[1]An Investigation into the Teaching Styles of Secondary School PhysicalEducation Teachers.
Tony Macfadyen & Clare Campbell, University of Reading.
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005
Address for correspondence:
Tony Macfadyen
Institute of Education
Bulmershe Court Campus
Woodlands Avenue
ReadingUniversity
RG6 1HY
Introduction
In 1992 the introduction of the National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) meant that pupils should be taught to plan, perform and evaluate movement, (DES/WO 1992). Goldberger and Howarth (1992) and Mawer (1993) noted that prior to this British Physical Education teachers had concentrated on improving the performance of pupils in a variety of activities. In order to meet the demands of NCPE, it was argued that teachers would need to expand the range of teaching styles they used.
The concept of pupils being able to plan, perform and evaluate movement remained in the next two revisions of the NCPE, (DFE 1995; DfEE/QCA 1999). According to Penney (2001) the priority of the NCPE (1999) was to avoid disruption of the existing policy text, and changes were only made to improve and raise standards in Physical Education. However, an important dimension of the NCPE (1999) was the identification of four aspects of skills, knowledge and understanding to be developed through the Programme of Study. These four strands were:
- Acquiring and Developing skills.
- Selecting and Applying skills.
- Evaluating and Improving Performance.
- Knowledge and Understanding of Fitness and Health.
(DfEE/QCA 1999).
Research on the NCPE (1999) and its influence on teaching styles is lacking within the literature. This paper investigates the teaching styles of secondary school Physical Education teachers in 2005, specifically in regard to the NCPE (1999).
Working Definitions.
For the purpose of this paper it is important to establish a definition of a teaching style. A teaching style is concerned with how an activity is delivered, rather than what is delivered, (Macfadyen and Bailey 2002, p. 57). This paper uses a definition of teaching style from Siedentop (1991), who suggested it is “typified by the instructional and managerial climate that exists during the lesson and is most clearly observed in the teacher’s interactions with pupils”, (p. 228).
This research was based on eight teaching styles taken from Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles, (Mosston and Ashworth, 1986). The Spectrum of Teaching Styles does not favour any one style as it is an objective framework that allows an appropriate style to be chosen based on connections between objectives, teacher behaviour and learner behaviour, (Goldberger and Howarth, 1992). The spectrum can be divided into two distinctive parts: Reproductive teaching styles where pupils are expected to reproduce information or skills given to them or demonstrated by the teacher, and Productive teaching styles where pupils are expected to produce knowledge or skills with which they were previously unfamiliar.
The actual teaching style definitions and the concept of management were taken and adapted from the work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997). For definitions of the teaching styles and management, readers are referred to Appendix One.
Primary Aim of the paper
- To develop information on the teaching styles of secondary school Physical Education teachers
Secondary Aims:
- To compare the teaching styles of Physical Education teachers in 2005 with the results of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al. (2001).
- To consider any differences between male and female Physical Education teachers
- To determine the factors which influence the selection of teaching styles
The Importance of Teaching Styles.
As the use of appropriate teaching styles makes an important contribution to pupils’ learning in Physical Education it should not be left to chance, (Macfadyen and Bailey 2002). The NCPE (1999) instructs teachers what to teach but does not dictate how to teach it giving teachers great potential; part of this potential can be maximised by the effective use of teaching styles. Physical Education provides pupils with the opportunity to think critically, problem solve and to improve own learning, (DfEE/QCA. 1999). Similarly, the QCA/DfES (2005) has suggested that when schools offer ‘high quality’ Physical Education, children will achieve a variety of outcomes. One such outcome is that children will be able to think about what they are doing and make decisions independently. A second outcome is children knowing when to use principles such as choreography, games strategies and problem solving. If pupils are to access the full NCPE (1999) and to achieve the outcomes of high quality Physical Education (QCA/DfES 2005), teachers must employ appropriate teaching styles to facilitate the opportunities available.
Mawer (1993) has highlighted that the teaching style of a Physical Education teacher should match the lesson content and the learning preferences of the students (supported Mosston and Ashworth 1986; Macfadyen and Bailey 2002). Furthermore, it seems clear that teaching styles have a significant role to play in personalised learning (Hopkins 2004). This concept suggests that individuals learn in different ways, so teaching should be tailored to meet the individual needs of children and to ensure their potential is fulfilled, (Hopkins 2004). This will require a variety of teaching styles (see Macfadyen and Bailey, 2002).
