Dr.Hab., Professor N.I. Sinyavskiy¹
PhD, Associate Professor V.A. Rodionov²
PhD, Associate Professor V.Y. Losev²
PhD, Associate Professor A.V. Fursov^1
1Surgut State Pedagogical University, Surgut
²Surgut State University, Surgut

Keywords: physical education teachers’ survey, education establishment, physical education quality rating criteria.

Background. A physical education specialist may be viewed as a key interlink between a school child and resource of the educational environment [3]. This is the reason why survey of the physical education teachers’ attitudes to the physical education process design and quality may be of high interest, in our opinion [1, 2, 4]. For this purpose, we sampled for the survey those physical education teachers who spearhead the reform process in the national physical education system. The survey data was particularly important for us due to the insight it provides to the present situation of the national physical education system.

Objective of the study was to survey the physical education teachers’ attitudes to the physical education process design and content in the national education system.

Methods and structure of the study. Subject to the questioning survey were 150 physical education teachers sampled in Langepas, Nefteyugansk, Surgut and Mezhdurechenskiy and offered to fill in a special electronic form convertible to the Google format by the relevant online questionnaire design toolkit. The questionnaire survey included questions from the sociological survey conducted by the Ministry of Sports of the Russian Federation on the physical education and sports progress in the national education system (customised for teachers). The questionnaire survey was timed to the advanced physical education courses when the subjects were offered to join the poll at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe5qi8JHaV5cMpxCZNuWOLBmSf9TPDQL2EdUES5AWUk2BATGQ/viewform and give their responses.

Study results and discussion. The question “Have there been any progress in the key provisions for physical education and sports at your education establishment for the last few years?” was responded as follows: 58.7% reported progress; 28.0% noted no progress; 9.3% reported regress; and 4% were undecided.

The question “Have you noticed changes in the demand for physical education and sports at your education establishment for the last few years?” was responded as follows: 68% reported growth of the demand; 22% noted no growth; 7.3% reported fall in the demand; and 2.7% were undecided.

The question “How would you rate the supply-and-demand situation in the health and fitness domain?” was responded as follows: 32.7% reported the demand being higher than the supply; 12.7% reported the supply being higher than the demand; 48.7% noted the supply and demand being fairly close; and 6% were undecided.

Furthermore, the physical education teachers were offered to assess the key physical education quality and progress rating criteria applied at their education establishments.

The competitive process design and management was rated as follows: 37.3% rated it excellent; 40 % good; 21.4% satisfactory and 1.3% rated it poor.

Sport assets and equipment were rated as follows: 16% rated them excellent: 35.3% good; 36.7% satisfactory; 11.3% rated it poor; and 0.7% were undecided.

Quality of the physical education process was rated as follows: 29.3% rated it excellent; 60% good; and 10.7% rated it satisfactory.

Supply of the sport services at the education establishments was rated as follows: 10% rated it excellent; 27.3% good; 40.7% satisfactory; 19.3% poor; and 2.7% were undecided.

Figure 1. Supply of the sport services at the education establishments

10% excellent 27.3% good 40.7% satisfactory 19.3% poor 2.7% undecided.

Health services were rated as follows: 19.3% rated them excellent; 44.7% good; 28.7% satisfactory; 6.7% poor; and 0.7% were undecided.

Sanitary and hygienic provisions for the physical education were rated as follows: 23.3% rated them excellent; 50% good; 24% satisfactory; 2% poor; and 0.7% were undecided.

Off-class education and training service quality was rated as follows: 22.7% rated it excellent; 52.7% good; 21.3% satisfactory; 0.7% rated them poor; and 2.6% were undecided.

Figure 2. Off-class education and training service quality rates

22.7% excellent 52.7% good 21.3% satisfactory 0.7% poor 2.6% undecided

The question “Do you think the physical education and sport services at your education establishment really cater for the modern interests of the trainees?” was responded as follows: 42% said yes, mostly; 46% rather so than not; 8% rather not; 1.3% mostly not; and 2.7% were undecided.

The question “Do you analyse the physical education service efficiency on the whole (with all forms accounted) at your education establishment?” was responded as follows: 80.7% said yes; 7.3% no; and 12% were undecided.

In the next question, the respondents were proposed to rank the most relevant and efficient physical development/ sport progress criterion for their education establishments; and the ranking was the following: 119 respondents (79.3%) ranked highest physical fitness (and the relevant test rates); 62 respondents (41.3%) put on top the shares of qualifiers for the GTO Complex tests; 42 respondents (28%) gave the highest priority to the share of qualified athletes; 42 respondents (28%) gave preference to the students’ health (verified by the relevant medical tests); 37 respondents (24.7%) ranked on top the sickness/ absenteeism rates;

31 respondents (20.7%) opted for the sport progress rates reported by the establishment; 15 respondents (10%) rated on top the categorisation of the trainees by the relevant health groups; 13 respondents (8.7%) considered most important the attendance of the off-class physical training groups; and 4 respondents (2.7%) believed the share of smokers and drugs/ alcohol addicts being the most important progress criterion.

