europe (the Council of Europe Committee forthe Development of Sport: European test of physicalfitness), which is used for physical development and

motor abilities of children of school age assessment(Eurofit, 1993).EUROFITbattery, in addition to themost basic procedures for physical development as-sessment, comprises nine motor tests covering flex-ibility, speed, agility, balance and strength. It consistsof the following measuring instruments (tests) to as-sess physical development -BH, BM, body mass in-dex /BMI/ and skin folds on the upper arm (triceps

brachii), on the abdomen (rectus abdominis), on the

thigh and on the calf. For the assessment of motorabilities:plate taping for 25 better hand touch, hand-

grip, Flamingo balance, bent arm hang, standingbroad jump, sit-ups for 30 seconds, shuttle-run 10x5

m, sit and reach and 20 m endurance shuttle-run or

bike ergometer test -PWC170

.Based on the experience obtained by EU-

ROFITbatteryof tests, by combining national andinternational test batteries, numerous national andinternational batteries of tests emerged that wereused and which are used for physical developmentand motor abilities assessment of children and young

people across Europe. During the last decade, a num-

ber of international scientific projects the European


19/26

81


analyze the current situation, and accordingly, thispaper aims to identify and analyze the current situ-ation regarding the physical development and motorabilities monitoring of students in our country on the

basis of previous perceptions, relations and ways ofmonitoring physical development and motor abilitiesof students in physical education by physical educa-tion teachers.

Table 2 Battery of tests in HELENA study

Physical fitness

componentTest

EUROFIT

Battery of tests

FITNESSGRAM

Battery of tests

Cardio respiratoryFitness

20-m shuttle run (multistage) + +

FlexibilitySit and reach variant/BSSR/

+

Muscular fitness

Max isometric force Hand dynamometry +

Muscle strength andendurance

Curl-up +

Explosive strength Standing broad jump +

Bosco jump, high jump,Abalakov

Muscle endurance Bent arm hang + +

Agility, speed andcoordination

Shuttle-run 4x10-m +

Body compositionBody mass indexSubcutaneous fat

++

++

Work method

The conducted research represents a system-atical non experimental research of a non explorativecharacter.

The sample of subjects

In order to obtain a more comprehensive pic-ture of the current situation regarding the physical de-velopment and motor abilities monitoring of studentsin Serbia, the sample in the study included teachersfrom the southern, central and northern part of Ser-

bia. This research included 189 physical educationteachers from Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis and Kikinda.

Instrument

A non standardized questionnaire containingthree sets of questions was made and applied for the

purposes of the research. The first group of questionsrelates to the teachers personal data (gender, age,length of service of teachers, the institution in whichthe degree was acquired), the second group of ques-tions provides information about the school and con-ditions in which teachers work, while the third groupof questions relates to the views and relationship ofteachers towards monitoring of students physicaland motor abilities development.

Statistical data processing

Within data processing the basic descriptive

parameters (frequency distribution) were calculated.


20/26

82


The data were analyzed in the statistical programSPSS 10.0 for Windows.

RESULTS WITH THE

DISCUSSION

The first group of items of the questionnaireapplied in this study, provided the results in rela-tion to teachers personal data (gender, age, lengthof service, and the institutions in which the degreewas acquired). According to the gender structure,124 (65.6%) of the total respondents were male and

65 (34.4%) were female. The majority of the sam-ple included physical education teachers between30 and 60 years of age, 168 (88.9%), while only 9(4.8%) of teachers were up to the age of 30 and 12(6.3%) of teachers were over 60 years old. By thelength of service in physical education, the teachersquestioned were grouped into four categories: therewere 69 physical education teachers (36.5%) with upto 10 years of service, 60 teachers (31.7%) with 10-20 years of service, 40 teachers (21.2%) with 20-30years of service and 20 (10.6%) teachers with 30-40

years of service. Of the total of 189 PE teachers, 66(34.9%) had the diploma of the Faculty of PhysicalEducation in Belgrade, 65 (34.4%) of the Faculty ofPhysical Education in Novi Sad, and 33 (17.5%) ofthe Faculty of Sport and Physical Education in Nis.The remaining 25 (13.2%) teachers acquired their di-

plomas at one of the faculties in former Yugoslavia.The data obtained from the first group of questionsindicated that this study included physical educationteachers of both genders, and the highest percentageof them were middle-aged with many years of teach-

ing experience.Based on the responses obtained in the second

group of questions, which were related to the envi-ronment of the schools in which the teachers work(type of school and the equipment for physical edu-cation), the following picture was got. The majorityof the teachers, 83.1%, work in schools located in ur-

ban areas, while only 16.9% of the teachers work inschools in rural areas. Of all questioned teachers, 41teachers (21.7%) work in high schools, most of them,

