This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries] On: 02 March 2015, At: 08:35 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
Research on Teaching in Physical Education: Questions and Comments Amelia M. Lee
a
a
Department of Kinesiology , Louisiana State University , Baton Rouqe , LA , 70803 , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Amelia M. Lee (1991) Research on Teaching in Physical Education: Questions and Comments, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62:4, 374-379, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1991.10607536 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10607536
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 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
RQESForum
Re.earch Qual18r1y lor Exerciseand Sport © 1991 by the American Alliance for Health.
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Vol. 62. No. 4, pp. 374-379
Research on Teaching in Physical Education: Questions and Comments
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
Amelia M. Lee
Key words: pedagogical research, research methods, physical education
R
esearch on teaching has come a long way since the days when the methods experiment was the typical form of study. Silverman (1991) provides a thoughtful discussion of the literature related to the study of teaching in physical education. He identified important studies and highlighted significant findings from the last two decades. A comprehensive review of research on teaching in physical education is long overdue and has the potential to promote the development ofwell-organized conceptions ofteaching to guide practice. Ata time when many teacher education programs are establishing new directions and redefining standards of excellence in teaching, a summary ofthewell-confirmed body ofknow1edge about teaching will be useful to teacher educators for revising programs. My comments are meant to reinforce some points made by Silverman and to identify issues that might merit further discussion and analysis.
Historical Overview Silverman begins his review with a discussion of research on teaching from a historical perspective. He refers to the early research reviewed by Nixon and Locke (1973) in the Second handbook of research on teachingas an area closely resembling research in motor learning. He reports that today research on teaching in physical education (RT-PE) is no longer dependent on motor learning models and has adapted designs and paradigms that have developed in classroom research. Although I agree with this historical account, research programs in the fields of motor learning and all areas of teaching developed in similar ways and suffered from the same contradictions and negative findings along theway.Both groups
Amelia M. Lee isaffiliated with the Department ofKinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Ro' -ie, LA 70803.
314
tended to focus on what worked without an interest in searching for a mechanism ofexplanation (Adams, 1971; Shulman, 1986). Critics found the early work flawed mainly because researchers failed to seek reasons why a particular method or practice schedule worked. Thus, subsequent changes in research approaches and styles in teaching and learning were driven by similar concerns. The early methods focus produced research in classrooms and gymnasiums, which failed to generate consistent evidence. A typical methods experiment in physical education, for example, studied the effectiveness of the command method and the task method of teaching the forehand and backhand tennis strokes (Mariani, 1970). This study compared the achievement of two classes, taught by the same instructor using the two different methods. As indicated by Silverman, a primary problem with this and other research during this time was that instruction was rarely monitored or verified. The finding that the task method was superior to the command method, but for only one of the two strokes studied, is typical of research designed to identify what works. Applied research practice in motor learning has been found lacking in scientific productivity by motor learning scholars as well. Adams (1971), for example, observed that researchers in motor learning often started with tasks without much, if any, regard for theory. According to Adams (1971) a typical applied research study would investigate an activity to solve a particular problem, such as how to give knowledge of results to subjects to help them learn to hit a ball, and the outcome would be a collection of answers that lacked the means of building scientific knowledge. Again, the outcome provides answers to what works rather than to why it works. Perhaps developments in cognitive psychology and information-processing models of learning are partly responsible for differences between traditional and contemporary research paradigms in motor learning and teaching. Certainly the cognitive view of teaching and learning provides new perspectives for researchers and more opportunities to explore reasons and explanations.
ROES: December 1991
Lee
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
The Effectiveness Stream Most of the research reviewed by Silverman was categorized under the broad heading "effectiveness." His effectiveness areawas subdivided into four subareas: descriptions, process-product, research on the relationships of time and student practice variables to achievement, and comparisons. Most authors reviewing research on teacher effectiveness (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986; Good, 1979; Medley, 1979) begin with an operational definition of effectiveness. According to Brophy and Good (1986) effectiveness refers to the ability ofa teacher to foster mastery of the formal curricula, to socialize students, and to promote their affective and personal development. Shavelson, Webb, and Burstein (1986), on the other hand, equate effective teaching with large mean residual gains for a teacher's class. Although numerous definitions ofeffectiveness appear in the literature, conceptual alternatives offered by Doyle (1977) suggest that effectiveness formulations should include both contextual variables and the meanings teachers and students assign to events and processes during instruction. From this perspective the classroom ecology and cognition and decision-making streams identified by Silverman would be included in effectiveness. According to Doyle the question related to instructional effects should be "how do students learn from teaching" as well as "what kind of teaching causes learning. " It is unclear how Silverman selected the studies to review in the various categories and subcategories. He describes in a general way the procedures he used to identify studies but did not provide inclusion criteria other than to say he focused on research published during the last 15 years. Both laboratory and field studies are included without any warning that findings from laboratory settings might not transfer to the gymnasium. There is little discussion ofhow the description ofbehaviors and actions serves as a measure of teacher effectiveness. He does mention that description is a first step in understanding what occurs in the gym before relating behavior to achievement. This notion is consistent with what Rosenshine and Furst (1973) describe as the descriptive-correlational-experimentalloop. These authors noted that observations in classrooms would lead to quantitative descriptions of teaching. These descriptive variables could then be related to achievement, and experiments could be planned to test the promising relationships. Although it makes sense that the descriptive research in our field might have prepared the way for a better understanding ofrelationships to achievement, Silverman fails to provide the information needed to make this link clear. There is little evidence in the literature reviewed that teacher behaviors related to student outcomes were systematically explored using a series of related descriptive, correlational, and experi-
ROES: December 1991
mental studies, which is the approach offered by Rosenshine and Furst (1973).