The Influence of the National Curriculum on teaching styles of Physical Education teachers.
According to Goldberger and Howarth (1992) the Spectrum of Teaching Styles and the National Curriculum are key elements in the teaching and learning process. The only studies to date which looked specifically at the influence of the National Curriculum on teaching styles were the work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al. (2001). Curtner-Smith and Hasty’s (1997) research investigated whether the initial introduction and implementation of the NCPE (1992) led to teachers expanding their range of teaching styles. Results indicated that the percentage of lesson time in which teachers employed each of the teaching styles did not differ significantly pre and post NCPE (1992). The majority of time was spent using reproductive teaching styles. Curtner-Smith and Hasty’s (1997) work suggested that teachers were not employing the teaching styles which may improve pupils’ planning and evaluation skills as deemed necessary to meet the requirements of the NCPE (Goldberger and Howarth 1992). Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) suggested their findings were due to a number of factors including teachers not being trained to use a variety of teaching styles and the lack of time to experiment with teaching styles.
The work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) was extended by Curtner-Smith et al (2001). Results concluded that teachers were still working in a very similar way though one difference was that teachers in the second study used practice style significantly more than the first group and managed their classes significantly less. The study suggested that teachers again spent the majority of their time in reproductive teaching styles and only infrequently used teaching styles which improved pupils’ ability to plan and evaluate (Curtner-Smith et al. 2001). This finding was similar to the work of Goldberger and Gerney (1986) and (1990) and Goldberger et al. (1982).
Gender and teaching styles.
Kane (1974) found female teachers preferred using guided discovery teaching styles and males preferred utilising direct teaching styles. According to Al-Mulla (1998) differences in teaching styles occur because male teachers perceive that problems occur if students are given freedom; female teachers are more interested in allowing students to think for themselves.
Factors that influence the selection of teaching styles in Physical Education.
The selection of a teaching style has been found to be influenced by a number of factors. Williams (1993) and Mawer (1995) suggest the selection is influenced by a group’s learning style, Intended Learning Outcomes of lessons, safety, the behaviour of the class and the activity. Macfadyen and Bailey (2002) suggested the activity being taught and reduced curriculum time may influence the teaching styles of Physical Education teachers. Siedentop (1991) added that the characteristics of the class should have a direct influence on the teaching styles utilised by the Physical Education teacher. Research by BAALPE (1989) found the key factors affecting the selection of teaching styles were: the ability of the group, size of group, facilities, activity and time limitations.
Methodology.
A, detailed, self-report questionnaire was used to collect data for this research, which comprised of 19 open and closed questions. Munn and Drever (1999) point out that questionnaires allow participants to complete them in their own time, and participants are more likely to be honest in questionnaires because no interviewer is present and therefore there is no scope for negotiation. All participants were promised anonymity and confidentiality. The questionnaire was designed to ensure quantitative data allowed for statistical analysis and qualitative data fulfilled Curtner-Smith and Hasty’s (1997) request for follow up work on teaching styles in Physical Education. Questionnaires were used to obtain larger samples than Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al (2001). Each participant was given a clear set of definitions of the teaching styles to improve the consistency of understanding between participants.
Participants comprised of Physical Education teachers from state schools in the South of England. Schools were initially randomly selected, but after a poor response rate, further schools were sampled (either mixed comprehensive schools or single sex secondary schools). The researchers arranged with these schools to deliver and collect the questionnaires personally. According to Thomas and Nelson (2001), random sampling in Sport and Physical Education research is seldom done. Questionnaires have their limitations. Self-report measures may be subject to participants giving a lack of clarity in response (Baranowski, Dworkin, Cieslik, Hooks, Clearman, Ray, Dunn and Nader 1984) and question format and wording can dramatically affect results (Thomas & Nelson, 2001). A pilot study controlled for this, making sure results were reliable and repeatable.
Pilot Study.
