Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Australia] On: 25 June 2014, At: 02:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasp20

Outsourcing Physical Education in primary schools: Evaluating the impact of externally provided programmes on generalist teachers a

a

a

Dr. Peter R. Whipp , Heidi Hutton , J. Robert Grove & Ben Jackson

a

a

University of Western Australia , Australia Published online: 12 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Dr. Peter R. Whipp , Heidi Hutton , J. Robert Grove & Ben Jackson (2011) Outsourcing Physical Education in primary schools: Evaluating the impact of externally provided programmes on generalist teachers, Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 2:2, 67-77, DOI: 10.1080/18377122.2011.9730352 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2011.9730352

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [University of Western Australia] at 02:04 25 June 2014

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions


Peter R. Whipp, Heidi Hutton, J. Robert Grove, & Ben Jackson University of Western Australia, Australia

I

n place of generalist delivery, externally provided physical activity programmes (EPPAPs) are potentially an effective method for offering primary school students specialist physical education

(PE) instruction, as well as providing training for generalist classroom teachers. In the present study, a group of generalist teachers were interviewed regarding the professional benefits of their class’s involvement in a 6-month EPPAP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five generalist teachers pre- and post-intervention. Wilcoxon signed ranks procedures revealed moderate to large effect sizes for improvements in teachers’ beliefs about their ability to provide students with a range of PE-based requirements from pre- to post-intervention (e.g., inclusivity, fun, safety). Content analyses also revealed that generalist teachers reported improvements in their skills, knowledge, and confidence as a result of observing and working alongside PE specialists. This investigation provided preliminary evidence that generalist teachers who observe and participate in an EPPAP report enhanced confidence and skills regarding their ability to effectively instruct PE.

Introduction Students’ experiences in primary school physical education (PE) are central in the promotion of activity levels in childhood and adulthood (Harris & Cale, 1997; Sallis et al., 1997). However, due to policy decisions and/or the shortage of specialist PE teachers, there is often a reliance on generalist classroom teachers for the delivery of PE in these settings, which restricts programme effectiveness (Farrell, Thompson, & Napper-Owen, 2004; Faulkener & Reeves, 2000). Generalist teachers refer to those who are required to teach PE, but hold a broad degree-level qualification in teaching and do not possess a specialist qualification in PE. The limitations of generalist teachers teaching PE in primary schools are well documented. For example, children have been shown to be significantly more active in specialist-led versus generalist-led classes (Faucette & Patterson, 1989; 1990). In addition, generalists find it harder to achieve PE objectives (Faucette, McKenzie, & Patterson, 1990), display less effective body language and positioning (Behets, 1995), and spend greater amounts of class time silently observing and monitoring at the expense of providing technical instruction and/or Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 2 (2) 2011

67

ex t e r n a l p hys ic a l e d u c at io n p rov id e r s

Outsourcing Physical Education in primary schools: Evaluating the impact of externally provided programmes on generalist teachers