The Process-Product Paradigm Silverman provides a description of the processproduct paradigm and summarizes the literature produced in physical education. As is evident from reading the review, this subcategory ofthe effectiveness literature contains various lines ofresearch. The correlational data linking teacher behavior to achievement produced few research-based conclusions about teachers that maximize student achievement. Conceptually, it can be argued that investigations of relationships between measures ofteacher behaviorsand studentlearning outcomes have the advantage of simplicity (Doyle, 1977) but offer few explanations for why students learn from teaching. Typically, the correlational data have been collected using a low-inference observation system that produces a frequency measure. This approach to measurementmakes an assumption that frequency determines effects (Doyle, 1977). Using Eghan's (1988) feedback study as an example, high positive correlations between teacher feedback and student achievement would imply that more is better. Although Eghan used an expert tennis teacher in his study and reported the accuracy of the feedback, it can be argued that factors other than the total number of appropriate feedback statements are important. For example, the timing of the statement or the meaning it has to the student might be key elements in determining the effects. As indicated by Silverman, for years there has been great interest in comparing the effectiveness of teaching methods in physical education. Although it is difficult to explain the results of these studies or apply them to teacher education, researchers continue to be creative in their ability to generate variables to compare. Studying the merits of various types of individualized instruction has been a topic ofinterest. Typically, the individualized approach is compared with a traditional teaching model, and, as Silverman points out, findings have been equivocal. Specific types of individualistic approaches studied have included computer-assisted instruction (Kerns, 1989), Mosston's inclusion style ofteaching (Goldberger & Gerney, 1986), contract teaching (Yarber, 1975), programmed instruction (Landin, Lee, & Hill, 1986), and an individualistic student interaction approach Gohnson, Bjorkland, & Krotee, 1984). According to Sharpe, Hawkins, and Wiegand (1989), one reason for the inconclusiveness of result may lie in teacher variability regarding the instruction required to master nonsubject tasks or what these researchers called "systems skills." They designed a study to determine if the procedures used by teachers to teach systems skills ofan individualized method influenced academic outcomeswithin thatmethod. Findings indicated that teacher modeling during introduc-
375
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
Lee
tion of systems skills enabled students to devote more class time to the learning of motor skill content. This approach might be a necessary first step before comparing particular programs of individualized instruction. Although Silverman presents convincing evidence that research completed on the spectrum of styles shows signs of adequacy and might eventually provide insight on how students learn from teaching, similar research on the study of other decision-making approaches yields puzzling contradictions. As reported by Silverman, the Edwards and Lee (1985) data lend support for a direct instructional mode in that subjects learning with direct instruction and cuing provided by the teacher had an advantage at the conclusion of the acquisition period. This finding agreeswith evidence reported by Goldberger (1983; Goldberger Be Gerney, 1986). Consistent with other research conducted in laboratory settings (Berry, Prather, Be Bermudez, 1973; Prather, 1971; Singer Be Gaines, 1975; Singer Be Pease, 1976, 1978), however, the findings supported discovery learning as well by providing evidence that students who were required to discover solutions to problems could more effectively adapt what was learned to a new but related situation. Although this distinction was ignored by Silverman, it was probably a deliberate omission because definitions of learning and performance situations would be needed to adequately address the issue, and such a discussion could get sticky.
The Measurement of Learning andTeaching In research on teaching physical education residual gain scores calculated for each student from the pre- and post-skill test scores are most often used as measures of student learning (see Silverman, 1990, for an example). This perspective is different from views that emphasize a learning situation as one in which the student attempts to acquire a new skill or to improve a skill (Magill, 1989). This definition represents learning as a relatively pennanent change in performance as a result of practice and implies that the variable cannot be adequately measured by a skill test given immediately at the end of the unit, especially if this is the only measure used. One could argue that some of the divergent conclusions from the research on decision-making teaching models in physical education could be explained by the performance versus learning issue and the inability to separate temporary from more pennanent learning situations. Studies (Goldberger, Gerney, Be Chamberlain, 1982; Lydon Be Cheffers, 1984) where no conclusions could be drawn concerning the effects of giving learners some decisionmaking responsibility during physical education class might have shown different results if long-term learning effects had been measured. Bruner (1961) has argued for years that discovery learning helps a student acquire a heuristic approach to learning that can be transferred to new situations. Although I believe the issue of initial
376
and permanent learning effects should be given consideration in research on teaching, it would be naive to suggest that use of a transfer design would provide a solution to problems associated with the measurement of teaching. Theoretical views presented by Lee and Genevose (1988) and others (Bransford, Franks, Morris, Be Stein, 1979; Morris, Bransford, Be Franks, 1977) offer transfer-appropriate processing as a framework to explore issues related to using transfer tests to evaluate learning. The concept considers the type of processing activities promoted during practice and emphasizes that transfer will be enhanced when the situation encourages the same activities. Thus, the essence of transfer-appropriate processing for a researcher in terested in discovery teaching is that if instruction is designed to promote opportunities to solve problems, then the test given to measure the outcomes should be designed to measure the same types of activities. The whole domain of measurement and the issues involved are beginning to be examined more thoroughly by theorists in motor behavior and pedagogy. As noted by Magill (1988) and Lee and Genovese (1988), the measurement of learning question and the distinction between temporary and long-term effects has been ofinterest to researchers for decades (e.g., Tolman, 1932). Even among motor learning theorists more than one view of what constitutes a learning effect is evident in the literature. According to Christina and Shea (1988) recent views of learning emphasize development of a comprehensive account of learning that requires studying the changes occurring in performance across acquisition trials as well as the status after the acquisition period. Inferences concerninglearningand forgetting processes, according to these authors, should be made "through an integrative description of performance across acquisition and retention trials" (p. 293). The nature ofresearch on learning has been guided through the years by researchers' conceptions ofwhat learning is and how it is assessed. This debate will surely continue and is a healthy approach to seeking answers. Interest in the nature and limitations of current means of measuring teaching outcomes has also been apparent during recentyears. Shavelson etal. (1986), for instance, provide a perspective that emphasizes issues similar to the ones identified by the motor behaviorists. The first issue concerns the amount of overlap between what is taught and what is tested. A number of studies (Leinhardt Be Seewald, 1981; Schmidt, 1983) indicate that the relationship between what is taught and what is tested is stronger when the overlap measure more nearly approximates the student's actual experience. This notion seems consistent with Lee and Genovese's (1988) argument that the processing activities prompted by both the test and the practice time should be considered by researchers. A second measurement issue identified by Shavelson et al. (1986) concerns the inadequacy of
