Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance

ISSN: 0730-3084 (Print) 2168-3816 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrd20

Assessment for Learning in Physical Education:

The What, Why and How

Lena S. Chng & Jacalyn Lund

To cite this article: Lena S. Chng & Jacalyn Lund (2018) Assessment for Learning in Physical
Education: The What, Why and How, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 89:8,
29-34, DOI: 10.1080/07303084.2018.1503119

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2018.1503119

Published online: 09 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrd20
 Assessment for Learning
in Physical Education:
The What, Why and How
Lena S. Chng
Jacalyn Lund

F
ormative assessment has been a central part Defining Formative Assessment and
of educational practice since the 1990s. Despite a wid- Assessment for Learning
ening global awareness regarding the use of formative
Black and Wiliam (1998) defined formative assessment as “all
assessment, one review of assessment practices in U.S.
those activities undertaken by teachers and/or by their students,
schools stated that although formative assessment was
which provide information to be used as feedback to modify the
widely promoted in the professional literature, it was not com-
teaching and learning activities [and] when the evidence is actu-
monly used (Neil, 1997). Clark (2008) suggested that perhaps be-
ally used to adapt the teaching to meet students’ needs.” In other
cause of this general lack of implementation, formative assessment
words, assessment is formative if information about students’
was perceived by many as a new art of theory or classroom of
practice. The purpose of this article is to clarify the terms and pur-
poses of formative assessment and assessment for learning (AfL),
provide examples of various types of formative assessment and Lena S. Chng (Lchng1@student.gsu.edu) is a doctoral candidate, and Jaca-
lyn Lund is a professor, in the Department of Kinesiology and Health at
AfL activities, and explain why teachers should include them as Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA.
part of instruction.

