10038
JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1984, 4, 39-49
A Multi-Case Study of Teacher Planning
in Physical Education
Judith H. Placek
San Diego State University
The purpose of this study was to examine how four physical education teachers planned lessons. The multi-case approach provided a naturalistic, descriptive account of
planning at two levels: daily and yearly plans. Two general research questions guided
this study: How do the subjects plan for class in terms of time, setting, and so forth?
What factors influence their planning patterns? Four teachers were observed over an
intensive 2-weekperiod for data collection. Data consisted of observations, interviews,
and excerpfs from documCnts and records. The researcher assttmed the role of
participant-observer and remained in the school for the entire school day during the
data collection. The results indicated that the four teachers did not use the classical
endslmeans model for planning but instead employed informal planning habits that
typically focused on daily activities, not coherent efforts to match objectives with content. This pattern does not necessarily produce disorganized classes, however, as the
researcher described the teachers as having- positive in-class instructional behaviors.
It is suggested that the teachers did in fact plan for classes, however briefly or informally.
*
Planning-a time when teachers are expected to sit down with paper and pen in
hand, draw upon both past experience and current knowledge in the field, and carefully
formulate curriculum, unit, and lesson plans. Teachers certainly should know how to go
about the planning process, for both the literature and instruction provided in undergraduate
teacher education about planning typically has been prescriptive and full of suggestions
on how teachers should proceed with planning. Rational and linear models such as Tyler's
(1949) have been taught to generations of undergraduate education majors. Tyler's four
steps-neatly ordering objectives, learning experiences, effective organization, and
evaluation-are intended to provide teachers with a powerful model to follow in their
planning.
However, actual research examining teachers' planning is in its infancy as few
studies presently report data on how teachers actually plan for their classes. The research
conducted on how teachers plan shows little support for the classical endslmeans, fourstage model of planning proposed by Tyler (1949). Studies that examine the sequence of
teachers' planning show that objectives are not the first item considered by teachers while
planning (Clark & Yinger, 1979; Mann, 1975; Merriman, 1976; Smith, 1977; Taylor,
1970; Yinger, 1978; Zahorik, 1975). Although it seems clear from the data that teachers
do not begin their planning by establishing objectives, there is no consensus among teachers
on what actually does constitute the appropriate starting point. The literature reports teachers
variously beginning with pupil needs (Merriman, 1976), content (Taylor, 1970; Zahorik,
PLACEK
40
1975), the amount of time to spend in each subject (Smith, 1977), activities (Yinger, 1978),
and the means available in the school (Mann, 1975).
Research also shows that teachers often do not include the four steps Tyler suggests. Zahorik (1975) asked teachers to list the decisions they made while planning: 81%
of the teachers listed activities and 70% listed content (subject matter). Only 56% said
they made decisions about objectives, and even fewer (35%)listed evaluation. Studies
by Mintz (1979), Morine-Dershirner (1978-79), Morine (1976), Peterson, Marx, and Clark
(1978), and Yinger (1978) all support the notion that teachers' main focus in planning
is on activities and content, with less attention paid to pupils' needs, objectives, or evaluation. Findings about planning have been obtained by a variety of methods including questionnaires, interviews, thinking aloud while planning, stimulated recall, and field studies
in a naturalistic setting.
The study of planning in physical education began when Sherman (1979) compared the planning of novice and expert gymnastics teachers who were asked to teach the
cartwheel to a small group of children in a laboatory setting. He reported differences in
four areas: the type of information requested, the knowledge base, implicit theories of
instruction, and instructional plans. Since that time, teachers' planning in physical education has become a target of investigation by other researchers (DiCicco, Housner, & Sherman, 1982; Griffey & Housner, 1984).
In summary, the knowledge base regarding teachers' planning is small. Research
on this component of preactive teaching has been conducted for only a few years and,
as a result, there is limited information on how teachers plan. One reason this data base
is limited is because most of the subjects have been elementary teachers who planned by
themselves for a self-contained classroom. A few studies in education, and none in physical
education, have utilized naturalistic methodology. Although valuable information may be
gained from laboratory studies, it seems doubtful that findings in highly regulated,
laboratory-based planning and teaching experiences can really represent the complex environment of the classroom or gymnasium with its constantly shifting requirements.
This study examined in a naturalistic setting how four physical education teachers
planned for their classes. The specific questions that guided this study were:
1. How do each of the subjects plan? (setting, time spent, when, form, decisions
made)
2. What are the influences on the subjects' planning?
For the purposes of this study, planning will be defined as a teacher activity that precedes
instruction, is concerned with how instruction will be presented, and is based upon anticipation or expectation of classroom events (Smith, 1977).
Method
A multi-case study approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) provided a descriptive account of planning decisions made by a sample of physical education teachers. In order to
determine the amount and types of planning that physical education teachers actually do,
data were gathered through observation in the naturalistic setting, that is, the offices, gymnasia, and fields in which physical education teachers work. Additional data were collected through formal and informal interviews and document collection.
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
41
In a naturalistic study the investigator does not attempt to manipulate the research
setting. Rather, the investigator is interested in studying events as they occur in their natural
environment. The qualitative data obtained through this type of research provide depth
and detail; they consist of detailed descriptionsof situations, people and interactions, quotations of people about their thoughts and experiences, and excerpts from documents or records
(Patton, 1980).
Wilson (1977) specifies two perspectives that provide a rationale for gathering
data in a naturalistic setting: (a) the naturalisticlecological perspective and, (b) the
qualitative/phenomenologicalperspective. He succinctly summarizes these two rationales.
(a) Human behavior is complexly influenced by the context in which it occurs. Any
research plan which takes the actors out of the naturalistic setting may negate those
forces and hence obscure its own understanding. (b) Human behavior often has more
meaning than observable "facts." A researcher seeking to understand behavior must
find ways to learn the manifest and latent meanings for the participants, and must also
understand the behavior from the objective outside perspective. (p. 253)
A sample of four teachers, each observed for 2 weeks by the same investigator,
participated in this study. Since information on how physical education teachers plan is
limited, this multi-case study approach was believed to be more useful than a single case
study because of the broader range of information obtained. The trade-off in observing
several teachers was that the time period for each necessarily became shorter. Therefore,
the choice of four teachers and a 2-week observation period was a compromise between
the desire to spend a great deal of time with each teacher and the desire to observe the
planning of several physical education teachers. Of course, the planning done by these
four teachers may not represent that of all physical education teachers. One of the duties
of the qualitative researcher, however, is to supply enough descriptive detail so that readers
can decide if the data and conclusions are congruent with their own observations and personal experiences. Thus, in part, the reader decides if the data generalizes to other situations.