ROES: December 1991
Lee
summaryscoresas measures ofhowmuchstudentslearned and, consequently, their teacher's effectiveness. Studying students' response patterns during instruction can provide important information about the kinds of mistakes students make and the typical ways students go about learning new skills or refining those already established. This issue is consistent with Christina and Shea's (1988) notion of a comprehensive account of learning and the need for studying performance across the acquisition period. Given these concerns, I would propose that researchers focus more attention on the measurement of teaching outcomes issue, and I am surprised that it is not mentioned in the review.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
The Significance ofStudent Mediation The mediating processes paradigm described by Silverman and the studies reviewed in that subcategory offer a limited view ofstudent mediating responses. The mediational perspective was formulated as a major modification of the two-factor process-product paradigm (Wmne & Marx, 1982) and offered a way to look at what students do during instruction and how these patterns of behavior are related to achievement. One way to use a mediating structure is to relate time and student engagementvariables to achievement, and the work reviewed by Silverman uses this approach. Although this research represents an initial effort to understand important mediating elements, the use of overt, observable variables such as time utilization and task completion rates has been criticized by Doyle (1977) for its limited conceptualization. According to Doyle, the use ofobservable variables such as the quality of student engagement "reflects a preference for overt manifestations ofstudent mediating processes" (p, 175) and, although useful, are gross measures ofinformation-processing procedures. A thorough understanding of how learning occurs from teaching would require defining more precisely the student variables that might affect the quality of student engagement. It would be necessary to extend the timemediating approach to include the covert responses operating and the study of motivational, affective, and cognitive aspects ofstudent thinking during instruction. This extension of the process-product approach would require a linking ofthe classroom ecology and the cognitive and decision-making subcategories with the mediating process paradigm, and Silverman chose not to do this. In considering a broader focus for the mediating model, which I am inclined to do, other work becomes relevant. At least one study in physical education (Tousignant & Siedentop, 198~, for example) has described how students respond to various tasks presented by teachers. Task presentation provides the learner with information about the task, and findings from this research indicated thatwhereas some students listened and
RQES:December 1991
became engaged with the tasks as stated by the teacher, others found the level of difficulty inappropriate and drifted toward a modified task. In a somewhat related fashion, Greenockle, Lee, and Lomax (1990) identified motivational and background variables that influenced the extent to which students chose to participate in classroom activities defined by the teacher. Although I agree with Silverman that teacher expectancy effects in physical education have been investigated extensively, a point ignored in his review is that the influence of these effects on individual students is unclear. The pygmalion studies for the most part have not considered the student's perception or interpretation of teacher behavior. Research on student perception of instructional actions, including teacher behavior, supports the notion that students' thoughts mediate learning from teaching. One of the Martinek (1988) studies reviewed by Silverman provides some evidence to suggest that learners in high and low expectation groups perceive specific teacher behaviors in different ways. While this study described in a general wayhow student thought processes mediate teacher expectancy effects, a complete understanding is not possible without further research. Silverman described the work in student cognition as research that often focuses on cognition during class and on why activities were thought to occur. He noted correctly that studies of student cognition are not well represented in the literature but then offered a limited explanation of how the students in the two studies he chose to review mediated instruction. Students perceive and give meaning to teachers' instructional behaviors in different ways, and sometimes the interpretation by the student is not as the teacher intends. The Hanke (1987) study provides a good example of students drawing conclusions about teachers' behavior thatwere not intended by the teachers. Hanke selected critical incidents from physical education classes and interviewed students and teachers about them. They agreed on their descriptions of the incidents but differed on their perceptions of causal attributions. Although the students seldom considered the teacher's point of view, when they did the conclusions drawn about the teacher's behaviorwere not what the teacher intended. AlthoughtheLockeandJensen (1974) study did not include an achievement measure, further study using self-report data gathered from thought samples might be useful in explaining how time to learn leads to student achievement. Locke and Jensen asked students to respond to a signal during class by recalling and recording in writing their thoughtsjust before the signal. Data from the thought samples were coded into five attention categories presumed to reflect different levels of commitment to cognitive processing of instructional events. A high level reflected a commitment to processing input about the task such as planning a response. In contrast,
371
Lee
a lower level of attention involved cognitive activity with non-class-related events such as friends or ajob.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
Concluding Remarks After reviewing and interpreting the relevant information, Silverman formulated characteristics ofeffective or experienced teachers ofmotor skills. Itmight beworth asking, however, ifhe produced conclusions that would not have been anticipated by teacher educators or teachers currently teaching in the schools, even those not familiar with the research. Although the review may provide some formal base of support for current beliefs regarding what good teaching is, the conclusions derived are not impressive. First, itis surprising Silverman did not distinguish between experienced and effective teachers, though his approach throughout the paper was to allow readers to formulate their own definitions. The risk of assuming that experience changes novice teachers into experts is well documented (Berliner, 1986; Siedentop Be Eldar, 1989). Second, although documentation of the numerous forms and findings represented in RT-PE makes interesting reading, before the research can lead to a theoretical understanding ofteaching, methodological issues must be addressed more thoroughly. Silverman reported existing findings but failed to frame important issues needed to guide future research. Perhaps the review alone will stimulate further efforts.
