This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] On: 23 June 2013, At: 22:15 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

Value Orientations: A Description of Teachers' Goals for Student Learning a

Catherine D. Ennis & Weimo Zhu a

Department of Kinesiology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, (301) 405-2478, USA

To cite this article: Catherine D. Ennis & Weimo Zhu (1991): Value Orientations: A Description of Teachers' Goals for Student Learning, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62:1, 33-40 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1991.10607516

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions 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. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Research Quarterly forExercise and Sport

© 1991 bythe American Alliance for Health,

Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Vol. 62, No.1, pp. 33-40

Value Orientations: A Description of Teachers' Goals for Student Learning

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 22:15 23 June 2013

Catherine D. Ennis and Weimo Zhu This study examined the extent to which physical educators made consistent decisions regarding goals for student learning within five educational value orientations. The research examined value orientations within hypothetical educational situations as represented by a paper and pencil inventory. Ninety physical educators in three school districts in the midwest completed the Value Orientation Inventory (VOl). Total scoresfrom each value orientation on the VOl were converted to T-scores and used to divide teachers into two groups representing high and low priority categories. Chi-square tests were used to examine the data by gender, teaching level, and teacher's years ofexperience. Results indicated that 97 % of the physical educators made consistent curricular and instructional decisions within one or more ofthe value orientations. There were no significant differences based on gender, level, or teaching experience.

Key words: value orientations, curriculum content, stu-

dations in a set of educational value orien tations (Eisner

dent learning, teacher beliefs

& Vallance, 1974). Value orientations reflect philosophi-

T

h e image ofthe effective teacher has been broadening from that of someone with a set of predefined behavioral competencies to the concept of a "thoughtful" practitioner. Since the idea was first proposed by Shulman and Elstein (1975), it has spawned a body of research into teacher cognition. Cognitional knowledge includes perception, problem solving, and decisions involvingjudgmen t that occur preactively and in teractively in the instructional process. Peterson (1988) has defined the role of the thoughtful or reflective professional "in terms ofthe kind and quality ofdecision making, thinking and judgment in which the teacher engages ... " (p. 6). Thus, the study of teachers' thoughts, cognitions, and judgments becomes cen tral to understanding the role of the teacher and to determining what constitutes "effective teaching. "This image evokes expectations regarding the deliberate selection of methods used to convey information and the manner and the extent to which students learn and achieve in classrooms (Peterson, 1988) . Curriculum specialists have long hypothesized that the rationale for particular aspects of teacher planning, instruction, and goals for student learning has its foun-

Catherine Ennis is currently on the faculty in the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, (301) 405-2478. She was a faculty memberandWeimo Zhu wasa graduate studentat the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the time thisresearch was conducted. Weimo Zhuis currently a faculty memberat Wayne State University. Submitted: August2, 1989 Revision accepted: January 17, 1990

ROES: March 1991

cal positions that can be operationally defined within educational settings. It is postulated that teachers make judgmentsbased on a beliefsystem thatintegrates conscious and tacit knowledge regarding the characteristics of the learner, context, and body ofknowledge. Thesejudgments blend to form a definition ofan educated person (Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986). This study examined the extent to which physical educators made consistent decisions concerning curriculum and instruction that reflected value orientations embedded in their belief systems. The research examined value orientations within hypothetical educational situations as represented by a paper and pencil inventory. Follow-up studies examining teacher beliefs as they operationalized in physical education (similar to that of Peterson, Fennema, Carpenter, and Loef[l989] in mathematics) will be the next stage in the development of research on teacher value orientations. Three hypotheses guided the presen t research. First, that physical educators would demonstrate a consistent position by ranking inventory items reflecting particular orientations as a high or low priority within their educational decision making. Second, there would be significant differences in physical educators' value orientations based on gender, teaching experience, and teaching level. The third hypothesis, also examined as part of this research, was generated by Jewett and Bain (1985),. They hypothesized the majority of physical educators would be classified within the disciplinary mastery orientation. A special effort was made to examine the relationships among the value orientations contributing to the understanding of these concepts.

