G. G. Polevoy
Vyatka State University, Kirov

Keywords: physical education, students, motivation, progress scoring system

Background. Benefits of the modern healthy lifestyle and physical education models for students are analyzed in many studies nowadays [4, 5, 6]. The national academic educational system reports the growing numbers of entrants diagnosed with health disorders and qualified for the special health groups (SHG). This is only one of manifestations of the popular health sagging trends in Russia [2] and abroad [7, 8]. No wonder that the physical fitness and physical education motivations test rates are reported to sag year-to-year. For the university student communities being duly motivated for the academic physical education course, the existing theoretical and practical Physical Education system should be reasonably improved. We believe that the academic Physical Education progress may be spurred up by a physical education progress scoring system.

Objective of the study was to rate benefits of the progress scoring system geared to motivate students for the academic Physical Education classes.

Methods and structure of the study. Randomly sampled were the first-year 17-18 year-old healthy students (n-90) split up into six groups of 15 people each. The sample was trained as required by the standard academic Physical Education curriculum [3] (2-hour trainings once a week for 1 semester, 17 sessions in total) with the only difference that the EG progress was scored by the new progress scoring system. The study and experiment was run in Kirov city [1, 9]. Given in Table 1 is the Physical Education progress scoring system applied in the EG.

Table 1. Physical education progress scoring system applied in the EG

It should be mentioned that the criteria and progress scoring system may vary depending on many factors – e.g. revisions to the test standards and numbers, updates to the physical education service models etc. When a student scores 100 points per semester, he/she will be offered a theoretical Physical Education test conditional on the academic Physical Education backlogs being offset by practical Physical Education trainings, with 1 absence offset by 1 Physical Education session scored by 5 points. In the experiment, the EG and RG were expected to attend 17 Physical Education sessions, pass 5 progress tests and a final examination in Physical Education session 18.

Results and discussion. Benefits of the Physical Education progress scoring system were rated by the following criteria: (1) Physical Education attendance statistics; (2) pre-versus post-experimental physical fitness tests including the standing long jump, forward lean and pull-ups on a horizontal bar tests; and (1) Physical Education progress test rates for the first semester. The test data are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Pre- versus post-experimental progress test rates of the EG and RG

As demonstrated by Table 2 data, the progress scoring system was tested beneficial as verified by the EG attendance rate of 95.3% compared to 78.8% in the RG. The Physical Education progress test rates showed the EG rates being higher than the RG in every test – that may be explained by the EG eagerness to score the highest points and make up 100 points per semester for success in the Physical Education examinations. As a result, the EG scored 43 points out of 45 for the semester versus 36 out of 45 in the RG.

The EG was more active in qualifications for the departmental picked teams for the local competitions (28.9% of the EG versus 13.3% in the RG). It should be mentioned that nobody of the 90 first-year students in the sample managed to qualify for the university picked team – that may be due to the still low physical fitness rates of the beginners and their poor if any competitive experiences.

Conclusion. The new progress scoring and motivational system was found to spur up the students’ interest in the Physical Education lessons and participation in the mass sport events as verified by the EG versus RG progress in the physical fitness tests and morbidity rates. The new progress scoring system may be applied by the national academic educational establishments in different fields and specialties to step up the Physical Education course attendance rates when necessary. Further studies are recommended to rate benefits of the progress scoring system for the students’ physical conditioning purposes in the secondary vocational and possibly general educational systems.

References

1. Feller W. Review: Harald Cramer, Mathematical Methods of Statistics. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1947; 1:136-9.
2. Gladenkova VP, Zhmykhova AY., Vakulenko AN, Yuzhikova OS. Special health group students' morphology, functionality and physical fitness analysis versus somatotypes and diagnoses. Teoriya i Praktika Fizicheskoy Kultury. 2017; 12, 33-35.
3.  Illinich VI. Physical education of the student. Moscow. Gardariki; 2000. (in Russia)
4. Kadiev S, Ivanova B. The importance of physical culture and toughening for middle-aged persons. Voprosy kurortologii, fizioterapii, i lechebnoi fizicheskoi kultury. 1967; 32 (2): 133-136.
5. Kirk D. Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation: The importance of early learning experiences. European Physical Education Review. 2005; 11 (3): 239-255.
6. Li E. Influence of physical exercise prescription on health-related physical fitness (HRPF) of college students. Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech. 2017; 28 (1): 2885-2887.
7. Mansouri M, Sharifi F, Varmaghani M, Keshtkar A, Ebrahimi M. Iranian university students lifestyle and health status survey: Study profile. Journal of Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders. 2017; 16 (1): 48.
8. McLafferty M, Lapsley CR, Ennis E, Murray EK, O’Neill SM. Mental health, behavioural problems and treatment seeking among students commencing university in Northern Ireland. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12 (12): 33-38.
9.  Shklyar V.M. Usage of statistical methods in the pedagogical researches. Science Rise 2015; 5:39.

Corresponding author: gera_lider1@mail.ru

Abstract

Benefits of the modern healthy lifestyle and physical education models for students are analyzed by many studies nowadays. Objective of the study was to rate benefits of a progress scoring system to motivate students for the academic Physical Education classes. Sampled for the study were the first-year healthy students (n-90) split up into six groups of 15 people each. The sample was trained as required by the standard academic Physical Education curriculum (2-hour trainings once a week for 1 semester, 17 sessions in total) with the only difference that the EG progress was scored by a point system.

The progress scoring motivational system was found beneficial as verified by the EG significant progress in the attendance reports, actual physical progress tests and the group academic success rate – versus the RG. The new progress scoring and motivational system may be applied by the national academic educational establishments in different fields and specialties. Further studies are recommended to rate benefits of the progress scoring system for the students’ physical conditioning purposes within the regular academic Physical Education classes.