This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] On: 04 January 2015, At: 11:12 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
The Influence of Teacher Value Orientations on Curriculum Planning within the Parameters of a Theoretical Framework a
b
Catherine D. Ennis , Leslie K. Mueller & Linda M. Hooper
b
a
Department of Kinesiology, HLHP Building , University of Maryland , College Park , MD , 20742 , USA b
University of Wisconsin-Madison , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Catherine D. Ennis , Leslie K. Mueller & Linda M. Hooper (1990) The Influence of Teacher Value Orientations on Curriculum Planning within the Parameters of a Theoretical Framework, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61:4, 360-368, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1990.10607500 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1990.10607500
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
ENNIS, MUIlLLIlR, AND HOOPER
RBsBARCII QUARTERLY FOR ExERCSB AND SPORT
1990, VOL. 61, No.4, pp. 360-368
The Influence of Teacher Value Orientations on Curriculum Planning Within the Parameters of a Theoretical Framework
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 11:12 04 January 2015
CATHERINE D. ENNIS University of Maryland LESLIE K. MUELLER AND LINDA M. HOOPER University of Wisconsin-Madison
The study examinedthe extent to which teachers' value orientationsmediatetheir responsesto inservicetrainingin a particular frameworkas measured by changesin their lessonplanningskills. Twenty-five elementary physical educators' value orientations were classifiedusing the Values Orientation Inventory (VOl). Teacherscompletedseven inservicesessionsbased on the Logsdontheoreticalapproach to children's physicaleducation. Data were analyzedusing three univariate ANOVAs.The .05 alpha levelwas adjustedusing an experiment-wise errorrate of .05), indicatingthat the data werenormallydistributed.'Therefore, three univariate ANOVAs were used to examine differences between the strong and weak groups on each of the three variables. A MANOVA was not used because of limitations in samplesize (Schutz & Gessaroli, 1987). The .05 alphalevel was adjusted based on the three comparisons resulting in an experiment-wiseerror rate of p < .017. The BMDP2V program was used to examine differencesbased on value orientation. Teachers were grouped by the dependent variable: valueorientation.These data were thenanalyzedin relationto
REsEARCH QUARTERLY POR EXERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
362
61, No.4
ENNIS, MUEU.ER, AND HOOPER
Lesson Plan Variables
two independent variables: trial (two administrations of the lesson plan) and task (three tasks used to develop the dribbling lesson). When the ANOV A revealed significant main effects, Tukey's (HSD) post-hoc comparison was used to locate the differences. Significant interactions were examined using the test of simple main effects (Kirk, 1968).
The ANOV A revealed significant differences for shared decision making and cognitive involvement variables. There were no significant main or interaction effects for the terminology variable. Terminology. This variable showed no change by trials or tasks regardless of value orientation. The mean for Logsdon terms used in the first lesson plan was 18.19, suggesting that teachers had been exposed to Logsdon terminology prior to the inservice and were already using it in their planning. The second lesson plan mean of 21.67 was not significantly different, suggesting that teachers continued to incorporate terminology at approximately the same level throughout the inservice period. SharedDecisionMaking.AnexaminationoftheANOVA for the shared decision making variable revealed differences for teachers in the DM and SR value orientations. Data grouped by the DM orientation indicated a significant task effect (F[2,30] =9.03, p = .0009). Tukey's (HSD) post-hoc comparison revealed differences between Task 1 and Task 2. A significant Task x Group effect (F[2,30] =7.92, P =.0017) was also observed. An examination of the means in Table 2 indicated that teachers who were categorized as weak DM included significantly more opportunities for studentdecision making than teachers with a strong DM focus. A graph of the Task x Group interaction is reported in Figure 1. The results for the ANOV A for shared decision making
Results
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 11:12 04 January 2015
Value Orientation Categorization The correlation and frequency matrix reported in Table 1 revealed three significant correlations between the value orientations. Disciplinary mastery (DM) and social reconstruction (SR) were negatively correlated (-.70, p < .001). Learning process (LP) was moderately correlated with DM (.53,p < .01) and negatively correlated with self-actualization (SA) (-.54, p < .01). More specifically, in the LP category 57.1 % of the teachers categorized as strong LP were also categorized as weak SA, while 64.3% were categorized as strong DM. Conversely, 50% of the strong DM teachers were classified as weak SA and 78.6% as weak SR. In the SR orientation, 57.1 % of the teachers classified as weak SR were also weak ecological integration (EI), while 78.6% were classified as strong DM and 57.1 % were strong LP.
