This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham] On: 31 January 2015, At: 17:29 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 Stephen Silverman

a

a

Curriculum and Instruction and Kinesiology and Health Education , University of Texas at Austin , Austin , TX , 78712 , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Stephen Silverman (1991) Research on Teaching in Physical Education, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62:4, 352-364, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1991.10607533 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10607533

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

RQES Forum

Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport © 1991 by the American Alliance for Health,

Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Vol. 62, No. 4, pp.352-364

Research on Teaching in Physical Education Stephen Silverman

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

This article reviews research on teachingin physical education. I first consider research methodology employed in this area and then examine research related to instructional effectioeness, classroom ecology, and cognition and decision making. Conclusions and future directions arethen presented that have implications for researchers, teachers, and teacher educators.

Key words: physical education, research on teaching, instruction, research methods

Streams and Methods for Research on Teaching Research Streams

T

h is article examines research on teaching in physical education (RT-PE)-research on whatteachersand students do and how this affects and relates to learning and the social dynamics of the class. Before beginning the task at hand, a distinction must be made between research on teacher education and research on teaching. AsI previously indicated (Silverman, 1986), research on teacher education examines the preparation and development of preservice and inservice teachers. That research includes study of the effectiveness of teacher training programs, teacher socialization, methods for providing feedback to teachers, and the process of in service teacher development. In contrast, research on teaching focuses on the teaching and learning process as directed by teachers. RT-PE includes inquiry into the preactive (planning), active (execution), and postactive (reflection) phases of instruction. This article reviews research on teaching. Those interested in research on teacher education should consult Locke (1984) and Bain (1990a) for overviews of that literature. RT-PE dates back nearly half a century (for examples, see Nixon & Locke, 1973). Its greatest growth, however, has been in the past 20 years. This growth is often traced to an article by Larry Locke published in 1977 (e.g., Lawson, 1990). Locke's article, "Research on teaching physical education: New hope for a dismal science," described a field of research then in its early stages. Yet today this field is neither "new" nor "dismal. " It has matured into a lively and fruitful enterprise.

Stephen Silverman is an associate professor of Curriculum and Instruction andKinesiology andHealth Education at The University of Texas atAustin, Austin, TX 78712

352

If you were to go back and read the 1973 review of RT-PE (Nixon & Locke, 1973), you would likely think of the field as applied motor learning research. It often consisted of comparisons between different teaching methods or teaching schedules in laboratorylike settings. Characteristic ofthat earlier research was the implementation of a treatment, measurement of dependent variables related to motor skill, and then data analysis (e.g., nonequivalent control group designs involving individuals, small groups, or intact classes, usually college students). Topics in the literature included teaching progressions and presentations, mental practice, coeducation, and preferability of Monday-Wednesday-Friday or Tuesday-Thursday for skill learning. Aside from weak designs, a significant problem with this research was that instruction was rarely monitored or verified. Consequently, the literature was rife with results that were either nonsignificant or difficult to interpret. Today, nearly two decades later, the form and focus ofRT-PE have been influenced by the wider educational research community and no longer reflect traditions of inquiry with the field of motor learning. This is not to suggest that no relationship exists between motor learning research conducted in a laboratory and research on teaching in the gymnasium. Some topics are similar-for example, the effect of feedback on learning-but the conditions for study are different. Generalizing results from a laboratory where experimental variables can be controlled to the average teacher's gymnasium violates important research assumptions. As a result, prominent scholars in motor learning and other fields (Christina, 1989;lIoffman, 1990; Locke, 1990; Magill, 1988,1990; Singer, 1990) have suggested the need for more research

ROES: December 1991

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Silverman

to test the applicability ofmotor learning research results in applied settings. Moving away from dependence on motor learning models and adapting designs and paradigms that have developed in classroom research has produced new research areas for RT-PE. These streams may be organized in several ways, as illustrated in those used for reviews of research on teaching in the classroom (Clark, 1979; Doyle, 1977; Gage, 1978, 1985; Shulman, 1986). The organization I employ here is based on those earlier frameworks, but it has been adapted to focus on the unique elements ofRT-PE. There are three major streams ofresearch in physical education: effectiveness, classroom ecology, and cognition and decision making. Figure 1 provides an overview of each and its subareas. Subareas within effectiveness research have seen the greatest (and most sustained) activity over the past two decades. This research stream includes descriptions, process-product research, research on the relationships of time and student practice variables to achievement, and comparisons. Those conducting descriptive research in RT-PE have often attempted to define the status quo-what behaviorsand actions occur in physical education classes-using systematic observation. In most situations hypotheses are not tested. The description is a first step in understanding what occurs in the gym, before relating behavior to achievement or designing an experiment. The videotape data bank series of studies led by Bill Anderson at Columbia University's Teachers College (Anderson, 1975; Anderson & Barrette, 1978a) was an early systematic effort that influenced subsequent descriptive and process-product studies.

The process-product research subarea ties teacher process variables to achievement. It originally was summarized as a model by Dunkin and Biddle (1974), and research in classrooms has beenvibrantand active (Brophy & Good, 1986; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973). Processproduct research has focused on relationships between teacher behavior and achievement and on the efficacy of different teaching methods. The third subarea of effectiveness research is time/ mediating process-product research. Time has been a critical variable in the study of teaching since Carroll (1963) discussed the interactions among time needed to learn a skill, time available to learn a skill, and student ability and perseverance. This form of RT-PE has focused on class organization and student engagement variables as they relate to student achievement. This subarea is similar to process-product research, but the focus is on how time is used and student behavior, noton teaching methods or teacher behavior. The final subarea includes comparisons that have been made among teachers, students, curricula, and settings. This classification is included under the effectiveness stream because the focus of the research is often on whether these variables influence what occurs during instruction. A second area of RT-PE has focused on classroom ecology. Entering the gymnasium and providing a rich description characterizes this research. The classroom ecology stream typically has used ethnographic or interpretive research methods. The most focused research within this stream has examined equity issues in physical education (Griffin, 1983, 1984, 1985a, 1985b). Finally, a growing stream is cognition and decision making, which has it roots in cognitive psychology.