The question “Does your education establishment offer some special physical education and sport services to health-impaired and disabled students?” was responded as follows: 52.7% said yes, all of them are served; 24.7% said yes, but some are uncovered by the service; 16% said no, it does not; and 4.7% were undecided.

The question “How much time do you think must be assigned to physical education in addition to regular lessons for success?” was responded as follows: 10.7% said at least 2 training sessions per week; 63.3% wanted at least 3 sessions per week; 10% at least 4 sessions per week; 12.7% at least 5 sessions per week; and 3.3% were undecided.

The question “What step could be the most important for real improvement of physical education at your education establishment?” was responded in an optional format as follows:

 114 (76%) opted for improvement of the sport assets and material inputs; 92 (61.3%) improvement of financial provisions; 89 (59.3%) improvement of equipment and assets, including the training simulators; 45 (30%) improvements in the theoretical and practical provisions; 35 (23.3%) opted for better scheduling of the competitions and mass sport events; 32 (21.3%) – better public awareness and advocacy activity; 22 (14.7%) underlined the legal and regulatory framework improvement initiatives; 20 (13.3%) opted for improvement of the sport equipment rental services; 20 (13.35%) named the management system improvements at the relevant physical education and sport institutions (PESI); 16 (10.7%) pointed to the better staffing policies; 16 (10.7%) – better cooperation and coordination at the district/ areal level; 13 (8.7%) mentioned improvements of the athletic training systems; 14 (9.3%) opted for financial/ tax privileges; 8 (5.3%) – self-management system improvement; and 6 (4.0%) opted for improvements of the communal-level activity.

The survey data and analyses gave the means to highlight the following most critical (in opinions of the respondents) reform elements: improvements in the sport assets and inputs; improvement of the financial provisions; improvement of equipment and assets, including training simulators; improvements in the theoretical and practical provisions; better scheduling of the competitions and mass sport events; and better public awareness and advocacy activity.

Conclusion. In the physical education and sport system quality rating survey, 60% of the physical education teachers polled reported high satisfaction with the existing sport assets and material inputs; plus 60% rated the sport service supply and demand situation in their education establishments. The survey identified the most relevant and efficient physical development/ sport progress criteria including physical fitness (and the relevant test rates); shares of qualifiers for the GTO Complex tests; share of qualified athletes; sickness/ absenteeism rates; and sport progress rates reported by the establishments.

References

1. Vishnevskiy V.A., Apokin V.V., Serdyukov D.V. Sistemny analiz sostoyaniya organizma detey na etapakh shkolnogo ontogeneza [System analysis of state of children's health at stages of school ontogenesis]. Moscow: Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury i sporta publ., 2010, 367 p.
2. Lubysheva L.I Konversiya vysokikh sportivnykh tekhnologiy kak metodologicheskiy printsip sportizirovannogo fizicheskogo vospitaniya i «sporta dlya vsekh» [Conversion of sports high-technology as methodological principle of sportized physical education and "sport for all"]. Fizicheskaya kultura: vospitanie, obrazovanie, trenirovka, 2015, no. 4, pp. 6-8.
3. Firsin S.A., Maskaeva T.Y. Materialno-tekhnicheskie usloviya organizatsii i provedeniya zanyatiy po fizkulture i sportu [Design and process of physical education and sports lessons: material and technical conditions]. Chelovek. Sport. Meditsina, 2015, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 5-8.
4. Funina E.E., Frolov E.V. Vyyavlenie otnosheniya uchiteley fizicheskoy kultury k vospitatelnoy rabote s uchashchimisya [PE teachers' opinions about educational work with pupils]. Pedagogiko-psikhologicheskie i mediko-biologicheskie problemy fizicheskoy kultury i sporta, 2015, no. 1 (34), pp. 154-159.

Corresponding author: apokin_vv@mail.ru

Abstract

The article gives the survey data on of the physical education teachers’ attitudes to the physical education process in the national education system. The study was designed to obtain and analyse the subjective rates of the physical education quality in the national education system. Subject to the questioning survey were 150 physical education teachers sampled in Langepas, Nefteyugansk, Surgut and Mezhdurechenskiy to fill in a special electronic form. The questionnaire survey included questions from the sociological survey conducted by the Ministry of Sports of the Russian Federation on the physical education and sports progress in the national education system (customised for the teachers).

Based on the study data and analyses, we generated a set of key efficiency criteria to rate the physical education and sports progress in the national education system by the following: physical fitness levels (rated by the relevant tests); shares of qualifiers for the GTO Complex tests; shares of classified athletes; health rates (as verified by the relevant health indices); academic sickness/ absenteeism rates etc. – i.e. 7 progress rates reported by the education establishments.