According to Gratton and Jones (2004) it is important to pilot a questionnaire because it allows the researcher to check the sequence of questions and the administration of the questionnaire as well as analyze the results to ensure data is suitable for study purposes. One, large, Physical Education department, in a mixed comprehensive school in the South of England was used for the pilot study. Feedback from seven teachers indicated that the questionnaire was very time consuming and some of the wording was not specific enough. In light of the feedback and analysis of pilot results, appropriate changes were made.
Methods of Analysis.
An aim of this research was to compare the teaching styles of Physical Education teachers with the results of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al (2001). Due to differences in methodologies, statistical analyses were not used to compare the results of this research with previous work; instead comparisons of means were used to analyse the results.
Results
Return rate of questionnaires for the schools sampled was 68.4%, (13 out of 19 schools). 30 teachers (42.9%) returned completed questionnaires. According to Munn and Drever (1999), the minimum sample size for small-scale research involving questionnaires should be 30.
Participants comprised of 17 male teachers (56.7%) and 13 female teachers (43.3%). 10 of the participants were aged 21-25 (33.3%), 11 of the participants were aged 26-30 (36.7%), 4 of the participants were aged 31-35 (13.3%), one of the participants was aged 36-40 (3.3%) and 4 of the participants were aged 46+ (13.3%). The participants trained at 18 different teacher education institutions. 53% of the participants completed teacher training via a PGCE, 47% of the participants trained via another route (mainly B. Ed).
Teaching Styles in Physical Education in 2005.
Participants were asked to identify how much time they spent using different teaching styles in Physical Education. Table 1 presents a mean percentage of these results and also gives mean percentages of teaching styles for male and female Physical Education teachers.
Teaching Style / Mean Percentage (%) for Teaching Style for all Teachers. / Mean Percentage (%) of Teaching Style for Female Teachers. / Mean Percentage (%) of Teaching Style for Male Teachers.Reproductive Styles
Command / 24.74 / 19.82 / 28.74
Practice / 18.76 / 17.63 / 19.68
Reciprocal / 15.54 / 14.79 / 16.15
Self-Check / 9.26 / 10.26 / 8.44
Inclusion / 8.91 / 8.91 / 8.91
Total Reproductive / 77.21 / 71.41 / 81.92
Productive Styles
Guided Discovery / 13.44 / 15.99 / 11.37
Divergent / 5.78 / 7.91 / 4.04
Going Beyond / 3.57 / 4.69 / 2.67
Total Productive / 22.79 / 28.59 / 18.08
Table 1: Percentages of Teaching Styles used in 2005, (Post NCPE 1999).
There were clear differences observed between the use of reproductive and productive teaching styles by male and female teachers. Males averaged 81.93% and female teachers 71.41 % in the use of Reproductive Teaching Styles (statistically significant at <0.05 level; T-Test). There was also a significant, statistical, difference between male and female teachers in the use of Productive Teaching Styles:Male Average: 18.07%; Female Average: 28.59% (<0.05, T-Test). There were no significant differences between male and female Physical Education teachers and the amount of time they spend on management.
Results from this study were compared with results of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al. (2001). See Table 2 overleaf.
Teachers also identified the teaching styles they used for the various strands of the NCPE (1999). For the Acquiring and Developing strand 73 % of the teachers used the command or practice teaching styles. For the Selecting and Applying strand, teachers used a range of reproductive and productive teaching styles (e.g. 26.7 % of teachers used reciprocal and 23.3 % used guided discovery). When teaching the Evaluation and Improvement strand, 43.3% of teachers used reciprocal teaching style. When teaching the Knowledge and Understanding of Fitness strand, 60 % of teachers used command and practice teaching styles.
Table 2: Table of results compared with Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al. (2001).
Teaching Style / Teaching Styles of PE Teachers Pre-NCPE 1992 (Curtner-Smith & Hasty 1997). Observation Method. / Teaching Styles of PE Teachers Post-NCPE 1992 (Curtner-Smith & Hasty 1997). Observation Method). / Teaching Styles of PE Teachers Post- NCPE 1995 (Curtner-Smith et al 2001). (Observation Method). / Teaching Styles of PE Teachers Post-NCPE 1999. (Questionnaire Method).Reproductive Styles
Command / 10.91 / 6.50 / 4.28 / 20.54
Practice / 55.31 / 49.65 / 72.94 / 15.58
Reciprocal / 1.53 / 2.31 / 0.64 / 12.90
Self-Check / 0.00 / 0.90 / 0.39 / 7.69
Inclusion / 2.03 / 1.31 / 0.06 / 7.40
Total Reproductive / 69.78 / 60.68 / 78.31 / 64.11
Productive Styles
Guided Discovery / 5.37 / 5.47 / 4.01 / 11.16
Divergent / 6.53 / 3.34 / 0.98 / 4.80
Going Beyond / 0.00 / 0.00 / 0.00 / 2.96
Total Productive / 11.90 / 8.81 / 4.99 / 18.92
Management / 18.44 / 29.97 / 16.82 / 16.96
Total / 100 / 100 / 100 / 100
Teaching Styles in the Different Curriculum Activities.