Figure 1. RT-PE research streams Research Streams

Effectiveness

Classroom Ecology

Cognition and Decision Making

I Descriptions

Process-Product

Time! Mediating Process-Product

_ Teacher Behavior

"""" Class Organization

_ Teachers

"""" Planning

_ Teaching Methods

... Student Engagement

_ Students

....ExpertJNovice

Comparisons

Equity

Student

Teacher

_ Curriculum _ Settings

ROES: December 1991

353

Silverman

Research examining cognition can look at student cognition during or about physical education, for which there is little literature, or teacher cognition, for which the literature is growing. Often teacher cognition studies focus on planning for teaching or on differences in thought processes (while teaching or planning) between expert or novice teachers.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Research Methods/Data Collection Techniques Used for RT-PE As with other research in the social and behavioral sciences, a variety of research methods and data collection techniques are used. The most frequently used data collection techniques may be employed within a variety ofresearch designs. For example, systematic observation is used in descriptive and correlational studies and in quasi-experiments and experiments. For readers interested in reviewing research design issues, a variety ofwellwritten general references are available (e.g., Borg & Gall, 1989; Thomas & Nelson, 1990). Research methods used in RT-PE can be categorized into four general categories: (a) ethnographic/interpretive methods, (b) systematic observation, (c) cognitive techniques, and (d) testing. Other categories or subcategoriescan, however, be developed. For example, ethnographic/interpretive methods could be classified as qualitative techniques, whereas systematic observation, cognitive techniques, and testing could be considered quantitative techniques. Ethnographic or interpretive methods have received much attention in the past few years. Locke's (1989) review and the commentary that followed (Bain, 1989; Sage, 1989; Schutz, 1989; Siedentop, 1989) provided RQESreaders with an overview ofthese methods. Ethnographers utilize intensive observations ofa social setting in an attempt to understand what is occurring. Data acquisition techniques include field notes, collection oflesson plans or other materials, and interviews. The ethnographer may examine the data for regularities using methods that address the traditional issues of reliability and validity (Erickson, 1986; LeCompte & Goetz, 1982) or use analytic methods unique to ethnography (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Systematic observation ofteaching has a long history in RT-PE (e.g., Anderson, 1971, 1975; Cheffers, 1977) and in research on teaching in other fields (Evertson & Green, 1986; Medley & Mitzel, 1963; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973; Shavelson, Webb, & Burstein, 1986). It involves the use of an observation system to categorize teacher or studentbehaviorand requires direct observation ofclasses, either in person or by videotape. Systematic observation can be used to collect data about "what's going on" or to verify that a teaching method is being implemented as intended.

354

Researchers often use observation systems designed by others. Perhaps the best known systems are the Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE) system (Siedentop, Tousignant, &Parker,1982) and the Cheffers Adaptation of Flanders Interaction Analysis System (CAFIAS) (Cheffers, Mancini, &Martinek, 1980). A collection of observation systems is available (Darst, Zakrajsek, & Mancini, 1989) that focuses on many aspects of the physical education and sport setting. Brophy and Good (1986) have suggested developing observation systems to specifically address a research question; RT-PE researchers also have followed this advice. Because researchers observe and categorize the behavior they see, whether using a previously or newly developed instrument, they must pay special attention to issues of reliability and interobserver agreement during training and data collection (Frick & Semmel, 1978; Silverman, 1985c, 1987a). Cognitive research methods come from cognitive psychology (Glaser, 1976) and focus on events inaccessible by direct inspection (e.g., self-reported feelings, memories, and other cognitive processes). Cognitive research does not require observation of events in the gymnasium, but the subject must use techniques such as thinking aloud while planning, engaging in stimulated recall ofprevious teaching endeavors, or recording their thoughts for later analysis. For example, teachers may be asked to observe videotapes of classes they previously taught and report what they were thinking about just prior to changingactivities, reteaching a skill, or structuring practice. Teachers may also be audiotaped planning aloud (verbalizing all thoughts). Their techniques are often analyzed using a coding system. Researchers listen to audiotapes oruse transcripts to categorize each though t. As with systematic observation techniques, attention to issues ofobserver agreement and reliability are critical to coding procedures. Testing of psychomotor skill, knowledge, and attitudes is used to collect data in RT-PE. Many RQES readers are familiar with methods for designing reliable and valid tests. Virtually all testing in RT-PE studies has measured motor performance or sport skills. Testing primarily has been used to collect dependent variable data in effectiveness studies or to categorize teachers as more or less effective.

Interaction Between Research Streams andMethods Either the general nature of the research stream or the particular focus of a given study will often suggest, if not demand, use ofcertain research methods. As shown above, the classroom ecology stream suggests ethnographic/interpretive methods and the cognition and decision-making stream suggests the use of cognitive methods. One should not assume, however, that studies

ROES: December 1991

Silverman

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

in a research stream always use similar methods. For instance, many of the questions about teacher effectiveness have employed systematic observation and testing. Some questions about effectiveness may only be answered by ethnographic/interpretive methods. Questions of cognition may be answered by ethnography, as Placek (1984) did while examining teacher planning, or by quantitative techniques, as Housner and Griffey (1985) used in comparing cognition ofexperienced and inexperienced teachers. Too often the discussion of research alternatives has focused on the virtue of a particular method rather than on the relationship between method and the questions asked. Ultimately, however, most researchers find that the question dictates the method, not the reverse.

Results ofR1-PE The research reviewed in this section is the result of a systematic search of the RT-PE literature, especially that published in the last 15 years.. The search involved a computerized ERIC search and examination of major research outlets for RT-PE (e.g., Journal of Teaching in Physical Education and RQES) and published conference proceedings. I reviewed reference lists from each article and ofarticles to which I was pointed by the reference lists until no new articles on the subject were found. Except for a few cases, all research cited is from published studies. Unpublished papers are cited only when the work is either recent or represents the only example in the literature. Only in a few instances have dissertations been cited, although many dissertation studies pointed to published studies cited here. Those interested in reviewing an analysis of RT-PE dissertations should see Silverman (1987b). For each grouping below, the research is synthesized and the evidence is presented to reflect trends across studies. Where discrepancies occur or there is no best evidenced, the discrepancy will be noted. As in any research synthesis, definitions differ across studies and the quality of research is not constant. What follows, however, provides a knowledge base for making conclusions about teaching in physical education.

Effectiveness

Descriptions. A large body ofliterature describes physical education classes. As noted earlier, Anderson and his students (Anderson & Barrette, 1978a) undertook the first major initiative to describe the physical education environment. This work led to other descriptions, many of which were doctoral dissertations. Many behaviors occur during physical education classes (Morgenegg, 1978). Classes tend to be teacher

