Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Andrew Hammond x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Andrew Hammond, Ruth Jeanes, Dawn Penney, and Deana Leahy

In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight Victorian swimming coaches to examine the discourses of disability and inclusion that they expressed in relation to their current coaching practices. Analysis specifically pursued links between neoliberalism, ableism, elitism, classification and inclusion in coaching, with the intention of exploring what discourse relations are possible, imaginable and practical within what have been referred to as neoliberal-ableist times. Findings reveal that coaches replicate and reproduce elitist, ableist assumptions about the body and sport. The discussion prompts a consideration of how rationalities and techniques of inclusion are limited under the prevailing political context.

Restricted access

Wiyun Chen, Andrew J. Hypnar, Steve A. Mason, Sandy Zalmout, and Austin Hammond-Benett

The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of quality physical education (QPET) in a Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program (CSPAP) which is intended to promote physical activity (PA) behaviors in and outside of schools. Participants were nine elementary physical education teachers and their fourth- and fifth-grade students (n = 1111) in year one, n = 1012 in year 2). The student’s daily PA minutes were assessed using a 7-day PA log. The PE teachers’ levels of QPET were assessed by coding 63 videotaped lessons (Mlessons/teacher = 7.03, SD = .74) using the Assessing Quality Teaching rubrics (AQTR), which consisted of four essential dimensions including Task Design, Task Presentation, Class Management, and Instructional Response. Codes were confirmed through interrater reliability (82.4%, 84.5%, 94%). Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, multiple R-squared regression models, and independent sample t tests. The results indicated that the overall QPET practices (R = .126, R 2 = .02, F = 32.387, Sig.= .000, P < .01) and all four essential dimensions (R = .127, R 2 = .02, F = 8.560, Sig.= .000, P < .01) were significant contributors to students’ student daily PA behaviors. These predictors were significantly higher in girls (R = .157, R 2 = .03, F = 6.15, Sig.= .000, P < .01) than boys (R = .113, R 2 = .01, F = 3.57, Sig.= .007, P < .01). The Instructional Response was a significant predictor of PA among girls (β = .12, t = 2,068, Sig. = .039, P < .05 level), but not boys. Further, students’ who experienced high QPET were significantly more physically active than those students who did not have this experience (t = 4.334, df = 2089, Sig. = .000, P < .01). It was concluded that the QPET practices played a critical role in promoting students’ daily PA engagement in and outside of schools.