33

Ennis andZhu

The significance of this research lies in the potential to expand and enrich our definitions ofstuden t learning in physical education. Interpreted against the framework ofeducational value orientations, teachers' beliefsystems may take on consistency and structure that provide new meaning to curricular choices. Implications of this research for professional preparation and staff development lie in the prospect for simplifying and organizing the array of educational alternatives with respect to why, how, and when to select curriculum materials or teaching methods.

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 22:15 23 June 2013

Value Orientations Value orientations are characterized by the priority the teacher places on critical components within the teaching-learning process. The centrality of the learner, the context, or the bodyofknowledgewithin the curriculum process shapes the goals for student learning and the extent to which those goals will be mastered. Five competing definitions or goals for student learning are articulated within the value orientations of (a) disciplinary mastery, (b) self-actualization, (c) learning process, (d) social reconstruction, and (e) ecological in tegration. The disciplinary mastery orientation emphasizes learning the traditional body of knowledge within the subject area (Brunner, 1960). Advocates are reluctant to deviate from the historically prescribed format and believe in preserving and transmitting a consistent and factually accurate representation of the knowledge base (McNeil, 1985). Learners are expected to master the content and demonstrate proficiency (Hirst, 1974). In physical education, learners are expected to exhibit proficiency in a variety of sports and maintain an acceptable level of fitness. Although complex curriculum models rarely fall cleanly into only one orientation, it is possible to locate the major philosophical emphases of particular approaches within a value perspective. For example, the disciplinary mastery value orientation is demonstrated in the work of Rink (1985) and Sieden top (1989). Corbin and Lindsey (1987) presented examples of this orientation in fitness education. The self-actualization orientation is primarily concerned with nurturing the personal growth and autonomy of the student (Maslow, 1979; Rogers, 1983). Learning outcomes are developed to reflect content that is relevant to each individual (Jewett & Bain, 1985). Thus a variety oflearning outcomes are acceptable as long as they are directed toward the well-being of the learner (McNeil, 1985) .Hellison's (1985) approachisan example of the self-actualization orientation in physical education. This approach emphasizes the importance of learning self-control, which leads to increased stability, involvement, self-responsibility, and caring.

34

In the learning process orientation the goals of the curriculum emphasize the nature of learning using a variety of content. The primary focus is on learning how to learn. Papert (1980) argued that process skills provide the means through which individuals can learn independently. Teachers and students divide tasks into separate components and discuss each in detail (Bloom, 1981). Students learn to generate criteria for successful performance that facilitate autonomous learning regardless of the content. In physical education the curriculum approach proposed by Lawson and Placek (1981) exemplifies the learning process orientation. The social reconstruction orientation challenges students to analyze the context in which they live and work (Eisner & Vallance, 1974; McNeil, 1985). Context is constructed ofsocial, political, and economic factors that influence decision making both in and out of school (Apple, 1982). Students learn to ask critical questions and develop novel strategies to reconstruct society (Freire, 1970). In physical education, the social reconstruction value orientation is a relatively new perspective exemplified through the work of Griffin (1985), Dewar (1987), and Bain, Wilson, and Chaikind (1989). The ecological integrationvalue orientation places the focus on understanding the interrelationships among individuals, information, and the environment. Students learn to achieve a balance that promotes and utilizes the best resources (Jewett & Ennis, 1990). This orientation was articulated most persuasively by Dewey (1916) and has been further defined by Colwell (1985). Learning is experienced as the integration of self within a complex and constantly changing environment. In physical education,Jewettand her associates (Jewett & Bain, 1985, Jewett & Mullan, 1977) adapted this perspective to the personal meaning curriculum approach. At times, expectations or stereotypes based on gender, teaching level, or years of experience place teachers within roles that may inadvertently affect their own value orientations. For example, the self-actualization orientation emphasizes nurturing and caring, which is frequently associated with the female gender role (e.g., Ruble, 1983). Within educational settings, these characteristics are explicitly valued at the elementary level, leading to a perception of elementary physical educators that may be inaccurate. Similarly the variable years ofteachingexperience, an indirect indicator ofage, has been associated with teachers' willingness to accept change. This stereotype suggests that as teachers gain experience they may (a) settle firmly within one value orientation, or (b) integrate value positions derived from a variety of diverse experiences to form a hybrid orientation (Guskey, 1986). For example, as one of the most well-developed orien tations, disciplinary mastery is perceived to be the orientation of choice by experienced teachers, whereas social reconstruction is seen as being embraced by less experienced teachers eager to critically