ROES: December 1991

centered: teachers provided explanations, demonstrations, and directions and then students engage in predictable responses while practicing (Anderson & Barrette, 1978b; Cheffers & Mancini, 1978; Lombardo & Cheffers, 1979). During practice, teachers give feedback, typically auditory and to individual students, at rates above l/min (Fishman & Toby, 1978; Silverman, Tyson, & Krampitz, 1991). As a class progresses through a unit less class time is spent on explanation and demonstration and on practice with teacher-provided feedback and more time on playing games (Oliver, 1980; Rink, 1983). Researchers have given much attention to how time is spent in physical education classes (Lee & Poto, 1988; Metzler, 1989). As Metzler (1989) concluded, students only spend a small proportion of time in motor activities related to motor skill achievement. Studies have shown that most students are engaged in motor activities less than 30% of the time, less than 15% of which is spent engaged at an appropriate level (Godbout, Brunelle, & Tousignant, 1987; Pieron & Haan, 1979; Placek, Silverman, Dodds, Shute, & Rife, 1982; Shute, Dodds, Placek, Rife, & Silverman, 1982). Other studies have shown only slightly higher percentages for total engagementand appropriate engagement (Aufderheide, 1983; Godbout, Brunelle, & Tousignant, 1983). Across studies, 25% or less of class time is spent in explanation/demonstration or receiving information and as much as one third of class time is spent waiting (Godbout et al., 1983; Pieron & Haan, 1979; Placek et al., 1982; Shute et al., 1982; Silverman, Tyson, & Morford, 1988). Doyle's work (1983) has influenced physical education researchers to investigate academic tasks. Studies byTousignantandSiedentop (1983) and Graham (1987) have indicated that academic task structures (structures identifying the types of work students perform) are identifiable. They found that students modified the tasks presented by the teacher (Tousignant& Siedentop, 1983) and that when teachers differentiated tasks for students it affected students' response rate (Graham, 1987). In addition, Hastie and Saunders (1990) found that teacher proximity while monitoring practice increased student task completion. This stream of research promises to provide further descriptions and an understanding ofrelationships to achievement in physical education. Process-product research. Following the descriptions of teacher behavior, researchers have studied teacher behaviors and their relationship to achievement in physical education. This process-productresearch is correlational: adjusted posttest scores are correlated with teacher behavior. When teachers used organization patterns that permitted only a few students to practice at a time, class size was negatively related to achievement (Silverman, 1988). Research specifically examining teacher behavior and achievement had mixed results. Oliver (1980) and Taylor (1976) have shown that explanations and demon-

355

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Silverman

strations by the teacher relate to learning. Werner and Rink (1989) found, however, that inaccurate and global teacher statements do not aid learning. Yerg (1981a; 1981b; Yerg & Twardy, 1982), however, found that none of the teacher behaviors measured predicted achievement. In addition, studies of teacher feedback have not shown feedback to be a major predictor of achievement (Eghan, 1988; Silverman etal., 1991). Some researchers have suggested that focusing only on teacher behaviors will yield limited results (Rink & Werner, 1987; Shulman, 1986) for understanding effectiveness. As will be discussed in the next section, variables related to time have been more promising in helping understand student achievement. As indicated by Nixon and Locke (1973) there has been great interest in comparing the effectiveness of teaching methods in physical education. That interest has continued. Investigations of this nature typically comparewhether treatments produce differential achievement on motor skill, a proxy measure of motor skill achievement (e.g., ALT-PE, with the assumption that greater ALT-PE results in greater achievement), or attitude. There are many such method comparisons in the literature. Only published studies where observation was used to verify the treatment (method) are considered in this review. Some studies have examined teaching methods, and no difference in achievement was found among the methods, or the results did not provide strong conclusions (Kerns, 1989; Landin, Lee, & Hill, 1986; Lydon & Cheffers, 1984; Madden & McGown, 1989; Masser, 1987). Other programs of research have found consistent results. The research completed by Goldberger (1983; Goldberger & Gerney, 1986) on the spectrum of teaching styles (Mosston & Ashworth, 1986) is a particularly good example. Practice style teaching produced the greatest achievement, and reciprocal teaching also was superior to inclusion style for learning basic motor skill. The reciprocal style also may promote social interaction, although the effect may not last (Goldberger, 1983). In addition, for practice style both teacher-rotated and learner-rotated practice were equally effective for learning motor skill, exceptfor low achievers for whom learner rotation was superior (Goldberger & Gerney, 1990). Beckett (1991), completing research on college students, found that practice and inclusion styles were equally effective for learning a motor skill but that inclusion style resulted in greater knowledge gains. Although these results indicate teaching styles, Salter and Graham (1985) found no differences in achievement on a novel golf task among the command and guided discovery styles and a no instruction (control) group. The short duration of their treatment may have been responsible for these discrepancies. Other studies have shown students learned more with prompted learning than with trial and error learn-

356

ing (Edwards & Lee, 1985) and that goal setting and performance standardswere beneficialfor learning motor skill (Boyce, 1990; Edwards, 1988). In addition,Johnson, Bjorkland, and Krotee (1984) suggested that cooperative learning showed promise for increasing skill, and Mancini, Cheffers, and Zaichkowski (1976) showed increased decision making by students improved their attitude toward physical education. When ALT-PE was measured as a proxy for learning, a model/practice approach was superior to a verbal/rehearsal approach (Sharpe, Hawkins, & Wiegand, 1989), and preservice teachers who gave more feedback were more effective (Paese, 1987). It is possible another variable, perhaps student practice or engagement, is the important mediator in making one method superior to another for learning motor skill. Time/mediatingprocess-produc: research. Research related to time and student engagement variables has shown the most promising results for predicting achievement. A large study of class organization by Silverman et al. (1988) found that time spent in practice with feedback was positively related to motor skill achievement and that the type of practice was important (e.g., scrimmagegamelike situation with feedback-was negatively related to achievement). In addition, time spent in explanation and demonstration was related to learning, as was time spent in previewing and reviewing at the beginning and end of class. Analyses performed at the student level support these class-level effects. Overwhelming evidence indicates that the amount of time students spend practicing (either measured by time or the number of practice trials) at an appropriate or successful level is positively related to student achievement and that inappropriate or unsuccessful practice is negatively related to achievement (Ashy, Lee, & Landin, 1988; Buck, Harrison, & Bryce, 1991; Dugas, 1984; Pieron, 1983; Silverman, 1985b, 1990). The quality of the student engagement is more important than the total practice (Ashy et al., 1988; Silverman, 1990), and nonlinear relationships supportingthesefindingshave been identified (Silverman, 1990). Results ofa few studies (Godbout et al., 1987; Yerg, 1983; Yerg & Twardy, 1982) do not support the hypothesis that engaged time relates to achievement. The data in these studies, however, used composite engagement variables that did not differentiate the quality of student engagement. The combination ofengagement and quality is a strong indicator ofachievement and may mediate the effect of many teaching methods. Comparisons. A variety ofstudies have made comparisons across teacher and student subgroups. A smaller number of studies have examined differences in curricula or settings. Studies comparing teachers most often have examined differences in teaching behavior between experienced and inexperienced teachers and between physical education specialists and nonspecialists. As with most of the research cited in this article, many studies