129 (68.3%), in elementary schools (higher grades)and only 19 (10.1%) in the lower grades of elemen-tary schools. In 82 (43.4%) schools where the ques-tioned teachers work, there are all necessary condi-

tions for physical education implementation, whichimplies the existence of school gym, outdoor courts,apparatus and props, while 91 (48.1%) of schools

partially meet the conditions for the physical edu-cation realization. In 16 (8.5%) of schools in whichteachers included in this study work, there are no ad-equate conditions for physical education teaching.

The third group of questions that teachers haveanswered refers to monitoring of physical develop-ment and motor abilities of students. As for the fre-quency of monitoring of physical development andmotor abilities of students during the school year,most teachers, 154 (81.5%), continuously moni-tor the physical and development of motor abilitiesof students in PE instruction. 47.1% of them do sotwice during the year (at the beginning and the endof school year), while 34.4% of physical educationteachers test their students once a year (at the begin-ning of school year). Only a small number of teach-ers, 13 of them (6.9%), do not monitor the physicaldevelopment and motor abilities of students within

PE classes, and 22 (11.6%) of teachers also do notdo that, but test their students occasionally (Table 3).

A high percentage of PE teachers (81.5%),who monitor and test the physical development andmotor abilities to some extent, suggests that teachersare aware of how important and significant this seg-ment of physical education classes is.

The teachers who do not test the physical de-velopment and motor abilities of students in theirschools, state the following reasons of not doing so

as the most important ones: Lack of measuring instruments, The absence of valid indicators to compare the

results obtained, The absence of conditions (the gym) for

testing, Lack of time (number of classes) for quality

monitoring, Lack of props and equipment and The lack of standardized tests at the state level

in Serbia.


21/26

83


trends in monitoring the physical development andmotor abilities of students in the world. From the as-

pect of structure of the battery of tests, it differs inits system from the current standardized battery oftests, while in terms of the reference standard the useof normative reference standard is not in line withcontemporary trends in the world. Eurofit battery of

tests is used by 38 (20.1%) of teachers, mostly fromschools located in the territory of Vojvodina, whileother teachers (27%) apply the tests of their ownchoice during monitoring or testing physical devel-opment and motor abilities of students in the physicaleducation classes (Table 4).

Table 3 The ways in which monitoring and testing the physical development and motor abilities of studentsin schools are realized

Ways of monitoring f %

I do not monitor continuously the physical development and motorabilities of students in physical education

13 6.9

I continuouslymonitor the physical development and motor abilitiesof students in physical education once a year (at the beginning ofthe school year)

65 34.4

I continuouslymonitor the physical development and motor abilitiesof students in physical education twice a year (at the beginning andthe end of the school year)

89 47.1

I do not monitor continuously the physical development and motor

abilities of students in physical education, but I occasionally teststudents

22 11.6

The teachers who declared that continuouslymonitor the physical development and motor abili-ties students at certain level have been required tospecify the tests (test batteries) they use. Most teach-ers (43.4%) during monitoring or testing the physi-cal development and motor abilities of students inthe physical education classes use tests from the

battery of the former System of permanent monitor-ing of physical development and physical abilities of

students in elementary and high schools of Belgrade

(Ivanic, 1996). With all the positive characteristics ofthe system, such as the objective and the way it func-tioned, it should be noted that in many other charac-teristics this model is not in line with contemporary

Table 4 Tests for physical development and motor abilities monitoring

Tests f %

Tests from the battery of tests from theSystem of permanent monitoringof physical development and physical abilities of students in elementary

and high schools of Belgrade (Ivanic, 1996)82 43.4

Eurofit battery of tests 38 20.1

Free choice of tests 51 27.0


22/26

84


opment and motor abilities of students carried out inschools and obtaining the results is to monitor the

progress of students during the school year. Testing,in order to educate students to assess their growth and

development of motor abilities, as well as to improvethe current condition, is applied by 28.6% of teach-ers. Based on the tests results achieved by students,16.9% of physical education teachers use them as a

basis for motor abilities evaluation. Only 1.6% ofteachers do not specify the objective and purpose oftesting the physical development and motor abilitiesof students conducted in their schools, as well as theresults obtained (Table 5).