ROES: March 7997

Ennis andZhu

question and confront perceived oppression in the educational environment. Conversely, Guskey (1986) argued that the compilation oflife experiences may lead to an eclectic position as one selects experiences found to be of greatest value regardless of philosophical perspective. Thus, the analysis of value orientation data by gender, teaching level, and years of experience was conducted to examine thevalidityofthese categorizations within a population of physical educators.

Method

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 22:15 23 June 2013

Subjects The Value Orientation Inventory (VOl) was mailed to physical education teachers in Madison and Beloit, Wisconsin, and St. Paul, Minnesota, during the fall of 1987. These school districts were selected based on (a) population size: less than 10,000 students (Beloit), 10,00025,000 (Madison), and 25,000-40,000 (St. Paul), and (b) willingness to participate in the study. Approval for the studywas received from the External Research Committee of each school district. The total population of physical education teachers (N = 175) in these districts received the VOl through their school mail. Completed inventories were returned directly to the researchers using a stamped, self-addressed return envelope. Follow-up letters with a second copy of the VOl were sent three weeks after the initial mailing to those teachers who had not responded. Names were destroyed after the returns from the second mailing were received.

Value Orientation Inventory The Value Orientation Inventory was developed by Ennis and Hooper (1988) as a means of examining the educational belief structures of physical education specialists. In the Ennis and Hooper study, 90 items were written to reflect each value orientation as it might be implemented within a physical education class (Ennis, 1986, 1990). Items were then evaluated by 45 physical education curriculum specialists based on a5-pointLikert scale. Two criteria were used for selecting items into the final 75-item inventory: (a) item means greater than 3.75 asjudged by a panel ofcurriculum experts, and (b) alpha reliability coefficients for the subscale greater than. 70 (disciplinary mastery .91; social reconstruction .84; learning process .79; self-actualization .77; ecological in tegration .91). Items were rand omly placed in the final inventory in 15 sets of five items. One item in each set represented each of the five value orientations. Teachers ranked their preferences within each set. An example of a VOl set is presented in Figure 1. The ranking procedure was selected to encourage teachers to prioritize their values reflected in physical

ROES: March 1991

education curriculum content (Ennis & Hooper, 1988). Although there are many appropriate curricular options available, the limited time available in physical education classes prohibits effective instruction on a large number of curricular goals. Because curriculum decisions reflect a series ofdifficult choices requiring teachers to carefully weigh a number of attractive alternatives, inventories that permit decision makers to rate all items as positive and of value, as in Likert formats, do not reflect the central problem in curriculum development-that of selecting knowledge of most worth. Therefore, the ranking format was selected to reflect this aspect of the curriculum decision-making process. The resulting VOl data form a five-score value orientation profile. A value profile consists of the composite score of the 15 items that represent each value orientation. Scores on each orientation range from 15 to 75, with lower scores reflecting a stronger orien tation. Raw scores are converted to T-scores based on sample means to facilitate classification. A standard deviation of .6 was used to separate teachers into two groups representing a consistently high or low priority for each of the five orientations. In otherwords, scores.6 SD above the mean were considered to reflect a low priority for values articulated within the orientation, while those .6 SD below the mean were classified within a high priority. The.6 SD was selected because it discriminated between high and low priority orientations while maintaining the largest number of subjects in the sample. In order to be categorized as high or low priority on an individual value orientation on the VOl, the subject must consistently rate the item representing that orientation in the majority of the 15 sets in which it appears. VOl items were not labeled and were randomly placed within the set. AVOl score that placed a consistently high