RaES: December 1991

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Sl7verman

were conducted with elementary or middle school students. Studies comparing physical education specialists to elementary classroom teachers teaching physical education have, for the most part, shown that specialists display what would be considered more effective behaviors. For instance, studies show that specialists provided a more detailed description of skill (Block & Beckett, 1990), spent more time on skill practice (Placek & Randall, 1986), and had higher percentages of more effective teaching behaviors and higher activity levels (Faucette & Patterson, 1990). Other studies comparing specialists and nonspecialists showed no differences in the curriculum implemented (Faucette, McKenzie, & Patterson, 1990) or in student attitudes (Patterson & Faucette, 1990). A great deal of evidence suggests that teachers categorized as more effective (by ratings, observation, or achievement data) or more experienced show different teaching behaviors than inexperienced teachers. Research has shown that the more experienced (expert) teacher betteranalyzed studentneeds (Phillips & Carlisle, 1983), provided higher engaged or activity time and greater student practice (Paese, 1986; Phillips & Carlisle, 1983; Pieron, 1982), organized class so that students had less wait time (Graham, Soares, & Harrington, 1983) and produced greater achievement (Gusthart & Springings, 1989). Although within each study there are instances of no differences between experienced and inexperienced teachers, there is no evidence that inexperienced or beginning teachers are more effective. Many studies compared student subgroups (based on skill level, sex, special needs status, etc.) and examined teacher behavior directed toward different groups or determined student behavior among the subgroups. The research program directed by Martinek has shown consistent effects documenting a "pygmalion effect" in physical education, where teacher expectancy affects teacherbehaviors (Crowe, 1979; Martinek, 1988; Martinek & Johnson, 1979; Martinek & Karper, 1984). Others (Cousineau & Luke, 1990; Harrington, 1987) provide evidence to support the results of Martinek and his associates. Some evidence suggests that different student subgroups receive different amounts of teacher behavior and spend their time differently in physical education classes. Studies have shown that high skilled students spend more time on-task than moderate or low skilled students (Graham, 1987; Grant, Ballard, & Glynn, 1989; Shute etal., 1982; Telama, Varstala, Heikinaro-Johansson, & Utriainen, 1987), whereas other studies (Placek et al., 1982; Silverman, Dodds, Placek, Shute, & Rife, 1984) have shown no differences in participation patterns based on skill level. Skill level has mediated relationships of achievement with engagement variables (Silverman, 1985a; 1985b) and among teachers (Rink, Werner, Hohn,

RDES: December 1991

Ward, & Timmermans, 1986). Differences in engagement have been found favoring students without special needs in one study (Silverman et al., 1984); another found similar trends (Knowles, Aufderheide, & McKenzie, 1982). Results were mixed, however, when teacher behavior directed to subgroups of students was analyzed and when expectancy effects were not specifically investigated (Allard, 1979; MacDonald, 1990; Oien, 1979; Pieron, 1982; Telama etal., 1987). Although these results are not clear, it appears students generally receive equitable treatment. We can conclude, however, that if differences exist, the higher skilled, more able student receives the more desirable behaviors or participation patterns. There is almost no evidence that those students starting with a "deficit" are receiving instruction to compensate. Comparisons among curriculaand settingsare notas well represented in the literature. Engagement differences have been found for activity units (Pieron & Haan, 1979; Silverman et al., 1984) and between elementary and secondary schools (Godbout etal., 1983) . Because of the small data base, it is not possible to reach any conclusions. Effectiveness summary. This research stream has been active over the past two decades. We have many descriptions and know a lot about instructional effectiveness in physical education. From the literature we can conclude that teachers who present a clear explanation and demonstration, allocate time for motor skill practice, and structure practice so that students are appropriately or successfully engaged will promote student learning. In addition, although some studies report inequitable teaching, attention to maximizing the characteristics noted above-for all students-should result in increased learning.

Classroom Ecology As indicated earlier, the classroom ecology stream is identified with ethnographic or interpretive research methods. As Locke (1989) noted, use ofthese methods in physical education has focused on teacher education as well as teaching. In fact, the body ofethnographic literature on teacher education far exceeds that on teaching. Locke (1975) completed the first RT-PE effort to study ecology. During in-depth observation he identified the gymnasium as a complex place where teachers move from one activity to another, where great diversity exists among students, where the nature of the subject matter makes physical education class differentfrom otherclasses in the school because ofspace and noise considerations, and where time constraints have an impact on all facets of instruction and curriculum development. In characterizing the life of physical education teachers he notes that there is little face-to-face exchange with other adults and little time available for reflection. Locke's report provides an overview ofphysical education that would be

351

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Silverman

difficult to obtain with more focused quantitative observations. Griffin (1983,1984, 1985a, 1985b) has investigated ecology as it relates to equity issues in physical education. Her work has identified differential participation styles for boys and girls and a variety of sex related interaction patterns. The results suggest that behavior for both boys and girls in a middle school spans a spectrum from serious participation to attempts to avoid participation. Stereotypical sex role behaviors also are identified. Her three articles focusing on middle school participation (Griffin, 1983, 1984, 1985a) are essential reading for anyone interested in understanding equity in physical education. A recent article (McBride, 1990) using quantitative methods, but based on Griffin's earlier work, provides encouraging data regarding equity in physical education.

Cognition andDecision Making Research that examines student or teacher cognition and decision making can use either qualitative or quantitative methodologies. The research often focuses on cognition during class and why activities were thought to occur, on how teachers plan and modify plans during teaching, or it compares thought processes during planning or class for experienced and inexperienced teachers. Studies of student cognition are not well represented in the literature. A study by Hanke (1987) showed that students and teachers did not agree on the cause of incidents during physical education classes. An earlier study (Locke &Jensen, 1974) showed thatstudent thoughts during instruction could be measured and classified and that there were differences in student attention to the task during classes focusing on different content. A study of teacher planning in physical education by Placek (1984) showed that teachers planned before school, did so mentally instead of in writing, and spent only small amounts of time planning. Student behavior (enjoyment, participation, and misbehavior) and practical considerations (equipment and instructional organization) were important concerns in all planning decisions. Other research on planning showed that planning positivelyinfluenced lessons (Imwold etal., 1984; Twardy & Yerg, 1987) and that different planning strategies for skill implementation resulted in differences in student participation (Metzler & Young, 1984). The literature comparing novices and experienced teachers' thought processes clearly shows that experienced teachers make more planning decisions, request more information to make plans specific to the students, and attend to cues about performance more frequently than do novices (Griffey & Housner, 1990, 1991; Housner & Griffey, 1985; Sherman, Sipp, & Taheri, 1987) .Boggess, Griffey, and Housner (1986) found that student motor ability was important to experienced teachers in making

358

monitoring decisions during instruction. In addition, Solmon and Lee (1991) found that experienced adapted physical educators had a better knowledge base and a superior repertoire ofteaching strategies than did novice adapted physical educators. In their study the experienced teachers also built contingency plans based on student skill level, whereas the novices did not. Experienced teachers clearly consider more variables and options when planning a lesson. This suggests teachers become better planners with more experience and provide areas on which to focus novices' attention when teaching them to plan.