The contemporary trends in physical devel-opment and motor abilities monitoring in the world

increasingly point out that one of the objectives ofteaching is that students assess their physical devel-opment and motor abilities by themselves, and to im-

prove the existing situation. In recent years there havebeen many discussions about how many students arefamiliar with the purpose and methods of tests, andwhat the welfare and benefit of physical developmentand motor abilities monitoring of children and young

people are (Flohr & Williams, 1997). Some studieshave shown that many students do not like physicalfitness testing and because they do not understand

what benefi

t they have of it, they believe that testingis not fun (Flohr & Williams, 1997; Hoppe & Gra-ham, 1995; Keating, 2003). It is necessary to do moreto improve the experiences that students have duringthe tests, and therefore when they are planned andcreated, students perceptions and their views must

be taken into account if we want students experienc-es from these tests to be positive (Flohr & Williams,1997; Fox & Biddle, 1988; Jackson, 2000).

The use of different batteries of tests, individual testsfrom these batteries, as well as the application of testsof teachers own choice in physical development andmotor abilities of students in physical education mon-

itoring, is not good conceptually speaking, both fromthe aspect of usefulness of such monitoring, and fromthe aspect of continuous monitoring and the abilityof comparing the results. This situation has also oc-curred based on recommendations given in the Cur-riculum (The Official Gazette, 2004), as well as frommany years of this problem neglecting.

The necessity of establishing a unified model(system) for continuous monitoring the physical de-velopment and motor abilities of students evolvesfrom the current situation in Serbia which is char-

acterized by the absence of justified and meaningfulconcept of monitoring the physical development andmotor abilities in physical education, the absence ofadequate battery of tests based on the latest scien-tific principles, appropriate for school conditions inwhich physical education teaching is conducted. Thenecessity and the need for establishing such a systemderives from the fact that there is an increasing num-

ber of obese children in Serbia, which reaches 20%(Nedeljkovic, 2006), and that there is an increasingdecline in physical activity of children with age. All

these current problems require setting up the basicguidelines for establishing a system of continuousphysical development and motor abilities monitoringwith the objective of solving them, and creating condi-tions in which physical education teachers will be ableto achieve the development and improvement of mo-tor abilities in the most appropriate way, as one of themost important tasks of physical education.

For 42.9% of physical education teachers theobjective and purpose of testing the physical devel-

Table 5 The objective and purpose of physical development and motor abilities of students testing

The objective and purpose of testing f %

I test students in order to monitor the physical development and the developmentof motor abilities and their progress during one school year.

81 42.9

I test students and assess their motor abilities on the basis of the obtained results. 32 16.9

I test students in order to teach them to assess their development and thedevelopment of motor abilities by themselves, as well as how to improve thecurrent condition.

54 28.6

Other 3 1.6


23/26

85


tests. Generally speaking, this is why a large num-ber of students do not like testing of motor abilities,which has also been the case in most developed coun-tries in the world (Flohr & Williams, 1997; Hoppe

& Graham, 1995; Keating, 2003). It is necessary topoint out the fact that motor abilities, which are es-timated by certain tests, are the result and that theydepend on the current level of physical activity, ge-netics, stage of growth and development in which thechild is, and cannot be used for assessment, as wellas for possible comparisons of students, which is inline with current modern concepts of motor abilitiesmonitoring in the world (Corbin, 2002).

The largest number of questioned teachers(48.7%) uses the obtained results from the test toinform students in order to encourage the physicalexercise in their leisure time (Table 6). These data

indicate that teachers are aware of the role they havein promoting physical exercise for students, both inschool and in their leisure time. The worrying factis that a certain number of teachers (24.9%) assessstudents motor abilities based on test results, whichshould not be the case. Very often, using the normas reference standard, teachers assess students motorabilities and make comparisons among students. Be-sides, while testing our students during classes, stu-dents are often unfamiliar with the purpose of these

Table 6 The purposefulness of using the obtained testing results

Purposefulness f %

I use the results for personal evidence, planning and programming ofteaching and I do not inform students about them.

26 13.8

I assess the motor abilities of students on the basis of obtained results. 47 24.9

I inform students about the results in order to motivate them to practicephysical exercise in their leisure time.. 92 48.7

Students and their parents get a report from the testing withrecommendations and methods how to improve their motor abilities.