Figure 1. Sample item set from Value Orientation Inventory In my classes, students learnto analyze skills and tasks as they perform. (Learning Process) In my classes, students are encouragedto look ahead; to learn activities that they will enjoy aftertheyfinish school. (Self-Actualization) In my classes, Italkwith students abouttheir interests inphysical education and help them to experience the thingsthey feel are mostimportant. (Ecological Integration) In my classes, students are aware ofdaily motor and fitness objectives. (Disciplinary Mastery) In my classes, students solvegroup problems to be successful. (Social Reconstruction)

Note. Value orientation categories in parentheses were not included on actual inventory.

35

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 22:15 23 June 2013

Ennis andZhu

priority on a value orientation was interpreted as support or acceptance of that value orientation and its corresponding goals for student learning (Ennis, Mueller, & Hooper, 1990). Conversely, teachers who ranked items within a value orientation as a consistently low priority when compared to other items were considered to place less value on the belief system associated with that orientation than on other orientations. In either case, the subject was assumed to have taken a position on the value orientation that in turn might serve as a rationale for educational decisions. Conversely, scores clustering around the sample mean represented inconsistent rankings of items in that category. The teachers' beliefs regarding these orientations were mixed and not as strong as for those that received very high or very low scores. The fact each item represented accepted physical education practices minimized the extent to which the subjects were able to respond based on their perception of the school district or the examiners' expectations. In otherwords, because all items were educationally correct, it was more difficult to guess the "right" response. The teachers' task was to prioritize the items to reflect their professional value orientations based on the centrality of issues regarding the students, content, and contextwithin the curriculum decision-making process.

Data Analysis The resulting data from the item rankings were ipsative in nature and thus have systematic restraints that limit the interpretation of results. In forced-choice rankings, once a subject selects an item to be ranked in the highest position, the remaining items are forced into lower, less valued positions. Ipsative data are interpreted based on the mean and standard deviation of the sample (Kerlinger, 1973). These data systematically violate the assumption of independence because a limited number ofrankings are used and all ranks must be assigned. Thus negative correlations between the items occur as afunction of the instrument procedure (Hicks, 1970). In this research VOl scale differences reflected the priorities of the sample. Each five-item set initially permitted four options for consideration. The fifth response was forced on the remaining unranked item. Thus, as in curricular decision making, teachers were given the opportunity to selectfrom or prioritize a limited number of possibilities. VOl scores were transformed into T-scores and classified into high and low priority orientations using t-tests. The experiment-wise error rate was controlled using the Dunn-Bonferroni procedure with alpha = .01. After t-tests confirmed the high and low priority groups were statistically different for each orien tation, chi-square tests were used to analyze the data by gender, teaching level (elementary, middle, secondary), and years of teaching experience.

36

Results The return rate for the VOl was 57.3%. A return rate of45.9% (n= 72) was attributed to the first mailing. Follow-up mailings netted an additional 21 inventories. Three were unusable due to missing data. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 90 responses. The demographic data for respondents (summarized in Table 1) indicated approximately equal numbers of male and female physical education teachers representing all three teaching levels completed the inventory. Twothirds of the teachers (76%) reported 11 or more years of teaching experience. A descriptive analysis of teacher profiles indicated 96.7% (n = 87) of the subjects indicated a high or low priority for one or more of the value orientations. Approximately 13% placed a priority on one value orientation, while 28.9% prioritized items from two orientations. An additional 28.9% consistently ranked items within three orientations. Teachers prioritizing four orientations composed 17.8% of the sample, while 7.8 % of the teachers demonstrated a high or low priority on each ofthe five orientations. A summary ofthe T-score data presented in Table 2 indicates that 63% of the teachers demonstrated a consisten t position (either high or low priority) on ecological integration (EI), 58.9% on learning process (LP), 56.6% on social reconstruction (SR), 47.8% on self-actualization (SA), and 45.5% on disciplinary mastery (DM). The profiles of teachers' value orientations illustrated in Figure 2 reflect the consistency with which su bjects ranked items from a particular orien tation across the 15 sets. The teacher exemplified in Profile A consistently ranked items from the DM and LP orientations as a low priority (high T-score) while ranking items representingSA, EI, and SRasarelativelyhigh priority. On the other hand, teachers who did not demonstrate a value priority as in Profile B did not rank items consistently within any of the orientations. These scores tended to