The four teachers chosen for this study varied in years of teaching experience and
teaching situation. In order to protect confidentiality they will be called Jerry, Ted, Sue,
and Paula. Jerry has taught elementary physical education for 15 years in the same district
and teaches K-6 students 4 days a week at one elementary school and 1 day each week
at a nearby school. Ted divides his time between two elementary schools in adjacent rural
areas; he has taught 4 years. Sue teaches K-12, spending 1 day per week at an elementary school and 4 days at a juniorlsenior high school (2 days junior high, 2 days senior
high); she has taught for 6 years. Paula has taught junior high physical education for 9
years but this was her first year at her current school. The junior high at which she taught
previously had been closed and she was transferred.
The teachers were not informed of the exact purpose of the study because such
knowledge might have affected their planning and changed their normal behavior. They
were told that the investigator was interested in observing, understanding, and describing
the day-to-day life of a physical education teacher and that the specific focus of the study
would be disclosed later.
The main source of data in naturalistic inquiry is participant observation and the
accompanying field notes. Denzin (1970) defines participant observation as "a field strategy
that simultaneously combines document analysis. . .interviewing, direct participation and
observation, and introspection" (p. 186). In other words, participant observation involves
combining a number of methods in order to obtain the maximum amount of information.
PLACEK
The participant observation methodology utilized in this study generated data from
three different sources: observation, interviews, and documents. Each data source, if used
in isolation, limits the amount and accuracy of information that can be collected. The
technique of using multiple data sources is called data triangulation (Denzin, 1970) and
permits the investigator to validate the findings obtained from one source through comparison with a second or third source.
The involvement of the investigator/observer in participant observation research
can range on a continuum from a total spectator to a full participant in all the activities.
The role chosen for this study was that of limited interaction (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973).
In taking this role, the investigator tried to disrupt the normal duties and interactions of
the teachers as little as possible, but still had the freedom to ask for clarification and meaning
of the observed activities. The teachers were observed from the time they entered school
in the morning until they left for the day or began after-school coaching duties. The
geographical boundaries of the observation were the entire school-from the gymnasium
to the playing field to the lunchroom. Field notes of all observed activities and conversations were taken during the time teachers were conducting class, planning, or reading,
and again at the conclusion of each day of observation.
Two types of interviews were used to gain additional information from teachers
about their planning (Patton, 1980). By using the informal interview, information was
gathered as a part of daily conversations with teachers. The second type of interview was
a more formal 1-hour interview at the end of the 2-week observation period. With the
permission of the teachers, the interviews were tape recorded. An interview guide approach was used (Patton, 1980) which contained a list of desired information but not the
exact wording of the questions. Questions were asked to clarify observational and document data and to elicit information that was not obtainable during observations. The following is a sample of the types of questions asked.
Have these 2 weeks been typical of your planning procedures?
When do you make most of your decisions about what to teach?
Do you find it necessary to plan at home?
How far ahead do you plan?
If you were to offer a new unit, on what basis would you choose the unit?
The third source of data was documents produced by the teachers during or as a
result of their planning (e.g., lesson plans, notes on index cards). These documents were
collected with the teacher's permission or copied by the investigator.
As Bogdan and Taylor (1975) point out, "Data analysis is an ongoing process in
participant observation research" (p. 80). Field notes were taken during class periods and
preparation periods each day to record the investigator's observations and informal conversations with the teachers. At the end of each day of observation, the field notes were
inspected to ascertain the progress made toward answering each research question. A summary was then written to describe the answers obtained through the day's observations
and informal questions.
As the process of detailed description continued each day and week, the investigator particularly watched for any repeating patterns and themes, which were further
probed by redirecting the observations or by informal questions. At the end of each 2
weeks of observation, the three sources of data (field notes, documents, and interviews)
were used to develop descriptions of how the four subject physical education teachers planned (research question 1). Similarities and differences among the four teachers were noted.
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
43
The following procedure was employed in order to determine the influences on
teachers' planning (research question 2). The field and interview notes were examined,
and each teacher's comments on behavior that related to influences on planning were
underlined. Tentative categories were developed from this identification procedure. The
investigatorthen inspected the field and interview notes again, located the specific incidents,
and placed them into the tentative categories. The comments and behavior that occurred
most often were identified as major influences. For example, the influence of student
behavior on planning was mentioned 54 times during the observational phase of data collection by the four teachers. When necessary, adjustments were made in the groupings.
Thus, influences on teachers' planning were organized and grouped, and specific examples
were cited for each category.
Results
How the Teachers Planned
Written Planning. The amount of written planning done before class varied. Jerry's and Ted's written plans for each day consisted mainly of a list of activities. Ted wrote
his plans a week prior to teaching, whereas Jerry wrote his plans the same day he taught
-die clas~es.The other two teachers, Sue and Pauia, did not write lesson plans in advance--of their teaching.
The written plans did not follow the format often taught in methods or curriculum
classes. The plans prescribed in teacher training usually include a listing of objectives
stated in behavioral terms, activities, a careful estimation of the time needed for each activity, materials, and often a section for briefly evaluating the lesson (Annarino, Cowell,
& Hazelton, 1980; Heitrnann & Knerr, 1976). Lesson plans seen by the investigator did
not follow this profile but were abbreviated to a bare listing of activities accompanied
about half of the time by notes about equipment and class organization.
Three of the teachers said they anticipated unforeseen events and, thus being forced to improvise, felt it would be necessary to use some means of keeping track of their
classes. Thus, three teachers utilized systems for recording the events that actually occurred in class. Notes about what was taught, often including comments on student behavior,
were written in plan or grade books, or modificationswere made on the lesson itself. Their
plans served as a framework for teaching but the teachers felt free to modify the design
before and even during the class.
Daily Planning. Daily planning took place in the morning prior to school and
during the school day. Two teachers (Ted and Sue) specifically said that they did some
planning while driving to school in the morning. Paula and Jerry planned immediately
before class. Except for Jerry, who averaged about 1 hour of planning time per day, the
amount of time the teachers spent planning during the school day was minimal. This was
not due to a lack of opportunity in most cases; each teacher had time before school and
during preparation periods. However, these times were not used for planning but instead
for making phone calls, checking on errant students, or chatting with other teachers in
the lounge or with secretaries and administrators in the main office. Thus, some of the
time was spent in the everyday duties related to teaching or coaching while other nonteaching
time was spent relaxing and socializing.
Planning at home (ascertained through questions during the observation period
and during the formal interview) was limited to an occasional review of materials for an
-
44
PLACEK
entire unit and was restricted by factors such as coaching and child-care responsibilities.
Ted clearly stated that due to coaching duties he never planned at home. Sue and Paula
said their planning at home was limited to reviewing materials prior to teaching a unit
they had not taught for a year or more. Jerry was the only teacher who took any material
home with him after school. When questioned about how much work he had done the
previous evening, his typical reply was, "a little." During the formal interview he said,
"You can prepare from 9 to 11 at night or you can sleep from 9 to 11 at night, and now
I am sleeping from 9 to 1 1 at night."
Overall, on a day-to-day basis, three of the teachers relied on their memory of
past teaching experiences in choosing activities for class and they usually planned in the
morning before school or immediately before a class. The one exception, Ted, exhibited
this behavior when his written plans did not fit the situation (e.g., rainy weather), but
his lesson plans were generally done during the school day a week in advance.