Table 1 Correlation/Frequency Matrix for Strong and Weak VOl Categories Value Orientation
St
SA
Learning Process Strong (14) Weak (6)
1b 3
DM Wk
St
8 0
9 1
-.53*·
St
0 1
3 3
1 0
1 2
St
5 1
0 2
4 1
2 1
2 2
6 0
0 3
8 2 .01 4 4 -.70**
-.35
Disciplinary Mastery Strong (14) Weak (3)
Wk -.39
-.28
-.39
2 7
Wk -.45
.53
Self-Actualization Strong (6) Weak (10)
SR
EI Wk
Ecological Integration Strong (7) Weak (10)
11 0 .43
3 0
Social Reconstruction Strong (6) Weak (14) Note. N = 25. 1-tailed significance: * = .01; ** accrrelation matrix. !>frequency matrix.
= .001. St = Strong; Wk =Weak.
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOR ExERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
363
61, No.4
1 8
ENNIS, MUBLLIlR, AND HOOPER
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 11:12 04 January 2015
grouped on SR revealed a significant main effect for task (F[2,44] = 8.80,p= .0006).MeansarereportedinTable3.The test of simple main effects for task identified a difference betweenTasks 1 and 3. There was also a significantinteractionforTaskxGroup(F[2,32]=5.55,p=.0085).Asignificant Task x Group effect indicated that teacherswith a strong SR orientation included more opportunities for shared decision makingin their lessonplanning.The graphof this interaction is provided in Figure 2. Cognitive Involvement. The ANOVA results for cognitiveinvolvementshowedsimilarities acrossvalueorientations. A significant Trial x Task interaction was observed for SA
valueorientationsdemonstratedthatin bothtrials,Tasks 1and 3 weresignificantlydifferentfrom Task2. Resultsfor the SA orientation are used to demonstrate this interaction. An examinationof the means in Table 4 revealed that prior to the inservice,teachers were incorporating a cognitiveemphasis duringthesecondtaskof theirlessons.Followingtheinservice,
teachersemphasizedthecognitivecomponents duringTask 1 and Task3 withlittleemphasisduringTask 2. A graphof this interaction is presentedin Figure 3. Additional significanteffectswereobservedwhencognitiveinvolvementwas groupedby DM. In addition to theTrial x Task interaction, a group effect (F[1 ,9] = 25.68,p = .0007) and a Trial x Task x Group interaction (F[2,18] = 7.14, p = .(052) were identified. The group effect suggestedthat strong and weak DM orientation groups were significantly differentin theirresponse to the cognitivevariable. Teachers in theweakDMgroupplannedformorecognitiveexperiences thanstrongDMteachers. Additional information wasprovided by the significantTrialx Taskx Groupinteractiongraphedin Figure4. Testsof simplemaineffectsindicatedthatthescores of weakDMteachersinTrial1-Task2andTrial2-Task3 were significantly higher than those in other tasks. Means and standarddeviationsfor thisinteractionarereportedinTable5. There was relatively little change in strong DM teachers as a result of the inservice. Unlike their colleagues in other value orientations, strong DM teachers included an averageoflessthanoneopportunity forcognitiveinvolvement.