Table 1. Demographic data for respondents Type of Data

n

Frequency (%)

School Level Elementary Middle Secondary

37 32 21

41.1 35.5 23.3

Teaching Experience (years) 1-10 11·20 21+

22 37 31

24.4 41.1 34.4

Gender ofTeacher Female Male

46 44

51.1 48.9

ROES: March 1991

Ennis andZhu

Table 2. Descriptive data for high and low priority orientations

Priority Sample Value Orientation LP SA DM EI SR

High

Low

df

M

SO

M

SO

n

%

M

SO

n

%

4D.42 40.85 39.50 40.57 48.64

7.05 6.03 6.42 5.54 7.13

61.350 63.347 63.244 61.056 60.529

3.649 5.184 5.853 6.531 4.108

28 20 19 29 28

31.1% 22.2% 21.1% 32.2% 31.1%

37.777 37.997 37.181 39.105 36.777

5.566 5.560 5.024 2.928 5.998

25 23 22 28 23

27.8% 25.6% 24.4% 31.1% 25.6%

51 41 39 55 49

t-value

18.421 15.338 15.347 16.272 16.730

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 22:15 23 June 2013

Note. LP = learning process, SA= self-actualization, DM = disciplinary mastery, EI = ecological integration, and SR = social reconstruction. cluster around the sample mean, illustrating a mixed or an eclectic position. The chi-square analysis of the data by gender, teaching level, and years ofexperience resulted in no significant differences. Male and females prioritized items into high and low categories similarly in every value position (LPX\l = .031, p« .86; SA-X\l = .034, p« .85; DM-X\l =.046, p« .83;EI-X 211'= 1.41,p< .24;SR-X\ 1 =.52, p« .47). Likewise, teachers at each school level categorized items into high and low priorities within each orientation (LP-X\2 = 2.12, P< .55; SA - X\2 = 4.18, P< .24; DM - X\2 = 5.19, P < .16; EI-X\2= 1.11,p< .77;SR-X\2 =3.16,p< .39). Finally, there were no differences by value orientation based on years of experience (LP-X\2 = 1.75, P< .42; SA-X\2 = .47, P< .79; DM - X\2 = .11, P < .94; EI - X\2 = .81, P < .67; SR-X\2 = .56, P< .76). Teachers in this sample with more experience were just as likely to place each value orien ta-

Figure 2. VOl teacher profiles 90.00 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

---- Profile A 80.001-------------------1 - 0 - Profile B 70.00

...en u en ....

60.00

e

50.00

Cl)

C)

tion in a high or low priority as were teachers with fewer years of experience. Significant negative correlations, reported in Table 3, were identified between several orientations. Although negative correlations were expected based on the ipsative limitations of the data from the VOl, the patterns in the matrix were informative. The moderate negative correlation between LP and SA (-.58), EI (-.42), and SR (-.60) indicated that teachers who placed LP as a high priority were likely to consider SA, EI, and SR of less importance in curricular decision making. Likewise, DM was also negatively correlated with the SA (-.35), EI (-.56), and SR (-.65). This suggested the learner/context orientations reflected in the SA, EI, and SR orientations were perceived differently from the knowledge orientations represented by DM and LP. Each of these correlationswere significantat the .0001 level. The teacher profile illustrated in Figure 2 Profile A exemplifies this relationship. The LP orientation demonstrated a significant moderate correlation with DM (.49). A positive correlation is unusual in ipsative data and suggested that DM and LP were consistently given proximal rankings (i.e., 1,2; 4,5) by the majority of teachers across the 15 sets. There were no meaningful correlations between SA and EI (-.002) or SA and SR (-.07). In addition, there was only a very weak correlation between the EI and SR (.13), suggesting there were no response patterns between these orien tations.

