95 HOMEMADE EQUIPMENT AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL IN A GROUP OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN A PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Antonio Méndez-Giménez & Javier Fernández-Río (University of Oviedo, Spain)
[email protected] -
[email protected] ABSTRACT The use of homemade materials as an educational tool in physical education has been slowly increasing over the last 15 years. This type of equipment seems to yield positive outcomes in the school community, but its impact on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs has not been evaluated. The goal of this research project was to assess the effects of the usage of homemade materials in a group of students enrolled in a Physical Education Teacher Education program. 37 subjects (26 men and 11 women) participated in the study. They all completed a specifically designed questionnaire. Results showed that learning through homemade materials was a positive experience. It helped students master the subject’s contents through a more functional and enjoyable method. They also learned to value more their own equipment, as well as others. It was seen as a valuable teaching tool. Subjects considered that this type of materials can help teachers attend classroom diversity more efficiently, because they can construct equipment adapted to the students’ real necessities. INTRODUCTION In the last decade, there has been an increase in the number of publications related to the promotion of homemade materials as valuable tools for the development of physical education at the primary and secondary levels (Davison, 1998; Lichtman, 1999; Marston, 1994; Méndez-Gimenez, 2003, 2008; Moss, 2004; Orlick, 1990; Sher, 1996; Werner and Simmons, 1990). These works reflected the ideas of several authors that tried to open new venues in the exploitation of resources. They tried to illustrate how to take advantage of
270
useless objects, transforming them easily and effectively into proper equipment for physical education. These homemade materials seem to hold many advantages, but they also have some drawbacks (Méndez-Giménez, 2003). Among the formers: the increase in active participation time, the adaptability of this materials to fit the students’ needs, the costs savings, and the development of creativity and interdisciplinarity in the students. As for the obstacles identified, different authors (Corbin & Corbin, 1983; Grigg, 2009) have highlighted the need to search for safety during the construction process and usage of the materials, the additional time required for building them or the extra space needed to store the resources generated. One of the reasons that drove many physical educators to construct their own equipment was the limited budget that they had to suffer in many schools (Mendez-Giménez, 2008). The provision of equipment, both quality and quantity, can adversely affect the excellence of the physical education programs. Unfortunately, this deficit is remarkable in many countries, even the most civilized countries. A global research carried out by Hardman (2008) showed that 36% of all the countries that participated in the survey reported that the quality of the materials supplied for their physical education classes was limited or insufficient. Only teachers from North America rated positively their equipment. In addition, 50% of the countries surveyed indicated that the amount of equipment was limited or insufficient, with the lowest figures reported in Africa, Asia, Central/Latin America and the Middle East regions or continents. Considering these data, it seems clear that the implementation of programs that could enhance the use of homemade materials will allow students, around the world, experience games and physical activities that they would not have access to due to the lack of economical resources. However, our pedagogical perspective of homemade materials goes beyond the use of waste materials to solve the problem of limited budgets. It considers these resources as a mean to promote quality learning that relies on active methods of teaching. The constructivist paradigm
271
emphasizes the need to involve the students in their own learning process to generate more knowledge. In this sense, the need to assume the development of their own "toys" and the search for raw materials to carry out this task would activate the students mentally, predispose them to use them, and, therefore, learn from the whole experience. Furthermore, the construction process may have positive psychological effects on students, such as increased self-esteem or motivation. Indeed, modify, change or build new elements, which subsequently will be used in physical education classes, can create a sense of usefulness and a feeling of creators (like carpenters or potters transforming raw materials into pieces of art). Camacho, Díaz and González (2006) pointed out that involving students in building materials and sharing them with other peers increases, on the one hand, the builders’ self-esteem, and, on the other hand, the respect from those who use them. One of the keys in their innovative project developed between the physical education and technology classes was the relevance of working in cooperative groups, both students and teachers, and opening the project to the rest of the community within the framework of the extracurricular activities. There are more pedagogical arguments supporting the use of waste materials, such as the development of awareness against the excessive consumption or the preservation of nature. This ecological perspective goes beyond the use of recycled materials in the classroom, and aims to awake in the students the notion that many objects can be rescued from their destination (the trash) and reused conveniently. Despite the large amount of literature available on the use of homemade resources, research on the effects that these materials can provoke in the student population is virtually inexistent. Mendez-Giménez, Martínez-Maseda and Fernández-Rio (2010) found high levels of interest, enjoyment and motivation in a group of 6th grade students experiencing a unit of paladós (a net game) carried out with self-made materials.