Yearly Planning. Long-range planning was done by all four teachers. The investigator elicited information on long-term planning by asking if a yearly curriculum was
available and then by asking follow-up questions during informal conversations and the
formal interview. The teachers all planned for the year by deciding basically which activities they would teach throughout the year. The teachers differed mainly in how precisely
they established details of the order and timing of the activities. At one extreme, Sue listed
the activities for the elementary school with exact dates each unit would be taught. The
secondary school curriculum, however, was developed a few days prior to the beginning
of each semester. On the other hand, Jerry and Ted did not have a written curriculum
but, when asked, were immediately able to list the activities and approximate time frames
they planned to teach during the year. Paula allowed students to choose from a preset list
of activities each semester.
The curriculum decisions were made before school resumed in the fall, usually
on the traditional workshop day when teachers return to school before the students arrive.
Paula and Sue (at the secondary level) also made decisions prior to the beginning of second semester. It was not possible to determine the amount of time actually spent in this
endeavor, but one teacher indicated that less than an hour was used. Sue's quote is typical
of the teacher's procedures.
We set up a general curriculum of all the units we want and try to cover without pinning them down to a time. We do that at the. ..beginning when we come back. Quite
often it just is a carry-over.
All of the teachers said they reviewed their curriculum from the previous year in preparing the list for the coming year. They then deleted or added activities based upon their
evaluation of last year's curriculum. Following are comments about their decisions.
I get out my files, say, hey this is useless. (Jerry)
I generally sit down in the fall before school and take an hour. This year I thought
it would be good for them to see something else. (Ted)
In the spring and fall, we want them outside because we're stuck inside for so long.
You're going to have basketball in the winter when we're stuck inside. (Paula)
In summary, much day-to-day planning was done in a relatively short period of
time immediately prior to class. The investigator could not observe curriculum planning
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
45
for the year because the observations began after the school year had commenced. The
teachers indicated, however, that long-range planning typically occurred the day before
school begins and is based largely on the previous year's list of activities.
Influences Leading to Teachers ' Planning Decisions
Although each teacher acknowledged that factors such as safety considerations,
past experience, and time available influenced their planning decisions, two factors carried the greatest weight in their decisions-the students' behavior, and practical concerns
about activity choice, available equipment, and class organization.
Student Behavior. Three different aspects of student behavior influenced teachers'
planning decisions: student enjoyment of the class (as exemplified by such behavior as
student laughter, students asking to do the activity again), levels of student participation,
and student misbehavior. When asked what factors influenced their planning, two teachers
specifically identified all three aspects. The other two teachers cited two of the three factors. Also, over 50 comments about these factors were recorded during the observational
period. The teachers informally monitored these three behaviors and decided either to continue their planned activity or to modify their plans during the activity or for the next
class. For example, when asked what she focused on when planning her lesson, Sue replied,
Having rapid activities, having more things move right along without a whole lot of
delay. Within that framework also having things under control.. .I try and have things
that include as many people as possible in that activity.
Ted tried to keep all the students in the same grade level at the same point in the unit
so he didn't have to carry extra equipment to the school. Sue organized classes differently
to suit the number of students and the facility available.
Practical Concerns. Not surprisingly, the teachers' plans were influenced greatly
by everyday practical matters such as what activity to teach, what equipment was available,
and how to organize the class. Jerry considered all three in his lesson plans. Paula elaborated
at some length on the problem of giving students a limited choice of activities and then
having to balance the number of students in each activity to match available equipment.
Tom tried to keep all the students in the same grade level at the same point in the unit
so he didn't have to carry extra equipment to the school. Sue organized classes differently
to suit the number of students and the facility available.
The teachers' reports of their thought processes indicated that these two major influences were not considered separately during planning but were tightly interwoven. Their
concern about the students' behavior directly influenced decisions they made about activities and organization. All the teachers either chose activities based on student preferences
or gave examples of how they had done so in the past. For example, as part of the planning process Paula asked students which activity they wanted to participate in; Ted was
concerned that students not become bored and disruptive, so he altered activities or his
method of organizing the teaching progressions.
The Impact of Unpredictability
The primary plan developed by the teachers, either through written or mental planning, was executed as planned if no unforeseen events occurred. Unfortunately, however,
unpredictability of the teaching environment played a role in altering plans for all four
teachers during the observation period. Each teacher was observed to change his or her
46
PLACEK
plans at least four times in the 2-week observation. When questioned about the frequency
of such occurrences, the teachers said they needed to improvise on a regular basis.
Four factors seemed to contribute to a perception of instability by all the teachers.
First, the weather is a major influence in the spring and fall, when physical education
traditionally moves outside. Teachers must contend with cold snaps and sudden rainstorms
that render fields unplayable for days after skies have cleared. Either teachers must recognize
in advance that classes will occasionally be forced inside during this time and must plan
for this contingency, or they are forced to improvise.
A second contributor to the unpredictability is the teachers' feeling that the mood
of students or dynamics of the class dictated their actions. This was apparent when both
Paula and Ted allowed students to have free play time prior to holidays because they felt
that students would be too wound up to listen to any teaching. For instance, Ted had planned
free play time the day before Halloween because he "knew" the students would be unruly. After the first two classes, he said, "Gee, the kids are pretty quiet. They're not
as rowdy as I thought they would be." However, he did not change his planned free time
for the rest of the classes. Jerry definitely felt the mood of students affected his planning.
He said,
I'm very aware of the general behavior of the kids. I'm trying to do a thing if there
is a correlation between barometric pressure and kids' behavior, so I do think the weather
sets them off, the darkness or whatever sets them off. I don't know but they do get
sort of rowdy on overcast days...some days they get claustrophobia and stir crazy.
The class mood influenced the teachers in a different way than normal student feedback,
misbehavior, or skill performance, as they seemed to feel they had no real control over
this aspect of their classes.
Three teachers altered their teaching based upon their own mood or feeling. As
previously mentioned, Jerry based some of his decisions on his mood when he walked
into the gym. Ted mentioned that he would change his teaching if he became bored.
Sometimes boredom makes me change. If it's Friday and I've done the same lesson
seven times I might cut a comer and leave something out.
Even though Paula kept track of each class' progress in her grade book or in folders, she
liked to keep all her classes at the same point in a teaching progression. Therefore she
taught some classes differently in an attempt to keep them even.
Having to go back and repeat...I've already done it. I think sometimes I might not
teach it as explicitly because I might think, "Oh, let's hurry up". ..it's just my feeling
of being easier for everybody.
These three teachers thus changed their plans based on their personal mood or feelings
about a class or lesson that day, rather than following either their plans for the day or
providing equivalent lessons for their students.
The fourth factor that adds to unpredictability, according to the teachers, is the
short notice given about the availability and usability of facilities. This view was expressed
most strongly by Sue, who cited an example of going outside with her first-period soccer
class one day only to find the custodial staff spreading fertilizer on all the playing fields.