Summary The last two decades have seen RT-PE grow and prosper. The enterprise has been vigorous (Placek & Locke, 1988) and much has been learned. Attempting to summarize or draw conclusions across thevarious streams of research could be dangerous. All the cautions about research generalizability certainly hold true here. Tossing caution to the wind, however, I illustrate characteristics of effective or experienced teachers of motor skill in Figure 2. The characteristics are derived from comparisons of more and less effective/experienced teachers, studies of teaching methods, and correlational studies relating teacher and student behavior to achievement. I onlyaddress effectiveness in teaching motor skill because it is not possible to draw even tenuous conclusions about knowledge or attitude based on the few available studies in physical education. Readers should note that many of the items in Figure 2 are interrelated. For instance, planning for management and learning may result in using certain teaching styles that then may influence the ability to provide accurate and focused explanations and demonstrations and time for practice. This, in turn, will influence whether students' appropriate practice is maximized and inappropriate practice andwaiting minimized. No one characteristic should be considered in isolation. Figure 2. Characteristics ofeffective or experienced teachers of

motor skills • Plan forclass management andstudentlearning • Anticipate situations and make contingency plans • Are aware ofstudent skill differences and use the information inplanning and monitoring • Require much information to plan • Have a repertoire ofteaching stylesand know when to use them • Provide accurate andfocused explanations and demonstrations • Provide adequate time forstudentpractice • Maximize appropriate studentpractice or engagement • Minimize inappropriate student practice or engagement • Minimize studentwaiting

ROES: December 1991

Silverman

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Concluding Comments All the advances of the past few years should not be taken for granted. Replication of results across grade levels and subject matters is needed. As others (Locke, 1987; Metzler, 1989) have indicated we should not too quickly abandon process-product or time/mediating process-product research. In addition, understanding the interrelationships among teaching style, teacher behavior, student engagement and practice, and achievement seems a particularly fertile area for investigation in the effectiveness stream. We have little research on student achievement for goals other than motor skill. Effectiveness research addressing knowledge and attitudes is needed. Validation studies of instrumentation for testing knowledge and effect are an important and necessary prelude to effectiveness studies with cognitive or affective variables. The growing area of research on teacher thinking has shown promise toward helping us understand how effective teachers make decisions. More research tying decision making to other variables, such as that recently reported by Griffey and Housner (1991), would be a valuable addition to the literature. In addition, research on student cognition is wide open for exploration and needs to be pursued. Although teacher education research using ethnographic/interpretive techniques is expanding greatly, the study of classroom ecology in physical education has stagnated. This stream and method can help us understand physical education from the perspectives of teachers and students. Some questions about effectiveness (or when students think the class is effective and they are learning) and attitude can only be investigated from this perspective. There has been a great deal of discussion within the RT-PE community about using critical theory research techniques to examine empowerment issues (for a discussion of critical theory research, see Anderson, 1989 andBain, 1990b).Proponentsofthisresearch (e.g., Bain, 1988, 1990b; Kirk, 1989; Kirk & Tinning, 1990; Schempp, 1987; Sparkes, 1989) primarily have focused their discussion on ideology and method. Some leaders in the teaching-teacher education field (O'Sullivan, Locke, & Siedentop, 1991; Siedentop, 1987) have taken exception to both the logic and tone ofthe discussion. Asyetno RTPE study has been published in this field (Bain, 1989), but the lively discussion suggests this may be an emerging RT-PE research stream. The RT-PE community should continue to insist on increased rigor no matter which questions are asked or which research methods are used. No one perspective or research method will answer all questions, and each method has limitations. Attempts to approach RT-PE questions from multiple perspectives and with multiple methods should be welcomed.

RDES: December 1991

The RT-PE community should be happy with its progress. We need, however, to continue to ask good questions, conduct research in school environments, and find ways to synthesize and communicate results to public school practitioners and teacher educators. Our work has borne fruit-we must continue to harvest results and disseminate them to our colleagues.

References Allard, R. (1979). Aneed to look at dyadic interactions. In R. H. Cox (Ed.), Symposium papers: Teachingbehaviorand'UJOfTle1I, in spart (pp. 13-16). Washington, DC: AAHPERD. Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. ReviewofEducationalResearch, 59, 249-270. Anderson, W.G. (1971). Descriptive-analytic research on teaching. QJ.ust, 15, 1-8. Anderson, W.G. (1975). Videotape data bank.JO'u:rnalofPhysical Education and Recreation, 46(7),31-304. Anderson, W. G., & Barrette, G. T. (Eds.). (1978a). What's going on in gym: Descriptivestudies of physicaleducation classes. MotorSkills:Theury Into Practice, Monograph 1. Anderson, W. G., & Barrette, G. T. (1978b). Teacher behavior. In W. G. Anderson & G. Barrette (Eds.), What's going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education clasess. MotorSlr.ills: Theory Into Practice, Monograph I, 25-38. Ashy,M. H., Lee,A. M, & Landin, D. K. (1988). Relationships of practice using correct technique to achievement in a motor skill.Journal of Teachingin PhysicalEducation, 7,115120. Aufderheide, S. (1983). ALT-PE in mainstreamed physical education classes.Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, Monograph I, 22-26. Bain, L. L. (1988). Beginning the journey: Agenda for 2001.

QJ.ust, 40,96-106.

Bain, L. L. (1989). Interpretive and critical research in sport and physical education. Research QJ.uzrterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 21-24.

Bain, L.L. (1990a). Physicaleducation teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbookofnsearchon teacher education (pp. 758-781). New York: Macmillan. Bain, L. L. (1990b, April). The impactand implications of research on teachingand teacher educationin physicaleducation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Beckett, K. D. (1991). The effects of two teaching styles on college students' achievement of selected physicaleducation outcomes. Journal of Teachingin PhysicalEducation, 10, 153-169. Block,K. K., & Beckett, K. D. (1990). Verbal descriptions of skill by specialists and nonspecialists. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 10, 21-37.

Boggess,T. E., Griffey, D. C, & Housner, L. D. (1986). The influence ofteachers perceptions of student temperament on managerial decision-making.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation, 5, 140-148. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

359

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Silverman

Boyce, B. A. (1990). The effects of instructor-set goals on skill acquisition and retention of a selected shooting task. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 9, 115-122. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd. ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan. Buck, M., Harrison,J. M., & Bryce, G. R. (1991).An analysis of learning trials and their relationship to achievement in volleyball. Journal ofTea ching in Physical Education, 10, 134152. Carroll,J.B. (1963).Amodelofschoollearning. Teachers College Record, 64,723-733. Cheffers, J. (1977). Observing teaching systematically. QJust, 28,17-28. Cheffers, J. T. F., & Mancini, V. H. (1978). Teacher-student interaction. In W. G. Anderson & G. Barrette (Eds.) , What's going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education clasess, Motor SJr.ills: Theury Into Practice, Monograph 1, 39-50. Cheffers, J., Mancini, V., & Martinek, T. (1980). Interaction ana9sis: An application to nonverbal activity (2nd ed.), St Paul: Association for Productive Teaching. Christina, R. W. (1989). Whatever happened to applied research in motor learning? InJ. S. Skinner, C. B. Corbin, D. M. Landers, P. E. Martin, & C. L. Wells (Eds.), Future directions in exerciseand sport science research (pp. 411-422). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Clark, C.M. (1979). Five faces of research on teaching. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 29-32. Cousineau, W.]., & Luke, M. D. (1990). Relationships between teacher expectations and academic learning time in sixth grade physical education basketball classes.JournalofTeaching in Physical Education, 9, 262-271. Crowe, P. B. (1979). An observational study ofteachers' expectancyeffects and their mediating mechanisms. In R. H. Cox (Ed.),Symposiumpapers:Teachingbehaviorandwomeninsport (pp. 17-21). Washington, DC: AAHPER. Darst, P., Zakrajsek, D., & Mancini, V. (1989). Analyzingphysical education and sport instruction (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review ofresearchin education (Vol. 5, pp.163-198). Itasca, IL: Peacock. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199. Dugas, D. M.(1984). Relationships among process and product variables in an experimental teaching unit. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2709A. (University Microfilms No. 84-00,193) Dunkin, M.J., & Biddle, B.]. (1974). The study ofteaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Edwards, R. (1988). The effects of performance standards on behavior patterns and motor skill achievement in children. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 90-102. Edwards, R. V., & Lee, A. M. (1985). The relationship of cognitive style and instructional strategy to learning and transfer of motor skills. Research Q!J.arterly for Exercise and sport, 56, 286-290.

