ATHLETICS TEACHING UNITS IN THE SCHOOL
CURRICULUM OF PE – A DISCREPANCY 
BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 
AND THE PUPILS’ NEEDS AND INTERESTS?
ATLETIKA V U^NEM NA^RTU ŠOLSKE
ŠPORTNE VZGOJE - PROTISLOVJE MED
VZGOJNIMI SMOTRI TER POTREBAMI IN
INTERESI U^ENCEV?
Karel Frömel*
Erik Sigmund* 
Branko Škof** 
Kurt Murer***
11 Karel Frömel, Erik Sigmund, Branko [kof, Kurt Murer (1999). Athletics teaching units in the school curriculum …  KinSI, 5(1–2) : 11–16
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to study some athle-
tics teaching units from the school PE curriculum
from the viewpoint of the pupils’ physical loads and
their attitude towards these units.
It is possible to conclude on the basis of the obtained
results that the loads of the functional systems of the
pupils at athletics PE units are large enough to trig-
ger adaptational processes in the body. The effort le-
vel in athletics teaching units did not affect the rela-
tively low assessment of the unit from the pupils, this
assessment was also not influenced by the popula-
rity of the sport.
Athletics (track and field) in school PE demands new
approaches with accent on playfulness, joy, realisa-
tion of physical activity, satisfaction in learning and
a new concept of competitiveness, while preserving
sufficient physical loading.
Key words: athletics teaching units, physical educa-
tion, physical loading, curriculum 
IZVLE^EK
Namen raziskave je bil prou~iti nekatere atletske
vsebine iz programa {olske {portne vzgoje  z vidika fi-
zi~ne obremenitve u~encev in njihovega odnosa do
teh vsebin.
Na osnovi rezultatov je mogo~e zaklju~iti, da je
obremenitev funkcionalnih sistemov u~encev pri u~-
nih urah atletike dovolj velika za razvoj adaptacijskih
procesov v organizmu. Stopnja napora pri urah
{portne vzgoje z atletsko vsebino ni vplivala na rela-
tivno slabo oceno u~encev o vadbeni uri, prav tako
pa na to oceno tudi ni vplivala priljubljenost {portne
panoge pri u~encih. 
Atletika v {olski {portni vzgoji terja nove pristope s
poudarkom na igrivosti, radosti, uresni~evanju tele-
sne dejavnosti, zadovoljstvu ob u~enju, novo poj-
movanje tekmovalnosti ob ohranjanju ustrezne te-
lesne obremenitve.
Klju~ne besede: u~ne ure atletike, telesna vzgoja, te-
lesna obremenitev, u~ni na~rt 
* UNIVEZITA PALACKEHO, FACULTY OF PHYSICAL CULTURE, 
Tr. Miru 115, CZ-77140 OLOMOUC, CZECH REPUBLIC
E-mail: fromel@ftknw.upol.cz
** Faculty of Sport, Ljubljana, Slovenia
*** Eidgenössische, Technische Hochschule, Zürich, Switzerland
Received: 02. 08. 1999 – Accepted: 13. 12. 1999

INTRODUCTION
The current transformation of school systems and cur-
ricula in Europe requires that Physical Education (PE) in
schools also respects the trends of development and
plays a major role in education. The changing didactic
conceptions, therefore, permanently deal with the dis-
crepancy between the goals derived from the school
system of education and the actual interests, needs and
attitudes of the pupils and their life style, the axiological
system, etc. (Beckers, 1995; Crum, 1995; Crum, 1998;
Rink, 1992; Zeuner, 1995). No less urgent and difficult
is the solution of the problem of the so-called traditio-
nal conception of PE as a school subject. This concep-
tion includes the important and necessary academic
element and often some national specificity, as well as
the foundations of PE as they proved their worth in hi-
story and personal experience. On the other hand, it
can also include the risk of dogmatism, a lack of under-
standing of the changes in the pupils life, detachment of
the school from their life style, and other negative phe-
nomena.
As a matter of fact, is this division of the content and the
conception of Physical Education into traditional and
modern appropriate? The traditional content in longer
intervals often becomes modern again, while the re-
cently promoted content starts to appear as obsolete.
