scholarly journals Participation Styles in Elementary Physical Education

2015 ◽  
Vol 05 (01) ◽  
pp. 26-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Erik Romar ◽  
Jonas Nygård ◽  
Tomas Smedman ◽  
Emyr Williams
1987 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nell Faucette

During this study, concerns data were collected from 7 elementary physical education teachers in order to determine their types and intensities of concerns as they proceeded through an in-service program, and to determine the degree to which they implemented the proposed changes. The Stages of Concern Questionnaire and open-ended statements of concern were administered to the teachers on three occasions during the 3-month in-service program: at the outset, midway, and upon completion of the sessions. In order to amplify data collected through these instruments, researchers conducted observations and formal and informal interviews. The data revealed three participation styles among the 7 teachers. The 2 teachers who became users of the innovations were categorized as actualizers. The 3 conceptualizers felt positively disposed to the changes but did not become users during the inservice program. The 2 remaining teachers—the resisters—were negatively disposed to the innovations and failed to implement them. Group and individual analyses are discussed as well as factors that influenced the teachers’ participation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
Edward B. Olsen ◽  
Emi Tsuda ◽  
Masanobu Sato ◽  
James D. Wyant

1984 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Martinek ◽  
William B. Karper

The purpose of this study was to describe the operation of teacher expectancy effects within two instructional climates of elementary physical education classes. Specifically, high and low expectancy groups were compared during noncompetitive and competitive instruction in terms of teacher-student interaction and perceived expression of effort. Four alternating experimental phases of instruction were employed. Analysis of the interaction data revealed that low expectancy students received significantly more praise and encouragement during the first (noncompetitive) phase and the fourth (competitive) phase than did high expectancy students. They also received significantly more empathy from their teachers during both competitive phases of instruction. High expectancy students were perceived to exhibit significantly more effort than low expectancy students during all four phases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document