As the majority of the research on effective teaching has been concentrated in traditional academic subject areas such as mathematics and language arts, physical educators were left to develop their own parallel research studies that were specific to their context. Hence, compared to most school subjects, physical education was a later arrival on the teacher effectiveness scene (Mawer, 1995). The major
research studies involving effectiveness in physical education have studied such areas as student engagement, curriculum, time allocation, teaching methods, teacher behaviour and teacher perception, but have not applied the classroom research findings identified by researchers such as Borich (1996).
With regard to effective teaching in the realm of physical education, studies indicate that many teachers believe they are teaching effectively (Romar & Siedentop, 1995 in Siedentop, 1998). This conclusion is based primarily on the teacher’s own perception of important teaching criteria: such as explanation, feedback, demonstration and student enjoyment.
According to Siedentop, for the most part, these perceptions could be considered accurate. Teachers do include explanation, feedback and demonstration in their lessons and students to enjoy classes. However, it could be suggested, from the definitions of effective teaching provided by Berliner (1987), Brophy (1978), Harris (1999) and Rosenshine (1987), that such teacher perceptions are not accurate measures of effectiveness since student learning is not considered.
It would seem that if students’ learning is a goal of teaching, then teachers should view student learning as being of prime importance. However, in the area of physical education, there is research evidence to suggest that this is not necessarily the case (Fishburne & Borysm, 1987; Hickson & Fishburne, 2002). Placek (1982) as cited in Clive (2004) investigated teacher planning in physical education. She noted that student behaviour and environmental unpredictability had the greatest impact on a teacher’s planning. Placek noted that successful physical education teaching was often defined by the teachers as keeping students participating (busy), with minimal misbehavior (good), while student behaviour than the transmission of knowledge. In an attempt to further understand physical education teaching, Placek (1983) investigated student teachers’ perceptions of successful and unsuccessful physical education teaching. Similar to experienced teachers, Placek reported that student teachers regarded successful teaching when their students were being busy, happy and good.
Schempp (1983), in studying the transformation from student teacher to teacher, found that student teacher rated physical education activities that were teacher approved as being very important. However, it was not the activity that was of key importance, but student engagement in the activity. In analyzing student teaching, Schempp (1985) noted that keeping students busy was of prime importance for student teachers when teaching physical education. Student teachers were satisfied when students were working (busy), enjoying themselves (happy) and were responding with questions and doing as they were told (good).
Characteristics of Effective Physical Education Teaching
In a review of physical education teaching research, Silverman (1991) suggested the following characteristics for the effective teaching of motor skills: the planning for class management and student learning; the anticipation of situations and contingency plans; the awareness individual student skill differences and use of such information in planning and monitoring; the acquisition of information to plan; the knowledge of, and when to use, a repertoire of teaching styles, the accuracy and focus of explanation and demonstration; the provision for adequate student practice time; the maximization of appropriate student practice and engagement; the minimization of inappropriate student practice and engagement; and the minimization of pupil waiting. However, Silverman’s review has come under criticisms by researchers (Mawer, 1995). For example, one of the criticisms from Dodds and Placek (1991) was that the “list also focuses on what teachers do, ignoring both the specific student outcomes that accrue as a result and intended teacher goals relevant to a given teaching situation”.
Rink (1993), also reviewed the research on effective teaching and identified seven distinct teacher characteristics associated with effective instruction in the physical education realm. She identified the following teacher characteristics: the identification of intended outcomes for learning; the planning of learning experiences to accomplish these outcomes; the presentation of tasks in a clear manner; the organization and management of the learning environment; the monitoring of the environment; the development of the lesson content based on student responses; and the evaluation of the effectiveness of instructional/curricular process.
Mawer (1995) in a review of research and viewpoints on effective teaching of physical education, suggested that the following characteristics are indicative of effective teaching: the planning of work effectively; the good presentation of new material; the organization and management of the learning experiences and students; the active involvement of the teacher in teaching students; the provision of a supportive and positive learning environment; the acquisition of a repertoire of teaching styles; and the ability to teach for the facilitation of student understanding of concepts and lesson content.
The characteristics suggested by Silverman (1991), Rink (1993) and Mawer (1995) bear some similarities to borich’s (1996) work. Several factors such as lesson clarity, structure, involving student ideas and instructional variety have a commonality among the least. However, there seems to be little, if any research that has directly looked at the suggested characteristics of effective teachers from the research that has directly looked at the suggested characteristics of effective teachers from the research reviews of Silverman, Mawer, Rink or Borich to determine if the identified characteristics actually do affect student learning in the physical education domain.
Primary Physical Education Armstrong and Welsman (1997) still believe that for people to have a positive experience and appreciation of physical activity, the best vehicle for delivering it is during primary physical education. This is due to the fact that for most children it is the first netting in which they are introduced to structured physical activity, therefore it should be made fun for them so it is seen by them as a positive experience. Furthermore, for many children, trying to promote PE and sport at the start of secondary education is already too late (Jess et a!, 2007, cited in Sloan, 2010).
According to Lavin et al (2008), the issue of who is delivering physical education in schools is an area of growing concern and interest to the profession. They go on to claim then it is no secret that sports coaches are already being used in primary schools both inside and outside of curriculum time. Lavin et al (2008) found that, of the 124 schools used, 86% used sports coaches, adult support learners (ASL’s), or TA’s in their PE curriculum. This appears to be a high level of unqualified teaching staff delivering in curriculum time, This figure is tempered slightly by the statistics that state a further 86% of this first figure claim to have a teacher sitting in on the PE lessons (Lavin et al, 2008), However, a vast majority of those teachers present maintain they do so as a method of furthering their own continuing professional development (CPD), rather than being able to support the delivery. The main reason cited for this was professed as once again being an unsatisfactory level of PC learning in their initial teacher education (Price, 2008; Blair and Capel, 2008).
In the context of primary school PE teaching, Blair and Capel (2008) argue that generalist primary teachers do not perceive themselves to be adequately prepared to teach physical education in their Initial Teacher Education (ITE) (Blair and Cape!, 2008). Thin position is supported by Sloan (2010) who alleges that a lack of belief in personal ability to teach PE should come as no great surprise as they [primary teachers] are non-specialists and are required to teach it often after very few hours of training. Therefore, it could be argued that the learning experience of the child may well be greatly improved, in a primary environment, perhaps by the use of well- trained sports coaches, and of course, this should be less about the desires of the teacher and more about the learning needs of the pupil.
No comments:
Post a Comment