Nor did she have full use of the gym during the entire 2-week observation period. Jerry
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
47
was forced to end a class early one day because a guest speaker had been scheduled for
the small room where he taught the kindergarteners. Sue expressed annoyance at the disruption of her classes, Jerry seemed to accept the interruptions philosophically, and Paula
actually welcomed unexpected happenings as a pleasant break in the daily routine.
Sometimes the situation allowed the teacher to change plans prior to class (e.g.,
arriving at school to discover the fields were not usable). At other times, the teachers
decided to change the planned activity during class. Interactive teaching decisionsto modify
plans in the middle of class were done most often due to student and teacher mood rather
than the weather or facilities (unless it began to rain in the middle of class).
Comparison With Previous Studies
The planning of the four teachers was similar in many ways to that reported in
other studies of how teachers plan. The fact that the physical education teachers did much
of their planning mentally, and that written plans consisted of a brief listing of activities
and equipment, confirms findings by Clark and Yinger (1979) and McCutcheon (1980).
For example, Ted and Jerry had planned their entire year's curriculum but never committed the plans to paper. The subjects' concern and focus on activities, means rather than
ends, is consistent with the majority of studies which have examined this aspect of planning (Clark & Yinger, 1979; Jackson, 1966; Mann, 1975; Peterson, Marx, &Clark, 1978;
Taylor, 1970; Yinger, 1978; ~ahorik,1975). The teachers focused upon what students
would do in the gymnasium rather than on objectives or what the students could learn.
One area in which the observed behaviors of these physical educators differed
from the data reported for other teachers was the amount of time spent planning. Jerry
was observed spending approximately 5 hours per week planning for classes; the other
teachers in this study were seen doing almost no deliberate formal planning during the
day. Perhaps they spent some time in informal, mental planning or relied upon memories
of past experience as classes were always filled with activities. The teachers reported very
little planning away from school. In contrast, Clark and Yinger (1979) reported teachers
devoting over 10 hours per week, Merriman (1976) 5 hours per week, and teachers in
~ c c u t i h e o n ' sstudy (1980) reported spending from 1 to 8 hours per week writing lesson
plans with additional time spent in mental planning.
Before concluding that the four physical education teachers spent very little time
planning compared to other teachers, one should be cautious. In the three studies just cited,
teachers' planning behavior was never actually observed; the data reflected teacher selfreports. Such reports may be accurate representations of actual time spent planning, but
teachers' accounts also may be inaccurate due to faulty memory or desire to impress the
investigators. When Yinger (1978) had the teacher keep a daily log of time spent doing
school-related work during nonschool hours, however, that particular teacher's log showed an average of 9 hours per week of work done outside school hours. AU previous research
reporting the amount of time teachers spend planning was restricted to elementary teachers.
The amount of planning time spent by secondary teachers in areas other than physical
education is not known.
Conclusions
This study provides a beginning data base on physical education teachers' field
planning and confirms previous data showing that teachers do not exactly use a classical
48
PLACEK
endstmeans model of planning but instead focus on the activities in which the students
will participate. Is it important, then, that teachers plan by using a predetermined model?
Implicit in the planning models taught to prospective teachers is the belief that somehow
"good" planning (i.e., following a progression from first establishing objectives to finally
evaluating) will lead to better teaching and, in the end, more student learning. How did
the four teachers in this study view the relationship between planning, teaching, and
learning?
As a preliminary step to answering this question, it is important to identify what
was occurring in the physical education classes. All four teachers' classes were basically
well organized and students participated as directed by the teachers. Discipline problems
were minimal; students were not throwing bean bags at each other or climbing on unsupervised equipment.
Second, the teachers were not running organized programs of recreation. Balls
were not merely tossed out; the students were not simply allowed to play games with the
teacher observing from the sidelines. In fact, one teacher specifically stated that he was
not running a recreation program. Students participated in activities to improve throwing
skills, increase cardiorespiratory endurance, and learn how to serve a volleyball. All the
teachers were involved with the students during the entire class period demonstrating, encouraging, praising, and correcting. The teachers were providing instruction for the students
in their classes.
The brief amount of time spent planning, the fact that planning basically occurred
immediately prior to teaching, and the major influences on teacher planning of student
behavior and practical considerations, combined with the unpredictability of environment,
caused the teachers to focus on the here and now-the immediate happenings in the gymnasium, even though the ultimate aim of education is presumed to be student learning.
Student learning or goals for students was mentioned only once, by Sue, in response to
a direct question by the investigator. These four teachers were much more concerned with
the concrete, immediate act of teaching rather than the ultimate, but admittedly more difficult, goal of student learning.
References
Annarino, A., Cowell, C., & Hazelton, H.W. (1980). Curriculum theory and design in physical
education. St. Louis: Mosby.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogdan, R.C., & Taylor, S.J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York:
Wiley & Sons.
Clark, C.M., & Yinger, R.J. (1979). Three studies of teacherplanning (Research Series No. 55).
East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
DiCicco, G.L., Housner, L.D., & Sherman, M.A. (1982, April). Planning and interactive decisions of elementary physical education teachers. Paper presented at the National Convention
of the AAHPERD, Houston.
Griffey, D.C., & Housner, L.D. (1984, April). Expert and novice differencesin planning strategies,
behavior, and student engagement. Paper presented at the National Convention of the
AAHPERD, Anaheim, CA.
Heitmann, H.M., & Kneer, M.E. (1976). Physical education instructional techniques. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Rentice-Hall.
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
49
Jackson, P.W. (1966). The way teaching is. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the National Education Association.
Mann, T.R. (1975). The practice of planning: The impact of the elementary school on teachers'
curriculum decision making. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36106, 3359A-3360A.
(University Microfilms No. 7526968)
McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and
influences on it. Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4-23.
Memman, E.L. (1976). Considerations identified by elementary teachers as elements of their planning for instructional activities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36107, 4420A-4421A.
(University Microfilms No. 76596)
Mintz, S.L. (1979). Teacher planning: A simulation study. Dissertation Abstracts International,
40105, 2607A. (University Microfilms No. 7925588)
Morine, G. (1976). A study of teacher planning. Special Study C, BTES Technical Report 76-3-1,
Far West Labs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 160)
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1978-79). Planning in classroom reality an in-depth look. Educatio~lResearch Quarterly, 3(4), 83-99.
Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Peterson, P.L., Marx, R.W., &Clark, C.M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417-432.
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sherman, M. (1979, December). Teacherplanning:A s d y of expert and novice gymnastics teacht the Pennsylvania State Association HPER Annual Convention,
Smith, J.K. (1977). Teacher planning processes and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Taylor, P.H. (1970). How teachers plan their courses. London: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 245-265.
Yiger, R.J. (1978). A study of teacher planning: Description and theory development using ethnographic and information processing methods Dissertation Abstracts International, 39101,207A.
(University Microfilms No. 7810138)
Zahorik, J.A. (1975). Teachers' planning models. Educational Leadership, 33, 134-139.
