Method: A multi-site case study design was employed in which one school district served as the overarching case and eight schools served as embedded cases. The criterion for selection was that the district was awarded a Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP) grant. A data classification system proposed by Marsh, Payne, and Hamilton (2006) guided the investigation. The data classification system included four types of data: input, process, outcome, and satisfaction data. Case study evidence was gathered through interviews with teachers/district coordinators, direct observations of physical education lessons, and via the collection of documents/artifacts.
Analysis/Results: Evidence was coded for common themes using open and axial coding. Data were further analyzed using integrative memos, pattern matching, and negative case analysis. Member checks and peer debriefing were used to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings. Results indicated that sources of data in the district were determined primarily by state policy and grant requirements. Data included measures of physical activity, fitness, and nutritional behaviors and rarely included data related to motor skill development, knowledge, social skills, and/or student values. There was minimal collection of data related to school/program level characteristics (i.e., input data), the teaching/learning process (i.e., process data), and the opinions of students, parents, and teachers (i.e., satisfaction data). Furthermore, evidence indicated that the data collection process was time consuming and educators expressed concerns over the validity/reliability of the data collected. Many educators were not convinced of the importance of using data in their teaching and reported limited professional training in connection with data-use at all educational levels.
Conclusions: Data-driven decision making is still in its infancy in physical education. In this setting, data collection was only aligned with one state/national content standard: health-related fitness. The consideration of input data, process data, and satisfaction data as identified by the Marsh et al. (2006) classification system was minimal. Specific professional development is needed to enable in-service physical education teachers to use data effectively in their teaching.