In this context it is desirable to ask the question whether
the features of the traditional or modern conception of
PE, as they are commonly formulated, are true and typi-
cal, and to what degree they are controversial. See the
following features of Physical Education:
National character – European and world character
Recognised sports branch – new non-traditional sports
branch
Olympic sports branch – non-Olympic sports branch
Sports activities based on rules – The same activities using 
simplified rules
Sports activities performed – The same activities but
separately as to gender
coeducational
Traditional sports activities – The same activities modified 
for leisure
Traditional sports activities – The same activities but 
combined (e.g. athletics and
games, dance and acrobatics,
etc.)
Even in PE as a school subject it is necessary to preserve
the content which is relatively independent from the
influence of fashion and is not subject to transitory ex-
tremist educational views. It is also a sign of firmness
and stability of the subject in school curricula.
A typical example of the often discussed content of PE
is its athletics (track and field) content (a similar situa-
tion is found in sports gymnastics, some traditional ga-
mes, etc.). The pupils interest in athletics (in school PE)
does not correspond to the popularity of athletics in the
world or its rating in the school system. In the Central
European region (particularly in the Czech Republic
and Poland), the popularity of athletics among other
sports branches, as based on a survey of 2,217 girls and
1,978 boys in elementary schools and 2,119 girls and
1337 boys in secondary schools, appears as follows:
It is shown that the principal cause of the rather small
interest in athletics is not in the »out-of-date content«
but its old-fashioned presentation, the concept of the
tuition, the failure to adapt the teaching matter to the
style of life, and other factors (Frömel, Novosad and
Svozil, 1999). Thus we regard as a major problem of
present-day school PE to preserve the athletics content
to a corresponding extent in school curriculum’s con-
ceptions of school PE, but mainly the way of maintai-
ning and developing athletics in school classes. Increa-
sing attention is also due to the new didactic concep-
tions that are not based on sports branches (Größing,
1993; Hummel and Balz, 1955). These didactic con-
ceptions, when misunderstood, can contribute to the
departure from the typical content of school PE, alt-
hough in these conceptions too, athletics and similar
exercises have their own firm place.
As for all the alternative conceptions of school PE in va-
rious educational programmes, it is evident that the ba-
sic skills of the athletics subject-matter are also an inte-
gral part of the curricula. They are standards suitable
for life, often also needed for preservation of life, and
linked to the quality of life. They are primarily the fol-
lowing standard abilities:
• jumping across a barrier
• throwing an object over a certain distance or at a goal
• accelerating in a run
• running a certain distance
• feeling the satisfaction originating from a fast walk,
running, jogging, either in a sports field or in open
country (and other activities).
12 Karel Frömel, Erik Sigmund, Branko [kof, Kurt Murer (1999). Athletics teaching units in the school curriculum …  KinSI, 5(1–2) : 11–16
Rank ES girls SS girls ES boys SS boys
1. swimmingswimmingswimmingswimming
2. dance dance sports games sports games
3. skating, roller-s. skating, roller-s. skating, roller-s. skiing - downhill
4. skiing - downhill skiing – downhill skiing – downhill skating, roller-s.
5. sports games aerobics hiking (cyclo-h.) hiking (cyclo-h.)
6. athletics + run hiking (cyclo-h.) athletics + run athletics + run
7. hiking (cyclo-h.) sports games skiing – run fitness exercises
8. aerobics athletics + run combative sports skiing – run
Table 1: Girls and boys interest in athletics at elemen-
tary and secondary schools (rank of interest in rela-
tion to other sports branches)

The goal of the survey.
The goal of the survey was to make a probe into the less
popular teaching matter in PE in the context of the
physical load of pupils and their attitude to the subject
matter. Athletics was chosen as a typical subject mat-
ter and PE teaching units as a suitable form of realiza-
tion.
Partial goals:
1. Characterise athletics teaching units from the as-
pect of  physical load.
2. Analyse the physical load differences between
boys and girls in athletics teaching units.
3. Analyse the physical load differences between
boys and girls in athletics 
4. Teaching units at elementary and secondary
schools.
5. Analyse the relation to teaching units and assess
teaching units for girls and boys in elementary and
secondary schools.
Hypotheses
Recent research points out that increased physical load
in teaching units makes the girls attitude and rating of
these teaching units less positive, whereas with boys it
is reversed (Frömel, Garbaciak, Hórna, Kubcyk and Po-
centy, 1998).
H
1
Girls with a higher physical loads in athletics teac-
hing units rate them less positively than girls with a lo-
wer physical load.
H
2
Boys with a higher physical load in athletics teac-
hing units rate them more positively than boys with a
lower physical load.