---
A Multi-Case Study of Teacher Planning
in Physical Education
Judith H. Placek
San Diego State University
The purpose of this study was to examine how four physical education teachers planned lessons. The multi-case approach provided a naturalistic, descriptive account of
planning at two levels: daily and yearly plans. Two general research questions guided
this study: How do the subjects plan for class in terms of time, setting, and so forth?
What factors influence their planning patterns? Four teachers were observed over an
intensive 2-weekperiod for data collection. Data consisted of observations, interviews,
and excerpfs from documCnts and records. The researcher assttmed the role of
participant-observer and remained in the school for the entire school day during the
data collection. The results indicated that the four teachers did not use the classical
endslmeans model for planning but instead employed informal planning habits that
typically focused on daily activities, not coherent efforts to match objectives with content. This pattern does not necessarily produce disorganized classes, however, as the
researcher described the teachers as having- positive in-class instructional behaviors.
It is suggested that the teachers did in fact plan for classes, however briefly or informally.
*
Planning-a time when teachers are expected to sit down with paper and pen in
hand, draw upon both past experience and current knowledge in the field, and carefully
formulate curriculum, unit, and lesson plans. Teachers certainly should know how to go
about the planning process, for both the literature and instruction provided in undergraduate
teacher education about planning typically has been prescriptive and full of suggestions
on how teachers should proceed with planning. Rational and linear models such as Tyler's
(1949) have been taught to generations of undergraduate education majors. Tyler's four
steps-neatly ordering objectives, learning experiences, effective organization, and
evaluation-are intended to provide teachers with a powerful model to follow in their
planning.
However, actual research examining teachers' planning is in its infancy as few
studies presently report data on how teachers actually plan for their classes. The research
conducted on how teachers plan shows little support for the classical endslmeans, fourstage model of planning proposed by Tyler (1949). Studies that examine the sequence of
teachers' planning show that objectives are not the first item considered by teachers while
planning (Clark & Yinger, 1979; Mann, 1975; Merriman, 1976; Smith, 1977; Taylor,
1970; Yinger, 1978; Zahorik, 1975). Although it seems clear from the data that teachers
do not begin their planning by establishing objectives, there is no consensus among teachers
on what actually does constitute the appropriate starting point. The literature reports teachers
variously beginning with pupil needs (Merriman, 1976), content (Taylor, 1970; Zahorik,
PLACEK
40
1975), the amount of time to spend in each subject (Smith, 1977), activities (Yinger, 1978),
and the means available in the school (Mann, 1975).
Research also shows that teachers often do not include the four steps Tyler suggests. Zahorik (1975) asked teachers to list the decisions they made while planning: 81%
of the teachers listed activities and 70% listed content (subject matter). Only 56% said
they made decisions about objectives, and even fewer (35%)listed evaluation. Studies
by Mintz (1979), Morine-Dershirner (1978-79), Morine (1976), Peterson, Marx, and Clark
(1978), and Yinger (1978) all support the notion that teachers' main focus in planning
is on activities and content, with less attention paid to pupils' needs, objectives, or evaluation. Findings about planning have been obtained by a variety of methods including questionnaires, interviews, thinking aloud while planning, stimulated recall, and field studies
in a naturalistic setting.
The study of planning in physical education began when Sherman (1979) compared the planning of novice and expert gymnastics teachers who were asked to teach the
cartwheel to a small group of children in a laboatory setting. He reported differences in
four areas: the type of information requested, the knowledge base, implicit theories of
instruction, and instructional plans. Since that time, teachers' planning in physical education has become a target of investigation by other researchers (DiCicco, Housner, & Sherman, 1982; Griffey & Housner, 1984).
In summary, the knowledge base regarding teachers' planning is small. Research
on this component of preactive teaching has been conducted for only a few years and,
as a result, there is limited information on how teachers plan. One reason this data base
is limited is because most of the subjects have been elementary teachers who planned by
themselves for a self-contained classroom. A few studies in education, and none in physical
education, have utilized naturalistic methodology. Although valuable information may be
gained from laboratory studies, it seems doubtful that findings in highly regulated,
laboratory-based planning and teaching experiences can really represent the complex environment of the classroom or gymnasium with its constantly shifting requirements.
This study examined in a naturalistic setting how four physical education teachers
planned for their classes. The specific questions that guided this study were:
1. How do each of the subjects plan? (setting, time spent, when, form, decisions
made)
2. What are the influences on the subjects' planning?
For the purposes of this study, planning will be defined as a teacher activity that precedes
instruction, is concerned with how instruction will be presented, and is based upon anticipation or expectation of classroom events (Smith, 1977).
Method
A multi-case study approach (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) provided a descriptive account of planning decisions made by a sample of physical education teachers. In order to
determine the amount and types of planning that physical education teachers actually do,
data were gathered through observation in the naturalistic setting, that is, the offices, gymnasia, and fields in which physical education teachers work. Additional data were collected through formal and informal interviews and document collection.
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
41
In a naturalistic study the investigator does not attempt to manipulate the research
setting. Rather, the investigator is interested in studying events as they occur in their natural
environment. The qualitative data obtained through this type of research provide depth
and detail; they consist of detailed descriptionsof situations, people and interactions, quotations of people about their thoughts and experiences, and excerpts from documents or records
(Patton, 1980).
Wilson (1977) specifies two perspectives that provide a rationale for gathering
data in a naturalistic setting: (a) the naturalisticlecological perspective and, (b) the
qualitative/phenomenologicalperspective. He succinctly summarizes these two rationales.
(a) Human behavior is complexly influenced by the context in which it occurs. Any
research plan which takes the actors out of the naturalistic setting may negate those
forces and hence obscure its own understanding. (b) Human behavior often has more
meaning than observable "facts." A researcher seeking to understand behavior must
find ways to learn the manifest and latent meanings for the participants, and must also
understand the behavior from the objective outside perspective. (p. 253)
A sample of four teachers, each observed for 2 weeks by the same investigator,
participated in this study. Since information on how physical education teachers plan is
limited, this multi-case study approach was believed to be more useful than a single case
study because of the broader range of information obtained. The trade-off in observing
several teachers was that the time period for each necessarily became shorter. Therefore,
the choice of four teachers and a 2-week observation period was a compromise between
the desire to spend a great deal of time with each teacher and the desire to observe the
planning of several physical education teachers. Of course, the planning done by these
four teachers may not represent that of all physical education teachers. One of the duties
of the qualitative researcher, however, is to supply enough descriptive detail so that readers
can decide if the data and conclusions are congruent with their own observations and personal experiences. Thus, in part, the reader decides if the data generalizes to other situations.
The four teachers chosen for this study varied in years of teaching experience and
teaching situation. In order to protect confidentiality they will be called Jerry, Ted, Sue,
and Paula. Jerry has taught elementary physical education for 15 years in the same district
and teaches K-6 students 4 days a week at one elementary school and 1 day each week
at a nearby school. Ted divides his time between two elementary schools in adjacent rural
areas; he has taught 4 years. Sue teaches K-12, spending 1 day per week at an elementary school and 4 days at a juniorlsenior high school (2 days junior high, 2 days senior
high); she has taught for 6 years. Paula has taught junior high physical education for 9
years but this was her first year at her current school. The junior high at which she taught
previously had been closed and she was transferred.