Teachers were asked to break down the percentage of time they spent using different teaching styles within the activities of the NCPE (1999). See Table 3 for results.
Table 3: Teaching Styles in the Different NCPE (1999) Curriculum Activities (Ave. %).
(Invasion = Invasion Games; S&F = Striking and Fielding Games; N&W = Net and Wall Games; OAA = Outdoor Adventure Activities)
Factors that Influence the Use of Teaching Styles in Physical Education.
Teachers were asked to rank the most influential factors that affected their choice of teaching style. The most influential was safety followed by the activity being taught; these two factors dominated the rankings. The third most influential was class control, followed by pupil ability and the lesson’s Intended Learning Outcomes; trust in class was ranked sixth. The questionnaire also highlighted differences between male and female teachers. Whilst men’s influences mirrored the overall rankings (above), woman ranked the activity being taught above safety, and placed the lesson’s Intended Learning Outcomes equal third with pupil ability, placing trust in class fifth.
Discussion
The results of this research must be interpreted carefully in terms of design limitations. The relatively small sample size and lack of random sampling make generalizations from this research difficult. Furthermore differences between what people say they do and what they actually do (Lawson and Stroot (1993) cited in Curtner-Smith et al. (2001)) may account for some difference in this research compared to previous observation studies. Though it is unlikely teachers gave a socially desirable answer, they may have mistaken how they actually teach. However, to ensure consistency with the work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al. (2001) this research utilised the same concepts and definitions of teaching styles.
Results strongly suggest that reproductive teaching styles are still the dominant method of delivery in Physical Education and are relatively in line with the work of Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner-Smith et al (2001). Worryingly, when teachers were asked to identify the teaching styles they used for the four strands of the NCPE (1999) they predominantly used reproductive teaching styles for all four. This seems too one-sided and a little illogical, particularly for the Selecting and Applying and Evaluation and Improvement strands, where pupils are required to, for example,: ‘…plan and implement strategies’ (KS 3), ‘apply rules…’ (KS 4), ‘take the initiative to analyse…’ (KS 3), ‘make informed choices about what role they want to take...’ (KS 4). The figures may, in part, be explained by teachers considering the reciprocal style as a productive method, even though it is a reproductive style. In terms of fulfilling all four strands of the NCPE (1999) three reproductive styles (reciprocal, self-check, inclusion) do offer some support since they encompass either evaluating skills or decision-making (though the emphasis remains on reproduction of information or skills provided by the teacher) . The use of all three of these styles was up in this study compared to Curtner-Smith and Hasty (1997) and Curtner- Smith et al (2001) perhaps as teachers try to kill two birds with one stone.
The DfES/QCA (2005) has suggested that when a school offers ‘high quality’ Physical Education, children will achieve a variety of outcomes. Two of these outcomes are of particular interest here. The first suggests that children will be able to think about what they are doing and make decisions independently. The other outcome is that children should know when to use principles such as choreography, games strategies and problem solving. It stands to reason children will only be able to achieve these outcomes if they are allowed to work independently and make decisions for themselves. This can only be fully achieved if teachers create genuine and sustained Intended Learning Outcomes in these areas and back them up with appropriate productive styles. A lack of familiarity with, or confidence in, productive teaching styles may help to explain why teachers have been less willing to engage in the non skill development strands of the NCPE (1999) since these are less suited to the direct styles of teaching. Certainly, pupil achievement of a number of the National Curriculum Key Skills (e.g. citizenship) and Thinking Skills (e.g. enquiry skills) would seem to require teachers’ utilisation of productive teaching styles.