JOPERD  29
achievement is elicited, interpreted and used by teachers, learners
or their peers, to make decisions about the next step of instruction
(by teachers) and learning (by students). The purpose of formative
assessment is to improve learning, and it is usually in the form of
feedback to help teachers make decisions about their instruction
and help students progress.
The term “formative assessment” often was embedded in the
term “assessment for learning.” Although many used the terms
“formative assessment” and “AfL” synonymously, a few writers
distinguished between the two. The term “formative assessment”
is used to describe the gathering of information that provides feed-
back to students about their own learning and to inform teachers
about subsequent planning and pedagogy (Black & Wiliam, 1998;
Hay, 2006; Lund & Veal, 2013). Assessment is formative when
the evidence is used to adapt teaching to meet students’ learning
needs (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Thus, formative assessment serves
two purposes: (1) for teachers to review and adjust their teaching,
and (2) for students to know about their progress. Assessment for
learning is “the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for
use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are
in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there”
(Assessment Reform Group, 2002). In this definition, AfL is a form
of formative assessment in which learners play an active role in
their own learning.
Formative assessment’s main focus is to inform teachers of stu-
dents’ progress. The main purpose of AfL is to provide feedback
to learners regarding their progress toward the learning objectives
and to allow students to take ownership of their own learning.
A well-planned AfL informs the most effective, meaningful and
worthwhile instructional strategies to improve teaching and sub-
sequently students’ learning experience (Tannehill, Van der Mars,
& MacPhail, 2013).
MacPhail and Halbert (2010) explained the difference between
formative assessment and AfL in this manner:
Formative assessment is intended to enhance student learning through
frequent opportunities for students to evidence their understanding,
which in turn will identify ways to help individual students progress.
While formative assessment tends to inform the teacher about student
involvement, AfL (assessment for learning) extends to informing stu-
dents about their own learning, acknowledging that they are decision-
makers in their own learning. (pp. 26–27)
Similarly, Chappuis, Commodore and Stiggins (2017) explained
the difference as:
Formative applications can diagnose student needs, monitor prog-
ress toward individual standards by individual students, and suggest
changes in a teacher’s instructional approach…. Assessment for learn-
ing includes those things that teachers and students do, in the class-
room, to inform teaching and learning…. It helps students see and
understand learning targets, helps them understand and manage their
own progress, and uses self-assessment and goal setting to keep students
connected to the targets of instruction. (p. 27)
The difference therefore, lies in the perspective and the use of for-
mative assessment. Formative assessment becomes AfL only when
students are involved in the learning process and use the informa-
tion to make decisions. Essentially, AfL is a form of formative as-
sessment, with the learners as its focus. While all assessments for
learning are formative assessments, not all formative assessments
are assessments for learning.
30  Volume 89  Number 8   October 2018
Advantages of Formative Assessments and
Assessments of Learning
Firm evidence shows that formative assessment is an essential
component of classroom work and that its development can raise
standards of achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Incorporating
formative assessments in instruction can yield better instruction
and better student learning.
Better Instruction. Many studies have documented that the
use of formative assessment in physical education yields better
instruction and planning for teachers. Chroinin and Cosgrave
(2013) studied five teachers who planned and delivered a series of
lessons where formative assessment was incorporated into their
physical education instruction. For each lesson, the teachers se-
lected written or verbal assessment strategies, including teacher-
led, peer- and self-assessment strategies that aligned with the con-
tent to examine different aspects of children’s learning. Teachers
shared that the inclusion of assessment provided more structure
and focus to the planning, teaching and learning processes, and
it had a positive effect on both teaching and children’s learning.
They concluded that the use of assessment strategies enhanced the
quality of teaching and learning in physical education. MacPhail
and Halbert (2010) also studied the effect of formative assessment
on teacher instruction and student learning. Teachers reported