praise (Behets, 1995; Zeng, Leung, & Hipscher, 2010). It has also been documented that generalist PE teachers employ whole class activities more regularly than specialists, present fewer opportunities for skill practice and varied content, and may also remove PE classes from daily activities altogether (Faucette et al., 1990; Morgan & Bourke, 2008). Taken together, this literature clearly illustrates that the delivery strategies employed by generalist PE teachers in primary/elementary settings present substantial barriers to quality student learning outcomes. There are several contributory factors that underpin generalists’ suboptimal instructional behaviours. On one hand, research into teachers’ perceptions and preferences in primary contexts has shown that some generalist teachers simply believe that PE is of little educational value (Howarth, 1987) and prioritize other subjects ahead of PE (Farrell et al., 2004). More typically though, it appears that whilst generalists do perceive worth in PE, a combination of factors including lack of time, knowledge, energy, training, confidence, and experience results in the development of suboptimal attitudes towards PE and a reduced capability to devise and deliver effective lessons (Faucette & Patterson, 1989; Morgan, 2008; Morgan & Bourke, 2008). Indeed, generalist teachers have a limited scope of participatory and instructional experience in sport and physical activity in comparison to specialist teachers, which may be central to their sense of self-doubt regarding their delivery capabilities (Farrell et al., 2004; Morgan & Bourke, 2008). Given the unique challenges associated with generalist PE classes, pedagogical researchers have explored a range of alternative delivery methods, in an attempt to maximise student engagement. Foremost among these alternatives is the use of external specialists to provide PE classes (in the place of generalist teachers). Specialist PE teachers are defined as those who possess a degree-level qualification that focuses specifically on PE teaching. These externally provided physical activity programmes (EPPAPs) ensure that students receive instruction from appropriately qualified PE specialists (Sallis et al., 1997), have been endorsed by primary school generalists (Morgan, 2008), and have been shown to promote positive behavioural (i.e., increased amounts of physical activity) as well as physiological (i.e., strength, fitness) outcomes for students (Duncan, Boyce, Itami, & Puffenbarger, 1983; McKenzie et al., 1996; Sallis et al., 1997). Despite examining how externally provided (i.e., specialist-led) programmes facilitate student outcomes, the potential benefits with respect to generalist teachers’ PE-related confidence, knowledge, and perceptions are not as well understood. As well as providing expert delivery to students, EPPAPs may serve an important professional development role in as much as generalists (a) are able to observe the instruction and delivery of specialists, and (b) receive instruction and guidance about how to create a learning environment that fosters development of necessary student competencies (e.g., motor skills, fitness, coordination, interpersonal skills, self-management, movement understanding). The self-perceptions held by generalist teachers may represent an important factor in shaping their instructional behaviour (Morgan & Bourke, 2008; Pajares, 1992). Existing research in PE has shown that professional development opportunities such as these may substantively improve generalists’ beliefs in their own ability as well as their teaching practices (Faucette, Nugent, Sallis, & McKenzie, 2002; Rolider, Siedentop, & Van Houten, 1984; Tsangaridou, 2008). With this in mind, the present study sought to determine how a group of generalist teachers appraised their PE-related capabilities after involvement in a 6-month structured EPPAP. In order to do so, generalist teachers – whose 68

Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 2 (2) 2011

classes were being facilitated by an external specialist – were interviewed before and after the EPPAP intervention in order to gain insight into evidence for, and processes underpinning, any perceptual changes. Primary schools face increasingly restrictive budgetary regulations, and employment of full-time PE specialists is not possible in many cases. This study aimed to examine the extent to which a 6-month external programme, which incorporated unstructured professional development for generalist PE teachers, was able to equip these teachers with the skills, confidence, and subjectspecific knowledge required to better perform their PE-related duties.

Method Downloaded by [University of Western Australia] at 02:04 25 June 2014

Participants and data collection Five generalist teachers (3 male, 2 female) were interviewed prior to and following the EPPAP intervention. The average age of the generalist teachers was 33 years (SD = 7.07), and they had a mean of 7.10 years primary school teaching experience (SD = 4.80). A semi-structured interview guide was developed specifically for the purpose of the present study (available on request from the first author). Prior to the intervention, questions focused on (a) teachers’ experience in PE, (b) the typical content of their PE classes, (c) the extent to which teachers felt they provided adequately for students’ needs, and (d) the ways in which generalists felt they could improve their PE delivery. At the close of the intervention, teachers were asked about various aspects of the EPPAP, their perceptions of their own PE delivery, and how (if at all) the intervention had played a role in their professional development. Specifically, teachers were probed as to their confidence in their ability to provide an inclusive environment, cater to different abilities, ensure safe, fun classes, and to be able to develop a range of fundamental movement skills for students that meet curriculum guidelines. In order to facilitate discussion, teachers were asked to rate their capabilities on each of these domains using a 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent) scale. Prior to the interview teachers received a copy of the interview schedule, and all pre- and post-intervention interviews lasted for approximately 20-30 minutes. All interviews were audio-taped and conducted at a time and place of participants choosing. Prior to analyses, all interviews were transcribed verbatim, and participants were sent a copy of their transcript in order to verify accuracy, and remove any sections they wished.