References Adams, j. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. journal ofMotorBehavior, 3, 111-149. Berliner,D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational&searcher, 15,5-13. Berry, G. A., Prather, D. C., Be Bermudez,]. M. (1973). Effect of verbalization trial and error and prompted learning of a perceptual skill. Proceedings ofthe 81stAnnuai Conventionof tM AmericanPsychological Association, 8, 481-482. Bransford,]. D., Franks,].]., Morris, C. C., Be Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning and memory research. In L. S. Cermak Be F. I. M. Craig (Eds.) , Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 331-354). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brophy,j. E., Be Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement, In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handboolr.ofresearch on teaching(3rd. ed., pp. 328-374). New York: Macmillan. Bruner,]. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational &search, 31, 21-32. Christina, R. N., Be Shea, J. B. (1988). The limitations of generalization based on restricted information. &search QJsarlerly for Exercise and Sfxwt, 59, 291-297. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Rroiew of research in education (Vol. 5). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Edwards, R. V., Be Lee, A. M. (1985). The relationship of cognitive style and instructional strategy to learning and
378
transfer of motor skills. &search QJsarterly for Exercise and Sfxwt, 56, 286-290. Eghan, T. (1988). Therelationofteacherfeedbaclr.tostudentachievlment in learningselected tennisslr.ills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Goldberger, M. (1983). Directstyles ofteaching and psychomotor performance. In T. Templin Bej. Olsen (Eds.) , Teaching in physicaleducation (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, volume 14, pp. 211-223). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Goldberger, M., Be Gerney, P. (1986). The effects of direct teaching styles on motor skill acquisition of fifth grade children. &search Q)uzrterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 215219. Goldberger, M., Gerney, P., Be Chamberlain,]. (1982). The effects of three styles of teaching on the psychomotor performance and social skill development of fifth grade children. Rssearch. Q)uzrterly for Exercise and Sport, 53, 116124. Good, T. L (1979). Teacher effectiveness in the elementary school: What we know about it now. journal of Teacher Education, 30, 52-64. Greenockle, K. M., Lee, A. M., Be Lomax, R. (1990). The relationship between selected student characteristics and activity patterns in a required high school physical education class. &search QJsarterly forExercise and Sport, 61,59-69. Hanke, U. (1987). Cognitive aspects of interaction in physical education. In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, Be M.Pieron (Eds.) , Myths, models, and methods insport pedagogy (pp. 135-141). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Johnson, R. T., Bjorkland, R., Be Krotee, M. (1984). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic student interaction patterns on the achievement and attitudes of students learning the golfskill ofputting. &search QJsarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 129-134. Kerns, M. (1989). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in teaching tennis rules and strategies. journal of TeachinginPhysicalEducation, 8,170-176. Landin, D. K., Lee, A M., Be Hill, K. F. (1986). Programmed instruction vs. cohort instruction for teaching an open motor skill. TM PhysicalEducator, 43, 176-182. Lee, T. D., Be Genovese,E.D. (1988). Distribution ofpractice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered. &search QJsarterly for Exercise and Sfxwt, 59, 277-287. Leinhardt, G., Be Seewald, A (1981). Overlap: What's tested, what's taught)journalofEducationalMeasurement, 18,85-96. Locke,L. F., BeJensen,M.K. (1974). Thoughtsampling: Astudy ofstudent attention through self-report, &search QJsarterly, 45, 263-273. Lydon, M. C., Be Cheffers,]. T. F. (1984). Decision-making in elementary school-age children: Effects upon motor learning and self-concept development, &search QJsarlerly for Exercise and Sfxwt, 55, 135-140. Magill, R. A (1988). The many faces ofpractice distribution in motor learning. &search Q)uzrterlyfor Exercise and Sport. 59, 303-307. Magill, R. A. (1989). Motor learning: Concepts and applications. Dubuque, IA: Wm C. Brown. Mariani, T. (1970). A comparison of the effectiveness of the command method and the task method of teaching the
RQES: December 7991
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
Lee
forehand and backhand tennis strokes. Research QJMsf1erly, 41, 171-174. Martinek, T.]. (1988). Confinnation ofa teacher expectancy model: Student perceptions and causal attributions of teaching behaviors. &search QJMsrterly forExercise and Sport, 59, 118-126. Medley, D. (1979). The effectiveness ofteachers. In P. Peterson andH.Walberg(Eds.),&searchonteaching:Concepts,findings, and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Morris, C. D., Bransford,]. D., &: Franks,].]. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behaviur, 16, 519-533. Nixon,]. E., &: Locke, L. F. (1973). Research on teaching in physical education. In M. W. Travers (Ed.) .Seamd handbook of researCh on teaChing (pp. 1210-1242). Chicago: Rand McNally. Prather, D. C. (1971). Trial and error versus errorless learning: Learning, transfer, and stress. AmericanJournal ofPsycho/" ogy, 84,377-386. Rosenshine, B., &: Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research. on teaching (pp. 122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally. Schmidt, W. (1983). Content biases in achievement tests. JournalofEducationalMeasurement, 20, 165-178. Sharpe,Jr., T. L., Hawkins, A., &: Wiegand, R (1989). Model/ practice versus verbal/rehearsal introductions of systems skills within an individually prescribed instructional system. Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 9, 25-38. Shavelson, R]., Webb, N. M., &: Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M.e. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd. ed., pp. 50-91). New York: Macmillan.
ROES: December 1991
Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. e. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookofresearch on teaching(pp. 3-36). New York.: Macmillan. Siedentop, D., &: Eldar, E. (1989). Expertise, experience, and effectiveness. Journal of TeaChing in PhysicalEducation, 8, 254-260. Silverman, S. (1990). Linear and curvilinear relationships between studentpractice and achievementin physical education. TeaChing and Teacher Education, 6, 305-314. Silverman, S. (1991). Research on teaching physical education. &search QJMsrterly for Exercise and Spurt, 62, 352-364. Singer, R N., &: Gaines, L. (1975). Effects of prompted and problem-solving approaches on learning and transfer of motor skills. AmericanEducationalResearchJourna4 12, 395403. Singer, R N., &: Pease, D. (1976). A comparison of discovery learning and guided instructional strategies on motor skill learning, retention, and transfer. &search QJMsrterly, 47, 788-795. Singer, R. N., &: Pease, D. (1978). Effect of guided discovery learning strategies on initial motor task learning, transfer, and retention. &search QJMsf1erly, 49, 206-217. Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animalsand men. New York.: Century. Tousignant, M., &: Siedentop, D. (1983). A qualitative analysis oftask structures in required secondary physical education classes. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 3, 47- 57. Wmne, P. H., &: Marx, R W. (1982). Students' and teachers' viewsof thinking processes for classroom learning. Elementary SChoolJourna' 82,493-518. Yarber, W. L. (1975). Comparing contract and traditional grading techniques for ninth grade students. Education, 95, 363-367.
