Chapter 7: Individual Purpose Components

Rady, Amy Meltzer; Segall, Brenda; Tiburzi, Antoinette; Jewett, Ann E.; Jones, L. Sue

doi:10.1123/jtpe.6.3.259

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies by Rady et al, (1987) have identifiedmultiple components within several of the concepts. In these studies the concepts have been explored with students using tasksrequiringphysicalactivity.In Study2, itemsdescribing physical education settings were evaluated by curriculum specialists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Researchwith variouspopulations of students (Chapman, 1974;Mangham, 1979;Norton, 1982),teachers (DeTroye, 1972;Dishman, 1975), and physical education coordinators and curriculum specialists (LaPlante, 1973;Speakman-Yetta, 1987) has supported the relevance of the purposeconceptsina varietyofeducational settings. Because research tosupporttheconstructvalidity ofthePPCFhasbeen limited to single studies of individual purposes (e.g., Rady, Segall,Tiburzi,Jewett,& Jones, 1987),additional research to examine the factor structure of the framework is required. Untilthisworkis completed, the useof theframework should be limited to those situations in which claims of content validity can be substantiated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Analysis of the PPCF as a Theoretical Framework for an Instrument to Examine Teacher Priorities for Selecting Curriculum Content

Ennis

Hooper²

1990

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the research was to develop an instrument to examine physical education teachers' priorities for curricular decision-making. The purpose dimension of the Purpose Process Curriculum Framework (PPCF) was used as the theoretical structure for content decisions. Three studies are reported that investigate the reliability and validity of the proposed instrument. Items were evaluated for relevance and validity of the proposed instrument. They were evaluated for relevance and theoretical consistency by physical education teachers (Study 1) and curriculum specialists (Study 2). Acceptable items were then placed in a ranking format and field tested with physical educators in three school districts (Study 3). Results from Study 1 indicated that secondary level physical education teachers supported the relevance of items to reflect the educational setting in their classes. In Study 2, mean ratings of curriculum specialists established that 19 of the 22 categories were theoretically consistent with the PPCF. However, internal consistency coefficients (alpha) for 10 of the 22 purposes were less than .70. Follow-up field tests with physical educators in Study 3 indicated that only one category, joy of movement, had a coefficient above .70. In this research internal consistency coefficients were too low to make a claim for the reliability of the concept scales of the instrument. The multidimensionality of the purpose concepts raised questions regarding the validity of the PPCF and prohibited the use of the framework as a theoretical basis for instrument development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of the PPCF as a Theoretical Framework for an Instrument to Examine Teacher Priorities for Selecting Curriculum Content

Ennis

Hooper²

1990

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…LaPlante (1973) and Speakman-Yearta (1987) have previously established the content validity of the PPCF. In addition several studies have addressed the construct validity of individual purpose items (Rady, Segall, Tiburzi, Jewett, & Jones, 1987). Jones (1972) conducted a construct validity study of the purpose awareness in which she postulated the two constituents of body shapes and spatial coordinates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%