METHODS
The field survey took place in natural conditions in four
randomly chosen elementary and two secondary
schools. At the elementary level, a total of 43 girls with
mean age 14.1 ± 0.8 (weight 47.5 ± 7.8 kg and height
160.2 ± 6.6 cm), 89 boys with mean age of 13.6 ± 0.7
years (weight 52.5 ± 11.4 kg and height 164.5 ± 4.8
kg). At the secondary level, 93 girls with mean age of
16.3 ± 0.6 years (weight 57.7 ± 4.8 and weight 171.7
± 5.2 cm) and 93 boys with mean age of 15.7 ± 0.8
(weight 64.7 ± 12.6 kg and height 174.9 ± 7.8 cm).
The athletics teaching units with varied content took
place in proper school conditions and were taught by
qualified teachers. The teachers were asked to realise
the athletics content only, in a habitual form, and at-
tempt making the teaching unit as good as possible.
The final part included a relaxation exercise, followed
up by the research tasks (completing the questionnai-
re and announcing the results of the monitoring). In spi-
te of an attempt at having natural conditions, the moni-
tored teaching units must be seen as »better«, both
from the aspect of the teacher and the pupils. Besides
producing typical habitual teaching units some teac-
hers included creative and »game« episodes in the
teaching units.
Before the teaching unit started, all pupils were given a
sport tester (Polar), accelerometer (Caltrac) and pedo-
meter (Omron). At the end of the teaching unit the pu-
pils filled out a questionnaire evaluating the unit (see:
Appendix). The method of the survey is fully standardi-
sed and was tested in practice in numerous internatio-
nal research projects (Frömel et al., 1998).
For a more profound analysis of the problem the parti-
cipants were divided into classes in the stage of score
processing according to the median into two groups,
according to the rating of the teaching units in the que-
stionnaire (the overall number of points) and from one
more aspect, according to the energy output during the
motor activity per kilogram of weight (kcal · kg
-1
· 45
min
-1
).
In a supporting survey, using the same method and the
same questionnaire, the attitude and evaluation of ath-
letics teaching units was diagnosed in elementary (girls
n = 745, boys n = 671) and in secondary schools (girls
n = 191, boys n = 128).
For the processing and analysis of the scores, special
software was used, which makes possible a didactic
service for pupils and parents (individual results), teac-
hers and head teachers (mean, comparative, and sum-
mary results). For statistical processing the basic stati-
stical values, non parametric tests and M - ANOVA Post
Hoc Scheffe tests were used.
RESULTS 
The characteristics of the load given in Figure 1 need,
however, be understood as general information on-
13 Karel Frömel, Erik Sigmund, Branko [kof, Kurt Murer (1999). Athletics teaching units in the school curriculum …  KinSI, 5(1–2) : 11–16
Load at 70% (min) - time of load at cardiac frequency higher
than the (220 - age) x 0.70. Duration of teaching unit: 45
min.
Figure 1: Physical load of girls and boys in teaching units (sum-
mary characteristics) in elementary and secondary schools

ly, the consequence of which is that the individual
scores cannot be compared. The other characteri-
stics also document the relatively high level of the
physical load in girls and boys in athletics teaching
units (Table 2). 
The differences in girls and boys loads in athletics
teaching units (Table 3) are similar to the other types
of teaching units. With girls we usually register a hig-
her load according to the measurement of cardiac
frequency, although all the other characteristics con-
firm a greater volume and intensity of motor activity
for boys (Table 4). 
We regard as essential that among the girls who rated
the athletics teaching units more or less positively, no
significant differences were found in the load of the-
se teaching units (Table 5).
Similar conclusions are arrived at when the partici-
pants were divided in each athletic teaching unit ac-
cording to their physical load. In the groups formed
in this way, no significant differences in the rating of
teaching units was found either (Table 6). Hypothe-
ses H1 and H2 were not confirmed.
The scores from the supplementary surveys confirm
that like in other teaching units, athletics teaching
units are rated more positively by girls than by boys,
both at elementary and secondary schools (Table 7).
Table 7.