Procedures and EPPAP Programme This research project was conducted as part of a pilot scheme organised at the request of the Western Australian Department of Education, which aimed to introduce (and evaluate) specialist PE provision in primary schools. The researchers had no input whatsoever into the content of the EPPAP. The EPPAP was provided by an external organisation (which was selected by the Department of Education), and its stated aims were to increase enjoyment, participation, and engagement for students, whilst training generalist teachers in the delivery of PE. Ethical clearance was granted for the project by the lead author’s institution. Subsequently, primary school principals, who had already consented to be part of the EPPAP intervention, were informed as to the nature of the investigation, and generalist PE teachers were invited to participate. Having received expressions of interest (and relevant contact details) from school principals, a suitable time and place was arranged to Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 2 (2) 2011

69

conduct interviews with teachers. Before providing their informed consent, all teachers were given assurances of confidentiality and reminded of their right to withdraw at any time. In addition, the second author (who conducted all interviews) ensured that all teachers fully understood the nature of the investigation and the details of the EPPAP. The EPPAP intervention was delivered over a period of two terms (i.e., 6 months), and replaced all PE classes. EPPAP classes were 60 minutes in duration (twice per week), and were delivered according to standardised guidelines prepared by a specialist PE teacher.

All EPPAP lessons

consisted of four primary components. ‘Starters’ reflected minor warm-up games and activities to prepare students for further activity. The ‘coordination and agility’ section of the class focused on


control, efficiency and movement quality to provide a basis for successful motor learning. Third, a ‘skills and games’ section was tailored towards developing fundamental movement skills with applications to sport-specific and/or physically demanding skills. Finally, in ‘core movement’, postural movements and stretches were used with the intention of improving structure and body function. Generalist teachers attended all PE sessions delivered by the external specialists, and were instructed to observe and ask any questions they wished before, during, or after the sessions. Teachers were asked to participate in the post-intervention interview at the completion of the EPPAP period, and at the end of the interview they were thanked for their time and given the opportunity to ask any questions they wished about the EPPAP or research project.

Results All open-ended interview responses were content analysed and meaning units were coded into similar categories for analysis (Berg, 2007). After the second author had coded all transcripts, the meaning units and coding criteria were given to three colleagues for cross validation of categorisations, resulting in a 91% agreement rate. Further clarification and refinements were made to the coding schedule, and final coding was completed after 100% agreement between researchers was achieved.

Pre-intervention perceptions Prior to the intervention, teachers reported little formalised experience or training in PE. For instance, three of the participating teachers had not completed any PE and Health specific units during teacher training, and only one had participated in coaching accreditation courses specific to sport, physical activity, and/or PE. Two of the class teachers were involved in activity at the recreational level. Generalists also stated that they lacked the skills and expertise to effectively deliver a PE programme, and hoped that the EPPAP would allow them to gain confidence by increasing their knowledge and skill for providing inclusive, safe and fun practices. For instance, one teacher commented in the pre-intervention interview that the EPPAP would be useful in order to “get some new ideas, develop skills in a fun, non-threatening environment, have a programme that was activity based and establish some control techniques out in the playground” (Teacher A). Many of the personal outcomes that teachers wanted to achieve revolved around the outcomes for the students, 70


such as increasing participation and enjoyment, as well as enhancing activity and fitness levels. The opportunity to learn new games and activities, in order to improve student engagement was also important, as outlined in the following quote, “by working on active participation, you will get kids involved at all different levels whether they’re coordinated or not. They get to see the enjoyment in it and it becomes part of their life as they grow” (Teacher B).