360

Eghan, T. (1988). Therelationofteacherfeedbaclttostudentachievlment in learning selectedtennis skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching.In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbooltofresearchonteaching (Srd, ed., 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Evertson, C. M., & Green,]. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbooltofresearch on teaching (3rd. ed., pp. 162-213). New York: Macmillan. Faucette,N., McKenzie, T. L., &Patterson,P. (1990). Descriptive analysis of nonspecialist elementary physical education teachers' curricular choices and class organization. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 9, 284-293. Faucette, N., & Patterson, P. (1990). Comparing teaching behaviors and student activity levels in classes taught by physical education specialists versus nonspecialists. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 9, 106-114. Fishman, S., & Toby, C. (1978). Augmented feedback. In W. G. Anderson & G. Barrette (Eds.), What's going on in gym: Descriptive studies of physical education clasess. Motor Sltills: Theury Into Practice, Monograph 1,51-62. Frick, T., & Semmel, M. I. (1978). Observer agreement and reliabilities of classroom observation measures. Review of EducationalResearch, 48,157-184. Gage, N. L. (1978). Tbe scientific basis ofthe art ofteaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Gage, N. L. (1985). Hard gains in the soft sciences: The case of pedagogy. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan. Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction, Review ofEducational Research, 46, 1-24. Godbout, P., Brunelle,]., & Tousignant, M. (1983). Academic learning time in elementary and secondary physical education classes. ResearchQ!J.arter9forExerciseandsport, 57, 11-19. Godbout, P., Brunelle,]., & Tousignant, M. (1987). Who benefits from passing through the program? In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, & M. Pieron (Eds.), Myths, models, and methods in sport pedagogy (pp. 183-187). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Goldberger, M. (1983). Direct stylesofteaching and psychomotor performance. In T. Templin&J. Olson (Eds.) , Teaching in physical education (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, volume 14, pp. 211-223).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Goldberger, M., & Gerney, P. (1986). The effects of direct teaching styles on motor skill acquisition of fifth grade children. Research QJJ.arterly for Exercise and sport, 57, 215219. Goldberger, M., & Gerney, P. (1990). Effects oflearner use of practice time on skill acquisition of fifth grade children. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 10, 84-95. Graham, G., Soares, P., & Harrington, W. (1983). Experienced teachers' effectiveness with intact classes: An ETU study. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 2(2), 3-14. Graham, K. C. (1987). A description of academic work and student performance during a middle school volleyball unit. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 7,22-37. Grant, B. C., Ballard, K D., & Glynn, T. L. (1989). Student behavior in physical education lessons: A comparison among student achievement groups. Journal ofEducational Research, 82, 216-226.

ROES: December 1991

Silverman

Griffey, D. C., & Housner, L D. (1990, March). Sequential

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

planning among experienced teachers: Teaching is not clinical problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, New Orleans. Griffey, D. C., & Housner, L. D. (1991). Differences between experienced and inexperienced teachers planning decisions, interactions, student engagement, and instructional climate. Research ~lyforExercise and Sport, 62, 196-204. Griffin, P. S. (1983). "Gymnastics is a girl's thing": Student participation and interaction patterns in a middle school gymnastics unit. In T. Templin &J. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in physical education (Big Ten body of knowledge symposiumseries,volume 14, pp. 71-75).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Griffin, P. S. (1984). Girls' participation patterns in a middle school team sports unit. journal of Teaching in Physical Educa#on, 4, 30-38. Griffin, P.S. (1985a). Teachers' perceptions ofand responses to sex equity problems in a middle school physical education program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 103110. Griffin, P.S. (1985b). Boys' participation styles in a middle school physical education team sports unit. journal of Teach.inginPhysicalEducation, 4,100-110. Gusthart,j. L., & Springings, E.J. (1989). Student learning as a measure of teacher effectiveness in physical education. journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 8, 298-311. Hanke, U. (1987). Cognitive aspects of interaction in physical education. In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, & M. Pieron (Eds.), Myths, models, and methods in sportpedagogy (pp. 135-141). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Harrington, W. M. (1987). An ethnographic study of one teacher and two classes. In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, & M. Pieron (Eds.), Myths, models, and methods in sport pedagogy (pp. 225-229). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hastie,P.A., & Saunders,J. E. (1990). A study ofmonitoring in secondary school physical education classes. journal of Classroom Interaction, 25,47-54. Hoffman,S.J. (1990). Relevance, application, and the developmentofan unlikely theory. QJust, 42, 143-160. Housner, L D., & Griffey, D. C. (1985). Teacher cognition: Differences in planning and interactive decision making between experienced and inexperienced teachers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 45-53. Imwold, C. H., Rider, R. A., Twardy, B. M., Oliver, P. S., Griffin, M., & Arsenault, D. N. (1984). The effect of planning on the teaching behavior of preservice physical education teachers. journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 4, 50-56. johnson, R. T., Bjorkland, R., & Krotee, M. (1984). The effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic student interaction patterns on the achievement and attitudes of students learning the golfskillofputting. ResearchQuarlerly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 129-134. Kerns, M. (1989). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in teaching tennis rules and strategies. journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 170-176. Kirk, D. (1989). The orthodoxy in RT-PE and the research/ practice gap: A critique and an alternative view. journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 123-130.

ROES: December 1991

Kirk, D., &Tinning, R. (Eds.). (1990). Physical education,

C'UnlC'U-

lum and culture: Critical issues and contemporary crisis. New

York: Falmer Press. Knowles, C. J., Aufderheide, S. K., & McKenzie, T. (1982). Relationship of individualized teaching strategies to academic learning time for mainstreamed handicapped and nonhandicapped students. journal ofSpeci4lEducation, 16, 449456. Landin, D. K., Lee, AM., & Hill, K. F. (1986). Programmed instruction vs. cohort instruction for teaching an open motor skill. The Physical Educator, 43, 176-182. Lawson, H. A. (1990). Sport pedagogy research: From information-gathering to useful knowledge. journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 1-20.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz,J.P. (1982). Problems ofreliability and validity in ethnographic research. ReuiewofEducational Research, 52, 31-60. Lee, A. M., & Poto, C. (1988). Instructional time research in physical education: Contributionsandcurrentissues. QJust, 40,63-73.

lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Locke, L. F. (1975). TheecowKJofthegymnasium: What the tourists neversee.Amherst, MA: University ofMassachusetts. (ERIC DocummentReproduction No. ED 104-823) Locke, L.F. (1977). Research on teaching physical education: New hope for a dismal science. QJust, 28, 2-16. Locke, L F. (1984). Research on teaching teachers: Where are we now? journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph 2. Locke, L. F. (1987). The future of research on pedagogy: Balancing on the cutting edge. In M.J. Safrit&H. H. Eckert (Eds.) , ThecuUingedgeinphysicaleducationandexercisescience research (American Academy ofPhysical Education Papers No. 20, pp. 83-95). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Locke, L. F. (1989). Qualitative research as a form of scientific inquiry in sport and physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 1-20.