14 Karel Frömel, Erik Sigmund, Branko [kof, Kurt Murer (1999). Athletics teaching units in the school curriculum …  KinSI, 5(1–2) : 11–16
Index Girls Boys
MS DMS D
Intensity of physical activity – 
Sporttester (METs) 7.81 1.42 8.86 2.73
Intensity of physical activity- Caltrac (METS) 4.47 0.77 5.08 1.04
Energy output in physical activity (kcal) 124.12 34.80 153.94 53.63
Overall energy output (kcal) 198.79 42.62 222.71 62.87
Table 2:  Further characteristics of girls and boys load
in athletics teaching units
Legend: M = arithmetic mean, SD = standard deviation
Table 3: The load of girls (n=136) and boys (n=182)
in athletics teaching units at elementary and secon-
dary schools (sport testers)
Index Higher load (min) Medium load (min) Mean HR
(beat · min-1)
MFMFMF
Girls 6.19 18.46 145.05
0.75 6.90 2.78
Boys 5.68 16.60 143.35
Elementary s. 4.94 18.27 143.56
11.28 4.25 1.26
Secondary s. 6.92 16.81 145.00
Legend: Higher load (time of cardiac frequency above the anaerobic
threshold, i.e. above 
(220 - age) x 0.85 ; Medium load ( time of cardiac frequency in the ran-
ge 70-85% of maximal HR;  M = arithmetic mean; F = multivariate
analysis of variance (Statistically significant values are in bold press 
(p< .05)
Legend: Energy output- calories consumption at motor activity - wit-
hout metabolism at rest 
Steps = number of steps includes skips and position changes,
M = arithmetic mean,
F = multivariate analysis of variance (Statistically significant
values are in bold press (p< .05)
Table 4: Load of girls (n=136) and boys (n=182) in
athletics teaching units at elementary and secondary
schools (accelerometers and pedometers)
Index Energy output – Energy output – Steps – 
Caltrac Omron Omron (number)
(kcal·kg
–1
·45min
–1
) (kcal·kg
–1
·45min
–1
)
M FMFMF
Girls 2.19 1.40 2142
35.39 39.24 45.46
Boys 2.60 1.74 2684
Elementary s. 2.20 1.48 2290
34.25 9.36 9.29
Secondary s. 2.59 1.65 2536
Table 5: Relation between different ratings of teac-
hing units and the physical load of the participants
in athletics teaching units
Legend: Higher load (time of cardiac frequency above the anaerobic
threshold, i.e. above 
(220 - age) * 0.85); Energy output (calories consumption at motor acti-
vity - without metabolism at rest), Steps = number of steps includes skips
and position changes , M= arithmetic mean, F =  multivariate analysis
of variance (Statistically significant values are in bold press (p< .05)
Teaching unit Higher load Mean SF Energy output Steps 
rating(min)(beat · min-1)(kcal·kg ·(number)
45min-1)
M FMFMFMF
Better – Girls 5.93 145.32 2.32 2266
0.00 0.00 3.63 2.06
Worse – Girls 5.94 145.41 2.16 2131
Better – Boys 5.75 143.78 2.65 2712
0.24 0.47 1.06 0.28
Worse – Boys 5.63 142.64 2.55 2651

15 Karel Frömel, Erik Sigmund, Branko [kof, Kurt Murer (1999). Athletics teaching units in the school curriculum …  KinSI, 5(1–2) : 11–16
DISCUSSION
The findings confirmed our hypothesis, that in moni-
tored athletics teaching units the physical load in girls
and boys would be on a good level. The mean intensity
of the physical load corresponds, in harmony with the
compendium (Ainsworth et al., 1993), with the values
of a run at the speed of 12 minutes per mile. The va-
lues of the intensity of motor activity registered with ac-
celerometers are substantially lower than the values es-
tablished by sport testers, but agree with the usual dif-
ference between the two methods of measurement. 
The main cause of the differences in scores shown by
sport testers on one hand and accelerometers and pe-
dometers on the other is seen, in the girls higher car-
diac frequencies when at rest, a stronger response to
the load due to the level of fitness, emotive influences
and undoubtedly some other factors. The energy out-
put per kilogram of weight measured by the pedome-
ter is supplementary only. When the pedometer mea-
sures the energy output, it is less accurate than the ac-
celerometer and without adaptations of the resulting
values by the transfer coefficient it presents a 30-40%
lower energy output in calories.
The differences in the pupils load in teaching units at
elementary and secondary schools cannot be genera-
lised and should be taken as informative only.
In the context with our earlier surveys and our expe-
rience the following hypothesis is possible. If in general
girls rate their teaching units lower as the load increa-
ses, then the significant differences not found in the
physical load of girls with different rating of teaching
units signalise that the didactic process respected the
girls individuality and enabled to some degree an indi-
vidualisation of the volume and intensity of their motor
activity. That is probably also one of the suitable ways
towards a greater quality of athletics teaching units. 