Post-intervention perceptions During post-intervention interviews, teachers were asked to report their perceptions about their capability to cater for student requirements in PE classes (i.e., fun, safety, inclusivity, etc). As shown in Table 1, generalists (N = 5) reported that they had improved their ability to deliver PE as a result of the EPPAP intervention. Indeed, all teachers reported increased levels of confidence in meeting central requirements of PE classes. In order to test for statistical differences between pre- and postintervention perceptions, Wilcoxon signed ranks procedures were used given the non-normality of teacher data. No significant differences emerged across any of the six variables, however all factors (with the exception of meeting curriculum framework outcomes) displayed a trend towards significantly higher perceptions post-intervention (p = .06 - .08). In light of the limited sample size, we also calculated effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d) using mean pre – post differences, which revealed moderate or large effects for all six variables (range .52 – 2.20, see Table 1). Table 1 Table 1 Teachers’ perceptions of their ability to provide students with PE requirements post-intervention Teachers’ perceptions of their ability to provide students with PE requirements post-intervention Inclusivity

Different abilities

Fun

Safety

FMS

CF Outcomes

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

A

4.5

6

3

6

4.5

6

6

6

4.5

6

U

U

B

2

5

3

6

4

6

1

3

3.5

4.5

1

4

C

3

6

3

6

3

6

4

6

3

6

2

2

D

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

E

3

5

3

5

2

6

4

6

4

5.5

3

4

Mean

3.7

5.6

3.6

5.8

3.9

6

4.2

5.4

4.2

5.6

3

4

SD

1.57

.55

1.34

.45

1.52

0

2.05

1.34

1.15

.65

2.16

1.63

Effect size (d)

1.62

2.20

1.95

.69

1.50

.52

Wilcoxon

z = -1.84, p = .07

z = -1.89, p = .06

z = -1.83, p = .07

z = -1.73, p = .08

z = -1.84, p = .07

z = -1.34, p = .18

Teacher

Note. Perceptions were reported verbally during open-ended interviews, and were scored from 1 to 6, where higher scores represent more positive perceptions. FMS = fundamental movement skills. CF outcomes = curriculum framework outcomes. U = unsure. Effects sizes indicate pre to post differences, with statistical analyses computed using Wilcoxon signed ranks procedures due to non-normality.

Qualitative analyses revealed that generalists reported six primary benefits of the EPPAP in terms of their professional development (see Table 2). First, ‘Extended professional development’ reflected teachers’ beliefs that the intervention had served an important role in promoting their


71


instructional ability due to the investment required to complete the programme. That is, the EPPAP required teachers to be present during PE delivery twice a week across two terms, which allowed for consolidation of learning. Teacher B identified this, “in traditional professional development it’s one day, a lot to remember, get a nice lunch and want to fall asleep afterwards.” Teacher B also noted, “as it is ongoing you have time to remember the games and activities and there is ongoing advice from the coaches”. In the second theme, ‘Coaching and mentoring’, class teachers’ commented on how beneficial it was to be able to observe and learn from the specialist instructor, participate in lessons, take notes, and get feedback from specialists on effective PE delivery. Teacher A commented “it’s a great concept to learn first, watch the coaches, take notes and then start joining in”. Specialists also assisted generalist teachers with lesson planning, provided constructive feedback on taking PE effectively, and responded to questions throughout the programme. In comparison to short-term professional development programmes, generalists described this as a powerful method for promoting prolonged change in their delivery styles and instructional ability. The third theme, ‘Setting’, related to the benefits of having the EPPAP delivered at the school in a real learning setting. Teachers believed this provided a “real world” experience and would assist them in management of their class in the future. Teacher A commented that “the phasing in is quite good, I quite like it” and “I think for somebody that hadn’t done any sort of real Phys Ed or didn’t have a Phys Ed type background, having it here in school is a really good model to work from”. Table Table 22 Emergent themes forfor specific benefits of EPPAP derived from post-intervention Emergent themes specific benefits of EPPAP derived from post-intervention interviews interviews Theme

Description

Extended professional development

The positive effects of receiving a prolonged (i.e., 6 month) period of focused professional training relating to PE

Coaching and mentoring

Learning as a result of being able to observe the EPPAP instructor, participate in lessons, take notes, and get specialist feedback

Setting Learning new activities and games

Having the EPPAP delivered at the school in a real learning setting (i.e., seeing their own pupils working in an expert PE environment) The activities used by external expert provided new insight into various games and activities suitable for their class