272
On the other hand, Sola et al. (2009) showed that a high percentage of teachers (40% in the cities of Seville and Huelva) have not received any specific training on homemade materials, and only 53% have used them. However, these same authors described a positive attitude change in teachers towards these resources when they were used systematically in their classes. To our knowledge, no research has study the effects of this type of materials in Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) students or in their perspectives as future teachers. Given these considerations, the aim of this paper is twofold: a) assess the degree of satisfaction and the effects that these resources cause in a group of PETE students, and b) explore the impact that these resources might have in their training, their attitudes and their expectations as future teachers. A PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION SUBJECT: PHYSICAL EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS Physical education for students with special needs is a subject in the Physical Education Teacher Education program at the Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of the University of Oviedo. During the course of it, students were asked to construct a series of materials with some guidance from the teacher. However, students also had the opportunity to investigate different ways to reach the same end, and create the same type of equipment asked for through different resources. The different topics and the materials related to them that the subjects had to built were: a) Visual impairments: rattle rolls, goalballs, sensitive twister, sound pins and blind sticks, b) Physical impairments: adapted sticks, arm-baskets, sticky gloves, propioception boards, boccia balls and ramps, and c) Intelectual disabilities: adapted raquets, rings, coins, plastic soft balls, and stilts. During each practical session, students were asked to explain to their peers, and their teacher, how they had designed and built his/her piece of equipment, which raw materials were
273
used and how they had gathered them. They also had to emphasize the differences, if any, with the equivalent commercial equipment, and the benefits of using the constructed material for students with special needs (size, color, texture, etc.). The aim was to share all this information with fellow future teachers, while awakening their creativity. At the same time, the university teacher was able to monitor the safety and the viability of the materials before using them. In addition, students were also practicing their language skills (their proficiency) during the short speeches. Finally, the presentations were videotaped by the teacher to assess the whole process outside the practical session for time efficiency. After the presentation, students used the materials constructed to experience, in vivo, the pros and cons, the strengths and weaknesses of the equipment built. They used their own as well as others materials. After several minutes of practice, students were asked to think of alternatives for improvement, and draw implications for practice in physical education and extracurricular settings. Finally, students were asked to complete an assessment sheet on the materials used reviewing their functionality, durability, adaptability or efficiency. METHODS Thirty-seven Physical Education Teacher Education students (26 males and 11 females) agreed to participate in the present study. The overall research project was conducted along the first semester of the academic year (4 months). The intervention took place on every practical session of the subject called: physical education for students with special needs (12 sessions of 2 hours each). The Self-Made Materials Questionnaire (SMMQ) was designed and used as the assessment instrument. It consisted of two subscales of 20 items each. Subscale 1 asked the subjects to reflect on their beliefs and feelings about self-made materials. Subscale 2 asked the students to assess the intervention program. All items had to be evaluated using a 5point Likert scale that ranged from 1= “totally disagree” to 5= “totally agree”. DATA ANALYSIS
274
Statistical analysis of the data obtained was performed using the software package IBM SPSS 18.0. The SMMQ’s α Cronbach factor was found to be very high = 0,913, which indicates an elevated internal consistency of the questionnaire. Means and standard deviations of all the items of the two subscales were obtained. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of the results obtained from the subscale 2 between test 1 (before treatment) and test 2 (after treatment) was also performed. In this process, we used the Wilcoxon Test for related measures. RESULTS Figure 1 shows the means obtained on the subscale 1. The most relevant results appeared on item 5: 4.18, item 6: 2.23, item 9: 4.23, item 10: 4.32, item 18: 4.27, item 19: 4.23, and item 20: 4.36. All of them, except item 6 were above 4 points in a 0 to 5 Likert scale. Item 6’s score was very positive despite its small value, because it means that it was positively valued by the subjects (as opposed to the rest of the items).
Figure 1. Students’ response after the intervention program.
275
Regarding the subscale 2, significant differences (p < 0.05) between test 1 and 2 were obtained in 4 items (see figure 2): · Item 2: “Demand greater student commitment”: from 4.52 ± 0.61 to 4.00 ± 0.89. · Item 4: “Include students with special needs”: from 3.67 ± 1.11 to 4.48 ± 0.60. · Item 8: “Help curricular individualization”: from 3.76 ± 0.77 to 4.38 ± 0.74. · Item 14: “Coeducational activity”: from 3.52 ± 1.07 to 4.14 ± 0.65.