Table 2 Decision Making Grouped on Disciplinary Mastery: Task and Task x Group Interaction
Table 3 Decision Making Grouped on Social Reconstruction: Task and Task x Group Interaction
(F[2,24]=5.47,p=.OI1O),LP(F[2,24]=6.98,p=.OO27),DM (F[2,24]=6.68,p=.0068),SR(F[2,24]=6.91,p=.0032),and EI (F[2,24] = 6.68, p = .0046). Post-hoc comparisons for all
Task 1-
Task 2
Task 3
M
M
M
(s)
(s)
(s)
Weak Orientation
3.33 (1.44)
1.50 (1.50)
2.00 (0.86)
Strong Orientation
1.54 (1.13)
1.57 (1.35)
Task
2.44 (1.29)
1.54 (1.43)
Disciplinary Mastery
Task 1-
Task 2
M
M
M
(s)
(s)
(s)
Weak Orientation
1.92 (1.32)
2.13 (1.43)
1.75 (1.53)
1.21 (1.00)
Strong Orientation
2.83 (1.24)
1.83 (1.19)
1.67 (1.03)
1.61 (0.93)
Task
2.38 (1.30)
1.98 (1.31)
1.71 (1.28)
Social Reconstruction
-Analysis of dribbling lesson by task.
rn c:
as
-Analysis of dribbling lesson by task.
3.5
III
3.5
c:
ell
CD
C)
~
Weak Disciplinary MBSlery
_
Strong Disciplinary MBSlary
~ 0>
3.0
_
StrongSocial Rocon8lrUCllon
c:
32
as
2.5
c: 0 'iii
2.0
CD
1.5
ell 2.5 ~
~
c: 0
'iii "0 CI) 0
'0 C
0- weak Social Reconstruction
CI)
~ 3.0
c: 32
Task 3
2
2.0
1.5
3
Lesson Plan Task
Lesson Plan Task
Figure 1. Decision making grouped on disciplinary mastery: Graph of Task x Group Interaction
Figure 2. Decision making grouped on social reconstruction: Graph of Task x Group Interaction
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERClsB AND SPORT, VOL.
364
61, No.4
ENNIS. MUIlLLI!R. AND HOOPER
The Trial x Task interactionfor OM reportedin the previous paragraphcan be attributedto thesignificantchangesmadeby the weak OM teachers.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 11:12 04 January 2015
Discussion In this research,it was hypothesized that teachers' value orientations act as mediators in the utilization of specific variables in lesson planning. The results suggested that this was true for teacherscategorizedwithin the strongdisciplinary master and the strong social reconstruction orientations. Whentheshareddecisionmakingvariablewasexamined based on OM, teachers demonstrating a strong orientation exhibiteda low but constant score across all three tasks (see Figure 1). There was no difference in their ability to plan shared decision making experiences from the first to the secondadministration. Typically,teachersexhibitingtheOM orientationemphasizecontentrelatedtoachievementof skills and fitness.Classesare structuredto convey information in a way that maintains or preserves the traditional skills, rules, and strategies of the sport. Jewett and Bain (1985) have hypothesized thatmostphysicaleducatorswouldbeclassified
withinthis orientation. Of the 25 teachers in this sample, 14, or 56%, were classifiedas strong OM. The three teachers in the weak OM orientation included more opportunities for shareddecisionmakingin the first taskbut did not sustainthis effort acrossthe three tasks. Decision-sharing duringthe first section of the class involved primarily class management decisions.Studentswere permittedto decide whereand with whomtheywouldwork.Once made,therewerefeweropportunitiesfor thistypeof decisionduringtheremainderof class. A similarpatternwasalsonotedwhentheshareddecision making variable was grouped on SR (see Figure 2). In this instance,teacherswhoexhibiteda strongorientationplanned more shareddecisionmakingopportunities for theirstudents inTask 1thanat otherpointsin thelesson.AccordingtoJewett and Bain (1985), teachers categorized in the SR category attemptto challengetheir studentsto thinkreflectivelyabout theroleofmovementandexerciseintheirlives.Theyencourage studentsto questionexistingpolicies or practicesand to taKe responsibility for change.That these teacherswouldattempt to incorporateshared decision making in their classes is not surprising. However, they did not sustain this emphasisover the remainingtwo tasks.To accomplish this, teachersneeded to createa varietyof decision-sharing opportunities. Inability to sustain these efforts across the lesson indicateda need to provideteachersin the strong SR and weak OM groupswith