The teachers were not informed of the exact purpose of the study because such
knowledge might have affected their planning and changed their normal behavior. They
were told that the investigator was interested in observing, understanding, and describing
the day-to-day life of a physical education teacher and that the specific focus of the study
would be disclosed later.
The main source of data in naturalistic inquiry is participant observation and the
accompanying field notes. Denzin (1970) defines participant observation as "a field strategy
that simultaneously combines document analysis. . .interviewing, direct participation and
observation, and introspection" (p. 186). In other words, participant observation involves
combining a number of methods in order to obtain the maximum amount of information.
PLACEK
The participant observation methodology utilized in this study generated data from
three different sources: observation, interviews, and documents. Each data source, if used
in isolation, limits the amount and accuracy of information that can be collected. The
technique of using multiple data sources is called data triangulation (Denzin, 1970) and
permits the investigator to validate the findings obtained from one source through comparison with a second or third source.
The involvement of the investigator/observer in participant observation research
can range on a continuum from a total spectator to a full participant in all the activities.
The role chosen for this study was that of limited interaction (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973).
In taking this role, the investigator tried to disrupt the normal duties and interactions of
the teachers as little as possible, but still had the freedom to ask for clarification and meaning
of the observed activities. The teachers were observed from the time they entered school
in the morning until they left for the day or began after-school coaching duties. The
geographical boundaries of the observation were the entire school-from the gymnasium
to the playing field to the lunchroom. Field notes of all observed activities and conversations were taken during the time teachers were conducting class, planning, or reading,
and again at the conclusion of each day of observation.
Two types of interviews were used to gain additional information from teachers
about their planning (Patton, 1980). By using the informal interview, information was
gathered as a part of daily conversations with teachers. The second type of interview was
a more formal 1-hour interview at the end of the 2-week observation period. With the
permission of the teachers, the interviews were tape recorded. An interview guide approach was used (Patton, 1980) which contained a list of desired information but not the
exact wording of the questions. Questions were asked to clarify observational and document data and to elicit information that was not obtainable during observations. The following is a sample of the types of questions asked.
Have these 2 weeks been typical of your planning procedures?
When do you make most of your decisions about what to teach?
Do you find it necessary to plan at home?
How far ahead do you plan?
If you were to offer a new unit, on what basis would you choose the unit?
The third source of data was documents produced by the teachers during or as a
result of their planning (e.g., lesson plans, notes on index cards). These documents were
collected with the teacher's permission or copied by the investigator.
As Bogdan and Taylor (1975) point out, "Data analysis is an ongoing process in
participant observation research" (p. 80). Field notes were taken during class periods and
preparation periods each day to record the investigator's observations and informal conversations with the teachers. At the end of each day of observation, the field notes were
inspected to ascertain the progress made toward answering each research question. A summary was then written to describe the answers obtained through the day's observations
and informal questions.
As the process of detailed description continued each day and week, the investigator particularly watched for any repeating patterns and themes, which were further
probed by redirecting the observations or by informal questions. At the end of each 2
weeks of observation, the three sources of data (field notes, documents, and interviews)
were used to develop descriptions of how the four subject physical education teachers planned (research question 1). Similarities and differences among the four teachers were noted.
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
43
The following procedure was employed in order to determine the influences on
teachers' planning (research question 2). The field and interview notes were examined,
and each teacher's comments on behavior that related to influences on planning were
underlined. Tentative categories were developed from this identification procedure. The
investigatorthen inspected the field and interview notes again, located the specific incidents,
and placed them into the tentative categories. The comments and behavior that occurred
most often were identified as major influences. For example, the influence of student
behavior on planning was mentioned 54 times during the observational phase of data collection by the four teachers. When necessary, adjustments were made in the groupings.
Thus, influences on teachers' planning were organized and grouped, and specific examples
were cited for each category.
Results
How the Teachers Planned
Written Planning. The amount of written planning done before class varied. Jerry's and Ted's written plans for each day consisted mainly of a list of activities. Ted wrote
his plans a week prior to teaching, whereas Jerry wrote his plans the same day he taught
-die clas~es.The other two teachers, Sue and Pauia, did not write lesson plans in advance--of their teaching.
The written plans did not follow the format often taught in methods or curriculum
classes. The plans prescribed in teacher training usually include a listing of objectives
stated in behavioral terms, activities, a careful estimation of the time needed for each activity, materials, and often a section for briefly evaluating the lesson (Annarino, Cowell,
& Hazelton, 1980; Heitrnann & Knerr, 1976). Lesson plans seen by the investigator did
not follow this profile but were abbreviated to a bare listing of activities accompanied
about half of the time by notes about equipment and class organization.
Three of the teachers said they anticipated unforeseen events and, thus being forced to improvise, felt it would be necessary to use some means of keeping track of their
classes. Thus, three teachers utilized systems for recording the events that actually occurred in class. Notes about what was taught, often including comments on student behavior,
were written in plan or grade books, or modificationswere made on the lesson itself. Their
plans served as a framework for teaching but the teachers felt free to modify the design
before and even during the class.
Daily Planning. Daily planning took place in the morning prior to school and
during the school day. Two teachers (Ted and Sue) specifically said that they did some
planning while driving to school in the morning. Paula and Jerry planned immediately
before class. Except for Jerry, who averaged about 1 hour of planning time per day, the
amount of time the teachers spent planning during the school day was minimal. This was
not due to a lack of opportunity in most cases; each teacher had time before school and
during preparation periods. However, these times were not used for planning but instead
for making phone calls, checking on errant students, or chatting with other teachers in
the lounge or with secretaries and administrators in the main office. Thus, some of the
time was spent in the everyday duties related to teaching or coaching while other nonteaching
time was spent relaxing and socializing.
Planning at home (ascertained through questions during the observation period
and during the formal interview) was limited to an occasional review of materials for an
-
44
PLACEK
entire unit and was restricted by factors such as coaching and child-care responsibilities.
Ted clearly stated that due to coaching duties he never planned at home. Sue and Paula
said their planning at home was limited to reviewing materials prior to teaching a unit
they had not taught for a year or more. Jerry was the only teacher who took any material
home with him after school. When questioned about how much work he had done the
previous evening, his typical reply was, "a little." During the formal interview he said,
"You can prepare from 9 to 11 at night or you can sleep from 9 to 11 at night, and now
I am sleeping from 9 to 1 1 at night."
Overall, on a day-to-day basis, three of the teachers relied on their memory of
past teaching experiences in choosing activities for class and they usually planned in the
morning before school or immediately before a class. The one exception, Ted, exhibited
this behavior when his written plans did not fit the situation (e.g., rainy weather), but
his lesson plans were generally done during the school day a week in advance.
