Soares, Antonio Jorge Gonçalves; Brito, Maria Jullyanne Cavalcanti de; Santos, Tony Meireles; Oliveira, Amauri Aparecido Bassoli de; Cardoso, Marcelo Silva; Vieira, Jose Luiz Lopes; Costa, Luciane Cristina Arantes da; Damasceno, Vinícius de Oliveira

doi:10.4025/jphyseduc.v28i1.2852

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Journal of Physical Education

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • J. Phys. Educ. 28 • 2017 • https://doi.org/10.4025/jphyseduc.v28i1.2852 copiar

CONCEPÇÃO E VALIDAÇÃO DO PROTOCOLO DE OBSERVAÇÃO DE AULA (POA) DO PROGRAMA SEGUNDO TEMPO

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMO

Na oferta de uma educação esportiva em escala nacional o Programa Segundo Tempo (PST) elaborou padrões teóricos e metodológicos visando fornecer um ensino esportivo de qualidade. Para avaliar sua proposta pedagógica o PST construiu um modelo de avaliação para medir o grau de adesão dos docentes do programa ao modelo pedagógico PST. Desse modo, o objetivo do presente estudo foi elaborar o Protocolo de Observação de aula (POA), bem como estabelecer sua validade de face e de conteúdo. Para a construção do instrumento foram observadas as seguintes etapaa: a. revisão dos documentos que fundamentam o PST; b. reuniões e consultas as equipes pedagógicas; c. construção da definição operacional; d. construção dos itens; e. estudo piloto (Índice de Concordância entre os observadores ao avaliarem a mesma aula). De uma forma geral, não foram encontradas divergências entre as equipes quanto a relevância dos itens e seus ponderamentos. Além disso, a aplicação piloto apresentou Índice de Concordância de 0,71 ± 0,22. Desse modo, o POA se mostrou consistente e um excelente balizador para medir a qualidade de entrega das aulas do PST nos núcleos.

Palavras-chave:
Psicometria; Validade dos testes; Avaliação educacional.

Indicator Families	Item		D.I		D.D		Adjustments
Ad.			Inad.			Ad.	Inad.	Ad.	Inad.
Planning Indicators
1. Class Objectives	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	-
2. Coherent sequencing of activities	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	1.0	0.0	-
3. Occupation of the available physical space	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	-
4. Use of materials x number of students	0.9	0.1	1.0	0.0	0.8	0.2	Inclusion of “not applicable”
5. Compatibility of activities per age group	0.5	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.4	Words: age group x motor level
6. Use of materials x motor experiences	0.5	0.5	0.6	0.3	0.6	0.3	Item excluded
Content Indicators
7. Confidence and clarity in teaching the contents	0.7	0.3	0.7	0.3	0.8	0.2	Exclusion of the word “clarity”
8. Procedural information	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.8	0.2	Joining with item 9
9. Conceptual Information	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	0.9	0.1	Joining with item 8
10. Ethical and moral values	0.9	0.1	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	-
Methodological procedures Indicators
11. Respectful relationship with students	0.9	0.1	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	Exclusion of “respectful”
12. Class organization	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	1.0	0.0	-
13. Leadership in class	0.6	0.4	0.6	0.4	0.6	0.4	Defining “leadership”
14. Challenges/problems to acquiring skills	0.9	0.1	0.8	0.2	1.0	0.0	Item excluded
15. Self-organization	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	Joining with item 12
16. Teaching the sport from the game goal	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	0.9	0.1	Inclusion of “not applicable”
17. Use of mini-games	0.9	0.1	0.9	0.1	0.8	0.2	Inclusion of “not applicable”
18. Presence of lines and big games	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	Replace presence for absence
19. Period of experience in the activities	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	0.9	0.1	Joining with item 18
20. Teaching the sport from the partial method	0.9	0.1	0.7	0.3	0.9	0.1	Joining with item 16
21. Strategic and tactical behavior	0.9	0.1	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	Inclusion of “not applicable”
22. Redesigning or adaption of activities	1.0	0.0	0.8	0.2	1.0	0.0	Inclusion of “not applicable”
Evaluation Indicators
23. Individual Feedback	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	1.0	0.0	Definition of “feedback”
24. Collective Feedback	1.0	0.0	0.8	0.2	1.0	0.0	Definition of “feedback”
25. Fostering auto enhancement in the activities	1.0	0.0	0.9	0.1	1.0	0.0	Item excluded
26. Final analysis of the class	0.9	0.1	0.9	0.1	0.9	0.1	-
Students adherence/inclusion indicators
27. Contentment e pleasure with the class	0.8	0.2	0.7	0.3	0.9	0.1	Exclusion of “pleasure”
28. Participation of those less skillful	0.7	0.3	0.8	0.2	0.8	0.2	Change “less skillful” to “more vulnerable to exclusion”

