Person:
Cenizo Benjumea, José Manuel

Profesor/a Asociado (LOU)
Loading...
Profile Picture
First Name
José Manuel
Last Name
Cenizo Benjumea
Affiliation
Universidad Pablo de Olavide
Department
Deporte e Informática
Research Center
Area
Educación Física y Deportiva
Research Group
PAIDI Areas
PhD programs
Identifiers
UPO investigaORCIDScopus Author IDDialnet IDGoogle Scholar ID

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Publication
    Analysis of the assessment in Physical Education curricula in Primary Education
    (Routledge, 2020-08-11) Otero-Saborido, Fernando Manuel; Vázquez Ramos, Francisco Javier; Cenizo Benjumea, José Manuel; González-Jurado, J. A.
    One way to understand the Physical Education (PE) curriculum is through assessment. After the appearance in Spain of the learning standard (LS) as a reference for more specific assessment, the main objective of this work was to analyse the assessment aspects for PE in Primary Education in the curricula of Spain’s 17 Autonomous Communities. Documentary analysis of the official regulations was used as a data collection technique. Qualitative and quantitative variables were analysed for the 3,357 assessment references. Qualitative variables included: LS typology and sequencing, and the existence of assessment orientations. Quantitative variables included: the curricular size, the presence of the cognitive, motor, and socio-affective dimensions in the different standards, percentages of comprehensiveness (assessment references which include the three dimensions) and curricular effectiveness (capacity of each curriculum to optimise the standards to include the greatest number of dimensions). The LS was the assessment element generally used by the majority of curricula. The cognitive dimension (39.42%) predominated in the assessment references, at the expense of the motor (30.94%) and socioaffective dimensions (29.65%). Only 11.70% of the 3,357 assessment references used incorporated the three dimensions (cognitive, motor and socio-affective). An inversely proportional relation seemed to exist between curricular size (number of standards) and its comprehensiveness (r = −0.505) and effectiveness (AEC) (r = −0.646). Likewise, it is noted that more LS including the motor dimension is associated with a greater comprehensiveness (2D: r = 0.573) of the curricula (r = 0.721). Lastly, the association between the ‘motor’ and ‘cognitive’ dimension variables was reversed. The curricula analysis showed a very high level of standardisation of PE assessment, which was oriented towards the measuring of theoretical know-how, foregoing comprehensiveness. This trend underlines the curricula’s adopted neoliberal nature and their distancing from assessment models based on student participation and development. A more flexible, democratically constructed curriculum as well as assessment benchmarks are necessary in PE, where motor development and assessment become a means for holistic education.