Table 4 Cognitive Involvement Grouped on Self-Actualization: Descriptive Statistics for Trial x Task Interaction Task 1-
M Trial
(s)
Task 2 M (s)
~ 1.10
m
1.00
Task 3 M (s)
1. Before Inservice
0.29 (0.76)
1.06 (0.53)
0.17 (0.53)
2. After Inservice
0.94 (1.08)
0.08 (0.78)
1.00 (1.14)
:::i: 'E CD E
.90
o B
.60
1 '2
.40
~
8
.80
0-
.70
1J:!;IAl 1
__ 1I'\lAL2
BeforeInservice After Inservlce
.50
.30
.20
-+-
--+_
-+-
.10 L -_ _
Lesson Plan Task Figure 3. Cognitive Involvement grouped on selfactualization: Graph of Trial x Task interaction
-Analysis of dribbling lesson by task.
Table 5 Cognitive Involvement Grouped on Disciplinary Mastery Trial x Task x Group Interaction Trial 1 Task 1M (s)
Task 2
Disciplinary Mastery Weak Orientation
.67 (.58)
Strong Orientation
.38 (.52)
Trial 2 Task 3 M (s)
Task 1 M (s)
Task 2 M (s)
Task 3 M (s)
1.67 (.58)
.00 (.00)
.33 (.58)
.67 (1.16)
2.00 (1.73)
.25 (.46)
.13 (.35)
.13 (.35)
.25 (.46)
.00 (.00)
M (s)
-Analysis of dribbling lesson by task. RESEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXEROSB AND SPORT. VOL.
365
61. No.4
ENNIS. MUBU..llR, AND HOOPER
2.0
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
The Influence of Teacher Value Orientations on Curriculum Planning within the Parameters of a Theoretical Framework a
b
Catherine D. Ennis , Leslie K. Mueller & Linda M. Hooper
b
a
Department of Kinesiology, HLHP Building , University of Maryland , College Park , MD , 20742 , USA b
University of Wisconsin-Madison , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Catherine D. Ennis , Leslie K. Mueller & Linda M. Hooper (1990) The Influence of Teacher Value Orientations on Curriculum Planning within the Parameters of a Theoretical Framework, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61:4, 360-368, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1990.10607500 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1990.10607500
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
ENNIS, MUIlLLIlR, AND HOOPER
RBsBARCII QUARTERLY FOR ExERCSB AND SPORT
1990, VOL. 61, No.4, pp. 360-368
The Influence of Teacher Value Orientations on Curriculum Planning Within the Parameters of a Theoretical Framework
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 11:12 04 January 2015
CATHERINE D. ENNIS University of Maryland LESLIE K. MUELLER AND LINDA M. HOOPER University of Wisconsin-Madison
The study examinedthe extent to which teachers' value orientationsmediatetheir responsesto inservicetrainingin a particular frameworkas measured by changesin their lessonplanningskills. Twenty-five elementary physical educators' value orientations were classifiedusing the Values Orientation Inventory (VOl). Teacherscompletedseven inservicesessionsbased on the Logsdontheoreticalapproach to children's physicaleducation. Data were analyzedusing three univariate ANOVAs.The .05 alpha levelwas adjustedusing an experiment-wise errorrate of .05), indicatingthat the data werenormallydistributed.'Therefore, three univariate ANOVAs were used to examine differences between the strong and weak groups on each of the three variables. A MANOVA was not used because of limitations in samplesize (Schutz & Gessaroli, 1987). The .05 alphalevel was adjusted based on the three comparisons resulting in an experiment-wiseerror rate of p < .017. The BMDP2V program was used to examine differencesbased on value orientation. Teachers were grouped by the dependent variable: valueorientation.These data were thenanalyzedin relationto
REsEARCH QUARTERLY POR EXERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
362
61, No.4
ENNIS, MUEU.ER, AND HOOPER
Lesson Plan Variables
two independent variables: trial (two administrations of the lesson plan) and task (three tasks used to develop the dribbling lesson). When the ANOV A revealed significant main effects, Tukey's (HSD) post-hoc comparison was used to locate the differences. Significant interactions were examined using the test of simple main effects (Kirk, 1968).