Structure and teaching strategies

Improvements in understanding of desirable structure, instruction, and delivery within PE

Future practices and improvements

Intentions to change and improve PE delivery in the future (e.g., more positive values about PE, disseminating new information to colleagues)

In the fourth theme, ‘Learning new activities and games’, teachers noted that the activities provided by the external specialist had ‘refreshed’ their outlook on PE, providing them with a range of “easy to use, fun games and activities” (Teacher D) that could complement their existing knowledge. Teacher C believed that there were enough games presented that could sustain a PE programme for a year, and teachers reported being more willing and able to facilitate PE when the activities selected were easy to use and learn. The fifth theme, ‘Structure and teaching strategies’,

72


related to improvements in understanding regarding the ideal structure of a PE class, as well as desirable techniques for instruction and delivery. The EPPAP lessons followed a consistent foursection structure that generalists felt was easily replicable over time. To illustrate, Teacher A said that, “for a non-sport orientated teacher this programme structure is easy to learn and to teach”, and, “for a PE teacher it is a different format – it is easy to adapt and modify”, “the structure is clear and easy to plan from”. Similarly, Teacher C felt that, “the structure is as good as you could get. They come, they organise, they’ve got the equipment, and we talk about things, they pass things on to us and we can ask questions about how best to do things”. Teacher B also commented on the importance of being able to observe specialists at work, noting that “I like the concept of observing a specialised


PE coach and being able to take notes”. Finally, analyses revealed that teachers described a number of ‘Future practices and improvements’ that they intended to adopt as a result of the EPPAP intervention. For instance, they reported changes in their perceptions about the importance and value of PE and daily activity, as Teacher E illustrated, “daily fitness used to be a chore, after this now it seems fun”. In addition, generalists reported their intentions to continue the practices of the EPPAP intervention in their future PE instruction, as well as to disseminate their experiences to colleagues in order to improve PE experiences across their school as a whole. For instance, Teacher B noted that, “the aim is to teach the other guys [i.e., colleagues] these activities and games so we all have the new skills and approaches”.

Discussion Externally provided physical activity programmes, in which PE specialists provide students with specialist instruction, are a recognised method to avoid relying on generalist teachers in primary school settings. Previous research has shown that EPPAPs can promote positive behavioural, affective, and cognitive outcomes for primary PE students (Duncan et al., 1983; McKenzie et al., 1996; Sallis et al., 1997). However, this study examined changes in a small group of generalist teachers’ perceptions of their capabilities as a result of observing, working alongside, and learning from a specialist teacher during a 6-month EPPAP intervention. Analyses revealed that after the intervention, generalist teachers reported more favorable beliefs regarding their ability to meet PE class requirements (e.g., inclusive, fun, safe, catering for different abilities), and also described a number of specific personal benefits associated with the EPPAP. Although significant differences did not emerge between pre- and post-intervention perceptions, the effect sizes across all teacher capability ratings are noteworthy. Specifically, it appeared that as a result of the 6-month training period, the generalists displayed a stronger belief in their ability to implement inclusive, fun, and safe PE sessions suitable for all abilities, comprising varied movement skills and games. Previous intervention studies have documented similar benefits for generalist PE teachers. For example, Faucette, McKenzie, and Sallis (1992) reported that a professional development programme for physical educators resulted in improvements in their levels of satisfaction and their ability to implement the curriculum. Similarly, PE teachers have been shown to display greater enthusiasm for the subject and during instruction as a result of formal training programmes (Rolider et al., 1984). Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 2 (2) 2011