379
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
Research on Teaching in Physical Education: Questions and Comments Amelia M. Lee
a
a
Department of Kinesiology , Louisiana State University , Baton Rouqe , LA , 70803 , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Amelia M. Lee (1991) Research on Teaching in Physical Education: Questions and Comments, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62:4, 374-379, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1991.10607536 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10607536
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 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
RQESForum
Re.earch Qual18r1y lor Exerciseand Sport © 1991 by the American Alliance for Health.
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Vol. 62. No. 4, pp. 374-379
Research on Teaching in Physical Education: Questions and Comments
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
Amelia M. Lee
Key words: pedagogical research, research methods, physical education
R
esearch on teaching has come a long way since the days when the methods experiment was the typical form of study. Silverman (1991) provides a thoughtful discussion of the literature related to the study of teaching in physical education. He identified important studies and highlighted significant findings from the last two decades. A comprehensive review of research on teaching in physical education is long overdue and has the potential to promote the development ofwell-organized conceptions ofteaching to guide practice. Ata time when many teacher education programs are establishing new directions and redefining standards of excellence in teaching, a summary ofthewell-confirmed body ofknow1edge about teaching will be useful to teacher educators for revising programs. My comments are meant to reinforce some points made by Silverman and to identify issues that might merit further discussion and analysis.
Historical Overview Silverman begins his review with a discussion of research on teaching from a historical perspective. He refers to the early research reviewed by Nixon and Locke (1973) in the Second handbook of research on teachingas an area closely resembling research in motor learning. He reports that today research on teaching in physical education (RT-PE) is no longer dependent on motor learning models and has adapted designs and paradigms that have developed in classroom research. Although I agree with this historical account, research programs in the fields of motor learning and all areas of teaching developed in similar ways and suffered from the same contradictions and negative findings along theway.Both groups
Amelia M. Lee isaffiliated with the Department ofKinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Ro' -ie, LA 70803.
314
tended to focus on what worked without an interest in searching for a mechanism ofexplanation (Adams, 1971; Shulman, 1986). Critics found the early work flawed mainly because researchers failed to seek reasons why a particular method or practice schedule worked. Thus, subsequent changes in research approaches and styles in teaching and learning were driven by similar concerns. The early methods focus produced research in classrooms and gymnasiums, which failed to generate consistent evidence. A typical methods experiment in physical education, for example, studied the effectiveness of the command method and the task method of teaching the forehand and backhand tennis strokes (Mariani, 1970). This study compared the achievement of two classes, taught by the same instructor using the two different methods. As indicated by Silverman, a primary problem with this and other research during this time was that instruction was rarely monitored or verified. The finding that the task method was superior to the command method, but for only one of the two strokes studied, is typical of research designed to identify what works. Applied research practice in motor learning has been found lacking in scientific productivity by motor learning scholars as well. Adams (1971), for example, observed that researchers in motor learning often started with tasks without much, if any, regard for theory. According to Adams (1971) a typical applied research study would investigate an activity to solve a particular problem, such as how to give knowledge of results to subjects to help them learn to hit a ball, and the outcome would be a collection of answers that lacked the means of building scientific knowledge. Again, the outcome provides answers to what works rather than to why it works. Perhaps developments in cognitive psychology and information-processing models of learning are partly responsible for differences between traditional and contemporary research paradigms in motor learning and teaching. Certainly the cognitive view of teaching and learning provides new perspectives for researchers and more opportunities to explore reasons and explanations.
ROES: December 1991
Lee
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
The Effectiveness Stream Most of the research reviewed by Silverman was categorized under the broad heading "effectiveness." His effectiveness areawas subdivided into four subareas: descriptions, process-product, research on the relationships of time and student practice variables to achievement, and comparisons. Most authors reviewing research on teacher effectiveness (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986; Good, 1979; Medley, 1979) begin with an operational definition of effectiveness. According to Brophy and Good (1986) effectiveness refers to the ability ofa teacher to foster mastery of the formal curricula, to socialize students, and to promote their affective and personal development. Shavelson, Webb, and Burstein (1986), on the other hand, equate effective teaching with large mean residual gains for a teacher's class. Although numerous definitions ofeffectiveness appear in the literature, conceptual alternatives offered by Doyle (1977) suggest that effectiveness formulations should include both contextual variables and the meanings teachers and students assign to events and processes during instruction. From this perspective the classroom ecology and cognition and decision-making streams identified by Silverman would be included in effectiveness. According to Doyle the question related to instructional effects should be "how do students learn from teaching" as well as "what kind of teaching causes learning. " It is unclear how Silverman selected the studies to review in the various categories and subcategories. He describes in a general way the procedures he used to identify studies but did not provide inclusion criteria other than to say he focused on research published during the last 15 years. Both laboratory and field studies are included without any warning that findings from laboratory settings might not transfer to the gymnasium. There is little discussion ofhow the description ofbehaviors and actions serves as a measure of teacher effectiveness. He does mention that description is a first step in understanding what occurs in the gym before relating behavior to achievement. This notion is consistent with what Rosenshine and Furst (1973) describe as the descriptive-correlational-experimentalloop. These authors noted that observations in classrooms would lead to quantitative descriptions of teaching. These descriptive variables could then be related to achievement, and experiments could be planned to test the promising relationships. Although it makes sense that the descriptive research in our field might have prepared the way for a better understanding ofrelationships to achievement, Silverman fails to provide the information needed to make this link clear. There is little evidence in the literature reviewed that teacher behaviors related to student outcomes were systematically explored using a series of related descriptive, correlational, and experi-
ROES: December 1991
mental studies, which is the approach offered by Rosenshine and Furst (1973).