The ANOV A revealed significant differences for shared decision making and cognitive involvement variables. There were no significant main or interaction effects for the terminology variable. Terminology. This variable showed no change by trials or tasks regardless of value orientation. The mean for Logsdon terms used in the first lesson plan was 18.19, suggesting that teachers had been exposed to Logsdon terminology prior to the inservice and were already using it in their planning. The second lesson plan mean of 21.67 was not significantly different, suggesting that teachers continued to incorporate terminology at approximately the same level throughout the inservice period. SharedDecisionMaking.AnexaminationoftheANOVA for the shared decision making variable revealed differences for teachers in the DM and SR value orientations. Data grouped by the DM orientation indicated a significant task effect (F[2,30] =9.03, p = .0009). Tukey's (HSD) post-hoc comparison revealed differences between Task 1 and Task 2. A significant Task x Group effect (F[2,30] =7.92, P =.0017) was also observed. An examination of the means in Table 2 indicated that teachers who were categorized as weak DM included significantly more opportunities for studentdecision making than teachers with a strong DM focus. A graph of the Task x Group interaction is reported in Figure 1. The results for the ANOV A for shared decision making
Results
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 11:12 04 January 2015
Value Orientation Categorization The correlation and frequency matrix reported in Table 1 revealed three significant correlations between the value orientations. Disciplinary mastery (DM) and social reconstruction (SR) were negatively correlated (-.70, p < .001). Learning process (LP) was moderately correlated with DM (.53,p < .01) and negatively correlated with self-actualization (SA) (-.54, p < .01). More specifically, in the LP category 57.1 % of the teachers categorized as strong LP were also categorized as weak SA, while 64.3% were categorized as strong DM. Conversely, 50% of the strong DM teachers were classified as weak SA and 78.6% as weak SR. In the SR orientation, 57.1 % of the teachers classified as weak SR were also weak ecological integration (EI), while 78.6% were classified as strong DM and 57.1 % were strong LP.
Table 1 Correlation/Frequency Matrix for Strong and Weak VOl Categories Value Orientation
St
SA
Learning Process Strong (14) Weak (6)
1b 3
DM Wk
St
8 0
9 1
-.53*·
St
0 1
3 3
1 0
1 2
St
5 1
0 2
4 1
2 1
2 2
6 0
0 3
8 2 .01 4 4 -.70**
-.35
Disciplinary Mastery Strong (14) Weak (3)
Wk -.39
-.28
-.39
2 7
Wk -.45
.53
Self-Actualization Strong (6) Weak (10)
SR
EI Wk
Ecological Integration Strong (7) Weak (10)
11 0 .43
3 0
Social Reconstruction Strong (6) Weak (14) Note. N = 25. 1-tailed significance: * = .01; ** accrrelation matrix. !>frequency matrix.
= .001. St = Strong; Wk =Weak.