73


In addition to revealing trends toward improved self-perceptions, the interview data gathered in this study provided insight into how the EPPAP had underpinned these positive outcomes. Existing research has shown that generalist teachers report receiving limited training and development for teaching PE (DeCorby, Halas, Dixon, Wintrup, & Janzen, 2005; Faucette et al., 2002), use ineffective teaching behaviours (Faucette & Patterson, 1990), and utilise a limited range of games and activities (Faucette et al., 1990). Collectively, these factors may be associated with avoidance of PE (Morgan, 2008), and unfavorable perceptions regarding the overall efficacy of school PE (Morgan & Hansen, 2008). However, the present study indicated that a prolonged period of observation and training from an external specialist (i.e., during an EPPAP intervention) may help teachers overcome a number of these challenges. For example, generalists interviewed in this investigation specifically noted the benefits of (a) an extended period of professional development, (b) acquiring a range of new games and activities, and (c) having specialist instruction regarding appropriate structure and delivery style in their classes. Importantly, in the theme, ‘future practices and improvements’, generalist teachers described that they had developed more positive perceptions about the value of PE as a result of the EPPAP. In light of previous research (Morgan & Hansen, 2008), it is possible that favorable PE-related values on the part of generalist teachers may translate into tangible benefits for students (e.g., increased time devoted to PE). There may be important implications of these findings for generalist teachers as well as students. Specifically, it was apparent from quantitative and qualitative analyses that the EPPAP intervention was associated with improvements in teachers’ overall perceptions about their instructional capabilities, which may underpin an array of desirable personal affective and behavioural outcomes. For example, greater confidence among teachers is associated with reductions in stress and burnout (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008), along with increased satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003), enthusiasm (Allinder, 1994), and commitment to their role (Coladarci, 1992). In addition, teachers who believe more strongly in their capabilities have been shown to more adequately provide for student needs (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Soodak & Podell, 1996) and ensure increased levels of activity within PE (Riggs & Enochs, 1990). As a result, it would be interesting in future to explore not only the extent to which EPPAPs may engender improvements in teacher outcomes, but may also impact on student experiences in PE. Whilst the findings of this investigation offer valuable insight into the role of specialist-led training in the promotion of generalist teachers’ PE perceptions, there are limitations that must be highlighted. First, although we obtained insight into generalist teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, it would have been worthwhile to also measure changes in students’ perceptions (about their generalist teacher and PE lessons) as a result of their involvement in the EPPAP intervention. Similarly, we did not capture the behaviours displayed by the generalist teacher upon resuming sole control of the classes. As a result, it was not possible in this investigation to determine whether the favorable impressions held by teachers at the close of the programme actually translated into improved teaching practices and/or enhanced student experiences of PE. In future, longitudinal research is encouraged following the termination of specialist-led (e.g., EPPAP) classes, in order to determine whether the positive teacher beliefs we observed do indeed bring about desirable and sustained changes in teacher and student behaviour. In addition, whilst we presented interesting preliminary data regarding the utility of EPPAP interventions for generalist teachers, investigators are encouraged in future to examine whether similar effects are 74


apparent with larger samples of teachers. The small sample size in this study severely restricts the power of statistical analyses, and it is also possible that with such a limited number of teachers we did not reach the point of saturation in our qualitative analyses. Subsequent studies in this area would be encouraged that seek to confirm and extend the network of themes relating to the benefits of longterm in-house EPPAP interventions. However, this study indicates that the use of EPPAPs may provide generalist teachers with improved knowledge and skills, in order to independently manage and deliver effective PE classes.


References Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86-95. Behets, D. (1995). Specialist and non-specialist teaching behavior in elementary school physical education. European Physical Education Review, 1, 148-154. Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 821-832. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323-337. DeCorby, K., Halas, J., Dixon, S., Wintrup, L., & Janzen, H., (2005). Generalist teachers and the challenges of teaching quality physical education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 208-220. Duncan, B., Boyce, W. T., Itami, R., & Puffenbarger, N. (1983). A controlled trial of a physical fitness program for fifth grade students. Journal of School Health, 53, 467-471. Farrell, A., Thompson, S., & Napper-Owen, G. (2004). Southern California elementary physical education specialists and non-specialists: Beliefs and behaviors of the ideal purpose and actual function of elementary physical education. California Journal of Health Promotion, 2, 28-40. Faucette, N. McKenzie, T. L., & Patterson, P. (1990). Descriptive analysis of non-specialist elementary physical education teachers’ curricular choices and class organization. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 284-293. Faucette, N. McKenzie, T. L., & Sallis, J. F. (1992). Self-contained versus team teaching: An analysis of a physical education intervention by classroom teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 268-287. Faucette, N., Nugent, P., Sallis, J. F., & McKenzie, T. L. (2002). “I’d rather chew on aluminum foil.” Overcoming classroom teachers’ resistance to teaching physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 287-308. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 2 (2) 2011