I

Table 3. Correlation matrix forvalue orientations

>

SA

DM

EI

SR

40.00

LP SA DM EI

30.00 20.00 L..--L

LP

..L-_ _......L.

OM

SA

Value Orientations ROES: March 1991

-.58*

.49* -.35*

-.42* -.002 -.56*

-.60* .07 -.65* .13

L..-_ _....L..---I

EI

SR

Note. LP= learning process,SA=self-actualization, DM =disciplinary mastery, EI =ecological integration, and SR=socialreconstruction. "p « .0001

37

Ennis andZhu

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 22:15 23 June 2013

Discussion The significance of these findings lies in their implications for the role of student learning in physical education. In this research it was hypothesized that teachers would demonstrate a consistent position by ranking inventory items reflecting particular orientations as a high or low priority within their educational decision making. Contrary to the position expressed by Guskey (1986), approximately 97% ofthe teacherswho completed the VOl demonstrated a consistent position on at least one of the five orientations. Their responses across 15 item sets suggested they had thought about learning and knew consciously or intuitively how to select items that reflected consistent value orientations. Through their responses, the teachers confirmed the importance (or unimportance) of a particular educational belief system that included a set of knowledges and corresponding methods appropriate for student learning in physical education. In this research, teachers often placed a high priority on two or more orientations; consequently all five orientations received scores at the high priority end of the scale (T-scores < 27). This suggested multiple perspectives on the goals of teaching and learning are embedded in physical educators 'beliefsystems. Although scholars lament the lack of consensus for a unifying set of goals for physical education (e.g., Lawson, 1986), it seems unlikely that a single value perspective will be supported in the near future. Kliebard (1988) has placed this philosophical diversity in perspective: The curriculum, after all, is a selection of elements from the culture and reflects to some extent the diversity that exists within the culture .... What emerges as a dominant strain in the curriculum is not a function of the force of a particular proposal alone but the interaction of curriculum ideas and sympathetic or antagonistic social conditions. Therefore, over the course of time, one would expect that first one current then another should assume prominence and that, to some extent, they should all exist side by side (p. 30). An understanding of both the diversity and the strength ofeducational beliefs is critical to the design and interpretation of research and to the development and implemen tation of teacher preparation and staff development programs. It is unlikely a single vision of teaching or a single set of learning goals for physical education will rise to prominence. Instead several perspectives, each carefully developed and presented, can provide fertile ground for teachers' reflections. Inservice and staff development opportunities that both