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOR ExERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
363
61, No.4
1 8
ENNIS, MUBLLIlR, AND HOOPER
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 11:12 04 January 2015
grouped on SR revealed a significant main effect for task (F[2,44] = 8.80,p= .0006).MeansarereportedinTable3.The test of simple main effects for task identified a difference betweenTasks 1 and 3. There was also a significantinteractionforTaskxGroup(F[2,32]=5.55,p=.0085).Asignificant Task x Group effect indicated that teacherswith a strong SR orientation included more opportunities for shared decision makingin their lessonplanning.The graphof this interaction is provided in Figure 2. Cognitive Involvement. The ANOVA results for cognitiveinvolvementshowedsimilarities acrossvalueorientations. A significant Trial x Task interaction was observed for SA
valueorientationsdemonstratedthatin bothtrials,Tasks 1and 3 weresignificantlydifferentfrom Task2. Resultsfor the SA orientation are used to demonstrate this interaction. An examinationof the means in Table 4 revealed that prior to the inservice,teachers were incorporating a cognitiveemphasis duringthesecondtaskof theirlessons.Followingtheinservice,
teachersemphasizedthecognitivecomponents duringTask 1 and Task3 withlittleemphasisduringTask 2. A graphof this interaction is presentedin Figure 3. Additional significanteffectswereobservedwhencognitiveinvolvementwas groupedby DM. In addition to theTrial x Task interaction, a group effect (F[1 ,9] = 25.68,p = .0007) and a Trial x Task x Group interaction (F[2,18] = 7.14, p = .(052) were identified. The group effect suggestedthat strong and weak DM orientation groups were significantly differentin theirresponse to the cognitivevariable. Teachers in theweakDMgroupplannedformorecognitiveexperiences thanstrongDMteachers. Additional information wasprovided by the significantTrialx Taskx Groupinteractiongraphedin Figure4. Testsof simplemaineffectsindicatedthatthescores of weakDMteachersinTrial1-Task2andTrial2-Task3 were significantly higher than those in other tasks. Means and standarddeviationsfor thisinteractionarereportedinTable5. There was relatively little change in strong DM teachers as a result of the inservice. Unlike their colleagues in other value orientations, strong DM teachers included an averageoflessthanoneopportunity forcognitiveinvolvement.
Table 2 Decision Making Grouped on Disciplinary Mastery: Task and Task x Group Interaction
Table 3 Decision Making Grouped on Social Reconstruction: Task and Task x Group Interaction
(F[2,24]=5.47,p=.OI1O),LP(F[2,24]=6.98,p=.OO27),DM (F[2,24]=6.68,p=.0068),SR(F[2,24]=6.91,p=.0032),and EI (F[2,24] = 6.68, p = .0046). Post-hoc comparisons for all
Task 1-
Task 2
Task 3
M
M
M
(s)
(s)
(s)
Weak Orientation
3.33 (1.44)
1.50 (1.50)
2.00 (0.86)
Strong Orientation
1.54 (1.13)
1.57 (1.35)
Task
2.44 (1.29)
1.54 (1.43)
Disciplinary Mastery
Task 1-
Task 2
M
M
M
(s)
(s)
(s)
Weak Orientation
1.92 (1.32)
2.13 (1.43)
1.75 (1.53)
1.21 (1.00)
Strong Orientation
2.83 (1.24)
1.83 (1.19)
1.67 (1.03)
1.61 (0.93)
Task
2.38 (1.30)
1.98 (1.31)
1.71 (1.28)
Social Reconstruction
-Analysis of dribbling lesson by task.
rn c:
as
-Analysis of dribbling lesson by task.
3.5
III
3.5
c:
ell
CD
C)
~
Weak Disciplinary MBSlery
_
Strong Disciplinary MBSlary
~ 0>
3.0
_
StrongSocial Rocon8lrUCllon
c:
32
as
2.5
c: 0 'iii
2.0
CD
1.5
ell 2.5 ~
~
c: 0
'iii "0 CI) 0
'0 C
0- weak Social Reconstruction
CI)
~ 3.0
c: 32
Task 3
2
2.0
1.5
3
Lesson Plan Task
Lesson Plan Task
Figure 1. Decision making grouped on disciplinary mastery: Graph of Task x Group Interaction
Figure 2. Decision making grouped on social reconstruction: Graph of Task x Group Interaction
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERClsB AND SPORT, VOL.