Figure 2. Students’ beliefs and feelings on self-made materials on test 1 ant test 2. DISCUSSION Subjects reported that learning through self-made materials had been a very positive experience. They manifested that they were able to discover and master the subject’s contents through a more functional and enjoyable method. Many times, university students feel that the contents they must learn are difficult to manage. Indeed, self-made materials have been proven as an aid in this process. Furthermore, the process of constructing the different materials was not perceived as a duty that took a big amount of time out of other university’s duties. Finally, it also was perceived as a tool to promote group work.
276
Regarding their teaching career, this group of Physical Education Teacher Education students believed that self-made equipment was a valuable teaching tool, because it actively compromises students in their own learning process. Therefore, this group of future teachers manifested that they believe they will use self-made equipment when they become teachers. Students highlighted that the process of constructing your own physical education equipment makes you feel proud of the things that you and others have created. Furthermore, it made them value more their regular physical education equipment. Subjects also believed that this type of materials allow teachers to cope more efficiently with school’s diversity to include students with special needs. Standard commercialized equipment is not as adaptable as students need. It is always the same for anybody, no matter the ability level of the subject. On the other hand, self-made equipment can be constructed to fit each student’s real necessities. Features such as weight, length or shape can be manipulated to build the piece of equipment that is really needed. Therefore, they promote the inclusion of students with special needs in physical education contexts. Similarly, these types of materials also support coeducation, since they can also be adapted to fit girls’ needs. Finally, these two features endorse the idea that self-made equipment helps curricular individualization in physical education settings. CONCLUSIONS The construction of self-made equipment allowed the students to become active learners. They became social learners sharing that process with their classmates. Finally, they became creative learners designing and building the correct equipment. Future teachers see self-made equipment as a valuable educational tool.
277
References Camacho, J. L., Díaz, S. y González, J.G. (2006). Diseño, fabricación y utilización de material deportivo de uso didáctico en IES Alonso de Ercilla. http://www.educa.jccm.es/educajccm/cm/revistaIdea/tkContent?idContent=12694&locale=es_ES&textOnly=false&pgseed= 1220819277003&nshow.content=1&position.content=0. Corbin, E.C., & Corbin, C.B. (1983). Homemade play equipment for use in physical education class. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 54(6), 35-36-38. Davison, B. (1998). Creative physical activities and equipment. Building a quality program on a shoestring budget. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Grigg, A. (2009). Trash balls, Physical & Health Education Journal, Autumn, 24-26. Hardman, K. (2008). Physical Education in schools: a global perspective. Kinesiology, 40(1), 5-28. Lichtman, B. (1999). More innovative games. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Marston, R., (1994). Constructing equipment from recycled materials. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(8), 44-46.
Méndez-Giménez, A. (2003). Nuevas propuestas lúdicas para el desarrollo curricular de Educación Física. Juegos con material alternativo, juegos predeportivos y juegos multiculturales. Barcelona: Paidotribo. Méndez-Giménez, A. (2008). “La enseñanza de actividades físico-deportivas con materiales innovadores: Posibilidades y Perspectivas de futuro”, Actas del Congreso Nacional y III Congreso Iberoamericano del Deporte en Edad Escolar: “Nuevas tendencias y perspectivas de futuro”, pp. 83-108. Méndez-Giménez, A., Martínez-Maseda, J., & Fernández-Río, J. (2010). Impacto de los materiales autoconstruidos sobre la diversión, aprendizaje, satisfacción, motivación y expectativas del alumnado de primaria en la enseñanza del paladós. Proceedings International Congress AIESEP, A Coruña, 26-29th, October. Moss, D. (2004). Sports and Physical Education equipment you can make yourself. Ontario, Canada: Physical Education Digest. Orlick, T. (1990). Libres para cooperar, libres para crear (Nuevos juegos y deportes cooperativos). Barcelona: Paidotribo. Sola, J., Álvarez, J.D., Blanco, S., Silva, J., Pérez, D. y García, V. (2009). Material convencional frente a material autoconstruido en el área de Educación Física en los Centros Educativos de Enseñanza Secundaria. Un estudio piloto. Revista Digital http://www.efdeportes.com/ , 135. Sher, B. (1996). Juegos estupendos con juguetes improvisados. Barcelona: Martínez Roca. S.A. Werner, P., & Simmons, R. (1990). Homemade play equipment. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education Recreation and Dance.
278