38

support teachers' present perspectives and offer provocative alternatives may also increase the relevance of staff development experiences. The second hypothesis-that physical educators' value orientations would vary by gender, teaching level, and teaching experience-was rejected. There were no significant associations within this sample of teachers. Thus stereotypes sometimes perpetuated in teaching were not supported. Specifically, there was no support for the perception that elementary teachers were more likely to teach from a self-actualization orientation than high school teachers or that women would select this orientation over men because of a more nurturing philosophy (Griffin, 1989). In the same respect, age stereotypes regarding the likelihood of experienced teachers placing a high priority on traditionalcontentand teaching methods or a lower priority on more controversial cri tical questioning approaches were also not evident. Experienced teachers were just as likely to place a high priority on the disciplinary mastery, social reconstruction, and ecological integration orientations as were less experienced teachers. This research lends support for the acceptance and nurturance of a variety of value perspectives. Categories of gender, level, and experience frequently used to classify teachers and programs appear inappropriate when examining the foundations of teacher-initiated curricular decision making. The rationale for the diversity and strength of the value orientations in this sample of teachers was far more complex than the demographic variables collected with the VOL Additional research designed to go beyond the limits of a paper and pencil inventory is necessary to examine the factors that influence the rationale for prioritizing a particular orientation. The third hypothesis-that the disciplinary mastery orientation would predominate-was also not supported within this sample of teachers (see Table 2). While fewer teachers placed a priority (high or low) on this orientation than demonstrated a position on any other orientation, the number ofteachers who identified DM as a high priority were approximately equal to the number of teachers who valued other orientations. Traditionally the disciplinary mastery orientation as operationalized through sport, movemen t, and exercise con ten t has been thought to be the central focus of physical education (Jewett & Bain, 1985). However, increased demands on schools and teachers to respond to the needs of diverse student populations may be stimulating change in this aspect of physical education. In some schools, concerns about the community and school environments in which students live and learn may require an emphasis on orientations that place the individual or the con text in a higher priority than mastery of movement, sport, or exercise knowledges. Students, both in and out of schools, are faced with an array of

ROES: March 1991

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 22:15 23 June 2013

Ennis andZhu

tempting choices that may prove unhealthy and at times life-threatening. Drug abuse, physical and emotional abuse, and the lack of supervision for some children in single-parent homes place increasing numbers of students at risk for failure by society's standards. Teachers may be forced to set aside sport and fitness goals to address the personal and social problems faced by their students. They may teach for learning goals of selfcontrol, respect for others, increased self-esteem, critical reflection, cooperation, and stability. In physical education, the social reconstruction, ecological integration, learning process, and self-actualization orientations may be taught through an activities curriculum. However, unlike the product-oriented disciplinary mastery orientation, the activities are the means to achieve an understanding of oneself, the learning process, or the nature of interactions among people, knowledge, and the environment. The correlation matrix (see Table 3) based on the ipsative data provided a limited perspective from which to examine the relationships between the value orientations. Care must be exercised when examining ipsative matrices. In this research the correlations were meaningful and should be examined further using other data collection formats. Within the limitations of this study, the positive correlations between LP and DM and the negative correlations between LP and SA, EI, and SR and between DM and SA, EI, and SR provided evidence to supporta philosophical division between the knowledge and the learner/context orientations. Because positive correlations are unusual in ipsative data, the consistent proximal placement of the LP and DM should receive further consideration. It is possible these value positions articulate related components of the same knowledgefocused perspective. The fact that there were no significant correlations between (a) SA and SR, (b) SR and EI, or (c) between SA and EI suggested the learner/context orientations form three distinct groups that are philosophically different from the knowledge-based orientations. Additional research is needed to examine the role of teacher value orientations in the decision-making process. Of critical importance is a description of the methods used by advocates ofa value orien tation to operationalize their beliefsystem in the classroom. The results from the paper and pencil inventory reported here constitute a preliminary step in the articulation of the theory in school settings. Follow-up studies to determine the extent to which value orientations can be operationalized are essential to the continued development of this research focus. Research is also needed that examines the form and substance of student learning in gymnasium classrooms taught within each of these orientations. This investigation should include factors in the working environment that support or impede the implementation of a strongly

ROES: March 1991

defined value orientation. Finally, while itis encouraging to identify consistent value orientations held by physical educators, it is also important to ask questions regarding the preactive and in teractive decision making ofteachers who do not exhibit a consistent value perspective. Do they teach using an eclectic combination of strategies selected based on a whim? Or do they use a different and highly effective method of reflection that was not tapped by the present Value Orientation Inventory? It is vital to continue this investigation using a variety of research methods and paradigms to address the complexity and diversity of the teaching-learning process.

References Apple, M. (1982). Education and power. Boston: ARK Bain, L. L., Wilson, T., & Chaikind, E. (1989). Participant perceptions of exercise programs for overweight women. Research Qyarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 134-143.