3 1.6

Other 2 1.1

A number of questioned teachers (13.8%) usethe results of the tests for physical education planningand programming, while very few teachers (1.6%)

use them to inform both students and their parents,giving them recommendations and methods for theirimprovement. Informing students and their parentsabout the current state of physical development andmotor abilities of their children, as well as about theways for improving the current situation representsan important step in taking over the responsibilitiesof parents and students themselves for their physicaldevelopment and motor abilities.

CONCLUSION

Physical and motor abilities developmentshould be regarded as the inseparable structural ele-ments of personality with cognitive, conative and so-cial elements in the integral development of a child.For these reasons, one of the main objectives of phys-ical education should be encouraging the physical de-velopment and motor abilities improvement of chil-dren and young people. Encouraging students to beengaged in certain physical activities in their leisuretime for maintaining good physical fitness and health,is not at least simple. One of the possible ways to ad-

ditionally motivate students to be engaged in some


24/26

86


other physical activities in their leisure time is toinform students and their parents of their individual

physical development and motor abilities. In accor-dance with the new concept that has been formulated

mainly on the basis of a number of studies that haveshown the link among physical development, motorabilities and health (Ortega et al., 2008), the obtainedtest results should be linked to the health status of achild, which gives a whole new dimension to test-ing the physical development and motor abilities ofchildren. Besides, this new dimension would be re-flected in the efforts of teachers, during testing andcontinuous monitoring of physical development andmotor abilities of students, to be engaged in educat-ing students about the importance, ways and methodsfor improving all the components that are monitored,as well as promoting the positive attitudes towards

physical exercise and physical activity in general.Bearing in mind these substantial changes in

physical development and motor abilities of childrenand young people monitoring in the world, there is aneed to analyze the current situation and the relation-ship of our physical education teachers towards thisissue. One of the first steps in efforts to establish afuture system of a unique concept and an adequate

battery of tests for monitoring physical developmentand motor abilities of students is to analyze the cur-rent situation, which was the aim of this paper. Mostteachers, though not required, but being aware of theimportance of this segment of physical education,monitor the physical development and motor abili-ties of students to some extent in physical educationteaching. In doing so, they most commonly use tests

from the battery of tests of the former system whichwas in function in our country, but which, despite its

positive features, cannot meet the new modern con-cept requirements of perceiving usefulness of physi-

cal development and motor abilities monitoring ofstudents in physical education. The objective and

purpose of testing the physical development and mo-tor abilities development for teachers is the progressof students monitoring, as well as educating them inorder to improve the existing situation, with an em-

phasis on encouraging students to physical exercisein leisure time. A disturbing fact is that quite a largenumber of teachers still assess students motor abili-ties on the basis of test results, which is not in linewith modern concepts of current motor abilities mon-

itoring in the world.In a situation in which physical education

teachers are required to continuously monitor thephysical development and motor abilities of theirstudents, but are aware of the significance of motorabilities for childrens health and the increased num-

ber of obese students and reduced overall physicalparticipation of students, it is necessary to establisha system for physical development monitoring andmotor abilities development in physical education.The further steps in establishing such a uniform sys-

tem in physical education, should be directed to therecognition of modern tendencies in this issue in theworld, the analysis of the structure of the battery oftests in the models for physical development and mo-tor abilities monitoring in the world and defining amodel battery of tests in our system in accordancewith the conditions in which physical education isconducted.


25/26

87


Education Programs. Measurement in Physical

Education and Exercise Science., 8(3). 145-165.13. Kureli, N., Momirovi, K., Stojanovi, M.,

turm, J., Radojevi, ., i Viski-talec,N. (1975). Struktura i razvoj morfolokih imotorikih dimenzija omladine [The structureand development of morphological and motoric

dimensions of youth]. Beograd: Institut za naunaistraivanja Fakulteta za fiziko vaspitanje.

14. Mahar, M.T., & Rowe, D.A. (2008). PracitcalGuidelines for Valid and Reliable Youth Fitness

Testing.Measurment in Physical Education andExercise Science, 12, 126-145.

15. Marsh, H. (1993). The multidimensional Struc-ture of Physical Fitness: Invariance Over Genderand Age. Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport, 64(3), 256-273.