Universidade Estadual de Maringá Avenida Colombo, 5790 - cep: 87020-900 - tel: 44 3011 4315 - Maringá - PR - Brazil
E-mail: revdef@uem.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Author address: Antonio Jorge Gonçalves Soares. Rua Alzira Côrtes, 5. Botafogo, Rio de janeiro, C.E.P. 22260-050. E-mail: ajgsoares@gmail.com

Structure	Versions
	Version I - COP	Version II - COP	Version III -COP	Version IV - COP
IteMs	30	28	28	22
Wording	Long/affirmative and negative	Long/affirmative and negative	Long/affirmative	Short/affirmative
Scales	0 to 2	0 to 2 and ”Not applicable”	0 to 2 and ”Not applicable”	0 to 2 and ”Not applicable”
Mirror	-	Item detailing and meaning of scale 2	Item detailing and meaning of scale 2	Item detailing and meaning of scale 0, 1 and 2 and ”not applicable”
Manual	-	-	-	Manual elaboration

Indicator Families	Weight	Mean (CI ± 95%)	PT Suggestion
Planning Indicators	20%
1. Class Objectives		1.5 ± 2.0	Increase weight
2. Coherent sequencing of activities		1.8 ± 2.2	Decrease weight
3. Occupation of the available physical space		1.5 ± 2.3	Increase weight
4. Use of materials		1.3 ± 2.8	Decrease weight
5. Compatibility of activities per age group		1.7 ± 2.1	Increase weight
Content Indicators	20%
6. Confidence in teaching the contents		1.7 ± 1.7	Decrease weight
7. Suitable language for teaching		1.8 ± 1.8	Decrease weight
8. Conceptual and Procedural information on contents		2.6 ± 1.5	Increase weight
9. Ethical and moral values		1.5 ± 2.0	Increase weight
Methodological procedures indicators	30%
10. Rapport with the students		1.5 ± 2.0	Increase weight
11. Class organization		1.5 ± 2.0	Increase weight
12. Leadership in class		1.3 ± 2.6	Decrease weight
13. Acquisition of technical skills		1.7 ± 2.8	Decrease weight
14. Teaching the game		-2.3 ± 2.0	Decrease weight
15. Period of experience in the activities		1.8 ± 2.4	Decrease weight
16. Strategic and tactical behavior		2.8 ± 3.4	Decrease weight
17. Redesigning the activities		1.7 ± 2.8	Decrease weight
Evaluation Indicators	15%
18. Individual feedback		1.7 ± 2.5	Decrease weight
19. Collective feedback		1.3 ± 1.8	Increase weight
20. Final analysis of the class		2.2 ± 2.7	Increase weight
Students adherence/inclusion indicators	15%
21. Contentment and pleasure with class		2.2 ± 3.6	Increase weight
22. Inclusion		2.3 ± 3.2	Increase weight

Indicator Families	Median	CI	Class
Planning Indicators
1. Class objectives	2 (2 - 2)	0.93	Great
2. Coherent sequencing of activities	2 (2 - 2)	0.9	Great
3. Occupation of the available physical space	2 (1 -2)	0.48	Bad
4. Use of materials	2 (1,75 - 2)	0.76	Very good
5. Compatibility of activities per age group	2 (2 - 2)	0.93	Great
Content Indicators
6. Confidence in teaching the contents	2 (2 - 2)	0.93	Great
7. Suitable language for teaching	2 (1 - 2)	0.9	Great
8. Conceptual and Procedural information on contents	2 (1 - 2)	0.72	Good
9. Ethical and moral values	2 (2 - 2)	0.52	Bad
Methodological procedures indicators
10. Rapport with the students	2 (2 - 2)	0.93	Great
11. Class organization	2 (2 - 2)	0.93	Great
12. Leadership in class	2 (1 - 2)	0.24	Terrible
13. Acquisition of technical skills	2 (1 - 2)	0.63	Moderate
14. Teaching the game	2 (2 - 2)	0.83	Very good
15. Period of experience in the activities	2 (2 - 2)	0.86	Very good
16. Strategic and tactical behavior	2 (1 - 2)	0.62	Average
17. Redesigning the activities	2 (#)	0.31	Terrible
Evaluation Indicators
18. Individual feedback	2 (1 - 2)	0.58	Bad
19. Collective feedback	2 (2 - 2)	0.93	Great
20. Final analysis of the class	2 (1 - 2)	0.76	Very good
Students adherence/inclusion indicators
21. Contentment and pleasure with class	2 (1 - 2)	0.28	Terrible
22. Inclusion	2 (1 - 2)	0.72	Good