Yearly Planning. Long-range planning was done by all four teachers. The investigator elicited information on long-term planning by asking if a yearly curriculum was
available and then by asking follow-up questions during informal conversations and the
formal interview. The teachers all planned for the year by deciding basically which activities they would teach throughout the year. The teachers differed mainly in how precisely
they established details of the order and timing of the activities. At one extreme, Sue listed
the activities for the elementary school with exact dates each unit would be taught. The
secondary school curriculum, however, was developed a few days prior to the beginning
of each semester. On the other hand, Jerry and Ted did not have a written curriculum
but, when asked, were immediately able to list the activities and approximate time frames
they planned to teach during the year. Paula allowed students to choose from a preset list
of activities each semester.
The curriculum decisions were made before school resumed in the fall, usually
on the traditional workshop day when teachers return to school before the students arrive.
Paula and Sue (at the secondary level) also made decisions prior to the beginning of second semester. It was not possible to determine the amount of time actually spent in this
endeavor, but one teacher indicated that less than an hour was used. Sue's quote is typical
of the teacher's procedures.
We set up a general curriculum of all the units we want and try to cover without pinning them down to a time. We do that at the. ..beginning when we come back. Quite
often it just is a carry-over.
All of the teachers said they reviewed their curriculum from the previous year in preparing the list for the coming year. They then deleted or added activities based upon their
evaluation of last year's curriculum. Following are comments about their decisions.
I get out my files, say, hey this is useless. (Jerry)
I generally sit down in the fall before school and take an hour. This year I thought
it would be good for them to see something else. (Ted)
In the spring and fall, we want them outside because we're stuck inside for so long.
You're going to have basketball in the winter when we're stuck inside. (Paula)
In summary, much day-to-day planning was done in a relatively short period of
time immediately prior to class. The investigator could not observe curriculum planning
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
45
for the year because the observations began after the school year had commenced. The
teachers indicated, however, that long-range planning typically occurred the day before
school begins and is based largely on the previous year's list of activities.
Influences Leading to Teachers ' Planning Decisions
Although each teacher acknowledged that factors such as safety considerations,
past experience, and time available influenced their planning decisions, two factors carried the greatest weight in their decisions-the students' behavior, and practical concerns
about activity choice, available equipment, and class organization.
Student Behavior. Three different aspects of student behavior influenced teachers'
planning decisions: student enjoyment of the class (as exemplified by such behavior as
student laughter, students asking to do the activity again), levels of student participation,
and student misbehavior. When asked what factors influenced their planning, two teachers
specifically identified all three aspects. The other two teachers cited two of the three factors. Also, over 50 comments about these factors were recorded during the observational
period. The teachers informally monitored these three behaviors and decided either to continue their planned activity or to modify their plans during the activity or for the next
class. For example, when asked what she focused on when planning her lesson, Sue replied,
Having rapid activities, having more things move right along without a whole lot of
delay. Within that framework also having things under control.. .I try and have things
that include as many people as possible in that activity.
Ted tried to keep all the students in the same grade level at the same point in the unit
so he didn't have to carry extra equipment to the school. Sue organized classes differently
to suit the number of students and the facility available.
Practical Concerns. Not surprisingly, the teachers' plans were influenced greatly
by everyday practical matters such as what activity to teach, what equipment was available,
and how to organize the class. Jerry considered all three in his lesson plans. Paula elaborated
at some length on the problem of giving students a limited choice of activities and then
having to balance the number of students in each activity to match available equipment.
Tom tried to keep all the students in the same grade level at the same point in the unit
so he didn't have to carry extra equipment to the school. Sue organized classes differently
to suit the number of students and the facility available.
The teachers' reports of their thought processes indicated that these two major influences were not considered separately during planning but were tightly interwoven. Their
concern about the students' behavior directly influenced decisions they made about activities and organization. All the teachers either chose activities based on student preferences
or gave examples of how they had done so in the past. For example, as part of the planning process Paula asked students which activity they wanted to participate in; Ted was
concerned that students not become bored and disruptive, so he altered activities or his
method of organizing the teaching progressions.
The Impact of Unpredictability
The primary plan developed by the teachers, either through written or mental planning, was executed as planned if no unforeseen events occurred. Unfortunately, however,
unpredictability of the teaching environment played a role in altering plans for all four
teachers during the observation period. Each teacher was observed to change his or her
46
PLACEK
plans at least four times in the 2-week observation. When questioned about the frequency
of such occurrences, the teachers said they needed to improvise on a regular basis.
Four factors seemed to contribute to a perception of instability by all the teachers.
First, the weather is a major influence in the spring and fall, when physical education
traditionally moves outside. Teachers must contend with cold snaps and sudden rainstorms
that render fields unplayable for days after skies have cleared. Either teachers must recognize
in advance that classes will occasionally be forced inside during this time and must plan
for this contingency, or they are forced to improvise.
A second contributor to the unpredictability is the teachers' feeling that the mood
of students or dynamics of the class dictated their actions. This was apparent when both
Paula and Ted allowed students to have free play time prior to holidays because they felt
that students would be too wound up to listen to any teaching. For instance, Ted had planned
free play time the day before Halloween because he "knew" the students would be unruly. After the first two classes, he said, "Gee, the kids are pretty quiet. They're not
as rowdy as I thought they would be." However, he did not change his planned free time
for the rest of the classes. Jerry definitely felt the mood of students affected his planning.
He said,
I'm very aware of the general behavior of the kids. I'm trying to do a thing if there
is a correlation between barometric pressure and kids' behavior, so I do think the weather
sets them off, the darkness or whatever sets them off. I don't know but they do get
sort of rowdy on overcast days...some days they get claustrophobia and stir crazy.
The class mood influenced the teachers in a different way than normal student feedback,
misbehavior, or skill performance, as they seemed to feel they had no real control over
this aspect of their classes.
Three teachers altered their teaching based upon their own mood or feeling. As
previously mentioned, Jerry based some of his decisions on his mood when he walked
into the gym. Ted mentioned that he would change his teaching if he became bored.
Sometimes boredom makes me change. If it's Friday and I've done the same lesson
seven times I might cut a comer and leave something out.
Even though Paula kept track of each class' progress in her grade book or in folders, she
liked to keep all her classes at the same point in a teaching progression. Therefore she
taught some classes differently in an attempt to keep them even.
Having to go back and repeat...I've already done it. I think sometimes I might not
teach it as explicitly because I might think, "Oh, let's hurry up". ..it's just my feeling
of being easier for everybody.
These three teachers thus changed their plans based on their personal mood or feelings
about a class or lesson that day, rather than following either their plans for the day or
providing equivalent lessons for their students.
The fourth factor that adds to unpredictability, according to the teachers, is the
short notice given about the availability and usability of facilities. This view was expressed
most strongly by Sue, who cited an example of going outside with her first-period soccer
class one day only to find the custodial staff spreading fertilizer on all the playing fields.