75

Faucette, N., & Patterson, P. (1989). Classroom teachers and physical education: What they are doing and how they feel about it. Education, 110, 108-114. Faucette, N., & Patterson, P. (1990). Comparing teaching behaviors and student activity levels in classes taught by P.E. specialists versus non-specialists. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 106-114.


Faulkener, G., & Reeves, C. (2000). Primary school students teachers’ physical self-perceptions and attitudes toward teaching physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 311-324. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451-458. Harris, J., & Cale, L. (1997). How healthy is school PE? A review of the effectiveness of healthrelated physical education programmes in schools. Health Education Journal, 56, 84-104. Howarth, K. (1987). Initial training in primary physical education – no substitute for teamwork. British Journal of Physical Education, 18, 152-153. McKenzie, T. L., Nader, M. D., Strikmiller, P. K., Yang, M. S., Stone, E. J., Perry, C. L. … Kelder, S. H. (1996). School physical education: Effect of the child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health. Preventive Medicine, 25, 423-431. Morgan, P. J. (2008). Teachers’ perception of physical education in the primary school: Attitudes, values and curriculum preferences. The Physical Educator, 65, 46-56. Morgan, P. J., & Bourke, S. (2008). Non-specialist teachers’ confidence to teach PE: The nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 13, 1-29. Morgan, P. J., & Hansen, V. (2008). Physical education in primary schools: Classroom teachers’ perceptions of benefits and outcomes. Health Education Journal, 67, 196-207. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332. Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74, 625-638. Rolider, A., Siedentop, D., & Van Houten, R. (1984). Effects of enthusiasm training on subsequent teacher enthusiastic behavior. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3, 47-59. Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., Alcaraz, J. E., Kolody, B., Faucette, N., & Hovel, M. F. (1997). Effects of a two-year health-related physical education program on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students: SPARK. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 1328-1334. Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 152-171. 76


Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1996). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66-81. Tsangaridou, N. (2008). Trainee primary teachers’ beliefs and practices about physical education during student teaching. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 13, 131-152. Zeng, H. Z., Leung, R. W., & Hipscher, M. (2010). An examination of teaching behaviors and learning activities in physical education class settings taught by three different levels of teachers. Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 18-28.


Author notes Dr Peter Whipp is an Associate Professor in the School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health at the University of Western Australia. Peter is the Associate Dean of Teaching and Learning (Science), and Director of Health and Physical Education. He is actively researching ‘differentiation’ and determining the outcomes of school-based physical activity and HPE curriculum. In addition, Peter is the chief investigator for innovative strengths-based mentoring programs for teachers and AFL players. In 2008 he was recognised with the ALTC award for ‘Teaching Excellence’ (Early Career). Heidi Hutton is a Health, Physical Education and Outdoor Education teacher and was a Masters of Science student at the University of Western Australia. J. Robert Grove is a Winthrop Professor in the School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health at the University of Western Australia. He is currently a member of the editorial board for Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice and the International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Professor Grove teaches and conducts research on the social psychology of exercise, health and sport. He is particularly interested in physical activity motivation and the mental health aspects of exercise. Ben Jackson works as a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health at the University of Western Australia after having received his doctorate from the University of Leeds (UK) in June 2008. With a broad interest that spans social and health psychology, his research focuses on the formation and consequences of close relationships in health contexts (e.g., physical education, sport, rehabilitation).

Correspondence Dr Peter R. Whipp School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health University of Western Australia M408, Crawley Western Australia , 6009 Australia Phone: +61 8 6488 2793 Email: [email protected] Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 2 (2) 2011

77