that better planning resulted in lessons being easier to manage
and organize, which allowed them to focus on their effectiveness
in advancing students toward the achievement of stated lesson
goals. Teachers also reported increased levels of motivation and
energy when they used assessment for the learning-task assess-
ment framework. Additionally, they reported that their standard
of teaching, student learning, and assessment in their physical
education lessons improved greatly.
Better Student Learning.  Better planning and instruction yield
better learning experiences for students. In physical education the
use of formative assessment can enhance the quality of teaching
in physical education, and thus student learning (Broek, Boen,
Claessens, Feys, & Ceux, 2011; Butler & Hodge, 2001; Chroinin
& Cosgrave, 2013; R. Johnson, 2004). Students in MacPhail and
Halbert’s (2010) study reported an increased focus on learning
and involvement. They were conscious of learning differently dur-
ing the introduction of formative assessment, and they noted that
the lessons allowed them to be more involved, and thus develop
a sense of ownership. Students also performed better in terms
of skills (Crouch, Ward, & Patrick, 1997; M. Johnson & Ward,
2001; Ward, Crouch & Patrick, 1998).
Types of Assessment for Learning Activities
Imagine the following three hypothetical scenarios observed in
physical education classes. Which of the three uses assessment for
learning?
•  Scenario One: A third-grade PE teacher conducts a catching
and throwing lesson in an elementary school. The teacher observes
the students’ performances and gives verbal feedback on these
performances. Students’ performances are used by the teacher to
decide whether to proceed to the next progression in the learning
sequence.
•  Scenario Two: A fourth-grade PE teacher conducts a jump-
rope lesson in an elementary school. Students document the num-
ber of times they perform different types of jump-rope skills on the
recording sheet. At the end of the class the students hand in the
recording sheet, and the teacher thanks them for their work.
•  Scenario Three: A fifth-grade PE teacher conducts a basket-
ball-shooting lesson. Students observe their peers and record the
number of successful shots during a one-minute trial. The students
also rate their partners on their effort throughout the physical edu-
cation lesson. Students are not allowed to see what their partners
wrote on the recording sheet and thus have no idea about how
they fared.
Going back to the original question, which of these teachers
incorporated AfL in their physical education class? If your answer
is none, you are correct. These scenarios represent common as-
sessment techniques used in physical education lessons. The next
few paragraphs will discuss the types of AfL and identify why the
above scenarios did not fit the definition of AfL.
Assessment for learning is any assessment for which the first
priority in its design and practice is to promote student learning.
This means that the teachers and students must be able to use the
feedback while assessing themselves and one another. Information
can be collected about students’ performance through teacher ob-
servation assessment, peer assessment and self-assessment.
Teacher Observation. In a typical physical education setting
teachers observe students’ performances and give verbal feedback
on those performances. According to the definition of assessment,
in order for the assessment to be considered an assessment proce-
dure, it has to produce some form of evidence. A teacher-observa-
tion assessment for learning requires that the teacher observe the
performance and record results by using a performance rubric, a
checklist, or other means of producing a tangible result. With AfL
students use the information, make decisions, and act on their own
learning. Thus, in the case of scenario one, the teacher’s obser-
vation of the students’ performance, without any documentation,
was not assessment and students had no way of evaluating their
own performance. Figure 1 is a sample form that could be used to
document student learning in a catching and throwing lesson, as
described in scenario one. When the teacher communicates the in-
formation to the students and gets the students to act on their own
learning, then it is considered AfL. Students use the information
to know where they are, what the expectation or end point is, and
how to improve the gap between.
Self-assessment.  Ideally, students are the ultimate users of any
assessment information that is elicited, as they use the informa-
tion to improve their learning. Students can assess themselves only
when they have a sufficiently clear picture of the target that their
learning is meant to attain. With the end outcome in mind they
become more motivated and more effective as learners (Lund &
Shanklin, 2011). Self-assessment is a type of AfL. When someone
is trying to learn, feedback about the effort has three elements:

Figure 1.
Example of assessment for learning: Catch and throw (Scenario 1)

Class: _____________________________________             Date observed: _____________________________

Skills Needs improvement (N)
Catching Unable to track the object
Throwing Does not step forward
No backswing
Untimely object release
Developing (D) Meets expectations (M) Exceeds expectation (E)
Eyes closed or turned away Keeps eyes on the ball but Keeps eyes on the ball
from ball may flinch Moves to catch the ball
Does not move to catch Reaches to catch the ball Catches with hands only
ball Catches the ball with both and brings ball into the
Attempts to catch ball with hands only chest
straight arms or traps
ball between body and
arms
Steps forward with the Steps forward with the Throws with correct
wrong foot correct foot motion
Back swing with no follow Full backswing and follow Throws with power and
through through accuracy
Inconsistent object release Coordinated arm motion
with smooth release

Name Catching Throwing Comments

Tom D M Needs to work on his catch by keeping eyes on the ball
Jane M E Needs to work on consistency of catch

Note:  In assessment for learning, such observations and feedback must be communicated to students, so that students can work on improving
their skills.

JOPERD  31
recognition of the desired goal, evidence of present position, and
some understanding of a way to close the gap between the two
(Sadler, 1989). Black and Wiliam (1998) concluded that for AfL to
be productive, students would be trained in self-assessment so that
they understand the main purposes of their learning, and thereby
grasp what they need to do to achieve. Scenario two was an ex-
ample of self-assessment where the students recorded their own
performance. Unfortunately, the self-assessment did not benefit
anyone. The teacher did not use it to give feedback on the students’
performances, to help students improve, nor to set learning and
performance goals for the students. Thus, scenario two cannot be
considered an AfL procedure. To transform it into an AfL assess-
ment, in addition to the self-assessment worksheet, teachers must
provide students with some form of criteria so that they can assess
their performance and determine how they were performing rela-
tive to the teacher’s expectations.
Peer Assessment.  Peer tutoring or peer teaching is the system
of instruction in which students work in pairs to support each
other’s learning (Brya, 2006). Reciprocal peer tutoring is one of
the most commonly employed peer-teaching strategies (Mosston &
Ashworth, 2002). In reciprocal peer tutoring, learners are paired
and exchange roles of doer and observer. While one doer (learner)
Figure 2.
Example of a formative assessment in a badminton unit
Badminton Unit
Formative Assessment — Short Backhand Serve
Performer: ______________________   Observer: ______________________
Instructions
Get a partner to observe your serve. You should serve 10 times from the
right court and 10 times from the left court. You should serve into the
appropriate service court.
Your partner should tally the serve in the ‘Successful’ or the ‘Unsuccessful’
column. Tally marks look like this: //// //.
A successful Successful Unsuccessful Total
serve is when the
shuttle lands just
over the net and
inside the area
of the court.
Right Number of
successful shots:
Left Number of
successful shots:
Write an improvement goal:
32  Volume 89  Number 8   October 2018
performs the task, the other learner (observer) observes, records
on the task cards, and gives feedback based on the information
provided on the task cards. This process of observing, recording
and giving feedback to peers is considered peer assessment. Peer
assessment can benefit both the observers and the learners. While
the learners learn by doing, the observers learn by observing,
analyzing performance, and giving performance-related feedback
(Topping, 2005).
Peer tutoring in physical education improves the skills of the
tutee as well as the cognitive learning of the tutor. However, the
tutors need to be trained to fulfill their roles (Houston-Wilson,
Dunn, Van der Mars, & McCubbin, 1997). Houston-Wilson and
colleagues (1997) studied the effect of untrained and trained peer
tutors on the motor performance of students with developmental
disabilities in integrated physical education classes. They found
that trained peer tutors were effective in assisting participants to
improve their motor performance in integrated physical education
classes.
In the Ward and Lee (2005) review of peer assessment, the im-
portance of creating both individual and group accountability was
emphasized. The review concluded that the peer-assisted learn-
ing strategies used in those studies were appropriate and effective
strategies to use in physical education to enhance
learning. In these studies, children as young as
third grade were taught to assess each other’s per-
formance, provide feedback to peers, and partici-
pate in collaborative group activities. These studies
demonstrated that peers could reliably and accu-
rately assess peers using a performance rating scale.
Scenario three is an example of peer assessment.
However, it failed to qualify as an AfL procedure
because the learners did not receive any feedback
from their observers. By definition, in AfL the
learners need to receive feedback about their per-
formance and learn from it. If the observers were
trained to provide feedback about their peers’ per-
formance, provided feedback to their peers, and
helped their peers set performance goals, then
AfL would have occurred. A simple inclusion of
goal setting and identifying an area of improve-
ment would help students take ownership of their
learning. Figure 2 is an example of a peer assess-
ment form that includes goal setting and learner’s
feedback.
Challenges of Formative
Assessment and Assessment for
Learning
Little research has been done specific to AfL.
However, it is assumed that the challenges of using
formative assessment are similar to those for AfL.
Black and Wiliam (1998) concluded in their re-
view of over 250 published articles that formative
assessment can raise standards. They also identi-
fied three main issues with using formative assess-
ments: (1) the assessment methods that teachers
use are not effective in promoting good learning,
(2) grading practices tend to emphasize competi-
tion rather than personal improvement, and (3)
assessment feedback often has a negative impact,
particularly on low-achieving students (Black, Harrison,
Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004). Some recommendations
for how teachers can implement formative assessment and
AfL more effectively are discussed next.
Assessment in physical education comes with a unique
set of challenges. Often, teachers will interact with 600
students each week, and that makes collecting, analyzing
and tracking assessment data daunting and challenging.
Formative assessment and AfL are complex procedures,
and they are not effective if used without accountability.
One study (Veal & Compagnone, 1995) reported that for-
mative assessment had no effect on middle-school students’
self-perception of their effort and skill. In that study, 151
sixth-graders participated in a series of teacher-designed
formative assessments in a basketball, volleyball, jump
rope and badminton unit. The formative assessment meth-
ods used in this study were teacher observation, self-assess-
ment and peer assessment. The methods used in this study
included students self-reporting successful passes each day
during a basketball unit, and the teacher posting the results