Nor did she have full use of the gym during the entire 2-week observation period. Jerry
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
47
was forced to end a class early one day because a guest speaker had been scheduled for
the small room where he taught the kindergarteners. Sue expressed annoyance at the disruption of her classes, Jerry seemed to accept the interruptions philosophically, and Paula
actually welcomed unexpected happenings as a pleasant break in the daily routine.
Sometimes the situation allowed the teacher to change plans prior to class (e.g.,
arriving at school to discover the fields were not usable). At other times, the teachers
decided to change the planned activity during class. Interactive teaching decisionsto modify
plans in the middle of class were done most often due to student and teacher mood rather
than the weather or facilities (unless it began to rain in the middle of class).
Comparison With Previous Studies
The planning of the four teachers was similar in many ways to that reported in
other studies of how teachers plan. The fact that the physical education teachers did much
of their planning mentally, and that written plans consisted of a brief listing of activities
and equipment, confirms findings by Clark and Yinger (1979) and McCutcheon (1980).
For example, Ted and Jerry had planned their entire year's curriculum but never committed the plans to paper. The subjects' concern and focus on activities, means rather than
ends, is consistent with the majority of studies which have examined this aspect of planning (Clark & Yinger, 1979; Jackson, 1966; Mann, 1975; Peterson, Marx, &Clark, 1978;
Taylor, 1970; Yinger, 1978; ~ahorik,1975). The teachers focused upon what students
would do in the gymnasium rather than on objectives or what the students could learn.
One area in which the observed behaviors of these physical educators differed
from the data reported for other teachers was the amount of time spent planning. Jerry
was observed spending approximately 5 hours per week planning for classes; the other
teachers in this study were seen doing almost no deliberate formal planning during the
day. Perhaps they spent some time in informal, mental planning or relied upon memories
of past experience as classes were always filled with activities. The teachers reported very
little planning away from school. In contrast, Clark and Yinger (1979) reported teachers
devoting over 10 hours per week, Merriman (1976) 5 hours per week, and teachers in
~ c c u t i h e o n ' sstudy (1980) reported spending from 1 to 8 hours per week writing lesson
plans with additional time spent in mental planning.
Before concluding that the four physical education teachers spent very little time
planning compared to other teachers, one should be cautious. In the three studies just cited,
teachers' planning behavior was never actually observed; the data reflected teacher selfreports. Such reports may be accurate representations of actual time spent planning, but
teachers' accounts also may be inaccurate due to faulty memory or desire to impress the
investigators. When Yinger (1978) had the teacher keep a daily log of time spent doing
school-related work during nonschool hours, however, that particular teacher's log showed an average of 9 hours per week of work done outside school hours. AU previous research
reporting the amount of time teachers spend planning was restricted to elementary teachers.
The amount of planning time spent by secondary teachers in areas other than physical
education is not known.
Conclusions
This study provides a beginning data base on physical education teachers' field
planning and confirms previous data showing that teachers do not exactly use a classical
48
PLACEK
endstmeans model of planning but instead focus on the activities in which the students
will participate. Is it important, then, that teachers plan by using a predetermined model?
Implicit in the planning models taught to prospective teachers is the belief that somehow
"good" planning (i.e., following a progression from first establishing objectives to finally
evaluating) will lead to better teaching and, in the end, more student learning. How did
the four teachers in this study view the relationship between planning, teaching, and
learning?
As a preliminary step to answering this question, it is important to identify what
was occurring in the physical education classes. All four teachers' classes were basically
well organized and students participated as directed by the teachers. Discipline problems
were minimal; students were not throwing bean bags at each other or climbing on unsupervised equipment.
Second, the teachers were not running organized programs of recreation. Balls
were not merely tossed out; the students were not simply allowed to play games with the
teacher observing from the sidelines. In fact, one teacher specifically stated that he was
not running a recreation program. Students participated in activities to improve throwing
skills, increase cardiorespiratory endurance, and learn how to serve a volleyball. All the
teachers were involved with the students during the entire class period demonstrating, encouraging, praising, and correcting. The teachers were providing instruction for the students
in their classes.
The brief amount of time spent planning, the fact that planning basically occurred
immediately prior to teaching, and the major influences on teacher planning of student
behavior and practical considerations, combined with the unpredictability of environment,
caused the teachers to focus on the here and now-the immediate happenings in the gymnasium, even though the ultimate aim of education is presumed to be student learning.
Student learning or goals for students was mentioned only once, by Sue, in response to
a direct question by the investigator. These four teachers were much more concerned with
the concrete, immediate act of teaching rather than the ultimate, but admittedly more difficult, goal of student learning.
References
Annarino, A., Cowell, C., & Hazelton, H.W. (1980). Curriculum theory and design in physical
education. St. Louis: Mosby.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogdan, R.C., & Taylor, S.J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York:
Wiley & Sons.
Clark, C.M., & Yinger, R.J. (1979). Three studies of teacherplanning (Research Series No. 55).
East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
DiCicco, G.L., Housner, L.D., & Sherman, M.A. (1982, April). Planning and interactive decisions of elementary physical education teachers. Paper presented at the National Convention
of the AAHPERD, Houston.
Griffey, D.C., & Housner, L.D. (1984, April). Expert and novice differencesin planning strategies,
behavior, and student engagement. Paper presented at the National Convention of the
AAHPERD, Anaheim, CA.
Heitmann, H.M., & Kneer, M.E. (1976). Physical education instructional techniques. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Rentice-Hall.
STUDY OF TEACHER PLANNING
49
Jackson, P.W. (1966). The way teaching is. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the National Education Association.
Mann, T.R. (1975). The practice of planning: The impact of the elementary school on teachers'
curriculum decision making. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36106, 3359A-3360A.
(University Microfilms No. 7526968)
McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and
influences on it. Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4-23.
Memman, E.L. (1976). Considerations identified by elementary teachers as elements of their planning for instructional activities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36107, 4420A-4421A.
(University Microfilms No. 76596)
Mintz, S.L. (1979). Teacher planning: A simulation study. Dissertation Abstracts International,
40105, 2607A. (University Microfilms No. 7925588)
Morine, G. (1976). A study of teacher planning. Special Study C, BTES Technical Report 76-3-1,
Far West Labs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146 160)
Morine-Dershimer, G. (1978-79). Planning in classroom reality an in-depth look. Educatio~lResearch Quarterly, 3(4), 83-99.
Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Peterson, P.L., Marx, R.W., &Clark, C.M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417-432.
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sherman, M. (1979, December). Teacherplanning:A s d y of expert and novice gymnastics teacht the Pennsylvania State Association HPER Annual Convention,
Smith, J.K. (1977). Teacher planning processes and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Taylor, P.H. (1970). How teachers plan their courses. London: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 245-265.
Yiger, R.J. (1978). A study of teacher planning: Description and theory development using ethnographic and information processing methods Dissertation Abstracts International, 39101,207A.
(University Microfilms No. 7810138)
Zahorik, J.A. (1975). Teachers' planning models. Educational Leadership, 33, 134-139.
---