16. Mood, D.P., Jackson A.W., & Morrow, J.R.(2007). Measurement of Physical Fitness andPhysical Activity: Fifty Years of Change. Mea-

surement in Physical education and Exercise

Science, 11(4), 217-227.

17. Morrow, J.R., & Ede, A. (2009). Research Quar-terly for exercise and Sport Lecture StatewidePhysical Fitness Testing: A BIG Waist or a BIGWaste? Resrch Quarterly of Exercise andSport,80, 696-701.

18. Nedeljkovi, S.I. (2006). Jugoslovenska studijaprekursora ateroskleroze kod kolskedece. [Yu-goslav study of atherosclerosis precursors in

school children]. Beograd: Medicinski fakuletUniverziteta u Beogradu.

19. Ortega, F.B., Ruiz, J.R., Castillo, M.J., & Sjos-trom, M. (2008). Physical fitness in childhoodand adolescence: a powerful marker of health.

International Journal of Obesity, 32, 1-11.

20. Pate, R.R., Davis, M.G., Robinson, T.N., Stone,E.J., McKenzie T.L., & Young C.J. (2006). Pro-moting Physical Activity in Children and Youth

A leadership Role for Schools. Circulation -Journal of American Heart Association, 114,1214-1224.

REFERENCES

1. Baungartner, T.A., & Jackson A.S. (1987).Mea-

surement for Evaluation in Education and Ex-cercise Science. Dubuque: Brown.

2. Corbin, C.B. (2002). Physical activity for every-one: What every physical educator should knowabout promoting lifelong physical activity.Jour-nal of Teachingin Physical Education, 21, 128-144.

3. Eurofit (1993).Eurofit Tests of Physical Fitness,2nd Edition. Strasbourg.

4. Flohr, J.A., & Williams, J.A. (1997). Rural

fourth graders perceptions of physical fitnessand fitness testing.Health Source, 54,78-87.

5. Fox, K.R., & Biddle, S.J. (1988). The use of fit-ness tests: Educational and psychological con-siderations.Journal of Physical Education, Rec-reation & Dance 59(2), 47-53.

6. Freedson, P.S., Cureton, K.J., & Heath, G.W.(2000). Status of Field-Based Fitness Testing inChildren and Youth. Preventive Medicine, 31,77-85.

7. Harris, J., & Cale, L. (2006). A review of chil-drens fitness testing. European Physcical Edu-cation Review,12(2), 201-225.

8. Hopple, C., & Graham, G. (1995). What childrenthink, feel, and know about physical fitness test-ing.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,14, 408-417.

9. Ivani, S. (1996). Metodologija[Methodology].Beograd: Gradski sekreterijat za sport i om-ladinu Grada Beograda.

10. Jackson, J.A. (2000). Fitness testing: Studentand teacher perspectives. Journal of Health,

Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 38(3),29-31.

11. Keating, X. D. (2003). The current often imple-mented fitness tests in physical education pro-grams: Problems and future directions. Quest,55, 141-160.

12. Keating, X.D, & Silverman, S. (2004). TeachersUse of Fitness Tests in School-Based Physical


26/26

88


23. Strong, W.B., Malina, R.M., Blimkie, C.J., Dan-iels, S.R., Dishman, R.K., Gutin, B, Hergenro-eder, A.C., Must, A., Nixon, P.A., Pivarnik, J.M.,Rowland, T., Trost, S., & Trudeau, F. (2005).

Evidence based on physical acitivity for school-age youth.Journal of Pediatrics,146, 732-737.

24. Vinji, D., Jovanovi, A., i Mileti, K. (2004).Teorija i metodikafizikog vaspitanja. [Theoryand methodic of physical education]. Beograd:Fakultet sporta i fizikog vaspitanja.

Received 16.11.2010. Accepted 20.12.2010.

21. Slubeni glasnik RS Prosvetni glasnik [Offi-cial Gazette - RS Education Gazette], 10, Beo-grad, 2004.

22.

Ruiz, J.R., Ortega, F.B., Gutierrez, A., Meu-sel, D., Sjostrom, M., & Castillo J.M. (2006).Health-related fitness assessment in childhoodand adolescence: A Europen approach basedon the AVENA, EYHS and HELENA studies.

Journal of Public Health, 14, 269-277.

Documents

Aktuelno stanje i odnos nastavnika prema praćenju fizičkog razvoja i motoričkih sposobnosti učenika u okviru nastave fizičkog vaspitanja