Locke, L. F. (1990). Why motor learning is ignored: A case of ducks, naughty theories, and unrequited love. QJust, 42, 134-142. Locke,L.F.,&jensen,M.K. (1974). Thoughtsampling:Astudy ofstudent attention through self-report. Research. Quarterly, 45, 263-275. Lombardo, B.J., & Cheffers,J. T. F. (1979). The observation and description of teaching behaviors ofselected physical education teachers. In R. H. Cox (Ed.), Symposium papers: Teaching behavior and women in sport (pp, 32-36). Washington, DC: AAHPER. Lydon, M. C., & Cheffers,J. T. F. (1984). Decision-making in elemen tary school-age children: Effects on motorlearning and self-concept development. Research ~ly for Exerciseand sport, 55, 135-140. MacDonald, D. (1990). The relationship between the sex composition of physical education classes and teacher pupil verbal interaction. journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 9,152-163. Madden, G., & McGown, C. (1989). The effect of the inner game method versus the progressive method on learning motor skills. journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 9, 3948.

361

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Silverman

Magill, R. A. (1988, September). Research. evidence with implications for teacher effectiveness and motor learning researchers. Paper presented at the Seoul Olympic Scientific Congress, Seoul, South Korea. Magill, R. A (1990). Motor learning is meaningful for physical educators. Quest. 42,126-133. Mancini, V. H., Cheffers,J. T. F., & Zaichkowski, L. D. (1976). Decisionmaking in elementary children: Effects on attitudes and interactions. &search Q!Jarterly, 47, 80-85. Martinek, T.]. (1988). Confirmation ofa teacher expectancy model: Student perceptions and causal attributions of teaching behaviors. &search Q!Jarterlyfor Exercise and sport, 59, 118-126. Martinek, T.J., &Johnson,S.B. (1979). Teacher expectations: Effects on dyadic interactions and self-concept in elementary age children. Research. Q!Jarterly, 50, 60-70. Martinek, T.J., & Karper, W. B. (1984). Multivariate relationships ofspecific impression cueswith teacher expectations and dyadic interactions in elementary education classes. &search Q}£arterly for Exercise and Sport. 55, 32-40. Masser, L. (1987). The effect ofrefinement on student achievement in a fundamental motor skill in grades K through 6. Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 6,174-182. McBride, R. E. (1990). Sex-role stereotyping behaviors among elementary.junior, and senior high school physical education specialists. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 9, 249-261. Medley, D., & Mitzel, H. (1963). Measuring classroom behavior by systematic observation. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbookof research on teaching (pp, 247-328). Chicago: Rand McNally. Metzler, M. (1989). A review of research on time in sport pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 8, 87103. Metzler, M., & Young,]. C. (1984). The relationship between teachers preactive planning and student process measures. &search Q!Jarterly for Exercise and Sport. 55, 356-364. Morgenegg, B. L. (1978). Pedagogical moves. In W. G. Anderson & G. Barrette (Eds.) , What's going on in gym? Descriptive studies ofphysical education classes. MotorSkills: Theory Into Practice, Monograph 1, 63-74. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teachingphysicaleducation (3rd ed.). Columbus: Merrill. Nixon,]. E., & Locke, L. F. (1973). Research on teaching in physical education. In M. W. Travers (Ed.) ,Secondhandbook of research on teaching (pp. 1210-1242). Chicago: Rand McNally. Oien, F. M. (1979). Teacher directed behavior toward individual students. In R. H. Cox (Ed.), Symposium papers: Teaching behaviorand women in sport (pp. 22-26). Washington, DC: AAHPER. Oliver, B. (1980, April). Process-outcome relationships and motor slcills learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, Boston. O'Sullivan, M., Locke, L. F., & Siedentop, D. (1991,January). Toward collegiality: Competingviewpoints a1Mngteacher educators. Paper presented at the Association In temationale des Ecoles Superieures d'Education Physique/National Asscr ciation ofPhysical Education in Higher Education World Congress, Atlanta. Paese, P. C. (1986). Comparison of teacher behavior and criterion process variables in an experimental teaching

362

unit (ETU) taught by preservice physical education majors at the entrance and exit levels. In M. Pieron & G. Graham (Eds.), Sportpedagogy (The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings, Vol. 6, pp. 71-76). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Paese, P. C. (1987). Specific teacher feedback's effect on academic learning time and on a novel motor skill. In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, & M. Pieron (Eds.), Myths, models, and methods in sportpedagogy (pp. 207-213). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Patterson, P., & Faucette, N. (1990). Children's attitudes toward physical activity in classes taught by specialists versus nonspecialists P.E. teachers. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 9, 324-331. Phillips, D. A., & Carlisle, C. (1983). A comparison of physical education teachers categorized as most and least effective. Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 2(3),55-67. Pieron, M. (1982). Effectiveness of teaching a psychomotor task: Study in a micro-teaching setting. In M. Pieron &]. Cheffers (Eds.), Studying the teaching in physical education (pp. 79-89). Liege, Belgium: Association Internationale des Superieures d'Education Physique. Pieron, M. (1983). Effectiveness of teaching a psychomotor task. In R. Telama, V. Varstala.], Tiainen, L. Laakso, & T. Haajanen (Eds.), &search in school physical education (pp. 222-227).Jyvskyl, Finland: Foundation for the Promotion of Physical Culture and Health. Pieron, M., & Haan,J. (1979,July). Interactionsbetween teacher and students in a physical education seUing: Observation of student behaviors. Paper presented at the International Council of Health, Physical Education, and Recrecration Congress, Kiel, FRG. Placek,J. H. (1984). A multi-case study of teacher planning in physicaleducation.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation, 4,39-49. Placek,]. H., & Locke, L. F. (1988). Research on teaching physical education: New knowledge and cautious optimism. Journal ofTeacher Education, 37( 4), 24-28. Placek,]. H., & Randall, L. (1986). Comparison of academic learning time in physical education: Students ofspecialists and nonspecialists. Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 5,157-165. Placek,J., Silverman, S., Dodds,P., Shute, S., & Rife, F. (1982). Active learning time in a traditional elementary physical education setting: A descriptive analysis. Journal of ClassroomInteraction, 17(2),41-47. Rink,]. E. (1983). The stability of teacher behavior over a unit ofinstruction. In T. Templin &]. Olson (Eds.) , Teachingin physicaleducation (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, volume 14, pp. 318-328). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Rink,]. E., &Werner, P. (1987). Student responses as a measure of teacher effectiveness. In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, & M. Pieron (Eds.) , Myths, 1Mdels, and methods in sport pedagogy (pp. 199-206). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Rink,]. E., Werner, P. H., Hohn, R. C., Ward, D.S., & Timmermans, H. M. (1986). Differential effects of three teachers over a unit of instruction. &search Q!Jarterly for Exercise and Sport. 57, 132-138.