Similar findings come from equally formed groups of
boys, even though their mostly higher load does not
lead to a worse rating of their teaching units, on the
contrary.
However, compared to most athletics teaching units,
(with games, gymnastics, dance, etc.) less positively
(Frömel, Novosad and Svozil, 1999). Partial responses
to the questions in the questionnaire show that the si-
tuation for athletics teaching units need not be so criti-
cal as is generally said in school practice. E.g. only 33%
girls and 38% boys would have gone home if they
could have done so and for only 32% of girls and 38%
boys a separate, out-of-school exercise was regarded
to be better than the athletics teaching unit they atten-
ded.
CONCLUSIONS
Popularity of a sport need not be the main factor affec-
ting the rating of the teaching unit. Unless the girls and
boys have a completely negative attitude to the con-
tent, the concept and presentation of the content are of
greater importance for the efficacy of the teaching
units.
Athletics teaching units can even now and in the pre-
sent-day conception of school PE be an efficient stimu-
lus for adaptation. The physical load of girls and boys in
Legend: Relation = point rating in the relational dimension of the que-
stionnaire, Pupil’s role= point rating in the supplementary di-
mension of the questionnaire, M = arithmetic mean, F = mul-
tivariate analysis of variance (Statistically significant values are
in bold press (p< .05)
Table 6: Relation between the different physical load
of each participant and their ratings of athletics teac-
hing units
Index Relation Overall ratingPupil’s role
MFMFMF
Higher load – Girls 3.37 16.28 4.35
0.64 1.31 0.97
Lower load – Girls 3.24 16.94 4.60
Higher load - Boys 3.07 15.75 4.36
0.09 0.48 3.47
Lower load - Boys 3.09 16.18 4.81
Legend: t - test of the difference between two relative values
Statistically significant values are in bold press (p< .05)
Individual dimensions are given in the  questionnaire (see Ap-
pendix).
Table 7: Rating of athletics teaching units in Physical
Education at elementary (girls n=745, boys n=671)
and secondary schools (girls n=191, boys n=128)
DimensionTeachingElementary schools Secondary schools
units Points % t Points % t
I. cognitive Girls 1968 66 0.48 474 62 2.16
Boys 2020 66 329 65
II. emotive Girls 2296 77 1.76 622 81 2.54
Boys 2020 75 382 76
III. health Girls 2019 68 1.79 530 69 0.76
(fitness) Boys 1763 66 322 64
IV. social Girls 1721 58 3.56 462 61 1.28
Boys 1428 53 265 53
V. relational Girls 2156 73 1.37 586 77 2.32
Boys 1903 71 341 68
VI. creative Girls 1932 65 1.25 534 70 2.54
Boys 1787 67 308 61
I.-VI. Total Girls 12092 68 3.16 3208 70 2.82
Boys 10660 66 1947 64
Pupils role Girls 3617 61 1.23 919 60 0.51
Boys 3172 59 555 55

16 Karel Frömel, Erik Sigmund, Branko [kof, Kurt Murer (1999). Athletics teaching units in the school curriculum …  KinSI, 5(1–2) : 11–16
Questionnaire structure
The questionnaire contains 24 questions classified into six di-
mensions and one supplementary dimension.
athletics teaching units can meet even more deman-
ding requirements.
The difference in load between the participants in ath-
letics  teaching units failed to affect the negative rating
of the teaching units. In contrast, among the partici-
pants evaluating the teaching units in positive and less
positive ways, no difference was found in their physical
load in the teaching units.
The application of athletics in school PE demands com-
pletely new approaches, emphasising the playfulness,
joyfulness, satisfaction in physical activity, satisfaction
derived from the learning, a new conception of com-
petitiveness, while the adequate physical load is  pre-
served, particularly in boy classes.
REFERENCES
1. Ainsworth, B.E., Haskel, W.L., Leon, A.S., Jacobs, D.R., Montoye,
H.J., Sallis, J.F., & Paffenberger, R.S. (1993). Compendium of Physi-
cal Activities: classification of energy costs of human physical activi-
ties. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc, 25 (1), 71-80.