© iStockphoto/FlairImages
on a chart; students counting the number of successful
passes over the net during a badminton unit; the teacher
checking off students on her list for jump rope; and, stu-
dents’ individual record of their service practice. The re-
searchers felt that because assessment plans implemented
in this study were not connected to any grades, students
perceived that they were not important. They concluded
that formative assessment needed to be linked to what will
eventually be used for summative assessment. This finding
aligns with the study by Lund and Shanklin (2011) which
concluded that students performed better when they were
held accountable for their learning.
The main challenge that teachers most often cite when
implementing formative assessment or AfL is the increased
time needed for planning. However, several studies noted
that the increased time spent on lesson preparation was
worth the effort (Chroinin & Cosgrave, 2013; MacPhail
& Halbert, 2010). Teachers in MacPhail and Halbert’s
(2010) study reported that the planning and preparing
stage was time consuming, but the better planning resulted
in lessons being easier to manage and organize. R. Johnson
(2004) stated, “although it takes more time to plan and 3.  Providing feedback that moves learners forward;
create peer assessment, it provides students the opportunity to be 4.  Activating students as an instructional resource for one an-
more involved and responsible for their own learning and their other; and
classmates’ learning” (p. 40). 5.  Activating students as owners of their own learning.
These are important things to note when implementing for-
mative assessment and assessment for learning. When thinking
How to Implement Formative Assessment and about the earlier examples of assessment, the teacher in scenario
Assessment for Learning Effectively one may be actively giving feedback to 40–60 students in a class.
The implementation of AfL is a complex process and needs to How much feedback can each student receive on their perfor-
be well thought out. In order for it to be effective, the following mance if there were only one teacher for a class of 40? Thus, us-
are a few considerations to keep in mind. Formative assessment ing self- or peer assessment could mitigate this issue. In scenarios
and AfL serves to inform both teachers and students about stu- two and three, students were self-assessing or peer-assessing their
dents’ progress, and this information is used for future actions. skills by writing down how well they or their peers were perform-
Black and Wiliam’s (2009) framework of formative assessment is a ing. So what does being able to perform 10 consecutive jumps or
good summary that would help teachers implement formative as- 40 consecutive jumps mean? What does being able to shoot 10
sessments effectively. Five strategies were recommended: baskets mean? Students lacked the communication of expecta-
1. Clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for tions and a guide on how they were performing. Learning is more
success; effective when the students know the expectations or have a per-
2.  Engineering effective classroom discussions and other learn- formance rubric to use when self-evaluating their performance
ing tasks that elicit evidence of student understanding; (Lund & Shanklin, 2011).

