“The fact is that given the challenges we face, education doesn't need to be reformed -- it needs to be transformed. The key to this transformation is not to standardize education, but to personalize it, to build achievement on discovering the individual talents of each child, to put students in an environment where they want to learn and where they can naturally discover their true passions.” ― Ken Robinson

Providing students with individual instruction and feedback is one of the most frequently mentioned goals of teaching , however it is also one of the least frequently achieved (Metzel, 2005). Large class numbers, inadequate time, limited equipment and the wide range of the student's abilities and needs are often barriers working against teachers. Providing individualised support and instruction to students is a challenging task that often can’t be reached.   

I plan on implementing the Personal System of Instruction (PSI) model developed by Fred Keller and further refined by Metzler and Sebolt (1994) into my classroom. This group of students have demonstrated a wide range of ability levels during previous strands of Physical Education. A huge challenge for me is catering for the needs of all  30 students in this class. For instance, in the last scheme completed by this class group (basketball), the students were required to execute a layup. Those who had prior knowledge of a layup were able to execute the skill with a great level of mastery. However there were six students in particular who found the stride/ footing towards the basket extremely difficult and struggled throughout the remainder of the class. After this lesson, I reflected on what I would do differently if I was given the opportunity to teach this lesson again. I investigated the various options and concluded that implementing a model like PSI would have greatly contributed in achieving the learning outcomes. 

PSI is perfectly suited to this group as Reichmann & Grasha (1974) found it is suitable for students who are avoidant, competitive and dependent, all of which are characteristics found in this. I believe this scheme will kick start the learners’ journey to becoming more autonomous and responsible learners while also learning about health and well-being. The Personalised System of Instruction focuses on the individual mastery of skills and individual progression (Luttrell & Chambers, 2013). Through the use of this specific instructional model, learners determine the pace of their own learning and the teacher is acts as more as a motivator rather than the one with all the knowledge and answers. Metzler (2005) states that students learn content at different rates, but if enough time and opportunities to find success are provided, nearly all students can achieve the goals set out. A PSI workbook will be designed and distributed to all learners, and each of the skills that will be covered in the six-week block of classes will be outlined in detail in this booklet. 

- Becoming familiar with SMART goals and how to apply them to physical activity and health. 

- Learning new subject specific terms related to physical fitness/well being e.g. overload, use/disuse, cardio respiratory etc.

- Reading task cards, psi booklet and following instructions/teaching cues to successfully execute the different tasks
- Discussing the importance of regular physical activity for health and well-being.

Staying well
Students will be supported and encouraged throughout the experience to help them become more confident and competent participants. Students will become more knowledgeable about health and well being that will be vital in their daily lives now and in their future.

Communicating
During and post lessons students will be involved in discussions with the teacher and their peers. They will be reflecting on their own personal performance and that of their peers. They will be analysing aspects of performance.

 

Working with others
Students will take part in activities that require working in pairs and groups as well as individually. They will be encouraged to support each other and help their peers if necessary. 

Students are of mixed ability, therefore progressions and variations of all skills will be provided. Students have a basic understanding of movements such as jumping, turning, swinging and balancing from their primary school education in gymnastics. Nonetheless, from a skill perspective, these students are essentially novices, which will be evident in the design of this scheme.

Prior Attitudes:
The majority of students enjoy participating in P.E. It is clear from the previous schemes that the students enjoy healthy competition and have the ability to be responsible of their own learning (Adventure activities). Therefore, I believe the cooperative learning approach will suit these students as Metzler, 2005 notes the cooperative learning model works well with students who are competitive, collaborative and independent.

- Becoming accustomed to timing throughout each lesson, e.g. working for 30 seconds, break for 30 seconds etc. 

- Measuring the correct distance of 20m when setting out the beep test. 

- Learners will complete various tests during this scheme where they will be required to measure, record and track their progress.  

- Understanding how the VO2 max is computed and measured, realising that the test is used to measure cardiovascular fitness and a person's maximum oxygen uptake. 

- Becoming aware of how blood pressure is measured and what each number stands for. 

- Understanding the difference between low and high blood pressure. 

- Taking and comparing pulse and heart rate at regular intervals throughout each lesson. 

 “This area of learning will make the school’s culture and ethos and commitment to wellbeing visible to students. It will include learning opportunities to enhance the physical, mental, emotional and social wellbeing of students. It will enable students to build life skills and develop a strong sense of connectedness to their school and to their community” (NCCA, 217, p 8).

2. Managerial control: teacher determine the managerial plan, class policies, and  specific procedure in PSI.

3. Task presentation: are given to students via written and/or video display

4. Engagement patterns: most tasks are designed for individual practice; a few are designed for partner or small group. Students are typically engaged independently from the teacher’s direction.

5. Instructional interaction: Teacher provides high levels of instructional interaction for has few managerial responsibilities in class.

6. Pacing: each student determines her/his own pace.

7. Task progression: students control task progression

 

 

 

Barron, C., Comiskey, C., and Saris, J. (2009). Prevalence rates and comparisons of obesity levels in Ireland. British Journal of Nursing, Volume 18, Issue 13, Pg.799-803.

Colquitt, G., Pritchard, T., & McCollum, S. (2011). The personalized system of instruction in fitness education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance (JOPERD), 82(6), 46-54. doi:10.1080/07303084.2011.10598645

 Hannon, J.C., Holt, B.J., and Hatten, J.D. (2008). Personalized System of Instruction Model: Teaching Health-Related Fitness Content in High School Physical Education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, Volume 2, No.2, Pg.20-33.

Harris, J. (2000). Health-Related Exericse in the National Curriculum, Key Stages 1 to 4.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.


Irish Heart Foundation (2015). Irish Heart Foundation Obesity Fact Sheet. http://www.irishheart.ie/iopen24/pub/factsheets/obesity_fact_sheet.pdf

Luttrell, S., and Chambers, F.C. (2013). Senior Cycle Physical Education Curriculum & Instructional Models: Pathways for Teacher Implementation. Dublin: eprint.ie Ltd.

Metzler, M.W. (2005). Instructional Models for Physical Education. 2nd Edition. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers.

Metzler, M.W. (2000). The Personalised Sport Instruction Series. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Metzler, M. (1984). Analysis of a mastery learning/personalized system of instruction for teaching tennis. In M. Pieron & G. Graham (Eds.), The 1984 Olympic scientific congress proceedings: Vol 6. Sport pedagogy (pp. 63-70). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics

Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2008). Teaching Physical Education (4th Edition). New York City, New York: Pearson Education

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2016). Junior Cycle PE.  Dublin, Ireland. DES & NCCA. Retrieved from  https://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/e54d94c9-935f-4dfd-a9e1-c5c94c7de88c/NCCA-JC-Short-Course-PE.pdf

 

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and Department of Education and Skills. (2003). Junior Cycle Physical Education. Dublin, Ireland. DES & NCCA. Retrieved from http://activeschoolflag.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Junior-Cycle-PE-Syllabus.pdf

 

NCCA (2011). Senior Cycle Physical Education Draft Framework. www.ncca.ie 

Wiles, N.J., Jones, G.T., Haase, A.M., Lawlor, D.A., Macfarlane, G.J., and Lewis, G. (2008).Physical activity and emotional problems amongst adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43(10), Pg.765-772.