The Process-Product Paradigm Silverman provides a description of the processproduct paradigm and summarizes the literature produced in physical education. As is evident from reading the review, this subcategory ofthe effectiveness literature contains various lines ofresearch. The correlational data linking teacher behavior to achievement produced few research-based conclusions about teachers that maximize student achievement. Conceptually, it can be argued that investigations of relationships between measures ofteacher behaviorsand studentlearning outcomes have the advantage of simplicity (Doyle, 1977) but offer few explanations for why students learn from teaching. Typically, the correlational data have been collected using a low-inference observation system that produces a frequency measure. This approach to measurementmakes an assumption that frequency determines effects (Doyle, 1977). Using Eghan's (1988) feedback study as an example, high positive correlations between teacher feedback and student achievement would imply that more is better. Although Eghan used an expert tennis teacher in his study and reported the accuracy of the feedback, it can be argued that factors other than the total number of appropriate feedback statements are important. For example, the timing of the statement or the meaning it has to the student might be key elements in determining the effects. As indicated by Silverman, for years there has been great interest in comparing the effectiveness of teaching methods in physical education. Although it is difficult to explain the results of these studies or apply them to teacher education, researchers continue to be creative in their ability to generate variables to compare. Studying the merits of various types of individualized instruction has been a topic ofinterest. Typically, the individualized approach is compared with a traditional teaching model, and, as Silverman points out, findings have been equivocal. Specific types of individualistic approaches studied have included computer-assisted instruction (Kerns, 1989), Mosston's inclusion style ofteaching (Goldberger & Gerney, 1986), contract teaching (Yarber, 1975), programmed instruction (Landin, Lee, & Hill, 1986), and an individualistic student interaction approach Gohnson, Bjorkland, & Krotee, 1984). According to Sharpe, Hawkins, and Wiegand (1989), one reason for the inconclusiveness of result may lie in teacher variability regarding the instruction required to master nonsubject tasks or what these researchers called "systems skills." They designed a study to determine if the procedures used by teachers to teach systems skills ofan individualized method influenced academic outcomeswithin thatmethod. Findings indicated that teacher modeling during introduc-
375
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
Lee
tion of systems skills enabled students to devote more class time to the learning of motor skill content. This approach might be a necessary first step before comparing particular programs of individualized instruction. Although Silverman presents convincing evidence that research completed on the spectrum of styles shows signs of adequacy and might eventually provide insight on how students learn from teaching, similar research on the study of other decision-making approaches yields puzzling contradictions. As reported by Silverman, the Edwards and Lee (1985) data lend support for a direct instructional mode in that subjects learning with direct instruction and cuing provided by the teacher had an advantage at the conclusion of the acquisition period. This finding agreeswith evidence reported by Goldberger (1983; Goldberger Be Gerney, 1986). Consistent with other research conducted in laboratory settings (Berry, Prather, Be Bermudez, 1973; Prather, 1971; Singer Be Gaines, 1975; Singer Be Pease, 1976, 1978), however, the findings supported discovery learning as well by providing evidence that students who were required to discover solutions to problems could more effectively adapt what was learned to a new but related situation. Although this distinction was ignored by Silverman, it was probably a deliberate omission because definitions of learning and performance situations would be needed to adequately address the issue, and such a discussion could get sticky.
The Measurement of Learning andTeaching In research on teaching physical education residual gain scores calculated for each student from the pre- and post-skill test scores are most often used as measures of student learning (see Silverman, 1990, for an example). This perspective is different from views that emphasize a learning situation as one in which the student attempts to acquire a new skill or to improve a skill (Magill, 1989). This definition represents learning as a relatively pennanent change in performance as a result of practice and implies that the variable cannot be adequately measured by a skill test given immediately at the end of the unit, especially if this is the only measure used. One could argue that some of the divergent conclusions from the research on decision-making teaching models in physical education could be explained by the performance versus learning issue and the inability to separate temporary from more pennanent learning situations. Studies (Goldberger, Gerney, Be Chamberlain, 1982; Lydon Be Cheffers, 1984) where no conclusions could be drawn concerning the effects of giving learners some decisionmaking responsibility during physical education class might have shown different results if long-term learning effects had been measured. Bruner (1961) has argued for years that discovery learning helps a student acquire a heuristic approach to learning that can be transferred to new situations. Although I believe the issue of initial
376
and permanent learning effects should be given consideration in research on teaching, it would be naive to suggest that use of a transfer design would provide a solution to problems associated with the measurement of teaching. Theoretical views presented by Lee and Genevose (1988) and others (Bransford, Franks, Morris, Be Stein, 1979; Morris, Bransford, Be Franks, 1977) offer transfer-appropriate processing as a framework to explore issues related to using transfer tests to evaluate learning. The concept considers the type of processing activities promoted during practice and emphasizes that transfer will be enhanced when the situation encourages the same activities. Thus, the essence of transfer-appropriate processing for a researcher in terested in discovery teaching is that if instruction is designed to promote opportunities to solve problems, then the test given to measure the outcomes should be designed to measure the same types of activities. The whole domain of measurement and the issues involved are beginning to be examined more thoroughly by theorists in motor behavior and pedagogy. As noted by Magill (1988) and Lee and Genovese (1988), the measurement of learning question and the distinction between temporary and long-term effects has been ofinterest to researchers for decades (e.g., Tolman, 1932). Even among motor learning theorists more than one view of what constitutes a learning effect is evident in the literature. According to Christina and Shea (1988) recent views of learning emphasize development of a comprehensive account of learning that requires studying the changes occurring in performance across acquisition trials as well as the status after the acquisition period. Inferences concerninglearningand forgetting processes, according to these authors, should be made "through an integrative description of performance across acquisition and retention trials" (p. 293). The nature ofresearch on learning has been guided through the years by researchers' conceptions ofwhat learning is and how it is assessed. This debate will surely continue and is a healthy approach to seeking answers. Interest in the nature and limitations of current means of measuring teaching outcomes has also been apparent during recentyears. Shavelson etal. (1986), for instance, provide a perspective that emphasizes issues similar to the ones identified by the motor behaviorists. The first issue concerns the amount of overlap between what is taught and what is tested. A number of studies (Leinhardt Be Seewald, 1981; Schmidt, 1983) indicate that the relationship between what is taught and what is tested is stronger when the overlap measure more nearly approximates the student's actual experience. This notion seems consistent with Lee and Genovese's (1988) argument that the processing activities prompted by both the test and the practice time should be considered by researchers. A second measurement issue identified by Shavelson et al. (1986) concerns the inadequacy of