364
61, No.4
ENNIS. MUIlLLI!R. AND HOOPER
The Trial x Task interactionfor OM reportedin the previous paragraphcan be attributedto thesignificantchangesmadeby the weak OM teachers.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 11:12 04 January 2015
Discussion In this research,it was hypothesized that teachers' value orientations act as mediators in the utilization of specific variables in lesson planning. The results suggested that this was true for teacherscategorizedwithin the strongdisciplinary master and the strong social reconstruction orientations. Whentheshareddecisionmakingvariablewasexamined based on OM, teachers demonstrating a strong orientation exhibiteda low but constant score across all three tasks (see Figure 1). There was no difference in their ability to plan shared decision making experiences from the first to the secondadministration. Typically,teachersexhibitingtheOM orientationemphasizecontentrelatedtoachievementof skills and fitness.Classesare structuredto convey information in a way that maintains or preserves the traditional skills, rules, and strategies of the sport. Jewett and Bain (1985) have hypothesized thatmostphysicaleducatorswouldbeclassified
withinthis orientation. Of the 25 teachers in this sample, 14, or 56%, were classifiedas strong OM. The three teachers in the weak OM orientation included more opportunities for shareddecisionmakingin the first taskbut did not sustainthis effort acrossthe three tasks. Decision-sharing duringthe first section of the class involved primarily class management decisions.Studentswere permittedto decide whereand with whomtheywouldwork.Once made,therewerefeweropportunitiesfor thistypeof decisionduringtheremainderof class. A similarpatternwasalsonotedwhentheshareddecision making variable was grouped on SR (see Figure 2). In this instance,teacherswhoexhibiteda strongorientationplanned more shareddecisionmakingopportunities for theirstudents inTask 1thanat otherpointsin thelesson.AccordingtoJewett and Bain (1985), teachers categorized in the SR category attemptto challengetheir studentsto thinkreflectivelyabout theroleofmovementandexerciseintheirlives.Theyencourage studentsto questionexistingpolicies or practicesand to taKe responsibility for change.That these teacherswouldattempt to incorporateshared decision making in their classes is not surprising. However, they did not sustain this emphasisover the remainingtwo tasks.To accomplish this, teachersneeded to createa varietyof decision-sharing opportunities. Inability to sustain these efforts across the lesson indicateda need to provideteachersin the strong SR and weak OM groupswith
Table 4 Cognitive Involvement Grouped on Self-Actualization: Descriptive Statistics for Trial x Task Interaction Task 1-
M Trial
(s)
Task 2 M (s)
~ 1.10
m
1.00
Task 3 M (s)
1. Before Inservice
0.29 (0.76)
1.06 (0.53)
0.17 (0.53)
2. After Inservice
0.94 (1.08)
0.08 (0.78)
1.00 (1.14)
:::i: 'E CD E
.90
o B
.60
1 '2
.40
~
8
.80
0-
.70
1J:!;IAl 1
__ 1I'\lAL2
BeforeInservice After Inservlce
.50
.30
.20
-+-
--+_
-+-
.10 L -_ _
Lesson Plan Task Figure 3. Cognitive Involvement grouped on selfactualization: Graph of Trial x Task interaction
-Analysis of dribbling lesson by task.
Table 5 Cognitive Involvement Grouped on Disciplinary Mastery Trial x Task x Group Interaction Trial 1 Task 1M (s)
Task 2
Disciplinary Mastery Weak Orientation
.67 (.58)
Strong Orientation
.38 (.52)
Trial 2 Task 3 M (s)
Task 1 M (s)
Task 2 M (s)
Task 3 M (s)
1.67 (.58)
.00 (.00)
.33 (.58)
.67 (1.16)
2.00 (1.73)
.25 (.46)
.13 (.35)
.13 (.35)
.25 (.46)
.00 (.00)
M (s)
-Analysis of dribbling lesson by task. RESEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXEROSB AND SPORT. VOL.
365
61. No.4
ENNIS. MUBU..llR, AND HOOPER
2.0