ROES: December 1991

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Silverman

Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In M. W. Travers (EeL), Second handhoo1c of nsearch on teaching (pp. 122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally. Sage, G. H. (1989). A commentary on qualitative research as a form of scientific inquiry in sport and physical education. Research 0'arterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 25-29. Salter, W. B., & Graham, G. (1985). The effects of three disparate instructional aproaches on skill attempts and student learning in an experimental teaching unit. Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 4,212-218. Schempp, P. G. (1987). Research on teaching in physical education: Beyond the limits ofnatural science. Journal of TeachinginPhysicalEducation, 6, 109-110. Schutz, R. W. (1989). Qualitative research: Comments and controversies. Research Qy,arterlyforExercise and Sport, 60, 30M. Sharpe,Jr., T. L., Hawkins, A,., & Wiegand, R. (1989). Modell practice versus verbal/rehearsal introductions of systems skills within an individually prescribed instructional system.Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 9, 25-38. Shavelson, R.J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of nsearchonteaching(3rded.,pp.50-9l).NewYork:Macmillan. Sherman, M. A., Sipp, W. D., & Taheri, M. A. (1987). Preinteractive cognitions of physical education teachers with varying levels of expertise. In G. T. Barrette, R. S. Feingold, C. R. Rees, & M. Pieron (Eds.) , Myths, models, and methods in sport pedagogy (pp. 151-157). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Shulman, L. S.(1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of nsearchon teaching(3rd ed., pp. 3-36). NewYork:Macmillan. Shute, S., Dodds, P., Placek,J., Rife, F., & Silverman, S. (1982). Academic learning time in elementary movement education: A descriptive-analytic study. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 1(2),3-14. Siedentop, D. (1987). Dialogue or exorcism? A rejoiner to Schempp. Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 6,373376. Siedentop, D. (1989). Do the lockers really smell? Research 0'arterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 36-41. Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982). Academic leamingtime-physicaleducation, 1982rroision:Codingmanual. Columbus: School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, The Ohio State University. Silverman, S.(1985a). Student characteristics mediating engagement-outeome relationships in physical education. Research 0'arterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 66-72. Silverman, S. (1985b). Relationship of engagement and practice trials to student achievement. Journal of Teaching in PhysicalEducation, 5, 13-21. Silverman, S. (1985c). Critical considerations in the design and analysisofteacher effectiveness research in physical education. InternationalJournalofPhysicalEducation, 22(4) ,17-24. Silverman, S. (1986). The status of research on teaching in physical education. Research ConsortiumNewsletter, 8(2),4. Silverman, S. (1987a). Reliability in observational research: When is enough enough? 1nJ. K Nelson (Ed.), Proceedings ofthefifth measurementand evaluation symposium (pp. 8-12). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.

RDES: December 1991

Silverman, S. (1987b). Trends and analysis of research on teaching in doctoral programs. Journal ofTeachinginPhysicalEducation, 7. 61-70. Silverman, S. (1988). Relationships of selected presage and context variables to achievement. Research 0'arterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 35-41. Silverman, S. (1990). linear and curvilinear relationships between student practice and achievementin physical education. Teaching and TeacherEducation; 6, 305-314. Silverman, S., Dodds, P., Placek,J., Shute, S., & Rife, F. (1984). Academic learning time in elementary physical education (ALT-PE) for student subgroups and instructional activity units. Research 0'arterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 365-370. Silverman,S., Tyson,L A., & Krampitz,J. (1991, April). Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Silverman, S., Tyson, L. A., & Morford, L M. (1988). Relationships of organization, time, and student achievement in physical education. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 4, 247257. Singer, R. N. (1990). Motorlearning research: Meaningfulways for physical educators or a waste of time? Q)ust, 42, 114125. Solmon, M. A., & Lee, A. M. (1991). A contrast of planning behaviors between expert and novice adapted physical education teachers. Adapted Physical Activity 0'arterly, 8, 115-127. Sparkes, A. (1989). Paradigmatic confusions and the evasion of critical issues in naturalistic research. Journal ofTeachingin PhysicalEducation, 8, 131-151. Taylor, J. L. (1976). Development and use of the physical education observation instrument for rating patterns of teacher behaviors in relationships to student achievement. Dissertation Abstracts Intemational; 37. 2615A. (University Microfilms No. 76-26, 009) Telama,R.,Varstala,V.,Heikinaro-Johansson,P.,&Utriainen, J. (1987). Learning behavior in PE lessons and physical and psychological responses to PE in high-skill and low-skill pupils. In G.T. Barrette, R.S. Feingold, C.R. Rees, & M. Pieron (Eds.), Myths, models, and methods in sport pedagogy (pp. 239-248). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Thomas,J.R., & Nelson,J. K. (1990). Researchmethodsinphysical activity (2nd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Tousignant, M., & Siedentop, D. (1983). A qualitative analysis oftask structures in required secondaryphysical education classes.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation, 3( 1),47-57. Twardy, B. M., & Yerg, B.J. (1987). The impact ofplanning on inclass interactive behaviors ofpreservice teachers. Journal ofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 6, 136-148. Werner, P., & Rink, J. (1989). Case studies of teacher effectiveness in second grade physical education. JournalofTeaching in PhysicalEducation, 8, 280-297. Yerg,B.J. (1981a). Reflections on the use of the RTE model in physical education. Research 0'arterly for Exercise and Sport, 52, 38-47. Yerg,B.J. (1981b). The impact ofselected presage and process behaviors on the refinement of a motor skill. Journal of TeachinginPhysicalEducation, 1(1),38-46.

363

Silverman

Author's Note The author thanks Larry Locke, LeaAnn Tyson, Teresita Ramirez, and the commentators for their comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Any errors or omissions remain those of the author.

Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 17:29 31 January 2015

Yerg,B.J. (198S). Re-examining the process-productparadigm for research on teaching effectiveness in physical education. In T. Templin &J. Olson (Eds.), Teachinginphysical education (Big Ten body of knowledge symposium series, volume 14, pp. Sl o-S17). Champaign, ll..: Human Kinetics. Yerg, B.J., & Twardy, B. M. (1982). Relationship of specified instructional teacher behaviors to pupil gain on a motor skill task.. In M. Pieron &J. Cheffers (Eds.), Studying the teaching in physical education (pp.61-68). Liege, Belgium: Association Intemationale des Superieures d'Education Physique.

364

ROES: December 1991