JOPERD  33
Conclusion
There is limited research on the impact of formative assessment
(in general and AfL specifically) in physical education (Hay, 2006).
Over the years researchers have reported efforts to introduce for-
mative assessment in physical education (Veal, 1992, 1995). Veal
(1992) wrote about the significant role of assessment in physical
education classes. In 1995 she introduced the use of assessment as
an instructional tool. Formative assessment and AfL are essential
parts of the teaching-learning process and should be used in all
lessons.
Stiggins (2017) shared his perspective of what a truly produc-
tive assessment system looks like. This assessment system should
not only enhance student learning, but student well-being as well:
Teachers and policy makers should know why they are assessing stu-
dent achievement: either to support student learning, or to judge and
report the sufficiency of that learning. A truly productive assessment
system will serve all instruction decision makers, not just once a year,
but throughout instruction. Assessments should be incorporated into
instruction and be carried out before, during and after the learning.
(p. 7)
The use of formative assessment and AfL will be more effective
when teachers identify the purpose of the assessment. Forma-
tive assessment informs teachers whether students are learning
and gives them an indication of how to plan upcoming lessons
to achieve the unit goals and objectives. Formative assessment
and AfL enables teachers to track students’ performance over
time and inform students of their learning and progress toward
meeting SHAPE America’s National Standards for K–12 Physical
Education (Lund & Tannehill, 2015; SHAPE America – Society of
Health and Physical Educators, 2014). They can be in the form of
self-assessment, peer assessment, teacher-observation assessment,
portfolio, or teacher-student conference. In K–12 settings, where
teachers are usually faced with huge class sizes, self- and/or peer
assessment could be used to facilitate learning among students, as
students would have feedback on their performance. Instead of
keeping students “busy, happy, and good” (Placek, 1983), teach-
ers can use formative assessment and AfL tools to ensure that stu-
dents are learning the skills and knowledge they need to achieve
competence in the standards.
References
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning. Retrieved
from http://www.assessmentforlearning.edu.au/default.asp
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Work-
ing inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi
Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9–21.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards
through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–144,
146–148.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assess-
ment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 21, 5–31.
Broek, G., Boen, F., Claessens, M., Feys, J., & Ceux, T. (2011). Compari-
son of three instructional approaches to enhance tactical knowledge in
volleyball among university students. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 30, 375–392.
Brya, M. (2006). Teaching styles and inclusive pedagogies. In D. Kirk, D.
Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical educa-
tion (pp. 449–466). London, UK: Sage.
Butler, S., & Hodge, S. (2001). Enhancing student trust through peer as-
sessment in physical education. Physical Educator, 58, 30–39.
34  Volume 89  Number 8   October 2018
Chappuis, S., Commodore, C., & Stiggins, R. (2017). Balanced assess-
ment systems: Leadership, quality and the role of classroom assessment.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Chroinin, D., & Cosgrave, C. (2013). Implementing formative assessment
in primary physical education: Teacher perspectives and experiences.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18, 219–233.
Clark, I. (2008). Assessment is for learning: Formative assessment and
positive learning interactions. Florida Journal of Educational Adminis-
tration & Policy, 2, 1–16.
Crouch, D., Ward, P., & Patrick, C. (1997). Effects of peer-mediated ac-
countability on task accomplishment during volleyball drills in elemen-
tary physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17,
26–39.
Hay, P. (2006). Assessment for learning in physical education. In D. Kirk,
D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical edu-
cation (pp. 312–25). London, UK: Sage.
Houston-Wilson, C., Dunn, J., Van der Mars, H., & McCubbin, J.
(1997). The effect of peer tutors on motor performance in integrated
physical education classes. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 14,
298–313.
Johnson, R. (2004). Peer assessments in physical education. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(8), 33–40.
Johnson, M., & Ward, P. (2001). Effects of class-wide peer tutoring on
correct performance of striking skills in 3rd grade physical education.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 247–263.
Lund, J., & Shanklin, J. (2011). The impact of accountability on student
performance in a secondary physical education badminton unit. Physical
Educator, 68, 210–220.
Lund, J., & Tannehill, D. (2015). Standards-based physical education cur-
riculum development (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Lund, J., & Veal, M. (2013). Assessment-driven instruction in physical
education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
MacPhail A., & Halbert, J. (2010). “We had to do intelligent thinking
during recent PE”: Students’ and teachers’ experiences of assessment for
learning in post-primary physical education. Assessment in Education,
17, 23–39. doi:10.1080/09695940903565412
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
Neil, D. (1997). Transforming student assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 78,
35–36.
Placek, J. (1983). Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy and
good? In T. Templin & J. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education
(pp. 46–56). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sadler, D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional
systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
SHAPE America – Society of Health and Physical Educators. (2014). Na-
tional standards and grade-level outcomes for K–12 physical education.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Stiggins, R. (2017). The perfect assessment system. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Tannehill, D., Van der Mars, H., & MacPhail, A. (2013). Building effective
physical education programs. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25,
631–645.
Veal, M. (1992). The role of assessment in secondary physical education: A
pedagogical view. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,
63(7), 88–92.
Veal, M. (1995). Assessment as an instructional tool. Strategies, 8, 10–
15.
Veal, M., & Compagnone, N. (1995). How sixth graders perceive effort
and skill. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 431–444.
Ward, P., Crouch, D., & Patrick, C. (1998). Effects of peer-mediated ac-
countability on opportunities to respond and correct skill performance
by elementary school children in physical education. Journal of Behavior
Education, 8, 103–114.
Ward, P., & Lee M. (2005). Peer-assisted learning in physical education: A
review of theory and research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Educa-
tion. 24, 205–225. J