ROES: December 1991
Lee
summaryscoresas measures ofhowmuchstudentslearned and, consequently, their teacher's effectiveness. Studying students' response patterns during instruction can provide important information about the kinds of mistakes students make and the typical ways students go about learning new skills or refining those already established. This issue is consistent with Christina and Shea's (1988) notion of a comprehensive account of learning and the need for studying performance across the acquisition period. Given these concerns, I would propose that researchers focus more attention on the measurement of teaching outcomes issue, and I am surprised that it is not mentioned in the review.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
The Significance ofStudent Mediation The mediating processes paradigm described by Silverman and the studies reviewed in that subcategory offer a limited view ofstudent mediating responses. The mediational perspective was formulated as a major modification of the two-factor process-product paradigm (Wmne & Marx, 1982) and offered a way to look at what students do during instruction and how these patterns of behavior are related to achievement. One way to use a mediating structure is to relate time and student engagementvariables to achievement, and the work reviewed by Silverman uses this approach. Although this research represents an initial effort to understand important mediating elements, the use of overt, observable variables such as time utilization and task completion rates has been criticized by Doyle (1977) for its limited conceptualization. According to Doyle, the use ofobservable variables such as the quality of student engagement "reflects a preference for overt manifestations ofstudent mediating processes" (p, 175) and, although useful, are gross measures ofinformation-processing procedures. A thorough understanding of how learning occurs from teaching would require defining more precisely the student variables that might affect the quality of student engagement. It would be necessary to extend the timemediating approach to include the covert responses operating and the study of motivational, affective, and cognitive aspects ofstudent thinking during instruction. This extension of the process-product approach would require a linking ofthe classroom ecology and the cognitive and decision-making subcategories with the mediating process paradigm, and Silverman chose not to do this. In considering a broader focus for the mediating model, which I am inclined to do, other work becomes relevant. At least one study in physical education (Tousignant & Siedentop, 198~, for example) has described how students respond to various tasks presented by teachers. Task presentation provides the learner with information about the task, and findings from this research indicated thatwhereas some students listened and
RQES:December 1991
became engaged with the tasks as stated by the teacher, others found the level of difficulty inappropriate and drifted toward a modified task. In a somewhat related fashion, Greenockle, Lee, and Lomax (1990) identified motivational and background variables that influenced the extent to which students chose to participate in classroom activities defined by the teacher. Although I agree with Silverman that teacher expectancy effects in physical education have been investigated extensively, a point ignored in his review is that the influence of these effects on individual students is unclear. The pygmalion studies for the most part have not considered the student's perception or interpretation of teacher behavior. Research on student perception of instructional actions, including teacher behavior, supports the notion that students' thoughts mediate learning from teaching. One of the Martinek (1988) studies reviewed by Silverman provides some evidence to suggest that learners in high and low expectation groups perceive specific teacher behaviors in different ways. While this study described in a general wayhow student thought processes mediate teacher expectancy effects, a complete understanding is not possible without further research. Silverman described the work in student cognition as research that often focuses on cognition during class and on why activities were thought to occur. He noted correctly that studies of student cognition are not well represented in the literature but then offered a limited explanation of how the students in the two studies he chose to review mediated instruction. Students perceive and give meaning to teachers' instructional behaviors in different ways, and sometimes the interpretation by the student is not as the teacher intends. The Hanke (1987) study provides a good example of students drawing conclusions about teachers' behavior thatwere not intended by the teachers. Hanke selected critical incidents from physical education classes and interviewed students and teachers about them. They agreed on their descriptions of the incidents but differed on their perceptions of causal attributions. Although the students seldom considered the teacher's point of view, when they did the conclusions drawn about the teacher's behaviorwere not what the teacher intended. AlthoughtheLockeandJensen (1974) study did not include an achievement measure, further study using self-report data gathered from thought samples might be useful in explaining how time to learn leads to student achievement. Locke and Jensen asked students to respond to a signal during class by recalling and recording in writing their thoughtsjust before the signal. Data from the thought samples were coded into five attention categories presumed to reflect different levels of commitment to cognitive processing of instructional events. A high level reflected a commitment to processing input about the task such as planning a response. In contrast,
371
Lee
a lower level of attention involved cognitive activity with non-class-related events such as friends or ajob.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
Concluding Remarks After reviewing and interpreting the relevant information, Silverman formulated characteristics ofeffective or experienced teachers ofmotor skills. Itmight beworth asking, however, ifhe produced conclusions that would not have been anticipated by teacher educators or teachers currently teaching in the schools, even those not familiar with the research. Although the review may provide some formal base of support for current beliefs regarding what good teaching is, the conclusions derived are not impressive. First, itis surprising Silverman did not distinguish between experienced and effective teachers, though his approach throughout the paper was to allow readers to formulate their own definitions. The risk of assuming that experience changes novice teachers into experts is well documented (Berliner, 1986; Siedentop Be Eldar, 1989). Second, although documentation of the numerous forms and findings represented in RT-PE makes interesting reading, before the research can lead to a theoretical understanding ofteaching, methodological issues must be addressed more thoroughly. Silverman reported existing findings but failed to frame important issues needed to guide future research. Perhaps the review alone will stimulate further efforts.
