Using SOFIT to Compare High School Physical Education and JROTC

Background/Purpose: Physical education (PE) is important for engaging students in health-enhancing physical activity (PA) and for developing physical fitness and movement skills. PE is mandated as a curricular area in all 50 states, but many policy barriers to its effective delivery exist. Among these policy barriers is the practice of allowing alternative programs, such as Junior Officer Reserve Corp (JROTC), to substitute for PE in high schools. Advocates supporting substitution policies typically argue that these alternative programs engage students in substantial amounts of PA and provide the content that meets PE standards. Data supporting these arguments are not yet forthcoming. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the conduct of PE and a commonly substitution program (JROTC) using direct observation.

Method: Two observers, trained via a standardized protocol, employed a validated and frequently used instrument, SOFIT (System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time), to assess student physical activity levels and the lesson contexts of 38 PE and 38 JROTC classes in 4 high schools. The schools were randomly selected from 12 district schools that provided both PE and JROTC. Data were analyzed using two-tailed t-tests.

Analysis/Results: Inter-observer reliabilities exceeded 90% for both student activity and lesson context variables. Students engaged in relatively more time in Walking (49 vs. 19%; p<.001), Vigorous (11 vs. 4%; p<.001), and Moderate-to-Vigorous PA (61 vs. 23%; p<.001) in PE than during JROTC. Conversely, they spent significantly less time Sitting (17 vs. 47%; p<.001), Standing, (22 vs. 30%; p<.05), and engaged in sedentary behavior (39 vs. 77% p<.001). Relative to lesson context, management time for both programs were similar (about 31% of lessons), but PE teachers allocated significantly more time for physical fitness (20 vs. 9%; p<.05) and game play (30 vs. 5%; p<.001) and teachers of JROTC lessons allocated significantly more time for knowledge (38 vs. 6%; p<.001). Knowledge time during PE primarily focused on physical fitness, motor skill development, and game strategy concepts. In contrast, most knowledge time (83%) in JROTC focused on drill, inspections, and military history and strategies.

Conclusions: JROTC and PE provide substantially different content, contexts, and opportunities for students to be physically active, learn movement skills, and become physically fit. Policies and practices for permitting substitutions for PE should be carefully examined. Replications of this study using the direct observation of other programs frequently permitted to substitute for PE (e.g., marching band) are recommended.