Bloom, B.S. (1981). AUourchildren learning. NewYork: McGrawHill. Brunner,]. S. (1960). The process ofeducation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Colwell, T. (1985). The ecological perspective inJohn Dewey's philosophy of education. Educational Theory, 35, 255-266. Corbin,C. B., &Lindsey,R. (1987). Conceptsofphysicalfitnesswith laboratories. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. Dewar, A. M. (1987). The social construction of gender in physical education. Women sStudies InternationalForum, 10, 453-466.

Dewey,]. (1916). Democracy and education. NewYork: McMillan. Eisner,E. W.,&Vallance,E. (Eds.). (1974). Conflictingconceptions ofcurriculum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Ennis, C. D. (1986). Conceptual frameworks as a foundation for the study of operational curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2, 25-39.

Ennis, C. D. (1990). Analyzing curriculum as participant perspectives. Journal ofTeaching in Physical Education, 9,7994.

Ennis, C. D., & Hooper, L. M. (1988). Development of an instrument for assessing educational value orientations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 277- 280.

Ennis, C. D., Mueller, L. K., & Hooper, L. M. (1990). The influence of teacher value orientations on curriculum planningwithin the parameters ofa theoretical framework. Research Qyarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 360-368.

Freire,P. (1970) . Pedagogy ofthe oppressed. NewYork:Continuum. Griffin, P. (1985). Teacher perceptions of reactions to equity problems in middle school physical education. Research Qyarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 103-11 O.

Griffin, P. (1989). Gender as a socializing agent in physical education. In T. ]. Templin & P. G. Schempp (Eds). Socialization into physicaleducation: Learningto teach (pp. 219234). Indianapolis: Benchmark. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5),5-12. Hellison, D. R. (1985). Goals and strategies for teaching physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

39

Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 22:15 23 June 2013

Ennis andZhu

Hicks,L. E. (1970). Somepropertiesofipsative, normative,and forced-choice normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 167-184. Hirst, P. H. (1974). Krwwledge and the curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Jewett, A. E., & Bain, L. L. (1985). The curriculum process in physical education. Dubuque, 1A:Wm. C. Brown. Jewett, A. E., & Ennis, C. D. (1990). Ecological integration as a value orien tation for curricular decision making.Journalof Curriculum and Supervision, 5, 120-13l. Jewett,A. E., & Mullan, M. R. (1977). Curriculum design: Purposes and processes in physical education teaching-learning. Reston, VA:AAHPER. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kliebard, H. M. (1988). The effort to reconstruct the modem American curriculum. In L. E. Beyer & M. W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 19-31). Albany: State University of New York Press. Lawson, H. A. (1986). Toward a national curriculum in physical education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Cincinnati, OH. Lawson,H.A., &Placek,].H. (1981). Physicaleducation in secondary schools: Curriculum alternatives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Maslow, A. H. (1979). Humanistic education. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 19, 13-27. McNeil, J. D. (1985). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston: Little, Brown. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

40

Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers' and students' cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 17(5),5-14. Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teachers' pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 1- 40. Rink,]. E. (1985). Teachingphysicaleducationforlearning. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby. Rogers, C. (1983). Reachingperson-centered issues in education. In C.Rogers (Ed.) .Freedomto learn (pp.197-221) .Columbus, OH: Merrill. Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles, 9, 397-402. Sanders, D. P., & McCutcheon, G. (1986). The development of practical theories of teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2, 50-67. Shulman, L. S., & Elstein, A. S. (1975). Studies of problem solving,judgment, and decision-making: Implications for educational research. In F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 3). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock. Siedentop, D. (1989). Content knowledge. Paper presented at the annual conference ofthe American Alliance for Health, Physical Education Recreation and Dance. Boston, MA.

Authors' Note This research was funded by a grant from the Spencer Foundation.

ROES: March 1991

Value orientations: a description of teachers' goals for student learning.

This study examined the extent to which physical educators made consistent decisions regarding goals for student learning within five educational valu...
1MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views