References Adams, j. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. journal ofMotorBehavior, 3, 111-149. Berliner,D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational&searcher, 15,5-13. Berry, G. A., Prather, D. C., Be Bermudez,]. M. (1973). Effect of verbalization trial and error and prompted learning of a perceptual skill. Proceedings ofthe 81stAnnuai Conventionof tM AmericanPsychological Association, 8, 481-482. Bransford,]. D., Franks,].]., Morris, C. C., Be Stein, B. S. (1979). Some general constraints on learning and memory research. In L. S. Cermak Be F. I. M. Craig (Eds.) , Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 331-354). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brophy,j. E., Be Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement, In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handboolr.ofresearch on teaching(3rd. ed., pp. 328-374). New York: Macmillan. Bruner,]. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational &search, 31, 21-32. Christina, R. N., Be Shea, J. B. (1988). The limitations of generalization based on restricted information. &search QJsarlerly for Exercise and Sfxwt, 59, 291-297. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Rroiew of research in education (Vol. 5). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Edwards, R. V., Be Lee, A. M. (1985). The relationship of cognitive style and instructional strategy to learning and
378
transfer of motor skills. &search QJsarterly for Exercise and Sfxwt, 56, 286-290. Eghan, T. (1988). Therelationofteacherfeedbaclr.tostudentachievlment in learningselected tennisslr.ills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Goldberger, M. (1983). Directstyles ofteaching and psychomotor performance. In T. Templin Bej. Olsen (Eds.) , Teaching in physicaleducation (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, volume 14, pp. 211-223). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Goldberger, M., Be Gerney, P. (1986). The effects of direct teaching styles on motor skill acquisition of fifth grade children. &search Q)uzrterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 215219. Goldberger, M., Gerney, P., Be Chamberlain,]. (1982). The effects of three styles of teaching on the psychomotor performance and social skill development of fifth grade children. Rssearch. Q)uzrterly for Exercise and Sport, 53, 116124. Good, T. L (1979). Teacher effectiveness in the elementary school: What we know about it now. journal of Teacher Education, 30, 52-64. Greenockle, K. M., Lee, A. M., Be Lomax, R. (1990). The relationship between selected student characteristics and activity patterns in a required high school physical education class. &search QJsarterly forExercise and Sport, 61,59-69. Hanke, U. (1987). Cognitive aspects of interaction in physical education. In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, Be M.Pieron (Eds.) , Myths, models, and methods insport pedagogy (pp. 135-141). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Johnson, R. T., Bjorkland, R., Be Krotee, M. (1984). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic student interaction patterns on the achievement and attitudes of students learning the golfskill ofputting. &search QJsarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 129-134. Kerns, M. (1989). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in teaching tennis rules and strategies. journal of TeachinginPhysicalEducation, 8,170-176. Landin, D. K., Lee, A M., Be Hill, K. F. (1986). Programmed instruction vs. cohort instruction for teaching an open motor skill. TM PhysicalEducator, 43, 176-182. Lee, T. D., Be Genovese,E.D. (1988). Distribution ofpractice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered. &search QJsarterly for Exercise and Sfxwt, 59, 277-287. Leinhardt, G., Be Seewald, A (1981). Overlap: What's tested, what's taught)journalofEducationalMeasurement, 18,85-96. Locke,L. F., BeJensen,M.K. (1974). Thoughtsampling: Astudy ofstudent attention through self-report, &search QJsarterly, 45, 263-273. Lydon, M. C., Be Cheffers,]. T. F. (1984). Decision-making in elementary school-age children: Effects upon motor learning and self-concept development, &search QJsarlerly for Exercise and Sfxwt, 55, 135-140. Magill, R. A (1988). The many faces ofpractice distribution in motor learning. &search Q)uzrterlyfor Exercise and Sport. 59, 303-307. Magill, R. A. (1989). Motor learning: Concepts and applications. Dubuque, IA: Wm C. Brown. Mariani, T. (1970). A comparison of the effectiveness of the command method and the task method of teaching the
RQES: December 7991
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 08:35 02 March 2015
Lee
forehand and backhand tennis strokes. Research QJMsf1erly, 41, 171-174. Martinek, T.]. (1988). Confinnation ofa teacher expectancy model: Student perceptions and causal attributions of teaching behaviors. &search QJMsrterly forExercise and Sport, 59, 118-126. Medley, D. (1979). The effectiveness ofteachers. In P. Peterson andH.Walberg(Eds.),&searchonteaching:Concepts,findings, and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Morris, C. D., Bransford,]. D., &: Franks,].]. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal ofVerbal Learning and Verbal Behaviur, 16, 519-533. Nixon,]. E., &: Locke, L. F. (1973). Research on teaching in physical education. In M. W. Travers (Ed.) .Seamd handbook of researCh on teaChing (pp. 1210-1242). Chicago: Rand McNally. Prather, D. C. (1971). Trial and error versus errorless learning: Learning, transfer, and stress. AmericanJournal ofPsycho/" ogy, 84,377-386. Rosenshine, B., &: Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research. on teaching (pp. 122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally. Schmidt, W. (1983). Content biases in achievement tests. JournalofEducationalMeasurement, 20, 165-178. Sharpe,Jr., T. L., Hawkins, A., &: Wiegand, R (1989). Model/ practice versus verbal/rehearsal introductions of systems skills within an individually prescribed instructional system. Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 9, 25-38. Shavelson, R]., Webb, N. M., &: Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M.e. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd. ed., pp. 50-91). New York: Macmillan.
ROES: December 1991
Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. e. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookofresearch on teaching(pp. 3-36). New York.: Macmillan. Siedentop, D., &: Eldar, E. (1989). Expertise, experience, and effectiveness. Journal of TeaChing in PhysicalEducation, 8, 254-260. Silverman, S. (1990). Linear and curvilinear relationships between studentpractice and achievementin physical education. TeaChing and Teacher Education, 6, 305-314. Silverman, S. (1991). Research on teaching physical education. &search QJMsrterly for Exercise and Spurt, 62, 352-364. Singer, R N., &: Gaines, L. (1975). Effects of prompted and problem-solving approaches on learning and transfer of motor skills. AmericanEducationalResearchJourna4 12, 395403. Singer, R N., &: Pease, D. (1976). A comparison of discovery learning and guided instructional strategies on motor skill learning, retention, and transfer. &search QJMsrterly, 47, 788-795. Singer, R. N., &: Pease, D. (1978). Effect of guided discovery learning strategies on initial motor task learning, transfer, and retention. &search QJMsf1erly, 49, 206-217. Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animalsand men. New York.: Century. Tousignant, M., &: Siedentop, D. (1983). A qualitative analysis oftask structures in required secondary physical education classes. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 3, 47- 57. Wmne, P. H., &: Marx, R W. (1982). Students' and teachers' viewsof thinking processes for classroom learning. Elementary SChoolJourna' 82,493-518. Yarber, W. L. (1975). Comparing contract and traditional grading techniques for ninth grade students. Education, 95, 363-367.
379