2. Beckers, E. (1995). Braucht der Schulsport neue pdagogische Orien-
tierungen? [Does physical education need new pedagogical orienta-
tion?]. In Aschebrock H. (Ed.), [Schulsport in Bewegung. School physi-
cal education in progression] (pp. 110-124). Bnen: Verlag fr Schule
und Weiterbildung.
3. Crum, B. (1995). A Critical Review of Competing PE Concepts. In
Mester J. (Ed.), Proceedings book of the 2nd European Forum »Sport
Sciences in Europe 1993« - Current and Future Perspectives (pp. 516
–533). Aachen: Meyer  Meyer.
4. Crum, B. (1998). Changements dans les sociétés modernes: les
conséquences pour éducation physique et le sport scolaire. Chan-
ges in modern societies – consequences for Physical Education and
school sport. In Bussard J.C.  Roth F. (Eds.) Quelle education physique
pour quelle ecole? [Which physical education for which school?] (pp.
45-54). Neuchatel: Université de Neuchatel.
5. Förmel, K., Garbaciak, W., Górna, K., Kubcyk, T., & Pocenty, A.
(1998). Wplyw obciazenia fizycznego na stosunek uczniów do lekc-
ji wychowania fizycznego w szkolach podstawowych [Influence of
physical workload on pupil’s attitude towards physical education
teaching units at basic school]. In Slzinski J. (Ed), Lekcja wychowania
fizycznego [The unit of physical education] (pp. 84-89). Poznañ: Aka-
demia Wychowania Fizycznego.
6. Förmel, K., Novosad, J., & Svozil, Z. (1999). Physical activity and spor-
ting interests of youth. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.
7. Größing, S.(1993). Bewegungskultur und Bewegungserziehung.[Mo-
vement culture and movement education] Schorndorf: K. Hofmann.
8. Hummel, A.,  Balz, E. (1995). Sportpädagogische Strmungen- Fach-
didaktische Modelle- Unterrichtskonzepce. [Sport pedagogical mo-
vement, professional didactic models and teaching conception]. In
Zeuner, A., Gunark, S., & Hofmann, S. (Eds.) Sport unterrichen.
Anspruch und Wirklichkeit [Instruction in physical education. De-
mands and reality] (pp. 28-40). Sankt Augustin: Academia.
9. Rink, J.E. (1992). The Plan and the Reality. J. Phys. Educ. Recr. Dan-
ce. 63(7), 67-68.
10. Zeuner, A. (1995). Die Einheit der Gegenstze-ein dialektisches
Verstndnis von Unterrichtsmethode [Unity of contradictions – di-
dactic understanding of teaching nethods]. In Zeuner, A., Gunar, S.,
& Hofmann, S. (Eds.),  Sport unterrichen. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit
[Instruction in physical education. Demands and reality] (pp. 42-
51). Sankt Augustin: Academia.
Appendix
Questionnaire (pupils’ relation to PE lesson)
School, form, sex, date:
(sign  X) YES NO
Dimensions Questions No.
I Educational 1, 7, 13, 19,
II Emotive 2, 8, 14, 20,
III Health (fitness) 3, 9, 15, 21,
IV Social (interaction) 4, 10, 16, 22,
V Relational 5, 11, 17, 23,
VI Creative 6, 12, 18, 24,
Supplementary dimensions
VII Pupil’s role 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22
1. Could you identify the aim of the lesson and what the teacher 
was attempting to do?
2. Was the physical activity satisfying?
3. Were you relaxed after the class?
4. Did you see the teacher as an adviser or friend?
5. Would you like to have the same or a similar class next time?
6. Did you have the chance to solve a problem on your own?
7. Did you learn anything new?
8. Was there a good feeling about the class?
9. Was there a good feeling after the class?
10. Were your schoolmates naughty during the class?
11. Would an extracurricular activity be better than 
participating in this class?
12. Did you have a chance to make a decision in the class to 
do something on your own and in your own way?
13. Did you learn any new skills or improve old ones?
14. Was the class fun?
15. Do you think that the class improved your fitness?
16. Did you ask any questions during the class?
17. I would have preferred attending another class.
18. Did you feel that you were always directed by the teacher?
19. Did you give any demonstration in the lesson?
20. Did the teacher or a classmate praise you?
21. Did you think about your posture during the lesson? 
Did you do any stretching?
22. Did you correct any mistake made by your classmate 
or did a classmate correct your mistake?
23. If you had been allowed to leave the class and go home, 
would you have done so?
24. Were there any surprises or new things in the class?